[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) ; Wtih the consent of the House I desire to refer to the death of a highly respected member of this Parliament, Sir Richard Scott, who passed away yesterday afternoon. With his death there is removed from the public life of Canada a very distinguished figure. Sir Richard Scott entered the public life of this country as far back as 1857, more than half a century ago, and since that time his connection with and his activities in public life have, I think, been practically uninterrupted. As a member of Parliament, as a Minister of the Crown, and as leader of the Senate, he has played a very distinguished part in the public life of this country, and I am sure that all of us who had the privilege *of knowing him intimately received a certain inspiration from the perfection of his physical and mental strength and vigour, which ' in his case were carried into very advanced years. In all his public career he^ was characterized not only by great ability and energy, but by a very earnest and intense devotion to duty. I feel that the public life of this country has sustained a great loss by his death; and, speaking for members on this side of the House, and in this case I think I can do so for members on the other side, we all extend to his family and his relatives our very sincere sympathy in the loss which they have sustained by his death.
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, personally I am very grateful indeed to my right hon. friend for the kind manner in which he has spoken of one with whom I was associated for a great .many years; in fact, almost since the day I entered this Parliament. The people of Canada knew in a certain way, but not wholly, the character of the man who has just departed from amongst us. He was above all things of a modest and retiring disposition; he never came very much in contact with the general public; but those
who knew him intimately, as I did, and the members of the other branch of the legislature, who were familiar with his parliamentary work, will bear testimony that he was not only a kind and amiable gentleman in private' life, but was endowed with eminent qualities and talents. In fact, as a legislator and an administrator he had few superiors in the public life of this country during his day and generation. He has left on the statute book many evidences of his ability as a legislator, which will carry his name far into future ages. But it was as a private man, if I may say so, that Sir Richard Scott was specially distinguished. He had, as was stated on a recent occasion, mens Sana in corpore sano. He had iby nature not a very strong constitution, but by a careful and abstemious life he managed to keep his health, his strength, and his vigour to a very old age. He was a man endowed with the broadest sympathies and a Christian disposition, and in this respect he was certainly a model to all of us who came info contact with him. The sympathies of the country are certainly extended to his family, and the words which have just been uttered by the Prime Minister, especially as coming from one who was not associated politically with him, will, be a great comfort to his family in their bereavement.



CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LANCASTER moved that Bill No. 98, respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, and to ratify and confirm the purchase of a portion of the Carillon and Grenville Railway Company's property, be withdrawn, and that the fees paid thereon be refunded, less the cost of printing and translation, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the eleventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
Mr. GRAHAM:: As I understand it, this was a Bill about which there was a good deal of contention, and which referred to claims of a somewhat ancient character, made by other companies. I think it would be interesting if the chairman of the Railway Committee would give us some



explanation, before this motion is carried, as to when and why this action was taken.


Mr. LANCASTER:: The Bill to which
the hon. gentleman perhaps refers was a Bill brought by the Central Canada Railway Company involving the renewal or continuance of land grants. That Bill was thoroughly discussed by the Railway Committee, and the preamble was rejected. This Bill also was in relation to the Carillon and Grenville railway, and asked us to ratify and confirm the sale. Both companies claimed that they had bought the Carillon and Grenville railway, and the question is in court as to which company really has the signatures of the proper people. The committee did not spend much time on this Bill, because as soon as the situation was pointed out to the Canadian Northern Ontario Company,_ to whose Bill this motion relates, they realized that we could not confirm a sale, which is_ in the courts of Quebec, for decision as to which company really did buy the property. They, I think! very wisely, asked leave to withdraw their Bill, realizing that it could not pass the committee, and it was arranged to be withdrawn accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	„

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGH CLARK (North Bruce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 181, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


Mr. CLARK:: Section 275 of the Dominion Elections Act provides that any person Who. is guilty of illegally voting may be fined $100, which may be collected by any party who chooses to sue for the amount. I propose to repeal that clause, and to reenact it, with the addition that on default of payment the guilty party may be committed to prison for a term of not less than two months and not more than six months.


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

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

Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department any printing contract with La Patrie, of Montreal?
2.	If so, to what amount per annum?
3.	How much ihas been paid to La Patrie hy the Post Office Department since 1st of November, 1912?


Mr. CODERRE:: *
1.	As a matter of fact the departments of the Government make no contracts for Mr. GRAHAM.
printing, that being done under the law entirely by the Department of Printing and Stationery.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	La Patrie has been given a share of the printing of the money orders for the Post Office Department, the orders for which may be terminated at the pleasure of the King's Printer. The .money orders, till .the change of Government, were printed for many years by the Perreault Printing Company of Montreal, under the same arrangement and at .precisely the same price. As the cost of printing has advanced a great deal in the last few years, the figure .the department iis paying must be considered extremely reasonable. La Patrie has been paid from November, 1912, down to date, for the Post Office Department, the sum of $5,129.75, but some portion of this is for printing other than money orders.


CANADIAN COINAGE.
Mr. BELAND:: What are the official statistics regarding Canadian moneys respectively, of gold, silver and copper, annually coined at Ottawa since the opening of the Mint?
Mr. WHITE. Canadian gold, silver, and bronze moneys coined at the Ottawa Mint from the 2nd January, 1908, to the 31st March, 1913:
Calendar
Year.	Gold.	Silver.	Bronze.1908 .. ..	$ 3.13,338 35	$23,290 951909 .. ..	673,043 65	39,441 681910 .. ..	1,979,571 10	51.619 251911 .. ..	985,678 50	46,599 471912 .. ..	.. 1,4.77,710	1,383,832 95	51,095 99*1913.. ..	375,480 00	10,754 36$1,800,730	$5,710,944, 55	$222,801 70
* To March 31.
Worn silver and bronze coin recoined during the same period, the .amount of such recoinages being included in the figures
given in the table	above:	
Calender Year.	Silver.	Bronze.
1908		. ..$ 22,397 60	
1909		. .. 207,202 90	
1910		. .. 294,394 60	
1911	. .. 45,486 95	$175 041912	. .. 83,503 80	26 401913 (to March	31). 59,417 30	$712,403 15	$201 44


EMPLOYMENT OE DR. DHVERNET.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Has Doctor DuVernet, of Digby, N.S., been appointed to any office by the present Government?
2.	If so, what is the position and what are his duties?
3.	What salary is he paid for same?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.

2.	Quarantine officer of the port, to fill the duties of that office, namely, to inspect incoming vessels and satisfy himself, under the quarantine regulations, as to the presence or absence of quarantinable diseases and aLj other contagious or infectious disease, and to act, as quarantine officer, according to his findings.
3.	$600 per annum.


FISHERY BOUNTY.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What rate per ton is payable from the fishery bounty fund to the owners of the fishing vessels engaged in the deep sea fishing for the year 1913?
2.	How much is payable to each fisherman composing the crew of such vessel for said year ?
3.	How much is payable out of said fund to the owner of each fishing boat?
4.	What is the amount of the bounty payable to each boat fisherman for each of the years, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No rate per ton has been paid for 1913, as claims for the fishing season of 1913 will not be received before the end of the year. The rate per ton for the year 1912 was $1 per ton up to 80 tons.
2.	$6.90.
3.	$1.
4.	1908, $3.90; 1909, $4.25; 1910, $4.30; 1911, $4.10; 1912, $3.95.


VICTORIA, B.C., BREAKWATER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Was a contract entered into by the Government with Sir John Jackson & Co., for the construction of a breakwater at Victoria, B.C.?
2.	If so, what is the date of the cotract, the amount, and the date of completion?
3.	Was the plan changed after the contract was signed? If so, why and at whose request?
4.	What will the contract price be under the new plan if any?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Signed on 20th of December, 1912; (b) schedule of prices which will approximate $1,797,801.88; (c) 36 months from 20th of December, 1912.
3.	No.
4.	No.


ST. CHARLES RIVER WORKS.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Are the plans for the proposed damming of the St. Charles river, Quebec, prepared? If so, when can they be seen?
2.	Will the Minister of Public Works leave them with the clerk of the House for the use of the members?


Mr. ROGERS:: (a) Yes; (b) at any time, during office hours, in the draughting room of the chief engineer of public works, west block.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: With the leave of the House, I would like to ask my hon. friend' if he would have any objection to leaving a copy of these plans with the clerk of the House, as it was agreed the other day with respect to the Quebec harbour plans, so that they could be examined together.


Robert Rogers: I will look into the matter, and, if it is possible, I will be very glad to do it.


PURCHASE OF CLOCKS.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What is the cost of the 54 clocks ordered by the Public Works Department since the 1st November, 1911?
2.	What are the names of the firms from which tenders were invited?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	$49,424.
2.	Messrs. John Smith & Sons, Derby, England, and W. F. Evans & Sons, Hands-worth, England.


COUNTRY HARBOUR POSTMASTER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How much was paid to Commissioner Duchemin in connection with the expenses of the investigation in the case of Richard Conroy, postmaster at Country Harbour, N.S.?
2.	What are the respective items, including witness fees, travelling and living expenses?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1. The inquiry at Country Harbour, N.S., was conducted at the same time as that of St. Francis Harbour, and the commissioner's account therefor for $63.10 covered both cases.
21 The respective items in the two above cases are:	Remuneration and living expenses, $54; fare, Mulgrave to Guys-borough, $1; witnesses, $3; stenographer, $3.75; stationery and postage, 35 cents, total, $63.10.


NEW HARBOUR POSTMASTER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: How much was paid to Commissioner Duchemin in connection with the investigation of the case of Parker Sangster, postmaster at New Harbour, N.S., and what are the items making up the total?


Mr. PELLETIER:: The inquiry at New
Harbour, N.S., was conducted at the same time as that of New Harbour West and the account rendered therefor by the commissioner, amounting to $46.10, covered the expenses of both inquiries. The different items are as follows: Remuneration and living expenses, $36; horse hire, $4; witnesses, $2.40; stenographers, $3.45; stationery and postage, 35 cents, total, $46.10.


EMPLOYMENT OF MAURICE ARCAND.
*Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Was or is Maurice Arcand in the employ of the Department of Public Works in connection with the construction of the coal dock at the city of Three Rivers, Quebec?
2.	If so, what is or was the nature of his employment and what salary was or is he paid ?
3.	Is it the intention of the department to dispense with the services of the said Maurice Arcand? If so, has he been notified to that [DOT]effect ?
4.	If his services are dispensed with, will
his successor be one Edmond Michelin, of Three Rivers?	.
5.	If so, what is Michelin's age, and what has his former occupation or trade been?


Robert Rogers: I am unable to give the information at the moment. We telegraphed to the engineer in charge at Three Rivers but his reply has not yet been received.


Mr. BUREAU:: I would ask that the
question stand until the reply has been received.
Question stands.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Tor a return showing what officers and men were employed on the dredge Northumberland at Pic'tou in the months of January, February and March, 1913, and what salaries and wages were paid to them respectively; what amounts were paid for repairs and supplies respectively, for said dredge during said months and to whom were they paid respectively.-Mr. Macdonald.
For a return showing the full names of *bc mail carriers in the county of Vandrenil and Soulanges; between what places they *perform the service; what the distance each *of these places is; what the amount of each carrier's contract is; what amount the '*Government paid for the carriage of the mail in these different places before September, 1911.-Mr. Boyer.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called :
Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Speaker, I would
dike to call your attention to the fact that itbe explanations supplied by hon. members who were present last night when **the vote was taken regarding their abstention from voting is not recorded in ' Hansard.' I would like to know if any instructions have been made to the reporters mot to enter these explanations. I see that on the 15th of March last on three different votes hon. members explained that they had refrained from voting because they were paired, and their [DOT]explanations were recorded. It is the only way in which members who exchange the favour of pairing with their fellow-*members can show that they were present *when the vote was taken, and I do not 'Mr. PELLETIER.
see why it should be omitted from ' Hansard.'


Mr. SPEAKER:: There is no rule with regard to pairs or pairing, but I think the general custom has been that when an announcement of a pair is made in the House it is taken note of by tfie ' Hansard ' reporter. So far as I know, there never have been any instructions given during my time as Speaker, regarding that matter. It has been the custom to publish in ' Hansard ' the announcement as to pairs.


Mr. BORDEN:: The hon. member (Mr. Beland) is quite right. It always has been the custom to insert in 1 Hansard ' the explanation given by hon. members as to pairs, and I have no idea as to why it was omitted in this case. I did not know it had been omitted until the hon. gentleman brought it to the attention of the House.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Jacques Bureau: I rise to a question of privilege. In this morning's Montreal Gazette, reporting the proceedings of yesterday, there is a statement as to which I desire to enter my most emphatic protest and denial. Speaking of the closure vote, the Montreal Gazette says:
All the Quebec members present voted with the Government.
As a Quebec member present, I want to deny most emphatically that I voted with the Government on that question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.



QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: In reference to the recent debate on the motion to amend the rules of the House, lest it might be at some time in the future quoted as a precedent, I wish to point out that Mr. Kay, who moved the adjournment of the debate on April 16, afterwards in the same speech moved the adjournment of tne House, which, of course, would not be regular or permissible; but it passed unnoticed at the time. I mention it so that there may be no misunderstanding in the future.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I be permitted to say that the member who moved the adjournment of the debate, in my humble judgment, had afterwards the privilege of moving the adjournment of the House? 1 do not know that because he was speaking to one motion he could not move another.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: An hon. member cannot make two motions in one speech, and when he moved the adjournment of the debate he would be considered as having spoken had he not availed himself of the privilege when the time came to speak. Had he not risen to speak after moving the adjournment of the debate, he would be listed as a member who had spoken on the question.


Wilfrid Laurier: Undoubtedly, but he would have the privilege to speak.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The privilege of speaking was extended to him, but it was not permissible to him, after he had spoken, to move another motion in the same speech.



MAJOR'S HILL PARK.

Wilfrid Laurier: May I ask the Minister of Public Works as to a matter which is of special interest to the citizens of Ottawa. I have not been in Major's Hill park for some years, but 1 have been informed that it is insufficiently lighted. Is it the intention of the minister to have more lights placed in the park?


Robert Rogers: The matter was mentioned in the department the other day, and a report is to be made. I shall be glad to inform my right hon. friend what conclusion has been arrived at.


Wilfrid Laurier: Can the minister tell me whether or not Major's Hill Park at the present time is reserved exclusively for pedestrians, or whether it is open to vehicular traffic?


Robert Rogers: I cannot answer that
question now; I will get the information.



PRINCE ALBERT HOMESTEAD ENTRY.

Mr. OLIVER:: I desire to renew my
request to the Minister of Public Works for information that would enable me to identify the files -from which he took certain information on Thursday last in the discussion on the Prince Albert homestead entry, with a view to asking for an order of the House to have these papers brought down.


Robert Rogers: File No. 726a.


Frank Oliver: That is the only one?


Robert Rogers: That is all.



K1TSILANO INDIAN RESERVE.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton) asked for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, being the purchase by the Government of British Columbia of the Kitsilano Indian Reserve, on Tuesday, April 8, and the removal of the Indians from that reserve on Thursday, April 10, without the knowledge or consent of the Dominion Government, as shown by the reply given on Monday last to an inquiry as to the same.
And leave having been granted:
He said:	In order that the House may
understand exactly the position I will read the question and answer as they appear in 'Hansard,' Monday, April 21:
Mr. Oliver:
1.	Does the Government take measures to
safeguard the rights of Indians to the land of their reserves in British Columbia when sales of such land are being made?	_
2.	Is the Government aware of steps being taken, as alleged, to acquire from the Indians of the Kitsilano reserve, Vancouver, B.C., their rights to the land of the reserve by the provincial Government- _ of British Columbia, or by other parties or interests?
3.	Is the Government a party to the proposals of purchase being made by or on behalf of the British Columbia Government?
Mr. Crothers:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Answered -by No. 2.
In view of the importance of the matter, and in view of the fact that there have been very definite statements made in the public press wTith regard to the purchase of this reserve, it was entirely desirable that the facts as stated should be brought to the attention of the House, and the country, and the Government. Without criticising, it would seem to one that there is a width of difference between the answer to the question and the statements in the press-whieh certainly calls for consideration and: explanation. I find in the Daily Colonist, Victoria, B.C., Wednesday, April 9, a despatch from Vancouver dated April 8, the purport of which despatch is that Attorney-General Bowser at Astley's Hall, said that over a quarter of a million dollars, divided into twenty separate payments of eleven thousand dollars each, had been paid by the provincial Government to Indians for the purchase of the Kitsilano reserve of eighty acres; that the sale was made through the Bank of Commerce and the Indians were to vacate their reserve. In. the Daily News Advertiser of Vancouver, April 9, I find this statement:
This is a good purchase for the province-which acquires a complete title to eighty acres of land at moderate cost. But it is not a had sale for the Indians, whose title waa subject to a reversionary interest, and who could not have sold to private parties for the price of freehold property.
The article goes on to say:
This reserve lying in the heart of the city of Vancouver.
In the daily News-Advertiser of April 19, there is a statement that:
Indians left Kitsilano yesterday. Twenty families, sixty or seventy in all, left for Squamish, North Vancouver and Mission.
It would appear, therefore, that the transaction is not in progress but that it has been actually closed. The money has been paid, a matter of about a quarter of million of dollars; the Indians have left the reserve in accordance with the bargain made with them; and the Government of.
[Stage Direction]
the Dominion, I should judge from this answer knows-or on Monday last knew- absolutely nothing of the transaction. Now, I do not wish to delay the House in discussing this matter, but I think it is desirable that the position should be understood; that is, that the responsibility that rests upon the Government of the Dominion in regard to the land in the Indian reserves, should be understood by the House. The Indians are the wards of the Dominion Government. That is one of the obligations especially placed upon the Dominion Government,1 being removed directly from the Imperial Government and placed upon the Government of the Dominion-a responsibility to care for the interests of the Indians and to protect them in their rights both as to person and property. And there is no right in which the Indians require protection more completely than in the ownership of the land which has been set apart for their use and benefit. I need not dwell at length on the recognized sacredness of the trust which is thus laid upon the Government of the Dominion in regard to the rights of the Indians. The Indian cannot alienate his land, nor can he alienate his interest in the land; that alienation can only take place, under the Indian Act, by and with the consent of the Department of Indian Affairs or of the Dominion Government. That is in line with the question I asked, and the responsibility is admitted in the answer.
In this case, the reserve in question is not of large area, in fact the Indian reserves in British Columbia are generally speaking, of very small area. This reserve is of about eighty acres, and I am given to understand that it is within the corporate limits of the city of Vancouver. It is situated on the south side of False Creek within the city limits and has value as city property. And besides, I am given, to understand, it has special value as offering possibilities for the location of a railway terminus. There can be no doubt that the land is valuable. It has an abnormal value. This land is, or was, occupied by some twenty families of Indians. According to our understanding of the Indian Act, that is, the understanding of the Indian Act which has prevailed since Canada was Canada, this property in the Indian reserves whatever its value is the property of the Indians who can establish their rights to them. So, whether there were twenty Indians or ten, or a hundred; or whether the property was worth $250,000 or was worth $1,000,000, it was their money; or it was worth $5,000,000, it was still their money. It appears however, that this property has been purchased from the Indians individually by the British Columbia Government paying the ' Indians $11,250 per Mr. OLIVER.
family, the Indians agreeing to vacate the land. This is a transaction, however, it would appear from the newspapers, that has been in progress for some time. It did not transpire only on the 8th or 10th of April. Negotiations were opened, as I read in the newspapers, in regard to the transfer of this land, some time in the month of March, and early in April a meeting was held between a magistrate of the provincial Government and the Indians with the view to considering the question of the surrender of these reserves. Perhaps I had better read an extract from the Vancouver Sun of Thursday April 3:
A number of the Kitsilano tribe states that a meeting was held on Tuesday
[Stage Direction]
That is on the 1st of April-
-in the court room of magistrate H. O. Alexander between the male members of the Kitsilano tribe and Attorney General Bowser. Magistrate Alexander was present, according to the Indian informant of the Sun.
The Indians declare that there was a meeting at which Attorney General Bowser made the offer mentioned of $11,250 per man for the reserve. The Indians indignantly refused the offer, stating that an agent of the Chicago, Milwaukee and Puget Sound railway is offering them $50,000 per man. The eighty-six acres of the reserve are worth at least $7,000,000.
The paper goes on to report the transaction and says:
Suddenly Interrupted.
One of the Indians replied to this offer, saying, ' Mr. Bowser and Magistrate Alexander, listen to me: If you owned some property, and one man came and said he would give you $11,250 for it, and another man came and said he would give you $50,000 for it, which would you take ? _ I think it is best for us to wrait a little while until the Indian land commissioners are here.'
At this the Indian was suddenly interrupted by Mr. Bowser, who is declared to have exclaimed sharply, ' When the commissioners have gone you will get nothing at all for your land, not one cent. All you will get will be a portion of land somewhere in the Squamish valley in return for the Kitsilano reserve. Now which do you prefer, $11,250 or nothing? Here is your cheque. If you want it you can take it, and draw_ your money for the land, or you can leave it.
I think it would be pertinent to inquire if Attorney General Bowser, a member of the Government of British Columbia, who undoubtedly was present at this meeting, and who undoubtedly made this offer, was acting with the authority of the Department of Indian Affairs for the Dominion, on his own initiative, or with the authority of the Government of British Columbia.
It appears that Mr. Bowser or the Government of British Columbia were not alone in the market for this reserve. The Vancouver Sun of the following day, April

4,	publishes an interview with one Charles A. Calkins, who says:
Several months ago I made an offer to the Dominion Government for the reserve. I am in receipt of both telegraphic and written communications from the Indian Department acknowledging my offer and stating that it will have consideration after the Royal Commission, which has been appointed to .investigate the Indians' claims, shall have given its decision. My legal .agents ait Ottawa inform me that in addition to the formal acknowledgments which I have received from the department, the officials there take the view that no action will be taken to sell the reserve until the title is made Clear by the Royal Commission, and, more than that, that the highest offer will get the reserve when the title is clear.
It is evident, then, that there were offers for this reserve aside from the offer of the British Columbia Government. This man Calkins had placed his offer with the Dominion Government, and we have reason to believe, from the statements in the papers, with which I shall not bother the House, that his offer was much higher than the payments made by Attorney General Bowser. I find it hard to believe that these transactions were going on without the knowledge of the Government in Ottawa, and, if they were taking place without the knowledge of the Dominion Government, I take the liberty of asserting that the Government at Ottawa was not paying proper attention to its responsibilities in that regard. As to whether the Indians received full value for their rights, the Vancouver World of April 9 has this to say:
For the provincial Government to pay the Indians $300,000 for their lands when .a sum of a million and a half had been offered by another Teal estate dealer who could not claim the prestige 'belonging to the Government in enforcing acceptance of hi® terms is unjustifiable and immoral.
The article then goes on to say:
Yet if an individual in the community had carried through the deal for which the Government claims credit, he iwould have been in danger of a term in the penitentialy. The Indians are the wards of both governments, Dominion and Provincial, and for the provincial government to claim credit for a bargain in which the main factors were the trustfulness of the Indian, his ignorance of the situation, and the prestige which, in his eyes, belong to the Government, is scandalous. The Government did not come within a million or two of paying market price for the lands of its wards, and now it claims ciedit for carrying through a real estate deal of great advantage to the province.
I want to be understood not as criticising the provincial government in this matter; the responsibility is with the Dominion Government, and it is to them we look for the protection of. the Indians, who are especially and peculiarly the
wards of this Government and of this country. The matter is of especial importance when we look at it from the standpoint of keeping inviolate the good faith of Canada, or the good faith of Britain, if you will; it is important, I say, because of the number of reserves, especially in British Columbia, which _ are situated in very much the same position as this Kitsilano reserve. There is certainly one, and I am under the impression that there are two or three small reserves situated in North Vancouver, immediately on the north side of Bur-rard's Inlet, which have a real estate value favourably comparable with this Kitsilano reserve. There are other reserves scattered throughout the province of British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada, and, if the guiding principle of the British Empire and of the Dominion of Canada ever since those governments came to deal with the Indians in thi3 country, is not to be hereafter maintained, and if the change in principle is to take place under the administration of the Government of to-day, it is right and proper that the country should know it, and should know who is responsible for breaking faith and ignoring the responsibilities of the country towards its wards.
It may be suggested, as would seem to be indicated by this transaction, that if the Indians received good value for their land, that was the only matter of concern; that is to say, if the Indians had received from the province of British Columbia the full value for their property, this Government would have had no further responsibility in the matteT. But that is not the fact. The Government of Canada is charged not only with the protection of the property rights of the Indians, but with the supervision of their personal rights and the responsibility of overseeing, as far as possible, their personal welfare. When the rights of these Indians were bought out, and they weTe given the money for which they sold them, they had no guardianship or guidance in the control or management of that money, and the very reason why the Government of Canada assumed the control over these Indians that they do is because the Indian is not by temperament fitted to care properly .for his own personal interests. So I say, even if the British Columbia Government had paid full value for this land, the Dominion Government was not doing its full duty in allowing the Indians to accept that money, whilst taking no steps to provide for its control in the future. The older members of the House will perhaps remember that there was a similar undesirable consideration regarding an Indian reserve the Songhees, situated within in the city of Victoria. It was very desirable that that reserve should be elimi-
[Stage Direction]
nated from the city and an arrangement was entered into between the Government of British Columbia, the Indian Department of the Dominion Government and the Indians whereby a payment of $10,000 per family in cash was made to the Indians and a reserve of approximately equal area was secured for their occupation to be vested in the Dominion Government in fee simple for the benefit of that particular band of Indians. In that case, as in this, the Indians were given the ownership of the cash that was paid to them, to dispose of as they pleased, but they were not given the ownership of the land of their new reserve which was to them a large part of the purchase price of the old reserve, so that the band had the guarantee of land of their own for ail time to come under the superintendence and management of the Department of Indian Affairs. They did get absolute control of the cash to the amount of $10,000 a family which was paid to them for the relinquishment of their rights. The Liberal Government was in power at the time and I was Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. I must assume my share of responsibility for that transaction but I will take the liberty to read to the House what I think will be acccepted as evidence that while there were strong reasons for this transaction being entered into there is also very strong evidence that it had very undesirable features, which features are accentuated in this sale of the Kitsilano reserve. The Vancouver Sun of April 4th says editorially:
When the Songhees reserve at Victoria was sold each head of a family received $11,000, about the same sum offered the Kitsilano people. The results of their coming into possession of so much money have been deplorable. In the brief two-years since the sale a large number of them have spent every cent of the purchase money they received; many of them have died from the immoderate use of liquor, which, in spite of the prohibitory law% they found no difficulty in procuring so long as their cash lasted, and one case is reported where an unlucky individual, while overcome with liquor, was literally roasted alive.
That was the experience resulting from the transaction in regard to the Songhees reserve where only one-half of the purchase price was paid in cash and the other half in land. In this case the whole purchase price is paid in cash and there has been no effort on the part of the Dominion Government to in any way protect the persona] welfare of the Indians who have made this sale. Not only that, but there has been apparently no effort to protect; the Government disclaims all knowledge of the transaction. In regard to the purchase price of this reserve, it is impossible to say just what the value is. There is, however, information that the price paid was Mr. OLIVER.
something less than one-quarter of a million dollars. We have information that there was at that time a standing offer to the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa of an amount very much larger and asssumed in these newspapers to be up to one and a half million dollars. One estimate of the value of the property is placed at seven million dollars. Now, let the property be worth a quarter of a million dollars, one million dollars, two ,three, four, five or seven millions dollars, the point I want to emphasize is that the property was exceptionally valuable and that the Government of this country was not keeping faith with the Indians on the one hand or the Imperial Government on the other when it allowed this transaction on the part of the provincial government to go through whereby that property becomes, according to the government papers of British Columbia, absolutely the property of the government of that province at a price paid to the Indians of less than a quarter of a million dollars. Comparisons are odious but I think that the transaction of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works with his friend Mr. Donaldson pales into insignificance when compared with this transaction whereby the lands of this Kitsilano Indian reserve are placed at the disposal of the Government of British Columbia for a matter of a quarter of a million dollars.
I take the liberty of placing before the House the fact that when the transaction in regard to the Songhees reserve took place it was recognized by the Government of the day that this transaction or transactions of that nature had seriously objectionable features. It was considered to be a matter of urgency that this reserve should be got rid of. As far as possible at the time the exigencies of the case were met and the interest of the Indians was protected. But it was amply recognized that such a method of dealing with Indian reserves was undesirable, and, in view of the fact that there were many other reserves in almost identical positions in British Columbia and elsewhere, it was considered that a definite policy should he entered upon for the disposal of Indian lands so situated. Accordingly the Indian Act was amended to meet the case. An amendment of the Indian Act was assented to on May 19, 1911, and in that Act provision was made that where an Indian reserve
Adjoins or is situated wholly or partly within an incorporated town or city having a population of not less than eight thousand, and -which reserve has not been released or surrendered by the Indians, the Governor in Council may, upon the recommendation of the Superintendent General, refer to the judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, for inquiry and report the question as to whether it is expedient, having regard to the interest

of the public and of the Indians of the band for whose use the reserve is held, that the Indians should be removed from the reserve or any part of it.
Other sub sections make provision for a full investigation of the merits of the case by a judge of the Exchequer Court, for the valuation, of the land of the reserve, and for the sale of that land by auction, the proceeds to be for the benefit of the Indians *solely. Provision is also made for securing another reserve for'the Indians, 'and in every way, so far as the judgment of the Government of the day and of Parliament was concerned, provision was made on the responsibility of the Government of the day, and by the administration of the Indian Department to meet exactly such cases as that of the Kitsilano reserve so as to secure the removal of the Indians, but also to secure that removal subject to the last Ihdian getting the benefit of the last cent that was in the property from which he was being removed. Provision is also made for safeguarding the personal rights of the Indians. It must be a matter of regret to the House and to the country that, having to meet a condition such as was contemplated when this amendment to the Indian Act was framed, the Government did n-ot see fit to avail itself of the provisions of that Act, but instead saw fit to allow the British Columbia Government to deal with the sacred rights of those Indians in that land as though it were an ordinary real estate speculation. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that these provisions of the Indian Act received full consideration at the hands of Parliament before they became law, and they were not forced through by a government majority or by the use of provisions for closure, but by common consent of Parliament, as being necessary to meet cases such as we recognize to be in existence and as providing means whereby they could properly be met in consonance with the dignity of Canada and with the rights of the Indians.
Mr. BRADBURY:: This was the fruit of that amendment. That amendment should never have been made to the Indian Act in the interests of the Indians, and that was pointed out to my hon. friend when he was pressing that matter through.


Frank Oliver: I think my hon. friend
had something to say on the matter, but I do not think he pressed his objections to the point of voting against the Bill. He was in the same position as he occupied on many other occasions, and as many of his friends occupied, who talked to square themselves with the country, but who did not vote to back up their expressions. Be that as it may, a large number of his friends spoke on that subject and not only
supported the principle of the Bill, but declared it was not drastic enough, that it paid too much regard to the interest of the Indians. If my hon. friend thinks that this Act does not take proper care of the interests of the Indians, what has he to say to the action which has been taken by the Government of British Columbia either with the knowledge and consent of this Government, or 'without its knowledge and eonsente I ask him what he has to say? In that case we would be glad to hear from him.
I might say further, Mr. Speaker, that in connection with the transfer of the Songhees Indians from their reserve in the city of Victoria to a reserve outside, the arrangement made between the Dominion Department of Indian Affairs, the Government of British Columbia, and the Indians was sanctioned by a statute of this Parliament, came under the review of Parliament and received the endorsation of members of Parliament, a large number of whom spoke upon the subject. In view of the fact that the conditions surrounding that transfer were not in all particulars all that could be desired, in view of the fact that provision was specifically made to meet those conditions in future cases, and having regard especially to this very Kitsilano reserve, in connection with which the Government has seen fit to ignore the very existence of that statute, and so far as our information goes, to allow the rights of these Indians to be treated as though they were the rights of an ordinary real estate speculator, to be bought out on any terms or at any price that could be secured -and I have here statements as to the means that were taken to secure those rights-I think I would not be doing full justice if I did not inform the House in regard to them. The threat of the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia, with the authority of the Government to the Indians, the threat made by him on the evidence of the Indians themselves, thatt they must either take the price he was offering them, or take nothing, calls for more than explanation; it calls for investigation by the Department of Indian Affairs, and for investigation without delay. In my humble judgment these circumstances required that justice should be done between those Indians and the Government of Canada, standing with the good faith of Great Britain in its hands and that this transaction should not be allowed to stand. There is mo reason why the good faith which has been shown to the Indians of this country ever since the British Government undertook to control its affairs, should be less in evidence to-day than in the past. The mere fact that the Indians have ceased to be a serious factor in the

population and life of the country is all the greater reason why good faith should be kept with them.
There is another side to this question that I wish to refer to. It is this: The Government of British Columbia assert a claim to the land included in the reserves occupied by the Indians of that province. As they hold, the Indians are not the owners of the lands of their reserves. They hold that the province is the owner of these lands, that the Indians are only occupants and that the Indians have no right beyond that right of occupation. I need not say that no government of Canada up to the present time has ever been able to accept that view. Of course, it has been recognized that the British Columbia Government, being an important and responsible part of the system of government in this country, is entitled to hold such view as it may please in regard to matters that come within its sphere of influence and it must necessarily be recognized that, if the Government of British "Columbia claims to own the land that is in the Indian reserves, the Indians then do not hold a clear title to the land. That was a difficulty that the late Government had to face in dealing with the Indian question and with the question of reserve lands in British Columbia. It is a question that should be decided as soon as possible and it is a question that must necessarily go for decision, unless one party or the other gives up its contention, to the Imperial Privy Council. I am going to take the liberty of saying here and now that the late Government, during several years, used every endeavour to arrive at an arrangement with the Government of British Columbia whereby a case would be submitted to the Privy Council which would decide the ownership of these lands. It was distinctly because of the action of the British Columbia Government that the matter was not advanced towards a conclusion. Be that as it may, it must be evident that, if the Indians are to have value for the land that they occupy, the question of ownership must be settled before a price is fixed. It is evident that, if the Indian has not a good title to his land, he cannot get tne price for his rights that he would get if he had a complete title. Therefore, it is surely the duty of the Government that is charged with protecting the interests of the Indians to secure a settlement of the question of title as soon as possible and not allow the rights of the Indians to be set aside until the question of title has been settled. That is the view apparently that was taken by the Indian Department in their reply to Mr. Calkins. He was told that his offer would not be dealt with until the question of title had been settled. But, apparently, the Indian Department at Ottawa is that part of the machinery of government in Canada which has the least to say and which knows the least in regard to a matter which is most closely and ~Mr. OLIVER.
intimately under its jurisdiction. In view of-the importance of this transaction itself, the amount of money involved, the interest of the band of Indians concerned, the principle that is at stake, the far-reaching effect of that principle, if it is adopted, but more especially the necessity of keeping good faith with the Indians in discharge of the obligations and responsibilities laid upon this Government by the Imperial Government, I bring this matter to the attention of the House and I ask for the fullest and most complete statement that can be made in regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, we have had a rather extraordinary deliverance from the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), in which he has based serious charges against the British Columbia Government, and particularly against the Attorney General of that province, upon newspaper clippings without apparently taking any other means to ascertain whether or not his attack upon the attorney general of that province is in any way justified by the facts. The hon. gentleman's remarks are also very singular for another reason-that in this case, as well as in the Donaldson case, to which he alluded-he seemed more concerned in apologizing for his own action as Minister of the Interior and Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, than with respect to the particular matter to which he directed attention. He informed us, as the fact is, that in 1911 he became responsible to Parliament and the country for the passing of a special Act by which the Songhees reserve was placed under the *ownership and control of the provincial Government of British Columbia upon certain terms to which he has alluded. He informed us somewhat explicitly that the course which he took then was absolutely wrong and has been attended with the most deplorable results. That seems to be rather an extraordinary prelude to a demand that this Government shall pay better regard to those sacred rights of the Indians which we all recognize but which he was not so particular in recognizing when he had to do with the transfer of the St. Peter's reserve. My hon. friend, in the concluding portion of his remarks, stated that it was absolutely impossible to fix properly and definitely any price for the Indian reserves of British Columbia until a certain question had been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada or by the Privy Council. The attitude of the province of British Columbia on this matter was exactly the same in 1911 as it is to-day, and I ask the hon. gentleman how he was able to fix a price in 1911 for the Songhees Indian reserve, since the difficulty [DOT] was as manifest then as it is now. He has placed himself in a most unfortunate position by his statement in that respect.


Frank Oliver: I might add a word of
explanation. In the case of the Songhees reserve we maintained that the Indians had title in fee simple and for the purpose of the transaction the British Columbia Government practically admitted that in the exchange they made for the reserve they gave us title in fee simple.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Frank Oliver: I probably was wrong in making the comparison; my right hon. friend is right in his proportions but possibly not his amounts.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, of course that is
by the way; it does not much affect the principle we are discussing. I come to the situation as it is to-day. The hon. gentleman has brought to the attention of the Government the newspaper reports of what has been proceeding in the province of British Columbia. I want to point out to him that the rights of the Indians in the province of British Columbia or elsewhere are capable of being dealt with only under the provisions of the Indian Act and the amending Act of 1911 or by a

special Act of Parliament. There are three methods: In the first place, section 49 of the Indian Act provides for the surrender under certain conditions; in the second place, the amending Act of 1911 provides that where a surrender cannot be obtained although it is absolutely essential to the progress and development of great communities that the Indians should be removed to some other reservation, then the judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada is vested with certain duties and he is authorized to make a report on which the Governor in Council can act; and in the third place, there may be obtained a special Act of Parliament, which course was adopted by my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) and the Government of which he was a member in 1911.
So far as this Government is concerned, we realize to the full the duty of properly safeguarding the rights of the Indians and of protecting their interests, and we purpose doing so. In so far as this transaction is concerned, it is one of which the department had no official knowledge until after the hon. gentleman's question on Monday last. I believe since that time there have been some letters from the Indian agent, but the proceedings which have been taken by the Government of British Columbia, in so far as they are not taken under the Indian Act,' cannot operate to deprive the Indians of any right or title, and I would like to say-subject to any argument which may be advanced by the Government of British Columbia, to which of course we shall give very respectful consideration,-it seems to me that the Government of British Columbia must come to the Government of Canada before the transaction to which the hon. gentleman has alluded can be carried into effect. The rights of the Indians are protected by the Indian Act and by the Indian Amendment Act of 1911, which is the law of this country, and it will be not only our right but our duty to see that the rights of the Indians are protected in the way in which we all agree they should be protected.
So far as handing over considerable amounts of money to the unfettered control of the Indians is concerned, I am not in so good a position as is my hon. friend to judge of the merits or demerits of such a proposition. I suppose it would depend in every case very much on the degree of advancement, selfcontrol, and education, of the particular Indians concerned; and, as I do not know what the character of these Indians was, either in the case of the Songhees reserve or in the case of the Kitsilano reserve, I am unable to express either assent to or dissent from the view the hon. gentleman has voiced this afternoon. I do agree that it is undesirable, unless Indians have Mr. BORDEN.
acquired a certain character and capacity for self-control, to place very large sums of money in their hands in such a way that these moneys could be dissipated with nogood to the Indians and possibly with a great deal of detriment.
I desire only in conclusion to advert to-the fact that an arrangement has been made for an inquiry into the Indian reserves of British Columbia, and no doubt my hon. friend has seen fit to read the agreement which has been placed upon the table of the House. It provides for an inquiry by a commission which has been constituted of men who, I think, are very capable of making such an inquiry into-the whole question, and under that agreement it will be incumbent upon the Government of the province of British Columbia to provide any additional reserves-necessary for the accommodation of the Indians in the province, and to make such provision in respect of reserves as wall be satisfactory to them. That commission is about to engage in its work, and it would seem to me that the matter which the hon. gentleman has brought to the attention of the House is one that would properly come within -the scope of that commission. At least I understand from my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that that is the view which the Department of Justice takes. I therefore cannot do more at the moment than assure the hon. member that the Government is thoroughly alive to its duty of protecting and safeguarding the interests of the Indians of British Columbia and the Indians of every other part of the country, and that we shall give to this subject the very serious and earnest consideration which it undoubtedly deserves.


