Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to draw the attention of the
Prime Minister to a cable which appears in the London Times of May 2nd from its Australian correspondent. The cable reads as follows :-
Melbourne, May 1.-Mr. Muloek, the Canadian Postmaster General, is empowered to conler with the Federal government and with a view to adoption of an Imperial tariff policy, preferential duties being mutually allowed between Great Britain, the Dominion, the comjnonwealth and1 the colonies generally. Mr. Muloek thinks there' is considerable room for an increase of trade between Canada and Australia.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister as to the accuracy of the statement in that cablegram and whether, on leaving Canada, Mr. Muloek received instructions to enter into negotiations with the Australian Commonwealth, the Dominion and the mother country. Any information the Prime Minister can give the House and the country, I am sure, will be received with a great deal of interest.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) and the House that Mr. Mul-ock is the bearer of no specific formal instructions. But he has received informal instructions to ascertain to what extent it would be possible to promote trade between Canada and Australia and to make a report upon the subject on his return.



P. E. I. CLAIMS-MAINTENANCE OF STEAM COMMUNICATION.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 138) to provide for a further annual allowance for the province of Prince Edward Island (Hon. Mr. Fielding), read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. MACLEAN.: In connection with this matter I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to tell the House and the country now whether any other claims of the provinces for better terms have been filed, and of what nature they are.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not regard this as a claim for better terms, therefore my hon. friend's remark about any other claims for better terms is calculated to mislead.


William Findlay Maclean: Then are there any claims from any of the provinces ? We are laying down a principle here, we have opened the door again. We are taking up one case, others are to follow. Now I would like the minister to tell the House and the country what those other claims are that have been made on the government from different provinces of this confederation, if any.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think I can say that at the present moment there

is no claim from any of the provinces which is being made the subject of any very serious consideration. The various provinces from time to time have correspondence with us on matters of account and otherwise, but I would not like to treat these as serious claims. So far as the government is concerned, I think I am correct in stating that at the present time there is no claim from any of the provinces which the government are seriously entertaining, or which they contemplate submitting to parliament. The province of Prince Edward Island, and for that matter the maritime provinces generally, have from time to time advanced a claim on account of the fisheries award. It was represented that that award was peculiarly the property of the lower provinces, and should have been paid over to them. That matter, in one form or another, has been before parliament for twenty years, or for a very long period, and I have no doubt that for twenty years to come somebody will be found to advocate such a view. The province of Prince Edward Island recently referred to that in the course of representations by a delegation, and dwelt upon the fact that by reason of a decision of the courts the rights of the provinces in these fisheries have become much stronger than they were before. Our answer to that was that in connection with the fishery award, if not directly arising out of that, there was the grant of the fishing bounty, and we have gently intimated to the provinces that if they should see fit to test their possible technical legal rights in the matter of this fishery award, they would also have to take account of the fishery bounty winch the parliament of Canada grants. They could not expect to get the money and get the bounty also; and therefore, I assume that that question is not likely to be seriously presented. At all events, if it should be presented, I do not hestiate to say that they cannot claim to be repaid the amount of the jaward and at the same time receive the fishing bounty. Therefore. I do not treat that as a very serious matter.
Then there was a claim-I am speaking entirely from memory-there has been a claim standing for many years from the province of Manitoba, that is to say, they regard it as a claim. There was a sum of $110,000 at one time placed to the credit of Manitoba, but in subsequent legislation that sum was wiped out and other provisions made in lieu thereof, and covering, as we think, that amount. The province of Manitoba several years ago brought that up and insisted that the later legislation had not wiped out the $110,000. We considered that matter, and this government declined to recognize the claim. They had also another claim arising out of the construction of public buildings in Manitoba that we did recognize, and provided for some three years ago. The other claim this government refused to entertain. Within the last few Mr. FIELDING'.
months it has been brought forward again by the government of Manitoba, but we have nothing new to communicate to the House. We have not officially given the government of Manitoba an answer, but we shall be able to do so very quickly ; but I know no reason why we should depart from the conclusion previously reached. Now I believe I have mentioned all the claims from the maritime provinces, concerning which I have any knowledge.


An hon. MEMBER.: Now what about Nova Scotia.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Nova Scotia has made no claim for better terms, and speaking, not by any authority, but for myself as a representative from the province of Nova Scotia, I will engage that no claim should be advanced by Nova Scotia by reason of this grant to Prince Edward Island. I will undertake to say that I will not myself support any claim that might be made, if it should be made by the government of Nova Scotia, by reason of this grant to the province of Prince Edward Island. I think this grant stands upon its own merits, and should not be mixed up with any question of other claims or of better terms.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERES.: With respect to the fisheries matter which the hon. gentleman referred to, it is not correct to speak of it as a claim made by one of the provinces, or by a number of the provinces ; it is a contention as to the construction of the Act. It is a legal contention, that legal contention was submitted to parliament in the year, I think, 1880, by the then hon. member for Halifax, Mr. Richey, when Sir John A. Macdonald returned to power, and it was passed upon by parliament adversely to the contention of the province. That contention has been floating more or less in the air since parliament passed upon it at that time. That claim remained quiescent, but was revived by the decision of the Privy Council, which seemed to give some colour to the contention of the provinces with regard to their jurisdiction extending territorially over the three mile belt. Whether it does or does not, has not yet been decided ; but if eventually it is decided by the Privy Council that the contention of the maritime provinces with respect to their jurisdiction is as sound as they make it, even then if parliament did yield to their claim it would only be on the ground that my hon. friend has referred to, that the capital sum which Is now placed to their credit, and upon which they are receiving interest in the shape of bounties, being the amount awarded by the Halifax International tribunal, should cease to be paid to them afterwards. If they got the principal they could not get the interest in the shape of bounty, that would be perfecly clear, I take it. Therefore, it is not fair to speak of it as a claim ; it is more in the nature of a contention they make with regard to the

legal construction of tlieir rights under the British North America Act, and that never will be decided nor can be decided by any government until the Privy Council positively passes upon the matter again ; and Hf it is decided it must be decided on the lines my hon. friend the Minister of Finance states, that if they get the principal they certainly cannot get the interest which they are now getting in the shape of bounties.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any complaint from the province of Ontario with regard to those bounties ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The province of Ontario has no connection with it at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I ask the Minister of Finance, as he was speaking about the other provinces, if any claim has been made respecting a readjustment of the sums paid to the provinces ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No claim has been made from any of the provinces respecting a readjustment of its subsidy.


William Findlay Maclean: Or of any kind ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I know of nothing from the province of Ontario.


William Findlay Maclean: We are opening the door now. The hon. gentleman's own supporters 'behind him have said they intend to file their claims. The member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) filed a claim on behalf of the province of Quebec five minutes after this grant to Prince Edward Island was proposed. I believe that other claims will be filed now, and no doubt there are a number of claims.


The PRIME MINISTER.: To relieve the suspicions of my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) I may say that they are all groundless, and that all the claims that have been made up to this date are in the hands of the Governor General.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Does the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) say that there is something to be determined in respect to the rights of the Dominion in the fisheries ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes, I say that there is still open the question as to the extent of the jurisdiction, or the territorial rights of the provinces over the three-mile belt. The provinces contend that as a result of the fisheries decision they are entitled to territorial jurisdiction over the three-mile belt.


Robert Laird Borden: Has anything been done to settle that question ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes, we have been trying for some time to settle upon a case, and I think we have reached a reasonable settlement. The Premier of Quebec, the Attorney General of Quebec, the Deputy Minister of Justice and myself were in consultation a long time over it, and we have reached a conclusion which has been formulated in writing and which I have since transmitted to the Premier of Quebec. We have given instructions to our fishery officers in accordance with it. The Federal government will grant a license to fish in the disputed territory, and the provincial government will remove the nets. That will raise the question, and it will be brought into court for a decision. We will ask the court to decide whether we have territorial rights or not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When the matter of these resolutions was first brought before the House, attention was called to the fact that a tax was placed by the authorities in Prince Edward Island

the provincial authorities, I believe-upon commercial travellers from other provinces who desired to enter that province for the purpose of doing business, and I read a strong protest from the president of the Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada against the continuation of that tax. I was not sure, myself, when the matter was up, whether the tax was imposed by the municipalities or by the province.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: By the province.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I thank the hon. gentleman. Then, I believe, I am correct in saying that the tax was levied by the province. This is a matter that causes a good deal of irritation and annoyance to the representatives of the business interests of other provinces, and it was brought to the attention of the government when these resolutions were presented by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding). May I ask if any correspondence has taken place between the government of Prince Edward Island and the hon. gentleman respecting the remission of this tax ? I understand that representations have been made as to the unfairness of this tax. I do not desire to take up the time of the committee any farther than to ask if any correspondence has taken place in regard to the remission of this tax. and if not. would the government take steps as soon as possible to procure its removal ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No correspondence has taken place between myself and the provincial government, but the hon. Minister of Justice, in the discharge of his duties as Minister of Justice, in respect to the legislation of the provinces, has called the attention of the provincial government to the complaints which have been made in respect to this legislation. The provincial government revised their legislation in this respect, and the legislature passed a new statute last session. I have not yet seen the statute, further than a newspaper comment upon it, but that new statute will come before the hon. Minister of Justice for his consideration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. gentleman If there Is any intention under that new statute to increase these imposts ? The statement was made by the president of the Commercial Travellers' Association that he understood that the tax was increased from $15, or $25, to $50.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the details, but there has been a readjustment of the tax levied. I do not know exactly the extent of it, but perhaps my hon. friend may be right. The contention of the provincial government was that they were levying this tax for provincial purposes and that really they were not discriminating inasmuch as those carrying on the same business, being residents, paid an equivalent tax in what is called a pedlar's license there. I am not in a position to pronounce any judgment now one way or the other, but the matter is engaging the close attention of the hon. Minister of Justice.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is it the intention to make any representations to the provincial government to secure a remission of this tax ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The Minister of Justice is now in communication with the province, and until he receives the new statute which was passed last session, it is quite impossible to give any information one way or the other.


William Findlay Maclean: It may be that the Act was ultra vires of that province. It is certainly a violation of the original compact of this confederation that one province should pass such legislation interfering with trade, and I think the government will find that it is ultra vires, or, at least, that it is in violation of the original contract of confederation, and so, I think, we are entitled, either through a decision of the courts, or by the persuasion of the government, to have it done away with.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: If I understood the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries rightly, there has been a renewal of the application which was made in parliament by Mr. Richey in 1880, I think, claiming $5,500,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I think I may have misled the hon. gentleman if I said that there was a renewal. What I intended to say was that there was some revival of this old claim following the fisheries decision.


John Graham Haggart: Since the fisheries decision by which jurisdiction over the three-mile limit was given to the provinces, there has been a revival of the claim put forward by Mr. Richey in this House for $5,500,000, the amount of the Washington award.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: That included the sum paid to Newfoundland.


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: 


Robert Laird Borden: That was $500,-
000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, $1,000,000 W'as given to Newfoundland. I may say that the revival of this claim since the decision has not been made by the three or four provinces interested. It has only been intimated by one of the provinces that the claim was alive. The whole of the provinces have not made a claim, and I do not know that they intend it.


John Graham Haggart: All I am stating is that from the remarks of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I understand that there has been a revival of this claim.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: By one province.


John Graham Haggart: As I understand him, by one province. Does the hon. gentleman remember the exact amount'! I think it was about


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 


John Graham Haggart: $4,500,000. We came to the conclusion that by distributing the award in the shape of bounties to the fishermen in the maritime provinces we were giving them adequate compensation. There was a claim made by New Brunswick against the government of the Dominion, and if I understand the hon. Minister of Finance, this claim has been settled. What is the amount that has been awarded ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not recollect the exact amount, but it is about $250,000. That was under the award which was laid before the House! some time ago. Before the session closes we shall have to provide for dealing with these claims. As to the particular manner in which they will be dealt with I am not prepared to say, but that and the Nova Scotia award will be brought before the House before the close of the session.


John Graham Haggart: I understand the hon. Minister of Finance to say that the papers of the New Brunswick award have been laid before the House. We have not had the papers in regard to the Nova Scotia award.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am under the impression that the others were asked for and were also brought down. If not, I shall see that they are brought down.


William Findlay Maclean: How many awards were there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There were two awards, that of New Brunswick, to which the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) refers, and that of Nova Scotia.


Mr. CLANCY.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance by what means

the government are able to determine the amount that should be paid to Prince Edward Island, if anything. It is a matter of some importance that the committee should know the basis upon which this sum is granted. The hon. gentleman knows very well that the contentions of Prince Edward Island could not be fairly viewed and settled upon in the light of what we have before us to-day. I am not going to detain the committee except for one moment, and it is not for the purpose at all of trying to show that this is not an equitable claim. It may be an equitable claim, but what I want to call the hon. gentleman's attention to is that if Prince Edward Island's claim is based mainly upon the conditions as we find them to-day, the complete change in all the circumstances would make it appear very large. The people of Prince Edward Island themselves admitted that it was quite possible they would have to abandon the notion of a winter service, and they advocated the building of a tunnel, which of course was not contemplated in the terms of union. The House should have more than a general statement that the government have consented to give Prince Edward Island practically the interest on a million dollars for all time. In view of the conflicting opinions on the subject, we should be told bow the government arrived at that conclusion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what has already been stated in debate, and in the order in council. It was not a matter of mathematical calculation to ascertain the precise cent to which the province was entitled. It was a conclusion reached by the government after a general review of the whole matter, we believing that it would probably be better for all interests, and, perhaps, better for the treasury of the Dominion, to make this allowance rather than to open up the question by way of arbitration which the Island government asked. We were of opinion that all interests would be better served by giving them this sum, not specially adjusted, but as an allowance in the way stated, in preference to entering into a general distribution, which might, perhaps, have given them less, or which, perhaps, might give them a good deal more.


Robert Laird Borden: It occurs to me that in fixing this amount, there must have been some basis which guided the government. I do not say that the amount is too large or too little, but. I think the order in council might have shown what the basis *was. and that the Minister of Finance might have been able to explain it to the House. Any explanation that has been made from the Treasury benches in regard to this would sound equally well if you put in $20,000 or $40,000 instead of $30,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Quite so.


Robert Laird Borden: It looks very much as if the amount were simply determined by what is called the rule of thumb, instead of being determined upon some definite principle. I dare say it may be difficult to find a basis on which to settle such a claim by compromise, but it seems to me there must have been some principle in the minds of the sub-committee who settled the claim, and the House ought to be apprised of it. However, it does not appear that the government are able to give us any information on that point, and I suppose we will have to be content without it. I have one other observation. If there is any other claim of thevprovince in respect to alleged violation of the compact between the Dominion and the province, it seems to me it would he very desirable to make an end of all such claims.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no question outstanding respecting the terms of union, but the one touched by this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: The reason I supposed there was, is on account of the very definite language of the Bill, which says this is to be :
Accepted in full settlement of all claims of the said province against the Dominion of Canada on account of alleged nonfulfilment of the terms of union between the Dominion and the said province as respects the maintenance of efficient steam communication between the island and the mainland.
I supposed on account of that language, that there was some other claim or possible claim by the province of Prince Edward Island against Canada, and if so, I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) will agree with me that it would be exceedingly desirable that any such claim should be dealt with now, so that we might not have friction and irritation with respect to such matters in the future. Certainly, the form in which the Act is presented to the House leaves it open to the province at any future time to make claims based on any consideration other than that expressed in this Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As to any other claim for nonfulfilment of the terms of union, T quite agree it should be covered by this Bill. I can say to my hon. friend without the slightest reservation- I am willing that my words should go down as forming part of the understanding- that this Bill covers all such claims. There is no claim by the government of Prince Edward Island with respect to the nonfulfilment of the terms of union other than this claim with regard to winter service. They have advanced other claims on matters of account, and the fisheries and so on, but, as respects any claim for nonfulfilment of the terms of union, this has been the only matter of controversy. There-

fore, the language used, which is the language of our correspendence with them, covers everything of that character without the slightest reservation.


Hr. WALLACE.: While the Minister of Finance says it covers all the matters in dispute so far as the terms of confederation are concerned, yet, the language of the Act is a direct invitation to the Island of Prince Edward to prefer its further claims. We know, and the Minister of Finance knows better than any of us, what these further claims are. There are claims because a large sum of money was spent by the Dominion in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway in which the government of the province allege they had no direct benefit. There are claims on account of the construction of the Prince Edward Island Railway. Therefore, when the government come here with their proposal to hand over virtually the interest on a million dollars to Prince Edward Island for all time to come in order to satisfy them, let me ask : Does the Minister of Marine (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) tell us that there was a nonfulfilment of the terms of the union in respect to steam communication ? The government do not say so in their Bill. They say on account of ' alleged ' nonfulnlment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: W'e are very cautious.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes. but you are voting away a million dollars which does not show so much caution.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh. yes ; it does. It might have to be two millions.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Of course, this government, which is squandering our money and slinging it out in every direction, do not care for a million dollars, and they would just as soon make it two millions.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Election pledges.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes, these pledges were made before the election, and they were made at the by-election the other day. At the general election a Conservative was returned, and a few weeks afterwards a supporter of the government was elected by hundreds of a majority in the same constituency. Did the government do anything in the meantime that would entitle them to the confidence of the people of Prince Edward Island, or of anywhere else ? Not at all. It was a corrupt transaction and nothing else. I say that the action of the government in this matter will not be satisfactory to the people of Canada. It may be all right to say to Prince Edward Isand : We give you $30,000 a year, the interest on a million dollars capitalized ; we only give you this as a first instalment, for the alleged nonfulfilment of the terms in regard to efficient steam communication between the island and the mainland. Does the Minister of Mr. FIELDING.
Marine and Fisheries tell us that there was not efficient steam communication ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What has he been doing in these five years to make it right ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. Got	a new	steel steamer and
put her on, and made it right; and she runs satisfactorily too.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Then where are the damages ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The damages are for the many years you did not keep it right. You did not keep your contract.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What were you doing when you were in before, that you did not keep it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We kept the contract.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister tells us now that all the difficulties have been removed-that he has put on a new steel vessel. I would like to know where was his efficient steamship when he himself complained that he could not get to Ottawa last winter; and I know that there wrere some others trying to get over to Prince Edward Island.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend wall lay the foundation for another claim if he is not careful.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Having discovered that this is an old claim, how does the hon. gentleman now feel about it ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I presumed that the $30,000 a year for all time to come would cover claims of that kind for the future. It is not a settlement of an old claim at all, because this $30,000 a year is for all time.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You would sooner pay them $1,000,000, then ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I would sooner the government would come down with some straight proposition instead of a proposition of this kind, which I do not approve of, which is utterly unjustifiable. It is an invitation to the province of Prince Edward Island to prefer further claims, because it is not a settlement of all claims which the province has. It is only the settlement of one question out of a number. The Finance Minister comes with a projjosal to settle that question, which they now tell us is a difficulty of the past, by voting a subsidy for all time to come of $30,000 a year, the interest on $1,000,000, for the purpose of satisfying the people of Prince

Edward Island, because at some time in the past that service was not as efficient as the people of Prince Edward Island thought it should be. The government of Canada, before hon. gentlemen opposite came into power, made the most strenuous efforts to have the navigation between Prince Edward Island and the mainland kept open, and they succeeded very well indeed. We know that members coming here every year had free access to the island, and returned whenever they wanted. I do not remember whether the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was ever delayed until this year; but this year he could not cross to attend to his duties in parliament; this is the year in which we find the greatest difficulty; and yet the government are paying Prince Edward Island an enormous sum of money for the settlement of only one question of the past-not all the points in dispute between the province and the Dominion. Why do they not come down with a complete settlement instead of leaving these other questions open and unsettled ? We have here the province of New Brunswick handing over the railways, and demanding large sums of money from the Dominion government; we have the same thing from the province of Nova Scotia. Presumably we may have a similar demand from the province of Ontario, with a much stronger claim, I should judge, if it should make a claim. But for my part I do not believe in these continual attacks on the purse of the Dominion. This was never contemplated, and it is simply a carrying out of election pledges intended to corrupt the people and have the government returned to power.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not want to prolong the debate or repeat the statement I made the other day; but I really cannot let my hon. friend escape without replying to the statement he last made. Is it true that this is merely carrying out election pledges ? The hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that his late colleague in the government, Senator Ferguson, was the co-leader of the provincial government who pressed this very claim, which we are now settling, harder upon our predecessors and upon the Imperial government than anybody else. It was not a claim kept up by one political party alone. It was a claim which the people of the island thought they had justly, and which was put forward by every successive government since the year 1886, Senator Ferguson and the present Chief Justice Sullivan, who then led the government of. Prince Edward Island, were knocking at the door of parliament and at the door of the Privy Council here for years; and they carried their claim home to the foot of the Throne, and prayed Her Majesty the Queen to do that justice to the province which they said the Dominion government
refused to do. Lord Granville, after listening to both sides, said he regretted that he had not power to interefere with the Dominion government.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: What year was that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is all contained in the memorandum. That was in 1886. But Lord Granville recommended to the government that if they had made a contract with Prince Edward Island which it was impossible for them literally to carry out, they might meet it by building a tunnel instead of providing winter communication by steam.