Wilfrid Laurier: I submit that the answer which my right hon. friend the leader of the Government has given to my bon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) does not at all cover the case which has been brought to the attention of the House. The right hon. gentleman has stated that the matter can be properly dealt with by the commission which has-been appointed to investigate the rights-which have been long in dispute between the Government of Canada and the Gov- _ ernment of British Columbia with regard * to what are known as the reversionary rights of the Indians. This is another and a different matter. The commission which has been appointed, as I understand the Order in Council-I have not read it, but have heard it read-has reference simply to the dispute of which I speak, and is to investigate the respective rights of the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia as regards the Indian lands. The Government of British Columbia claimed that the lands are

vested in the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia; whereas we claim that they belong to Canada in the rights of the Crown in Canada, subject to the benefit of the Indians. That is the *question which is to 'be examined by the' commission. As to the appointment of the commission, I have no observations to make at this moment; but it seems to me that in a question of this kind, whioh is altogether a matter of law, it would have been far better to have had the decision of the highest court of the Empire, the Privy Council. My hon. friend from Edmonton has stated that he has endeavoured for many years past, when a member of the late Administration, to have the matter disposed of by a reference to the *courts; but the House of Commons would not consent to this. They have at last succeeded in avoiding the courts and getting the matter referred to this commission, whioh, after all, cannot settle anything, but can only express an opinion which may be approved or disapproved by Parliament or the courts.
As I understand it, the question brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from Edmonton is altogether a different matter, and one with which this *commission would have no power to deal. I know nothing personally of the matter. I only know what has been stated here this afternoon by my hon. friend from Edmonton. As I understand it, there is *within the limits of the city of Vancouver an Indian reserve of some eighty acre?. We can well understand that there is a desire on the part of the people of the city of Vancouver to have this Indian reserve removed from among them, because everybody must admit that it is a blemish on the development of the city. We have had the case of the Songhees reserve in British Columbia, and we have had others. The Indian, wherever he lives in the neighbourhood of the white man, will not improve his condition and is an impediment to the development of the portion of the country in which he happens to be. As the right hon. the Prime Minister has said, we recognize this condition, and we recognize also that the Indian has a right to be treated with the greatest care-that he must be protected even to the impediment of the white man who happens to be in his vicinity. We have made provision in the law for meeting such cases as the present one-that of the existence of an Indian reserve in a large city. We have provided means by which these Indians can be removed. There are two methods provided. One is to get the consent of the Indians themselves to the surrender of the reserve; but, if the Indians will not consent to a surrender, then an application *can be made to the courts for their removal under certain conditions. In this matter, it
appears from the statement made by the hon. member for Edmonton that the surrender has been obtained from the Indians; but I understand that it has not yet been consummated, which cannot be done except with the consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. But there is one point to which I would call the attention of my right hon. friend upon the statement of my hon. friend from Edmonton, that is, that the surrender by the Indians of this reserve of eighty acres within the city limits of Vancouver has been obtained for the sum of $11,000.


Frank Oliver: The sum of $11,250 per
family.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. That is a total of something over $200,000. Now, the sum of $11,000 per family for twenty families for eighty acres of land within the limits of the city of Vancouver seems to me altogether inadequate. I should be extremely surprised if anybody from the West, from Vancouver particularly, were to tell me that a plot of land of eighty acres within the limits of that city would command no larger price than $200,000. That appears to me to be a condition which ought to be investigated by the Department of Indian Affairs before the transfer is consummated. I do not understand, however, that my hon. friend from Edmonton has asked anything more to-day than that an exact statement be made of everything that has taken place in regard to this matter. It may be that everything is right; at first sight I would say that there seems to be in this matter a subject for investigation, although I would not say it absolutely. However, I think it is a very legitimate demand on the part of the hon. member for Edmonton that a complete statement of everything that has taken place in regard to this matter up to the present time should be submitted, and this request has not at all been met by the answer of my right hon. friend. Instead of furnishing the statement for which he was asked, my right hon. friend made an attack upon the non. member for Edmonton for his action with regard to these Indians. In this I think'my right hon. friend was .altogether in error, and was unjust to the hon. member for Edmonton. That hon. member gave the history of the Songhees Indian reserve, and of the manner in which it was disposed of, showing what extraordinary precautions ought to be taken in dealing with the Indians. He said in a candid manner that he himself, after all the precautions he had taken, was not satisfied that he had done the best that could be done for the Indians.
The story of the Songhees Indian reserve is simply this. It was in the city of Victoria; like the other reserve we have been

discussing, it was an impediment to the development of the city; it was an eyesore, as everybody in that part of British Columbia knows, and bad to be removed. The Indians took no advantage of the immense benefits they could have derived from that reserve, but it took years to persuade them to surrender it. As I understand the matter, one of the conditions of surrender was that the money should be paid to themselves instead of to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) and the Government of British Columbia agreed to that condition, although he says: I did not know whether we should have consented to that; we had our doubts at the time as to the advisability of this step. But the city was so anxious to have the matter settled that the two governments agree to the payment direct to the Indians, with the result that the money was practically squandered, with no benefit to the Indians. My hon, friend endeavoured to impress upon the Government the necessity of taking very great precautions in dealing with the Indians, who unfortunately are and must remain wards of the nation. So far as I can see, there is only one proper way of dealing with such payments: the money should be paid to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs for the benefit of the Indians. Of course, when the Indians are enfranchised they have a right to share in the money, but so long as they are not enfranchised the money should bo paid in trust to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs for the benefit of the tribe. We do not condemn the Government, for, as I understand it, the transaction is not yet completed; but the Government should be put on its guard and impressed with the necessity of seeing that the whole case is thoroughly looked into before the transfer is finally consummated by the consent of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.


Robert Rogers: I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opinion, so far at least as the legal aspect of the matter is concerned, as against the argument made by my right hon. friend in respect to the position taken by the province of British Columbia and the position occupied by the Government of the Dominion of Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs. My hon. friend undertakes to say that the commission to which my right hon. friend the leader of the Government referred will have nothing whatever to do with 'this particular case. I would like to read to my right hon. friend the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice on this very point, dated April 22, 1913:
Sir W ITJ'RID LATJEIER.
Sir: I have the honour to asknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th instant^- 28835/2-in which my advice is asked as to the title to the Kitsila.no or False Creek Indian! reserve, and as to whether there is any reversionary interest in the province and, if so, whether it applies to the whole reserve, and whether such reserve comes within the scope of the inquiry to be made by the British Columbia Reserve Commission.
I beg to state that the reserve referred to-comes within the scope of the commission which has been recently appointed for the purpose of having all differences between the governments of the Dominion and the province respecting Indian lands and Indian affairs settled, and in view of this it may be unnecessary to express any opinion as to whether the province is entitled to the reversion since the question of title, which may be a .difficult one, would he set at rest by the "action of the commission, pursuant to the agreement.
I have the honour to be, bir,
Your obedient servant,
E. L. Newcombe.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not
the point; the question is whether the payment is adequate.


Robert Rogers: That is a matter which
the Department of Indian Affairs, as I understand it, have not yet had an opportunity of considering. I do not know that I have any explanation to offer as to the newspaper clippings read by my hon. friend the member for Edmonton containing the statements attributed to the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia.
I would not like to deal with any statements published in the newspapers_ as being authoritative in regard to any important transaction such as this, and from what I know of the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia, I cannot believe that he would be guilty of making the statements attributed to him in the clippings rend by my hon. friend the member for Edmonton. Reference has been made to the Songhee reserve, Which was dealt with by hon. gentlemen opposite during their term of office. I gather from an examination of the records that the Attorney General of the province of British Columbia is, in this case, probably following the methods adopted by himself and the late Government in dealing with this particular reserve. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition has referred to the fact that an Indian reserve in a town, or city like Vancouver or Victoria is undoubtedly a blemish to the city and an obstruction to its progress and development. It was felt a few years ago that the Songhee reserve was^ undoubtedly a blemish to the city of Victoria, and an effort was made to have the matter set at rest and settled. And what course was followed? What position did hon. gentle-

men opposite take when they had charge of the interests of the Indians, and, as my hon. friend from Edmonton said to-day, were charged with the duty of looking after the very last cent of the very last Indian in order that justice should be done to them? I would like to ask my hon. friends what interest they appeared to take in the matter when this same question was being dealt with in the city of Victoria? It was probably by reason of the arrangement then made with hon. gentlemen opposite that the Attorney General of British Columbia has presumed to deal with the matter as he has without its being taken up by an official of the Department of Indian Affairs. Let me read to the House a fele-_ gram dated October 26, 1910, and addressed to the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Prime Minister, Ottawa:
Have sent following telegram to Interior:
Have made agreement with chief and representatives of Songhee Indians by which Indians agree to remove from reserve on following terms:	Province to pay $10,000 to
each head of family, forty-three in all. Province to supply new reserve and to pay all expenses of moving tribal1 effects and deed to new reserve. New reserve to be selected by myself and five members of the trite. This arrangemen! is made subject to eoi firmation of the Dominion Government. I would respectfully urge that Dominion Government give its consent to such settle-i ent of this question. I trust that this request may receive favourable consideration by your Government.
(Sgd.) Richard McBride.
To which Sir Richard McBride received the following ^eply:
Hon. Richard McBride, Premier, Victoria.
Ottawa, October 28, 1910.
Have consulted with Minister of Interior and any arrangement satisfactory to Indians w-'I! be quite acceptable to ns. Would only suggest that as we are the guardians of Indians it would be advisable that department he party to arrangement and that same be made under Indian Act. We intend introducing legislation this session in connection with similar questions.
(Sgd.) Wilfrid Laurier.
I have no complaints against the hon. gentlemen in connection with their dealings in this matter at that particular time. They evidently had confidence in Sir Richard McBride's Government, that they would not undertake to do an injustice to the Indians in the Songhees reserve or any other part of British Columbia. They gave evidence of that confidence by the answer sent by my right hon. friend "at that time. Let me say that we too have confidence in Sir Richard McBride and in his Government, that they will deal fairly with the Indians in the matter now before this House. At the same time the Department of the Interior have not given this proposed surrender any consideration officially
and, as I stated in my opening remarks, according to the judgment of Mr. New-combe, this is a matter that will come before the commission which we have appointed. It will be for them to decide' upon it and it will be only when they have decided upon it as I understand the ease, that the Department of Indian Affairs will take it up and give it consideration.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: I think the object of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) in bringing this matter to the attention of the House to-day was a most laudable one. If I understand the matter aright his object was to-bring most distinctly and most positively and directly to the attention of the Government notice of negotiations which are now pending or proceedings which are now being taken between the Government of British Columbia and the Indians of that province who are the wards of the Government of the Dominion of Canada for the surrender of certain very valuable property rights held by the Dominion *of Canada for the benefit of the Indians of British Columbia. An agreement has been closed between the province of British Columbia and the Indians but I assume that there would be nothing final in that agreement until the consent of this Government or the proper officers of this Government shall have been obtained That consent, I understand from the Prime Minister, has not yet been given and the matter has not yet been dealt with by the Government of Canada, notwithstanding what may have transpired between the province of British Columbia and the Indians of that province. The hon. member for Edmonton is actuated by a desire to give the Government positive notice of what is going on and I think he is acting-wisely in the course he has taken. So much has been done by the present Administration, so much has come to light during the present session of a questionable character, and so much has been excused by the ministers opposite upon the sole ground that they did not know and had no notice, that I think it high time that-someone in the House should give positive, actual notice of transactions of this kind when taking place in any part of Canada. It is only within the past few days that we had an excuse from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that he appointed to office a man who turned out to be a criminal, because he did not know the facts. I think the day afterwards the Minister of Finance, who last summer acted as Minister of Justice, excused the release from the penitentiary of the same man, Landry, upon the ground that he did not know, he had no notice. Within a week or ten days the Minister of Public Works attempted to justify or to excuse-

a transaction known as the Donaldson transaction which cannot be justified, simply on the ground that he did not know or, if he did know, it had slipped his memory. The hon. member for Edmonton in the present instance is determined that the Government shall know and is taking this course of letting them know what is going on in British Columbia between the Government of that province and the Indians.
I have read over the letter which the Minister of Public Works submitted from the Deputy Minister of Justice in regard to the duties, functions or jurisdiction of the commission recently appointed to make an investigation as between the Dominion of Canada and the province of British Columbia as to the property rights or the legal title in lands that are known in this country as Indian lands. Having read that letter I take the same view of the situation as my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, that the scope or authority of that commission is merely to determine the property rights of the two governments. Tt is purely and simply a question of law. These lands are to-day vested in the Crown in right of the Dominion of Canada and there is no doubt that there is some reversionary right claimed by or actuallv vested in the province of British Columbia and it is for the purpose of determining these property rights that a commission has been appointed. Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, says in the last ciause of his letter:
In view of this it may he unnecessary to express any opinion as to whether the province is entitled to the reversion, since the question of title, which may be a difficult one, would he set at rest by the action of the commission pursuant to the agreement.
All he is asked for is an opinion as to the rights of the province and the Dominion of Canada in respect to the Indian lands. The point which the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) desired to draw to the attention of the Government and to emphasize was that according to the newspaper report-and it is upon newspaper reports that he bases his whole statement-some transaction has taken place in British Columbia. The government of that province were represented in the negotiations by Mr. Bowser, the Attorney General. The Indians were represented by themselves. According to the newspaper report, Mr. Bowser made an offer to the Indians of $11,500 per family for their rights to this valuable property, consisting of eighty-six acres of land within within the corporate limits of the city of Vancouver. The Indians demurred, according to the newspaper reports, and if the reports speak correctly Mr. Bowser, the Attorney General, acted without proper regard to the position which he occupied when he practically told the Indians that Mr. GUTHRIE.
if they did not take that they would get nothing except land in some other part of British Columbia. I do not say that the newspaper report of the transaction is correct, not for a moment; but, the newspaper reports, having come to the knowledge of the Government, certainly put the Government upon inquiry and imposed upon them the duty of seeing that no such transaction is permitted to go through the House. If a. surrender is arranged and finally consummated, the Government are bound to see that the Indians are paid for that land every dollar to which they are entitled. That, I assume, is the object of my hon. friend from Edmonton in bringing this matter to the attention of the Government. But of course, in this case, as in half a dozen other cases during the present session, hon. gentlemen opposite did not even accept the notice in the spirit in which it was given, but endeavoured by the old tuo quoque process to bring up something about the surrender of an Indian reserve in the city of Victoria in 1910. We are not to-day concerned with the surrender of land in the city of Victoria; we are concerned with the contemplated surrender of lands in the city of Vancouver, and if the Government act up to the professions which the Prime Minister made in the House to-day when he assured the House that the rights of the Indians of Vancouver would be looked after to the fullest extent, we on this side of the House will be perfectly satisfied. There is every indication that the lands in Vancouver are to be sold at a gtpss undervaluation, if the present arrangement goes through. I cannot for a moment imagine that any Government would consent to such a transaction but I would say this to my right hon. friend that he must not allow too much to remain in the discretion of any commission he appoints in that regard. His own Government had better be responsible for the price which is arrived at, if a price is eventually arrived at, between the Indians and the province. I do not think that the commission which he has appointed would have power to estimate the value of these lands; at all events, not so far as I am aware. There is a tribunal which can estimate the value of the land, and why the assistance of that tribunal should not be obtained in this instance I cannot see. Surely a judge of the Exchequer Court could go to Vancouver, hear evidence and determine the proper price to be paid for these lands, and the matter need not be dealt with by any government commission in any way whatsoever. Let the commission determine, if they can, the title or the right to the land as between the Dominion and the province. Then I assume they would have performed their function, but there is nothing binding even in their find-

ing. Their finding will be subject to ratification by this Parliament, or to ratification by a decision of the courts of this land, or by the courts of final appeal in the Mother Land. The question of the adequacy of the price is the chief question. The first duty cast upon the Government is to see that the Indians receive an adequate price and adequate treatment from the province of British Columbia in this connection.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS:: Acting for the time being for the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, I may be expected to say a word or two in regard to this matter. My hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) has told us that we are not now concerned with the Song-hees reserve at Victoria, but that we are concerned with this particular transaction. I think the tone of his remarks satisfied everyone who heard them that he was not so much concerned on behalf of the Indians, as he is concerned to try to make a point against this Government. In that he will signally fail. The chief objection of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition was that these Indians had surrendered their interests in this reserve for an inadequate sum. I know very well that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition knows that the Indians did not surrender their interests in this reserve. He knows that an Indian is not capable of surrendering his interest in any reserve. He knows that whatever rights the Indians had in this reserve on the 9th day of April of this year- I believe that is the date that my hon. friend from Edmonton mentioned-they have to-day, simply because this Government has not given its consent to the surrender of those rights, whatever they are. So that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition need not trouble himself as to whether the price is adequate or inadequate. The Indians had no right to surrender their right, and whatever rights they had they have to-day. The Indian is merely a child who cannot sell his interest in his reserve.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will pardon me; the law requires that the Indian should be consulted, and should give his consent.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Surely, but there is a material difference between asking the Indian to give his consent and permitting him to act without our consent.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There is a statute
which makes it necessary that the Government should consent as well as the Indian. It takes two to make a bargain in this case.


Hugh Guthrie: Three.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Indian and his
guardian.


Wilfrid Laurier: And the other man makes three.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Two on the one side,
and one on the other side. The Indian is supposed to be protected by this Government, and he can do nothing by himself respecting his property. Therefore it does not matter what he did on the 9th of April, if it was done without the consent of this Government; his rights are not affected at all. It is a little surprising to find my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) so much more interested in the Indian to-day than he was in the year 1910 when he said in substance:	Make any bargain you like with
the Indian, whatever satisfies him will satisfy us. You would scarcely conceive that to be possible from the observations made by my right hon. friend to-day, but the very first sentence in his reply to a telegram which he received from Mr. McBride, on the 26th October, 1910, shows that he was not very much interested in the Indians at that time.


Wilfrid Laurier: Quite the reverse.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My right hon. friend
seemed to think there was no responsibility and no duty resting upon him to see to it that the Indians of those days got justice.


Wilfrid Laurier: Quite the reverse. That matter was pending for years, and the question was to get the consent of the Indians.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It does not matter whether it was pending for two years or ten years. This was his reply:
Have consulted with the Minister of the Interior.
That was the hon. member for Edmonton, who was not half so much interested then in the Indians as he appears to be today.
Have consulted with the iMinister of the Interior, and any arrangement satisfactory to the Indians will be quite acceptable to us.
Make any bargain you like with the Indians, we do not care a nickel about them. His words could not be interpreted to mean anything else, and they were not only the words of the leader of the Opposition, but of the hon. member for Edmonton, because the then leader of the Government in his message to Mr. McBride, said he had consulted the Minister of the Interior. So we had the Prime Minister in the person of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposi tion, and the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, in the person of the hon. member who to-day represents Edmonton, putting their heads together to fix up a reply to Mr. McBride; this is what they said:



Have consulted with the Minister of the Interior, and any arrangement satisfactory to the Indians will he quite acceptable to us.
Any bargain you can make, carry it out; satisfy them and you will satisfy us. I want to ask whether, in taking that position, they were discharging their duties and responsibilities towards the wards of the country for whom they were acting, or should have been acting? Tht is the position they took at that time.	*


Hugh Guthrie: Certainly.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend says ' certainly.'


Hugh Guthrie: For years the Government knew what the Indians wanted and knew that their price was a proper one, but the Government of British Columbia would not pay it.


Mr. BARNARD:: Is the hon. gentleman making that statement with a knowledge of the facts?


Hugh Guthrie: That statement, I understand, is correct.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It does not matter
what they knew. This shows as clearly as a thing can be shown that their position was this: It does not matter what we have insisted upon getting from you in the past, it does not matter what we have thought about it the last three or four years, go on and make whatever bargain you like with the Indians, if you satisfy the Indians you satisfy us. And they carried that out. I have a good deal of sympathy with the position taken by my hon. friend as to the wisdom or unwisdom of paying these Indians $10,000 apiece. I cannot conceive a man who had at heart the best interests of the wards of the Government consenting that these Indians should be paid $10,000 apiece. Wa3 anyone surprised to hear him read from the newspapers that these Indians, who had received this $10,000 apiece, had in a few weeks dissipated the money, debauched their bodies and ruined themselves? He was not an ignoramous with regard to the character of Indians. He had been Superintendent General of Indian Affairs for many years and he knew then, as he knows now, and the right hon. leader of the Opposition knew then, as he knows now, that it was an unwise thing to put $10,000 into the hands of each of these Indians. But these hon. gentlemen say that at that time they had to do something in order to secure the surrender from these Indians. Certainly they had. The Indians were unwilling to surrender and these hon. gentlemen say that they could not have disposed of this reserve without doing it in this way. On the 19th of May, 1911, the then Superintendent General of Indian Affairs secured the pas-Mr. CROTHERS.
sage through this House of a Bill which would have authorized him to remove these Indians to another reserve and to have preserved the proceeds of this valuable piece of property in the interest of the Indians themselves. The Act passed on the 19th of May provides that where Indians do not agree to the disposal of their reserves within the limits of a town or city having a population of 8,000, or in the vicinity of such town or city, the Government may submit the matter to the judge of the Exchequer Court and secure authority to sell the lands, to purchase lands elsewhere for the Indians and to fund the balance of the money that they had received from the sale of the original reserve. He secured the passage of that Act and it applies to such reserves to-day. He might have secured the passage of that Act or he might have postponed dealing with the Songhees Indians until he had provided such legal machinery as would have enabled him to have preserved for the benefit of these children of nature, these wards of the country, the proceeds of the sale of their reserve. But instead of doing that he did what he is afraid the Government will do. I am surprised to find him taking so much interest in the welfare of the Indians in view of bis conduct in reference to the St. Peter's band of Indians at Selkirk. That is fresh in the memory of every hon. member in this House and I do not propose to recall the facts in detail. In dealing with the St. Peter's band of Indians, he showed, as he did in dealing with the Songhees Indians at Victoria, the want of any appreciation of his duty towards these creatures who were unable to look after their own interests. It was not necessary for my hon. friend to bring this to the notice of the Government. The interests of the Indian in the Kitsilano reserve are the same to-day as they were on the first of April, or before anything was done in the direction that my hon. friend mentions, and we will see to it that these interests are protected. We will see that the Indians are properly treated with reference to this reserve' and we will not have a repetition of what occurred on the Songhees reserve.


George Henry Barnard: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a word to correct one or two misapprehensions which appear to exist in the minds of some hon. gentlemen with regard to the facts in connection with the Songhees reserve and the present condition of the Indians. Hon. gentlemen opposite are possibly too readily disposed to believe statements which have appeared in the newspapers and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has made statements with a desire possibly to shield his leaders from the effect of the

words of a telegram which has been referred to in this debate this afternoon. The hon. member for South Wellington no doubt thought he was helping his leader in so far as the telegram addressed to Sir Richard McBride was concerned, in which that gentleman was told to make any bargain he liked, when he said that the Government knew all the time what the price of the Songhees reserve was. The hon. gentleman is absolutely mistaken. This Government had sent agents to the Indians and the local Government had been endeavouring for years to get a figure from the Indians. Until that bargain had been struck by the local Government the Dominion Government had no idea what the Indians would take for their land and neither had anyone else.
I want to ease the conscience of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) as to the condition of these Indians and I do not think it is fair to them that the statements that have been made in this House should go unchallenged. I am afraid that my hon. friend the acting Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crothers) was a little bit too anxious to combat that resolution and for the sake of combatting it, he accepted the statement as a fact that these Indians are existing in a state of depravity and debauchery.


Frank Oliver: I think that the motion
that I read stated that some of them were in that condition but not the whole of them. [DOT]


George Henry Barnard: It is possible that out of one hundred and twenty-five some of them may be in a bad condition but I say without any fear of contradiction that the idea that is sought to be conveyed by that newspaper article is absolutely false. Any man who knew the condition of these Indians prior to the day of surrender and who knows the condition of these Indians today will say that the surrender was the very best thing that could have happened. Before the surrender these people lived in shacks of the meanest description. To-day, on their new reservation, they have then-own individual houses. Before, several families were all hived together in a lodge while now they have their own homes their own horses, orchards, and vehicles and they seem to have an exceedingly prosperous settlement. Any man passing through the country would not be able to pick out this district as an Indian reservation.


Hugh Guthrie: Did they get a fair price for their land at that time?


George Henry Barnard: They got an excellent
price for their land and I was very glad that they did.


Mr. NESBITT:: And they are in a better Condition than they were before?


George Henry Barnard: Very much.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And it was not wrong to pay them that money?


George Henry Barnard: I think not-certainly
not. It would be an advantageous thing if hon. gentlemen opposite would be prepared to trust the local Government of British Columbia to see that these Indians on the Kitsilano reserve get fair treatment in that particular, the same kind of treatment that the Songhees Indians did. The hon. member for Edmonton made another statement which I thinkpossibly will stand some examination. He said:	That there is a question as to
the title of this reserve; that the provincial Government is paying $300,000 for it; that someone else had offered a million and a half dollars, and that someone else had said the property was worth seven million dollars; figures which in my opinion are absolutely Tidiculous. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) went on to say that you must deal with the question of ownership before you can deal with the land, but he did not follow that policy when his friends of the Grand Trunk Pacific wished to acquire the Indian reserve on Kaien island, the present townsite of Prince Rupert. He knew that his title was shaky; he would not give them an ordinary deed of it; he would only grant such rights as he thought the Crown had. The provincial Government put in its claim for the reversion directly the Indians surrendered to the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Grand Trunk Pacific, after I take it investigating the question of title, decided they had better pay the provincial Government, and they did pay them a good round suin of money for that reversion. I do not think that in connection with the Fort George reservation, which was acquired by the Grand Trunk Pacific, and which is owned by them to-day, and which they intend to make a divisional point, the hon. gentleman took the same course as he says should be taken now in connection with this reserve. I do not think he was altogether animated by such a tremendous desire for the welfare of the Indians in bringing this question forward, as he was by a desire to make a point against the Government.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver):: This Kitsilano reserve is situated at the mouth -of False creek in the city of Vancouver, and as the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has stated, it is undoubtedly of very great value as Indian reserves go. It should be remembered, as intimated by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, that when a band of Indians are located in the heart of a city it is I certainly not in the interests of the city



&quot;9495 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
[DOT]nor in the interests of the Indians morally and physically that they should be allowed to remain there. It has been recognized for a great many years as a very desirable thing that these Indians , should be removed from the Kitsilano reserve. It is also well known that there is considerable difficulty in dealing with Indians and their rights in reserves situated as this reserve is. I may say that the action of the provincial Government, as far as I have been able to learn by correspondence and otherwise, has been the result of a desire on their part to have these Indians removed for the general welfare of the community and for the benefit of the Indians themselves. I may inti-unate that it is also a very strong point [DOT]with myself, as representative of the city of Vancouver, that this change should be brought about and I have been working towards that end. I may say, further, that the disposal of this reserve to a private interest is a thing to which I am unalterably opposed. This is a valuable piece of land and I believe it should be 'held for public purposes. The representations which I have already made to the [DOT]Government will, I believe, lead them to recognize the value of this land for such public purposes and I trust it will be reserved in that way. I may say also that the provincial Government have intimated to me-it is not official, but in connection with correspondence about the matter, [DOT]and as a result of public notices in the press-the provincial Government have intimated that it is their desire to protect -all the public interests that may be affected. Therefore, if the hon. member for Edmonton claims that there is any danger, either to the public interest or to the interest of the Indians, he has no foundation whatever for such a claim.
The hon. member for South Wellington <Mr. Guthrie) stated that there were [DOT]eighty-six acres in this reserve-I suppose if the debate continues at any length it will double in size; but as a matter of fact [DOT]the reservation actually contains seventy-mine acres, out of which there is a right-of-way for the Canadian Pacific railway, Lulu Island line, and the electric line, leaving seventy-two acres actually in the Teserve. It is situated at the mouth of False creek and is a very valuable location. The question of title has been under discussion in British Columbia, to my knowledge, for the last fifteen or twenty years, and has never been properly adjusted, but the present Government have co-operated with the provincial government and have actually appointed a commission which will sit in the course of the next week or two to adjudicate on these differences about title to Indian lands.
The member for South Wellington said that the title was undoubtedly held by the Mr. STEVENS,
Crown in the right of the Dominion, and in the next breath he encouraged the idea that the question of title should be left to the adjudication of a commission. Now Mr. Speaker, in dealing with a question of this kind in this House, I think we should treat the question fairly and not seek to embarrass the Government by making false representations-I perhaps should not use that expression-but at all events making representations to the public which are contrary to the actual facts. The question of title is undoubtedly a difficult one to settle. By the British North America Act the charge of the Indians and the trusteeship and management of the land reserved for their use and benefit are to be assumed by the Dominion of Canada, and there are other provisions which have been interpreted to place the Indian lands entirely in the right of the Dominion. On the other hand, the province claims, and I think with considerable weight of argument, that the trusteeship and management only rest in the Dominion and that as soon as the Indians abandon a reserve then the lands revert to the province.
This brings me to the question of the value of this land, and I think I am probably as well qualified as any member in the House to express an opinion on that point. The hon. member for Edmonton said he was advised that the property was worth $7,000,000. It is not right that any such figure should be given out to the public as the approximate value of that property; it is not worth anything in the neighbourhood of seven million dollars.
Frank Oliver: I would not like my hon. friend to understand that I made the statement that it was worth seven million dollars; I read from the Vancouver papers estimates of value of which one estimate was seven million dollars.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I want to say to the hon. gentleman here and now that on the basis of statements in the Vancouver papers and other papers, he endeavoured to cast reflections on the Government as regards the price which could be obtained for this reservation. He quoted seven million dollars and he said in effect that the iniquity of this transaction had out-distanced entirely the transaction in connection with the Donaldson homestead. He did that with the deliberate intention of conveying to the mind of the people of Canada an entirely false opinion as regards the value of this reservation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not permissible to say that any member of the House did a thing with the deliberate intention of conveying a false impression to the minds of the people; that would be imputing improper motives to an hon. member.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I bow to your ruling,
Mr Speaker. I say that the effect of the argument of the hon. gentleman was to convey to the minds of the people of Canada that this land was worth seven million dollars, when as a matter of fact it is not worth probably one-tenth of that. The value of that property can be calculated in different ways.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is a resident of Vancouver, and he probably knows the value of the land in question; what is his opinion as to the value of that land?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The value of that land
might be estimated in different ways. If you take it from the standpoint of having it chopped up into twenty-five foot lots and each lot sold individually on long terms of payment, you would probably realize a considerable figure for it; you might be able to realize somewhere in the neighbourhood of two million dollars.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But what is the value
of it in block?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In block, the way it is now, unless it was required by some large corporation on account of its strategic importance, it is not worth anything like that figure.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is located at the mouth of the river?
Mr. STEVENS; It is located at the mouth of False creek. It was intimated that a large railway was after it but I have no knowledge of that fact, although hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think they have, and I notice reference to that is made in the papers. A railway seeking a particular location which would give it an advantage as regards traffic might be able to pay a larger price for that property than its intrinsic value would warrant, and looking at it from different standpoints different valuations might be placed upon it. There is another point in connection with this; the provincial government have paid the Indians $219,000 or $220,000; that I think is the amount to be received by the Indians, Now, that does not represent the entire value of the reserve; it represents from their standpoint the value of the rights of the Indians in that reserve, as they recognize those rights. I am not saying that is a correct way to look at it. They claim a still further value in it which rests in the provincial government That question is being dealt with, as intimated by the acting Minister of the Interior, and is being taken notice of now by the department. This Government has not consented, therefore, and theTe is no reason to bring forward any argument to condemn this Government for an act which it is claimed has been done but which has not
been committed at all. First, the value of that reserve cannot be based on the figures-spoken of as paid to the Indians; and,, second, the suggestion of corruption- which is certainly the suggestion of^ the-hon. member for Edmonton-is entirely baseless.
Having been in very close contact witln the matter, I think I am in a position tossy that, so far as the Dominion Government is concerned, there has been absolutely no collusion-which also was intimated-between the provincial government and the Dominion Government to do the Indians out of their rights. The provincial government, as I am informed by the Attorney General, took the opportunity of paying off the Indians, because it is extremely difficult 'to get Indians -in a humour-in which they will be willing to deal with a government or any person; and the Government had them -in that position and5 offered them the money, and when they found the Indians were prepared to take-it, they paid them the money. I am not saying that the action of the provincial government was the right one; I am informed by the Attorney General that that was his motive, he intending to deal with-the Dominion Government later.
In conclusion, speaking, not as regards the transaction of the provincial _ government, but speaking in the interests of the city of Vancouver, this reserve has been desired by the people of Vancouver for many years. The right hon. leader of the Opposition when leader of the Government, was then reported, through a candidate, I think in 1906, as saying that if returned to power he would get from the Dominion Government the rights of the Indians for the city of Vancouver, and this was welcomed by the people. The provincial government have intimated that they would be willing to meet the Dominion Government in that regard. But what I do say that the reserve, situated as it is, is suitable for public purpose for docks, and should be preserved in the public interest and for the public of Vancouver, and not allowed to pass into the hands of any private corporations or individuals.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As -the hon. gentleman
oomes from Vancouver, I desire to ask for information. Considering it as bought by the city of Vancouver, what would the land be worth in the hon. gentleman's judgment?
"Mr. STEVENS:	My idea in regard to
that was to leave it entirely to the commission that has been appointed to adjudi-f cate the question of value and also what amount should go in trust for the Indians. That is the basis I hoped, and still hope,. on which it would be adjusted. So, the Indians can get a perfectly fair valuation,, and as to -the provincial government: if

they have rights, those rights will be preserved and they can get compensation. But I wish to finish what I was saying when the hon. gentleman interrupted me, namely, that this property should not be allowed to pass out of the hands of the public. It is extremely valuable and will be of increasing value as the years go on. I trust the present Government in dealing with this matter and adjusting the present situation which has arisen probably precipitated by the action of the provincial government, will keep in mind the interests of the public and not allow this reserve to pass into private.hands.
Mr. McKENZIE * How does the province of British Columbia understand the Indian rights? Do these rights appertain to a specific number of the Indians who settle on the reserve, or do they belong to Indians who come on the reserve?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are a large number of reserves in the neighbourhood of Vancouver, allocated to a tribe of Indians, and certain bands of certain tribes have reserves allocated. This particular reserve has about twenty-five families. The British Columbia Government take this attitude, that as long as the Indians are living on the reserve this reserve belongs to the Indians as a whole in trust by the Dominion Government; but the moment there is no further use by the Indians of the reserve, that reserve reverts to the province. That, in brief, is their position.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Suppose that these
twenty-five families of Indians moved away [DOT]and a number of other Indians moved in, could these newcomers acquire rights to the reserve?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. All Indians allocated to a particular piece of property must abandon it before the provincial Government exercises their reversionary rights. I do not daim that the reversionary rights are as complete as they say. It would seem that under the British North America Act there is foundation for such a claim. However, it is a technical point and there are a number of other provisions in Orders in Council entering into consideration in the matter.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have understood that
the money was paid to the Indians by the provincial Government of British Columbia, and the Indians moved off the reserve. Is that the case?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot speak' with
.more authority on that point than the hon. member for Edmonton has spoken. I understand from unofficial advice that I have received from British Columbia that that is the case, that they have been paid Mr. STEVENS.
off and that they have moved. But I may say, I understand that the money has been placed in the bank to their individual account.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If there are negotiations between the British Columbia Government and the Dominion Government what more money could the Indians receive by such negotiations?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be impossible to anticipate what would be the outcome of a difference of opinion between the two governments. I understand the British Columbia Government are trying to deal in the most honourable manner with the Dominion authorities in regard to this matter. So, I anticipate there will be a very happy and successful outcome to this whole incident, satisfactory to the Indians, to the public and to the province.


Frank Oliver: Might I ask the acting
Minister of Indian Affairs in regards to the commission which is to investigate the Indian matters in British Columbia. Are there instructions issued to that commission that anre expected to form the basis of an agreement between this Government and the Government of British Columbia, and if so, have these instructions been laid on the table?


Mr CROTHERS:: I think all the instructions in the 'hands of the commissioners at the present time are the agreement upon which they were appointed, and the Orders in Council appointing them.


Mr OLIVER:: There is, then, an agreement between this Government and the Government of British Columbia, upon which agreement the commission was appointed?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes. .
Motion (Mr. Oliver) negatived.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), House went into Committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to pass an Act to regulate the harbour of Vancouver and incorporate the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, and to provide for vesting in the corporation so constituted all lands and interest in lands within the limits of the harbour, heretofore vested in His Majesty, to be held for the purposes of such Act; and that the revenue derived from, such water

lots in the harbour as have been leased or otherwise disposed of to any persons by the Governor in Council, and all rates, fees and dues other than pilotage dues, sick mariners dues and steamboat inspection fees, which are now payable to the Government of Canada in connection with the harbour, be paid to and retained by the corporation -and form part of its general levenue under and for the purposes of said Act.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Mr. HAZEN:: This is a Bill to create a harbour commission. This is asked for by the city of Vancouver. The Bill is modelled on the other harbour commission Bills that this Parliament has passed from time to time, including the Bills for harbour commissions in Winnipeg, Hamilton and Montreal. It seems very necessary that something should be done quickly with regard to the harbour of Vancouver. The annual tonnage at Vancouver is extraordinary. I am told it is approximately ten million tons and up to very recent times no money has been spent there by the federal Government. It is necessary, if Vancouver is to continue to hold its present trade and to handle the much greater trade which will probably come there with the opening of the Panama canal, that some steps should be taken to put the harbour into proper condition. The revenue from the harbour is comparatively small as there are practically no public wharfs there. It is proposed to invest the foreshore in the commission. At present the Government is collecting rentals from foreshore leases in the harbour of about $11,000 or $12,000 per annum. It is proposed to vest the whole thing fn the harbour commission so that the revenue from the foreshore will go towards building up the port. The harbour is defined for the purposes of this Act as including Burrard inlet, north arm, Port Moody, False creek and English bay and all other tidal waters lying east of a line drawn from Point Atkinson southerly to the most westerly point of Point Grey. I am told that these are the geographical boundaries approved by the chief engineer of the Marine Department, Colonel Anderson.