James Clancy: Surely the hon. gentleman does not lay stress on so visionary a suggestion by a gentleman having no power to dictate to Canada ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by laying stress; but I am stating what the opinion of Lord Granville was. At that very time, the then High Commissioner, Sir Charles Tupper, intimated that the government would favourably consider the proposal to build a tunnel, if the project was feasible, and a letter was written by the then Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John Macdonald, intimating that he would take steps at once to ascertain whether a tunnel was feasible.


James Clancy: Is that in the correspondence ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The papers were all brought before the House years ago. This is a matter of public history. It was not a matter of party politics. Ask the hon. members from Prince County, east and west, whether the carrying out of election pledges or party politics has anything to do with it. It was a substantial claim which there is not a corporal's guard in Prince Edward Island who do not believe is just, and which has been constantly pressed on this government. No hon. member of this House wants this government to stand in the position of having broken a solemn compact which it has made with one of the provinces, and then saying, we will not pay you a dollar of damages, although we have broken our compact, and you cannot sue us-go and do as you like. Is the smallness of the province a ground upon which you should refuse to settle an honest claim ? Does any one suppose, if the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec had made a compact binding on this Dominion, and it was not carried out, that the representatives of those provinces in the Dominion parliament would not compel it to be carried out ? Its honour, its good faith, is at stake, and that is now being saved by what is a very fair compromise of a long outstanding claim, arising out of the fact that the Dominion

government did not fairly or honestly attempt to carry out its contract for many years, in consequence of which failure the people of the island suffered untold injury.


John Graham Haggart: It is refreshing to have the hon. gentleman explain the reasons why the claim of the island should he sustained by this government. What is the claim V It is for the non-performance of the terms of the union between the Island and Canada. It is based on the non-carrying out of that part of the contract which provides that there shall be efficient steam service between the island and the mainland.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No.


John Graham Haggart: How has that contract been broken 1 In the first instance, there was what could hardly be called a service at all, that performed by the steamer Alert. Afterwards there was the service performed by the Northern Light, and the hon. gentleman was accustomed to plead that the Northern Light efficiently did the work. I have often heard the hon. gentleman again and again defend in this House the service of the Northern Light. It was the party of the hon. gentleman, which was in power from 1874 to 1S78, to which was committed the task of carrying out the terms of confederation and seeing that the steam service between the island and the mainland was an efficient one. It was his friends who built the Northern Light, and the Northern Light, did its duty efficiently.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND PISHERIES.: No.


John Graham Haggart: It is curious how a few years have altered the hon. gentleman's mind.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND PISHERIES.: I know that the hon. gentleman does not want to put words into my mouth that I never used. What I said was that the Northern Light's service was an honest and faithful attempt to carry out the compact, but it failed. There was never any doubt of the bona fides of those who built the Northern Light, but for some reason or other, every time the hon. gentleman speaks on this subject, he omits to state fairly the terms of that contract. The contract provided, not merely for efficient communication, but continuous communication. The late government put their construction upon that provision, and they said that efficient communication meant continuous communication between the island and the railways of the mainland.


John Graham Haggart: That question of construction has been threshed out again and again. Continuous communication between the island and the mainland meant only such communication as the laws of Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
nature would allow. The doctrine of force majeure applies in the case, as the hon. Minister of Marine well knows. This is a claim on account of the non-performance of that condition when the hon. gentleman and his friends were in power. But what I want to point out is that over and over again the Minister of Marine has argued that the service of the Northern Light was an efficient one.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND PISHERIES.: You never heard me say so.


John Graham Haggart: I will read the very words of the hon. gentleman taken from ' Hansard.' They were uttered in reply to Sir John Macdonald :
I rise for the purpose of correcting the hon. gentleman, who two or three times over gave as statements made by me statements which I did not make. I did not say that the Northern Light was quite sufficient for the purpose for which it was built. On the contrary, I explained that in spring and fall it did effective service.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: But in the middle of winter, for a period of a month or six weeks, no boat could be built to do the work.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND PISHERIES.: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: And the hon. gentleman went on to state that it was impossible for any boat to do the work more efficiently for two or three weeks in the year that the Northern Light did it.
I remember the complaints made by Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Sullivan and other hon. gentlemen on our side about the non-efficiency of the service, but that service found no more ardent defender in this House than the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Our friends opposite, when in power, had the duty of carrying out the conditions of the contract. It was they who built this steamer, and the hon. minister contended that, with a little improvement, it would do the service efficiently, but that for two or three weeks in the year it was. impossible that that service could be performed by any steamer. He has changed his mind since then. Perhaps modern ideas and enterprise have discovered improvements, which will enable a continuous service to be had between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, but what I rose to observe was that the conditions of the contract were carried out as faithfully as possible with the mechanical appliances available at the time, and that one of those who claimed that it was so carried out is the Minister of Marine.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND PISHERIES.: Not so.


John Graham Haggart: Not only did the succeeding Conservative government perform

the service with the means furnished by lion, gentlemen opposite, but we put on an extra service besides. We subsidized steamers for the purpose of supplementing this service. We gave to parties in Charlottetown and other places large subsidies for a supplementary service.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not in winter.


John Graham Haggart: During the whole year.


*The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: For summer only.


John Graham Haggart: As long as they could do it ; as long as the service could be performed. We gave the sum for the purpose of supplementing the service by the Northern Light I am not objecting to the $30,000 a year given to Prince Edward Island, but do not give it on the ground of a claim for which there is no foundation at all. The real claim which Prince Edward Island has against this government is another one. In the financial arrangement, under which that province entered confederation, it did not get the allowance it was entitled to.


William Findlay Maclean: They will put in a claim for that now.


John Graham Haggart: 
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Prince Edward Island.


John Graham Haggart: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: 
John Graham Haggart: 
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not intend to allow the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) to misrepresent me in this matter. When, early in his speech, I called his attention to the fact that he was misrepresenting me, I thought he would make the amend and acknowledge that the language of mine that he quoted did not bear out the statement that he had made. The hon. gentleman attempted to bolster up his statement that I had always claimed that the Northern Light was an efficient boat, and in compliance with the terms of tile union, by reading what 1 had said. But it proved to be the very opposite of what he attributed to me. The statement that I made then, and that I make now, is that the Northern Light was a bona fide effort to carry out the terms of the union, and, so far as the spring and fall was concerned, the boat was efficient, but that for mid-winter she was entirely unsuccessful. I read to the House the other day from sta-

tistics furnished to the government in this matter, the number of days during which the Northern Light was unable to carry out this contract. The figures showed that, for two mouths, for two months and a half at a time, the Northern Light never crossed from one side to the other ; and the 120,000 people on the island were cut off from access to the mainland, because this inefficient boat was put on designed to carry out the contract that the Dominion had made.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Did the hon. minister take any action to remedy the grievance at that time ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I did not come to this House until 1882.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Mas that the year the question was brought up in this House ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. We had it up every year. Hon. members wTho were here in 1882 will remember


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The hon. gentleman was supporting the	party	in power.The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. I do not care what party was in power. The Liberal party was in power from 1873 to 1878, and from 1873 to 1876 there was no boat at all on the route except the old Albert, and she was confessedly a complete and absolute failure. For three years, the people had no communication at all by steam with the mainland, though the Dominion had contracted solemnly to give them continuous communication winter and summer. What does it matter which government failed to carry out that compact ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that continuous communication is not afforded even now.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is no use quibbling about this matter. When I came into parliament there was a proposition brought forward by government supporters to build a submarine railway, which would cost from $5,000,000 to $8,000,000. I never gave my support to that project. I believed that there were means by which efficient steam communication could be maintained. It was a mere matter of using the proper means to that end, and in a short time these means were found. When the Stanley was put on in 1888, she was found efficient, and when this was supplemented by the Minto, it was proven that there was no difficulty in carrying out the compact that had been made. So, from the first, I have sounded one note- that the Dominion had failed to carry out its compact, that in that way it had done untold injury to the island, and that the island had a bona fide claim for recompense. And, now, I am proud to say, the Dominion Sir LOUIS DAVIES.
has recognized the claim. Not the whole, not even half of the claim made by the Conservative government of Prince Edward Island, and submitted to the Queen, which claim was for $5,000,000, but only one-fifth of it has been recognized. The hon. member (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says he is not going to quarrel with the amount. Then, what are we disputing about ? The fact that the compact has not been kept has been admitted. Surely, the claim to compensation is clear. Then, what are we taking up time for ? Are the rights of the province of Prince Edward Island to be ignored because it is a small province ? Shall this great Dominion stand before the world saying that it denies justice to one of its own provinces with which it has made a contract, which contract it has broken-that it will not pay honest damages? No honest man will take that position. The contract is so plain that no man can read it and have any doubt about what it means :
The Dominion government shall assume and defray all the charges for the following services, viz.: Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the Dominion winter and summer.
And, as if to place beyond the possibility of doubt what was meant by that-it went on-
Thus placing the Dominion in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
It was on that agreement that the people of the island were induced to come into confederation. The people voted for confederation and put down those who were opposed to it, largely because of that promise, and that contract. And, having got the island into confederation, what did you do ? For three years you did not put a steamer on at all ; between 1876 and 1888 you made what, I admit, was a bona fide attempt to carry out the contract, but it was a complete failure ; in 1888 you did what you should have done from the first, built a first-class steel steamship ; and from that time you have substantially carried out the contract. And am I to be told that even though, for sixteen years the contract was not carried out and the people of the island were isolated the whole winter, suffering untold loss, yet, because they have no legal claim that they can enforce in the courts, their claim is to be repudiated. There may be differences of opinion as to the amount, though I have yet to hear any hon. gentleman say that the amount was not fair. This is one-fifth of what the province claims ; but they were willing to compromise owing to the length of time the matter had been pending, and to accept the compromise. And I think that every fair-minded man, looking at the circumstances all round, will say that this is a just and honest compromise. But to attempt to twist it into a change in the terms of the union is most un-

fair. This has nothing to do with additional subventions or a change in the terms of the union ; it is a fair settlement of an honest claim made by the province against the Dominion, a claim arising out of the failure of the Dominion to carry out its compact with the province, a claim that you cannot, in honesty, ignore.


William Findlay Maclean: The Prime Minister asked what we had to bring forward, and the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat was asked why we were taking up the time of the House. Well, at least we have got this far-it is proposed to give the province of Prince Edward Island $1,000,000. It is also brought out that it is proposed to vote this session $671,836 to the province of Nova Scotia. We are told this morning that another vote of a quarter of a million is to be made to the province of New Brunswick, and we are also told to-day that these two votes to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that will be proposed, are the result of an award going beyond the legal rights of the provinces.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It would be better to discuss that matter when the votes come up on the resolution.


William Findlay Maclean: No, we are discussing the principle, and it is because there is no principle in this one, there is no submission to a proper court, that we are objecting. The Prime Minister laid it down a while ago that any question that should come up of this kind should be submitted to the courts to be settled, but he told us in connection with the claim of the settlers in the North-west with regard to the exemption of the Canadian Pacific Railway lands that equities were not to be considered. Now, that he has opened the door, what will be the nature of the settlement of these cleaims that will be coming after? It will be a reference of a claim on the principle of equity, and not of the legality of any claims that any province may put forward. After a good deal of discussion it has come out now that the door has been opened, that large subsidies are to be paid this session to the provinces, not on any legal claim, but as a matter of equity, as they call it, to the provinces. All the provinces will be filing similar claims, and I protest against any such thing being done with the money of the people.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend had better wait until we bring forward these votes with regard to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. If claims are pending against the Domininon, I lay it down as a principle for the guidance, of the party which is in power, whatever may be the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, that these claims must be settled one way or the other. We shall not be afraid to take 16S
the responsibility of dealing in this parliament with any claim that can be presented by any province. I lay this down as a basis for the guidance of the government. upon which I invite the opposition to oppose us if they dare do so. With regard to the claim of New Brunswick, I may say to the hon. gentleman that if he had followed the history of this matter, he would know that this is not a new claim. It was dealt with a few years ago by the government of which he was a supporter, I think he was in the House at that time. The justice and fairness of that claim was acknowledged, but the interest upon it was not allowed ; and when the appropriation was brought before parliament at the time, a gentleman from New Brunswick supporting the government, Prof. Weldon, protested against the award being only for the principal and not for interest. He thought that if the province of New Brunswick was entitled to the money, it was entitled also to the interest upon it. We referred that matter to arbitration, and although the arbitrators were divided, the government made the appropriation, in order that New Brunswick should have no occasion to feel aggrieved. The same thing with reference to Nova Scotia. The hon. gentlemen are now raising their pi'otest in this matter after they had allowed the second reading to take place, and now when we are in committee simply to look after the terms of the Bill, they raise a discussion. If their arguments mean anything they should have been made against the second reading, but they did not dare to make their complaints at that time. What we want to know is whether they are for or against this Bill. If they are in favour of it, let them say so; if they are against it, let them have the courage of their opinions and vote against it. But for my part, I am not willing to allow hon. gentlemen to steer north by south and beat all about the bush; if they are against this Bill let them say so honestly and vote against it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Referring to a remark of the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), who said there must be a finality to these things, almost in the same breath he said, no matter what you say in your statutes, there can be no finality, and no words you can put into the statute will make this matter final. I am rather disposed to accept that view. I venture to say that so long as we have a government or parliament ait -Ottawa, if any province makes a claim which seems to be fair and just, no matter what the past records may show, there will always be found a government and parliament willing to give it fair consideration, and if justice be


Robert Laird Borden: I would hardly think if a province accepted a particular sum of money, a particular amount per annum from the government in satisfaction of a particular claim, and if it accepted it under the language of a statute declaring the settlement final, that it could reasonably make a claim with regard to that matter again unless it could show that there had been a clear mistake. Therefore, I would not concur in the view which the minister puts forward, that there can be no finality with regard to these things.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Experience has shown it.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not be prepared to concur in that view. If, however, the view which my hon. friend has put forward is correct, what becomes of the value of the assurance that he gave us a few moments ago, and which he was willing to have go down in the records, namely, that there is a distinct understanding in respect of alleged violations of the terms of confederation. If the statute is to be of no use in such a case, surely my hon. friend does not think his assurances given in this House when the Bill is in committee, will be of any service? I would hardly like to go that far. Now, in respect of what has been said by the right hon. leader of the government, I do not think that any criticism which has been made upon this Bill while in committee is at all out of place. The criticism has very properly been made that no basis has been pointed out upon which this amount has been fixed. I think we should have information in regard to that. Another thing which I would like to say to the* hon. Minister of Finance is, that if a claim in regard to the fisheries is to be disposed of at some time or other, why not dispose of it now in connection with this claim?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It has not been settled by the court yet. The only decision that there would be a claim arising out of would be a decision that the provinces have territorial property in the three-mile limit. I do not agree with that contention. We take the very opposite ground. We say that the Dominion jurisdiction is absolute in regard to the fisheries and to navigation in the three-mile limit and that the provinces have no territorial rights. It is only if it is established that they have a territorial limit of three miles that they would have any claim under the fisheries award.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, if the hon. gentleman is correct in saying that something has to be determined by the

courts upon which the validity of such a claim depends, that is a sufficient reason for leaving that claim to he determined later. The hon. gentleman has not made it very clear to me what that question is. Not having examined very recently the decision of the Privy Council rendered some four years ago, I am perfectly clear yet as to what is left undetermined.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is a good deal left undetermined, hut there is this to be said about it, that what was determined was that so far as the rivers and inland lakes were concerned the property in those rivers and lakes was in the provinces, and that as a consequence the property in the fish pass to the provinces. Now, the question is : Does that also apply to the territorial waters in the sea? Some people say so, hut the Privy Council have not said so in so many words and we have tried to agree, and have agreed substantially upon a case, which would submit that very question to the courts. The decision is that the property in the rivers and lakes has remained with the provinces from confederation, and if so, would a similar result follow if the bed of the three-mile belt of the sea was judicially declared to be in the provinces ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise for the purpose of making any extended remarks on the subject of the Prince Edward Island matter, but more particularly to enter my protest against hon. gentlemen opposite introducing the subject of the New Brunswick claim as a matter germane to the present discussion. The effect of such introduction can only be to prejudice the minds of hon. gentlemen who hear what is said, and it can only do so in an unfair way because hon. members have not been put in possession of the facts which have led to the final settlement of the claim and they cannot possibly know the facts, even the hon. gentleman who leads in the condemnation of the claim. I would ask these hon. gentlemen what sort of an opinion anybody would form as to the weight or value of their judgment or as to the judicial manner in which they have approached the subject, when they have condemned the claim off-hand without knowing the facts ?