George Perry Graham: I would like to have that description expanded a little so that I may appreciate just what it means.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The boundary of the harbour is a line drawn from Point Atkinson, the extreme northerly point between Howe sound and English bay, the entrance' to Burrard inlet to Point Grey, the extreme westerly point of the peninsula between the Fraser river and Burrard inlet. It takes everything inside of that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many miles?


Henry Herbert Stevens: About nine and a
quarter miles of area inside of these lines and six or eight outside, probably sixteen or eighteen square mile3 of area. The distance from Point Grey to the Second Narrows is about eight miles but when you extend it to Port Moody it is about fourteen miles. That is the distance on the east side. Then it takes in the North arm. The reason that the North arm was included on suggestion of Colonel Anderson is that you cannot go into the north arm or out of it without passing directly through the harbour, so is was thought desirable that the harbour commissioners should control the traffic there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are the principal lines of steamers running there?


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Wilfrid Laurier: It is proposed by this resolution to endow this new corporation with very valuable public property. At the same time other property which has been disposed of but which is giving a revenue is to be vested in it. I am not criticising that/ but I would suggest that when the minister takes the Bill up for a second reading we should have on the table of the House a plan of the new harbour, showing the public properties with which it is proposed to endow the corporation, and an approximate valuation of these lands, together with a statement of the property disposed of, and the revenues of which are to be placed in the hands of the new corporation.


John Douglas Hazen: I have part of that information under my hand.


Wilfrid Laurier: I make this
suggestion for this purpose. It may be that

this corporation will be endowed with a very large amount of wealth. I do not say that it is not advisable that it should be. But if it is to be endowed with public property yielding a very large revenue, I think it would be well to place upon it some obligation. I appreciate the fact that this corporation will have to expend a good deal of money in the way of developing the harbour; but it will be advisable not to leave that to the sole discretion of the corporation, but to have incorporated in the law the works they propose to build. Of course, we must have wharfs and sheds, and so on. There is no doubt in my opinion at all events, that Vancouver is going to be the great harbour of the Pacific ocean, perhaps greater even than San Francisco. Pending the completion of the Panama canal, it is impossible to calculate the amount of traffic that will originate at Vancouver. There is no doubt that in a very few years this corporation will have to spend millions of dollars in developing that harbour, and it is desirable that we should have all the data before us.


John Douglas Hazen: I was pointing out before my right hon. friend came into the House that the annual tonnage coming to the port of Vancouver is approximately 10,000,000 tons, an enormous amount considering the very limited facilities there are for doing business there. I also mentioned what my right hon. friend has mentioned, that the prospects for a tremendous development in the future are undoubted, especially in view of the completion of the Panama canal. My right hon. friend has suggested that there should b'e some safeguards put in the Bill. I would call his attention to the fact that there is a clause which vests the title to the foreshore in the harbour commissioners. It was thought desirable in drafting the Bill that that foreshore should be available for the purpose of the harbour. It seemed to be a fair proposition that as it has been the practice in the past for the Government to grant foreshores for public purposes for really nominal considerations, in the case of a great harbour like this where the foreshore is very much a part of the harbour it should be made available for the purposes of the harbour, and that the revenues derived should go to its maintenance and development. But the clause vesting the title to the foreshore in the commissioners, is subject to this: It is to be held subject to any lease or privilege already granted, and subject also to riparian rights, and the Government may at any time after each recurring five years repossess itself of the property. That is, the Government may take possession of the property at any time it is thought desirable to do so, if it is not being used in the public interest, or for other reasons.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
It was thought desirable in view of the great increase in the values, and in the revenue which may occur in the years. to come, that all dealings in the land by the commissioners should be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. That is to say, the commissioners cannot divest themselves of the foreshore; they cannot sell it, and they cannot lease it except under conditions. The Governor in Council ensures that a lease will never be granted except on a proper rental being obtained. The revenue which the Government at present obtains from the harbour of Vancouver is managed like that of any other harbour; that is, under the Harbour Masters' Act, it is managed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The amount now received from the harbour in harbour dues is $866.50; from the port warden, $850; from leases of water lots, $6,671.95; and from the shipping masters, $1,959.40, making a total of $10,317.85. These are the figures as they were made up a few months ago, but since then other leases of the foreshore have been granted which would bring the amount up to a larger figure, to probably $12,000 or_ $13,000. Of course, this amount would materially assist the board to get started, pending the completion of any of the works which it is proposed to erect, and which would not be revenue producers until they were built. The policy which I have been trying to adopt with regard to foreshore leases, and I have found some difficulty in the matter, as I have never been quite satisfied with it, is as far as possible to refuse to give grants of any foreshores, and to insist ojj rentals. I find from the terms of the leases granted under the former Government that they were for a period of twenty-one years with a provision for renewal for another twenty-one years and for a third renewal of twenty-one years at same rental. I have obtained the authority of council to insert in the Bill a provision for the readjustment of the rent. At the end of each period of 21 years the amount of increased rent to be paid shall then be fixed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and if that amount is not satisfactory to the lessees, then it shall be determined by a judge of the Exchequer Court. There is a difficulty in ascertaining what a fair amount would be at which these foreshores should be rented. There was a policy which was pretty generally observed in the department by which the water front was valued at $10 a foot. If the foreshore had a frontage of 100 feet, that valuation would be $1,000, and then there was charged cn that valuation an annual rental of five per cent, which would be $50. It seemed to me that however adequate that might have been in the past, it was hardly satis-

factory under present conditions, and now we are making the valuation $40 a foot and charging interest at five per cent, on that valuation. Even at that, I think the people are getting the properties at a very moderate sum, and I think probably the harbour commissioners who are on the aground, and know the properties and their value will be in a much better position to deal with the matter than 'we are in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. If there is any information that my right hon. friend or any other hon. gentlemen would like to have, I will be glad to submit it on the second reading, although I think that in a general way I have pretty well informed them with regard to the matter.


Frank Oliver: The board of harbour
commissioners to be created, are to be given certain powers and authority with the view of improving the conditions of tjie harbour. Is there any other interest behind these commissioners except the Government of Canada?


John Douglas Hazen: None whatever.


Frank Oliver: That is to say the Government of Canada puts up the money?


John Douglas Hazen: There is no provision in
this Bill for putting up money. In the Bills creating harbour commissions, there is no provision of any kind for the Government putting up money or advancing money. If it is thought advisable that the Government should do so in the future, that is a matter which will have to be the subject of separate legislation. This Bill simply creates a harbour commission and vests in it the management of the harbour. Under this Bill it can borrow money from private sources for the purpose of building wharfs; but there is no provision for any advance from the Government. No doubt at a future session of Parliament, provision of that sort will have to be made in the interests of the trade of the country so that money can be available for the purpose of thoroughly equipping the port.


Frank Oliver: It is in my mind that
in some places a harbour commission is created for the use of the city, that is to say the city is the power behind the harbour commission. That is the original condition, but after a time the city's financial interest becomes weaker, and the interest of the Government becomes stronger, without that increased interest of the Government being accompanied by a proportionately increased control. There is no doubt about the importance of the Vancouver harbour, and there is no doubt about the necessity of it being improved in every way possible. I Have no doubt that the creation of a harbour commission is the best way to attain that desired result. All I want is to have it established that the harbour commission shall be, in fact, the creation of this Parliament and. shall, to a very considerable extent, be the creature of Parliament and of the Government.


John Douglas Hazen: All the harbour commissions of this sort are the creations of this Parliament. The actions of the commissioners, in carrying on the affairs of the harbour, are subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.


Frank Oliver: All their actions?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, their actions in regard to the development of the harbour. For instance, before they would proceed to construct docks or erect grain elevators, the plans would have to be approved by the engineer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and, on his report, approved by Order in Council.


Frank Oliver: But would the project have to be approved?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Frank Oliver: The commissioners are not an independent body to act and incur expenditure, which expenditure, having been incurred, would have to be met by some means?


John Douglas Hazen: That is all subject to .the approval of the Governor in Council.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister retain control of the rates chargeable by the harbour commissioners upon shipping entering the port?


John Douglas Hazen: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: May I ask the hon. minister when he intends to bring down the Quebec Harbour Bill?


John Douglas Hazen: Almost any time, but I
promised to give to my hon. friend certain information which I have to get from Quebec. 1 also told my hon. friend that the engineers would come up here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When do you expect Mr. Price?


John Douglas Hazen: I expect that they will be here early next week.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like my hon. friend to inform the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Power) and the hon. member

for Quebec Centre (Mr. Lachance) when the matter is coming up.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be glad to do so.


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

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 103, for the granting of aid for the Advancement of Agriculture Instruction in the Provinces.-Mr. Burrell. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 3-amounts payable for instruc tion in agriculture:
The CHAIRMAN:: There is an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), as follows:
That section 3 be amended by inserting after the word ' fourteen ' in line 22, the following words: upon an appropriation in that behalf from year to year made by Parliament ; and by adding at the end of said section 3 the following words, namely, 'provided the same shall be voted yearly as aforesaid.'


Frank Oliver: The desire embodied in
this amendment was to ensure that the proposals of the Government for each year for which money was being appropriated would be brought before Parliament for consideration before the money was appropriated. It is simply to nominally establish the principle of parliamentary control, but really in the case of this Bill, for the purpose of securing the full advantage of the knowledge that must necessarily belong to members of Parliament coming from all parts of the Dominion in planning out the work and projects of the department for each year, and to have that done in the ordinary, the usual and the constitutional way by the submission of each proposed vote to the House, thereby making it subject to consideration and discussion by the House. That is the purpose of the amendment. My hon. friend who moved it said that it might not be as well drafted as if there had been more time employed upon it, but that is the principle we desire to affirm.


Mr. BURRELL:: I appreciate the object of my hon. friend's amendment, but I might point out that there will be no difficulty in meeting what he has in view, because every year Parliament will be asked 4o grant a sum of money for the carrying out of this Act by a special vote, and on that item, as also on the general report which we have to make, according to another clause, there will be ample opportunity to have the most thorough discussion in connection with the whole matter. I think the object we have in view of making it a continuous principle and giving the whole thing a stability that it Mr. LEMIEUX.
would not otherwise have will be much better carried out by the Bill as it is framed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the minister say
that he is going to give a report of what has been done with the money the year before, and that he will ask for a grant eaon year and have an open discussion on what is to be done with the money before it is voted for the ensuing year ? Is that the intention of the Bill ? I would like if the minister would give us an idea of the form that this education will take.


Martin Burrell: With regard to a subject like this, it would be impossible to give any hon. member the details of an expenditure which involves an immense amount of thought and discussion with the various provinces whose conditions are so absolutely different. The preamble of the Bill sets out that the money will be applied for education, instruction and demonstration in agricultural subjects, which covers much. We shall only be too happy, as the Bill requires, to lay a full report of what has been done during the preceding year and at that time, and when a proposal is submitted for the next year, my hon. friend, as well as other hon. members, will have an ample opportunity to give a thorough airing to his views as to the lines upon which these expenditures should be carried on in the future.


Frank Oliver: I do not understand what the minister means by saying that each year a sum of money will be voted for carrying out the provisions of this Bill.


Martin Burrell: The other day the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) deprecated the idea that a lot of this ten million dollars should be used up in the employment of officials which he said would defeat to some extent the purpose of the Bill. I wish to point out that all the money voted under statute is given absolutely to the province, but there will be certain expenses in connection with administration which, of course, will be voted each year and on which there can be discussion.


George Perry Graham: I do not say it is wrong to expend this money by statute but there is this difficulty about it, that suppose some members should think it was not properly expended they have no recourse but to move that the Act be repealed, whereas were it voted in Supply in the ordinary way the House would have direct control over it.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Would not the annual voting of this money presuppose the necessity of specifying in detail the amounts under each item, and would not that be open to the objection that there may arise occasions where in the interim between

sessions money should be expended in the interests of agriculture, which did not occur to anyone during the previous session? Would it not be in the general interest to give a certain amount of latitude in the working out of the expenditure under this measure?


George Perry Graham: It is often inconvenient to be compelled to go into details of expenditure, but it is almost the foundation of our system of government. In the administration of the Intercolonial railway it would often be convenient to deal with matters without a vote of Parliament but unless in extraordinary circumstances the minister is not allowed to do so. For example, if a sum of money were voted for a certain level crossing at a given point on the Intercolonial, the Minister of Railways could not take that money and build a level crossing somewhere else. It is inconvenient, but it is right when you come to think of it; Parliament might not agree to his 'spending the money in the other place. I am not arguing strongly against this money being a statutory vote. Where the money is given to the provinces and where the provincial authorities may be carrying out details of their own which they_ have not yet communicated to the minister, it would be difficult for him to place before Parliament a complete statement every year. However, if clause 7 remains in the Bill under which he can expend the money instead of the province, then details should be given to the House about that expenditure which is made directly by this Government.


Martin Burrell: The hon. gentleman
understands as well as I do the difficulty of working out such a scheme in advance. My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), complained the other night that we were not giving this money outright to the provinces, that we were still keeping control of it. That complaint has come to me several times. It has been said that we should give this money to the provinces to do what they like with it. On the other hand, the hon. member for Edmonton thinks we should keep control. We have tried in this Bill to take a position whereby we trust the provinces will work out these things and yet whereby we can exercise some reasonable supervision. We admit that, in a sense, this Bill is a new departure, but I do not think there will be any difficulty in .amending it if it is found desirable. At the same time, I do not see strong enough reasons, in spite of what the hon. gentleman says, to alter the clause. There should be no difficulty in getting a full discussion.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. minister has
pointed out what I objected to. If the money were given absolutely to the provinces, it would be simply a grant to the provinces. But the hon. gentleman reserves the right to say how the money shall be spent. For that reason I ask him how he proposes to spend it. He answers that he cannot tell. If he has laid out plans-and I will warrant he has a plan in his mind-as to how this money shall be spent by the provinces, I do not see why he cannot tell Parliament what form this agricultural education is to take. The hon. gentleman declines to do this, and that is why I object to the Bill in its present form. If the hon. gentleman is going to retain control, I do not see why he should not tell Parliament how this money is to be expended; and if he is not going to retain control, I do not see why the provinces could not be entrusted with the money. If these moneys were to be voted every year, which was the proposition of my hon. friend from Edmonton, the minister would have to tell Parliament at each recurring vote what he proposes to do with the money, and we could judge whether it is to be properly expended or not. I have no objection to the grants of money each year for this, my only objection on that point is that these grants will be very small when divided over nine provinces. But the hon. minister refuses absolutely to say what form this expenditure is to take.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: Is it the intention to establish demonstration sheep farms in Nova Scotia? If so, where?


Martin Burrell: I could not answer that. We have had some discussion with the Nova Scotia government, and there will be a very thorough discussion of the whole, matter, and anything that is wise and best for the interests of agriculture in that province will be arranged between the Government of the Dominion and the government of the province.


Hugh Guthrie: Just a word in regard to the contention of my hon. friend from (North Oxford that the money would be *better expended if handed over to the provinces than if it were controlled by the Department of Agriculture and this Government. I think if my hon. friend from North Oxford will read section 4 of the Bill he will find that the provinces are entrusted absolutely with the expenditure of by far the largest proportion of the money, subject to certain conditions with regard to the payment of the money to be agreed upon between the Dominion and the provinces. It is evidently the intention of the Act to have the whole apportioned to the provinces for expenditure, but the Dominion seeks to control the expenditure in so far as the sum of $20,000 a year is concerned which is to be particularly appropriated for the purpose of assisting agricultural colleges, and the further sum

of $20,000 annually which is paid to the Government of each province. The remainder of the annual grant is to go to the Government as a vote as the subsidy would go. I think a fair view of the Bill is that this is practically an additional [DOT]subsidy to the various provinces but particularly ear-marked for agricultural purposes. And if I can gather the true meaning of the .minister from the language he has used in this House, he and his commissioners and the officers whom he has in [DOT]his department or whom he proposes to appoint have concluded that the best way to expend the money to be of assistance to agriculture in Canada would be to expend it in the direction of education on agricultural lines. I do not know whether anyone else has considered the warrant of this Parliament for expending money for educational work. It opens up rather a broad question. We see in the provisions of this [DOT]Bill one that at all events points to the expenditure of money of the Parliament of Canada to assist education-the work of veterinary colleges. That is clearly and simply educational work, and education, by the terms of the British North America Act is distinctly provincial work, and work over which thi's Parliament has no control. I do not object to that expenditure; I favour it: At the same time, if it be made in this case it should he made in other cases, and if my hon. friend the Minister of Labour were in his place to-night, I would like to point out to him what I have pointed out in this House once or twice before, that, while we have been expending in the past large sums of money through this Parliament directing the establishment of works of educational value -for instance, our experimental farms- we have never'spent anything to assist education along industrial lines. We are at this time awaiting a report upon the subject of technical education. I merely point out that if we now grant sums of money for the educational work in agriculture, it will form a precedent in the future for granting sums of money for technical education when we come to consider that question when the report is brought down, as I trust it will be in the course of a short time. I do not think there is framed, as to the expenditure of them is any great danger, as this Bill is framed, as to the expenditure of the money. I believe that the matter will come up year by year for consideration, but, at the same time, I do not like the principle upon which the vote is to be given. It seems that the present Government has in many cases, adopted this principle of statutory grants; we have it in the Highways Bill; we have it in the present Bill; we have it in the Naval Bill, and I submit that this Mr. GUTHRIE.
is subversive of the parliamentary principles of the past. It is not a step in advance; it is a retrogressive step, and unless some very good reason is given why the grants should be made en bloc, as proposed under this Bill, I think it much better to make them in the old-fashioned way, by annual expenditure, rather than by statutory grant of a lump sum, the expending of which shall not be made within the current year, but shall be extended over a very great number of years. I think the minister would do well to consider the objection raised by my hon. friend from Edmonton in his amendment; the acceptance of his suggestion would not impair the effect of the Bill, and would comply with the well-established parliamentary practice of this House.


Frank Oliver: If section 4, which provides for the distribution of the money, were the only part of the Bill providing for the distribution of the money, were the only part of the Bill providing for such distribution, then section 3 would, it appears to me, be entirely satisfactory; that is to say, Parliament would then be deciding that a certain amount of money should ho apportioned for certain specific purposes during a certain period. But section 5 changes the purport of section 4. While section 4 makes what appears to be a specific distribution of the money, section 5 brings in the responsibility of the Governor in Council in regard to that distribution. It is elementary that, if the Governor in Council is to have discretion in the distribution of that money or in the uses to which the money is to be put, the Governor in Council is responsible to Parliament, and Parliament should take the opportunity of discharging its responsibility to the people, to vote that money. Strike out section 5, and section 3 is good; leave section 5 in and section 3 is a departure from parliamentary principles, and does not permit of that opportunity'for such fair discussion of the yearly projects of the department as would be beneficial. I shall not to-day ask my hon. friend for his plan of campaign for the coming year; he is only at the beginning of his policy, and he is entitled to every opportunity to lay down his plans and get them, to some degree, into operation. But havin'-' had the opportunity for a year .to lay down a policy, when he comes again to Parliament, he has a certain measure of responsibility for what he has done, and Parliament is entitled to have something to say about that which he is going to do. The exercise of that right by Parliament would be secured by the amendment which I have suggested. As to the suggestion of the hon. member foT Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), that such a course would hamper administration be-

cause the vote would have to be divided into many details, that argument, in my opinion, does not hold. As a matter of fact, many of the departments to-day have lump sums voted. When the minister comes to Parliament with his estimates, he is prepared to inform the House as to what his intentions are in regard to the distribution of that money, but the information he gives to Parliament as to this distribution is merely a declaration of his intentions; it really does not hamper him in the distribution of the money if circumstances require that liis statement to Parliament should be varied. There is, therefore, no reason for objecting to the amendment on that ground. I do not wish to press the matter seriously when the minister does not seem to be inclined to view it favourably, but I say again that the amendment would bring the Bill in accordance with ordinary parliamentary practice and regular constitutional usage, and I believe it would tend to the better working of the Bill. I notice there is a provision in section 6 for the voting of money by Parliament from year to year for the carrying out of the purposes of this Bill. There is a vast difference* between voting of money that will merely achieve certain objects, and voting money subject to arrangements that have been made with the provinces, which arrangements, of course, are of far-reaching importance, and, for the part of the arrangement for which the Government is responsible, Parliament is responsible; the members of Parliament are responsible to their constituents, and should have an opportunity to discharge that responsibility satisfactorily.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.):: The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) made a statement to the effect that he doubted the power of this Parliament to pass legislation regarding education.' I desire to direct the attention of the hon. member to section 95 of the British North America Act, which provides that this Parliament and the local legislatures shall have concurrent powers of legislation respecting agriculture and immigration. If this Parliament and the local legislatures have concurrent powers regarding agriculture and immigration, why should not the power which they have regarding agriculture include education? What is the object of this Bill? The Bill provides that, instead of voting money for the purpose of establishing a farm on which cattle shall be raised, schools, for instance, may be established in which lectures shall be given and demonstrations held. In the province from which I come, out of the moneys which were granted under the Agricultural Aid Act of last year, a course of instruction, attended by over five hundred young men of the province, was given in the city
of Charlottetown. Lectures were delivered and demonstrations made as to the killing of cattle, the manner of putting up meats, and general matters of agricultural interest. The young men who attended these lectures and demonstrations received great benefit from them. This proposed legislation is, I presume, in furtherance of the policy which was adopted last year. The Government, instead of making agricultural aid a matter of haphazard action, have decided that they will put it upon a permanent basis. Each province of the Dominion has an agricultural staff, and this staff, in my opinion, should work in conjunction with the staffs provided by the Dominion Government in each" province. We have a very good staff in Prince Edward Island; and there	is a good staff
in Ontario.	Why, then, should not
these staffs work together? The money will be granted to the governments of the different provinces; "the people of each of these provinces are in a better position to know its requirements than men who come from other provinces to deliver lectures, for instance. When this money is put into the hands of those governments under an agreement, as this Bill provides, for its expenditure, I think the money is perfectly safeguarded, and that the Dominion Government is taking a course which is in the best interests of all the people. The agreement must provide the purposes for which the money is granted, and I think it is perfectly right that this Parliament should state that the money so granted should be used only for agricultural purposes. It would not be proper that the money should be allowed to go into the general revenue of the province; it should be ear-marked, as this Bill provides; and, this being the case, the Government of Canada having control of the money under the agreement entered into with the provincial government, I do not see that any harm will result or any wrong be done to the people of Canada by passing the Bill as it is. What is the object of the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) on Friday last? It is that although this sum of $10,000,000 shall be expended over a period of ten years, the Minister of Agriculture shall come to this Parliament each year and ask that the amount of the appropriation to be made for that year shall be designated by this Parliament. Is that reasonable? Is it an improvement? Would this Parliament change the amount which this Bill indicates shall be given to each province? What object would there be in asking this Parliament to revote that money every year for ten years? I fail to see any reasonable argument in the contention raised by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House with respect to this Bill.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. McLean) appre-

hended what I said, or what I intended to say, when I was discussing the question of education as applied to the Dominion and the different provinces under the British North America Act. I quite realize that this Parliament has concurrent jurisdiction with the provincial assemblies in regard to agriculture and that we have exclusive jurisdiction in regard to matters of trade and commerce. My object in stating what I did state was to impress on the Minister of Labour and of the Government that if they granted money for agricultural education or aid to agricultural education they would be fully justified in granting it for technical education as soon as the report of the Technical Education Commission is before Parliament. I welcome the expenditure, I do not oppose it, but when I argued two or three-years ago that the Government should expend money jon technical education or industrial training, it was contended that that was a matter affecting general education with which this House had nothing to do. I argued that this House had to do with it as it was a matter having to do with trade and commerce.


John Douglas Hazen: The House evidently took that view.


Hugh Guthrie: Eventually, but after
some difficulty, in the matter, and some of the provinces took a different view at first, but finally came to the same conclusion. I do not take exception to the passing of the grant; I approve of it and I hope it will form a precedent so that when the question of technical education in the provinces comes before us the Minister of Labour will be well supported in proposing such a grant.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This principle of
voting the amount every year is not a new idea to the minister. I do not quite understand why the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, and the minister himself should think that there was anything wrong about this doctrine or principle of asking that Parliament should vote the amount from year to year. The Bill which the minister brought down last year and which had practically the same title, its title being 'An Act for the Aid and Encouragement of Agriculture,' contains the principle which we are advocating. The expenditure of the money proposed this year is simply a departmental expenditure.


Martin Burrell: It is hardly purely departmental, inasmuch as all these agreements are entered into subject to the sanction of the Governor in Council.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We contend that the
business of the country should be administered by Orders in Council just as . little as possible, that the expenditure of public moneys should be granted in the Mr. GUTHRIE.	'
open and that ministers should get from Parliament every year approval of the expenditures they proposed to make. The people of the country feel that they have a certain safeguard or bulwark in that all expenditures come under the review of the Auditor General, but where you have a provision of this kind appropriating or pre-empting this money for ten years by statute, it does not come under the review of the Auditor General until the expiration of the ten years, so that this safeguard of which I speak is removed. The second clause of the Act of last year read:
The Governor in Council may, in any year and upon such terms and subject to such considerations as are prescribed by Order in Council, grant to any province for the encouragement of agriculture a subsidy not exceeding such sum as may in such year be voted by Parliament for that purpose.
That is the authority that he took for hipiself last year. The Government, I presume, was then just as wise^ as it is to-day, and I would like the minister to-explain what was the matter with the power which he took last year. He repealed the Act of last year, and when he-asks us to surrender the power which Parliament had under the old Act of controlling these expenditures and voting the-money from year to year, he should give the House to understand why he is doing it. Did he find himself hampered toy section 2 of the Act last year ? Did he not have a sufficiently free hand in dealing with the provinces ? Why is he departing from this well-established principle of parliamentary government and control over these expenditures?


Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth):: I desire to congratulate the minister upon the progressive legislation brought down in this Bill. To me, coming from the splendid province of Ontario, it is really pleasing that the opposition to the Bill has not been very forcible, nor has it apparently been organized. I would say, in agreement with the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), that I appreciate very much, as he does, the idea that, all things being capable of execution under this Bill, there being no constitutional provision in the way, the same principle should be extended on some future occasion to benefit the labouring classes of this country along the lines of technical education. I feel satisfied, from the progressive nature of the measure and from the general attitude of the present Government, that the signs point to progress along every line that will tend to the betterment of the people at large; so I hope that some day in the early future that point may be granted. In regard to what was said by the hon. member for North Cape Breton

(Mr. McKenzie), I happened to be present when the Minister of Agriculture introduced his Bill of last year, and I remember distinctly that he stated that the Bill was in a measure tentative, that it was being advanced in a sort of provisional way so as to allow Parliament to become seized of its nature. If I mistake not, the hon. minister indicated that it was in no sense to be considered perfect in form. In these circumstances the change simply reflects the mature and considered reasoning that the minister has given ^o the Bill, so that the argument of my hon. friend bears very lightly on the matter. One thing that has struck me in connection with the discussion of this Bill is that there is not a united opposition to it. There seems to be a good deal of miscellaneous criticism without very much merit, to my mind. Of course, I quite appreciate the view of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and I agree with him. I regret to say that I am not in a position to appreciate so highly the attitude of the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt.) The other night I was surprised to hear him state that the people of that county did not agree with this Bill, that "they were so excellent of their kind that they did not want any boon or advantage.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not say that. I said I did not think they would get any advantage from it. I do not want the hon. member to put any words in my mouth that I did not utter. I am perfectly willing to stand by anything I said, but I do not propose to allow him to make a speech for me.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I would be very sorry to make a speech for any hon. gentleman like that which my hon. friend delivered the other night. I do not propose to dwell upon it, I merely wish to express my surprise. No matter what the hon. gentleman says, he rather repudiated the idea on that occasion that there was anything good in the Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did nothing of the kind.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My hon. friend said he would print his speech and send it through the county, and that he would stand by it. He certainly deprecated the idea that the people would get any good out of the Bill. The criticism which has been offered in this House has been of two kinds. One hon. gentleman says that we should exercise control over these moneys, while another says that we should not exercise control over them. I do not wish to use language that is too severe, but hon. gentlemen opposite have indicated in a general way that they cannot trust the provincial governments to expend the money. Other hon. gentlemen want the
money to be sent holus-bolus to the provincial governments. Our friends opposite seem to be mixed in the half-hearted attack, which they are making upon this Bill, which to my mind is one of the greatest boons that could be given to a most deserving class of people, no matter to what province they belong. I think I am safe in saying that all the provincial governments that have had this Bill under consideration have expressed approval of it; they have heartily welcomed it, and are desirous of seeing it put into force. But in this House an attempt has been made to attack the Bill not in a bold courageous way, but simply with the view of delaying its progress.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who is delaying it now?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am for a few moments, for the purpose of saying what I want to say. I do not think it is right that a discussion of this kind should go on without my taking the opportunity to clear up some false impressions that have been created in the public mind, or that may be created in the public mind, if the public listens to criticism of the kind that has been offered in this House. It has been said that we lose control over the moneys. 1 look at section 5 of the Bill and I find it reads as follows:
The payments hereinbefore authorized shall, as to each province, he conditional upon agreement between the minister and the Government of the province as to the terms, conditions and purposes, within the meaning of this Act, upon and for which the payments are to he made and applied, and such agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.
Clause 8 of the Bill provides:
The minister shall annually lay before Parliament, during the first ten days of the session, a report of all proceedings under this Act for the last preceding fiscal year, which report shall contain a full and accurate statement of moneys expended, the purposes to which they have been applied and the work done by the several provinces in the earning of the subsidies paid or authorized to be paid.
That clause provides for the bringing into this House of a report of all the details of the expenditures of the previous year. It is impossible to have that until one year has elapsed. That report, having been laid on the table, is open to any hon. member of this House. If there is anything wrong, if any mistake has been made, it is open to be corrected in the agreement that will be made for the following year. I understand the Bill to mean that an agreement will be made yearly and in that very power rests the opportunity of this Government to exercise a reasonable control and to correct any abuse that may be pointed out

whereby public money has been waste i or expenditures improperly made. If there is anything in any Bill brought down of another nature more perfect in its form, more in the public interest, better calculated to conserve the rights of Parliament, or more in accord with public opinion, I have not seen it since I have had the honour to be a member of this House. I think the Bill should pass, that the country should be congratulated upon its progressive nature and that we should get along with it without much further delay.
Amendment (Mr. Carvell) negatived.
On section 4-apportionment of money; veterinary colleges:


Mr. G. BOYER (Vaudreuil):: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to clause 4 which is at present under consideration, and provides that an amount of $20,000 shall be distributed between the veterinary schools of the country in proportion to tne number of students attending such schools.
To my mind, it is not so much the number of pupils in each college that the Government should consider as the equipment of the laboratories in those schools. We have to-day only two veterinary schools really well organized and receiving pupils: one at Toronto and the other at Montreal.
That veterinary school at Toronto receives pupils coming from all parts of the country, and is accordingly on a much larger scale than that of Laval university at Montreal, where the attendance is much smaller, as it receives pupils from the province of Quebec only. However, that school has also duties to fulfil and numerous obligations to discharge. At present veterinary schools are expected to give courses on chemistry and bacteriology and histology to meet the requirements of the various positions which young vets are called upon to fill, either in the employ of the Government, or of large private concerns, as inspectors of meats, of contagious diseases, etc. Then again pupils are expected to follow courses towards qualifying later on as inspectors of food products and others, and that requires the equipment of a complete laboratory of which pupils may largely take advantage.
When this Bill was introduced in this House, the council of the Laval Veterinary school took cognizance of it, and one of its delegates, Dr. Dauth, I think, conferred with the Secretary of State who promised him to see the Minister of Agriculture in that connection, and I believe that was done.
If the Government grants that amount of $20,000, as mentioned in this Bill, one of the schools will receive much more than Mr. MORPHY.
the other, though it will have as _ heavy obligations to meet in connection with the giving of courses and the equipment of its laboratories.
I understand full well that the Ontario school is more important than that of Montreal; but on the other hand the courses which are being given in Montreal are as important as those which are given in Toronto; the only difference is in the attendance; there is none in the tuition.
Now, I am of opinion that in order to effectively assist these schools, the Minister should provide in his Bill that each one will receive in the first place a lump sum of $5,000, while the remaining $10,000 will afterwards be divided between the two in proportion to the number of their pupils. That, to my mind would be much more effective. The Montreal veterinary school is not rich; it is only within the last two or three years that it has been receiving a grant of some importance. And here tofore it has had to provide for its own needs, not having received any endowment towards extending its courses. The council of the Montreal veterinary school has come to the conclusion, after due consideration, that the distribution should be made on the basis of the tuition given, rather than on that of attendance. The Montreal school has a smaller attendance than that of Toronto, it is true, but its curriculum being the same, it requires the same number of laboratories to teach the applied veterinary sciences:	bacteriology,
chemistry, histology, as applied to the inspection of food products, to the prevention of contagious diseases, etc. The equipment for such laboratories, at any rate as respects the illustration apparatus, has to be the same, whatever the number of pupils. Indeed it is precisely in that part of veterinary science that progress is in order and that there is a field open to scientific research of a nature helpful to agriculture and the trade in food products.
I have no doubt that the Minister of Agriculture is well disposed, and I am pleased to think that he will be so kind as to consider the remarks I have _ just made. As a matter of fact, I am of opinion that he should introduce in the Bill an amendment providing that lump sum of $5,000 to each college as I have just suggested, I understand that owing to increasing requirements, a veterinary school will soon be established in the West and that the Government will soon grant further aid to that new school, and then may be in a position to increase its grant. I am satisfied that the granting of these $20,000 would give better results if they were distributed in the way I have just suggested, rather than in the manner implied in section 4. I make that proposal in good faith,

and I hope hon. gentleman will take kindly to it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I rise for the purpose of supporting the remarks made by my hon. friend from Vaudreuil (Mr. Boyer). He has |ust stated that there are only two important veterinary colleges in Canada, one in Toronto and one in Montreal. He suggests that the minister should divide the money to be devoted to veterinary education, not in proportion to the number of pupils attending these colleges, but rather in proportion to the preparations that are being made for scientific laboratory work in each school. My hon. friend says that undoubtedly the number of pupils attending the school in Toronto is much larger than the number attending the school in Montreal. The reason is that the Toronto college is the only English school for the whole Dominion while the Montreal college is the only French school. In that case the number of pupils in Toronto would be much larger, but as my hon. friend from Vaudreuil has pointed out, the scientific preparation for the teaching of pathology, histology and physiology would be about the same in each of the colleges. The expenditure to be incurred by each college is about the same in that respect, not taking into consideration the number of students.


John Wesley Edwards: How does the attendance of students compare in each college?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not in a position
to say. The suggestion of my hon. friend from Vaudreuil is, that out of the $20,000 that is to be applied to veterinary education, $5,000 should be devoted to each of these colleges, and then the balanoe distributed according to the number of pupils. That is a fair suggestion.


Martin Burrell: The hon. member for Vaudreuil will pardon me if I do not answer in French. As I have already explained, one of our reasons for putting in this grant for veterinary colleges is that the Dominion veterinary service has taken over charge of the health of animals in the whole Dominion, and we necessarily have to draw our officials from the veterinary institutions established in some of the provinces. It seems eminently fair that some grant should be given to strengthen the institutions from which we are getting officials to operate our service all over the country. After a great deal of consideration it was thought proper that tfie basis of division should be on the enrollment of the pupils in these various colleges. There are only two veterinary colleges in Canada which granit degrees, the Ontario Veterinary College, which has just celebrated its jubilee, and Laval University. I have
not the figures for Laval, but I know the attendance is not very large.


Gustave Benjamin Boyer: I think fifty-five.


Martin Burrell: Last year the province of Ontario sent eighty-nine students to the Ontario Veterinary School, the other provinces sent eighty-three students, the United States sent eighty-four students, and other countries twelve students. The attendance of the United States students has gradually been growing less as their own institutions have strengthened, and it is a source of gratification to every Canadian to know that in the Ontario Veterinary College we have an institution which is acknowledged by British educationalists to be better in the way of veterinary science than anything they have in Great Britain.


John Wesley Edwards: Can you give the number of students who attended from each of the provinces?


Martin Burrell: I have not that information.


Mr. WILCOX:: Can the minister say
what percentage of the students are from the cities and what from the country districts?


Martin Burrell: I cannot give these
details, but I shall endeavour to get them. Some basis of division of the grant had to be arrived at and considering all the circumstances we thought it only fair to make the division on the basis of the number of pupils. I would point out to my hon. friends from Vaudreuil (Mr. Boyer) and Beauce (Mr. Beland) that in any province where there is a degree-granting veterinary college there is no reason in the world why some of the money that is given the province under the general grant should not, by agreement between ourselves and that province, be devoted to improving the provincial institution. In that way, the chances are that the idea advanced by my hon. friend from Vaudreuil may be met. If Quebec lays stress on the value of the work done in the Laval Veterinary College, then, speaking for the Government, I see no objection at all to the province of Quebec, out of the large grant it will get under this subsidy, devoting an additional sum of money, over and above its share of the subsidy towards strengthening that institution.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On the whole, is the
Minister of Agriculture satisfied with the use made by the province of Quebec last year of the amount allotted to it for agricultural purposes?


Martin Burrell: Palpably this would not be the proper time now to go into a critical discussion of the details of the expenditure



in the various provinces, but I will say that while certain provinces may not have expended the money in accordance with the wishes of some people, I have no doubt whatever that this money must eventually benefit, and has already benefited, agriculture.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is the sum of $20,000
On section 6-officers and salaries:


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do I understand that
this expenditure would require a special vote? What is the use of this?
Mr. BURRELL; That will be a special vote put in the estimates, and my hon. friend will have an opportunity to discuss it.
given to each province without any condition imposed?


Martin Burrell: The money will have to be expended of course in accordance with the provisions of clause 5. While the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec may in a sense suffer some diminution under the general, grant by reason of their comparatively large population, yet I think every member of the House agrees that it is desirable to give this additional help to-the smaller provinces.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I see the point there.


Mr. KYTE:: In a province where there is no veterinary college, for example in Nova Scotia, what disposition will be made of the money appropriated for veterinary education?	[DOT]


Martin Burrell: In that case the province would get nothing so far as that $20,000 goes. The design of this grant is to help these institutions from which we are drawing our officers who have charge of the health of animals throughout the Dominion.


Hugh Clark: Has there been any communication with any of the governments with a view to this agreement that has been spoken of?


Martin Burrell: Such discussions as
have taken place between the governments and our own representatives or myself have been of a very informal character, because we could not proceed very much before the Bill was through the House.


Frank Oliver: I desire to move to strike out section 5. This section is the one which provides for the adjustment between the Governor in Council and the governments of the provinces for the expenditure of this money. It was because of section 5 that I asked for the amendment of section 3. Now that the amendment of section 3 which would bring the consideration of any arrangements that were made or proposed between the Government of the Dominion and of the provinces under the review of Parliament has been negatived, I am desirous of following the principle to its logical conclusion and moving to strike out section 5, inasmuch as it provides for control by the Governor in Council, which is not subject to the control of Parliament.
Amendment negatived.