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) why members of the House have not been put in possession of the facts ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I presume that if hon. gentlemen have asked me for information it has been furnished to them. If they have not asked for information, we are not to be held accountable. It must be admitted on all hands that the manner in which the government have dealt with the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia claims is not sufficient 1684
reason why the claim under consideration should be condemned. I take it that each one of these provinces is entitled to have these matters disposed of upon their individual merits, and that this case is not to be prejudiced because some one has an opinion on some other claim which another province has preferred. I take it that this is the spirit in which we would be expected to approach the consideration of this question. Now, if we are approaching the consideration of this question in that spirit the first thing that appears to me that we ought to ask ourselves is : What is the character of the compact that was entered into by the people of Canada with the province of Prince Edward Island on the strength of which the people of that province were induced to cast in their lot with us and become one of the provinces of federated Canada ? To ascertain what the nature of that pledge and compact was, it is material for us to consider it, not in a narrow and technical way as against the province, but in a broad spirit, not simply because the province is a little island which is cut off from the rest of Canada and which, by reason of its want of connection with the mainland, is denuded of many advantages which accrue to the remaining people of Canada by reason of the progress of public works and enterprise in which they are engaged. I do not put it in that way or on that ground, but the people of Prince Edward Island had the inducement held out to them, when they were urged to come into this confederation, that they might rely upon having the benefit of continuous connection with the Intercolonial Railway and with the mainland. That was the compact, and although my hon. friend (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) has already read it, I will read it again :
The Dominion government shall assume and defray all the charges for the following services, viz.: Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the Dominion winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
Now, I want to know in what spirit the people of Canada should interpret that language when they know that that language was used in such a manner as to induce the people of Prince Edward Island to place confidence in it, to place their political interests in our hands and to enter into political connection with us. Ought we to take a view which is a narrow view, which is a lawyer's technical view, or ought we to view the matter in a broad spirit, and treat it as you would like it to be treated if you were the people of Prince Edward Island who had been induced to enter into confederation on the strength of the promises which were held out to them ? How does the hon. member for South Lanark propose to interpret the language of this

solemn compact and how does he say that this language ought to be interpreted ? I want to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the language he has employed. He is not willing that that language shall be interpreted as a fair, square compact, made between the people of Canada and the people of Prince Edward Island. No, but he undertakes to change the language and to interpolate words into it so as to give a different meaning to it. He wants to say ' as far as possible,' or * as far as we possibly or reasonably can.' That is what he wants to say.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend says 1 hear, hear.' He is not making a reasonable proposition when he asks to have the language changed in that way, and I will tell him why I do not think it is a reasonable proposition. It may be all very well if the hon. gentleman were interpreting the language of a contract between two individuals neither of whom was absolutely certain as to what he was doing, or sufficiently informed as to the nature of the contract that he was entering into. Will any one say that with such a knowledge of the facts as the government of Canada had at that time, and with such information as was available to them, they entered into a contract of that kind without knowing whether they could carry it out or not? I submit that they must be taken as knowing all about it. Do you suppose that this was an entirely new project ? Not at all. The question of summer and winter communication between the island and the mainland engaged the thoughts of many men. And when the people of Canada persuaded the people of the little island to cast in their lot with them, they must have known that they were bound to carry out this service, because aft most it only entailed a question of money. It would be grossly unfair and unjust for the people of the Dominion to say now to the people of Prince Edward Island, who relied upon the good faith of the government and the people of Canada to surrender their political independence to become a province of the Dominion ; I say it would be unfair and unjust for us to say now to the people of Prince Edward Island : We are going to change the terms of the compact which led you to agree to confederation; when we gave you this positive pledge we did not know what we were doing : we meant you to understand that we would carry out the contract only it it were reasonably possible to do so without any large expenditure ; we want you now to accept our interpretation of the contract. I say. Sir, that whatever may be the measure of damages which the people of the island are entitled to claim ; whether we have estimated it at too much or too little ; we are bound to implement the terms of the union in justice


Mr. BLAIR.: to the people of Prince Edward Island. We are bound to adequately and fairly compensate them for the losses they sustained during the years in which we failed to carry out our side of the bargain. The thought occurred to me that we were only giving fifty cents per capita of the population of the island for each year of the sixteen years that the service was defective, and I do not think that is an enormous amount. Any one who considers that a fair basis for making the allowance will have no hesitation in saying that a million dollars is a reasonable compensation to allow for the failure to carry out the contract on our part. We believe we have chosen the preferable course in paying to the people of the island the interest on one million dollars a year at 3 per cent, instead of handing over the capital to them to spend as they might choose. Under the circumstances, I would hope that there will be breadth enough of spirit in this House and in the country-even though hon. gentlemen opposite may think they can make a little political capital against us-to endorse the government of Canada in their action in carrying out the obligations of this great country with the small province of Prince Edward Island.


John Graham Haggart: Hon. gentlemen opposite seem most desirous to thoroughly thresh out this question, and we are quite willing to accommodate them in that regard. What we contend for is, that there should be a finality to these claims, and that is the very thing that the Liberals contended for when they sat in opposition. We had a readjustment of the subsidies given to the provinces in 1884 ; we had another readjustment in 1887 by which we gave a certain amount yearly to Prince Edward Island, and we thought that was a settlement of all claims prior to that date. But, now we have another claim looming up. Well, as Mr. Blake said : There will be an end to confederation unless there is a finality to these claims. The Prime Minister tells us that whenever there is a just claim the government will always consider it, and the Minister of Finance says that the claims of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were submitted under the precedent established in respect to the claims of Ontario and Quebec. Does the Minister of Finance understand the question at all ? The claims between Ontario and Quebec were adjudicated upon by this House, and the principle of the indebtedness settled. A certain sum of money was deducted annually from the payments made to Ontario and Quebec on account of some alleged indebtedness of these provinces to the Dominion, and under the readjustment of the subsidies in 1884, it only became a question of the division of the interest between Ontario and Quebec. It was on these grounds that the submission was made in the case of Ontario and Que-1 bee, and there is no comparision with this

ease at all, and no argument in favour of the same form of submission being adopted with respect to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. What we are discussing at the present time is the granting of this large sum of money to Prince Edward Island, and we are taking the same grounds as were taken by the Liberal party when in opposition, and of which the hon. minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) was a distinguished supporter. Every man in this House supposed that by the Act of 1884, and the Act of 1887, as far as Prince Edward Island was concerned. there was a finality to these claims. We are not objecting to the sum to be given to Prince Edward Island. Not at all. The amount is a trifle to this Dominion. It is the principle of the thing we are objecting to. We are objecting to the introduction of measures of this kind again and again into this parliament, without the other provinces who are parties to the confederation being consulted. A system is being adopted by which the subsidies to the different provinces are fixed, giving to one province, perhaps, more than it is entitled to. and without consulting the wishes or the interests of the other provinces. That is what we object to. If it is necessary for the carrying on of the provincial governments that they should get more from the Dominion treasury, let there be a readjustment all along the line, but do not go on giving grants to particular provinces when every one believed that after 1884 there was an end to the claims of these provinces for such grants. In 1887, an Act was passed giving exceptional treatment to Prince Edward Island, and what has happened from 1887 down to the present day to entitle it to this 830.000 a year ? Must not the assumption be that in 1887 all the claims of Prince Edward Island were considered and finally dealt with, so far as an Act of parliament could do so? The Minister of Railways says that here we have an Act of parliament, and that is the end of it. WTell. have we not again and again gone behind the Subsidy Act whenever it was thought there was a claim in equity ? What I protest against on behalf of my province, and on behalf of the Dominion and its permanency as a confederation, is this continual tinkering and this giving of exceptional favours to different provinces. As Mr. Blake said long ago. there should have been a finality long before this ; but. if there are any claims which particular provinces have, or any ante-election promises which have to be carried out, let both sides of the House come to a solemn agreement, that if it is necessary to readjust the subsidies they shall be readjusted once for all. and that no claim on the part of any province shall be entertained afterwards. Otherwise, there must be an end to confederation.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman's argument is based on an assumption of a set of
facts which does not exist. He assumes that this proposition involves a readjustment of the terms of confederation. He says that is a dangerous proposal to introduce into this House. He says that when the proposal in respect to Nova Scotia was introduced by the government of the late Sir John Macdonald, Mr. Blake protested against it, pointed out its danger, and contended . for finality. What is the sense of introducing such an argument here, when the proposal before the House has no reference whatever to a readjustment of the terms of union ? Does the hon. gentleman press his argument so far as to say that no claim made by any province on any ground shall ever be entertained by the Dominion, whether it is good, bad, or indifferent ? The hon. gentleman must see that he is taking a position which is absurd. We are not proposing to readjust the terms of confederation. We are not asking that an additional subsidy be given to any province. We are simply settling a claim for a specific amount, which claim we decide to be bona fide and good. The hon. gentleman has no objection to the amount of the settlement; but he imagines that in some way or other it is a readjustment of the terms of union, and therefore dangerous. Another lion, gentleman said this settlement had some political significance. I called on the hon. gentlemen who represent Prince County, east and west, who were in the House during the first part of this debate, and stayed here for an hour and a half, to answer that statement, and show their friends on that side of the House that there was not a vestige of foundation for it; and 1 am very sorry to see that on this matter, which is more vital to Prince Edward Island than anything that has come before the House for years


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is a settlement of a just claim which has been pressed here for many years, and on which all political parties in Prince Edward Island are united; and just when we approached a crisis in the debate, the two hon. gentlemen from Prince Edward Island on the other side of the House, frightened at what their leader had said, withdrew themselves from the House altogether. I wanted these hon. gentlemen to respond to the invitation 1 gave them, and to tell my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace) that he is entirely in error when he says that this proposal is the carrying out of any election promise or has any reference to party politics whatever. So far as I am concerned, it never formed a factor, direct or indirect, in the election on one side or the other.


Mr. TAYLOR.: There is the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) now.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am glad lie lias come in. I liope my voice reached him, and I hope he will now let the hon. gentleman know that there is no ground whatever for the charge he makes, that the settlement of this claim is the result of any political agreement made between one party here and any party in Prince Edward Island. The claim was in existence before the Liberal party came into power; every Conservative in the island was pledged to it, every Conservative member from Prince Edward Island in this House was pledged to it. Those who went to petition the Queen on behalf of this claim were Conservatives; and the statement that this settlement is in liquidation of any political promise is absolutely devoid of fact. It has nothing whatever to do with politics; and I had hoped that the two lion, members from Prince Edward Island who support the opposition would have risen in their places and made the statement I asked them to make, that this is a settlement of a bona tide, honest claim, and is not in liquidation of any election promise, and has no reference to party politics whatever. I am glad to see one of those lion, gentleman back in his place now, and I want to know if he will make that statement ?


Mr. HACKETT.: I have only just arrived in the House this moment. I heard the early stages of the debate; but I understand that the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has said in my absence that I was not here to attend to my duties as a member representing the Conservative party. Did the hon. gentleman say that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I regretted very deeply that in one of the most important debates to Prince Edward Island which have taken place iu this House, the hon. gentleman withdrew himself before the debate was half over, and was out for an hour.


Edward Hackett: I was only out of the Chamber for about fifteen minutes; but I have listened carefully to the debate, because it is a matter of great importance to the people of Prince Edward Island, and I felt that our interests were safe in the hands of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on this occasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Hackett: In other debates of this kind the hon. gentleman himself has been absent. As I said on a previous occasion, this consideration which is given to the people of Prince Edward Island because of the non-fulfilment of the terms of union is only a moiety of what I believe the people of Prince Edward Island are entitled to. The party to which I belong, led in 1886 by the present Chief Justice of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Mr. Sullivan, assisted by his Mr. TAYLOR.
able colleague, the present Hon. Senator Ferguson, finding that no relief was being afforded to the people of Prince Edward Island because of the non-fulfilment of those terms, carried the question to the foot of the Throne; and, as a result of that, the first real bona fide attempt to carry out the terms of confederation was made, and the steamer Stanley was placed on the route. Now, I had supposed at the outset of this debate that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, by his able remarks, had convinced the committee that the claim of Prince Edward Island was a just and fair one, and that the measure would pass without any great debate. I know that the hon. gentleman has behind him two supporters from Prince Edward Island. Are they in their seats, or are they absent V


An hon. MEMBER.: They are here.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The appeal was made to me to correct the misunderstanding which the hon. gentleman's leader entertained and expressed.


Edward Hackett: Sir, I have been here on every occasion during this session when my presence was required to assist in carrying out everything possible in the interests of the people of Canada, and 1 think it was a small matter for the bon. gentleman to refer to my absence for a short time on this occasion. I trust that there will be no further discussion on this matter. I remember well, from my long experience not only in political life in this House, but as a resident of Prince Edward Island, the great suffering entailed on the people of that province because of the non-fulfilment of the terms of union.
I can verify the truth of the statements made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with regard to the claim of Prince Edward Island. Why, in 1878-five years after the island had entered confederation under the solemn compact that she would be provided with continuous steam communication with the mainland-nothing had been done. When I crossed over the Straits of Northumberland for the first time in 1878, we had to drive in mid-winter in a sleigh from Emerald Junction, on the main line of the Prince Edward Island Railway, to Cape Traverse. Then we had to take the old iceboat, which had been in use there from time immemorial, to cross the straits, and then drive 35 or 40 miles until we came to the Intercolonial Railway. Surely this would not be called carrying out the terms of confederation. This condition of things was borne for many years. It was brought up repeatedly in parliament but nothing was done. I, myself, brought it up in parliament in 1881, but not getting any satisfaction from the government, then led by Sir John Macdonald, I stayed over a few days after prorogation and paid a special visit to Sir

John at his residence in this city, Stadacona Hall. I pointed out to him how vital a question this was to the island, and after I had laid before him the disadvantages under which we were labouring, he said to me : Hackett, at the time of confederation, when we entered into this contract with the island, we were not supposed to overcome the impossibilities of nature, but we will do all possible. And as a result of that visit, we had a railway built from Emerald Junction to Cape Traverse and thus had only the short passage across the straits to overcome in order to reach the Intercolonial Railway.
The claim of Prince Edward Island for $5,000,000 was made to this government over and over again by Chief Justice Sullivan and Mr. Ferguson. Senator Howland did what he could to have a tunnel built, but without success, and Lord Granville declared that something should be done for the people of the island.
In 1888 the Stanley was placed on the route. The hon. the Minister of Marine has said that the Northern Light did not fulfil the contract. Neither she did. The placing of the Stanley on the route was the first genuine attempt to carry out the terms of the union. Since the present government have come into power, they have placed the Minto on the route, and she has to some extent assisted in carrying out the terms of confederation. But unless you place these boats at the particular points from which they can navigate the straits on all occasions, you cannot have continuous communication. You have two powerful steamers, built for the purpose of ice navigation, but you have them both at the one point, where the passage is blocked when the winds blow from the north-east. If you had one at the western point plying between Summerside and Cape Tormentine, she at all times could be used when the eastern channel was blocked. You may call the present system satisfactory, if you like, but during twelve days this session, in the month of February, we were without our mails. Is that carrying out the terms of the union? I trust that this Bill will pass without further discussion. It is only a small payment of what is due the people.
With regard to the tax on commercial travellers, which was referred to by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), that was imposed by the friends of the Minister of Marine who are now in power on the island. When in Charlottetown, a few years ago, a commercial traveller from Halifax was not acquainted with the law and did not pay the fee. What happened ? In came a policeman with a detective appointed by the local government and they arrested this man in the hotel and put him in jail. This tax is altogether wrong, and it is to be hoped that the people of one province will not be impeded in their dealings with other provinces by this vexatious tax.
I simply rose to resent the attempt made by the hon. Minister of Marine to detract from my standing as a member of this House because I happened to be absent for a few minutes on this occasion.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say on behalf of my hon. friend, who has just spoken, that during the present session he has been in the House at least twice as much as the Minister of Marine, and I do not think that any reproach, such as the Minister of Marine has made, comes with good grace from a government which has not an average of more than two or three of its members in the House, as a usual thing.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is not always the position of a cabinet minister exceedingly difficult? He is called out of the House continuously, and it is perhaps practically impossible for him to spend any length of time in the House, owing to the many demands made upon his time.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a very great deal in what the hon. minister has said, and no doubt there is a great deal of necessity for the ministers at the head of Railways and Canals and Public Works absenting themselves, but other members have demands on their time as well, and it certainly came with very bad grace from the Minister of Marine to make the reflections he did on my hon. friend, who is a most assidu-out attendant at the debates.
I would like to say to the Minister of Railways and Canals that when he tells us we should have had the information about the vote which is to be passed in respect of the province of New Brunswick, he ought to have borne in mind that we only knew to-day for the first time that any application was to be made to parliament for that vote. I think the Minister of Finance will see the necessity of bringing the papers down and having them printed, so that the information may be in the possession of the House. When parliament is asked to vote this sum for New Brunswick-and I may support the vote myself-we want to know something about it. And so does every hon. member of this House. Every hon. member is entitled to know the facts before he is asked to vote for it And, if the government intend to propose this appropriation during this session, they should have brought the papers down and had them printed But, this not having been done, I will ask the government to do it with the least possible delay.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On that latter point, I may say that I supposed that these papers had been brought down. The fact of the two awards having been made has been referred to in debate several times during the present session, so that there has been no lack of knowledge of the fact

that these awards would have to be provided for. As soon as I learned that the papers had not been brought down I sent instructions to my department that, in whatever department these papers were, that they should be produced at once.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I may say that the claims themselves and the papers connected with them, except the last, the award of the arbitrators itself have been in the journals over and over again. Therefore, there will be nothing new to hon. members in the papers except the finding of the arbitrators.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.



GAS INSPECTION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 139) to amend the Gas Inspection Act-the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier)-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: Does this Bill refer to acetylene gas as well as coal gas ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: It applies wherever gas. meters are used.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose that all sections of this Bill are based upon recommendations of the permanent officers of the department ?
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE, Yes, and of the association with regard to gas and electric meters.


Mr. INGRAM.: Has the attention of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue been called to the fact that gas companies have their employees make gas-pipe connections without gas masks? It frequently happens that, through the escape of gas, the men engaged in this work become insensible and narrow escapes from death have occurred.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: This has only to do with the inspection of gas meters. The changes are introduced because certain people who had no knowledge or insufficient knowledge of gas meters used to inspect these meters with the permission of the consumer. As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) is aware, these gas meters can be tampered with very easily. So this is to protect the consumer and the seller against such practices.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am aware of that. But I want to know if the attention of the minister has been drawn to what I stated. I think there should be provision made in the Inspection. Act, or some other Act, to pro-


Mr. FIELDING.: hibit gas companies from having their employees do the work I have spoken of without giving them proper protection against the danger to life that is involved.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: This Bill relates only to the inspection of gas meters


Andrew B. Ingram: I tell the hon. minister I am perfectly aware of that. But I am calling his attention to the need of certain legislation. This is the only means I have of impressing upon him the importance of amending the law in the way I speak of.
On section 3,


William Findlay Maclean: How does the minister propose to protect the public in the inspection of these meters ? Is there provision in the succeeding section ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There is no other provision except in the main Act.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUBSIDIES TO RAILWAYS.

The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: With the consent of the House, and on behalf of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), the consent of the Crown having been obtained for the purpose, I would move that to-morrow the House take into consideration the following proposed resolutions :
1.	Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to grant a subsidy of $3,200 per mile towards the construction of each of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding in any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated), which shall not cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, and towards the construction of each of the said lines of railway not exceeding the mileage hereinafter stated, which shall cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, a further subsidy beyond the sum of $3,200 per mile of fifty per centum on so much of the average cost of the mileage subsidized as shall be in excess of $15,000 per mile, such subsidy not exceeding in the whole the sum of $6,400 per mile. The expression ' cost ' used in this Resolution means the actual, necessary and reasonable cost and shall include the amount expended upon any bridge, up to and not exceeding $25,000, forming part of the line of railway subsidized not otherwise receiving any bonus, but not the cost of terminals and right of way of the railway in any city or incorporated town ; and such actual, necessary and reasonable cost shall be determined by the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and upon the report of the chief engineer of government railways, certifying that he has made or caused to be made an inspection of the line of railway for which payment of subsidy is asked, and careful inquiry into the cost thereof, and that in his opinion the amount upon which the subsidy is claimed is reasonable and does not exceed the true, actual and proper

cost of the construction of such railway, the lines of railway being as follows, that is to say :-



SUBSIDIES REVOTED.

[Stage Direction]
1.	For a line of railway from Sunnybrae to Country Harbour, Nova Scotia, and from a point at or near Country Harbour Cross Roads to Guysborough, in lieu of the subsidies granted by 1897, chap. 4, and 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 34, not exceeding 80 miles, $256,000.
2.	To the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near Chaudiere Junction on the Grand Trunk Railway, Quebec, towards the present terminus of the St. Francis Branch of the Temiscouata Railway, New Brunswick, not exceeding 45 miles, and for a line of railway from the mouth of the St. Francis River, New Brunswick, westerly towards Chaudibre Junction, not exceeding 15 miles, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, paragraph 23 ; also for a line of railway in extension oX the St. Francis Branch of the Tdmiscouata Railway to the mouth of the St. Francis River, New Brunswick, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 43, not exceeding 3 miles ; in all not exceeding 63 miles, $201,600.
3.	To the Montreal and Province Line Railway Company, for a line of railway from Farnham, Quebec, to Frelighsburg, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, paragraph 37, not exceeding 19 miles, $60,800.
4.	For a line of railway from a point on the Intercolonial Railway at or near Windsor Junction to Upper Musquodoboit, in lieu of 1897, chap. 4, sec. 2, paragraph 23, not exceeding 40 miles, $128,000.
5.	For a line of railway from Pubnico, Nova Scotia, to Port Clyde or Clyde River, in lieu of the unexpended balance of subsidy by 1897, chap. 4, sec. 2, paragraph 29, not exceeding 31 miles, $99,200.
6.	To the Toronto, Lindsay and Pembroke Railway Company, for a line of railway from the western terminus of the 20 miles subsidized by 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 47, westerly towards Bancroft, not exceeding 20 miles, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, paragraph 3 ; also from the terminus of previously subsidized lines at a point about 40 miles west' from Golden Lake, westerly to Bancroft, not exceeding 11 miles ; in all not exceeding 31 miles, $99,200.
7.	For a line of railway from Chipman Station, New Brunswick, to Gibson, in lieu of the subsidies granted by 1897, chap. 4, and 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 31, not exceeding 45 miles, $144,000.
8.	To the Inverness and Richmond Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near Point Tupper on the Intercolonial Railway, to Broad Cove and Cheticamp, Nova Scotia, in lieu of the subsidies granted by 1897, chap. 4, 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 29, and 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, paragraph 27, not exceeding 98 miles, $313,600.
9.	For a line of railway from Caplin to Paspe-biac, Quebec, in lieu of subsidy granted by 1899, chap. 7, sec. 2, paragraph 15, the subsidy contract to be entered into with the trustees or receivers under mortgage from the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company, and to contain the conditions that the subsidy when earned shall be paid in the following manner
1st. To the Hamilton Bridge Works Company in payment for bridge superstructures on the said section of railway, when furnished and erected by that company, not to exceed $35,000.
2nd. For the completion of the road-bed and works incidental thereto.
3rd. Towards payment of overdue balances, pro rata, in settlement of claims for labour, boarding-house claims, and material and supplies furnished in connection with the construction of the said section of railway ; in all not exceeding 30 miles, $96,000.
10.	To the Schomberg and Aurora Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point on the Grand Trunk Railway between King and Newmarket, Ontario, to Schomberg, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1897, chap. 4, not exceeding 15 miles, $48,000.
11.	To the Ottawa and Gatineau Railway Company, for a line of railway from the end of the 62nd mile subsidized, towards Ddsert, in lieu of the subsidy granted by 1897, chap. 4, sec. 2, paragraph 5, not exceeding 20 miles, $64,000.
12.	To the Restigouche and Western Railway Company, for its line of railway from Campbell-ton on the Intercolonial Railway, New Brunswick, towards Grand Falls, in lieu of subsidy granted by 1897, chap. 4, sec. 2, paragraph 10, not exceeding 20 miles, $64,000.
13.	To the Pontiac Pacific Junction Railway Company, for 36 miles of its railway from a point at or near Shawville, crossing the Ottawa river via Calumet Island to Pembroke, including the bridging of both channels of the Ottawa river at Calumet Island, 14 miles of which shall be in lieu of the unexpended balance of subsidy granted by 1897, chap. 4, sec. 3, paragraph 2, not exceeding $115,200.

[Stage Direction]
14.	To the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company, for its line of railway, from a point on its line of railway between Sudbury and Little Current, to its junction with the line of the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway, at or near Goulais River, in addition to and in further extension of its railway, subsidized by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, paragraph 6, an additional mileage not exceeding 130 miles, $416,000.
15.	For a line of railway from Grandlgue Ferry, Nova Scotia, to Arichat, not exceeding 8 miles,. $25,600.
16.	To the Central Ontario Railway Company, for a further extension of its line of railway, subsidized by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, paragraph 5, northward, to a junction with the Canada Atlantic Railway, at or near Whitney, Ontario, not exceeding 20 miles, $64,000.
17.	To the Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near Sharbot Lake, Ontario, via Lanark, to Carleton Place, not exceeding 41 miles, $131,200.
18.	To the Norwood and Apsley Railway Company, for a line of railway from Norwood, Ontario, to the village of Apsley, not exceeding 30 miles, $96,000.
19.	For a line of railway from a point on the Dominion Atlantic Railway at or near Wnlfville, Nova Scotia, to the government pier on the Basin of Minas, not exceeding one mile, $3,200.
20.	To the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company, for a line of railway from Sault Ste. Marie to a point on the Canadian Pacific Railway at or near White River, in the district of Algoma, in extension of the subsidy granted to the Algoma Central Railway by 1899, chap. S, sec. 2, paragraph 23, and by 1900, chap, 8, sec. 2, paragraph 4, a further and additional mileage not exceeding 135 miles, $431,000.
21.	For a line of railway from Bridgetown, Nova Scotia, to Middleton, in extension of the line subsidized by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, paragraph 28, not exceeding 11 miles, $35,200.
[Stage Direction]
22.	For a line of railway from a point on the Grand Trunk Railway at or near Burk's Falls, Ontario, to the Maganetawan river, not exceeding two miles, $6,400,
23.	For a line of railway between Halifax and the Central Railway, Nova Scotia, from the end of the 40th mile from Halifax subsidized by 1900, chap. 8, sec. 2, paragraph 40, to a junction with the Central Railway, Nova Scotia, not exceeding 30 miles, $96,000.
24.	For a line of railway from a point on the Algoma branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway, at or near Bruce Lake Station northerly, to a point at or near Rock Lake, in the district of Algoma, not exceeding 9 miles, $28,800.
25.	For a line of railway from Roberval, Quebec, westward toward James Bay, not exceeding 60 miles, $192,000.
26.	For a line of railway from a point upon the Stonewall branch or the Selkirk branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway to Icelandic River by way of Girnli, not exceeding 35 miles, $112,000.
27.	To the Restigouche and Western Railway Company, for an extension of its line of railway from the 50th mile from Campbellton already subsidized, westward, to effect a junction with its line of railway subsidized 27 miles east from the St. John river, not exceeding 33 miles, $99,600.
2.	Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to grant the subsidies hereinafter mentioned towards the construction of the railways and bridges also hereinafter mentioned, that is to say-
1. To the Ottawa and Gatineau Railway Company, for its unearned balance of subsidy upon the 62 miles of its line of railway from Hull towards Desert, granted by 1897, chap. 4, sec. 3, paragraph 3, not exceeding $35,872.
3.	Resolved, that the subsidies hereby authorized, or any subsidies heretofore authorized under any Act of parliament of Canada still in force but not fully paid, towards the construction of any railway or bridge, shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and may, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Act, at the option of the Governor in Council, on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be paid as follows
(a)	Upon the completion of the work subsidized ; or
(b)	By instalments, on the completion of each ten-mile section of the railway, in the proportion which the cost of such completed section bears to that of the whole work undertaken ; or
(c)	Upon progress estimates on the certificate of the chief engineer of government railways, that in his opinion, having regard to the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than sixty thousand dollars.
(d)	With respect to (b) and (e), part one way,
part the other.	[DOT]
4.	Resolved, that the subsidy of 66 miles granted to the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company for a line of railway between Little Current, on Manitoulin Island and Sudbury, Ontario, by 63-64 Victoria, chapter 8, section 2, subsection 6, may be contracted for with the company and paid, and the work may be begun and prosecuted in two sections, the first beginning at or near Victoria Mines, in the township of Denison, and extending to Sudbury, and thence north-easterly toward Lake Wahnapitae, not exceeding 34 miles ; the second section beginning at Little Current and extending to and connecting with the Canadian Pacific Railway at or near Stanley, in the township of Baldwin, on the Canadian Pacific Railway, not exceeding
Louis Henry Davies: 32 miles ; subject, however, to the company carrying out the undertakings contained in 63-64 Victoria, chapter 8, section 2, subsection 6.
5.	Resolved, that the subsidies hereinbefore authorized to be granted to companies named, shall, if granted by the Governor in Council, be granted to such companies respectively ; the other subsidies may be granted to such companies as establish to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council their ability to construct and complete the said railways respectively ; that all the lines for the construction of which subsidies are granted, unless they are already commenced, shall be commenced within two years from the first day of August, 1901, and cempleted within a reasonable time, not to exceed four years from the said first day of August, to be fixed by the Governor in Council, and shall also be constructed upon a location, and according to descriptions, conditions, and specifications approved by the Governor in Council on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and specified in each case in a contract between the company and the said minister, which contract the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, is hereby empowered to make.
6.	Resolved, that the granting of.such subsidies, and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the condition that the Governor in Council may at all times provide and secure to other companies such running powers, traffic arrangements, and other rights, as will afford to all railways connecting with those so subsidized, reasonable and proper facilities in exercising such running powers, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways ; and the Governor in Council shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways hereby subsidized.
7.	Resolved, that every company receiving a subsidy under this Act, its successors and assigns, and any person or company controlling or operating the railway or portion of railway subsidized under this Act, shall each year furnish to the government of Canada transportation for men, supplies, materials and mails over the portion of the line in respect of which it has received such subsidy, and, whenever required, shall furnish mail cars properly equipped for such mail service, and such transportation and service shall be performed at such rates as are agreed upon between the minister of the department of the government for which such service is being performed and the company performing it, and, in case of disagreement, then at such rates as are approved by the Governor in Council ; and in or towards payment for such charges the government of Canada shall be credited by the'company with a sum equal to three per cent per annum on the amount of t*he subsidy received by the company under this Act.
8.	Resolved, that as respect all railways for which subsidies are granted by this Act, the company at any time owning or operating any of the railways shall, when required, produce and exhibit to the Minister of Railways and Canals, or any person appointed by him, all books, accounts and vouchers, showing the cost of constructing the railway, the cost of operating it, and the earnings thereof.
9.	Resolved, that the Governor in Council may make it a condition of the grant of the subsidies herein provided, or any heretofore authorized by any preceding Act of parliament as to which a contract has not yet been entered

into with the company for the construction of the railway, that the company shall lay its road with new steel rails, made in Canada, if the same are procurable in Canada of suitable quality, upon terms as favourable as other rails can be obtained, of which the Minister of Railways and Canals shall be the judge.
Motion agreed to.



ELECTRIC LIGHT INSPECTION.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 140) to amend the Electric Light Inspection Act-the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. M. E. Bernier) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 3,
Robert Laird Borden: I am not familiar with the Act which is being amended. Is this Act applicable throughout Canada, and does it apply to the ordinary supply of electric light by companies in cities throughout Canada ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Throughout Canada. There are inspectors in all the cities under this Act. There is one in Halifax.


Robert Laird Borden: It is the duty of these inspectors to verify all meters before they go into use ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Whether they are asked to do so or not ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: They are never installed unless they are tested.


Robert Laird Borden: I mean, if a meter is put into a House, is it a necessary condition that it shall be inspected before- hand by an officer under this Act 1


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.
On section 5,


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand what the object of this section is. It seems to be exactly the same as that which was passed a few minutes ago. Why do you confine the time to three months ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The accounts are generally rendered at the end of three months. I think that time is fair to both consumer and seller.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I think that is a very wise clause. When the inspector goes around, and if he finds there is anything wrong with the meter, the purchaser always wants a rebate ever since the inspector was there last.


Andrew B. Ingram: He does not get it.


Aaron Abel Wright: There should be a time limit, and I think three months is ample. I may say to those who think that the customers are often being shaved by the companies, that the difficulty is all on the other side. If there is anything wrong with the meter it is not because it goes too fast, but because it goes too slow. That is a notorious fact, and it is the man who is selling electric light that gets taken in and not the purchaser, because something will get on the disk and retard the movement. In fact, we find that parties who take the current sometimes tamper with the meter. I think three months as the date from which rebate should be made is ample for all purposes.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the amount of time which should be given under a section of this kind must depend to a great extent on the frequency of the inspection. For example, if you had not had your meter inspected for a great many months, it might be that three months would be too short a time. W'ould the hon. gentleman tell us whether any specific periods are fixed by the Act now being amended for the inspection of these meters ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The inspection is regulated by law at five years, and if any person casts doubt upon the regularity of the meter, he may ask the inspector to test his meter, and that is why we have fixed the period at three months, because the payments are generally made by the consumer every three months.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see that the time of payment has really very much to do with it, but, it seems to me that the frequency of inspection has a great deal to do with it. Is there any fee fixed for the inspection ? How much does it cost to have a meter inspected ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Here is a list of fees as fixed according to the regulations adopted in 1895 :
For meters of a capacity of tea ligths or under, 75 cents ; for a capacity of over ten lights and unler 20, $1.25 ; for 20 and under 30, $1.75 ; far 30 and under 45, $2.25 ; for 45 and under 60, $2.75 ; for 60 and under 80, $3.00 ; 80 and under 100, $3.50 and for every additionnal 20 lights, 50 cents.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand these technical expressions very well. How much would it cost to have an inspection of the ordinary meter, such as one has in his house ?


Aaron Abel Wright: It costs 75 cents for the ordinary -meter, and it must be paid by the electric company, not by the consumer.


William Findlay Maclean: I think six months would be fairer a-s far as it concerns the consumer, because if the company has to pay it, it is only in very infrequent cases, and it will not be much of a loss if the meter is running against the consumer. There is in reality three months now. I think that a remission of six months should be allowed.

On section 5,


Aaron Abel Wright: This is the section which I think there may be some difficulty about. For example, supposing that any one conceived that his meter was wrong, and wrote to tiie inspector and asked him to come and inspect the meter, and the electric light manager knew nothing about it. The Bill says that either one or the other, the inspector or the person applying for the inspection, should give notice. Suppose the consumer told the inspector that lie had notified us. and the inspector thought he had, when, in reality, we knew nothing about it. That would put the onus upon us, whereas we would not be cognizant of what was going on. It seems to me that it should be made the duty of, either the inspector, or of the person applying, to give the notice.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Twenty-four hours notice will be given to the contractor, or his agent, by both of the parties interested.


Aaron Abel Wright: I understand that, but, suppose the inspector is told by the consumer that he has given us notice when he has not, one would throw the blame on the other, and we would not know anything about it. Either one or the other should be obliged to give the notice, and not leave it for two of them in that way.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I think the section seems to be very clear. The hon. gentleman complains of the delay. It says :
During the inspection of any disputed meter, the contractor or purchaser may be present by himself or his agent authorized in writing.


Aaron Abel Wright: That is all right.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (reading) :: And twenty-four hours notice of the inspection shall be given, by the inspector or person at whose request the inspection is made, to the other party.


George Taylor: I would suggest that you make it read ' twenty-four hours notice shall be given by the inspector,' striking out the words ' or person at whose request the inspection is made.'


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I suppose the consumer would be the party to complain, and notice must be given to him by the inspector as well as the contractor. or if the consumer gives the notice to the company, then, the same notice should be given to the contractor. Both parties must be notified.


George Taylor: But, you make the inspector, or the person who complains, responsible for giving the notice. The person who makes the complaint may tell the inspector that he has given notice to the contractor without giving it. If you hold your own officer responsible for giving the notice and Mr. MACLEAN.
strike out the words ' or person at whose request the inspection is made,' the notice will then be given by the inspector.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, we might say * by the inspector to both parties interested.'


Mr. BLAIN.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if there is anything in this Bill, or the original Act, that applies to companies supplying light where there is no meter at all ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Where there is no meter, there can be no inspection.


Richard Blain: Do I understand that a company has the right to supply electric light in a town, and that the government make no inspection of the electric light planr ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: If a citizen in a town takes electric light from a company without a meter, of course, we have nothing to do with ilmt except to register the company. Where there is no meter there can be no inspection, and no supervision, except the registration of the company.


Aaron Abel Wright: With all due deference the minister is a little wrong on that. We have to give every new customer a notice in writing of the amount of pressure we are going to deliver at the terminus in his house. If we do not deliver that pressure he can have the inspector test as to whether we are giving that pressure or not.


Richard Blain: Not having any meter.


Aaron Abel Wright: Not having any meter. When we sell power on the flat, we have to give a certain amount of pressure so that when a man has a sixteen candle power light in his house, he will get a sixteen candle power light.


Richard Blain: Do I understand that an electric company can make a contract with a municipal corporation to supply electric light, and run for ten years without the government making an inspection ?


Aaron Abel Wright: If they think they are not getting the required pressure, all they have to do is to inform the inspector and he will see whether it is right or not.


Richard Blain: One would think that there should be a regular inspection.
On section 6,


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: This clause inflicts a very severe penalty, and we should like to know the reason for it.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The meters are fixed by our inspector, and it is in order to prevent any person from interfering or tampering with these meters that the penalty is provided.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It does not say anything about ' tampering ' with the meter. Suppose the inspector lives a long distance away, and I am not satisfied that I am getting the proper pressure-


Aaron Abel Wright: Speak a little louder; I cannot hear you.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I will have to borrow the voice of the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson).


Aaron Abel Wright: If you prevent those people speaking here I may be able to hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It is the disorder of my bon. friend's neighbours that prevents his hearing. I say that it is very arbitrary to provide a fine of $25 on any person who tests a meter. The customer may believe that he is not getting the light he purchased, and if some competent person in the neighbourhood tests the meter I do not see why he should be punished. Of course, If any one tampers with the meter so as to cause it to register less power, then a penalty ought to be provided, but this clause as it reads is arbitrary and unnecessary. Then, as regards the question raised by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blainf as to where there are no meters. If you are paying for a twenty candle power light, the government should see that you get it as well as if you had a meter. I protest against the unnecessary hardship of this clause which provides a penalty on a person who may do no wrong, except to test the meter.


Aaron Abel Wright: I think this is one of the very best clauses in this Bill, and for this reason. It frequently happens that fakers from a distance who have neither money nor conscience, tell customers that their meters are all wrong when such is not the case, with the hope of getting some money consideration. The idea is to have authorized inspectors to inspect these meters. All that any of our customers has to do is to send for the government inspector who thoroughly understands the business. The number of watts a customer consumes is given to him on a piece of paper with the dials, and if he thinks his meter is running too fast or too slow, all he has to do is to get the inspector to inspect the meter, and the man who furnishes the light has to pay for it. The consumer is amply protected. So far as those who get the current on the flat are concerned, if they think they are not getting the proper candle power, all they have to do is to write to the inspector and he will see to it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Wright) is looking after the interests of the electric light companies. I was speaking in the interest of the general public.


Aaron Abel Wright: They are amply protected.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Of course the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wright) can make out a very admirable case for the electric light companies, but our experience is that these companies gobble up everything in sight and charge rates that are very high, and in addition to that we have no certainty that they are giving us what we pay for. The hon. member says : Oh, you can send for the inspector, and all that. In a city like Ottawa, the inspector may be right at hand, but it may be difficult to get an inspector in some country places. By the way, does the inspector perform this duty for nothing?


Aaron Abel Wright: The company and not the consumer has to pay.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: If the consumer is aggrieved, he sends for the inspector and the company pays ?


Aaron Abel Wright: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is a very good provision. I raise the other point that there may be a competent man near at hand to test your line, and that there should not be a penalty imposed on him if he does that.


Aaron Abel Wright: Twenty-four hours will bring an inspector at any time.


Mr. BROCK.: The whole object of this is to protect the public, and the public are protected by providing proper government inspection. The cases alluded to by the hon. member for West York, where people feel themselves aggrieved and desire some one to test their meter, often create trouble. There have been a great many attempts at blackmailing in matters of this kind, and the companies desire to see the inspection placed under a proper government inspection. The case cannot arise where a government inspector cannot be had. Any person who feels himself aggrieved can have an inspector, and at the expense of the company. I do not see why you should object to it at all.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I would like to ask the minister a question. The statement has been made a couple of times, and I would like it verified by the minister, that an inspector is sent for, and the electric light company pays his expenses. Is that correct?


Aaron Abel Wright: The electric light company does not pay his travelling expenses, but it pays the inspection of the meter.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: If the meter after being tested is right, the consumer has to pay for the inspection. If it is wrong, the company which is responsible for the meter has to pay the expense.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Now we have got a little more light on it. We have a direct

contradiction by the minister of the statement made by the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Wright). The hon. member for Renfrew said that all you have to do if you are aggrieved is to send for the inspector, and he comes, and the company pays the expense. Now we are informed by the minister-but he did not give us the information when he heard the statement made, but rather left us to force it from him-that if the inspection proves that the consumer is getting what he is bargaining for, then he has to pay the expense. But there is the other difficulty. You send for the inspector. The company know that the inspector is in town, and they put on the very strongest light they can; but is that any assurance that for the previous month the consumer has been getting what he bought and has to pay for?