George William Kyte: Does the minister say that
the officers he intends to appoint for the expenditure of this will be separate and apart from the Department of Agriculture officers?


Martin Burrell: This was designed for
the purpose of giving us power to appoint such officers as are necessary to the administration of this law. For, as the hon. gentleman knows, it is a comprehensive Act, requiring very careful consideration, and also, as the hon. member for Edmonton says, a reasonable control, and it may be necessary, in exercising that reasonable control, to have some assistance which will be provided for out of the special vote and accounted for to Parliament. That amount will go in the estimates.


Jacques Bureau: These officers are spoken of here as making inspection and report. Is it the intention to have these inspectors go around the various provinces and examine into conditions, the money to be spent on the report of such inspection? Or is the minister to have the inspectors go round after the money has been expended to see that it has been expended as agreed upon? What will be the duties of these inspectors?


Martin Burrell: The whole thing is
largely in the experimental stage. iWe may find it necessary to appoint officers to go round and do the first thing the hon. gentleman has spoken of, and also to have them do the second, that is to see that the work is properly done to satisfy Parliament, and lay information before Parliament. It was simply to provide powers, and I can assure hon. members that there will be full explanation of any money expended, apd Parliament will not lack any detail, as to this expenditure, and the fullest criticism will be invited.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that these
officers will be technical men.


Martin Burrell: To some extent. At the same time, we would want some clerical assistance also. If we are going to lay these reports before Parliament, that will involve very considerable work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the minister propose to enlarge the departmental staff and the inside service by these appointments?


Martin Burrell: No, that is not our idea in this Bill.
Mr. BURRELL.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will not the appointments come under the Civil Service Act? Is there any good reason why they should not come under that Act in the ordinary way?


Martin Burrell: We have considered that matter and have concluded that it was better at the present to leave it as it was, to be guided by circumstances as to what officers and expenditures we needed, and not have them under the Civil Service Act.


Frank Oliver: Is the amount of money
contemplated by this clause contained in the present estimates?


Martin Burrell: No.


Frank Oliver: It will be in the supplementary estimates?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend may take what I say now as notice that he will be asked to give some outline of his proposal for the coming year under this Bill when he brings these supplementary estimates before the House.


Martin Burrell: I quite appreciate that.
On section 7-regulations; yearly expenditure :	_


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. member for
North Perth (Mr. Morphy) pointed out that we, on this side, are not united in our comments on this Bill. I agree with him; and that shows that we are not blocking the Bill as he tries to insinuate-at the same time taking up more time than any of us in his remarks. I desire to refer to one thing the hon. gentleman said-that this Bill was intended to assist the deserving classes. That savours of pauperism, of those receiving charity benefits. I think the farmers in my riding will resent being called ' the deserving classes.' Now, this section contains the duplication of which I spoke. Under section 5 you make all the necessary arrangements in my judgment, for unison between the minister here and the provinces. Under that section the minister and the provinces must agree as to how this money is to be expended. But under this section 7, you repeat what is in section 5:
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as are deemed advisable for giving effect to the objects of this Act.
And then you go on to say that under certain circumstances the minister can expend the money. This is what I objected to, and it is the reason why I should like t,o see section 7 struck out. Under section 5, you take the right to agree with the provinces as to how the money shall be expended, and then under section 7 you seem to withdraw that providing that under certain conditions the Government should have the right to expend the money throughout the provinces. Either the provinces have the necessary knowledge for the expending of the money,
or you have; it is one or the other. If this section was before a committee, I am satisfied they would strike it out.


Martin Burrell: The hon. gentleman assumes that either I have the knowledge or the provinces have the knowledge, one or the other, but I would not like to assume that I have as much wisdom as my hon. friend appears to think I have. I may frankly admit that it is not our desire that this money shall be spent by us; the general principle of the Bill is that the money is designed to be spent by the provinces,, along certain lines. In a scheme so large and comprehensive and comparatively new as that of strengthening and developing a system of agricultural education, whether by the appointment of itinerary lecturers, the strengthening of agricultural educational machinery in the different provinces, the establishing of colleges, or anything of the kind, we are prepared,- if any province, however' large or however small it may be, claiips that it has not the necessary machinery and prefers that we should undertake the work, cordially giving us its consent- and certainly no steps can be taken without the consent of the provincial government. because that is embodied in this clause-then I think that we would be derelict in our duty if we did not give that assistance and help the province in every possible way.


Jacques Bureau: Section 7 says:
Notwithstanding * anything in this Act, the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council and with the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of any province and upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed by the Governor in Council, may expend in any such province in any year the whole or any part of the grant provided for such province under this Act for the pux

poses set forth in the preamble of this Act.
This Act provides that $10,000,000 shall be expended in ten years, and it apportions for the first, second and subsequent years an amount to be expended in each year. So much will be given for the encouragement of veterinary colleges, $20,000 will be given yearly to each province, and the remainder of the appropriation will be allotted in proportion to population. Does that mean that the minister or the Governor in Council, by agreement with one of the provinces, may spend or pay out in advance the whole amount which in the ten years would accrue to that province?


Martin Burrell: This section was gone
over with extreme care by the Justice Department, and, as I understand it, the money voted for any one year, or any amount that might not have been spent in previous years, might be expended by this Government with the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. As I said just

now, it is not thought-nor do I think there is much likelihood of this being the ease - that we shall have to spend such money, but it was thought wise to put in this provision for fear any province might not want to do it. There is no certain possibility under that clause of cur spending in advance the whole sum; we will spend only the sum laid down in the statute for that year.


Jacques Bureau: There is a stated amount appropriated for each province, payable yearly. In clause 7 I find the words ' notwithstanding anything in this Act.' I suppose that means the minister or the Governor in Council may take such action as they like, notwithstanding any provision to the effect that this amount shall be paid yearly. Does the minister interpret) this clause as meaning that, if a province should desire to establish an agricultural school, or something of the kind, he would be authorized to advance to that province $60,000, or an amount covering a period of three years?


Martin Burrell: No.


Frank Oliver: From the explanations
given by the hon. minister it would seem to me that this section is not necessary ' There is no reasonable probability that any province will refuse to accept on reasonable terms and conditions, the money given to it under the provisions of this Bill. The only purpose of this section is that in case the province should not accept the money appropriated by the Bill on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Government, an arrangement could be made whereby this Government would expend the money. That, it seems to me, is an absolute redundancy; there is no reason for making any such provision, and, as it involves a principle that, to my mind, is objectionable, I would move that the section be struck out.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The introduction of such clauses in Bills of this nature is objectionable as a matter of principle. The hon. minister proposes to spend a large portion of this money on education. I care not what kind of education it is, but, under the constitution, education is committed exclusively to the provinces, except in exceptional cases with which it is not desirable that tiiis House should deal. Why does my hon. friend want to hold out bribes to the provinces, small or large as they may be, in order to trespass upon the field of their constitutional rights? The Governors in Council take power to expend the whole or any part of the grant provided for any province under this Bill, if they can get the consent of a local government so to do. The result will be that under the provisions of this measure the hon. Minister Mr. BURRELL.
of Agriculture will set up an educational system in this country which will be under the control of the federal Parliament. He is trespassing on a very dangerous domain and a domain which it i3 absolutely against the whole interest of Canada that he should enter. I do not know whether my hon. friend has thought over that phase of the question but it seems to me it is a very serious one. He comes before this House with a policy which he announces as definite, well considered -and well thought out. That is contained in the previous clauses of the Bill. This is another measure similar to that of the Minister of Railways in regard to roads. Of course the Minister of Agriculture has put in the Bill a basis upon which the grants to be expended in the provinces by'the provincial governments are to be apportioned. He has gone further in that respect than the Minister of Railways. But why this Parliament should want to engage in educational matters in direct contradiction to the policy of the British North America Act is more than I can see. I wish to go on record as objecting to the persistent attempts to trespass on the domain of the provincial legislatures within their express right and where they have exclusive rights, by any such proposals as are in this Bill.
Amendment negatived.
On section 8-annual reports to Parliament :


Frank Oliver: When the report has been presented to Parliament, wall it form a subject of discussion by Parliament?


Martin Burrell: Certainly, I think the
Government would absolutely welcome discussion; and any report presented in that way would certainly be a subject of discussion if any hon. gentleman desired to discuss it.


Jacques Bureau: Was the oije-half million dollars appropriated under the Act of last year used?


Martin Burrell: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would be very glad
if the hon. gentleman would tell what was done in Ontario under it.


Frank Oliver: I would suggest that the minister should, if possible, bring down a report that could be laid on the table giving generally what was done. It would be very informing to the House.


Martin Burrell: Certainly, I shall be
glad to do that.


Angus Alexander McLean: If I may be pardoned,
has the Veterinary Director General been in Nova Scotia and if so what has he been doing there?


Martin Burrell: He is now in Ottawa
but he was in Halifax some time ago because some question of the tuberculin issued by our department came up and I deemed it advisable to have him go down and explain the matter.


Angus Alexander McLean: Who made the request?


Martin Burrell: I could not say that.
There was quite an extensive correspondence, in the last two or three weeks and I could not say exactly who made the request.
Bill reported.



IMPROVEMENT OF HIGHWAYS.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the proposed motion of Air. Cochrane for the second reading of Bill No. 32, to encourage and assist the Improvement of Highways, and the proposed amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, thereto, resumed from April 21.
Gustave Benjamin Boyer: (Translation.) Air. Speaker, following on the example of hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this Bill, it is not the principle itself of the Bill which I now wish to criticise, but only the way it is proposed to enforce it.
The scheme set on foot by the Government towards assisting in a certain measure the work carried on for the improvement of highways in this country, is, no doubt, unanimously approved by progressive people; but the Opposition should not be refused the right to amend that proposal in such a way as to render it prac^ tical and helpful for the inhabitants of the various provinces of Confederation.
I am an advocate of the improvement of highways; I have of late years greatly exerted myself to satisfy the electors of "Vaudreuil as to the desirability of carrying on this work, not only on account of the better accommodation thus obtained in the matter of travel, but more particularly on account of the great impetus which good roads must necessarily give to agricultural progress in general. When the manuafcturer finds that the inventor has placed at his disposal a more efficient and at the same time a more economical machine than the one he has heretofore been using in his shop, he speedily adopts it in place of the old. It means an economy of time, of labour and of money. The farmer will find it just as beneficial to himself to have at his disposal good roads over which he may reach at any season of the year the railway stations and calling points of boats, that is to say the great markets or outlets for his products.
The people of my constituency have so well realized the fact, that in the course of this season macadamized roads are to be built within the limits of six municipalities. The parishes of File Perrot, Vaudreuil, Rigaud (town and parish), Pointe Fortune-besides Como, which has built a highway at its own expense-have at the present time entered into negotiations with the Provincial Government for the purpose of borrowing a total amount nearing on four hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Other municipalities will soon follow suit, and before five years are over, we will have a<t the lowest one hundred miles of macadamized road.
What I now say, Air. Speaker, is not intended to find fault with the Bill of the bon. Alinister Of Railways. On the .contrary, I approve highly of the proposal; but I find, on the other hand, that it should not be spoilt by leaving it in its present form. I may very well approve of the intention of the Government which make for the building of good .roads; but while approving of that purpose, it seems to me that I may at the same time take exception to the Government's proposal to assume direct control over the funds fhus voted by this Parliament.
If the question was a new one, and if the provinces had not previously done some work in that line, the powers which this enactment grants to this Government might be less objectionable; but the same stand cannot be taken to-day when each of the provinces actively concerns^ itself with building its own roads according to its own particular methods. And even were the Government inspired by the purest motives, its interference would unavoidably be a source of friction.
Some honourable members on the other side fear lest the Government should abuse of this Bill, if it is to be adopted in its present shape; they fear lest this money should be a means for promoting Tory party ends and that, as a result, it may be twisted from its main object.
Though I have no idea of criticising the Bill from this point of view, I may be allowed to say that I believe such a result to be possible. I have reason to believe that the statements made by honourable members are within the range of possibility, if I am to judge by the facts which have come under my notice, in the course of the provincial election during the month of April, 1912, in my own constituency.
The facts which I am about to state have occurred under the operation of the Act which we are discussing just now, an Act which had even then been once already considered by the Senate.
We were then in the midst of a provincial election. No doubt it will be no news to you, Mr. Speaker, if I say that the principal subject of discussion in the course of that electoral campaign was that of good roads. Surely that policy seemed to have the approval of the people, and its principle was gaining daily in popularity Our

opponents, that is to-day your political allies, Mr. Speaker, thought fit, in order to stem that current and check the advance of the Government .forces in the province of Quebec, to announce to the people the scheme launched out by the Government of free roads to the people: a highway was to connect Vaudreuil to Point Fortune, the two extreme points of the county of Vaudreuil, thence to continue straight through to Ottawa. Statements to that effect were being given out to inhabitants of municipalities which the future Montreail-Ottawa route was destined to go through. You may object; but those were mere promises, election talk, what connection can- that have with the Act now before this House? It has a great deal to do with it, especially when I tell you that Mr. Monk, then minister of Public Works had sent a letter to Dr Montpetit, one of the most eloquent supporters of the Conservative candidate, stating that the Federal Government intended to have the proposed highway Montreal and Ottawa built through the county of Vaudreuil, and mot through that of Two Mountains. That letter was read on every husting, in every parish to be found along the projected location of this highway.
Now, I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, if even previous to the carrying of that Bill, the intention was mot to include this among the favours which the Dominion Qovern-ment intends to distribute? It is unfairly, to my mind, that the Opposition is blamed for entertaining groundless fears as to the Government's intention to work that system for the furtherance of its own interest On the contrary, I find that criticism well grounded, since its result would be to render the Government and its followers immune to the temptation of committing such mistakes.
Yesterday the honourable member for Chambly-Verchbres (Mr. Rainville), connected the hon. Mr. Caron, Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Quebec, with this discussion. He read to us a letter addressed by some electors of the county of L'Islet "to the honourable gentleman representing that county in this House, and that for the purpose of showing that the honourable Minister of Agriculture for the province had endeavoured to make political capital out of it, in the course of a public meeting held in a parish of that county. The offence committed by the honourable Mr. Caron, according to the honourable member for Chambly, consisted in boasting before his electors of the importance of the grants to agriculture bestowed on their societies, syndicates and clubs through the Provincial Exchequer; and what he considers a still more grievous charge, is stating to those .sarnie people that the hon. Minister of Agriculture of the Dominion Government had placed in him Mr. BOYER.
great confidence, since he had entrusted to him the distribution of the moneys which that government, under its present legislation, proposes to grant to the province. It is unfortunate that the honourable member for Chambly-Vercheres should engross on an incident, or rather on a statement of Mr. Caron which had no other motive but to spread a knowledge of what his government was doing in the interest of the farming community. Besides, is there a single member in this House who allows an opportunity to go by without stating before his constituents the good work he has done on their behalf?


Mr. PAQUET:: (Translation.) If the honourable gentlemen will allow, I may say that Mr. Caron declared in my presence, and declared at several meetings, that he would do nothing for the county of L'Islet where he was unable to secure a majority. I may add that I have in my possession a letter in which he states that he will grant no favours to the electors of that constituency whose names are not on the patronage list.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: (Translation.) Mr. Caron never said such a thing.


Gustave Benjamin Boyer: (Translation.) I may point out to the honourable member for L'Islet that I am in no way concerned with the alleged statements which he says were made at some other time and in some other place; I am concerned merely with the contents of the letter quoted by the honourable member for Chambly-Vercheres.
That letter insinuates that the moneys destined to agriculture by the Dominion Government were handed over to Mr. Caron and not to the member for L'Islet to be distributed in the constituency, and that Mr. Caron is supposed to have taken occasion of that to make some political capital while distributing the funds among some of his followers. That letter, signed by several electors of L'Islet, requests the member for I.'Islet to state those facts to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) so that in future these moneys may be handed over to him, the member for L'Islet, for the purpose of distributing them to the various localities in his constituency.
That insinuation is preposterous, considering moreover that the hon. Mr. Caron canno't distribute the moneys either of the Dominion or of the Provincial Government in any county in that province without those moneys having previously been provided for under Acts and Regulations of the Departments of Agriculture. There is not one member of standing who would dare deny it. Mr. Caron is the executor of laws relating to agriculture, but is not allowed to go beyond the privileges granted by such laws, not even as a means of assisting his own constituents. The honourable

member for Chambly and Vercheres wishes to justify his attitude in the present instance by charging the Opposition with the very tactics which the latter point to as warranting the amendment of the Bill now under consideration, in such a way that each province should receive, in proportion to its population, part of the moneys which Parliament will appropriate each year to assist in the building of good roads. The honourable member quoted an extract from that letter stating what has been going on in the county of L'Islet, for the purpose of showing that the Opposition is wrong in charging the Administration with entertaining similar views.


Mr. RAINVILLE:: (Translation.) If the hon. member will be kind enough to read the speech which I delivered, he will find that I merely used it to contradict the views of those who contend that we should not retain control over the distribution of those funds, because we might take occasion of it to further our party ends. What has occurred in L'Islet shows that the friends of the Opposition are not above suspicion. I charge no one with making political capital, but that letter shows that _we are justified in retaining such distribution under our control.


Gustave Benjamin Boyer: (Translation.) The hon.
member persists in saying that the hon, Mr. Caron endeavoured to make political capital some way or other in connection with the Act now under consideration. I shall not revert to what I'said at the outset in regard to the incorrectness of his statements concerning Mr. Caron; I shall be content with reading in a few minutes the letter signed by the interested constituents and political friends of the honourable member for L'Islet.
But to begin with I shall point out another instance when this Bill, should it remain in its present shape, may become a means of catching votes-besides presenting other inconveniences to which I shall refer later on,-in the hands of the Government, whoever it is happens to control it.
Sonne little time ago, on April 8, last, I think, a most important delegation representing the cities of Toronto and Montreal, sixty boards of trade and even more, and numerous city and town municipalities, in short made uu of very prominent people, interviewed the hon. Minister of Public Works and requested the building of a bridge between Ste. Anne de Bellevue and Pile Perrot. That building, Mr. Speaker, would be a most desirable improvement, and the Government should not hesitate in putting in the estimates the requisite amount to ensure the carrying out of that work, considering that millions and millions are appropriated for less urgent purposes.	,
Until late years, the parishes surrounding Montreal were capable of providing all the food products, milk, vegetables, etc., required by the inhabitants of that city; but is now growing at a tremendous rate; even the territory comprised within the city limit now extends over the neighbouring country places, and farm lands to-day are divided into building lots. The parishes of St. Laurent, Longue Pointe, St. Leonard, etc., comprise only a few farmers; most of them having sold out at fabulous prices. Within a short time, the counties of Vaudreuil, Soulanges, Glengarry and Prescott will be the purveyors of the metropolis; the counties of Vaudreuil and Soulanges will be converted into kitchen gardens for the benefit of Montreal. Please note, Mr. Speaker, that just now I am considering the building of that bridge from the point of view of the economic interests of the farming class inhabiting that territory; hut there still remains other viewpoints on which I do not propose to insist; that, for example, of establishing highways between Montreal and Toronto for automobiles and other means of conveyance. But, just now, I am referring to the farmer only When the delegation, through its officers, had stated the facts to the hon. Minister of Public Works, the latter answered mainly as follows: The Government would feel disposed to build that bridge, but before we do so, apply to the Senate, interview the Senators and request them not to block our legislation in reference to good roads. That answer of the honourable minister was that of a politician evidently anxious to take advantage of circumstances. However, I will acknowledge that his intentions are a great deal more conforting than his statements; and that when the time comes he will grant the request of those who have applied to him on such good grounds for the building of that bridge. The honourable minister, on that day, had a diplomatic aim in view, as the good road legislation, which we are discussing just now, has no connection with his department, being under the immediate control of the Department of Railways. The Department of Public Works is entrusted with th6 duty of supervising the construction of public buildings, wharfs, dredging work and other important works; and the hon. Minister of Public Works knew perfectly well that he could not justify his refusal to act by pointing out to the stand taken by the Senate. I was present when that delegation interviewed the minister, and I understood, I repeat it, that the intentions of the honourable minister are away ahead of what he gave that delegation to understand. He has the required authority to place to-morrow, if he so wishes, in the .estimates, the amount required for the building of that bridge, and I have the assurance that he will do so, not only

to meet the wishes of the delegation, but to answer an urgent demand. However, I shall call the attention of the House to the fact, in order to show what advantage may be taken at times of that roads legislation, if we leave to the Government the entire control over the distribution of moneys to be spent under it. The Opposition is in this case advocating a principle, and should not denart from it.
Moreover, this legislation is deficient in a certain respect which may bring about far-reaching results. It does not state that the Government will each year appropriate a fixed amount for the carrying out of its object; but rather that the moneys which Parliament might vote will be so applied; now, those amounts may vary from session to session and the more important they are, the greater will be the dangers implied in the working of the Bill and the more difficult will it be to properly distribute the moneys between the provinces.
Now, before proceeding any further, I shall quote the letter which the honourable member for Chambly Vercheres has himself read in this House, to show once more that his arguments cannot have any force as against those I have brought forward. And another consideration, which induces me to quote the very words of that letter, is my wish to put the hon. Mr. Caron, that distinguished minister of agriculture for the Province of Quebec, in favourable light. I repeat it, it was neither the proper place nor the proper time for the representative of Chambly and Vercheres to cast aspersions on that honourable gentleman, (Mr. Caron), whose reputation as a worker is constantly growing. His talents are indisputable, and the energy which he displays in the 'service of the great- cause of agriculture are acknowledged and appreciated by the great majority of the electors of the Province of Quebec. That letter is signed by a dozen or so of electors of the county of L'Islet, out-and-out supporters of the honourable gentleman who represents that county in this House; but it is just possible that the man who is responsible for its wording is not to be found among those who signed it.
*January 14, 1913.
St. Roch des Aulnaies,
County of L'Islet, Que., To Dr. Paquet, member for L'Islet:
My dear sir,-We, electors and residents of the parish of St. Roch des Aulnaies, county of L'Islet, certify herewith that we were present at the meeting and that we heard the speech delivered by the Hon. Joseph Edouard Caron, just now Minister of Agriculture in the Quebec local Government, on September 24 last. In the course of that speech Mr. Caron boasted of the importance of his duties, of the great assistance and money favours which he procured to the electors and residents of St. Roch des Aulnaies, Ste. Louise, and other neighbouring parishes, for the benefit of the agricultural community and farmers gene-Mr. BOYER.
rally. We certify besides that he has so arranged his speech as to cause the electors to believe that the money voted for agricultural purposes was due in the first place to the generosity of the Quebec Government, and particularly to the generous initiative and the kindly assistance, as also to the great confidence which the Hon. Martin Burrell, Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, had shown in him, and not in our member, Dr. Paquet.
That statement, Mr. Speaker, is entirely false; for, after all, what could the Dominion Minister of Agriculture have in his power to grant to the Provincial Minister of Agriculture of Quebec? The Dominion Minister of Agriculture cannot appropriate any special amount either for the county of L'Islet, or the county of Vaudreuil, or any other county in the Dominion.
It is quite possible, and even quite in harmony with the fitness of things, that the hon. Mr. Caron should, at a given moment, before his electors, point out what his government had done for his constituency in the shape of appropriations provided under the law; nobody will complain of that. But that he should have made the statements which are attributed to him in this letter, I do not hesitate in stating that it is false.
I proceed and now reach that part of the document which is the most laughable. Please be attentive, Mr. Speaker. This imaginary crime is made a subject of reproof against the hon. Mr. Caron; but even under the supposition that such a charge had some foundation in fact, it should be observed that what is requested is not a change of method, but merely a change of those who benefit by it. Let us see:
Accordingly, Sir, we energetically protest against that unfair speech which is likely to interfere with your influence and your popularity in the county of L'Islet to the advantage of the Liberal party.
We have, moreover, -the honour to recommend that you should forward this petition to the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Martin Burrell, with a request that he should look into it, and exert his influence over Mr. Borden to obtain, in future, the amount appropriated for the benefit of agriculture in the county of L'Islet, by the Conservative government of Ottawa, should be handed over to Dr. Paquet, our member, with instructions to distribute that amount equitably between the electors, these monies having been heretofore distributed between a few friends of the Hon. Mr. Caron. Considering the deep interest taken in agricultural matters by the present minister, the Hon. Martin Burrell, we hope that our petition will be taken under consideration and will be granted if possible.
We are, gentlemen,
Your obedient servants,
(Signed)
Such i.s, Mr. Speaker, the happy thought emanating, no -doubt, from the honourable member -for l'lslet, over the signature of hia zealous friends. How absurd and what a

pity that there should still be found sensible people to sign their names to suich a document. The cynical feature of this letter is just this:	The hon. member for 1'Islet is
requested to submit his petition to the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) so that henceforth the latter shall hand over to him the amounts which he was supposed to have handed over previously to Mr. Caron; as in that way he will be in a position to distribute them among his own friends. That is a fine standard of ethics, in accord with the mental range of the hon. gentleman representing that constituency in this House. Such are the arguments which are being resorted to by those who take exception to the Opposition's criticism of the working of this Act. I think I have said enough in this connection, and I shall now wind up by referring to the working of the good roads legislation in the province of Quebec, an Act Which was adopted in 1912, by the provincial legislature. That legislation even now gives admirable results, and we should see to it that it does not be interfered with by outside powers, such as the Dominion Government. That legislation was at the outset looked upon with suspicion, I admit it, and its working in the first place was a cause of a great deal of friction between the provincial roads department and the municipalities. But gradually the original idea took shape, and it is working more smoothly from day to day. At every turn it causes people to co-operate with one another towards the improvement of highways in our counties. Education is gradually spreading. That legislation cannot be perfect, but it will tend in that direction owing to the experience which is being constantly gained. The provincial government takes every precaution so that the moneys advanced to municipalities be usefully expended. Now, every municipality which is anxious to benefit by the law forwards its application, and the Government sends an engineer who surveys the road to be macadamized. He considers the nature and level of the land and then submits a report showing that the building of that road will require a certain outlay. The municipalities are then bound to pass by-laws providing for the loan of the required amount, and the work is carried on after the plans supplied by the engineer of roads and earned out under his supervision. It is not the municipality which decides what amount will be needed; but it is the department; and once it has that amount at its disposal the only obligation it assumes is to pay two per cent of interest. Every year the Government appropriates for municipalities that amount only which they are capable of spending in the course
of the year, and interest is charged only on the amount thus expended.
I am pointing out these facts, Mr. Speaker, to show how the moneys appropriated by the Dominion Government would be in safe hands when handed over to the Provincial Government. Now, in this debate, apart from the weighty reasons suggested by the Opposition in support of its contention that the grants should be attributed to each province in proportion to its population, instead of being expended direct by the Dominion Government, attention has been drawn to the fact of party bias, and surely that is one of the worst features of the Bill. Now, under the working of the good roads legislation in the province of Quebec, there is no favouritism possible. It is not through political heelers that the municipalities may obtain the grants, but through their own _ initiative. I could name several municipal councils, comprising a majority of Conservatives, which have asked for and obtained grants for their roads. The Government does not inquire whether the mayor and his councillors are Liberals or Conservatives; but it is the people who make their will known through their councils. All that a member can do in this connection is, at times, to expedite negotiations. So that the law is the same for everybody; it is one of fair-play, it cannot give anything else but good results; if I refer more particularly to the legislation of Quebec, it is because I am more familiar with its working than with that of other provinces. But, what I am in a position to state in regard to the good roads legislation, which we enjoy, is this: We should not endanger its good working by encouraging outside interference, a possible source of friction. Thus, let us suppose a municipality in which the Dominion Government would decide to build a public highway at its own cost, what would happen? Along that high-way, the people, in consequence, would not be called upon to disburse anything; and if later on the remainder of the parish were anxious to macadamize other roads, the municipal council would be under the necessity of borrowing the required amount for "that purpose, and the interest under the amended municipal legislation could be assessed only against those benefiting by the work. Accordingly the residents in that part of the parish would have to pay interest on loans, while the remainder would not be subject to the same obligation. Do you not think that under such circumstances, instead of forwarding the general movement, the Government would be interfering seriously with the work and even endangering its ultimate success? I say that instead of interfering in that way

with the uniform working of the provincial enactment, the Government would be acting more wisely by granting^ each year a certain amount to the Provincial Government, which said amount would be distributed between the municipalities to assist them in meeting their own interest charges. It would be the maintenance of uniformity, it would be assisting materially this movement as a whole. I am not opposed to the building of systems of routes, provided it is not detrimental to the parishes as a whole.
I cannot very well understand why the Government shows such obstinacy in refusing to accept every amendment brought forward by the Opposition. The hon. Minister of	Railways stated in the
course of this debate on several occasions that	it was	his intention
to distribute the moneys voted by Parliament between the various provinces in proportion to their population. Now, since it is the intention of the Government voiced by a minister of the Crown, to effect that distribution, why is it not stated in the Bill? That legislation is intended to last; such an enactment would be an unquestionable safeguard for this Government and those which will follow. This is the right time to set down the main features.
In resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, 1 may state once more that it is not with the intention of finding fault that I have addressed the House; for I am an ardent advocate of good roads, and I hold that feeling from my constituents, and I believe I have given sufficient evidence of it ' at the beginning of my speech, by pointing out the admirable enterprise shown by them at this juncture. I repeat it once more, I approve the Governmnt for the good sense shown by its desire to. forward the improvement of highways. That is not the idea I find fault with; I approve of it; but it is the mode of working which I deem dangerous; and it is to prevent the Government from committing such a mistake that the Opposition protests in the way it does. However, the Government has shown good will in introducing this Bill just now, and why should it not be magnanimous enough to make of it a fair piece of legislation, to the point of accepting the amendment suggested by us. It would be such an easy matter for the Government.
At any rate, the Opposition has fulfilled its duty, and if the Government does not think it proper to accept its suggestion, there may be on its way some higher authority to impart to that legislation its full measure of efficiency.
Mr. 0. TURGEON (Gloucester): I wish to say a few words in order to justify the position which I took last session in regard Mr, BOYER.
to the Highways Bill. I do not object to the improvement of the highways, but I do object, as I did last year, to the manner in whicn it is proposed to spend the money for that purpose. We all realize the necessity of improving the highways, and we all know that the provinces have been clamouring for years for larger subsidies to enable them to improve them, and in my opinion it is only by giving larger subsidies that we will satisfy the local governments and the people in the various provinces throughout the Dominion. I do not take the position which was suggested by the hon. member for Chambly-Ver-cheres (Mr. Rainville) last week, that we should trust each other. If there is one gentleman on the other side that I would be willing to trust in this matter it would be my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, but it is not a matter of trusting each other, it is a matter of respecting the constitutional rights of the provinces which in my opinion are encroached upon by this measure, in respect to the manner in which the Government intend to spend the money.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The surprising thing is
to find the hon. member for Ohambly-Ver-cheres trusting the Government.


Mr. TURGEON:: If I am well informed, he did not trust them very far at the time of the election, but like some of his colleagues in Quebec he prefers to adhere to the Government rather than to principles. But I shall be very much mistaken if the people of Quebec do not prefer to stick to principles. I understand that a certain member of the New Brunswick government on leaving the city of Ottawa recently, was heard to declare that we were nearing an election and that with the power and patronage which would be in the hands of the Government members in the province of Quebec, they would sweep that province. But I have been led to believe that if there is one province in the Dominion in which the people vote on principle, it is the province of Quebec. However, I have been diverted from my intention, which was to say a few words as to the manner of expending the moneys as proposed in this Bill. The Minister of Railways has stated that in compliance with clause 6 of the Bill it will be necessary to secure the consent of the Prime Ministers or legislatures of the different provinces. In my opinion the Minister of Railways and the federal Government have no right to seek the consent of the premiers or legislatures of the provinces to spend moneys on highways in the provinces. The constitution is very cldar on that point. The highways are entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and the provincial legislatures ar*. the

trustees of the rights of the provinces. They have no right to give those rights away to the federal Government, any more than the federal Government has the right to approach a weaker body and say:	We have a large sum of money for
you and you must comply with such and such a request. Governments in the provinces will change just as federal governments will change, and when a strong body like the federal Government with millions of dollars at its disposal approaches the provinces, and says: I want to spend half a million dollars or one million dollars on your behalf, provided you agree upon the manner in which the money will be expended, the legislatures of the provinces, who are the trustees of provincial rights, have no right to agree to such a proposition. In the excitement of an ejection, a great many people foTget that the provinces have rights as well as the Dominion, and they may blame the provincial government for not accepting the money offered by the federal Government though in doing so it is standing for provincial rights. Therefore I say there is an immoral sense in this Bill to which I object, and that immoral sense is taken away by the amendment proposed by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, who provides that the money shall be spent entirely under the control of the legislatures, whether Conservative or Liberal. I am not speaking for my own province. The local government in New Brunswick is Conservative. If the Minister of Marine and Fisheries were here, I would recall to his mind that on two occasions he spent large sums of money upon bridges and highways in my county, and I am sure his successor will not do better than he did. I am speaking from the point of view of the rights of the provinces. If we begin to decrease the rights of the provinces, the disintegration of the provinces will soon come. We must respect the rights of the provinces just as much as federal rights. I claim that the suggestion made last year by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) should have been adopted. That hon. member suggested the calling of a conference of the provinces during the year, to enable them to adjust their respective claims. We want money in New Brunswick as well as in the other maritime provinces not only for the improvement of highways, but for public education and for other purposes which are just as interesting to the people as the improvement of highways, important as that is. If the conference which was sug-gested_ by the hon. member for St. John had taken place during the last recess, the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would have been in a position to receive money not only for the improvement of their highways but for education, agriculture and other purposes. Therefore I say that the procrastination of the Government in refusing to agree to a conference last year has deprived the maritime provinces of the compensation to which they are entitled. As I pointed out last year, the maritime provinces have contributed to the extension of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and they should benefit accordingly. The province of New Brunswick should receive large sums of money from the federal Government, not only for the improvement of highways but for other purposes. It w&s said by hon. members on the other side of the House last week that it was necessary that the federal Government should keep control of this money, because some of the provincial governments would not spend it properly. If a provincial government does not spend rightfully the money that is given to it by the federal Government, that Government is responsible to the people of the province who will look after that expenditure. Therefore there is no ground for such an argument. In harmony with the proposition that I and my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) made last session, my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) placed on record here last week a resolution passed by the Legislature of Saskatchewan expressing the opposition of the people of that province to this proposal, and requesting that a conference of representatives of the different provinces be called to consider the terms and conditions under which they should receive the amendments tc which they are entitled and which they require for the further development of their natural resources.
I hope the amendment moved by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will appeal to the judgment of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), as well as to that of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), and that it will meet with the approval of the House. It is based upon the same principle as that which was enunciated last year. There is the same danger of encroachment on provincial rights as existed last year, and I do not see how any hon. member who voted last year, not against the principle, but against the manner in which the money would be provided, can this year stultify his judgment by voting for the Bill in the form in which it is presented to the House. I wish to say, in corroboration of what has been said by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition that, notwithstanding what may be said to the contrary, the Senate, the majority of which is Liberal, did not reject this measure last year. It added an amendment, similar to the amendment

which has been proposed by my right hon. leader, and it was left to the_Government of the day to accept or reject that amendment. If the Government had accepted the Bill as amended, the people of New Brunswick, as well as those_ of every other province, would have enjoyed the benefit of the money which was there provided for. I do not know what the Senate will do with this Bill when it is brought before it again, but I shall vote for the amendment of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, because, after all, it leaves equal control in the hands of the provinces, and I would prefer that the Prime Minister should withhold his Bill until we have a conference with the provinces during the recess in reference to the matter. The provinces would be further ahead by waiting another year and they would be sure of getting the subsidy to which they are entitled by reason of the increase in the revenue, which means an increased expenditure in the different provinces because, as the development of the country goes on, the expenditure of the provinces increases accordingly. Therefore, it would be more advantageous to the different provinces if my right hon. friend the leader of the Government would leave in abeyance this measure and call a conference of the provincial representatives. Then we would come here next year prepared to grant a full measure of compensation to the different provinces, a proposition that will be far more popular than the measure now before the House.


Ernest Lapointe: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I have just a moment ago taken cognizance of a letter which the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Rainville) read in this House on the 21st inst., and on which he bases his contention that the Dominion Government should retain control over the expenditure of the grants requested from this House by the hon. Minister of Agriculture for the purpose of improving the roads and highways in the various provinces.
The hon. gentleman apparently admits that under the constitution that exclusive control should be attributed to the provinces; but he is fearful lest the provincial Government should not fairly distribute the said grants, and should use them to promote party ends. The hon. gentleman believes, no doubt, that if such patronage was handed over to him and to the hon. member for 1'Islet, in their respective counties, no such danger would exist any longer.
Now the letter in question which has been handed to him by the hon. member for 1'Islet (Mr. Paquet), bears the signatures of seventeen farmers who to my Mr. TtTRGEON.
knowledge are supporters of the hon. member for 1'Islet, staunch Conservatives. These gentlemen must have been approached by two or three persons hoping to be favoured in the distribution of that patronage, if it is entrusted to the impartial hands of the hon. member for l'Islet.
The only reason pointed out in that letter is the fact that at a meeting held in connection with the annual fair of the agricultural and horticultural societies of the county of 1'Islet, at St. Roch des Aulnaies, on September 24, 1912, the Hon. J. Edouard Caron, Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec, is stated to have declared that the management of the moneys voted by the Dominion Government for agricultural purposes in the province had been entrusted to him, and that the Hon. Mr. Burrell put greater confidence in him, as regards the management of these moneys, 'than in Dr. Paquet, the federal member.
I was not present at that meeting. But the county of l'Islet adjoins the one I have the honour to represent; St. Roch des Aulnaies is the parish in that county closest to the western limit of the county of Kamouraska, and I am well acquainted with the circumstances which preceded and accompanied the annual fair of that agricultural society in 1912. I have no hesitation in stating that the Hon. Mr. Caron could not have uttered the words referred to and never made the statement which are attributed to him in that letter of a few disappointed Conservatives of the county of l'Islet.
The hon. member for l'Islet was not present at that meeting and took no part in that exposition of two important societies in his county. His staying aloof was due merely to the fact that the directors of those societies had decided to hold that exposition at St. Roch des Aulnaies, while the hon. member wished that St. Jean Port Joli should be preferred. The representatives for the county of l'lslet in the local House, Mr. Morin, was also conspicuous by his absence. But there were present at that meeting men whose high standing and spirit of fairness are a guarantee that the statements then and there made had no partisan character. And I believe I can say that the hon. member for l'lslet need only inquire from them to satisfy himself that the letter he communicated^ to his fellow-member for Chambly and Vercheres is absolutely at variance with the facts. At that meeting there .were present Rev. Father Athanase, O.C.R., professor of horticulture at the agricultural institution of Oka; the Rev. Mr. Pelletier, of the College of Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, the Rev. Mr. Bois, professor at the school of agriculture of Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere; the Rev. Mr. Dupuis, parish priest of St.

Raphael; the Rev. Mr. Garneau, parish priest of St. Roch des Aulnaies; Mr. J C. Chapais, lecturer of the Dominion Department of Agriculture; Mr. Joseph Paquette and Mr. Huguenin, professors at the school^ of agriculture of Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, and several other lecturers and experts whom it would be useelss to designate.
My hon. friends from the province of Quebec who are familiar with the names of the gentlemen whom I have just mentioned will acknowledge that their presence at the meeting then being held is the best evidence that a man of the reputation and tact of the _ Hon. Mr. Caron could not on that occasion have made the statements which some patronage seekers would like to attribute to him.
Surely the hon. member for l'Islet will admit, undoubtedly that several of these gentlemen are his personal friends, and indeed in sympathy with him on political grounds, and they surely would not participate in a meeting called for the purpose of injuring his prospects.
Once more, I appeal to my hon. friend to go by the statements of the gentlemen I have just named, preferably to that of those seventeen supporters and signers of that letter, whose action is in no way prompted by motives of public interest.
As a matter of fact, the speech then delivered by the Hon. Mr. Caron was reproduced by some papers, particularly in ' Le Soleil, of Quebec, in its issue of September 25, 1912, and I find in it absolutely nothing to justify the statement made by those seventeen people referred to.
Evidently some of the friends of the hon. member for l'lslet would prefer that the management of those moneys should be under his control rather than in the hands of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec, who would lend himself less readily to the furtherance of their views and to their requirements in the spending of those moneys. That letter has its source in political resentment and personal interest.
As regards the Hon. Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec, I have no hesitation in saying that there is no man better qualified and better equipped to administer in a progressive and fair way all the moneys voted for purposes of agriculture and road making. The zeal of the Hon. Mr. Caron for the progress of agriculture is well known to all residents in the province, whatever their party leanings, and there is no one possessing to such a degree the confidence of the Quebec farming class.
If the Government and the members who support, it are anxious to deprive the provincial authorities of their control over national highways, which control appertains exclusively to them under the constitution, and that, for fear the moneys voted by this Parliament should be badly managed, let them base themselves oh other arguments and quote other instances [DOT]than those brought forward by the hon. members of l'lslet and Ohambly and Ver-cheres.


John Wesley Edwards: believe it is generally recognized throughout the country, and it certainly is recognized by this Bill, that good highways have a distinct claim upon the public purse of the country and have a distinct value in our national development. I believe we ought to have in Ottawa, as they have in Washington, a highway bureau under the jurisdiction of the Dominion Government, to study and inquire into the various best methods of road improvement and roadbuilding and to study the various kinds of road material and their wearing value. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think that there is fear of the autonomy of the provinces being interfered with by the passing of this Bill, but let us examine that contention. for a moment. I think it was the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) who said that in appropriating money by this Parliament for road improvement to be expended by agreement between the federal and provincial governments, suppose the provincial government and the federal government should not agree, the result would be that the dissenting province would not get any of the money. Let us carry that idea a little further. Let us suppose that in .the province of Ontario where the provincial government makes a grant under certain conditions, to various counties which avail themselves _ of that grant for the improvement of their roads, the conclusion of the hon. member would be that unless every county in Ontario was disposed to agree to the provisions attached to the provincial grant to any county for road-making; no county would receive any assistance from the Ontario Government for that purpose. The Government of Ontario does not take that view of it, and I have never heard any criticism on the part of these counties which have not availed themselves of the provisions of the Act. It is true that only some nineteen counties in Ontario have availed themselves so far of this Act, but of the years from 1902 to 1911 there was $3,400,000 expended in the various counties, one-third of which was contributed by the provincial government, and two-thirds contributed by the counties. Suppose, for example, the county of Oxford, which has two hundred and fifty-six miles of county road, sees fit to avail itself of that Act and another county does not see fit to do so, should the county of Oxford be prevented from coming under the provisions of that Act because the other county refuses? That would be carrying out the argument of the hon. member for Humboldt to its logical conclusion. I do not think that should follow at all. I find, so far as provincial autonomy is concerned, that this fear has apparently not entered into the minds of people in other countries nor has it to Mr. EDWARDS.
any extent apparently entered into the minds of the provincial authorities in Canada. In France a very large_ mileage of roads are national roads built by the national government and entirely under the control of that government; in Belgium the same holds good; there is a classification of the Belgian roads and the state roads comprise seventy-nine per cent of the road mileage of that country and are maintained by the Belgian Department of Public Works. I do not know that they have any fear as to losing their local autonomy in Belgium. In Switzerland the federal Government has supervision over all the roads of that little country; in Holland the roads are classified and they have state roads under the control of the central Government; in Spain the roads are classified, and national roads are built and maintained by the Spanish Government; in Austria the same thing holds good; in many of the countries of Europe the principle of the central government taking upon itself the expenditure of money on roads has already been carried into effect. What do we find in the provinces of Canada? In the province of Prince Edward Island all the roads are maintained by the provincial Department of Public Works.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: There are no municipalities there.


John Wesley Edwards: I am aware of that,
but although it is a small province it is nevertheless an example of the principle ot the central government dealing with the roads. In Nova Scotia the same principle has been adopted to a certain extent. The larger bridges, costing $500 or more, are built under the direction of the provincial engineer and are paid for out of provincial funds. That, I contend is the adoption of the principle asked to be adopted here. In New Brunswick, the road work is under a highway board composed of two county councillors and one man appointed by the provincial government. In Manitoba, important bridges are under the supervision of the provincial Department of Public Works, and the provincial Highway Commissioner is appointed by that government and has duties which are largely educational. In Saskatchewan and I mention this particularly because of the objections raised by the hon. member for Humboldt-the Government maintain an organized grading gang to carry on road work, and build steel bridges by a permanently organized bridge crew. I maintain that this is a distinct adoption of the principle of not leaving to the local authorities the building and maintaining of all roads. In British Columbia, road-building is almost entirely a provincial work, and I understand that $20,000,000 has been

expended on this work by that province between 1910 and 1913. I think, these facts show that, so far as the principle of the central government taking part in roadbuilding is concerned, it is not a new principle, but has been adopted in most European countries and in most of the provinces of this Dominion. We are only carrying that principle a little further in having the central government here take the responsibility of a portion of the cost of some of these highways. I think that the statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals in regard to this matter is clear. He said:



REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.
On motion of Mr. Borden, the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 25 1913. The SPEAKER took the Chair at three
I hope to be able to make arrangements with the different provinces, as to what roads we should undertake to construct, and to agree on specifications covering the construction of these roads.
He said also:
Once we have agreed with the provinces as to -the nature of the road to be constructed, T believe tenders should be advertised for and the contracts let.
I maintain that these two sentences alone, not to detain the House with further quotations from the Minister of Railways, are indicative of the fair intention of the minister. I may add a word from the Prime Minister:
The Bill of itself does not enable the Government or the Minister of Railways and Canals to expend one single dollar unless that dollar shall have been first voted by Parliament. . . . This is only an enabling Bill with respect to money which is hereafter to be voted. ... It is placing at the disposal i * J6 Princes under proper safeguards which will be devised and agreed upon between the several provinces and the federal Government, a sum of money for each province to bring about better communications between farm and factory.
I maintain that the Bill is one which should receive not criticism but the very Imarty support of every member of this House. There are very strong reasons why our country roads should be improved. They are the avenues by which the produce of the farmer gets to the railway and to the nearest market town; and it has been stated here, I think by the hon. member for South Renfrew, that if these roads are improved, it makes not only for the advantage of the farmers financially and in comfort, but also to the advantage of the people living in the cities and towns who have to buy the farmers' produce. I do not see that there is any reasonable ground for fear in regard to the autonomy of the provinces, and I think the Bill should receive our hearty support.

['That Bill No. 116, respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters-Mr. Kyte-be referred to the same Select Special Committee as that to which Bill No. 2 was referred for the same consideration and action.']
Mr. A. E. FRIPP moved:: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
na\j.rwii\or, Ui- CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY TO OTTAWA.
On the Orders of the Day being called:
[u"That, in accordance with the recommenda-\nSelK-tCOn4fn(r m the th.lrd reP\xb0rt of ,the belect Standing Committee on Standing'\nOrders, tlie 88th rule be suspended in reference to the petition of the municipal council r vr c?ty\t,ottawa>\npresented on the 19th\not March, for an Aot to authorize them to take and convey water from certain lakes in the county of Ottawa, m the province of Quebec, tor the purpose of the said municiDal corporation, and that the said petition be received notwithstanding the expiration of the time tor receiving such petition."]
Wilfrid Laurier: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) for certain information. I do not know whether he can give it to me to-day or whether I shall have to move for it more formally. There has been a persistent rumour that the Canadian Pacific railway has applied to the Government for a strip of land along the Rideau canal in the city of Ottawa and for a part of the canal itself for the purpose of bringing its line into the city. I would like to ask my hon. friend if such application has been made, if it has been granted or refused, or if it is still under consideration.


Mr. COCHRANE:: They did make an
application for land along this side of the canal last year, but they abandoned it. This year they put in an application to come in on the Grand Trunk railway, cross over, and then go under ground. It has not been dealt with; it has not even been to council.
Amendment (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) negatived on division.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will it be
brought to Council, or is it confidential?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
['Will it be\nbrought to Council, or is it confidential?']
Francis Cochrane: I have not done anything with it at all.

INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY BRANCH LINES, &c.
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Railways and Canals may, subject to the authority of the Governor in Council, construct, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, in whole or in part, any railway, railway bridge, railway station, railway terminal, railway ferry or other railway work; and that any such railway or other work shall become a part of the government railway system.
Lament. Surely thct cannot be meant. With the consent of the Governor in Council the minister might start building a railway anywhere he liked; it does not even confine him to the branch lines of the Intercolonial. It has been rumoured that the minister had m view an arrangement by which the Canadian Northern would become the property of the Government, but that is only a rumour.


Francis Cochrane: I never heard of it.


George Perry Graham: Well, this resolution
would give him full power to do that without any reference whatever to Parliament. The resolution in its present shape is sub-
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)


George Perry Graham: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals what this resolution means. Does it mean that the minister can do anything he wants to without asking Parliament, without any instructions, without any money, or without telling us what he is going to do? Possibly some amendment may be made to it by which parliament will have some control.


Francis Cochrane: I did not think this
Bill would need very much explanation, there has been so much talk about it in the House during the last two sessions.


George Perry Graham: No, this is a new proposal.


Francis Cochrane: It is to take authority to lease, buy, or expropriate, any branch lines that connect with the Intercolonial railway- There is no money vote in this resolution, and I expect that we would have to come back to Parliament to get a vote if we bought or leased a railway, because the agreement would have to be submitted to Parliament.


George Perry Graham: The difficulty is that the resolution does not say that. I understand pretty well the troubles in. working out the branch line business, but in a former parliament the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) discussed this very point for a whole day and insisted on _ some amendments which were quite restrictive. He insisted that the Government should not take over, lease or operate any line until the agreement had been laid before Parliament and approved. That Act only gave them power to negotiate and there is some reason for that. This Bill gives the minister power to do anything at all in regard to railways without reference to Parliament directly or indirectly. The minister could, if he wished, lease the Canadian Nortiiem railway from Montreal to Vancouver without authority from Parliament; he could buy that railway or any portion of it without the authority of Pa<rvcrsive of every principle of parliamentary control, and I submit it ought to be amended.


Francis Cochrane: If I bought a railway, I would have to come back to Parliament to get the money.


George Perry Graham: Yes, but under this resolution you could buy it first, and if you proposed it to Parliament in the first place perhaps Parliament might not let you buy it.


Francis Cochrane: If Parliament did not, I could not buy it.


Mr GRAHAM:: You might be bound
morally and legally to buy the railway, and Parliament might not like to interfere once the thing was done.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: It is something like the reciprocity agreement.


George Perry Graham: That was an international matter, and under the British system treaties are made secretly, and ar? a"'e*" wards in some cases ratified by Parliament, but this is another thing altogether. This is a straight matter of business, and the minister will not find any like provision in the statutes of any country in the world. If the minister once acted and then came back to Parliament, the honour of the country might be pledged and Parliament might be bound to support the bargain made by the minister, wheTeas if Parliament were apprised beforehand it might not consent. I do not think the Government can possibly mean what the resolution says.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the Bill
which is founded upon this resolution in the same phraseology?
ATr nnmRANF * Yps.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I agree with the hon.
member (Mr. Graham). If the resolution means what it says, we might as well stay at home. It is all right for the minister to say he has to come back to Parliament for the money, hut he knows that once he is committed to a purchase, even the Oppo-
Mr. COCHRANE.

sition do not like to go- hack on the bargain, because the honour of the country may be at stake. The Minister of Railways might as well ask us to let him govern the country and do what he pleases without any restriction, as to ask us to consent to this resolution. While the Ministry may be capable men and wonderful legislators and financiers, yet the representatives of the people want to have something to say in these matters. This seems a preposterous thing to ask; it means government by Order in Council.


Arthur Meighen: How far would the hon. member be willing to trust the matter to the minister?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think the minister
should take us into his confidence as to what he wanted to do.


Arthur Meighen: How far would you let him go?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I could not say until I saw the proposition before me; I never try to get over a bridge until I come to it. Personally I am disposed to give a minister considerable latitude, but this seems to be going beyond all reason.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: While hon.
gentlemen on this side of the House would be only too glad to give the minister such authority as is necessary to carry out any project for the extension of the Government railway system in the interests of the country, still the authority asked for in this resolution goes too far. I think the minister will admit that it' 1ms not heretofore been the practice for the Government to undertake the construction of a piece of railway of any considerable length without first asking Parliament. Under this resolution the minister, with the authority of the Governor in Council, could enter into a contract for the construction of a piece of railway from Quebec to Vancouver.


Francis Cochrane: Parliament would
have to vote the money. '


George Perry Graham: You could make the contract before you had the money.


Francis Cochrane: We have no authority to make contracts without money being voted.


George Perry Graham: But you are taking the authority now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If under an Act of Parliament a minister is permitted to enter into a contract for the construction of a transcontinental railway, the person with whom he entered into the contract would be entitled to damages if Parliament refused to vote the money subsequently to enable the minister to proceed with construction under that contract. When it is further pointed out to the min271
ister that under this resolution he could lease the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern railway, or the Grand Trunk railway, he must admit that he is asking for very considerable powers.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman remember how far the former Administration went with the Grand Trunk Pacific contract before coming to Parliament?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My recollection of that is not clear, and any statement that I make might not be accurate. My own impression is that the contract was submitted to Parliament and that it was provided in the contract that it should be submitted to Parliament.


Mr. BOYCE:: The contract was entered into and was ratified by Order in Council. The country was bound to it, and then the Government submitted the contract to Parliament. The whole scheme of expenditure was provided for under the contract. The Government was bound to it by Order in Council, and then the contract was sent to Parliament for ratification. That happened in the case of the contract of 1903, and also that of 1904.
_ Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax): My recollection of the Grand Trunk Pacific contract is that there was a provision in the original contract that it had to be submitted to Parliament. Even if it was as the hon. member states in connection with the Transcontinental contract, I would take the position that that was a weakness. It is altogether subversive of our ideas of parliamentary institutions to grant to the Governor in Council by statute such unlimited powers as are sought in this resolution. It seems to me that the minister should be content to ask for much less power than this resolution gives.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the resolution is of the revolutionary character that my hon. friends opposite imagine. As a.- matter of fact, a great many contracts have been brought down to Parliament after having been first entered into by the Government without any such authority as is contained in this resolution. The Yukon contract, the Fast Atlantic Service contract, the Grand Trunk Pacific contract, the Canada Eastern Railway contract, the Drummond County Railway contract-these are only a few that occur to me at the moment. All these were made by the Government, and of course they had to be submitted to Parliament for its approval, and legislation had to be passed before they acquired legal validity. The Minister of Railways and Canals has pointed out that this resolution does not appropriate any public moneys for the purpose of carrying out any purchase or lease or



for the purpose of any construction. Nothing could be carried out without a vote of Parliament. I have no doubt that is the understanding of the minister.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax); Why not say so in the resolution? Instead of 'subject
to the authority of the Governor in Coijn-cil ' why not say, ' subject to the authority of the Parliament of Canada'?


Arthur Meighen: What good would the
resolution be then?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: To enter into the contract.
Mr. BORDEN. The intention of the minister was to get some effective basis of negotiation with the companies that at the present time are the owners and operators of a number of branch lines which connect with the Intercolonial railway.
Mr. GRAHAM; The resolution makes no reference to any connection with the Intercolonial. It gives power to build a railway anywhere. It says: 'shall become a part of the Government railway system,' but it does not refer to branch lines particularly.
Air. KYTE; I would like to ask the Minister of Railways if a report was made by Air. Kirkpatrick, who was sent over the branch railways last year for the purpose of reporting upon their condition and the desirability of purchasing them?


Francis Cochrane: Yes, he has made a
report, but it is private; it is only for the Government.


George William Kyte: The minister does not purpose bringing it down to Parliament?


Francis Cochrane: No, not now, because we would be giving our case away.
Air. MICHAUD; Will the report be private when we come to vote the money?
Mr. COCHRANE; No. When we purchase the road, we certainly ought to bring down the report, but not till then.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Subject to an amendment to the resolution as it is framed, I may say that I favour the principle of the purchase of some of the branch lines of the Intercolonial.


Francis Cochrane: I hope it will only
be some.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Francis Cochrane: Has it a Dominion
charter?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Francis Cochrane: We will put the railway board on it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Legislation was passed,
during the dying days of the last Administration to that effect. But that would not cure the evils. The only cure would be for the Government to take over the Atlantic, Quebec and Western and the Quebec and Oriental, the old Baie des^Chaleurs, and make of the two a feeder of the Intercolonial.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If there was an order of the railway board would these people have enough money to put the road in proper condition?

85 "0


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. Last year the surplus of receipts over expenditures of the Quebec and Oriental was $5,000. They have an exceedingly poor rolling stock. On the Atlantic, Quebec and Western, the other section, which has a first class road-bed, built by English engineers who did not spare the money, the deficit was $19,000. The trouble is that they have to pay three rates. Both railways are run to-day by the trustee of the bond holders. The trustees of the bond holders for the Atlantic. Quebec and Western are in England and the trustee of the other section, that is the section from Paspebiac to Matapedia, also resides in England. Under these circumstances, the public in that district would welcome the day when the Government would take over the two roads at a reasonable figure and make of them a feeder of the Intercolonial. I realize that the minister must have a comparatively free hand in dealing with such matters, but I suppose he will come before Parliament for the ratification of any bargain he makes. It would certainly be a boon for the people in the peninsula if the Government would take over this road.


George Perry Graham: I understand quite well that no set of rules can be laid down for the acquiring of these roads. I once imagined that this could be done but I discovered when we came to apply the rules that a standard wihich would be applicable to one line could not be applied to another because the wants of the people in one vicinity might be paramount even to the question of whether the road would pay or not and I realize fully that the minister must have considerable latitude in order to deal with these individual lines, and that to tie him to any particular standard would hamper him so that perhaps he could not acquire the very lines that he would wish to acquire. I am quite prepared to allow the minister a good deal of latitude because I know the difficulties surrounding this important work. I am in favour of acquiring some branches of the Intercolonial and of building lines when} lines are necessary. I am simply offering my suggestions so as to make the Act workable and still leave the authority in the hands of Parliament where it ought to be left. We .should not give all the *power to the minister or even to the Governor in Council. ^ Under this resolution, it might develop into a very large transaction, or a combination of transactions When the question was discussed in the House on a previous occasion, the Opposition then, of which I was not a member took very strong ground. The powers that I asked for were milk and water compared with the powers asked for in this resolution, and .still the opposition of that day thought I was seeking too much latitude, Mr. PELLETIER.
and a great many restrictions were placed in the Act, too many, I think.


Francis Cochrane: Was that in 1909?


Mr GRAHAM:: 1910.	1 realized that
these restrictions were too stringent. Owing to certain circumstances, the minister has very kindly agreed to let the matter stand, and I want to place those restrictions before him, so that he may see if he cannot work out something to meet our views. My idea is simply to make the resolution perfect; I have no idea of blocking it at all. I am only anxious that it should go through in a workable form. I think the minister should have all reasonable leeway if he is to have any success at all. Whatever changes we make ought to be made on the resolution rather than on the Bill. I intend to read the restrictions that were imposed on the suggestion of the Opposition of that time, in the case I have referred to. The proposal was merely to acquire branch lines by lease, it confined itself to lines that would be feeders to the Intercolonial. This resolution1 does not confine itself to that at all, it gives the Government power to buy or build a railway in British Columbia for instance, if they so desired. I make the suggestion that it ought to be restricted in some way, and that it should have some connection with the Intercolonial. I agree with the principle that some liberty ought to be given to the minister, under proper safeguards, to purchase as well as lease. The Act which was recommended by myself and passed, only took power to lease, I think. If some roads are to be acquired at all they ought to be purchased and not leased. There are certain conditions surrounding them which make the leasing of them impracticable so far as the Government is concerned, and impracticable also so far as the people who control them are concerned. The restrictions placed in the Act passed in 1910 were these:
Provided that no such lease shall have any force or effect, nor shall any such connecting railway be entered upon or operated on ber half of the Government of Canada until the said managing board and the said chief engineer shall have approved -the terms and conditions of such lease, having regard to the beneficial results therefrom to the government railways, and until the Parliament of Canada has first ratified such lease.
I think it was the hon. member for Hamilton, if I remember correctly, who suggested most of these restrictions. They are to the effect that before the Government of that day could lease a line the managing board had to report upon it and the chief engineer had to report. There were also added some clauses which specified what the report must contain. I admit that the restrictions were not workable, but I think we are going to the other extreme in leav-

ing out all restrictions. I submit that the Opposition of that day were all wrong in suggesting these restrictions to the extent embodied in the Act, but in order to get the Bill through I yielded. Then the Act went on:
The said board shall in their report to
the .minister recommending the lease of any line of railway,-
(a)	give their estimate of the cost of such line, and such information as they are able to give of the moneys received by thej company owning the line from the sale of' bonds or by way of bonuses, or otherwise;
(b)	state the then present equipment of the road, together with the average rate of freight and charges for passengers on the same and a comparison of such rates with those charged on the Intercolonial railway;
(c)	the total receipts and expenditures for three years last past;
(d)	an' estimate of future receipts and expenditures in the event of the road being leased as a branch of the Intercolonial railway.
Of course 1 imagine that no minister would lease a railway without getting all this information, or a good deal of it. I submit that there is nothing in this resolution which asks the minister even to submit the lease to Parliament, after he has made it. If the Government would think the matter over seriously before we take it up again in a day or two, they would see the wisdom of making some slight amendment to this resolution, making it clear that Parliament has some control. So far as I am concerned, and I think so far as the entire Opposition is concerned, we want to expedite the matter. We only want to see it put into workable form, and still maintain Parliament's control. I suggest to the Government that they should look into it and try to .meet those views without in any way hampering the practicability of the resolution.


Mr. GERMAN:: I wish to place myself
on record as being diametrically opposed to this Government acquiring any further railway lines or keeping the railway lines that (they have. I wish to place myself on record as being absolutely and positively opposed to the Government of Canada owning and operating railway lines. We have the Intercolonial railway, and the best thing the Government of Canada can do for the people of Canada is to get rid of it at the earliest possible moment, on the best terms they can possibly secure. I have heard some talk about the Canadian Northern railway leasing it.


Mr. JAMESON:: If the hon. gentleman
is in favour of the Government of Canada disposing of the government railways, would he take the same ground with regard to -canals owned by the Government of this country?


William Manley German: I have heard that suggestion made frequently, but no person would accept, because a canal has to be run without tolls. A canal is in opposition to railways. A remark which struck me forcibly, was made by my late friend the Hon. John Haggart, who in this House said that canals were for the purpose of competing with railroads, and that no matter what amount of money the Government paid out for the construction of canals, they were lowering the rates of transportation for the producers. That was the remark and it was one of which I approve. I am opposed to this resolution because 1 am opposed to the Government owning railroads. It will not he very many years before the people of Canada will be opposed to the Government owning railroads, The Intercolonial will be handed over to a company on fair and reasonable terms, and there is no reason why it should not. Everv minister of the Crown in charge of the Railway Department, since I have been in this House, has endeavoured to figure out a surplus for the Intercolonial. My hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) tried to do it when he was Minister of Railways, my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) tried to do it, and the late Hon. John Haggart tried to do it. They figured out a surplus on paper but that was all. It has been a losing game to Canada ever since it started. Let us get rid of it. It is time that the Government got rid of the Intercolonial railway. Instead of buying branch lines, hand it over to a company on such terms as are fair and reasonable, protect the interests of the people in the disposal of it and get rid of the incubus. I have no hesitation in making these remarks and I hope that what I have said will have some effect upon the minds of the Government in inducing them to change their policy and, instead of buying more lines, dispose of what they have already.


Angus Alexander McLean: I would like to make a few remarks with reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) in regard to government ownership of railways. Canada appointed a railway commission a few years ago for the purpose of keeping the railway corporations in order. It was impossible to get any evidence as to proper rates for these corporations to charge the public and the cost of running these railways, but now these commissioners have recourse to the books of the government railways and they know exactly what it costs to run the Intercolonial and the government Tailway system of Canada. They are in a position, knowing the facts which are in possession of the Government to dctate to these corporations and to know

whether or not they are overcharging the public. I think that is a better leveller even than the canals. The canals, as my hon. friend from Welland says, are run free of tolls. It is in the interest of the people that the Intercolonial should be run even at a loss because we are then in a position to judge whether these large corporations are overcharging the public or not. That is my idea and for this reason I think it would be in the interest of the people that the Intercolonial should be retained in the possession of the Government.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals if, before this matter is reached again, he will take us into his confidence and let us know if he intends to build any new branches along the line of the Intercolonial railway. I would not ask him to disclose his plans with regard to the acquisition of other branches as that might be unbusinesslike and improper, but that consideration does not apply to the construction of new branches. There is a great deal of interest felt in eastern Nova Scotia as to what the policy of the Government is in regard to the matter and if the minister will be in a position, when we take this matter up again, to make some statement as to what is to be his policy, it will be of interest to the House and the country.


Francis Cochrane: I gave the hon. member for Guysborough a very clear statement of what I proposed doing in that regard when branch lines were discussed all one day and part of a night. I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 161, to amend the Quebec Harbour Commissioners Act, 1899, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-powers to maintain' and operate railway tracks, etc.:
Wilfrid Laurier: There is nothing in that section to suggest any comment. All these powers seem to be fully justified. The only thing I wish to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is if he has had any correspondence with the harbour commissioners upon this subject, and if this Bill is introduced at their request.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, it is at the request of the commissioners. The terms of the Bill are exactly the same as the amendment introduced by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in my right hon. friend's own Government with reference to the Montreal Mr. McLEAN (Queens, P.E..I),
Harbour Commissioners Act. The Act gave the commissioners power to maintain harbour tracks and harbour lines, but some little doubt arose as to whether the commissioners could operate shunting engines within the limits of the harbour yards. In the case of the Montreal Act it was thought desirable, in order to remove any possible doubt, to make an amendment to the Act and it has been considered proper to follow the same practice in this case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I saw the.other day the plan ,of the Quebec harbour filed by my hon. friend, and I again had a look at it yesterday with my hon. friend from Quebec West (Mr. Power). I did not see in that plan any indication of the proposed railway facilities. Is there at present a railway belonging to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And this will be a continuation or completion of the railway system? Will that railroad be constructed on lands other than those which at present belong to the harbour commission?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so, but
when the Bill providing for the advance of money i& under consideration I will try and have the engineers here so that the hon. gentleman may have the fullest possible information. My impression is that the railway will be entirely on land belonging to the harbour commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We would like to have
also the plans for the work at the mouth of the St. Charles river to be done by the Public Works Department. I do not see why the whole work should not be under the Minister of Marine, because it is really all the one scheme.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
Mr. HAZEN moved second reading of Bill No. 179, to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 172, to amend the Dominion Police Act, was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-Governor in Council may appoint commissioners of police:
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
reason for this legislation?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The modification in the existing Act is that this section provides that there shall be a chief commissioner, who shall be the officer in authority over the commissioners, and by the last section of the Bill these other commissioners shall be obliged to report each month their different proceedings to the chief commissioner. It is contemplated that the commissioners appointed in different districts, where for example a railway is being con-constructed, shall be under obligation to report to this chief officer. Under an Order in Council these officers have been in the past called upon to report to the commissioner at Ottawa but there is a well-founded doubt whether if difficulty arose we could have asserted the obligation on their part to do so.


Wilfrid Laurier: How many
commissioners have you distributed throughout the Domionion?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Six or seven.


Wilfrid Laurier: And this Act has been applied only upon public works?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that is correct.


Wilfrid Laurier: The chief commissioner will have rather a sinecure if he has only to receive the reports of six or seven commissioners. Is it intended to appoint the existing officer?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Colonel Sherwood, the
present commissioner, will be the chief commissioner. The real purpose of .the amendment is to put these other commissioners under him.


Wilfrid Laurier: All right.


Frank Oliver: In the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan persons representing themselves as acting under the authority of the Dominion Government have taken upon themselves authority to interfere. with the liberty of citizens, and I am anxious to know if in any way the authority exercised by these persons is traceable to the Dominion Government, or whether it comes under the provisions of this Act. During the provincial election in Saskatchewan last summer, one Marshall Jackson was arrested under the authority of the provincial Government of Saskatchewan, charged with attempting unduly to affect the election at that time going on in the province. Remember it was a provincial election. This man, at the time of his arrest, carried a badge, which I am informed bore the words, ' Chief of Dominion Detective Service,' and he was at the time, I am also credibly informed, representing himself as an officer under the control and direction of the Dominion Government. I would like to know if there is room under the Act as it is proposed to be amended for the appointment of such officers, and I would also like to know' if a man of the name that I have given has been in the employ of this Government as a detective or as a police commissioner.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no knowledge of a man of that name being in the employ of the Government as a detective. I am quite confident that the name does not appear in the list of persons who are under the existing Act commissioners of police, and, so far as I am informed it is not among the names of those who have been appointed constables by the commissioners. Under the Act, as it stands now and as it will stand when amended, these commissioners may, on the authority of an Order in Council, appoint constables in the different districts where such constables are required. Without speaking with absolute positiveness, I think I am correct in saying that under this Act, the only commissioners who have been appointed are commissioners for the maintenance of peace in districts where public works were going on, particularly the construction of railways. Those commissioners have, when properly authorized under the provisions of the statute, power to appoint certain persons as constables. They do not appoint anybody who would be entitled to call himself a Dominion detective. I am not aware that any person of the name of Jackson has been appointed police commissioner or employed by any police commissioner as a constable. I will ascertain the names of the police commissioners and constables if the hon. member so desires.


Frank Oliver: This is a somewhat important matter and has obtained a considerable amount of publicity. I should like to have the question definitely settled as to whether this person was in any capacity in the employ of this Government, especially under the Police Act, during the time of the Saskatchewan elections or since. It is important that we should know whether the representations that were made by or on behalf of this gentleman were warranted or not. I was informed that, during the progress of the Saskatchewan elections, at a certain poll in the Biggar electoral district, one or more men wearing badges which credited them with being Dominion constables, and carrying hand-cuffs, were present and, I am credibly informed, threatened voters who were coming to that poll with arrest if they did not vote according to the wishes of those persons. As this is a somewhat serious matter, it is desirable that there should be no question that what may have been done in . line with what I say was not done with any authority or responsibility on the part of this Government or of its police department. I would like to have that point very clearly established, and I am sure my hon. friend is as well satisfied that it should be established as I myself am.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I said before, I shall be glad to ascertain the name of the police commissioners and constables. I am confident that there was no one acting with the authority of the police department. If it were so, it certainly would be a matter to be seriously condemned. This Bill is intended to insure more direct and immediate control at headquarters over these officers, and to that extent it would afford some protection against the possibility of such an occurrence.


Frank Oliver: I would not like the hon. minister to think that I am suggesting that these representations are correct; but, ias they have been made, I think it is desirable that they should be cleared up. Are there provisions in the Police Act that would permit of the appointment of officers who would have control during elections, aside altogether from public works?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would not take it that the officers should or would be appointed for any purpose of that kind. A police commissioner under section 3 of the present Act has:
(a)	All the powers and authority, rights and privileges by law appertaining to justices of the peace generally;
(b)	within any province, all the powers and authority, rights and privileges by law, appertaining to police magistrates of cities in the same province;
(c)	in any of the territories or districts in the same province, all the powers and authority, rights and privileges by law appertaining to stipendiary magistrates in the same district or territory.
The constables are appointed by these police commissioners in the different districts at present upon authority from the Governor in Council. It is- proposed by this Bill to enable them to be appointed on the authority of the minister. These constables have:
All the powers, rights and are charged with all the responsibilities which belong by law to constables duly appointed in the province, district or county of the province or territory for which such police constables are appointed.
I am pretty confident that there has never been any exercise of this power to appoint constables for the purpose of having control in elections.


Frank Oliver: Is there a detective service, in the usual acceptance of that term, in connection with the Dominion police service?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think there is a separate detective service. The members of the Dominion police force are employed in making inquiries, seeking for persons, and so forth, whenever there is occasion1, in the application of the law, for such services.
Mr. OLIVER.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-section 4 amended:


Frank Oliver: Why is that placed under the authority of the minister rather than under the Governor in Council?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It was thought it was
hardly necessary to pass an Order in Council every time there was occasion to name a constable, and that the minister might be fairly trusted to exercise that power. It is quite in line with the report of Sir George Murray that such really unimport-tant appointments as those of constables should not remain vested in the Governor in Council.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Gn motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 180, to amend the Supreme Court Act, was read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-final judgment :
Charles Joseph Doherty: This enactment proposes to remedy a condition of affairs which arises under the application of the present definition of a final judgment as set forth in sub-section (e), section 2 of the Supreme Court Act, which is as follows:
Final judgment means any judgment, rule, order or decision whereby an action, suit, cause, matter or other judicial proceeding is finally concluded and determined.
The conditions arising under that definition of a final judgment, which appear to call for a Temedy, arise more particularly in the province of Ontario, and exist in the provinces generally where the English common law is the basis of the judicial system. Under this definition, nothing is a final judgment unless by it an action, suit, cause, matter or otheT judicial proceeding is finally determined and concluded. In the application of that definition, the Supreme Court has held that, in any case in the nature of a common law case, wherever the court renders a judgment which while it decides the substantive rights of the party, refers the matter, for the purpose of establishing the amount, for instance to a referee, reserving to pronounce further after such referee has reported, such a judgment, though it determine the substantive right of a party, and decide the question whether or not the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, is not a final judgment, because it does not finally dispose of and end the suit. Holding that this is not a final judgment under the section, they have held, therefore, that there

is no appeal from that as from a final judgment. They have further held, as regards the judgment ultimately rendered after the reference has taken place and the case has come back to the court, that, under certain circumstances, that should not be considered a final judgment, and that in any event-treating the judgment that adjudicates upon the report determining the amendment and giving the condemnation as a final judgment, and, as, therefore, being appealable to the Supreme Court-an appeal from that judgment brings up only that judgment and does not bring up the judgment previously rendered, which determined the liability of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It would follow from this that, in cases of that kind, a party who had been condemned, though the matter be of the greatest importance and though the sums involved be sufficient, &c., is placed in a position whereby he has no effective appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment rendered determining his liability in favour of the party proceeding against him. I may say that the justices of the Supreme Court recognize the necessity of an amend-nient of this kind in order to give them jurisdiction in regard to an appeal from any judgment which determines, in whole or in part, the substantive rights of any parties, in controversy in any action, cause, matter or other judicial proceeding" Under the amendment there would be an appeal from the judgment which determined the liability, although tjhe judgment might contain a reserve clause, to make further direction with regard to" the amount or any other matter required to be looked into. Under the amendment there would be a direct appeal from the court of ultimate jurisdiction of the province to the Supreme Court of Canada. In that way the party would be afforded what I think the law intended he should have, that is to say an appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment that finally determines the existence of an obligation against him or finally determines the obligation he is seeking to enforce against the other party, if he is no't sustained. In Quebec the amendment does not apply. The material difference between the two systems is that under the law in Quebec the interlocutory judgments are looked upon as leading up to the ultimate judgment and practically forming part of the ultimate or final judgment and an appeal from the final judgment brings up all the interlocutory judgment. There are some interlocutory judgments which although they are so described, do finally dispose of a definite or distinct proceeding and under the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court they are appealable by themselves; but every judgment rendered in the province of Quebec which, because it is interlocutory, is not susceptible of
appeal to the Supreme Court, is, under our system, brought up by the appeal from the final judgment so that the evil sought to be remedied does not exist in the province of Quebec. The reason, I am informed, why the necessity for an amendment with regard to the common law provinces has more recently become manifest is that previous to the Judicature Act in Ontario, which has done away with the distinction between the courts of law and the courts of equity, it was a very unusual thing in common law cases for the courts of law to give judgments deciding the substantive rights and reserving to pronounce upon the consequences or to give further direction as to consequences. While that was very unusual if it ever happened in the administration of the common law, it was, on the other hand, a very usual proceeding on the part of the courts of equity; and the Supreme Court Act, recognizing that condition of affairs, did provide and still provides by section 38 for an appeal in cases of" the nature of proceedings in equity from any court, even although it be an interlocutory judgment. Under the interpretation put upon the words ' final judgment ' in the section to which I have referred, the only interpretation possible, a person might find himself deprived of his right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the judgment affirming the substantive right merely because that judgment did not absolutely terminate the suit. As I have said, their Lordships of the Court of Appeal are unanimous in the opinion that a remedy is called for in such circumstances and they are, with one exception, agreed that the proper remedy is the amendment which I am now submitting.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I put a concrete case? Suppose a conflict between two parties where the issue is as to whether one party should be compelled to account. The judgment of the court is that the party sued is bound to account, and the matter is referred to a referee to make the account. Then, as I understand, this is an interlocutory judgment, and the final judgment is only the decree given by the court after the referee has made his report.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the present definition no judgment is final unless it ends the suit or proceedings.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, what is the object of the amendment in the case I have supposed, a case of accounting where the party who resisted the application has had to account?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The matter has been sent to a referee and he has fixed the ac-

count and then the decree is that he is bound for so much. That is a final judgment and that may be appealed from.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, what is the object of this? Is it merely that the appellant may dispute his account as fixed by the referee, or is it that he may have a right to appeal before he is bound to account?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The object in the case
stated, assuming the case to be a common law proceeding and assuming likewise a particular case of an order to account as being an interlocutory judgment, the party ultimately condemned would have a right to appeal from the judgment, that ultimately condemned him; but upon that appeal he would be entitled to be heard by the Supreme Court only on the correctness or exactness of the judgment fixing the amount, not to question the judgments affirming his liability in the matter. It is to remedy that that this amendment is made. It gives an appeal from the judgment ordering the account. If one could deal with this with a perfectly free hand, I think that our Quebec system is a more satisfactory method. Perhaps that is only my natural impression, but it would look to me to be so and under that system this remedy would not be required. Of course we cannot alter the law as it is in Ontario. I dare say from the point of view of those more familiaT than I am with that system it may be superior.