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to point out, for the information of the hon. member for West York, that when you complain of your meter, and it is inspected, you are allowed under this Bill to have your representative present, so that to that extent there is some protection to the public. But I have not yet been told why this new penalty is introduced. Supposing I am a consumer of electric light, and I ask the best expert in Canada, or a man like Mr. Edison, to inspect my meter. I can only do so by subjecting him to this penalty. It is true, some fakirs have come into town ; but they only did so after they found that the consumers of electric light had been charged exorbitant rates, and that meters were over-measuring. While I am thoroughly in accord with the regulations made, providing the consumer may have a representative present at the inspection, I would like the minister to give a reason why this new penalty has been put in the Act.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: It may be that the statement made by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) explains the question which he has asked. I have heard, as he has, of the gentlemen whom he has spoken of as fakirs, coming into Toronto and testing meters. I have also heard it stated that these meters were of such a delicate nature that with a magnet the whole meter could, in a few seconds, be thrown out. Whether that is correct or not the minister can tell us. Therefore, the neces-! sity for a government inspection. A meter cannot be placed in a house unless it bears a government stamp. If that was wise legislation for the protection not only of the company, but of the public, it necessarily follows, I should say, that mat government stamped meter must be protected, and I assume that it is because a meter can be thrown out in such a way, by men who are fakirs, so that it will not correctly report Mr. WALLACE.
what amount of light has been consumed, that the government have determined to make the government inspection paramount, a heavy penalty is therefore imposed on other people who inspect meters.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: With regard to the question of the hon. member for West York, I would refer him to section 19 of the Act as it stands at present.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the minister tell us why he has put this penalty on the public? Is the statement made by the hon, member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) correct?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, quite correct.


William Findlay Maclean: That these fakirs can demoralize a meter?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes. The hon. member will understand that I have no personal knowledge of that, but the information has been conveyed to me.


William Findlay Maclean: On whose statement?


Aaron Abel Wright: I may say that one of these meters is one of the most delicate pieces of mechanism you Can find. It runs on jewels, and a strong blow will put it out of order.


William Findlay Maclean: What way?


Aaron Abel Wright: If it goes wrong, it is sure to go slow. We never had a meter inspected that went too fast, but we had seventy-three inspected that went too slow.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: In answer to the hon. member for East York, I may say that my authority is the electrical engineer of the department.
On section 7,
Mi). MACLEAN. In connection with this clause (c), ' for determining a standard or standards for arc lighting,' this is the most important feature of electric lighting in the country, especially in those cases where a private company makes a contract for lighting a town. They make the contract at so many dollars a year for each arc lamp, and the whole question, whether it is a good contract or not, depends entirely on the strength of the current. Supposing they make a contract for a 2,000 candle-power arc light, are there any government regulations securing to a customer, such as a city, for instance, the power of light contracted for.


Aaron Abel Wright: That is just the difficulty of the clause and that is why the clause is found fault with by myself. It is well known to electricians that if we deliver 450 watts

at the terminal, we are giving a nominal 2,000 candle power. But suppose we make a contract with a town for five years, the Governor in Council sjiould not be at liberty to change the contract by declaring that 450 watts at the terminals will not be a 2,000 candle power. If instead, it were provided that 450 watts at the terminals would be equal to 2,000 candle power, I would not make any objection.
lion. Mr. HAGGART. Have you any rules and regulations with reference to the matter ?
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE, l'es.


John Graham Haggart: How does the hon. minister determine the efficiency of an electric lamp when there is a fiat rate for all the lights ? The whole question is to determine the amount of power which is furnished by the wires, and unless you have a system which is a continuous check, there is no way of possibly testing the efficiency.


Aaron Abel Wright: If we give the amount of pressure which we notify the purchaser we will give him, when we put up a light, we have done all that is required.


William Findlay Maclean: Has the hon. minister any regulation whereby the consumer, who makes a contract for a 2,000 candle power lamp, is assured that the stipulated power is delivered him, and how does he enforce such regulations ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Here is the information I have. This question has been discussed by the Canadian Electrical Association for some years past, and they appointed a committee to examine and report. The department is simply taking power now to deal with the subject, and the hon. gentleman will see that in the supplementary estimates wTe are asking a certain amount to buy an instrument, by which we will be able to give the exact power or current in an electric system. But this has not yet been attempted.


William Findlay Maclean: In connection with electric lighting, what is required more than anything else is that a standard voltage for an arc light be established, and some means taken to deliver that to the consumer. There is no way for a municipality to get 2.000 candle power in its arc light except by owning the electric system.


Aaron Abel Wright: All electricians state that if we deliver 450 volts at the terminus, we are givng 2,000 candle power.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE ROYAL MINT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following resolution :
That it is expedient to enact that there shall be payable to His Majesty in every year out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, a sum not exceeding in the whole in any one year the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars, for defraying the expenses connected with the maintenance of a branch of the Royal Mint in Canada.-Hon. Mr. Fielding.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: For some years the question of establishing a mint in Canada has from time to time engaged the attention of the House ; and I think I may say with accuracy that, subject to some qualifications, the idea has found much favour. To a certain extent, this desire for a mint in Canada has been the outcome of what one may call a legitimate national pride. Our people see that Canada is a country growing rapidly in wealth, population and power, and therefore we are disposed to do here to-day many things which, a few years ago. we were content to have done abroad. No doubt that feeling has to a' considerable extent influenced those who view with favour the establishment of a mint. The fact that Canada is a metal-producing country has added additional force to the argument, especially during the last few years, when there has been so large an increase in our gold output from the Yukon.
In this respect our Australian brethren are far ahead of us. As far back as 1853, one of the Australian colonies-the colony of New South Wales-established a mint. In 1869, the colony of Victoria followed suit, and within the last two or three years the snail colony of Western Australia has also established a mint. Thus, we find that in each of these colonies-all of which united would not equal Canada-they have felt it desirable to have mints in operation, and there are actually now three established there.
To some extent the favourable view taken ol' the project is due to commercial reasons. There is an old and familiar phrase that trade follows a flag, but there are many who believe also that trade follows the gold, and that if the stream of gold, which has passed out of Canada into the American assay offices in the United States, could have been directed through Canada, it would have had a very material effect on our trade and commerce, especially in the western country. There is something in that, undoubtedly, though perhaps our western friends are disposed to magnify it. There is in the United States, at Seattle, an assay office, and on the Pacific coast our American friends have also a mint at San Francisco.
It is held by our western friends that the existence of this institution upon the Pacific coast has had a very material effect in diverting trade from the Yukon which under more favourable conditions might have been retained in Canada. I am not prepared to say that the argument is as strong as some of those who use it think, but I am

inclined to think there is some considerable force in it. The town of Seattle, we are told, which, a few years ago was a very small place, has been built up largely through the trade that has come from the Yukon country. It is hoped that, if a market can be found in Canada for the gold-first an assay office and then a mint-this business may be more largely controlled by Canadians. While sympathizing to a considerable extent with these views, I have felt it necessary in former discussions to point out that our conditions in Canada were somewhat peculiar and differed materially from those of Australia in relation to the minting of gold. We in Canada are not large users of gold in any way of coin. Our currency system-and we all believe that it is a very excellent system-is largely a paper currency, though it rests upon a very strong foundation of gold, so strong as to make it impossible to raise any question as to its stability. But we do not use gold in the general trade of the country to any large extent. That is one reason why it was wise to hesitate before undertaking the responsibility of a mint. Another reason is-comparing our position with that of Australia- that the currency of Australia corresponds exactly with the Imperial coinage, and the consequence is that the Australian mints are able not merely to make coins for Australian purposes but to make coins which circulate throughout the United Kingdom and practically wherever the British flag flies. We, having a decimal currency, not corresponding with the coinage of the mother country, would not be placed on terms of equality with Australia so far as that is concerned. If we should determine to establish a purely Canadian mint confined to the manufacture of Canadian coins we could not expect to find a market for any large portion of the gold of Canada, certainly not for the greater part of it. Holding these views, I suggested in former discussions that, before we should accept the responsibility of establishing a mint in Canada we should do well to see if we could not obtain from the Imperial authorities the right to make in our mint not only Canadian gold coins but also gold coins for Great Britain, coins which would circulate in Great Britain, as do the Australian coins, and everywhere throughout the Empire. We have conducted some negotiations on that subject, and the arrangement which I suggested in the former discussion is that which we now propose to carry out. We propose that the mint shall be a branch of the Royal Mint of Great Britain. The only difference between the branch of the Royall Mint and a purely Canadian mint will be in regard to the degree of control. In establishing a Royal Mint, the institution will have to be placed under the direction of experts sent out from the Royal Mint. We place a certain sum at the disposal of the managers of the mint, and they have to account to us
'Mr. FIELDING.
for it; but the appointments, at all events so far as the principal officers are concerned, will be persons who have had experience in the* Royal Mint, or, at all events persons satisfactory to Royal Mint. We give up there some degree of practical control. But were we to undertake to manage the mint as a purely Canadian institution, we should have to employ experts from abroad, because we have not the persons at hand with the necessary technical knowledge. Therefore, I think that that is no great practical disadvantage. On the other hand, by establishing a branch of the Royal Mint we obtain the desired privilege of making British gold coin. So, when all the gold, silver and copper coins that are required in Canada are made, if there is time-and there is likely to be time-the machinery can be applied to make British gold coins out of the gold output of Canada. Therefore, we think the mint will be more


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Will the branch mint in Canada make British silver coins as well as gold coins ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, there are reasons why we shall not undertake to make British silver coins. We make no profit in the production of gold coins, because gold is worth no more in the form of coin than in the form of bullion.


William Findlay Maclean: We could easily get rich if we could manufacture British silver coins.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
William Findlay Maclean: Is that in bars or in sovereigns ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is largely in British or American gold, perhaps principally in American gold because of our proximity to the United States, American gold passes to and fro more conveniently than British. But, whether British or American does not make much difference, because it has no additional value, but in any case it has only its intrinsic value.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has spoken of British gold coins being made in the mint here. What about the Canadian gold coins ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
William Findlay Maclean: Will not a certain amount of Canadian gold be required for the purpose of bank reserves ? Instead of using American gold they will use Canadian ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think so, a good deal of what the banks hold now, mostly American or British will be replaced by Canadian gold. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in our currency system, up to a certain point-a point reached some years ago-we require only a moderate amount of gold as security for our note issue, but after that point is passed for every dollar of our issue we must have a dollar of gold behind it. Therefore, with the extension of business as our note currency expands, as we hope it will-as the note currency is an indication of the commercial condition of the country-for every dollar of paper currency we shall need a dollar of gold to place behind it. That will give us employment-


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: May I ask when the point was reached to which the bon. gentleman refers ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Some seven or eight years ago. The limit is $20,000,000. Up to that, as I say, we require only a percentage of gold reserve, but after that it is deemed expedient in the interest of solid flnance that we should have a dollar of gold for every dollar of paper issued.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is the percentage ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Fifteen per cent of gold and 10 per cent of Canadian debentures bearing the guarantee of the Imperial government, which are treated as equivalent to gold. But, above $20,000,000 we must hold dollar for dollar. We think that in these ways, in turning out Canadian gold coins and in the manufacture of a standard gold bar which will pass between the banks, there will be a considerable occupation for the mint. And, when we add to that work the work of our silver and copper currency and the balance of the time in making British gold coins, there will probably be work to keep the Cana-109
dian mint employed. Our desire, however, is to establish it in a very modest way so that in the future, if necessary, we may enlarge it. But realizing that we do not use a very large amount of gold for our ordinary currency, it is not our purpose to commence it on too large a scale.
The arrangements made with the Australian colonies are that the government of the colony sets apart a certain sum which is deemed to be amply sufficient for the main-tenace of a mint. That sum is placed at the disposal of the Imperial authorities-because they control the Royal Mint-and they account to the colony for it. After making a charge for everything that is done in the mint, no matter for whom, and rendering an account at the end of the year, if they have not expended the whole sum, the balance passes to the credit of the colony. What we virtually do by this resolution is to give the authorities of the Royal Mint credit to the extent of $75,000 a year as a guarantee that there will always be provision for the expenses of the mint. I do not, however, expect that the whole of it will be used. The very basis of the arrangement is that there shall be a safe margin. As I have already mentioned, a number of the officers would probably have to be experts, either directly chosen by the officers of the Royal Mint, or at all events, persons who are satisfactory to them, because in that respect we yield up a measure of control.
Now this resolution deals only with the annual cost of maintenance. There is, of course, another consideration that we must not lose sight of. We must first provide the mint. My hon. friends will have noticed that in the estimates that are now before the House, provision has been taken for some $50,000 towards establishing the mint. The mints in the Australian colonies are quite expensive. I have not the figures at hand, but I know from my discussion with the directors of the Imperial mint in London that they have spent considerable sums. Again I say we are anxious to begin on a reasonable moderate scale. We have had an outline plan prepared under the direction of the mint officials in London. The building we desire will be a large one-story building, but the front will be two stories. It will be a plain building, not very ornamental, but very substantial. Taking that outline plan and placing it in the hands of the architect of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, I have obtained from him an estimate that the building itself will cost about $200,000, not more. We hope that on a review he may be able to reduce these figures, but I am giving the House his estimate. Then it will be expedient to have that surrounded by a high fence or wall, surmounted by iron railings, which will make it substantially safe, not altogether lacking in ornament. That we expect will cost $14,400. Then for fitting up vaults


William Findlay Maclean: Why couldn't you issue a good deal, and not hurt the country ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, that is a little dangerous. The only thing I will promise my hon. friend is that we will make as much as the country will reasonably absorb, and we will not attempt to force a dollar of silver on the market if the business of the country does not demand it. We want no silver question in Canada. I think that the temptation to increase the issue of silver for the purpose of making money must have been in the minds of some of the gentlemen connected with the banking institutions. who rather, shrugged their shoulders a little when this mint scheme was first proposed. I have had quiet intimations that behind their objections the fear of a large


William Stevens Fielding: issue of silver played a prominent part. I have no authority to say it, but my impression is that that was in their minds to a considerable extent. I do not think there need be any alarm on that score. A weaker country might yield to the temptation to coin silver for the purpose of making money out of it. But 1 think under any government Canada is likely to have, we should be able to resist any pressure of that kind. I ask my hon. friends opposite to trust us as we should be prepared to trust them on that score, because I do not think that the Canadian people fail to recognize the importance of having a sound system of finance.
Then, as I say, we may set against the cost of our mint the profit of making our coins. We do not aim to make any profit in that way, but incidentally there is a profit. I have taken the figures of a period of ten years in order that I may establish a fair average. I find that the profit on the coinage of copper and silver for ten years has averaged something over $94,000 per annum. Now if we place that, as we may reasonably place it, against the cost of our mint, we shall find that the mint will be self-sustaining. I have no hesitation in saying that we can save money by not starting this mint, and we could save money by having our Canadian notes made in Lon-, don instead of in Ottawa, but we have determined that we will not have them made abroad, but that they shall be made in Ottawa ; and that same national spirit which prompts us to desire to make other things in Canada will naturally lead us to desire to make our own coinage as well. So I do not put it upon the mere ground of dollars and cents ; but I do say that we do not aim to make a profit out of the issue of silver, and if incidentally we do make a profit out of it that can be placed against the expense of our mint. So we have an annual outlay of $65,000, as I estimate, the outside limit being $75,000, taking a medium estimate and calling the expense of maintenance about $65,000, and adding $9,000 for interest on the capital spent for building and equipment, we will find, as I judge it, that the mint will cost us about $74,000 a year. Even if our profit on coinage is no greater in the future than it has been in the past we shall have a clear profit according to the accounts of the last ten years of $94,000 which will pay the cost of the maintenance of the mint and we shall have a balance of $20,000 still to the good. So that, it will be a very paying transaction unless we are prepared ta confess that we are aiming to make money out of the silver coinage which we are not.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. Minister of Finance says that the average profit for the last ten years was $94,000 a year. Whatj amount of copper and silver coinage have we bought during these ten years ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The profit on silver for the last ten years was

$843,000, and on copper, $103,000, making a total of $048,730, and showing an average of the ten years of $94,873.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the total silver issue of Canada ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps I shall be able to tell my hon. friend. I cannot off-hand. I think I am correct in saying that about 00 cents worth of silver, converted into coinage, will make $1.


Robert Laird Borden: In connection with the profit, is that the net profit which my hon. friend speaks of? Coinage must tost us something.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, that is the net profit.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, should we not have something more than that if we are going to have our own mint ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course, this will be the cost of maintenance, and it will be accounted for to us. All the expense that we are to pay will be included in that $74,000.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that if we to-day have $94,000 of a net profit, when we come to work our own mint, we should have something more than that, because we must be charged surely with the cost of minting in England.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, we have to add to that the cost of minting in England, which will be a profit over all these charges to which I have alluded, as my hon. friend has suggested. I thought I had the figures of the total issue of silver, but I cannot give the information to my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean). In connection with this proposal, however, in order to carry out fully the objects which, I think I may say, we all have in view, we consider it very desirable that there should be a purchasing assay office established at some convenient point in the west. Just where that point is at this moment I am not prepared to say. There is an argument, and not without some force, that it should be established at Dawson City, so that the miner could be brought into close touch with the government purchaser of gold. There is another which, I think, has a great deal of force, that if the assay office were established at a point in British Columbia the miners who come out from the Yukon would come down to that point in British Columbia to do their business, whereas, at present, they might go into the United States. I think in that view, which has been very strongly advanced by hon. gentlemen from British Columbia, both from the city of Vancouver and the city of Victoria, and which has been the subject of various deputations which have urged the matter before me. there is a great deal of force. However, I am not. at this moment, prepared to say what decision may be 1694
reached. We cannot do anything for the present season. The hon. Minister of the Interior, who is particularly charged with matters relating to mining in the Yukon, expects to go to British Columbia and to the Yukon this summer, and probably other ministers as well. I see it announced that the right hon. Prime Minister is to go, and I trust he may find the leisure, although I have no authority to speak on that point; but, at all events, the proper location of the assay office will be a matter of investigation during the coming season, with the expectation that at the beginning of the next season there will be a purchasing assay office on the Pacific coast, so that the gold may be taken, if not directly from the miner, shortly after he leaves the Yukon, and it will no longer pass to the United States. I am inclined to think that the establishment of an assay office will have a very material effect in regard to meeting the wishes of the people of British Columbia. However, that question may be determined, I do not undervalue the argument that the assay office should be established on the Pacific coast, either at Victoria or Vancouver. In any case, I think that in making this arrangement now, carefully guarding against extravagance and guarding against anything that would interfere with our sound currency system, the government are responding to the general wish of the country, and 1 trust that the step which we have now taken will be one which will meet with general satisfaction.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Would the hon. minister give us some information as to the cost of the assay office and the cost of maintenance?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We do not at present propose to ask any appropriation for the building of the assay office. Our expectation is that accommodation can be secured by way of leasing a building, especially if it should be located in British Columbia. The United States, when they established their assay office at Seattle, made provision for $20,000 a year for its maintenance as a beginning. This is all we have for our guidance, and I presume it is the outside figure.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where is the mint to be located ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I stated that we are not prepared at this moment to determine whether the assay office will be at Dawon City, in direct touch with the miner, or on the coast, so that it will be instrumental in drawing trade from the Yukon into British Columbia. This question will be investigated by the hon. Minister of the Interior this year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where will the mint be ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. The mint will be located in the city of Ottawa. We hope to locate it on our own government land, and

at present we are not asking any provision for land.


Robert Laird Borden: I tliink that the proposal that the hou. Minister of Finance has made is a good one, and possibly in view of the consideration which I mentioned while he was speaking, the debit balance will not be so great as he mentioned in his speech.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I have overlooked that point.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we will all be pleased to know that there is to be a distinctively Canadian gold coinage, and I am sure that the demand for that coinage cannot but be greater than the hon. gentleman supposed, because, as he is aware, there are very great reserves of gold necessarily held by all the banks in Canada. In many cases these reserves are in American gold, and I should not be surprised to see it replaced by Canadian coin which the hon. gentleman proposes to furnish. There is one matter in respect to which I would like to make a suggestion, and it is this: It does not appear that $74,000 will necessarily be the exact amount which would be used every year. It may be greater or it may be less. But, nevertheless, the hou. gentleman is proposing to deal with this as a statutory vote. He proposes to fix this by statute as a fixed sum to be provided by parliament every year. I am inclined to think that the proper course would be for the hon. gentleman to pass his Bill for the establishment of tne mint, and that we should vote the amount yearly, whether the sum be greater or less than $74,000. There may be some reason for adopting the course which the hon. gentleman has proposed. If there is any reason, l would be glad to hear it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a reason which, I think, the hon. gentleman will admit, is a sufficient one. The Imperial government have no special concern in this. They are going to allow this to be done simply because it suits our convenience, but, inasmuch as they will, in a sense, become responsible for all these officers, they would like to have a definite arrangement, not an amount voted year by year, but by a fixed statute, an undertaking that Canada, or any other colony, as the case may be, will provide this sum. In the Bill which I shall have the honour to introduce founded on this, we will provide that that sum is to be accounted by the Imperial government to us from year to year, so that if there is any balance it will be to our credit. This is an outside sum, and is virtually a letter of credit, if I may so describe it, to the Imperial authorities, in accordance with the practice of all the Australasian colonies.