Wilfrid Laurier: Under the case supposed, after judgment has been rendered ordering an account, would the party compelled to account have the power to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the province of Ontario?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, I understand he would. The Court of Appeal might confirm that judgment, but he would have no appeal from it to the Supreme Court of Canada. As I understand it, and I speak with some diffidence as to the details of procedure, there might be an appeal to the Supreme Court on the judgment last delivered by the court below, but it would only bring up the final judgment, and would have no reference to the substantive question as to whether the appellant was liable at all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-rank and salary of registrar ;
Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of this is simply to increase the salary of the registrar. Under the existing section he is ranked as a deputy minister who, at the time the Act was passed, had a salary of $3,500 to $4,000. Since then the lowest salary Mr. DOHERTY.
paid to any deputy minister is $5,000. The duties incumbent upon the registrar are onerous and responsible. In many cases he has to perform quasi judicial duties, and I think his salary should be in keeping.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Admiralty appeal:
Charles Joseph Doherty: The purpose of this section is to give the Supreme Court the power which the Admiralty Court as the court of first instance has, to call in the aid of assessors in admiralty appeals, a right which is also exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in admiralty cases brought before it on appeal. It is thought desirable that the Supreme Court, in dealing with those admiralty cases, should be placed in the same position as the court from which such appeals come. The assessors are persons specially qualified in the laws and rules of navigation, who are called in to advise the court upon technical questions. It seems proper that if the court of first instance should have the benefit of the advice of assessors, the Supreme Court should likewise have it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is this at the request of the judges of the court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, on the suggestion of the judges of the court.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has there
been any case in which the necessity of engaging assessors has been felt? I can understand the court of first instance having the advice of assessors, but the Court of Appeal simply reviews the judgment of the court below. I would not oppose it of course, but it seems to me that the Court of Appeal is not in the same position as the court below.


Rodolphe Lemieux: More especially as the Court of Appeal has the notes of the judge and assessors.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The reason that justifies it is that the court to which the case may go from the Supreme Court on appeal may also call in assessors. I know of a case that came before our courts in the province of Quebec. I would not say positively that it went to the Supreme Court, but assuming it went merely to our Court of Appeal the position would be analagous. Ultimately it went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and they called in assessors to advise them regarding the laws of navigation, and acting presumably in accordance with that advice, they reversed the judgment which had been rendered in the courts of this country. I distinctly recollect that the parties thought there was a certain unfairness in that, and that the judges who had rendered the original judg-

men!, were placed ia rather a false position because their judgment had been reversed presumably on the advice of technical advisers which they were not in a position to have. I do not know of particular instances before the Supreme Court, but I may say that the judges of the court are unanimous in this.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the minister tell us why the words ' and try ' are put in this clause? It seems to me that these two words might properly be eliminated, because the Court of Appeal does not try those cases, it simply hears appeals.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is quite true that
the court hears appeals, but the moment you give them power to bring in assessors, they do not proceed exclusively upon the record that comes to them from the court below. In reality they introduce into the case something in the nature of a proceeding of trial.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not think so. It is not an uncommon practice in the Admiralty Court for the Admiralty judge to call in_ an assessor. The assessor .is not part of the court. He is there to advise largely on technical matters, and if assessors were called in to assist the Supreme Court in Admiralty appeals, one could hardly designate the proceedings as a trial. They could not change a word of the evidence. The assessors might assist the appeal corrrt in interpreting the evidence taken in the court below, but they would simply be an aid to the court on technical matters. It seems to .me that the words ' and try ' serve no good purpose.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The court in the first
instance might call in an assessor, and while, as regards the evidence, the Court of Appeal would be held down to the record as it came to them, if it called in assessors, it would not be bound in any way by the advice given by the assessor in the court below. It might possibly happen that the reason for reversing the judgment of the' court below would turn, not on anything in the record which originally came to it, but upon the technical advice. To that extent, when they call in an assessor, they call in some one to give them information in the nature of expert evidence.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would only be as counsel presents argument to the court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is precisely what the assessor could have done in the court of first instance.


Wilfrid Laurier: That has not been done.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I take it that this may be done in the court of first instance if the court had called in an assessor. I understand that what the assessor says to the court does not go into the record as part of the evidence. He sits there and advises with the court, and the court sitting in the first instance has the advantage of that advice. When we come to the appellate court, this measure would give them the advantage of the advice of men of a similar class, but we have no means of knowing that the advice they would get would be exactly the same. So that, giving them power to call in assessors, is giving them power to introduce into the record something that was not in the record brought to them. 1 cannot see that the words ' and try ' can do any harm, because all that the appellate court has to do is to try and hear the appeal.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You may be extending the jurisdiction of the court as an appellate court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If we enabled them to try anything else except the appeal, but the words empower them to ' try and hear such appeal.' All they can do is to hear the appeal.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is no such thing as trying an appeal.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That may not be absolutely the correct expression. For myself, personallly, I do not think any harm would be done by leaving it out. This is the first time my attention has been called to these words. They do not seem to have been susceptible of any particular meaning. On the other hand, I cannot see any possible undesirable consequences of their remaining there. These are words which the court itself has submitted as being desirable and out of deference to the court, unless some real harm is pointed out as being likely to result, I would prefer to adopt the suggestion as it is.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the judges of the court have asked for this power it ought to be given consideration, but I do not know that I would favour the proposition at all. I can well appreciate that the court below that tried the case might call an assessor if it desired to do so. But in a case, I believe, the parties themselves would call a witness, because the assessor cannot be anything else than a witness, to give an expert statement in regard to the matters at issue. The parties might call this expert and he might be a competent man to give evidence in a case of that nature. If the judge below thinks that he requires the services of an assessor, he can get them. But the court which is called upon to review the judgment of the court below must take the

case as it is presented to it, and I do not know that it would be fair to either of the parties to bring in anybody else to sit on the bench and to take evidence which might have been given to the court below. The point is not a very practical one after all, because there are very few cases which go to the Supreme Court from the Admiralty Court. I do not know whether the necessities of the case justify this legislation, but if my hon. friend thinks it ought to pass I have no objection, although I have my doubts as to the wisdom of it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The judges think it desirable. This is making our procedure conform to the procedure of the admiralty courts in England. Our admiralty jurisdiction is derived from the English practice and if, in the experience of the courts there, it has been found desirable that the courts of appeal should be allowed to have assessors, I think we might safely follow their example. Otherwise, we might have the anomalous condition which was present in the case I mentioned. This case, although an admiralty case, was tried in the Superior Court and we might have the anomalous position, that whereas our courts would have no such rights with regard to the calling in of an assessor, the judgment might be set aside by a court in England which had this advantage.
Mr. PARDEE. Does it not strike the hon. Minister of Justice that the experts in the final court of appeal may in a great many cases, differ from the experts who have been called in the court of first instance? You may call in assessors when the case comes to the Supreme Court who will differ from the assessors who have been called in the court below. I think the hon. Minister of Justice will agree that in an ordinary trial case it is very easy to get experts who will differ. If they think it is well for them to do so, the chances are that when you come to the appeal court they will disagree with the assessors in the court below. It appears to me that this is only an enlargement of a practice which the courts, notably in Ontario, have been endeavouring to cut out for a number of years. This is a matter that it might almost be better to leave alone and let us continue taking simply the evidence of the assessors in the court of first instance, and let the judges pass upon that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The remarks of my
hon. friend are entirely without application to the case here dealt with. This has reference to admiralty cases. The advice which the assessors give is in the nature of expert information and it is something that the parties do not hear at all. They do not ..know what it is that the assessors say and these assessors are the advisors of the court Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
of first instance. If the court of first instance by reason of the peculiar nature of the case, finds it necessary to be advised and to have some of the matters in question explained to it, not in the way of evidence, but in the way of explanation, by people thoroughly versed in and understanding such matters, it would seem to me that the appeal court might be afforded the same assistance. In view of the fact that under our system there may ultimately be an appeal in these cases to a court of final appeal, which is absolutely free to call assessors, and assessors selected really in another country, people not accustomed to our conditions, I think it would be well that the final judgment of our ultimate court, going over to the Privy Council for review, should bear on the face of it evidence that it has been rendered by a court which had all the advantages of the scientific advice which is at the disposal of their lordships of the Privy Council.
On section 4-sessions of Supreme Court:


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
object of that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The reason of this
provision is that it is found that the interval between the fall session and the winter session is too long. The fall session now begins on the first Tuesday in October, and the winter session on the third Tuesday in February. The proposal is that the winter session should begin on the first Tuesday in February. That would cut off two weeks of the interval between the two sessions, a is considered that at present the time ilapsing between two sessions is unduly .ong. The other provision is that the date for the beginning of each session may be changed by the Governor in Council or by the court, provided that notice shall be given in the Canada Gazette not' less than four weeks before the date that may be fixed for the beginning of any session. The justices of the Supreme' Court have considered that it would be an advantage that the court should not be absolutely bound down to a fixed date because the condition of business may make it desirable to begin at an earlier or other date than that fixed, if there be a great deal of work to do. It is suggested that while the power may conduce to the advantageous disposal of business there is nothing in it that could bring about any injustice to anybody.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am very
sorry the Minister of Justice has agreed to that change. It is of the greatest importance to the legal profession and to litigants that they should know, as they do now, the exact dates at which they are to expect sittings of the Supreme Court. Under the present system the members of the legal profession who have to appear before the Supreme Court know it will sit on a

fixed date, and they can accordingly arrange their business beforehand. No good reason has been given for this change which permits the Governor in Council or the court to fix the sittings arbitrarily at any time. I could understand if the court were to call extra sessions, but I would not change the statutory date.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Minister of Justice says he has been advised on this by the judges of the Supreme Court. May I ask him if he has taken the opinion of the leading members of the profession who practice before that court? I agree with my right hon. leader that if the date of the terms of the court is to be fixed at the will of the justices it may cause inconvenience to the members of the legal profession. I am quite certain that if the members of the Bar were consulted, as they should be in a matter of this kind, they would not agree to the change.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it be assumed that
the power would ever be exercised without the most substantial reason, I would agree that it is very undesirable. What was contemplated is that there might be a condition of things which would render it very desirable in the public interest that the opening of the court should be held at an earlier date, or on the contrary, that it should be somewhat delayed, but no matter what the urgency not less than four weeks' notice must be given of any change. The Supreme Court has often to deal with important references and it may be a matter of great public interest that such cases should be dealt with at an earlier date than that fixed absolutely by the statutes for the term to open. If an important question for reference should arise immediately after a term of the court, no matter how desirable it might be in the public interest to hasten a decision on it, it could not now come before the court until the following term. Of course it all comes back to the matter of having confidence in the bodies to whom this power is entrusted that they will exercise it only in cases where grave considerations justify it.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is conceivable, somewhat remotely conceivable I must say, that occasions may arise, such as the Minister of Justice has referred to; but what is immediately conceivable, if this amendment passes, is that the greatest inconvenience may be placed on the members of the Bar who practice before the Supreme Court. A leading counsel in Montreal or Toronto has his business arranged from day to day in advance, months in advance; he arranges that he will be before the Privy Council in England at a certain date, and before the Supreme Court at another date, and in the interval he will have business engagements elsewhere.
But if this amendment passes, after he has made his plans, there may appear an announcement in the Canada Gazette that the term of Supreme Court which he knew would commence at a fixed date had been postponed or advanced, as the case may be, and all his plans would be disarranged. There is great advantage in having the sittings of the court fixed by law. I think this section should stand for further consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am free to admit that there is very considerable force in the opinion advanced by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. The only thing that would justify this change would be that we can fairly assume that the court would be as alive to the consequences of a change as any one possibly could be, -and that the power would not be exercised unless circumstances arose which wbuld amply justify making a change. The same may be assumed to be true of the Governor in Council. However, I realise that the change might involve serious inconvenience and I shall be glad to give further consideration to the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.
Section stands. [DOT]
On section 5-amount in dispute:


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only alteration
effected by this section is to provide that, where no specific sum is claimed, the amount or value of the matter in controversy may be proved?


Wilfrid Laurier: In a case of that kind, has the judge to whom the application is made, the power to try the case as to the amount involved?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We propose that there should be new words added to the clause providing that the amount or value of the matter in controversy may be proved by affidavit. The question would arise and does arise in practice under appeals from the' province of Quebec not only to the Supreme Court but to the Privy Council. Section 46 provides with regard to the province of Quebec:
No appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment rendered in the province of Quebec, in any action, suit, cause, matter or other judicial proceeding, unless the matter in controversy .... (c) amounts to the sum or value of $2,000.
As I understand the practice, when you have an action where the right in question is of the value of $2,000 or over- say, for instance, where a man attacks a patent or seeks to have another restrained from using a trade mark-no sum of money is mentioned; but in the province of Quebec, if the value of this right is or ex-

ceeds $2,000, there can be an appeal. The purpose of this alteration is to make it quite clear that where on the face of the record the value does not appear as in the case which I have suggested, it should be open to the party who proposes to appeal to establish by affidavit what the value of the matter in dispute is. In Yhe case which I have suggested, that of infringement on a trade mark, where the complainant sought to restrain the defendant from continuing to use it, but did not claim any specified damages, the question arose as to whether the value of the matter in dispute amounted to the required sum, and the parties proceeded to prove the fact. And, I think I can say without fear of being in error, the proceeding is that the parties should establish by affidavit that the value of the matter in controversy is equal to the required sum.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to me that the principles of our laws of Quebec ought to govern in this matter, and that they would afford a better remedy than the one suggested. My hon. friend knows better than I do that in the province of Quebec, if future rights are infringed, no matter what the value, there is the right of appeal. The case to which my hon. friend alluded was one of infringement of a trade mark, which is a matter of future right and under the law appealable. For my part, I would not favour an extension of the right of appeal from our courts to the Supreme Court. I would rather strictly interpret the law than extend it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not desire to enter into a discussion on that subject, but I would not be disposed to agree with the view that an action concerning the infringement of a trade mark, where an individual seeks to restrain another from infringing, would be a matter of future right. There still remains the other provision:
Unless the matter in controversy in the appeal exceeds the sum or value of $1,000 exclusive of costs.
Whatever may be the nature of the right, there is an appeal if the matter exceeds the value of $1,000. There is no difficulty where the subject matter is a claim for money. The statement of claim shows whether it is $1,000 or not. This is to cover a case where it is not a sum of money, but where the right in dispute is of the value of $1,000 or over, and it seems to me only reasonable that some method should be afforded the parties to establish what tne value of the matter in dispute is. If the value is $1,000 or over, they are entitled to appeal. If it is not, they are not entitled to appeal. As the law stands at present, when you are dealing with a matter other than a claim for a sum of money, you have or may have on Mr. DOHERTY.
the face of your record nothing to establish what the value of the matter in dispute is. This is merely to enable parties under such circumstances to establish what that value is. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) says that this question has arisen and has given very serious trouble in cases of appeal under the Winding Up Act, where the matter in dispute was not a claim by one person against another for a sum of money. He tells me of a case where there was very great difficulty in determining the value where on the face of the record there did not appear exactly what the amount of the value was.


Wilfrid Laurier: What was the case?


John Douglas Hazen: It is a case which occurred about four years ago. The facts are not very fresh in my mind, but I remember that it was in connection with winding-up proceedings in the Cushing case in the city of St. John. There was an appeal to the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, and then an appeal was taken here. The point was raised that the appeal would not lie here because the amount involved was not $2,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: What was the issue in the court below?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not remember what the issue was. It was a case where winding-up proceedings were going on, and the amount really involved was several hundred thousand dollars. There was nothing, however, to show on the face of the proceedings that the amount involved in the special appeal was $2,000, and on that ground the court refused to hear the appeal. I will endeavour to get the report.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In Ontario I understand that various actions are brought claiming damages without stating any special amount. Under the operation of the amendment with regard to the definition of a final judgment, there will be, in oases of that kind, rights of appeal from the judgment determining liability. In such cases neither by the judgment itsellf have you any evidence as to what the amount of liability is, nor have you in the action itself any stated sum, and it becomes necessary under those circumstances to adopt a method by which you can establish before the court what the value in question is. I do not see that such a provision is going to increase the number of appeals, because in cases of this kind I think there is no danger that the courts will be deceived with regard to value. We are merely trying to afford a settled method for the exercise of rights intended to be given.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Frank Cochrane (Minister of Railways and Canals), House went into Committee on Bill No. 32, to encourage and assist the Improvement of Highways.
On section 3-grant of annual subsidy for highways and bridges:
Francis Cochrane: Last year the Senate
made seven amendments to the Bill, and the House agreed to five of them. In clause 3 the first amendment is the substitution of the words ' the several provinces of the Dominion,' in the seventeenth line, for the words ' any provincethe striking out of the word-s ' in such province' in line nineteen; the substitution of the word ' subsidies ' for * subsidy ' in line twenty, and the insertion after the word ' exceeding ' of the words 'in the whole ' in the same line.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-^specifications for improvement and construction to be approved:
Francis Cochrane: In sections 4 and 5
the words 'or bridge' are inserted after the word 'highway.'


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On seotion 5-agreement with province:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In this clause it is stated that provision may be made for the future maintenance of such highway bridges. What has the minister in mind-an agreement with the provinces as to future maintenance, or a joint agreement?


Francis Cochrane: My own idea is that
it would be well to build bridges first, but later on, when we get more roads built, we might consider the advisability of helping to maintain them, if they become a burden to the different provinces.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Did the minister negotiate during the recess with any of the provincial governments on this matter, and, if not, why not?


Francis Cochrane: I had no authority to do anything of the kind.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You had a lot of money voted.


Francis Cochrane: But it was under this Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Supposing that money
was voted under this Act, why should you not have negotiated?


Francis Cochrane: We would not have
had a right to expend it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why would not the minister negotiate during the recess with the
several provinces and have some scheme or policy to present to the House?


Francis Cochrane: I must make the statement clearly and fully that I do not think there will be any trouble in making an agreement with any of the provinces, satisfactory to it. I feel that and I feel that most of the criticism that has been made from outside sources has been political rather than on the merits of the Bill. There is a difference of opinion as to how this should be worded but I am not at all afraid that there will be any trouble in doing business with the governments of the provinces, irrespective of party.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not share the minister's confidence that he will not meet with difficulties in making agreements with the several provinces for the expenditure of public money. Of course he will not have the slightest trouble, the provincial. governments doubtless will be glad to enter into an arrangement for such a purpose. But we as members of the Canadian Parliament and representatives of our several constituencies should see that the public moneys are not wasted and the minister knows as well as I do that there is hardly a public service, federal or local, wherein such little results are to be observed as from moneys expended on public highways. If members could be satisfied that the provinces would obtain any beneficial results from the expenditure of this money there would be no opposition to the Bill and I dissent to the proposition of the minister that it necessarily follows that any benefit will accrue to the provinces. I say that the whole policy and principle contained in the Bill is bad, principally because the minister and the Government have so far outlined no policy, there is nothing to make it appear that they have ever in council given a moment's consideration to the Bill or any part of it and I say it is the bounden duty of every member of Parliament to look at this Bill very carefully, and censoriously indeed, before it comes into operation.


Francis Cochrane: How would you lay
down any policy in reference to it? We have first to consult the provinces in reference to it, to make an agreement with them. That is our first duty, to agree on a specification.
At six o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 151, respecting the Pacific and Peace River Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Frank Oliver: What are the features oi this Bill?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is a Bill amending the original charter and providing for a renewal. We have passed the Bill as it came from the Senate without any amendment. The length of the line of railway was erroneously stated in the charter ol 1911 at 480 miles, the length actually being 610 miles. That amendment was made by the Senate and the Railway Committee did not object to it. The securities issued by the company are increased from $35,000 and $50,000 per mile to $50,000 per mile. The charter of 1911 allowed the company to bond the railway to the extent of $35,000 per mile in Alberta, and to the extent of $50,000 per mile in British Columbia. This amendment Bill allows them to bond to an extent not exceeding $50,000 per mile al. through. In the Railway Committee we inquired of gentlemen from Alberta about the matter and they thought that that amount was reasonable, because the northern part of the province is mountainous more -or less. As the Senate passed it in that way we saw no objection to increasing the amount to $50,000.


Frank Oliver: What are the terminal
points?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It runs from Bella
Coola or Dean channel, the starting point being alternative in the charter of 1911. Then it runs to Dunvegan, passing through Fort James and Fort McLeod.


Frank Oliver: Would Dunvegan be the terminal, and would the railway pass Fort James and Fort McLeod?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I will read the section authorizing the construction of the railway:
The company may lay out, construct and operate a railway of the gauge of four feet eight and one-half inches running from a point at or near Bella Coola on Burk channel in the province of British Coliimhia, thoncc by way of the Bella Coola river and the most feasible route therefrom to a point at or near Fort Fraser, or from a point at or near Dean channel in the said province of British Columbia, thence by the most feasible route to Fort Fraser aforesaid, thence northerly passing east of Stuart lake to a point at or near Fort St. James, and thence northeasterly to a point at or near Fort McLeod, and thence through the Pine pass -to Peace river to a point at or near Dunvegan, in the province of Alberta.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


HUDSON BAY, PEACE RIVER AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committe on Bill No. 157, respecting the Hudson Bay, Peace River Mr. COCHRANE.
and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Beattie.
Frank Oliver: I would like to have a
similar explanation with regard to the route of this railway.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The route is from
Winnipeg to Fort Nelson and Fort Churchill, and then it branches westerly from Fort Churchill to Fort Vermilion, and thence to Fort Simpson.


Frank Oliver: Is there any mention oi
the pass by which it crosses the mountains?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The clause authorizing the construction of the railways, section 8, chapter 93 of the statutes of 1911 reads:
The company may lay out, construct and operate a line of railway, of the gauge of four feet eight and one-half inches from the city of Winnipeg, easterly and northerly, to Fort Nelson on Hudson hay; thence _ in a northwesterly direction to Fort Churchill on Hudson bay; thence westerly between the 58th and 60th parallels of latitude to a point at or near Fort Vermilion on the Peace river; thence in a southwesterly direction to a point at or near Fort St. John; thence westerly, hut slightly south, though keeping north of the 56th parallel, to a point where the Nass river crosses the 56th parallel; thence down either the east or west side of the Nass to a point near where it enters the Pacific ocean; and thence to Fort Simpson; and from a point on the aforesaid coast at or near Fort St. John, southeasterly to the city of Edmonton in the province of Alberta; and from a point on the said line of railway at or near the Cochrane river southerly and southwesterly to the city of Prince Albert, in the province of Saskatchewan.


Frank Oliver: I had in my mind that in one of these Bills provision was made for a junction with the line of another company, the Edmonton Dunvegan and Peace River Company. Is it in either of these two Bills?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not in either of these two Bills?
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


NIPISSING CENTRAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 135, respecting the Nipissing Central Railway Company.-Mr. Smyth.
On section 1-extension of time for completion :
Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have added three sections here-3, 4 and 5. I fancy that the Senate overlooked them because they have the same model clauses that we have for the protection of provincial rights as to water powers and the control of highways by municipalities. I need not, I hope, on a

hot night like this, read these clauses in full, because I think the committee thoroughly understand them.


Mr. McCRANEY:: On a previous occasion we had before this House a Bill to which we had to add the standard clauses. I would submit that before promoters come before the Railway Committee they should prepare their Bills in accord with the precedents of this House. I assume that this Bill came from the Senate. I am only mentioning the fact because promoters ought to take notice of these things and, if this is the practice of the House, they might as well follow it when they introduce their Bills into the Senate and possibly save a good deal of time.


Francis Cochrane: These clauses will be in the Consolidation Act and then they will have to comply with them.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


MONCTON AND NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 149, respecting the Buetouche Railway and Transportation Company, and to change its name to the Moncton and Northumberland Strait Railway Company.-Mr. Robidoux.
On section 1-corporation name changed:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Clause 1 is amended. As the Bill was passed by the Senate, it did not contain the model clause for this purpose and we have taken 'the responsibility in the Railway Committee of amending the Bill by striking out clause 1 as passed by the Senate and inserting the model clause for exactly the same purpose.
On section 2-line of railway authorized:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The amendment in
clause 2 is simply to make it apply properly in view of the amendment to clause 1.
On section 3-issue of securities increased:


George Ewan McCraney: I would ask the chairman of the Railway Committee with regard to the increase in the amount of the securities authorized to be issued. I have not the original Bill, but I assume they are permitted to issue securities up to $30,000 a mile instead of $20,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Senate increased it from $20,000 to $30,000 a mile, and we did not see any reason for disagreeing with the Senate on that point.


George Ewan McCraney: You had no evidence before you that $20,000 was not sufficient?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We had the explanation which evidently satisfied the Senate, and we thought it would be going a long way to say that it did not satisfy us.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


ALBERTA INTER-URBAN RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
COMPANY.	,
House in Committee on Bill No. 158, respecting the Alberta Inter-Urban Railway Company.-Mr. Aikins.
Frank Oliver: I cannot lay my hands on a copy of this Bill, but I fancy it is rather ' important to the people of Alberta. Would the chairman of the Railway Committee kindly give an explanation of the Bill?


Mr. AIKINS:: The reason for the Introduction of the Bill is mentioned in the recital. The purpose of the Bill is to correct a little technical eTror. Notice was sent out of the meeting to organize the company. All the subscriptions had been fully made but ten per cent had not been fully paid in. This ten per cent was paid in before the meeting. The statute requires that ten per cent shall have been paid in before the notice. Regulations were passed, bonds were issued and contracts made and a question arose as to the validity of the meeting. The Bill is to correct that.


Frank Oliver: That is all, the only purpose of the Bill?


James Albert Manning Aikins: That is the chief purpose of the Bill. The second clause is a clause that has been put into a number of* Bills that have been passed where the expenditure of fifteen per cent did not occur within two years. A portion was expended and the second clause is simply to extend the time.


Frank Oliver: What proportion had been expended?


James Albert Manning Aikins: I could not give my hon. friend that.


Frank Oliver: Was it any considerable
proportion?
Mr. AIKINS': A very considerable proportion, so it was stated at the committee.


Frank Oliver: Where is this railway?


James Albert Manning Aikins: I am sorry to say that I
cannot give the hon. gentleman the details.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Perhaps I might be pardoned if I called this a radial railway. As I understand it, Calgary seems to be the hub of a wheel with the spokes running out from that city. The railway runs from Calgary to Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Macleod and Pincher Creek, all these spokes centering in Calgary.


Frank Oliver: It get& two years extension of time?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, the capital is put at $10,000,000 and they are allowed



S5S&
bonding powers to the extent of $30,000 a mile.
Bill reported, read the third time, and pass-ed.


MANITOBA RADIAL RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 175, respecting the Manitoba Radial Railway Company.-Mr. Molloy.
On section 1-time for construction:
Frank Oliver: What is the purpose of
this Bill?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is an ordinary
renewal. The company was incorporated originally in-1907 and declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, and are merely extending the time and adding the standard clauses. We have adjusted the water-power and electric clauses, which the Senate overlooked, and we are asking that the Bill be sent back to the Senate to incorporate these clauses.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 159, respecting the Brantford and Hamilton Electric Railway Company. -Mr. Barker.
Bill No. 109, respecting the British Columbia and White River Railway Company.-Mr. Bristol.
Bill No. 136, to incorporate the Grand Lodge of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada. -Mr. Stevens.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to further consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 97, respecting the Canadian Northern Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Sharpe (Lisgar).
Edward Arthur Lancaster: That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 97, An Act respecting the Canadian Northern Branch Lines Company, be disagreed to for the following reasons:-
(a)	The said amendment does not fully describe the lines of railway referred to and tends to raise doubts as to the respective routes of same;
(b)	The amendment does not provide any limitation of time for completion of the first line of railway specified in section 8 of chapter 56, of the statutes of 1911, authorized by paragraph (a) of the said section;
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.
He said: I will state shortly the position to the House, and I think there is no way Mr. LANCASTER.
out of it except to adopt this motion. This is an ordinary renewal Bill which was passed by the Railway Committee of this House and then by this House on report of that committee exactly as submitted. It was in the regular form and very clear and distinct. With all respect to Their Honours in the Senate, I think it was in a form that was not capable of any misconstruction, was exactly what the House thought ought to be done, and was almost what one might call a stereotyped form for such renewals. One of these lines for which the company sought a renewal had been commenced. This gave rise to the trouble in -the Senate. In 1911, section 8 authorized the building of a number of branch lines hy the Canadian Northern Railway Company. The first one is described in clause (a) and they go down to (r). The line described in clause (a) is:	*
From a point on the Oak Point branch of the Canadian Northern railway, at or near Grosse Isle, thence in a generally northerly and westerly direction to Grand Rapids near the head of lake Winnipeg, with a branch therefrom to a point on Sturgeon bay on lake Winnipeg.
That line has been commenced. Therefore we did not need to state a new time for commencement, and accordingly the Bill says as passed by this House:
The Canadian Northern Branch Lines Company may commence the construction of its lines of railw-ay specified in section 8 of chapter 56 of the statutes of 1911, excepting the first line which is already commenced, within two years after the passing of this Act, and may complete the said lines of railway within five years after the passing of this Act; and if the said lines of railway are not so commenced, or if the said lines of rail-wray are not so completed within the said periods respectively, the powers of construction conferred upon the said company by Parliament shall cease as respects such parts of the said lines of railway as then remain uncompleted.
Section 20 of chapter 56 of the statutes of 1911 is repealed.
Section 20 being the former time limit. Their Honours in the Senate strike out our language, which distinctly incorporates that section 8, and enumerates these lines other than (a),but do not make any mention whatever of (a). In the statute which we are renewing sub-clause (b) of section 8 states:
Prom a point at or near Wassewa, thence through or near Deloraine, Hartney and ltoss-burn to a point at or near Ethelbert.
Their Honours the Senate have simply said:	'Wassewa to Ethelbert.' One can
understand that they were trying to do the same thing as we did, and they use different language, but there was no need of their doing so. If their meaning was intended to be exactly the same as ours,

there would be no object whatever in changing the wording to such an extent, as if to indicate that you could go as the crow flies from one place to another without going to the places en route as indicated by this Parliament in 1911. Take the oa.se of sub-section (g) which in the statute is as follows:
From a point on the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatoon railway at or near Davidson, thence in a generally eastern direction, passing north of Last Mountain lake, to a junction with the line authorized in paragraph (d).
Their Honours the Senate have said:
Davidson to a junction with the line authorized in paragraph (d).
This may mean the same thing, and it may not. When the Minister of Railways is called upon to approve the routes, the argument might be made that the later Act does not require that this particular route should be used. I do not think that is a good argument but it might be used. Is not the way the House of Commons did it-specifically adopting the settled routes -the better way? The same applies to subsection (k):
. From a point on the international boundary in range 7, west of the fourth meridian, thence m a generally northeasterly direction through or near Medicine Hat to a point on the authorized line of the Canadian Northern railway near or west of Babtleford.
Their Honours in the Senate said:
For the international boundary in range 7, west of the fourth meridian, to a point onf the Canadian Northern railway west of Battle-ford.
The same applies to (m) and (n), and, more or less, to all of them; in some cases some very serious discrepancies exiist. It may be said that the form used by the Senate is another way of saying the same thing as is stated in the former statute, but, with all due deference to Their Honours, I think it is proper to renew exactly what is specified in the different sections of the statute; that is the general principle under which railway charters are renewed.
The second ground taken by the Railway Committee as a reason for dissenting from the amendment of the Senate is that no time limit is given in regard to the completion of the line in clause (a). The Railway Committee thought that it should be provided that the line should he completed within five years, and they specified accordingly, bnt in the amendment of the Senate it is not mentioned at all. It was contended-not contended but suggested, which suggestion was withdrawn when an explanation was made-that possibly section 150 of the Railway Act might apply, requiring fifteen per cent to be expended, and providing that the line must be cornpleted within five years of the passing of the Act, and commenced within two years. I am bouhd to say, so far as my knowledge of the law and interpretation of the statute goes, that that could not be so, because we annulled that enactment by the passing of this special legislation, and it is provided that the Railway Act shall only apply if no other special Act is passed in its place. We did pass another Act which did not require the expenditure of fifteen per cent, the reason being that the capitalization of this big concern would be spread over thousands of miles. As I say, therefore, there is in the Bill as amended by the Senate no time limit provided for completion of the line covered by sub-clause (a) and for that reason, with ail due respect for Their Honours, I submit that the only thing we can do is decline to accept the amendment, and to submit that the Bill as we passed it is in the right form. No good reason exists for the acceptance of the amendment as it stands, but there are these reasons-why it might work to the disadvantage of the country. I submit, therefore, that the motion should be adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MACDONELL moved:: That the amendment made by the Senate to the Bill No. 101, respecting the patents of Frederick Jacob Newman and others, be agreed to, with the following amendments;
Line 2.-Substitute ' dates ' for date and ' patents ' respectively for ' patent/
Line 3.-Substitute ' inventions ' for ' invention/
Line 4.-Substitute ' patents ' for ' patent/
Line 5.-Substitute ' inventions ' for ' invention/
And that a message be sent to -the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.


Frank Oliver: Would the hon. member explain?


Mr. MAODONELL:: 
Frank Oliver: 
Archibald Hayes Macdonell: I fancy so; I do not
areally know.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Rill No. 174, to incorporate Beaver Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Munson.
Bill No. 177, to incorporate the Athabasca and Grande Prairie Railway Company. Mr. Green.
Bill No. 178, to incorporate the Pacific and Eastern Mortgage Company-Mr. Stevens.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed in Committee on Bill No. 32, to encourage and assist the Improvement of Highways.-Mr. Cochrane.
On section 6-minister may undertake [DOT]construction and improvement of highways; authority of provincial legislation:
George Ewan McCraney: What has the minister in mind in the latter lines of that clause:
Provided however that the minister shall first obtain the necessary authority from the legislature of such provinces and the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Why, having got the authority of the legislature, does the minister want in addition to get the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council?


Francis Cochrane: The idea is that of
we do the work ouTselves it must have the approval of both the legislature and the Lieutenant Governor in Council?


George Ewan McCraney: If the consent of the legislature is obtained it is by Act of the legislature. Under constitutional government as we have it, that legislation must surely have the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council or else you have a condition of things which would entail the resignation of the provincial government and you would have not the means to carry out this legislation. It seems to me that the draughtsman has put two things together that do not go together. If there is not that agreement between the Cabinet and the provincial legislature there is a condition of things that we do not contemplate. I think the words ought to go out.


Francis Cochrane: They do not do any
harm.


George Ewan McCraney: But it is creating a precedent and making an assumption that there might be a disagreement between the Act of the legislature and the will of the provincial cabinet.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would it not be a
safeguard as the words are?


George Ewan McCraney: I do not think so.
Mr. OLIVER,


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: It cannot do any harm.


Frank Oliver: What is the reason for
this section? On what grounds do you assume that the Government of the Dominion can either more economically or better build roads or bridges than can the governments of the provinces whose business it has always been to build these roads and bridges. If this Government has money available for distribution among the provinces which can be used for the construction of roads and bridges, 'why should it not be thoroughly understood that that money was voted directly to the provinces to be spent for this purpose? It looks as if this Government thought that the provincial governments do not know how to transact their own business.


Francis Cochrane: There is no coercion
in this.


Frank Oliver: Not at all. Why should there be the assumption that this Government has the heaven-born ability to build roads or bridges to better advantage than has the government of the province of Ontario or of British Columbia or Alberta. The more so because it has been the business of the governments of these provinces ever since they were created as provinces to do that work. It would be reasonable to suppose that with the knowledge and experience which the provinces have of this kind of work, and in view of the fact that they are more intimately in touch with it, the provincial authorities are best fitted for carrying out that work. Given the amount of money to spend, the provinces can spend it to better advantage than the Dominion. Of course it is admitted that none of the provinces have money to spend as freely as is desirable in the improvement of roads and the building of bridges, but if this Government can afford to distribute money among the provinces for these purposes-, unless the minister has information that he has not given to the House, it seems to me that the provinces arc better fitted to look after their road and bridge needs than the Dominion Government.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Is the hon. gentleman
aware than in the province of Ontario the local government have not charge of the building of roads and bridges other than in the unsettled and newly organized portions of the province ? In that respect it is different from other provinces.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will
realize that the Ontario Government, being responsible for the building of roads in the enormous unorganized territory of that province, has an engineering and operating staff under its control, men ex-

perieneed in that kind of work. It is true that for the time being they are building roads chiefly in the unorganized territory, but give the province of Ontario more money and I am satisfied that they would be quite ready to use their organization to improve the roads in the better settled parts of the province. This Government has not the experience or organization in respect to road building which is possessed [DOT]by the Government of the province of Ontario. Why is it assumed that this Government, having no experience and none of the facilities, can do this work better than the province of Ontario ? I am not saying that they could not, but it is something that might very well be explained. In the province of Alberta the provincial government handles the matter of road building directly, and I think it would be generally agreed that the work is done satisfactorily, and that good value is given for the money spent. I do not think the people of Alberta would consider it likely that as good value would be given in that province under direct control by the Dominion as would be obtained under direct control by the province. True, it is not necessary that this section should be put into operation, but if there is a reason for having it here, I would like to know it.


Mr. BURNHAM:: The hon. member for
Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) Is entirely mistaken about Ontario. That is not the way in which road building is conducted in the province of Ontario, so far as I know, and I know something about it. They have no such system as he has indicated, and provided the province agrees, the Dominion is entirely at liberty to go in and take up the work without any preparation whatever.


Frank Oliver: Are no roads built in
Ontario by the Government of that province ?


John Hampden Burnham: There are roads built
by the Government of Ontario, but I understood my hon. friend to say that they had a machinery already in operation. That is not the case, so far as I know.


Frank Oliver: Do the roads build themselves ?


John Hampden Burnham: There is no standing
organization, so far as I know, and the Dominion could do the work just as well.


Frank Oliver: I do not deny that the
Dominion could do the work. I do not deny that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways could build the roads as well as the Government of Ontario, but there is no reason to believe that he could do the work better, and if he cannot do it better, why make provision for it?