Robert Laird Borden: I would regard that explanation as satisfactory so far as I am concerned.


William Findlay Maclean: This is a national measure, and I compliment the government on introducing it. It is a measure which the people of Canada have long wished for, and the people will endorse it. I am not in favour of the issue of a depreciated silver currency in Canada, but it is quite certain that the Canadian people can incidently use a very large silver currency, and if there is profit in it we should have the benefit of that profit. The proof of our use of silver, is the immense circulation of American silver in Canada, and now that we are going to have a mint, we ought to take steps to substitute Canadian silver for it. There are millions of dollars of American silver in circulation throughout Canada,. the profit on which goes to the United States people. I do not know how we are going to replace it by our own coinage; but a way must be found, and I trust that question will receive the attention of the government. Our subsiduary coinage is copper, and it is true we produce our own copper in this country, but I would remind the government that we have in Canada plenty of nickel, and that it is the very best metal in the world for a subsiduary coinage. Now that we have the mint, I trust that at an early date we will have a nickel coinage at our national mint. It has now come out from the Minister of Finance today, what the real objection was to the establishment of a Canadian mint. There has been some occult power keeping back the establishment of this mint. I admit that I never could get on to it until to-day, when the minister tells us that the banks fear that Canada should have the benefit of a silver coinage. I do not for one moment favour the issue of silver coinage on a depreciated basis, but I am certainly in favour of as large an issue of silver as will be necessary and of enlarging it to such an extent that we will drive out the millions of American silver that are now circulated in this country.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The member for East York (Mr. Maclean) has not been following the course of public events as recorded in the newspapers or he would have seen that the banks have been passing resolutions antagonistic to the establishment of a mint in Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: Did they say anything about silver coinage ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: A mint would coin both gold and silver.


William Findlay Maclean: The banks never said they feared a silver coinage until the Minister of Finance told us to-day.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They have not told me now, but I suspect it.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, and I suspect it now too.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I congratulate the government on at last acceding to the wishes


William Stevens Fielding: 5385 MAT 17, 1901 5386	
of the people of Canada as voiced by the opposition in this parliament. Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh. Mr. WALLACE. X do not know what hon. members opposite are laughing about. Last year and the year before we pressed upon the government to establish a mint, but the Minister of Finance was hedging and offering objections to it. I am glad now that the minister recognizes the force of the contentions we have made in regard to it. The Minister of Finance has told us that the profit on our silver coin is $84,000, and calculating that silver costs 60 cents for a dollar's worth, that would represent about $212,000 worth of silver coined each year, leaving out the cost of manufacture. Those doing business in Canada know that there has always been a scarcity of Canadian silver, and of course when we have a mint of our own under this new arrangement, we can have supplies of silver almost at a day's notice, as the Minister of Railways gets his coal. I am exceedingly pleased to know that the government is about to establish this mint, as well as an assay office. I regret that arrangements cannot be made for an assay office this year, because we know that great commercial advantages are accruing to the Americans from the fact that they have assay offices at Seattle and San Francisco. The minister has indicated that the expense of an assay office will not be very great, and I would therefore suggest to him that there should be one established in Dawson City, as well as in Victoria or Vancouver in British Columbia. There would be no advantage in having one in Ottawa or in any of the eastern cities, but it will certainly be for the benefit of the country to have these assay offices on the Pacific coast. Mr. HENDERSON. I scarcely share the view of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) that the large circulation of American silver throughout Canada is owing to the scarcity of Canadian silver. Mr. MACLEAN. I did not say that. Mr. HENDERSON. Then I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. Mr. MACLEAN. I simply said that millions of dollars of American silver were in circulation in Canada, and I expressed the wish that Canadian silver should take its place. Mr. HENDERSON. I fail to see how the issue of a larger amount of Canadian silver will displace the American silver brought into Canada in the ordinary business intercourse between the two countries. That matter will have to be righted in some other way. X wish to ask the Minister of Finance: if it is his intention to issue a twenty-cent piece ? The MINISTER OF FINANCE. No.	Mr. HENDERSON. I am very glad to hear that, and I am sure that the business men throughout the country will be delighted to know that we are not going to have any more twenty-cent pieces in circulation. I wish that the minister could adopt some means by which the twenty-cent coin now in circulation would be withdrawn. If it could be declared that in six months or a year the twenty-cent piece will cease to be a legal tender, or if in some other way it could be forced out of circulation, the business people of Canada would be very thankful to the Minister of Finance. Then I assume that the coins will be 5, 10, 25 and 50-cent pieces. I am not very, favourably impressed with the silver dollar. The MINISTER OF FINANCE. I do not want to speak definitely about the dollar. It is worth considering. Mr. HENDERSON. I think a gold dollar coin is too small for Canada. The MINISTER OF FINANCE. I am glad to say that I agree with almost every word my hon. friend has uttered. He is probably not aware that we have not made any 20-cent pieces in Canada since confederation. The 20-cent piece is a nuisance, but any one who examines it will see that it is a Newfoundland coin. Mr. MACLEAN. I had two yesterday. The MINISTER OF FINANCE. They must have known that my hon. friend had silver on the brain. Mr. MACLEAN. I gave them to a blind man. The MINISTER OF FINANCE. Did you give them for quarters ? Mr. MACLEAN. No. The MINISTER OF FINANCE. The government of Newfoundland adhere to the 20-cent piece. I wish they would not, because it leads to a great deal of embarrassment. With regard to American silver, I am not sure that it can be got rid of as easily as my hon. friend supposes. If any means can be devised by which it can be replaced by Canadian silver, we shall be very glad to adopt them. Mr. MACLEAN. What are the denominations of the gold coins ? The MINISTER OF FINANCE. We have not worked that out yet. The $5, unquestionably, the half sovereign, or its equivalent. $2.50, and the $10. I do not think we shall go above the $10 gold piece. Mr. MACLEAN. The hon. gentleman might find an outlet for the Canadian sovereigns if the British government would have their sovereigns for the fleets on the Atlantic and the Pacific minted in Canada. The MINISTER OF FINANCE. The sovereign which we make in Ottawa will be current legal tender in any country where

the British flag flies, and will naturally be taken in any part of the world.


Mr. EMMERSON.: It appears to me that the circulation of American silver is a very serious evil, and I think it arises from the fact that a great deal of that silver comes into the country through different channels and is kept in circulation because it passes among the people without discount, while, if you seek to deposit it, the banks charge discount on it. If the lion. Finance Minister would consider whether some means might not be devised to have the banks redeem that silver at par, and then have it removed from the country, it seems to me that would make the way clear for the circulation of our own Canadian silver.


William Findlay Maclean: I will tell the minister one way in which it can be regulated. I know that there are agencies at work which bring in American silver in thousands of dollars by the boats coming to Toronto, and by other means, in order to get it circulated in Canada. There should be some way by which that silver should be made to come through the custom-house.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a very simple way by which it could be got rid of. The party to whom it is offered might refuse to take it.


William Findlay Maclean: You cannot.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: You can. It is not a legal tender. The circulation of American silver in Canada is one of the incidents of our close relations with the United States. Along the border, and wherever a railway crosses the line, you will have large amounts of American silver coming in, and if you cleared it out one week, I am afraid you would find it there again the next week.


William Rees Brock: We know that there is a large profit in converting silver into coin, and if you gave a little better value by making your silver coins a little heavier than American silver, the Americans would take it in preference to their own, and in that way you would get a very large circulation. There is a profit of from 25 per cent to 30 per cent at the present time in the coinage of silver, so that you might get rid of the difficulty suggested by the hon. member for East York and give a great deal of work to your mint by giving a little better value in your coin. And I do not know but it would be a good idea, because if you could get into circulation in the United States several millions of dollars of Canadian silver, the Canadian mines and the Canadian mint would get the advantage.


William Ross: I wish to congratulate the government and the people of Canada on the measure that has been brought in to-day. As a Canadian, I feel a thrill of pleasure to find that we, ourselves, are at last going to make the money which we use Mr. FIELDING.
in this country. It is not given to everybody in this country to use $1 and $5 bills, but it is given to almost everybody to use the coppers, the 5-cent pieces and the quarters, and when we have our own Canadian stamp on the money of the country, we feel that we are part of the empire, and a thrill of patriotism runs through us. As the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) says, the 20-cent pieces are a perfect nuisance, and the government should call in every one of them. They cause a great deal of disturbance in giving change, they are so near the size of the quarter. Then, the mutilated coins cause a great deal of trouble. In my business we get thousands of small coins- five and ten-cent pieces and quarters-which are in such a mutilated condition that it is impossible to read them and tell their significance. When we get the new mint, I presume the government will pay special attention to these points, and will give us a clean coinage fit for the people to handle, and such as they will be proud of. We know the difficulty we have with the paper currency. A great many of the bills we get are so dirty that they are not fit to handle. These things should be corrected. I am glad that the government has brought in this measure.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the minister will say that he is in favour of the issue of a silver dollar, which will give the country an incidental profit and a clean coinage. I am not arguing for a depreciated currency, but there is no reason why, instead of these dirty paper bills, the government should not Issue a clean silver dollar and plenty of them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The various coins to be issued are a matter for consideration. I am not giving any final decision to-day.


John Graham Haggart: What about the very practical suggestion of the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson)? Cannot the minister suggest some means by which American silver can be redeemed at par at the different banks throughout the country ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would not care to answer off-hand. The great railways have a means of disposing of American currency, but I do not wish to incur any needless expense. We want to get any profit there is in this matter ourselves, and not give it to other people. However, the whole discussion has been very profitable, and I will take care that It receives every consideration in my department.


James Clancy: This is a very difficult question, because the customs of the people with regard to American silver are greatly localized. The banks along the border take it at par.
Mr: MACLEAN. On the other side Canadian silver is refused, although we take American coinage all over Canada. I

was in an American city the other day, when a telegraph operator implored me to take a Canadian quarter, which, he said, had been passed in upon him, and he could not get rid of it.


Mr. BELCOURT.: I quite agree in what the hon member for East York has said. His remarks can be applied not only to silver, but to Canadian paper money as well. On many occasions in the last fifteen years, when travelling in the states I have strongly resented the conduct of our American neighbours with reference to our money. Practically in New York there is no place where they will take Canadian money-either Dominion currency or bank notes or silver-except at a discount.


An hon. MEMBER.: They take it at the Waldorf.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is probably the only hotel where they will take Canadian money and not charge a discount. Go to the shops on Broadway or in Buffalo, Chicago or anywhere on the Pacific coast or elsewhere in the American union and they will not look at Canadian money. It is a source of humiliation and of great inconvenience to Canadians travelling in the United States that our money, particularly paper money, which is equivalent to gold; in value, should be refused in exchange for the American silver currency, the real value of which is only about sixty seven cents in the dollar. I do not know if there is any remedy, but I think it is a matter to which the hon. Minister of Finance might very well direct his attention.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 143) for the establishment and maintenance in Canada of the Ottawa branch of the Royal Mint.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 141) further to amend the Act relating to ocean steamship subsidies (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is it intended that these steamers shall call at any other but a French port ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Under the terms of the French law, they must ply between Canadian and French ports. I am not certain whether the French government will object in case they touch at a Spanish port, but I rather think we would have to confine their voyages to French ports and ports of French colonies.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What French ports will
they touch at?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: In northern France at Havre or Boulogne-probably Havre. In the Mediterranean at Marseilles.


John Graham Haggart: Are you going to have two lines?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We are desirous of cultivating the Mediterranean trade, and it may be found expedient to have a terminus in the Mediterranean as well as in north France. During the winter it may be found convenient that the steamers should go to the Mediterranean. The majority of the trips will be made to northern France, at the port of Havre.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: To what ports does the trade of Canada go now?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Our exports are comparatively small, about $1,400,000. They go chiefly to northern France. We are not doing very much in the Mediterranean. Our exports consist of agricultural imjflements and a certain amount of timber, besides breadstuffs and miscellaneous productions. We send a considerable quantity of fish, and that is perhaps the largest individual item. It consists largely of canned lobsters. It is a very pleasant experience to me to find that our fruits are so well received in France, and I hope we may extend our exports of fruits. Agricultural implements are the next largest item, and we have considerable hopes of that business being extended. The next largest item is wood. The miscellaneous items are very small : breadstuffs, $313,000 ; fish of all kinds, $520,000 ; agricultural implements. $208,000; lumber, about $190,000. That covers the present exports to France. I mentioned the other day that we hoped to develop a considerable trade in the matter of pulp. We also hope to speedily develop, particularly in the Mediterranean sections, a considerable trade in coal. My attention has been called to that point for a considerable time. I have always been of opinion that, with the extraordinary facilities for shipping coal from our Nova Scotia collieries, we should certainly be able to drive a considerable trade in coal. Iron, of course, is an experiment. But I judge from the information I have received there is a fair chance of being able to command a considerable trade in the export of iron.


John Graham Haggart: Among the articles to go in under the most favoured tariff clause in this arrangement with France were live eels. Can the hon. minister tells us if there is a prospect of the extension of that trade ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am afraid that that trade remains tolerably stationary. I believe it was Sir

Charles Tupper who negotiated this. However, it is only fair to say that until the establishment of a direct line, the French treaty has had no fair chance, because, as I mentioned, the surtax, as it is called, renders it difficult to extend trade with France except directly. There is no doubt that if we could once get our goods introduced amongst the 40,000,000 people in France we have a good chance of developing trade. I think that the money spent by us last year will produce ^results in various indirect ways. I do not anticipate any large immigration from France, for our French friends are too fond [DOT]of their own country. But I think there is [DOT]a good chance, as was stated, of introducing large quantities of French capital into Canada. France is undoubtedly one of the richest countries in the world. Any one who has paid attention to financial movements knows that any enterprises that have been going on in Russia for many years past have been carried on largely by means of capital furnished from France. This is a point to which attention may well be paid. I am in hopes that we shall be able to extend not only in the lines I have mentioned but also to extend commerce in certain articles of food. I mentioned also that we are in hopes of receiving, semi-officially only, a visit from a gentleman who has been closely connected with the French government, and we hope to obtain some better arrangements, though the establishment of a steamship line is an indispensible preliminary.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: So far as concerns the imports from France, which are a considerable sum, I do not know that it would be the duty of the government to specially concern themselves. Each country will find its customers in Canada and will supply them. What we are concerned with is in finding markets for the products of our country. So that in estimating the subsidy that is to be given we are confined, as the minister has confined the case, to a discussion of the exports from Canada to France. The value of our exports to France last year was $1,374,000. But the trade is decreasing ; the year before, it -was a considerable larger amount, $1,557,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: But if the hon. gentleman will look back to 1896, he will see that the exports then were only $580,000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But the imports from France in 1896 were only $2,800,000, instead of $4,368,000 as they were last year. Thus the increase of our imports has been $1,500,000 while the increase of our exports has been $800,000. The percentage of exports is larger but the amounts are smaller. But this seems to me to be a very large sum of money to pay to benefit a trade $1,374,000. The government would need to have in sight a very considerable market for the products of Canada before concluding a bar-
Sir RICHARD CARTWRI3HT.
gain to give a subsidy of $170,000 for such a meagre trade. No doubt the minister looks for a largely increased trade, especially in pullp, or, better still, in paper, because 1 think we should bend our efforts to exporting paper instead of pulp. The same machinery and water powers required for the production of pulp are required for the production of paper. I hope the minister will give us good returns next year for this very large expenditure, which could not be justified unless they are able to point next year to tangible results.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am in hopes that that may be the ease, but at the same time I may call the attention of the hon. gentleman and the House to this-in establishing a trade in European countries where they are not quite as receptive of new ideas as in younger countries, we must not expect results within year and day. We will do our best to obtain them. But, up to the present time, without a subsidized line of steamers it has been impossible to look for a very large increased trade.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it the intention of the government to follow this up by sending commercial agents to introduce Canadian goods ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: That is a complimentary measure without which there would be very little returns for our money. Another thing I would like to ask the minister is whether, if the ships of this subsidized line call at an English port on their way to France the Canadian goods in the cargo will be allowed to enter France under the lower tariff.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: My impression is that they are not allowed to touch at an English port.


William Findlay Maclean: Either in coming or going ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: In returning I think they can, but not in going.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is the intention of the company to have six steamers, three British and three French. The French subsidy operates automatically. The moment the steamers are built in France, they carry the subsidy. Now, with regard to the question whether a French steamer can call at other ports-I cannot say as to coming out to Canada. But I know the outgoing steamers from Canada to France, in order to have the benefit, not of the lower tariff, but of what is called the exemption du surtax d'entrepbt, must sail directly from Canada to France.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand, there is a subsidy from the government of France.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, of a similar amount.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



THE PACIFIC CABLE.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 45) to amend the Pacific Cable Act, 1S99-the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
The PRIME MINISTER.: 
John Graham Haggart: Since the statement made by the Postmaster General, have there been any further negotiations made with reference to this matter ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, we have been engaged in correspondence upon a certain action taken by the government of New South Wales. The government of New South Wales, since entering confederation, has made arrangements with the Eastern Cable Company by which it gives them their business. We have been protesting against that arrangement, and the correspondence is still going on. I may say that we have consulted our law officers of the Crown upon the subject of that arrangement, and according to their interpretation the arrangement would be very detrimental to our interests. The law officers of the Imperial government, however, dissent from the view taken by our officers. Correspondence is still going on. I am not clear whether our officers are right in looking upon the arrangement as detrimental to the project so far as it concerns us. However, I shall move this clause, to cover contingencies :
This Act shall only come into operation on proclamation made by the Governor General in Council.
Because we want to see the end of this correspondence before this Act comes into operation.