James Arthurs: I think the hon. member for Edmonton has partially answered himself. He has told the House that the local government in Alberta builds all the roads and bridges, and controls them. At the same time he asks this House to place a sum of money under the control of that, government. The Minister of Railways has had some experience in the local government of Ontario in the past along the line of control. For many years I have lived in the-northern part of Ontario, and I saw the work of road-building carried out under the late-government of Ontario. It is true that under the present Government of Ontario, we have in the unorganized portions of the province machinery which is doing good work in the building of roads and bridges. They have a staff for that purpose, but the machinery applies only to the unorganized portions. In other parts of the province the roads and bridges are built by the county councils. In that respect the province of Ontario differs from several other provinces, particularly the western provinces, and probably Nova Scotia. So far as I know, no measure brought down by the present government has proved so popular in the province of Ontario as this Highways Bill. I heard some hon. member on the other side of the House state that the Senate had done good work in throwing out this Bill last year. I am satisfied that if the Senate's existence depended on their action in that regard, they would be out of existence in twenty-four hours time if the people of Ontario had their way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I desire to say just a
word or two. I am in favour of good roads. If there is any surplus in the Dominion treasury to devote to the improvement of roads in Canada, I would not object to it being spent, provided it is spent in the proper way. This is essentially local work, and it seems to me that if the Dominion Government is anxious to promote the movement in favour of good roads, it might well convene the representatives of the various provinces and allot to each province a pro rata amount. Last year, when this measure was introduced, we all know that the Senate made an amendment which was rejected by the Government, who withdrew the measure


Francis Cochrane: The Government accepted five out of the seven amendments made by the Senate, and did not withdraw the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The most important
amendment, the one which related to provincial rights was put aside, and the Bill was withdrawn. Let me give a concrete case. After that Bill was withdrawn by the Government we had a general election in the province of Quebec. The policy of the very progressive Administration which we have in the province of Quebec was chiefly confined to education


'3595 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
and good roads. The policy of the Qtiebec *Government was to help, to a certain degree, the various municipalities in having better roads. A municipality would subscribe, say, half the amount required and the Government would subscribe the ot-hei half, the municipality to pay a certain rate of interest during a long period of years, the payment having the effect of a sinking fund. The policy of the leader of the Opposition in Quebec, a very talented gentleman, Mr. Tellier, was that the government of the province should take upon itself the whole burden and at the .same time Mr. Tellier advocated the policy of the Dominion Government. The people of our province gave their preference to that advocated by Sir Lomer Gouin's Government and I think that, in so far as they have succeeded, they have educated, to a very large extent, public opinion in our province in favour of good roads. If you wish to spend any money on good roads it should not be done lavishly or improperly. Tf you spend this money without consulting with the provinces and without giving the provincial government, who know best how to expend money, the authority to expend it. you will have a huge political expenditure and it will not redound to the credit of the Federal Government. Why not convene the representatives of the various provinces and add to the annual subsidy of the Dominion paid to these provinces with the object of -establishing better roads? I am in favour of the policy of good roads. 1 would even go so far as to accept the money of the Dominion Government towards improving the roads in my own province, but the legislatures are the best judges.
Mr. HEPBURN:: In the county of Prince Edward, which I have the honour to represent, we have several miles of good roads instructed by the Ontario Good Roads [DOT]Commissioners. I think that a good deal af criticism could be offered as to the way in which the money has been expended, sand I believe '.that -where this Government votes money for the construction of good roads we should be able to have a voice as to the way in which this, money is expended. I am satisfied that the provincial governments do the best they can; yet, they are open to criticism and I think that the bon. members representing the different constituencies in this House should certainly have a say as to how any money voted for that purpose should be spent. I speak from experience and I think I voice public opinion upon this question in the province of Ontario. There has not yet been established a standard for good roads and I think that any provincial government can be criticised in a way for the manner Mr. LEMIEUX.
in which this road money is being expended. Consequently, I say that if this Government votes any money for the improvement of roads, we certainly should have something to say as to the way in which the money shall be expended.
Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER: I would like to ask my hon. friend if he has more confidence in this Government than in the Ontario Government?


Bernard Rickart Hepburn: No, I do not say that, but we should have a voice with the Ontario Government or any other provincial government. Wre should consult these governments in regard to the expenditure.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This Bill is the same as the Bill which was introduced last year. While I am perfectly in accord with the proposal to give assistance towards the making of good roads, I still think it should be done bv the provinces through the provincial governments, and that the money should be paid on a pro rata basis. I do not see any clause here that makes provision for that. I think the minister should add a clause to that effect. In answer to what my hon. friend (Mr. Hepburn) has said, I might point out that clause 4 covers his contention. Therefore, clause 6, in my judgment, is absolutely unnecessary, because its object is covered by clause 4. Clause 4 says that:
Any highway for which aid is granted to a province shall he improved or constructed, as the case may he, 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.
That covers all that it is necessary to provide for. I do not see why clause 6 should be added. It rather keeps a string on the expenditure as- far as the provinces are concerned. In the unorganized districts of Ontario the Government are apparently doing good work in road-building. In the older parts of the province, and especially in the riding that I have the honour to represent, the provincial government do this work through the county council when the road is built to a certain standard, and the engineer of the provincial government inspects the road before the grant is made and passes on it. I have no fault to find with that.


John Wesley Edwards: Does my hon. friend
regard the sending of a provincial engineer to overlook the road as a reflection on the ability of the county?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, not the slightest; that is the condition upon which they got their grant. That is covered here by clause

4, in so far as the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is concerned. He can protect the qnality of the road by clause 4 under his agreement with the province. I was saying that they send a man to inspect the road before they give the grant, nnd it has to be built up to a certain standard. I have had something to do with it and I know that is the case in so far as the riding I represent is concerned. The simplest way would be to grant this money to the provinces irrespective of the method adopted by the province in the building of roads. I have no doubt they are the best judges of what roads to build in conjunction with the municipalities if the municipalities also have control of roads as they have in old Ontario. I therefore do not think that it is necessary to add clause 6. I think the Bill would be in better condition without clause 6 than with it. But I would like to see a clause added to provide that the grant shall be made in proportion to population. If the minister cannot see his way to do that, I would suggest to him that he strike out [DOT]clause 6 and leave the Bill without that string attached to it. I have no doubt he thinks that if the agreement passes the provincial legislature and he gets authority from that body to build these roads it will be all right, but we know in politics, and I suppose it is only human, that where parties are the same in the Dominion and provincial fields, such agreements as are here provided for are not hard to get. It might be used-I do not say the present minister would do it because I have great faith in him-but it might be used by some *other minister for purposes of corruption, if the Dominion could get a province to agree. For that reason I move that clause 6 be stricken out.


Francis Cochrane: I am afraid that hon. *gentlemen opposite do not practice what they preach, because I would remind them [DOT]that they have built a great many bridges in the provinces on their own account, and without handing the money over to the *province to be expended. They did not, of course, do that on so large a scale as "the present proposal would involve, but nevertheless the example is there. Hon. [DOT]gentlemen opposite certainly have practiced what they are now preaching against, in many cases.


Wilfrid Laurier: In what
*cases?


Francis Cochrane: One case out of several is that in 1911 the Liberal Government voted an appropriation for a bridge in the 'Timiskaming district, which of course was very necessary and which helped the settlers greatly, but, it was absolutely a provincial matter. I really think the provinces will welcome this aid, no matter what the
political complexion of the governments of these provinces may be. There is a great agitation in this country now for trunk roads and I think it would be a grand thing if we had a trunk road from Windsor or Sarnia to Quebec city.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Francis Cochrane: If such a trunk road were built the provinces could devote their attention to opening up side lines, which would be less burdensome on them than the construction of main roads, and in this way the farmers would be very greatly facilitated in hauling their produce to the city markets. I agree with the hon. members who have said that the Government should have supervision over this expenditure because they will have to answer to Parliament for it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not
aware that the late Government or any government of Canada ever built any bridges except on interprovincial rivers.


Francis Cochrane: The Timiskaming
bridge was not on an interprovincial river.


Wilfrid Laurier: The bridge
was built on the Timiskaming which is not exactly a boundary river but is very near the boundary, and that is the reason that bridge was built by the federal Government.


Francis Cochrane: I can assure my right hon. friend that I can give him a number of similar cases.


George Henry Bradbury: If the Government of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition have not built bridges I can assure him they have built roads in provinces. In my own county at Whitemouth the Dominion Government built seven miles of road, and in the northern part of Rockwood they built fifteen miles of road and the money was not handed over to the provincial government to be expended. Of course everybody was glad to get these roads and the provincial government made no complaint. The province of Manitoba is very much interested in the good roads question. I may tell my right hon. friend that when the Senate killed this Bill last year, the Senate could not have done a more unpopular thing. The people of Manitoba need good roads; the people of all the provinces need good roads; the farmers must have roads to get to the market towns and to the railways, and this is the first attempt that has ever been made by a federal government to assist the farmers of Canada in this direction.	No more	popular	measurewas ever	introduced	by	a governmentthan the	one we	are	now	considering. I am much surprised that hon. gentlemen	opposite	take the	position
they do with regard to this Bill. In my

own province which I know most about, I have had some experience of the building of roads by the provincial Government, and I know the province is doing everything it can to improve the roads, but the province has not the means to meet one-tenth of the demands. Any assistance that is given by the federal Government in this direction will be most welcome. In my opinion every dollar of this money ought to be expended under the supervision of the Dominion Government; to my mind there is no question about that. If you' hand the money over to a province the money may be spent on improving roads or it may not, and some guarantee ought to be held by Parliament as to its proper expenditure. The late Liberal Government created a precedent in my own province for building roads, and why do these gentlemen opposite now object to this Government helping the settlers in the same way? I cannot understand the action of the Opposition. I may say frankly that I thought so much of the policy of the present Government and of the precedent set by lion, gentlemen opposite when in power, that I made application a year ago to the Government to build some roads in the northern part of my county, between lake Winnipeg and lake Manitoba, which district is rapidly being settled. The Manitoba Government is not able to cope with the condition of affairs there at the present time. The settlers have come miles and miles through the bush or over water to get to the settlements and I asked this Government a year ago to provide money to build colonization roads, just as the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he was Prime Minister, built similar roads. One of the most popular moves this Government could make is to give facilities to the poor settlers going into that country to bring their produce to markets over decent roads. I most strenuously object to the argument of hon. gentlemen on the other side that this money should be allocated according to population. I hold that every dollar of this money should be spent where it is needed most. In the newer provinces we need more money spent on our roads than they do in the older provinces, and I believe we should get the major portion of this grant.


Hugh Guthrie: There is some misapprehension as to the manner in which this money is to be expended. I was under the impression until the Minister of Railways spoke a moment ago that the intention was to expend the money largely in the unorganized portions of the Dominion, so as to afford greater facilities to the agricultural population than they have heretofore enjoyed. In that view, I do not know that I would have very great opposition to offer Mr. BRADBTJRT.
to the measure. I would inform my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) that he entirely misapprehends the attitude of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House upon the question. We are not opposed to the measure, we are trying to improve the measure; we are trying to make it workable-and more equitable as between the provinces. But when the Minister of Railways announced that he thought this money might be expended on a trunk road from Windsor to Quebec it rather shocked me because that means an automobile road: purely and simply.


Francis Cochrane: I did not say it would be expended on such a road; I said it might
be.


Hugh Guthrie: That must have been
what the minister had in his mind or he would not have said so, and that being the case the money is not going to be expended in giving facilities to the settleTs in the more remote portions of the country. I have all along thought that that might be the method of expenditure, because there is an outcry in the older and more settled and richer portions of Canada for automobile roads. People who have automobiles want good roads and for that worthy and influential class of our citizens a trunk line Erom Windsor to the city of Quebec would be a splendid thing I think the minister should let us distinctly understand whether it is his intention to spend the money that way or to spend it in colonization and development in giving settlers in the more-remote sections of the country access to our towns and markets as was originally-intended.


Francis Cochrane: That would be oneobject.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend from
Selkirk thinks this is going to be spent in the northern portion of his riding. I thought that some of it would be spent in the northern portions of Ontario which today are not well served with roads, and so. in the case of the other provinces. The-minister should make it clear that his intention is not to build trunk lines for auto-mobilists throughout the older and more-settled portions of the Dominion. I am not, opposed to the expenditure of the money, provided it is put on a proper basis. If it is given to the provinces as subsidies, ear-marked for expenditure on highways and' bridges, all well and good. If it is given on any other basis, it is simply a gold brick to-, the province of Ontario. We have in population the largest province. Ontario pays more taxes in proportion to its population, than any other province. I worked the figures out a year ago, I think it was in connection with the Manitoba Boundary Bill. If you do not distribute the money pro rata

among the provinces, you are handing the people of Ontario a gold brick; you are asking them to pay in taxes a larger sum than they are going to get any benefit of. They may be willing to approve the proposal, but Ontario has before and since confederation spent large sums of money on its own highways and is continuing to do.so. Our highways may be divided into several classes, the urban highways, the rural highways, the township highways, the county highways, a few private roads originally built and still held by local companies known as toll roads and the government roads or colonization roads which are being built in the more remote portions of the province. All these roads are under the control of the municipalities with the exception of the coloniza-f0Il.r0a( s w.hich are still under the control of the province. There can be no doubt that when the British North America Act was framed the question of highways and bridges wa,s regarded as a provincial matter and has always been treated as such.


Francis Cochrane: No, it has not.


Hugh Guthrie: They have been managed as municipal matters under the control of the provinces, so that we are making a departure in this Bill in order to dabble once more as we have done on other occasions, in matters which do not come strictly within the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada, unless as my hon. friend the minister suggests he is going to have interprovincial roads, trunk lines for the accommodation of the automobiling public I would like some statement of a definite nature from the minister as to where this money is to be spent.


Francis Cochrane: I have explained to the Mouse twice that it is a matter of agreement between the provinces and the Gov-ernnient where the roads shall be put. The provinces are to be consulted in the matter We are not going to spend a dollar without doing so.


Hugh Guthrie: If the minister went to the province of Ontario and said:	Your
share of this grant is such and such and we will pay it to you provided you build an automobile trunk line; and if you do not do it we will not give you the money, Ontario would not get anything.


Francis Cochrane: You can twist as
much as you like.


Hugh Guthrie: You are the party who has the money and the granting of the money, and you can prescribe the terms. We should have some assurance to satisfy my hon. friends from Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), from Muskoka (Mr. Wright), and from the more remote of the constituencies represented in this House-


Francis Cochrane: My own riding, too.


Hugh Guthrie: that the money is
going to be spent where it is most needed and for the accommodation of the people who need it most, and not for the joy riders of the richer and older districts. My own county is blessed with good roads, not through the whole of it. There is a proposal for $500,000 to be expended in that county for the improvement of roads. We propose to have the best roads in the country. This expenditure is to be spread over a period of years. 1 do not think that the people in that county would object to paying a reasonable amount to districts which are not as well situated, but I do not believe that the province of Ontario as a whole is ready at the present time to lay out any large sum of money for trunk lines for automobile roads.


Mr. PROULX:: My hon. friend from
South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has said what I thought of saying. I was surprised when I heard the hon. Minister of Railways state that the Government might build a trunk road from Sarnia or Windsor to Quebec. I thought he was asking Parliament to vote the money to be spent where it is most needed. As my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) has said, where it is most needed is in the construction and improvement of roads leading from the farms to the towns and the railway stations, and I concur in this view. As far as building trunk roads is concerned, as my hon. friend from South Wellington has said, it would be a good thing for automobilists, but that is not what the country wants. When the country is prosperous enough to afford trunk roads and after the roads for the farmers have been built, the Government may go into this luxury; but at the present time I think it would be money very ill-spent when roads leading from farms to the towns and railway stations are so badly needed. The provinces could spend this money more economically and to better advantage than could this Government. As my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has said, in the province of Quebec there is co-operation between the provincial and the municipal authorities. There is co-operation also in Ontario, and this scheme could be worked in the other provinces. The county council assume certain roads; they spend certain sums of money and the provincial Government contributes a third. If you give the money to the provinces according to population, then the provincial governments could increase their contributions to the municipalities; and, instead of giving one-third, they could give one-half or two-thirds of the whole money expended on the road.
I am of the opinion of my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that elause 6 is unnecessary and that this money should be handed over to the pro-

vincial governments on the basis of population, and should be spent by them in co-operation with the municipalities.


Mr. HENDERSON:: I was somewhat
surprised when I heard the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) and the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) suggest that the minister had ever thought of appropriating this money or a part of it for a great trunk road from Windsor to Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He said so.


David Henderson: The hon, minister
did not say so. I heard what he said. He simply made a reference to the. agitation in the country for trunk roads, but not for one moment did he suggest that this money should be used for any such purpose. Hon. gentlemen may try to distort his meaning and endeavour to make the farmers believe they are not going to obtain the benefits of this money; they may twist and turn the facts as they see fit, but they can cite no statements of the minister to support their contention. I sat just as close to the minister as the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx); I heard exactly what he said, and I am quite sure that he did not say what the hon. member for Prescott has set forth. It may be a very good act of political strategy on the part of the hon. gentleman opposite but I am quite satisfied that the position I take with reference to what the minister said is quite correct.
I jhave always favoured a system of good roads and I am delighted when in my own county I come across a stone or macadamized road. I am happy to say that in the county which I represent we have many miles of these roads; we are gradually adding to them, and hope in a few years to have many more. If there is one thing that the farmers of this country appreciate more than anything else, it is a good road to go to town, to market, or to the railway station, and you find that no objection is made to a few extra dollars in taxation. I can remember the time when extra taxation was held out to the farmer as an objection, but now that is seldom mentioned, so favourable is the attitude of the farmers towards the necessity for having good roads; and that is the reason why this Bill is meeting with so much favour throughout the country. The money which is to be voted, when this Bill becomes law, is Dominion, not provincial money, and why should the Dominion lose oontrol of the money which is being voted by this Parliament? It is raised by Dominion taxation; it should be controlled in some substantial way by the Parliament or Government granting it, and I am not afraid to advocate that this Government should keep a string on that- money until Mr. PROULX.
it is appropriated for the purpose for which it is designed. Hon. gentlemen opposite have asked us why we should not give the money to the provinces in the way subsidies are granted. Subsidies are very different; they are granted under the British North America Act, and are absolutely given to the provinces to be expended in such manner as they may see fit. They may expend the money on education, on agriculture, on the administration of Government, and in a variety of ways; but this money is granted for the purpose of constructing good roads and making and repairing highways-not a dollar of it can be used for any other purpose. It is the duty of this Government and the Dominion Parliament to see that every dollar of the money is expended for the purpose for which it has been designed.
I do not see the propriety of cutting out clause 6; I think it is a very proper po-vision. I have no doubt the Bill was drafted with a great deal of care, and, as this clause seems to provide a safeguard in respect to the matter to -which I have just referred, I would not favour the striking out of a clause which is inserted for any such good purpose. When this Bill was before the House * few evenings ago, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) referred to the provincial aid that was given in the province of Ontario for the construction of good roads. He said that in the days of Sir Oliver Mowat a grant was made for that purpose, and successive administrations-the Administration of Mr. A S. Hardy, Sir George Ross, and Sir James Whitney-have been favourable to [DOT]the granting of money for the purpose of improving the highways, not only of the northern ~ and newer sections of the province, but- of its older portions, where there is a .great need for the improvement of the highways. I would point out that, just as the hon. Minister of Railways has done, the Government of Ontario under these successive premiers has always kept a string on the expenditure of the money granted, and never allowed the cofinty councils to expend the money without its being subject in some degree to the control of the province. So that the policy the hon. minister has adopted -with reference to the expenditure of this money is very much akin to the method laid down by the premiers of these governments of the province of Ontario.


Edmond Proulx: Is the hon. member satisfied with the system adopted by Ontario?


David Henderson: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: Then why not leave the work'in the hands of the provinces?


David Henderson: The province leaves it to the county councils

mot absolutely, I admit, for the provincial government keeps a control over it. Under this proposed legislation the money to be granted will be spent under an agreement made between the Dominion and provincial governments, and in this manner a control will be kept as to its expenditure. Two heads are better than one, and I think the fact that two governments have something to say in the matter will be conducive to better results. Hon. gentlemen have said that there is a danger, if the Dominion is to have anything to say in the matter, that the money may be used for political purposes. Would there not be a greater danger if the money were handed over to the provincial government? I think the province of Ontario would, perhaps, be all right in that regard, but as long as I am in Parliament I would like to have a voice in the expenditure of that money in order to show my lack of appreciation of any such use being made of the appropriation. I am not afraid that the money, under this joint control, is going to be misapplied, and I think this double-barrelled regulation will make us feel assured that the money will be devoted to very laudable purpose of construction and improving highways which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has in view in the Bill which he has brought down.
I am in hearty sympathy with the Government in this grant and I hope that nothing will prevent this Bill going through both Houses. I fail to see why the Senate should not trust the Government of the day in the expenditure of this money along the lines indicated. The provinces are to have a say in it, the Dominion is to have some say in it and I think we might say that the Senate is to have some say in it; but let us by all means make sure' that whatever is done with this money it shall be, as the hon. member for South Wellington said, ear-marked for the purpose of road improvement and let us make sure that our legislation is so framed that the money cannot possibly be diverted into any other channel. I feel that all the saifeguards required for the purpose of protecting this money are thrown around it in this Bill. I heartily endorse the Bill and will vote against the amendment of the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).


John Wesley Edwards: I would call the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the fact that the principle of the Dominion Government contributing to the upkeep of the roads was adopted some years ago by the Government of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Opposition. In the county which I have the honour to represent they assume and maintain a piece of road. That particular- piece of road is
on the direct line of travel between Toronto and Montreal and is travelled by all automobiles passing from one city to the other. This was taken over by the late Government and maintained by them so that they adopted the principle and I have not heard of anyone on the opposite side of the House being greatly shocked by their doing so.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: Will the money allotted or extended under this Bill be apportioned to the provinces according to their population and will the money so allotted be extended in each province from year to year or will the amount assigned to each province be held over for one, two of three years and then the whole amount be expended in that province in any one year?


Francis Cochrane: The money will be
voted according to population as my hon. friend will see iwhen the estimates come down. As to the expenditure of the money, il will certainly be spent each year as it is voted.


James Joseph Hughes: In each province?


Francis Cochrane: Unless some province -and I do not think this is possible-will refuse to entertain it and enter into an agreement.
Mr. OLIVER. I asked the minister sometime ago on what grounds he concluded that the governments of the various provinces were less able to look after road and bridge expenditure within the different provinces than he or this Government would be.


Francis Cochrane: I said that this Parliament should be responsible for any money voted by it and that the minister of a department should be responsible for the money to be expended under that department.


Frank Oliver: I am struck with the protestations of our friends to-night, and their insistence on the principle that Parliament shall control any money that is to be expended in the name of or by this Government. The Minister of Agriculture had a Bill up a night or two ago providing for the expenditure of $10,000,000 and it was an essential principle of that Bill that Parliament should not ha^e any control over the expenditure of that money.


Francis Cochrane: Oh, no, Parliament has control under that Bill.


Frank Oliver: Absolutely no control over the expenditure of the money.


Francis Cochrane: They have.


Martin Burrell: The principle of control in the Agricultural Bill is the same as in this Bill, that is it is embodied in the share

of a clause which does not permit the possibility of spending the money except under an agreement between the respective governments of the provinces and this Dominion Government; and this Bill is precisely the same.


Frank Oliver: But the Minister of Railways advances as a reason for this Bill that this Parliament must he responsible for the expenditure of the money. I fail to see why the minister should assume that this Governement is better able to expend the money than the provincial government.
I would ask the members from British Columbia if they think the Government of British Columbia is less able to expend moneys on roads and bridges within that province, after the long experience they have had in that work, than the Dominion Government, and whether they think it will be of more advantage to the province to have this money expended from Ottawa than from Victoria? The same principle exactly applies to all the other provinces. The provincial governments are best fitted to deal with the building of roads.
This Government complains, and with good reason, that they have too much responsibility and that they have now too much to do. Why should they take upon themselves the added responsibility of providing roads and bridges throughout this great Dominion? I submit that no good reasons have been shown for the provisions of this Bill. The Government have declined to give Parliament or the country a good and sufficient reason why this Bill should be adopted in this present form. If they have money to spare, there is no reason why a sum should not be placed in the estimates, and tnat money voted to the various provinces, for the provincial governments to expend as, I submit, they best know how to expend on what is especially and essentially provincial work.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I intended to make a few remarks on this Bill in committee but have not had an opportunity to do so this evening. I understand that there has been an arrangement between the whips that there will be an opportunity on the third reading of discussing the general principle of the Bill, and if that is understood I am quite willing to wait until then. Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Borden, the order for the second reading of Bill No. 2, respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters- Mr. Bradbury-was called.
Mr. BURRELL.
George Henry Bradbury: -	1900.	1901.	1902.	1903.	1904.	1905.	1906.	1907.	1908.	1909.	1910.	1911.75.4	20.0	32.3	37.5	40.0	254.3	180.8	110.0	76.0	80.0	40.0	18.1	4fi 1	25.0	62.6	42.1	76.1	58.3	18.1	25.0	25.0	15.3	26'9	10.5	8.8	39.1	21.7	18.5	3.4	16.1	18.1	17.1	5.4	10.0	122.S	118.3	95.0	82.0	248.3	175.0	108.0	49.2	40.5	38.4	Moncton	87.5	58.8	88.8	42.1	10.0	47.6	36.3	34.7	58.3	8.0	26.1	31.2	4.0	90.9	8.3	16.2	30.7	15.3	42.8	13.3	31.2	11.7	88.6	200.2	132.6	946.9	98.5	94.0	23.2	i8.9	13.0	11.1	12.7	13.8	33.5	17.9	14.0	16.5	32.8	10.8	87.6	21.6	38.4	37.9	32.2	41.7	31.2	67.3	23.9	44.0	6.7	10.4	4.0	44.0	14.1	37.7	37.0	74.0	24.3	3i.6	19.7	35.9	9.7	11.0	20.0	20.7	51.6	26.1	31.2	500	87-0Peterborough	73.5	36.5	18.0	34.6	49.3	41.7	20.7	25.0	18.1	5.9	St. Catharines ....	38.6	57.1	47.1	18.7	36.6	44.7	25'5	24.3	28.7	46.4	37.2	26.1	24.5	23.3	7.5	20.7	10.5	11.1	11.8	15.9	18.1	167	24.8	19.4	i9.8	25.7	Woodstock	137.6	52.9	10.5	21.1	31.7	21.1	43.2	10.8	43.2	16.6	16.6	8.3	Montreal	42.6	44.4	30.9	31.4	si. 8	18.1	37.0	33.2	33.1	53.8	7 8	13 0	23.1	5.3	Sherbrooke	476.6	227.0	60.8	60.8	30.7	52.3	21.6	108.0	131.4	78.4	133.3	66.6	I I	
This shows the awful death rate from typhoid fever in these cities. The author of this work, Dr. Hodgetts, goes on to say:
In studying the table, one cannot fail to he struck with the fact that during the past decade the inhabitants of each of the cities have been served out ' polluted water ' and that, as a consequence, many valuable lives have been lost and many thousands of people have had to endure sickness and suffer loss of time and money, all on account of the indifference and criminal carelessness of individuals and of failure on 'the part of the legislatures to make adequate statutory provision for requiring-yes, making-the body corporate do just what the individual citizen is required now to do, viz.: to care for his own domestic waste so it will not he a nuisance either to himself or his neighbours. In
other words, a city should care for its own sewage in such a manner that it will not prove a nuisance.
For purposes of comparison of typhoid statistics with some of the cities of the United States a compilation of the mortality figures of twelve cities of the United States located on the chain of great lakes, has been made in table ' B.' These figures are for the corresponding years of table ' A, with the exception of 1909, for which the figures could not he obtained. The mortality rates given are gathered from the reports of the Washington Census Bureau.
I wish to place a few of these on record just for the sake of comparison. The rate per 100,000 of population by years in the cities named is as follows:
	1900.	1901.	1902.	1903.	1904.	1905.	1906.	1907.	1908.
									
23.5	27.1	33.7	34.6	24.2	24.4	23.6	29.2	20.756,8	34.9	35.5	115.0	49.6	14.9	20.2	18.9	12.6Niagara Falls	107.9	143.9	130.4	126.9	139.8	181.6	147.3	126 8	9*.U
I do not intend to trouble the House with more of these statistics. I have a lot of them. I just want to place a few on record in order to demonstrate the fact that this country is in a deplorable condition so far as the sanitary care of water is concerned. This article goes on to say:
Mr. BRADBURY.
The people of the United States have not yet learned the lessons of municipal sanitation-the laws of common sense-and as a consequence the typhoid death rate in the United States is 46 per 100,000.
To further emphasize the fact that Canada has lessons to learn in respect to sanitation generally, from the older countries of Europe,

where population is and has been congested for many years, as well as from the nation to the south of us, table C has been prepared. A typhoid index certainly goes far to show what these countries are doing in respect to water supplies and the protection of the same as well as to general measures of sanitation which cannot be dwelt upon here. The figures are the latest obtainable.
^'Ta/wiaa feTer~ ^ra*e nine countries per 100,000 of population.
Tear group. Countries.
1901-1905 Scotland	
Germany	
England and Wales'. Belgium	
1901-1904 Austria	,,
Hungary	
Italy	
1901 (census). Canada	
1901-1904 United States	
Estimates.
Rate. .. 6.2 .. 7.6 .. 11.2 .. 16.8 .. 19.9 .. 28.3 .. 35.2 .. 35.5 ..*46.0
Imagine if you can a population of the European countries which I . have just named, including Germany, England, Scotland, Wales, Belgium, Austria and Italy, with a population of 175,000,000 in round numbers crowded into the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, with its density of population and with its poverty, out of both of which one can read death and misery. The typhoid rate in none of them is as great as it is in Canada with its sparsely populated area and with our great lakes and rivers. This is a sad reflection on the civilization of this country with our modern ideas, ancl this fact ought to make this House take serious thought of the conditions as they exist. In face of statistics that demonstrate that the death rate in Canada from typhoid is much greater than in European cities, with their densely populated areas, who will say that this Bill or some similar Bill should not be placed on the statute-books of this country? Is there anyone within the hearing of my voice who will say that our present legislation is sufficient to cope with existing conditions? I think not. Annually thousands of our citizens are stricken with typhoid fever. Hundreds of them find an early and untimely grave while thousands of our fellow citizens are left to go through this world, to continue the battle of life, with weakened bodies, weakened constitutions and weakened minds. These facts ought to appeal to everyone within the hearing of my voice, and they call for *serious action by this House.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. gentleman any statistics in respect to cities that do not lie on large rivers and that are therefore not mentioned in this Bill?


George Henry Bradbury: I have given all the statistics that I have and some of them refer to towns not on rivers. Any that I
have given are either on rivers or lakes I have no others.


Frank Oliver: Sherbrooke is not on a
navigable stream.


George Henry Bradbury: It is on a stream. Surely in view of these facts the time has come for this House to put an end to this abominable practice of dumping sewage and offal in the rivers from which people must use water for domestic purposes. I desire to place on record a few passages from an eminent authority on sanitation, a man who was brought here to examine conditions, as they existed in Ottawa. The report is made by Charles N. B. Camac, M. D., from Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York city, i wish to convince the House how serious the condition really is in Canada. This paper is entitled:	' The Epidemics of
1 yphoid Fever in the city of Ottawa ' It
?ated October 30, 1912. It was addressed to the Chairman of the Commission of Conservation, Hon. Clifford Sifton, and commences as follows:
In the city of Ottawa there have occurred two outbreaks of typhoid fever within eighteen months. Inis is so unusual an occurrence in our present knowledge of hygiene and sanitary engineering that it is no longer of local interest merely, but attracts the attention of physicians and sanitary engineers the world over. Besides sharing with the medical pro-ression tuns general interest, my attention was specifically directed to the epidemics bv being consulted by several citizens of Ottawa regarding the safety of residing in that city during the coming year.
Through the courtesy of some of the government authorities I was enabled to acquaint myselt with the conditions leading up to the outbreak. As the whole matter is under investigation, to be reported upon later, I will not attempt here to deal with these conditions m detail, but will state some general facts regarding the dangers, to the community at large, which such epidemics occasion.
Typhoid is a preventable disease-its cause and mode of transmission are among the best known to the science of medicine; where the measures for prevention have been intelligently and conscientiously carried out typhoid iever, in epidemic form, does not appear.
Transmission of Typhoid by Individuals.
the germ is carried and transmitted by individuals in the following ways:-
1.	By those who have sufficient resistance to entirely neutralize the poisons and who are therefore not ill. Such individuals (im-nnines), though they discharge the organism m virulent form, show no other sign of the disease.
2.	By those who have only enough resistance to partially neutralize the organism, and who are therefore, partially disabled. .Such individuals (walking cases) discharge the organism in virulent form and the sequels of the disease may develop in as severe a degree as in typical cases.
3.	By those who have passed through a typical attack and have recovered. These

and the walking cases may harbour hhe organisms for months or years. Such individuals (typhoid carriers) discharge the germ, in full virulence, from time to time.	.
Ottawa is outwardly a beautiful city. It is the seat of the Government of Canada, a country rapidly striding into international prominence. Her people, by ever increasing? railway and steamship systems, are travelling not only through Canada, but also through the United States and other coun-
From the modes of harbouring the organisms given above, it will be seen that during and after such epidemics as Ottawa has had, every individual from the seat of outbreak may be a menace, not only to his own community and country, but to any which he may visit. The typhoid epidemic to-day is an unpardonable crime against the world. It is scientifically punishable under the sixth commandment. By scientifically is meant that science has proven that typhoid epidemics are preventable by well known and thoroughly tested methods, which, if not adopted, render the authorities guilty of murder. The command to adopt such measures should be coupled with the charge, 'Thou shalt not kill.
To prevent typhoid, on the other hand, two things only are necessary-two things long recognized as essential to the health of any ' community-pure water and proper drainage. The official report shows that the Ottawa epidemics, claiming their hundred and fifty-six deaths, were due to the failure to supply these requirements. To this list of the dead must be added those who will suffer from the many sequels now known to he directly due to thd typhoid organisms, some being incapacitated for years with consequent poverty and suffering, the full story of which will never be known.
I do not intend to weary the House by referring to this matter at great length, but I have placed the report of that eminent sanitarian on record for the purpose of
demonstrating just how serious the epidemics in the city of Ottawa were. The conditions that brought about this epidemic prevail to-day, aud up to the present time nothing has been done by the city to alter the conditions that prevailed two or three years ago. The conditions described by Dr. Camac, sanitary engineer, are, I submit, a serious charge, to be made by such an eminent sanitarian as Dr. Camac, in fact, a terrible indictment of everybody responsible for the disgraceful condition of the water supplied to the people of this great city. The officials responsible have leift an awful record: 170 precious lives sacrificed, 2,u00 cases of suffering and misery hundreds left with impaired constitutions, for the rest of their lives-a record, Mr. Speaker, of ignorance, indifference or criminal neglect. The facts, I think, are startling, and surely call for some drastic action on the part of this House. This Parliament is the only body that can legislate to prevent the pollution of the streams of Canada. The local_ legislatures have authority as within their own Mr. BRADBURY.
provinces, but nearly all our great rivers are inter-provincial, and this Parliament is the only body that can intelligently and effectively legislate in regard to this matter. In view of what has taken place in Ottawa it is time that ^ome practical and drastic action was taken by this House. I desire to present to the House a few figures which will demonstrate the great financial loss sustained by this country by reason of these epidemics. Irving Fisher, one of the best known authorities on such matters, has estimated the value of a human life at $3,000. Professor Wylie, who is, I think, the most eminent statistician in the United States, says that the human life is worth $50,000; but taking the lesser amount, $3,000, I think the figures based on this estimate will be found to be startling. In the province of Ontario during the periods from 1902 to 1912, there were 5,796 deaths from typhoid fever, and, at $3,000 each, the loss to the state would be $17,388,000. During that period of time there were 50,000 cases of typhoid fever in the province of Ontario, and, computing the loss of time occasioned by this illness at the moderate figure of $1.50 a day for ninety days-which I think every medical man in the House will say is a reasonable estimate of the length of time lost in such cases-the loss in wages to these people would amount to $6,500,000. If you add to this the sum of $5,000,000 for nursing and medical attention and attendance it will be found that the loss to the province of Ontario by reason of the prevalence of typhoid fever during that period of ten years was $28,888,000. One would not have the temerity to make a computation of this kind as being the net value of the loss to this -country; I contend that human life is too precious to be measured by dollars and cents. But taking this as a basis, we find that the province of Ontario lost, during that period of time, as I have said, $28,000,000, or an amount equal to five per cent on over $500,000,000. This amount- from the loss of life in Ontario- alone-would have provided proper sewage equipment for every great city in Canada. During the two epidemics in the city of Ottawa there were 170 deaths, which, following out the same computation, would be valued at $510,000. There were 2,500 -cases of typhoid fever, which means another $200,000 in loss of time; 2,000 cases of medical attendance and nursing, amounting to $270,000-a total of nearly $1,000,000, which is equal to five per cent on about $20,000,000. This shows that in this city alone enough money was lost to have protected half a dozen cities as large as Ottawa. The city of Winnipeg is in much the same position, having lost over $5,000,000 in ten years, or five per cent on $100,000,000.
' While I quote these figures, I would not have the temerity to measure human life

against dollars and cents. The greatest asset we have in Canada is a strong, robust, virile people, and the health and lives of our people have been neglected too long. We seem to forget that one of the greatest privileges as well as duties we have in this House it to legislate to enhance the happiness of the people and protect their lives and health, arid I think the time has come when the Canadian Parliament should take drastic measures towards that end. In the city of Winnipeg in my own province much the .same conditions prevail. The Red river and the Assiniboine join ait the city of Winnipeg; the Assiniboine comes from the west, carrying all the sewage from Brandon, Portage la Prairie, and the various municipalities on its banks, into the Red river which flows north to take Winnipeg, where it pours all that contamination into the lake. Four or five years ago the federal Government built a dam at St. Andrew's rapids some twelve miles below the city of Winnipeg, and in building that dam they raised the water twenty-one feet at the dam. Previous to the building of that dam there was a fairly swift current running all the time in the Red river which carried the sewage into the lake and although the river was seriously contaminated the nuisance was carried away. But to-day we have a large basin twelve miles long and about a hundred yards wide where all this sewage from the cities of Brandon, Portage la Prairie, and the great city of Winnipeg with its abba-toirs and stockyards and manufactories, is deposited. That river is in a terrible condition to-day. Flowing past my own town, Selkirk, twenty miles below, the water is unfit even to give to animals to drink and the farmers have stopped taking their cattle to it to water. This contamination flows down the river into lake Winnipeg which is contaminated for a distance of from eight to ten miles out, and every year we have had serious outbreaks of typhoid fever among the men working on the dredges. If I am right in saying that the authorities of the city of Ottawa and the authorities of other great cities have neglected their duty to protect the lives of their people and purify the water supply, what am I going to say about the neglect of the Parliament of Canada? We have been legislating here to develop this great country, but we have neglected to place legislation on the statute-books to protect the health of the people living along the rivers and lakes and to prevent the. pollution of our waterways. This neglect of ours has resulted in serious loss of life, and in suffering to hundreds of thousands of our people. This is a serious condition of affairs and calls for immediate action. I have one or two letters here which I wish to place on record. Dr. McCullough, the chief medical health officer of Ontario, writes:


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
Toronto, November 26th, 1912.
Sir,-I note with satisfaction that you have introduced a Bill in the House of Commons' with a view of preventing pollution of the, waters of the Dominion.
I am sending you under separate cover copy! of the Public Health Act of Ontario passed during the present year, which will indicate (section 91) the attitude of the legislature of this province upon the question. I have asked Dr. Charles A. Hodgebts, medical adviser to the Commission of Conservation, to-hand you copies of evidence upon this subject given at a recent meeting of the International Joint High Commission.
I can only add that the pollution of the waters in this province is becoming a very serious problem. For some weeks I nave had *the engineer of this board making a sanitary survey of the St. Clair river and lake and the Detroit river. In a word, he says of these waters that 'they are totally unfit for human consumption, and the typhoid rates in all the towns on the Canadian side and upon the boats is extremely .high.
When we recollect that the tonnage of the boats passing upon these two streams is larger than that of the Suez canal, and that at least ten million people pass up and down this route every year, it becomes a very important matter that the purity of these, waters should he preserved-.
We have certain evidence that the water of lake Ontario at Toronto is polluted to the distance of fifteen miles from that city, and it is quite reasonable to assume that the sewage of Buffalo and other communities along the Niagara river may be carried to an equal distance.
If you succeed in having this Bill passed by the federal authorities, you will have accomplished a very valuable service in the interest of public health.
Very truly yours,
John W. McCullough, Chief Officer of Health. George Bradbury, Esq., M.P.,
Hous of Commons,
Ottawa.
The following is a letter from the department of health, written by Charles J. Hastings, the president of the International Pure Water Association, and vice-president of the Canadian Public Health Association. These letters indicate how these authorities feel regarding this question:
Department of Health,
City Municipal Buildings,
Toronto, April 5, 1913. Geo. Bradbury, Esq., M.P.,
House Post Office,
House of Commons, Ottawa-
Dear iMr. Bradbury,-I have just received a communication from Mr. Geo. H. Maitland, associate editor of the Star, inclosing a copy of your Bill re the Pollution of Navigable Waters.
It is quite beyond my conception how anyone in Ottawa, even though there for a short time, in view of the past and present history, could raise any objection to a Bill for the Non-pollution of Navigable Waters, or of Waters Flowing into the Navigable Waters.
I most heartily endorse any movement to * prevent the pollution of the waters from

[Stage Direction]
which any municipality is drawing, or may in the future draw, their water supply.
If I may make a suggestion, I would say in addition to what you have already said, that you also forbid in your Bill the depositing of any of the aforesaid refuse on the shores or banks of any water supply.
If there are any questions that you would like to ask in this connection, if I can be of any assistance to you I shall be only delighted to do so.
I want to congratulate you for taking this decided stand on what I consider one of the most important public health matters with which we have to deal. In my opinion the permitting of the pollution of navigable waters is one of the most unpardonable offences against public health tolerated by civilized man to-day.
Very sincerely yours,
Chas. J. Hastings, Medical Health Officer.
I have other letters which I shall not delay the House to read, but I might refer to a letter from the superintendent of dredges on the Red river and at the mouth of the Red river in which he points out that every year he has from one to six cases of typhoid fever amongst his men and that last year * there were two deaths. He says it is becoming a problem now to get men to work on the dredges on account of the awful condition of the water going down the river. I hold that any city or any municipality has no more right to contaminate the water in the river that flows by it and thus poison the people lower down the stream, than a man would have to poison his neighbour's well. If a man would place poison deliberately in his neighbour's well and cause death by so doing, he would be prosecuted for murder and would suffer the extreme penalty of the law. But under our present system the city of Ottawa can pour its sewage into the Ottawa river and poison the people living further down the stream with impunity. Dr. McCullough states, in a letter written to a friend in the city, that a recent typhoid epidemic at Hawkesbury on the Ottawa river, forty or fifty miles below Ottawa, was caused by the sewage that was put into the water at Ottawa. The city of Montreal is in much the same condition, as it draws its water from the Ottawa river, and Montreal has not escaped typhoid epidemics. And if something is not done to prevent the pollution of our rivers, our. great cities and districts will suffer far more than they ha re done in the past. In the name of the hundreds of families who have been bereaved of dear ones, snatched away to untimely graves; in the interest of the people who have suffered through typhoid outbreaks in this city and other parts of Canada from the effect of the polluted condition of our lakes and rivers, from which the masses of our people draw their water supply; in the name of thousands of our people who have suffered from the effects of polluted water, and are
Mr. BRADBURY.
left wrecks of their old selves, to continue life's battle; and in the interest of a strong, vigorous, virile manhood and womanhood for Canada; and in the name of a pure water-starved people; I say to this House, do pot delay action on this all-important matter. The greatest asset Canada has today is in serious danger, the health and lives of her people are too precious to be neglected one day longer. Canada will hail with delignt a measure that will stop the pollution of our great lakes and rivers, and that will eventually restore these great bodies of fresh water to their natural state of purity. We spend annually millions of dollars, this year we are asked for $10,500,000, for the upkeep of our military establishment, millions for the upkeep and training of an army to fight some enemy in the dim and misty future, that may never appear; not one dollar for the creation and training of a staff, let alone an army, of sanitary engineers to fight an enemy that is now entrenched in our midst, slaying our fellow citizens by the thousand and causing suffering and misery to tens of thousands of our people; an enemy that is sapping the vitality and vigour of our people by the slow, insidious method of polluted water, doing its deadly work more thoroughly that an invading army could do. And this, Sir, in the face of the scientific fact that with a proper law on the Statute Book of this country and a thoroughly trained and equipped staff of sanitary engineers to enforce it, the enemy, Typhoid, can be defeated and driven from our land.
John Douglas Hazen: I think that the hon. gentleman from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) is to be congratulated on having brought to the attention of this House and of the country, by the Bill which he has introduced, a matter of very great importance and a matter which is of distinct public interest to the people of this country and particularly to the members of this House who are compelled to live in Ottawa for a considerable portion of every year. I think the Bill has special interest in view of the condition in which we find 'the water supply of Ottawa to-day, which is directly traceable to the fact that the water of the noble river that flows past these parliament buildings has been allowed for years to be polluted by the discharge of raw sewage into it. Everyone will agree with the hon. member in the idea that it is a very great misfortune and a matter of very great regret, that the rivers of this country have been allowed from the time of the earliest settlement of the country to be made receptacles for raw sewage untreated in any way. The danger arising from that is an ever increasing danger. A? the country grows and the pop-

ulation becomes greater the danger of pollution and the consequent danger to public health becomes greater. People- living along the banks of these streams have, in many oases, no other source of water supply than the streams and rivers which are polluted from the sewage of towns and villages further up these rivers. But while everybody would agree with the object which the hon. gentleman has in view, yet, at the same time, I think it would not be wise or desirable that, this legislature should pass any Bill without giving the most thorough and careful consideration n&t only to the conditions that make such legislation necessary but also to the great expense involved in remedying the existing evils. It would not do to pass any measure in such drastic terms as the Bill which the hon. gentleman has presented. In addition to that it is fair to bear in mind that while the first section of this Bill makes it an offence punishable by penalties to deposit or permit to be deposited any sewage or other refuse in any navigable stream, there are navigable waters into which sewage can be discharged without danger to the people living in the vicinity. For instance, if sewage is discharged into waters which are navigable but which are salt, the water not being fit to use for domestic purpose and where there is a tidal rise and fall, there is no menace or danger to the public health. Therefore I consider that a Bill of this kind must be considered with regard to all of these features, and exceptions would have to be made to meet cases like that. Then we must . also "bear in mind that for a very great many years towns and villages have been constructing sewage system under legislative authority authorizing them to discharge sewage into these navigable streams without treating it by means of septic tanks or otherwise so as to render it harmless. In those cases it must be borne in mind that a very large sum of money will have to be spent by many towns in this country in order to provide means for treating the sewage before it goes into the streams ot disposing of it in other ways. While that i3 not a consideration which should weigh against the great consideration of the public health of the country, yet, in dealing with the matter, it should be borne in mind that these expenditures have been incurred and any Bill for the prevention of further pollution of streams should be drafted in such a way as to bear with as little harshness as possible upon communities that have spent large sums on sewage systems of this kind. In many cases this sewage has been allowed to flow into navigable streams under an idea which very generally prevailed until comparatively Tecent years that running water would purify it-273i
self in a certain distance; in many cases the assumption was that sewage from towns and villages would purify itself in ten miles,, so that at that distance below a town or city the water would be so purified that noharm would be done by using it. That theory, like many old theories, has been exploded. It is now universally conceded by scientists that the only thing that will destroy bacteria is heat and while in the course of distance sewage and bacteria carried in it will be diffused, so that there-is less danger, the bacteria are still there' and if anyone using the water is unfortunate enough to come in contact with the typhoid bacillus which is caused by the depositing of sewage in streams, there is danger of contracting the disease with all the evil results that will follow. I have some figures here showing what the towns of Canada have done with regard to the disposal of their sewage. I do not propose to go into that very fully but I shall make brief reference to some cases. In Nova Scotia there are fourteen towns which are discharging their sewage into different waters. Most of them are discharging the sewage into waters of the ocean or into waters that are tributary to the ocean	and	which	cannot	be used
for domestic purposes. For instance, Dartmouth and Halifax discharge their sewage into Halifax harbour. I presume that the waters of Halifax harbour cannot be used for domestic purposes at all, and that at Halifax there is little danger or menace to the public health in the disposition of the sewage. Digby discharges its sewage into the Annapolis basin; Kentvill'e into the Cornwallis river -which is, I believe, a tidal river; Liverpool into the Mersey; Middleton into the Annapolis river'; Stellarton into the East river; Sydney into Sydney harbour; Windsor into the Avon, which is also a tidal river; and Truro into the Salmon river. In the province of Nova Scotia, I think very careful investigation into the facts would show-my hon. friends from Nova Scotia will know more about the matter than I do-that in nearly all those cases there is no menace to the public health because of raw sewage being discharged into the streams. In not a single case in the province of Nova Scotia is the sewage treated in any way before it is so discharged into the waters into which it goes. In Prince Edward Island, the sewage of Summerside is discharged into Bedeque bay. In New Brunswick, at Campbellton, the sewage is discharged into Baie des Chaleurs, at Chatham into the Miramichr river which is a tidal river. The waters-at Newcastle into which its sewage is discharged are not used for domestic purposes. Moncton discharges its sewage into the Petitcodiac river which is a tidal river and St. Andrews into the harbour. The city of

Fredericton discharges its sewage into the St. John river, and the city of St. John into the harbour.


Mr. CARVELL:: Would all those towns, including Glace Bay, the sewage of which goes into Glace Bay harbour, come under the prohibition of this Act?


John Douglas Hazen: I believe that they would. I think there is no question about it, because it says that no person shall discharge sewage into any navigable water, or into any water that flows into any navigable water, and I think there is no doubt that those harbours are properly described as navigable waters. As I have said, Fredericton discharges its sewage into the river St. John, and that is true of other towns above the city of Fredericton. There is no doubt whatever that the discharge of raw sewage from Fredericton and the towns above that city polutes the waters of the St. John river, and is a menace to the people living below, who in some cases, owing to the peculiar formation of the country, are at certain seasons of the year absolutely and entirely dependent upon the waters of that river for water for domestic purposes. In no New Brunswick town does sewage appear to be treated in any way at all. Then in the province of Quebec there are thirty-seven towns, of which I have a list here, and which discharge their sewage into the waters of different rivers. Many of these towns discharge into rivers like the St. Lawrence, into the tributaries of the St. Lawrence, into the Richelieu and Massampi, the St. Francis, and other rivers and there is practically no treatment of the sewage in any case. The result is that the water of these rivers, in practically every case, cannot be used to-day for do-* mestic purposes with any safety without .first being treated for domestic purposes.
In the province of Ontario, there are fifty-two towns of which I have a list, and which discharge their sewage into the lakes and rivers, into such rivers, for instance, as the Detroit river, the Welland river, the St. Lawrence, the St. Clair, the St. Marys, the Rideau, the Ottawa and Rainy river, and of these fifty-two towns eleven treat their sewage by means of septic tanks and filtration beds and in other ways before it is placed in the water. In Manitoba, the province from which my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) who has moved this resolution comes, there are six towns that are disposing of their sewage. Brandon discharges its sewage into the Assiniboine, Carman into the Boyne river, Portage la Prairie into the Assiniboine, St. Boniface into the Red river. In the case of Souris, the river is not named, Winnipeg discharges into the Red river and Assiniboine river. In no [DOT]ease is the sewage treated, but I find in regard to Souris that it is proposed to put- in a filtration system. The provinces of Sas-Mr. HAZE NT
katchewan and Alberta seem to be rather ahead of the other provinces in this matter in that they are making provision, and in some cases have made provision for treating the sewage before it is discharged into the water. At Moosejaw, the sewage which runs into the Moosejaw creek is treated in septic tanks. Prince Albert discharges its sewage into the North basKatchewan river, and I have no record of any treatment of it. At Regina, there is treatment by means of septic tanks, sedimentation, disinfection tanks and biological filters. SasKatoon discharges its sewage into the South Saskatchewan river and has sewage disposal works under construction at the present time. In Alberta, Calgary discharges its sewage into the Bow river, Edmonton into the North Saskatchewan river, and part of the sewage of that city is treated in septic tanks. Lethbridge discharges into the Belly river and there a sewage purification plant is to be installed at once. The sewage of McLeod goes into the Old Man river, and nothing is said about treating me sewage there. Medicine Hat discharges into the South Saskatchewan river; and has a sewage plant under consideration. Red Deer discharges into the Red Deer river and has a purification plant under consideration. Wetaski-win discharges into Bigstone creek and is proposing to erect sewage disposal works. In British Columbia, there are septic tanks at Kamloops which discharges into the Thompson river. Nelson discharges into the Kootenay river. New Westminster into the Fraser river, Prince Rupert into the Pacific ocean, Rossland into Trail creek and Vancouver into the Pacific ocean. In none of these cases is there any arrangement far. the treatment of the sewage, and I fancy in many of them there is no necessity for such treatment. In considering the terms of a Bill of this kind it is clear that very great care will have to be taken not to do injustice to the communities which have gone to the expense of arranging for the disposal of their sewage and which are treating it in a way that does not constitute a menace to the health of the community. If f'arliament decides that no Taw sewage shall be placed in those rivers or waters where it will be a menace to the health of the community, the cost of changing the system that now exists in many of those towns and cities will be very large indeed. I have some figures here, and it will take only a few moments to give them to the House. Respecting the cost of treatment, the town of Berlin in the province of Ontario which has an approximate population of 10,000, treats its sewage in septic tanks. After treatment the effluent is pumped up fifty feet to natural sand beds, whence it passes downwards through the sand, the water reappearing at a lower level as l springs. The filtrate thug obtained is per-

fectly clear and odourless, and in appearance cannot be distinguished from spring water. The volume of sewage has now reached 700,000 gallons per twenty-four hours, and the filtering material is not sludged up in the slightest degree. The plant 'was designed for the present population of 10,000 with allowances for extensions sufficient to handle the sewage of three times the present population. Berlin is an inland town and is situated on a small stream that has a very small summer flow. The actual cost of stream filtration works was $45,750 or in round figures between $4 and $5 per head of the population of the town. 1 am told that the plant is regarded by sanitary engineers as one of the most efficient plants in the Dominion. (Reading):
As indicating the cost to a small municipality, the town of Palmerston may be cited. I he cost for population of 2,000 was estimated at $15,900. Of this amount, $2,200 was es-ti mated cost of drain to the Maitland river, due to the peculiar topography of the locality, and constitutes an item that would not be involved in a great majority of cases. Deducting this unusual item, gives a cost of $13,-<00 or, say, $7 per head of population. In explanation of the cost, it should also he stated that it is proposed to give a complete treatment in a plant provided that both sprinkling filters and septic tanks.
For small municipalities, with very limited financial resources, a sewage treatment with a revolving screen to remove the solids, and, subsequent sterilization with hypochlorite, could probably he installed at a cost of about $3 per head of population. It should he a separate system

That is there should be a system for the sewage from bouses and also a system for the sewage from the streets.
It should he a separate system to avoid the necessity of handling storm water. This would ensure a fairly constant flow and thus avoid radical changes at short intervals in the amount of hypochlorite used.
Por a large city, the experience of Baltimore shows that a very complete system, providing for (1st) rapid sedimentation; (2nd) sprinkling filter, and, (3rd) secondary sedimentation, can he provided for about $6 per head of population.
In Montreal, where the papulation, I believe, is about 600,000, it would cost $6 per head, or about $3,600,000.
The Baltimore plant also provides for a fourth treatment with hypochlorite. This, however, is perfectly unnecessary, hut is used to guard against any possible infection of the eery valuable oyster beds below the city. I
I do not for one moment wish to argue that the cost is in any way prohibitive or that it should deter this Parliament, if it is believed to he in the general interest of Canada to do so, from passing legislation that would have the effect of causing the purification of the rivers and streams
throughout the country upon which the people have in very .many oases, if not in nearly all cases, to depend for water for drinking and domestic purposes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: May I ask
the hon. gentleman if he has at any time considered the matter of the jurisdiction of this Parliament even over navigable rivers in regard to this Bill?


John Douglas Hazen: No, I do not profess to
have made any careful study of the question, but it seems to me that, if it is a matter affecting the general health of the people of the country, it might be fully within our jurisdiction. We might almost deal with it perhaps from the standpoint, speaking offhand, of the navigation of the country because, surely it is not in the interest of navigation that- the rivers and streams should he polluted in this way byraw sewage. However, that is a matter to be considered. There is no doubt that the provinces have jurisdiction over the streams within their boundaries from the standpoint o>f public health and from other standpoints. This is a matter that has been discussed in this House before and it has been discussed in the Senate where-Senator Beloourt has introduced a Bill during the present session to which I shall refer in a few moments. The impression seems to have prevailed in the House that there was jurisdiction in this Parliament to enact a Bill that would affect the whole country. But I do not wish to discuss that phase of the matter now.
I was saying that even iiif the cost is large, and the cost would undoubtedly be large, as it would run into millions of dollars, that would not be a reason foT failing to pass such legislation if the interests of the country demand it. But there are many communities throughout the country that would undoubtedly feel that they were being perhaps dealt with in a somewhat arbitrary way if they were to be compelled to change tjieir whole sewage system and go to a large expense in order to he able to say that the sewage, when it goes into the streams, goes in such a way that it will not do barm, or adapt "Ome other system altogether. Still, at the same time, the public health and the public interest are superior to any consideration of that sort and if Parliament decides that, it has power to deal with the matter and. that the health of the country is very seriously affected, as I believe it is, by -the discharge of raw sewage into these streams, then the financial consideration should not deter Parliament from taking action. But, before legislating or dealing with the question, we should have before this Parliament .more accurate information than we have at the present time and there-

fore it i3 my intention to move that this question shall be referred to a select committee for the purpose of considering the matter and reporting back to the House. I douibt if anything can be accomplished this year, but a commencement might be made and as the effect of bringing this matter before the House will undoubtedly be to direct attention to it and cause discussion throughout the country during the recess, perhaps at the next session the matter may he dealt with in a way that will be for the nublic good.
The present Bill, I think, would have to be modified in a number of respects. The first section refers to the discharge of sewage in all navigable streams and -waters. As I have pointed out, there would have to be very considerable exceptions made in regard to that. Then, in regard to the third section of the Bill, it provides that:	,	.
Where, at the date of the passing of this Act, any sewage or matter referred to in subsection 1 of section 1 of this Act flows into any navigable water, or into any other water which flows into any navigable water, this Act shall, in the case of municipal corporations, come into force two years after it is assented to by the Governor General.
At the end of two years from the time this Bill is assented to by the Governor in Council, section 1 will be operative in so far as municipal corporations are concerned, and it would be unlawful to discharge sewage into any navigable waters. Having regard to the amount of work which will be necessary for each town to undertake to change the system of sewage, I think it will be admitted that two years is entirely too short a time. It would be preferable, if we were dealing with that matter, to adopt section 4 of the Senate Bill which was introduced by Senator Belcourt this year. It provides that:
The Governor iu Council may make such regulations, general or special, as are requisite or expedient to carry out the purposes and intent of this Act; and the said regulations shall have force and effect as of and from the date of the publication thereof in the Canada Gazette.
2.	The minister may appoint such officers as ihe deems necessary to carry out and enforce the provisions of this Act, and may also designate any existing board of health or sanitary authority, or other person, for such purposes.
3.	The minister may make such orders and grant such permits as are provided for in such regulation.
This would give the Bill an elasticity which it does mot at all possess under clause 3, because the success or failure of an Act of this sort must depend upon the sane and sensible administration of it, and 1 do not think that the object can be attained by any legislation that is as drastic as that proposed by the present Bill.


John Douglas Hazen: 
Alfred Ernest Fripp: May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to make one or two observations? With the principle of this Bill I do not disagree, but I do most strenuously object to the city of Ottawa being held up as a horrible example upon which to base this legislation. The hon. member for Selkirk has, I am afraid, not made a study of the reports of the many experts whom the city of Ottawa has engaged from time to time to ascertain the cause of the contamination of the water supply and to suggest a remedy. I am safe in saying that the two typhoid epidemics in this city were due to specific causes. It has been shown conclusively, I believe, that neglect on the part of those responsible for our intake pipe was the proximate cause of both epidemics. It has been established that our intake pipe was damaged by logs and the water being low and fire pressure being necessary, it was found, upon opening certain valves to get sufficient pressure, that sewage in the river was allowed to get into the pipe which supplied the pipe for domestic purposes, thereby causing the epidemic. It is a remarkable fact that the city of Hull, lying adjacent to the city of Ottawa, and on the other side of the river, has been using the Ottawa river water, without anv treatment, and has not experienced an epidemic, notwithstanding the fact that the town of Aylmer, I believe, disposes of its sewage into the river. The city of Ottawa, as I have indicated, is not responsible except in the sense of possible neglect on the part of those who were in charge of the laying of the intake pipe in not protecting it from being damaged. The city of Ottawa has taken steps to purify its water supply. It first brought here Mr. Hazen, a gentleman who is supposed to be the,, best expert on the continent in such matters. He suggested the expenditure of a large
sum of money and the establishment of a filtration plant. That suggestion was rejected by the people of Ottawa and the city then brought from England two of the leading experts in the world, who have made an examination of the condition of the Ottawa river and the surrounding country with the result that this session legislation will be asked to enable the city to take its water supply from the Gatineau lakes. The expenditure for this purpose will amount to several million dollars and the work is to be undertaken on the advice of Sir James Binnie. The best expert opinion is that we should take our water supply from the Gatineau lakes. There is no question that the Ottawa river is to a certain extent, like every other river, contaminated. It has been felt by the citizens of Ottawa and the city council that we should expend this large sum of money in order to ensure pure water for the city of Ottawa and the surrounding district. I make these observations in order to assure the House and the hon. gentleman who has last spoken (Mr. Sinclair) that the city of Ottawa is taking every possible step to ensure a supply of pure water.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do you think they will take a step in our lifetime?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I think so. The result of
the lamentable epidemics that we had here has been to awaken the city council and those in authority to spare no effort to ensure a supply of pure water.


John Howard Sinclair: Are they still going to take the water from the Ottawa river?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: .No. The idea is to take the water entirely from these lakes and to bring it here at an expenditure of several million dollars. We have to come to this Parliament for authority, as we are going into another province. The Bill will be introduced in a day or two, and I trust it will receive the assent of the House so that the work may be undertaken at the earliest possible moment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I beg
to thank most sincerely my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) for having dealt with this question in the manner they have done this evening. As a resident of Ottawa, I am bound to say that I do not share the optimistic view of my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) as regards the action of the municipal authorities. I charge the municipal government of Ottawa with criminal negligence for the last five or six years. They are held responsible for the epidemics which have taken place in the city and which have caused the death of so many children. It is a well known fact.

that the taxpayers of Ottawa are subjected to-day to a double tax. I am asking myself if a test ease should not be made as to whether a poor man like your humble servant should be called upon to pay for pure water and for impure water at the same time. This brings before the public the broad question oft whether or not the city of Ottawa should' be made a federal district.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Or move the Capital.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As I am a property owner here, I would not say that; but really the municipal government of this city has not been up to the mark for the last five or six years, and the question of pure water in this city has given the Capital of the Dominion a bad name not only in Canada but throughout the world. It was not necessary-I say so frankly-to bring distinguished experts from England in order to know that our water was impure. Any Canadian expert might have said the same thing. I am glad to hear that the municipal government intend to get the water of the city from the Gatineau lakes, but I am asking myself if the taxpayers should be obliged to pay for the enormous expenditure since, for the last five or six years they have been subjected to a double tax. It costs me at least one hundred dollars a year to get pure water besides paying my water rates to the city. It is an incubus on the citizens. The municipal government should not be allowed to collect that tax from the citizens. It would be far better if we should decide once for all whether or not the capital should be made a federal district as it is in the United States. What the federal Government does in Ottawa in the way of improvements is above board. Under the old Administration and under the present one the commission for beautifying the capital of the Dominion has been and is doing splendid work. I congratulate my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) on his policy in this matter. I know he is a friend of the Capital. I would ask him on behalf of the city of Ottawa to try to convince has colleagues in the Government thiat they should take over the city and make a federal district of it.


Martin Burrell: The fact that the health
branch of the public service has been assigned to the department over which I have the honour of presiding, is an excuse for my saying a few words on this subject that has been brought up by my hon. friend from Selkirk. I do not think anybody in this House is likely to underrate the importance of this subject, even, Mr. LEMIEUX.
if we had mot, as we have, had it painfully and deeply impressed upon us by the unfortunate epidemic in Ottawa which has been referred to and which has been experienced by any of us who have been here for the last four or five years. I do not propose to discuss that except to say that it must be with a feeling of hopeful relief that everybody recognizes that something at last is being done to make Ottawa the place that it should be, and that it has not been for the last few years. Something was said by my hon. friend from Selkirk, to whom this House owes a debt of thanks for bringing up this subject, as to the financial value of the human life that was sacrificed in connection with the various typhoid epidemics. That, however, is the least portion of the damage resulting from them. The far greater value of human life and the resultant good in arousing not only the civic but the national conscience on this subject makes a discussion of this kind very important:
Something has been said about the jurisdiction of this Parliament in connection with a Bill of this nature. As far as I have looked into the matter, my own mind is perfectly clear that this Parliament would have jurisdiction to deal with questions of this character. Section 92, clause 7 of the British North America Act, which deals With health matters, says:
The establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
That is practically all it has to say on health matters. It is only by use and wont that there has grown up in Canada a sort of legend, or practice at all events, that all health matters have been dealt with by the various municipal and .provincial bodies. My own feeling has long been that, as far as jurisdiction goes, this Parliament has very much greater power than the average man in the street thinks it has in regard to .health matters.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has pointed out quite forcibly some of the objections that would naturally be taken to the scope of this Bill. I think the hon. member who introduced the Bill would be himself the first to admit that the details of the Bill might not be workable, and that there would have to be very radical alterations and amendments. He was concerned not so much with the details as with the principle involved in the Bill, as a sound one and one of immense importance not only to the House but to the country; and, if that principle is .applied in this Bill or in some other Bill as a result, he will be doing excellent service to the country by bringing the subject to the attention of the House.

A very good way to work out this whole matter is, as has been suggested by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to refer the Bill to a committee who shall have power to summon witnesses and obtain evidence, so that this House before it takes action will have such information before it as will ensure that any step taken will be an absolutely wise and sound one.
Mr. W. F. CARROLL (South Cape Breton) I am glad the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has moved an amendment that this Bill be referred to a select committee of this House. Coming from the province which I do, I would take objection to the first clause of the Bill as it stands, and would suggest that the committee appointed to deal with this matter should give a great deal of consideration to the first clause. The navigable waters referred to in the Bill must include the sea, bays, navigable rivers, and any waters upon which vessels sail. A great many of the towns in the province of Nova Scotia are seaports, and the sewage from these towns empties into the sea, or into the harbours and thence into the sea. I do not think anyone will seriously contend that the health of tie community is seriously endangered by the sewage being allowed to flow into the harbours, where the tide rises . and falls, or into the sea, as is the case in many Nova Scotia towns. In the town of Glace Bay, the sewage empties into the sea; in the town of Sydney, it empties into Sydney harbour, and in the towns of North Sydney and Sydney Mines the sewage flows into the sea. That is one reason why I am glad the Bill will be sent to. a select committee, and I hope they will take that into consideration, and exempt these places from the operation of such a Bill as this. I would direct the attention of hon. gentlemen of this House to this part of section 1:	' any other water that flows
into any navigable water.' There is a serious doubt in my mind as to whether or not this Parliament has jurisdiction to allow these words to sthnd in the Bill. We have jurisdiction, of course, so far as legislation in regard to navigable waters is concerned, but I think serious objection can be raised in respect to this portion of the Bill, even if this Parliament has power to pass a general law in this regard for the welfare of the people of Canada.


John Wesley Edwards: I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) in bringing this matter before the House, and to congratulate the members of this House upon having an opportunity to deal with this important subject. I do not think the city of Ottawa should receive the condemnation which it has received here to-night from certain members of this House. If it is
not creditable to the city of Ottawa that the water is in the condition that it is now and has been for some time past, then this Parliament is the last body of men that ought to say one word in regard to the pollution of water in the city of Ottawa, ot to cast any discredit' upon the citizens for not having attended to the matter. Hon. gentlemen of this House must be aware of the fact that typhoid fever is a preventable disease; that it is a disease capable of being carried and transmitted by water, and that sewage dumped into the rivers must pollute them. Knowing these facts, and yet having never undertaken to stop the pollution of streams, 1 say we are the last persons in the world to extend any criticism, and, if any persons in the Dominion of Canada should be obliged to drink contaminated water, they ought to be the members of this House. What was the argument of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux)? He says the municipal government of Ottawa is guilty of criminal negligence because, as a result of not supplying the people of this city with pure water, numbers of its citizens have died from a preventable disease. If then, the corporation of the city of Ottawa is guilty of criminal negligence in not providing pure water for its citizens, the members of this Parliament are equally guilty of criminal negligence in not having taken any action with regard to the purifying of streams in various parts of the country.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it not the duty of the city of Ottawa to provide pure water for its citizens, who pay for it?


John Wesley Edwards: I am not exonerating the city of Ottawa; I am not saying that the city has done what it should-on the contrary I say the. city of Ottawa has not done what it should. But I do submit that if the city of Ottawa is open to condemnation on that ground, then the members of this Parliament are open to the same condemnation, for, having been possessed of a full knowledge as to what the pollution of streams really meant, we have allowed that pollution to go on without taking any action to stop it, and have sat here for weeks discussing matters not in any degree as important as the matter of the purification of streams. The hon. member for Rouville expressed himself as being glad that the city of Ottawa was to get its water from the Gatineau lakes. The hon. Minister of Agriculture, I think, took the same view, but neither the hon. member for Rouville nor the hon. Minister of Agriculture said anything as to what should be done with the sewage of the city of Ottawa. They were both concerned as to where the water supply should come from, but they said not one word as to where the

city should dump its sewage. Their argument was that because they live in the city of Ottawa and have to drink the water, the city should be sure to get its water-supply from a pure source; it does not matter ,so much where they dump the sewage. The hon. member for Rouville has to pay double taxes. I am glad he has to pay double taxes, because when a person's pocket is affected it is liable to make him think, and that payment of double taxes may cause the hon. gentleman to apply to this matter the ability and energy which he certainly possesses. The creation of Ottawa into a federal district was referred to. For what object? In order that we in this little portion of the Dominion may get pure water; we may spend any amount of money in making certain that we will .get pure water and then we will fold our arms and let the rest of the country look out for themselves.
Let me give one instance to show the manner in which typhoid is communicated, and how very important it is that even the smaller streams should be looked after and should be kept pure. A few years ago, ten or twelve years, on the wooded hillsides of the Alleghenies, a man was taken ill with typhoid. He had gone into that district, he -was taken ill and was confined in a house about fifty feet distant from a mountain stream which passed down and into the Susquehana river. Mile after mile the river pursued its course without coming near another dwelling which might pollute it, until it passed by the small town of Plymouth in Pennsylvania, a town of eight thousand population. The water supply of that town had always been considered pure, it had been derived for years from this river rising in the hills. The body wastes from this patient in this cottage on the bank of the mountain stream were thrown out in the winter on the snow. Nothing happened until spring but when the mild weather came the body wastes were washed down into the mountain stream and carried for miles until it came to this little town of eight thousand population. The first case of typhoid was noticed in the early part of April. At the end of a -week new cases were occuring at the rate of from fifty to one hundred a day until one-eighth of the population of that little town was affected. There were 1,104 cases and 114 deaths. The cost for sick bills and loss of earnings was estimated at about $97,000 while the loss through the death of -wage earners was estimated at about one-half a million dollars. This a short case and serves to illustrate a good many points in connection with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury). The matter -was traced back so that there could be no possible doubt of it to that one case in the little cottage on the Mr. EDWARDS.
hillside. That illustrates very clearly how this disease is communicated and I declare that no legislation has ever been brought before this House which is more deserving of the earnest consideration of every member in this House than the Bill now before us. Some of the objections raised by the Minister of Marine were, I think, not very weighty. Of course in such cases as he has mentioned in the maritime provinces where sewage is deposited in salt water, the danger of causing typhoid is comparatively slight. The other objection which he pointed out I think could be got over. His idea of referring the Bill to a committee is a good one. That committee should call expert evidence from any part of Canada or from the United States which will add to our information and enable us to deal properly with this subject. The matter of cost to the towns and cities in disposing of their sewage is something which the towns and cities will have to bear. It is a question of right. Has a town which is getting its water supply from the upper part of a stream from a pure source any right to dump its own sewage into that river and contaminate the water which is being used lower down? No person in his senses will claim any such thing. The towns should provide a proper system for the disposal of sewage, even if it does cost money. However hon. gentlemen may regard this matter, and I believe they regard it as serious, we have not regarded it seriously enough in the past or we would have done someth.ng and I venture to say that there will yet come in Canada a generation which will look back on this and previous generations who have sat in this Parliament and allowed this matter to go by default and will think not very creditably of us in regard to it. It is a subject of extreme importance, and I shall give the Bill my very hearty support.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, the discussion that has taken place so far is evidence of a measure of interest in and appreciation of the importance of the Bill. I do not think, however, that in what has been said so far there has been a full appreciation of the magnitude of the question or of the task of dealing with it. If there was a possibility that by any legislation of this House we could abolish the evil to which this Bill alludes, this House has been criminally negligent in not having provided such legislation long ago. But 1 think it will strike anybody that it is not possible for this great evil to be met merely by legislation on the part of this Parliament. There are questions of juridiction and of responsibility and there are, above all, questions of expenditure-enormous expenditure-in order that this matter may

be dealt with; and there is still further the question as to what is the best means of dealing with it. The action of the hon. member in bringing the matter to the attention of the House by means of a Bill is entirely to be commended. I think that the proposal of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to refer the Bill to a committee for consideration is probably the next step properly to be taken. But let me suggest that there will have to be co-operation between this Government and Parliament and the legislatures and governments of the various provinces and the municipal organizations that are immediately and, directly affected. There will have to be co-operation between all these bodies if the object of the Bill is to, be achieved. There will have to be an agreement as to what is the best means of meeting the difficulty. There will have to be some arrangement as to financing, and as to the distribution of authority generally and of cost. I do not think that the work can be entered upon too soon, and the committee which is to be appointed will do well to give the matter their very best attention. The Government itself will do well to take up the matter with a view of secur-: ing co-operation with the provincial legislatures and municipalities, so as to achieve the result aimed at.
It struck me when the matter was 'being discussed that if the Dominion is able and willing to assume a share of the burdens of the various provinces in the matter of aid to agriculture or of aid to highways, this matter is of so much greater importance and so much more pressing than even the matter of highways or of aid to agriculture, that I would be willing to see the proposals which are now before the House as part of the policy of this Government in regard to aiding agriculture and improving highways withdrawn for the moment and the money proposed to be devoted to those purposes diverted to this tremendous and pressing question of the pollution of streams, with a view to protecting the public health. If we have money to spend in aid of highways and of agriculture, we may still better spend money in connection with the more pressing matter of the preservation of public health. I would like to see the Government of the day ,go beyond the appointment of a committee of the House, and introduce some policy that would look towards the adequate dealing with this very pressing and very important question. It is a question in regard to which the initiative might very well be taken and a large share of the burden undertaken by this Government and this Parliament.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Without desiring to trespass on the time of the House I would like to
make one or two remarks largely rising out of the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton and the hon. member for Fron-tenac. As I listened to this interesting discussion it seemed to me to take on a broader scope particularly in relation to what fell from the hon. member for Edmonton. As I understand the common law with regard to the rights of people past whose property a stream flows, there is an indubitable right in every riparian proprietor to have the waters which flow past his property unimpaired in quality and undiminished in quantity. The courts of England are filled with cases in which corporations, public bodies, asylums, and municipal governments have been restrained from discharging their sewage into rivers, and the courts of Canada are also filled with such cases. It has been laid down as a cardinal principle that no person, corporation or institution, has any legal right to discharge into any stream in any British possession, that I am aware of, any deleterious matter that will appreciably contaminate it. The Ontario courts are filled with cases in which municipalities doing that sort of thing have been restrained by injunction.	As a Canadian proud
of the broad acres, expansive rivers, and fertile fields of my country, I have often felt that it was a crying shame that the natural heritage of the people, the streams of the country, should be contaminated by careless projection of deleterious matter into them. In this city I remember a case which went to the Supreme Court, the case of Rattey and Booth, a case well known to legal gentlemen, which had to do with the throwing of sawdust into the river. Some individual took an action against the men who were discharging the sawdust and they were restrained, and mulcted in damages, and if I remember correctly, when it came to a question of who should pay the damages, the court said, settle it among yourselves, you have all been guilty of wrong doing. If there is a town on the Ottawa river or on any stream which has a municipal system projecting into the stream and appreciably contaminating the waters, the citizens of that town, as I understand the law, are not liable, but the municipality which furnishes the sewage system is liable, and I have no doubt that the city of Ottawa or any other town would be liable.
With regard to the question of how best to deal with the matter, it seems so that in order to have the best effect there should be co-operation between the corporations and the Dominion. In that way the educative value would be great. There may be joint action involving federal legislation and, contemporaneously with it and in harmony with it, legislation by all t'he provinces having within their confines large commercial centres, which have found it very difficult to treat sewage properly owing

to the conditions arising out of industrial life. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton in saying that the scope of the investigation ought to be enlarged in that way and for this reason also, that the jurisdiction of the provinces is different from that of the federal Parliament and there might arise certain circumstances in regard to streams running into navigable waters from one province to another which would require to be treated by legislation of the provinces quite separately from the legislation of the federal Parliament dealing with navigable streams. With other members (who have spoken, I think that the thanks of the House are due to the my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) for bringing this question up, and I hope that the committee when appointed will give it a thorough drag-netting. Not only in Ottawa but all over the Dominion, we should so educate public opinion that the people will be made to realize that it is a serious crime to pollute the waters that the public need for their daily use.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
John Douglas Hazen: That Bill No. 2, an Act respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters, be referred to a iSeleot iSpecial Committee consisting of Messrs. Baker, Beland, Bradbury, Burrell, Crocket, Hasten, Kyte, Lesperance, McCoig, McCraney, McCurdy, Molloy, Murphy, North-rup, iSevigny, War nock, Wilson (Wentworth) and Boyer, w-ith instructions to inquire into and consider the said Bill and all matters! with which the said Bill is concerned, and to report thereon to this House with all convenient speed. It is further ordered that1 *the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses on oath or affirmation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Hazen, the order for the second reading of Bill No. 116, respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters- Mr. Kyte-was called.
Mr. KYTE moved the second reading of the said Bill.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
John Douglas Hazen: That Bill No. 116, respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters-Mr. Kyte-be referred to the same Select Special Committee as that to which Bill No. 2 was referred for the same consideration and action.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Perley, House adjourned at 12.19 a.m., Saturday.
Mr. MORPHY
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 28, 1913.