William Findlay Maclean: When this subject was up before it was suggested that a provision ought to be made, by the insertion of a penalty in the contract, for the due performance of the work. The Postmaster General was not then in a position to tell the
House whether such a penalty clause existed in the contract. I think it is very important that such a clause should be inserted, because the firm or company which has undertaken to construct this cable is owned and controlled by the great cable company that has objected so much to the construction of this cable. I hope there will be a provision in the contract insisting on a certain time limit for the performance of the contract, and a penalty if'it is not carried out.
On section 2,


John Graham Haggart: Does the right hon. gentleman see any public reason why the opinion that was given by our own law officers in reference to the point which he mentioned, and the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown in England, should not be laid on the Table ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I see no public reason why they should not be laid upon the Table. I will take a note of it and bring down the papers.
Bill, as amended, reported, read the third time, and passed. *



SL'PPLY-THE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding;) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Before you leave the Chair, I desire to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a Bill among the Public Bills and Orders. That Bill (No. 101) has for its object to make clear certain legislation which was passed by the parliament of Canada in 1892, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. I may say in passing that this Bill was read the first time on the 28th of March last, nearly two months ago, but an opportunity has not since been given to proceed with it. and therefore I make a request that the Prime Minister will take this Bill off its position on the Order paper and have it passed before the session closes.
As I have already stated, the intention of the Bill is to make clear what seems to be a defect in the legislation of 1892 respecting the Bell Telephone Company. In that year the company asked for and obtained the permission of parliament to increase its capital from $2,000,000 to $5,000,000. But, parliament, in its wisdom, placed a restriction upon the powers of the company which had not theretofore existed, the restriction being that the existing rates should not be increased without the consent of the Governor in Council. The Bill presented to parliament by the Bell Telephone Company was in charge of the Hon. R. W. Scott, when it was "passing through the Senate. There are

just two references which 1 desire the permission of the House to make ; one as to the power which was given to the company when it was incorporated in 1S80, and the other, as to the reasons by which parliament was moved to place some restriction upon that power. At page 196 of the Senate ' Hansard ' of 1892, 1 find reference made by Hon. Mr. Power to the extraordinary power that the company obtained when it was chartered in 1880. Mr. Power said :
That at the time that Act of the Bell Telephone Company was passed, parliament was not as careful In safeguarding the public interests in cities and towns as they should have been, is a matter of great consequence. As a matter of fact, by increasing the capital of this company to almost this indefinite extent, we give them the right for an unlimited time to go on exercising in municipalities throughout Canada their extraordinary powers to deal with the public highways-powers which should be restricted.
The Standing Committee on Railways, Telegraphs and Harbours of the Senate, in reporting the Bill with this restrictive clause, spoke, through its chairman, the Hon. Mr. Dickey, as follows :
With regard to the amendment, referring to the rates, it is not a clause which places the rates entirely under the control of the Governor in Council, but it is a clause, which, after the rates were explained to us, was introduced to limit the power of the company to charge those rates in the direction of an increase without the consent of the Governor in Council, so as to afford a protection, as far as we could, to the public, that no exorbitant rates would be the result of this increased capital, and the wording of the clause shows that the rates charged are not hereafter to be increased without the consent of the Governor in Council.
The Hon. Mr. Scott added :
The chairman of the committee has explained fully the purport of the amendments, and the House thoroughly understands and will probably approve of them.
.	.	.	. The House understands the subject now.
The Bill was passed practically unanimously, with this restrictive clause in it. I do not think there is a record of a division. In 1897, the company applied to the Governor in Council for permission to increase its rates. The application for permission to increase the rates was stoutly resisted by many municipalities in the Dominion of Canada, and delegations representing these municipalities appeared before the committee in opposition to the application of the company. No action has been taken upon that application, although, I believe, many communications have passed between the municipalities and the Governor in Council, urging that a decision should be made. On .Tuly 24, 1900, in reply to an inquiry from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, an opinion"was given by the hon. Minister of Justice with respect to the efficacy of the legislation of 1892, which is as follows : Mr. CLARKE.
Ottawa, July 24, 1900.
My dear Mr. Blair,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 9th instant, and of Mr. Caswell's letter, inclosed therewith, in relation to the rents charged by the Bell Telephone Co.
In reply to your letter, I may state that I am strongly of opinion that the clause in the Act of 1892, providing that the existing rates shall not be increased without the consent of the Governor in Council, is legally ineffective so far as subscribers are concerned, and that proceedings to restrain the company from increasing the rents charged to subscribers would be unsuccessful. For that reason, I think the government might decline to take proceedings, even if otherwise it would be its duty to thus intervene for the protection of the subscribers. But, in my opinion, it would not in any case be incumbent upon the government to take the initiative in any such proceedings. If any person, aggrieved by the action of the company, desires upon his own responsibility to apply to the courts, and is advised that he should do so in the name of the Attorney General of the Dominion, the question whether he should be permitted to do so would be considered upon a proper application being made to the Department of Justice, for leave to take such proceedings.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) DAVID MILLS.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of this opinion of the bon. Minister of Justice, and in view of the continued violation of the provisions of the Act of 1892, this Bill, to which I have referred, No. 101 on the Order paper, has been introduced for the purpose of making clear what the intention of the Act of 1892 was. The company has ignored in many instances the obligations which parliament has imposed upon it.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) that on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, we may discuss almost any question, but it is specially provided in our parliamentary procedure, that we have no right to discuss a question that is on the Order paper. If we look at Bourinot, page 548, we will see this :
A great latitude being always allowed on such occasions ; but they may not refer specifically to any vote which has passed, or is about to be
discussed in committee	nor to any
Bill or order of the day.
The question that the hon. gentleman is discussing relates to a Bill which is on the Order paper, and I would call his attention to this fact.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I have no '[DOT]desire to violate the rules of the House, and I will confine my remarks to asking the right hon. Prime Minister to introduce legislation that will make effective the legislation of 1892. I do not desire to take up the time of the House, but, I might quote many cases for the information of the right hon. gentleman of flagrant violations of the law which have been committed by the company. In the adjoining Chamber, the company asked for permission to increase its capital

to $10,000,000, to double the capital which was authorized in 1892. The other Chamber, in its wisdom, declined to accept the report of the Committee on Banking and Commerce, and the Bill has been withdrawn. There will be no opportunity for a private member to promote legislation having the object in view that I desire to see accomplished, and it is in the public interest that until a general Act has been passed which will limit the powers of such a monopoly as the Bell Telephone Company, some attempt should be made before parliament closes to make effective what has been declared to be defective in the legislation of 1892. 1 do not know whether I have made myself clear or not. My desire to be as brief as possible is the reason why I am curtailing my remarks, but it is not an unreasonable request that I make of the right lion, gentleman. I think it is a most reasonable one. It will give the government an opportunity during the recess to prepare a Bill which will be in the public interest, which will govern the rates to be charged by the Bell Telephone Company, and by similar companies doing business in the Dominion of Canada. In view of the extraordinary powers which that company has been given by the parliament of Canada, powers which have been given, I believe, to no other company by this parliament, amongst them the power to go into a municipality and occupy the streets of that municipality without the consent of the municipality, it is not an unreasonable request that if these powers are to be continued to the company, somebody should be named by parliament that shall have control over the rates to be charged by the company in the cities and towns where it is permitted to exercise this authority.
There is no reason why such action should not be taken. The company is in its very nature a monopoly. To give an efficient telephone service in a city or town, it must be done by one company, which therefore has a monopoly ; and that being the case it is surely the duty of the legislative body which vested such enormous powers in this company, to, see that these powers shall not be abused, but that the rights of the public shall be protected. For this reason I have taken the liberty, at this late period of the session-and because the company's Bill was withdrawn only the day before yesterday in the Senate-to ask the Prime Minister if he will not introduce a Bill similar to Bill No. 101, which will, until a general Act has been passed, give effect to what was the intention of parliament under its legislation in 1882. when power was given to the Bell Telephone Company to increase its capital from $2,000,000 to $5,000,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Even if my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) could, according to the rules of the House, move his Bill now, I doubt very much if the House would
pass it. The object of the Bill is to amend, not 51 public Act but a private Act, and I doubt very much if the House will undertake to do that. A private Act confers certain franchises and advantages on a certain body oi; individuals. This is done under certain rules of parliament which have been adopted for the protection of private interests. I do not believe that the House could legally proceed to amend a private Act by a public Act. Even if parliament should exercise that power-disregarding all the rules that have been made for the protection of private Bills-I am quite sure that parliament would not do so unless ample notice were given to the parties interested so that they could be heard, and could present what objections they might have against such legislation. At this late period of the session, even if parliament had the power to pass this Bill in the form in which the hon. member (Mr. Clarke) is introducing it, parliament would not, I believe, interfere with the private legislation of the Bell Telephone Company without giving that company an opportunity to be heard. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will agree with me, I think, that it would not be competent for parliament to deal with this question at this period of the session.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would remind the right hon. gentleman, that the company has been made aware of the fact that this Bill is before parliament, because it was presented in the Senate committee as an amendment to the Bell Telephone Bill, and it has been discussed in that branch of the legislature for nearly a month.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is not notice that this Bill would be taken up in this House. I am not aware that the company has received any notice of that kind.


William Findlay Maclean: I think I can suggest a way by which the right hon. gentleman can legislate on this matter at this present time. I have been looking up this question recently, and I was surprised to find two things. First, in 1882 a very peculiar Bill was put through this House presumably in the public interest, but which now turns out to be solely in the interests of the Bell Telephone company. I have also discovered that the Bill which was introduced in 1892 turns out to be inoperative. It would seem that some design was resorted to and succeeded, to get ahead of the public and to use parliament to improve the position of the Bell Telephone Company. In 18S2, there was passed a Bill which declared that a ' telephone ' was not a ' telegraph,' and an easy way out of the present difficulty is for this parliament to repeal that Act and so bring the telephone companies under the telegraph Act and regulations. The Act of 1882 was passed presumedly in the interest of the province of Prince Edward Island. There is a telegraph monopoly in Prince Edward

Island, and a little Bill was introduced here, I declaring that a ' telephone ' was not a ' telegraph ' in order to enable the people of Prince Edward Island to have telephones. A very significant debate toook place in this House on that occasion, some brief extracts from which I shall reaS :



THE WORD TELEGRAPH.

[Stage Direction]
Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN moved the second reading of Bill (No. 166) declaratory of the meaning of the word Telegraph in certain cases.
Bill read the second time ; and House resolved itself into Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Mr. BLAKE.: I think we require some explanation of this Bill. It appears to me that it may affect very important private interests.


Sir HECTOR  LANGEVIN@: The object of this Bill is simply to declare that the telephone is not a telegraph. The Anglo-American Telegraph Co., which has a telegraph line in Prince Edward Island, will not allow any telephone to be erected on the island without receiving tribute therefor ; and as the Telegraph Company, under its charter, has exclusive power to build telegraph lines on the island, and as the telephone was not known then or discovered, they will not allow any telephones to be established there without paying tribute to them. This seems to be an extension of their powers, and this Bill is brought forward for the purpose of allowing telephone companies to establish telephones there as well as elsewhere by simply stating that telephones are not telegraphs.
It was a very innocent looking measure, and I believe Sir Hector Langevin then thought this was the only object of the Bill. But listen to what Mr. Blake said immediately after, and it is prophetic of the condition of affairs that exists to-day :


Richard Stuart Lake: But for this Bill telephones would be telegraphs-and I believe it has been so decided in the English courts of justice in cases in which it was contended that the creating of telephonic arrangements was an infringement upon the exclusive rights of the Crown to the telegraphs. It may be that by this wide measure of legislation we are giving rights to be assumed by patentees of telephonic rights, which do not exist under the law ; it may that we are creating monopolies even more extensive than that which the hon. gentleman says exist on the island by the telephone and telegraph being held to be identical. I should prefer very much, at this late stage of the session, unless there is some necessity for it, that some more limited measure of legislation might be devised which would not be so likely to produce such far-reaching consequences as might arise from this Bill.
Further on, Mr. Blake said :


Richard Stuart Lake: I do not know how that was done. It is not from that aspect of the question that I am discussing the Bill ; I was much more interested in the other aspect and which deserves our most serious consideration. If it be the case that under the Englsh decision telephone is included in telegraph, and if it does follow from that

because these telephonic arrangements were all patented in England-that there is an exclusive right to the patentee, it may to the greatest possible advantage to the Mr. MACLEAN.
telephonic proprietors, and if the proposition to create a legislative distinction which does not now exist between the telegraph and the telephone, and if it be useful to create that distinction for the purpose of permitting telephones to be erected in Prince Edward Island, can not some declaration be made in the Bill that this definition is not to confer on the patentee of the telephone any other or greater rights than they might possess but for that, so as to preserve the interests of the public in not creating a right which would be created by the opposition of this law, so as to give an interpretation to the word telegraph different from that which according to right and justice does not belong to it. It is very important we should not step hastily in this matter.
There was a further discussion, and the Hon. David Mills, the present Minister of Justice took part in it, and here is what he said :


Mr. MILLS.: When I dissented from the hon. member for Victoria, I did so from the recollection of the decision of the English judge, I think it was Justice Stephens who was the presiding judge, and who gave an elaborate judgment after men of high scientific attainments were examined, and after learned counsel were heard, to the effect that not merely upon the provisions of the statute, but also from the nature of the two inventions that a telephone was a telegraph, and the control of the telephone in England was upon their scientific identity.


David Mills: I beg to move :
That the Bill be not now read a third time, but referred back to the committee with instructions to amend it by adding to the end of the second clause the following words :	" Or any
right now existing.' "
Both Mr. Blake and Mr. Mills saw that in taking the word ' telephone ' and not associating it with the same idea as ' telegraph.' the public interests would be jeopardized. They have been jeopardized now, and the way to correct the evil is to repeal that general Act which made the telephone and telegraph dissimilar terms. If we do that, this telephone company will come under the general law regulating telegraphs, which would be much more in the interest of the public than the present state of affairs. The present Minister of Justice, knowing wliat took place, and having declared that this private Act is inoperative so far'as the public interests are concerned, the government would be justified in the public interest in repealing that Act of 1882. It is a very peculiar thing that two Acts have gone through this parliament which have turned out to be for the express benefit of the Bell Telephone Company and against the public interest; and the proposal of this session, as it was presented to parliament, was to free that great monopoly from all control of its rates by parliament or the government. This should not be allowed. It is one of the most enormous scandals in Canada to-day that the Bell Telephone Company, controlling a great public convenience, should not be subject to government regulation. The easiest way to bring it under government regulation is

to repeal that Act and put it in the same position as telegraph companies ; and in the meantime, if it is shown that the public are injured, is it not the duty of the government to see that this parliament corrects that injury at once ? I know that the Prime Minister is going to say that he is not in favour of corrective legislation. But I am. There is no legislation so good as corrective legislation in the public interest ; and it would be quite in order, after all the discussion which has taken place, and no injury to the Bell Telephone Company, for the government to make the measure introduced by the hon. member for West Toronto a government measure, so as to give the public the protection they desire. Of course, the easy way out of all these difficulties is to nationalize the telegraph and telephone services of this country, and we have heard so much about that that probably we shall have a Bill along that line next session. The right hon. leader of the government bows his head, whatever that means. But in the meantime he would make no mistake if he made the measure of the hon. member for West Toronto a government measure, and put it through the House, and repealed that Act which declared that a telephone was not a telegraph. The other day the government did this in the ease of a private Bill- the Manitoba Railway Bill-and they could do the same thing in this instance without doing any substantial injury to the Bell Telephone Company ; because that company introduced a Bill into parliament themselves, and if they chose to withdraw it from another Chamber, there is no reason why we should not go on and pass a Bill, of which they received ample notice, which has been on the Order paper for weeks, and which I believe would pass this House ; and it ought to be done because of the two measures which have 'already been passed through this parliament, I believe surreptitiously, to the great advantage of the Bell Telephone Company, and to the detriment of the public interest.


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy (North Simcoe). Whatever little power or influence I have is entirely in accord with the hon. member for West Toronto. We have a measure of control over railway rates and other rates, and it seems to me that the parliament of Canada ought likewise to have control over telephone rates. There may be a great deal said on behalf of the telephone company. In another Chamber of this parliament a great deal has been said pro and con in regard to what the rates should be. We have not that question before us at the present time, and I do not propose to discuss it. But I do think that some equitable basis should be established whereby the company will be protected and the public will be protected ; and in that way a great deal of friction and useless discussion in this House and in the country would be obviated. We who come from the city of Toronto are charged with being prejudiced and with wanting too much ; but I speak with some personal knowledge, and I say without fear of contradiction, that there is in that city discrimination in rates, one person paying $25 for a house telephone, and another person paying $35. There may be some explanation of that, but to the ordinary logical mind it does not appear that there can be a satisfactory explanation. If we had a tariff of rates which had to be submitted to the Governor in Council or in some way made subject to the control of parliament, that difficulty would be obviated.
Mi-. N. A. BELCOURT (Ottawa). I am not prepared to disagree with what has been said by previous speakers as to what legislation we should adopt to protect the public ; but lest the House might be under a misapprehension as to the Bill which has been introduced, I wish to say a few words. I want to correct a mistake made by the hon. member for East York when he says that the company has had full notice, and that this House might well go on now and discuss a Bill of this sort, because the company introduced a Bill itself. The facts of the case are these. The Bell Telephone Company introduced a Bill for an increase of its capital from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000. and nothing more. Somebody in the Upper House moved that the section in the Act of 1S92 which said that the rates could not be increased except with the consent of the Governor in Council, should be eximnged. and a more restrictive clause inserted. It is quite clear that the restrictive legislation sought to be imposed upon the company came upon them unawares, and that they would not be in a position to discuss the Bill of the hon. gentleman from Toronto West. It seems to me that this is largely a dispute between the city of Toronto and the Bell Telephone Company. Notwithstanding the efforts of the city of Toronto to enlist the sympathies of other municipalities throughout Canada, I do not think any other protest has been made against the manner in. which the company has administered its affairs throughout Canada. I am not a special advocate in any way of the Bell Telephone Company, and I do think, at least I hope that the hon. gentleman who proposes this Bill desires to do the company no injustice ; but I must say. in justice to the company, that in the city of Ottawa we have had a magnificent service. The Bell Telephone Company have not ground the people down, as the representatives of the city of Toronto have declared.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I remind the hon. gentleman that representatives of the Ottawa Board of Trade appeared to support the position taken by those who opposed the increase of the capital stock of the company unless this restrictive provision was made ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I cannot say whether they did or not, though I know they appeared. But what I say is that this appears to be largely a fight between the city of Toronto and the Bell Telephone company. If it is nothing of the kind, I would like to ask the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) why he did not make his Bill applicable to all telephone companies in Canada ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: As I am advised, parliament has never given any other telephone company the extraordinary powers and privileges which were given the Bell Telephone Company. When that companv came to parliament in 1S92 to get authority to increase its capital from $2,000,000 to $5,000,000, parliament then passed legislation giving control over the rates to the Governor General in Council. And it is because that Act was found inoperative that we ask by the proposed legislation to make it operative and effective. The company accepted the legislation of 1S92. It recognized the validity of that legislation by going to the Governor General in Council in 1897 with a schedule of rates, increasing the rates all over the Dominion ; and it is because the Act giving control to the Governor in Council has been declared inoperative, that I ask for further legislation.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I think the House will agree with me that if the hon. gentleman did not want to create the impression that this was a war between the city of Toronto and the Bell Telephone Company, he would have done better to have introduced a general law applicable to all telephone companies. In the province of Quebec there are at least fifty or sixty telephone companies doing business, against which there is no such restriction.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have they the same powers as the Bell Telephone Company of going into municipalities without their consent ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: They have the powers that were conferred by provincial legislature on the Bell Telephone Company. There is no restriction on their rates and that is the question now before the House. If my hon. friends had proposed a Bill applicable to all telephone companies, there might be no objection. I believe that in the interests of the public generally, telephone companies might be subject to some control, but it does seem unjust to the Bell Telephone Company, which after all is deserving of some credit, that it should be singled out and made the subject of all the attacks of hon. gentlemen from Toronto. It is because the Bell Company, which has done a great deal for Canada, is unjustly dealt with in being thus singled out, that I protest. It may be that the telephone system has come into such general use and is of such utility to the general public and partakes so much of the character of a monopoly that the gov-


Edward Frederick Clarke: eminent might well consider the nationalization of the system. I am not prepared to express an opinion one way or the other on that point, but in the name of all those who desire fair-play and justice, I protest against these unwarranted attacks. I do not know anything of Toronto-


Edward Frederick Clarke: You speak as if you knew a great deal.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: But I do not think parliament should legislate for Toronto only. The hon. gentleman by his Bill is asking us to interpret a private agreement.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member has no right at this stage to discuss the merits of the Bill.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman said he protested in the name of-and then he paused. I would like to know in whose name. Is it in the name of his constituents of the city of Ottawa ? No, but in the name of the Bell Telephone Company. His speech from start to finish was simply a defence of that company. He sets that company up as a martyr, because the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Toronto West does not apply to the fifty or sixty little telephone companies down in the province of Quebec, that have either wires or appliances of their own and have but a very small tariff, if any at all. We have here a company which is encompassing the whole country and asking powers from the parliament of Canada to have unlimited power in this Dominion to crush out every other opposing telephone company. They propose to increase their capital from $5,000,000 to $10,-000,000-a very innocent looking proposal. What do they want with $10,000,000 ? To string up a few poles throughout the country and put their appliances into households.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is discussing the merits of the Bill.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have already pointed 'ofit the rule, that on a motion to go into supply, you must not discuss the merits of a Bill which is not before the House.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am discussing the broad and general principle upon which the Bill is founded. I say that there is no justification.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. member has no right to discuss the general principle on which the Bill is founded.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I have the Bill here. I was speaking


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am discussing the point of order. There is nothing in the Bill we have before us about increasing the capital stock from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000.

It was that that I was discussing, and let me say that if this company are not quite doubling their rates they are increasing them more than 00 per cent out in the rural districts. We used to have a rate of say 15 cents from Woodbridge to Toronto.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I rise to a point of order.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman is raising the same point as before.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Yes, and I hope that the hon. gentleman will submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


John Graham Haggart: What is the point?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The point is that the hon. gentleman is discussing a Bill which is on the Order paper, and is not now before the House


Edward Frederick Clarke: He is doing nothing of the kind.
Mr. BELCOURT-and which cannot possibly come up for discussion.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I was not discussing anything of the kind. The hon. gentleman himself wandered from Dan to Beersheba. [DOT]He did not comply with the rules of the House and was very properly called to order.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: And I took my seat.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. member for Ottawa is sure to be found on the side of the monopolies whenever there is a conflict between them and the people.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Ottawa that we have no right to discuss now the merits of the Bill of the hon. member for West Toronto. The Bill, if I understood what was said, has to do with the rates which the Bell Telephone Company are charging, and I would ask hon. members not to discuss the merits of that Bill on the motion to go into supply.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I was purposely avoiding discussing the substance of the Bill. The first clause refers to the obligation to furnish telephones, and the second provides that no higher rates than those in force shall be charged. I shall avoid both of these, and so shall not leave myself open to the charge of discussing the Bill. My hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) says that there are fifty or sixty telephone companies in the province of Quebec, and that there is no proposal to apply rules regulating rates to them. The reason is, that the Bell Telephone Company has proved itself a grasping. greedy corporation. This is not an affair of the city of Toronto only, but of every city, town and village in Canada. 1 applied for a telephone service, and though
there was a telephone wire going past my door, I was refused a service at auy price.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: What was the reason given ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That there must be five telephones. There is a telephone ottiee at Woodbridge, and we wanted a telephone. They said : You must get five. 1 said : We do not want five, but we will pay for two. That was refused, and we are without a telephone to-day. These people are not considering the public convenience, they have a monopoly, and they think only of their own affairs. They have what must necessarily be a monopoly, and they are using their power to the detriment of the best interests of the country. They should be held to strict account. If we give them what must be the exclusive control-for there cannot be competition in these matters-the parliament of Canada must lay down the rules and conditions to govern the business, rules that shall be fair to the people and fair to the company. Why, they want the sole control in Canada. But, I can tell them, and their agent in this House, that they are not going to have it from the parliament of Canada, that the people will be heard, and that public opinion will prevent the Bell Telephone Company from keeping the unchecked monopoly which they have now, and which they wish to have still further extended.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SOUTH SHORE RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 10G) respecting the South Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Geoft'rion. [DOT]
Mr. HENDERSON.: Mr. Chairman, I simply desire to say one word on this Bill before it is disposed of. I have no objection to make to the passing of the Bill now. I took the opportunity of stating to the committee that I did not approve of the manner in which the Bill was drafted, or of the manner in which it was forced through the Railway Committee. I objected very strongly, but I am not going to take any exception to the passing of the Bill now, because I understand it is a Bill which will be of very great importance to the section of the country through which the road runs, and those who are promoting the Bill must be responsible for any consequences.
On section 4,


David Henderson: I understand that section 3 was struck out.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Yes.


David Henderson: Then section 4 will become section 3.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



MONTREAL AND SOUTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 112) respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.-Mr. Carroll.
Mr. FLINT.: Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the committee to a point of order in connection with this Bill. The title is ' An Act respecting the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company.' As chairman of the Committee on Standing Orders, it becomes my duty and the duty of that committee, under rule 63 of the House, to see that every private Bill and every petition asking for leave to introduce a Bill corresponds with the notice required by law. Of course, incidentally, It is the duty not only of that committee, but of any hon. member of the House at any time that a Bill appears to transcend the notice and the petition that the House accepted to call the attention of the House to the fact, and ask the House to take such action as may seem proper in the premises. In this Bill powers are asked for not contemplated in the notice or the petition, as Is quite apparent, not exactly on the face of the Bill, but on the face of the Bill as compared with the notice or the petition. I have in my hand the petition which passed through the Standing Orders Committee and was recommended to the House, as well as a copy of the notices. I cannot say just here that any reflection can be cast upon the officers of the Standing Orders Committee, because they ascertained that the notice and the petition corresponded, and this Bill started upon its passage through the various stages all right, but now, when the Bill itself comes to be considered, wre find that it has introduced in it powers and requirements not at all contemplated in the notice. When I state, without at all arguing the merits of this Bill, that it provides for the construction of a railway around seven or eight different counties in the province of Quebec, in a very ill-defined manner, of course, we see that the necessity of giving notice that these powers are to be applied for, is of very great importance, because, otherwise, the Bill might pass through its various stages without the attention of the persons interested in it being called to the fact. The notice was published properly and in due time that:
The Montreal Southern Counties Railway Company will apply to the parliament of Canada at the present session for an Act extending the delay fixed for the construction of the railway.
That is one thing that they asked for. Second :


Peter Macdonald: Granting it the power to connect with other railways.
That is another thing.
Making arrangements for the use of other railway lines, to construct, maintain and operate vessels and power vehicles, elevators, warehouses, docks, wharfs and other buildings and powers to dispose of same ; and all other necessary powers.
Powers necessary and incidental to these powers asked for. If the Bill, when it came to the cognizance of hon. members, had complied with the notice on these points, of course, this point of order could not properly be taken. But what do we find in the Bill ? We find in the first place that the first section asks that the railway be made a steam railway. The charter of the Montreal and Southern Counties Railway Company, which was given in
1897,	was an Act for the construction of an electric railway. That Act was amended in
1898,	when application was made for certain other privileges, applicable to an electric railway, and we are right in assuming that the public were not opposed to the granting of these privileges. I may add here that the time for the construction of the road had absolutely expired and the terms of the notice asked for an extension of time, although the terms of the notice were unintentionally slightly misleading, because they should have asked for a revival of the Act. The time had absolutely expired, not a stroke had been done on the road, but perhaps it may be construed that asking for an extension of the delay virtually is a request to revive the charter. But, a clause making it a steam railway completely changes the whole situation, and in my view, completely nullifies the value of the notice, the value of the petition based upon the notice and the consent given by the Standing Orders Committee that this Bill should be introduced to the House. If we pass this Bill we shall change this road from an electric to a steam railway, placing it under the Railway Act, with all the powers and responsibilities of a steam road, something that the parties interested in the seven or eight counties certainly never had ample notice of. They have in a fashion appeared and asked that some consideration be given to their wishes. The only place in which the views of the opponents of a steam railway can be heard is in the Railway Committee, where a hearing can be granted, where all the points can be made and all the data presented. Some hon. gentlemen may ask : Why was this matter not noticed before ? 'I may say that this Bill came up in the Railway Committee in due course, at the close of last Friday, after a keenly contested Bill had been fought over with considerable interest. This Bill was taken up as the last business of the meeting, when a large number of the members of the committee bad left and this change was not noticed.

Not only lias the change from an electric road to a steam road been inserted in the Bill after the Standing Orders Committee had approved of the additional notice, but they ask for power to bridge the River St. Lawrence, which is not contained in the original legislation, and is not contained either in the notice or in the petition. Section 2 is so intermingled with the section of the Act that I will not read it; however, the meaning is that it also extends the bonding powers of the company to $20,000 a mile for each mile of single track. I do not intend to enter into the merits of the Bill except to call attention to these three important changes between the notice and petition and the Bill itself, and to ask the intervention of the chairman of the committee to have it referred back in due course to the Committee on Standing Orders, in order that a third report on these points may be made to the House.. I will read the rules of the House which have been laid down in previous proceedings, as they are found in Sir John Bourinot's work on parliamentary procedure:
In case the committee do not so report, and a member is of opinion that certain provisions of a Bill are not contemplated in the notice for the same, he may raise a point of order, and it will be for the Speaker to decide. In the case of a Bill to amend the Acts incorporating the Great Western Railway Company, it was decided that the Bill should be referred to the Committee on Standing Orders to report as to the matter in doubt. That committee subsequently reported favourably on the Bill. In such a case it is the more regular course to discharge the order for consideration in Committee of the Whole, and then refer the Bill to the Committee on Standing Orders.	[DOT]
I need not read the report of the debate that took place on that occasion, but I will read an entry in the Journals of the House of 1870, which, I think, should guide the committee to some extent :
The Order of the Day being read, for the second reading of the Bill to amend the Acts of incorporation of the Great Western Railway Company ;
The Hon. Mr. Carling moved, seconded by Mr. Shanly, and the question being proposed, that the Bill be now read a second time ;
And objection being taken by Mr. Cameron, member for the electoral district of the south riding of the county of Huron, that certain of the provisions of the said Bill, as amended by the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, were not contemplated in the notice given under the rules of the House, nor in the petition praying for the passing of the said Bill ;
Mr. Speaker decided, that the Bill should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders to report whether the powers to be conferred are in excess of the notice given, or whether they are substantially included in it.
That is all I can ask just now. It may be said that this is not the time to raise a question of order, and there may be some reason for that contention, but if it should be held by the Chair that this is not the 170
time for raising the question in that way, I will give notice of a resolution which will effect the same object. I will move that the Bill be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration, and to find whether the powers to be conferred are in excess of the notice given and of the petition. For the present, I will leave this question in the hands of the committee.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I do not think the point is well taken by my hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Flint). His Bill has passed the Standing Orders Committee twice. It has passed the Standing Orders Committee of this House, and I am informed it has also passed the Standing Orders Committee of the Senate. More than that, it has passed the Railway Committee and been discussed there. Now, this Bill is a very important one, and much interest is taken in it by the people of Montreal, and the people residing in the adjoining counties. My hon. friend contends that the notices do not cover the object of the Bill. I have the notices here, and I see by them that the promoters ask parliament to give some connecting lines to the projected railway. Well, it happens that this road is to be operated by electricity, but the connections which are asked by the Bill happen to be railway connections which are operated by steam. Therefore, the notices imply that they will have to operate by steam when the electric railway will connect with such railways. I must say at once that when the Bill first came before parliament some two or three years ago, the originators did not ask that the words ' except by steam power ' should be inserted in the Bill. That was imposed upon them by some of their opponents. Now, I must say, speaking for the promoters, that if they are restricted to the use of electricity, the Bill will be of no use to them, because they cannot make connections that will enable them to reach Montreal, which is the principal objective point. Therefore, I think that the question raised by my hon. friend is not well taken, especially in view of the fact that the Bill has already passed the Standing Orders Committee of this House and of the Senate, and also the Railway Committee.


Thomas Barnard Flint: The fact that so experienced and able a gentleman as the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) has not been able to make any stronger argument against the point I raised, rather strengthens my conviction that I am correct. But, as there are some doubts whether this is the proper time or place to raise the point of order, and in order that it may be settled by the Speaker in the Chair, I now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the opposition offered to a Bill



which concerns only a small section of the province of Quebec, and I am still more astonished that objection should be taken to this measure by my hon. freud (Mr. Flynn) who comes from the maritime provinces. The objection urged by the hon. gentleman has reference to the notices given by the promoters of this Bill.
Now, it seems to me that when the originators of this Bill gave notice under the rules of the House that they would apply to parliament to pass a Bill empowering them ito make arrangements with certain railroad companies that clearly showed their intention to have railway connections which are operated by steam. The promoters want to make connections with certain railways and with the Grand Trunk among others, and how could they do so, unless they were authorized to use steam power ? It stands to reason that they could not run electric cars over those steam roads. Moreover, electric companies have secured from parliament the power of using steam power as well as electricity. For instance, the Montreal Street Railway Company have been granted the privilege of using steam power.
To tell the truth, such is not the real cause which is at the bottom of the opposition raised against this Bill, and all the trouble comes from the fact that some gentlemen are displeased with the Railway Committee for having passed this Bill and they thus vent their anger on the promoters, instead of moving the six months' hoist. The objection taken by the hon. gentleman when he says that the powers conferred here are in excess of the notice given is a mere pretense.


Peter Macdonald: The proper procedure now is for the committee to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. IV hen the Speaker takes the Chair a motion can be made to refer it back to the Committee on Standing Orders for consideration on this point. Mr. Flint moves that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Lost.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division,-Yeas, 57; Nays, 27.
Thomas Barnard Flint: That Bill (No. 112) be referred back to the Select Committee on Standing Orders for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 88) to amend the Canadian Nurses Association.- Mr. Clarke.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: There would appear to be some reasons why this Mr. DEMERS (St. John & Iberville).
Bill should not pass at this particular time. The Bill has been before the committee on more than one occasion, and it seems to me that the information we have so far received does not justify its passage. It may be that there is some information which the committee was not put in possession of, and if so I would be glad to have it from the hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill. My opposition to the Bill is not very strong I am bound to say, and for my part I will withdraw opposition if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) can show to the House that there is a demand; any general demand for this measure.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This Bill is very similar in many respects to a Bill which was introduced in the House twelve months ago, and was withdrawn because objection was taken to it by some hon. members. It is introduced again, with the features that were objected to last year completely eliminated. It has been before the House for nearly two months. It was reported by the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee a couple of weeks ago, was referred back by the House, has been reconsidered by the committee and reported again. The fact that ladies occupying a most prominent position in the profession of nursing, from one end of the Dominion to the other, are seeking this incorporation, is, I take it, an evidence that there is a necessity for an organization of this kind. Similar institutions are in existence in the United States, and in the mother country, and because of the non-existence of such an association in Canada, our nurses do not occupy the position which their ability and experience entitle them to occupy. I do not know what information the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) requires, but if there is any particular clause in the Bill to which he objects, I shall be glad to give him information respecting it.


Alexander Johnston: I do not think for one moment that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) would introduce a measure of this kind, if representations -were not made to him that it was desirable, by persons engaged in this very important profession throughout the country. This Act will to a large extent affect persons in his constituency in Toronto as well as in other large cities, but I would remind him that it also effects the rest of the Dominion. So far as I have been able to ascertain, certain parts of Canada have not been consulted about this Bill. I have not been able to ascertain whether those interested in Nova Scotia have been consulted, and if so. and if they endorse it, I am perfectly satisfied that the Bill should pass. As the Bill affects a large number in my own province who are engaged in this profession, I do think it should have been submitted for their consideration so that we may know what they have to say about it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Bill has been before the House for nearly two months. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) represents a Nova Scotia constituency I have no doubt he has sent copies of the Bill to his constituents, and if any complaints have reached him he might present them to the House. He had an opportunity of doing so on two occasions when the Bill was in committee. I may say that a lady who occupies a very prominent position amongst the nurses of Nova Scotia appears among the incorporators. That, I suppose, may be taken as some indication that the nursing-profession in Nova Scotia is not at all hostile to the measure. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Cape Breton) will point out wherein the nursing profession, or any member of it, will be injured by the passage of the Biil I shall be very glad to hear him.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This Bill incorporates a purely voluntary association. As originally introduced one of the provisions of the Bill excluded from membership a large number of nurses, who, many hon. members thought, ought to be eligible. The House then referred the Bill back to the Private Bills Committee for further consideration. The Bill was amended there by removing the objectionable clause, and now there is no class of nurses in the community excluded from eligibility for membership in this voluntary association, nor is there any special privileges conceded to the members of this association which differentiates them from other nurses engaged in nursing throughout Canada, except that they are members of the association. The Bill received a thorough threshing out in the committee, a long discussion in the House, and the objectionable clause having been removed I think it ought to pass.


Mr. WADE.: Might I ask, what are the provisions of the Bill as it now stands with regard to membership in the association.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As clause 5 stands now, all nurses engaged in professional work and graduated and holding certificates from any incorporated hospital in Canada, or from any hospital under the control of any provincial government or any municipality in Canada, or who have graduated and hold certificates from any other hospital approved of by the association, and which gives not less than two years training to nurses before granting certificates; shall be eligible.


Alexander Johnston: A further section of the Bill ought to be read, and it will give the House a better opportunity of knowing what the qualifications are. There is a second examination required in order to qualify.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.
170}


Alexander Johnston: Oh, but there is. If my hon. friend will read the Bill, he will find that this association has power to prescribe a second examination from nurses even though they have graduated from certain well-recognized hospitals in this country.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) This Bill was sent back to the committee a second time, and every objection that was raised in the House, including that raised by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), was removed ; and he stated to myself that he was now perfectly satisfied with the Bill. The hon. member for West Toronto removed every objection so that the Bill should be made acceptable to the whole Dominion, and as one member from the province of Nova Scotia I do not think there is anything to be feared from its passing.


Mr. SCHELL.: When this Bill came before the committee, I was one of those most strongly opposed to it ; but the objectionable clauses were eliminated. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) says there are too many examinations. That matter was arranged in this manner. By clause 6 the board may require an examination. The word 1 may ' is put in there purposely. But clause 5 says that the members of the association shall consist of nurses holding certificates of not less than two years standing. This gives every such nurse the right to join the association ; but in case there are any disabilities or conditions justifying an examination, the saving clause is put in providing that an examination may be held. Everything objectionable in the Bill, so far as I can see, has been removed, and I agree entirely with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the Bill as it now stands should be passed. I believe the association is practically a voluntary association for the benefit of the nurses.


Edward Hackett: I want to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who appears to know all about this Bill, whether it places the hospital of Charlottetown on the same level as it now occupies ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not understand that this Bill places the graduates of any hospital in Canada under any disqualification whatever. Trained nurses graduating from any hospital in Canada are eligible for membership ; but some members wanted to include graduates from hospitals in the United States, and therefore an amendment was proposed that the president of the medical board of each province might require them to pass an examination in addition to the certificate they held.


Alexander Johnston: I may say further that the nurses in the hospital in Charlottetown are all eligible for membership provided they pass a certain examination.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is not necessary.


Alexander Johnston: The association can exact it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My hon. friend is wrong there. The association cannot exact it, hut the president of the medical society of the province may require an examination.


Alexander Johnston: I want the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to read the section, and then he will better understand what the requirements are.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I want to ask the hon. member for West Toronto if this Bill will exclude from membership those persons who ihave been doing work as nurses for a quarter of a century, and are not now in a position to obtain certificates.


Mr. MCLENNAN.: There are many excellent nurses who are not in a position to undergo examination before the medical board-who know very little about the technical subjects of anatomy and physiology and the materia medica in the abstract, but who, nevertheless, are perfectly capable of doing all the work required of them. These ladies, though they have not studied these subjects in the training schools, have nevertheless, acquired by practical experience all the proficiency desired. It is not really a technical knowledge of these various branches that constitutes a really good nurse. A patient, painstaking, kindly attendant at the bedside is really the successful nurse, and no one in this parliament would debar such ladies, who besides have considerable skill and experience, from practicing their profession.


Mr. DAYIS.: This Bill does not exclude nurses from practicing their profession in any part of the country, even if they should not belong to this association. This Bill is merely to incorporate an association of nurses which no one is compelled to join.


Angus McLennan: I move that the chairman leave the Chair.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Before that motion is put, I wish to make a few remarks. When this matter came before the committee some two or three weeks ago, the object of the Bill seemed to be approved of, but the objection was raised that it might result in the establishment of a close corporation which would give its own members a certain prestige, to the detriment of others. The -chief discussion in the committee was over the limitation of the number of beds in the hospital. That limitation has been entirely removed, and now it seems to me that the provisions of the Bill are perfectly proper. The Bill provides that the corporation may insist on an examination. It seems to me perfectly proper that that examination shall be conducted by the provincial medical board.


Alexander Johnston: I think that nurses should have some qualifications beyond patience and sweetness. We would not be willing to have nurses who did not possess these qualifications, but, in addition, it would be fair to require that they should have some special qualifications beyond these.


Mr. McCREARY.: What information have we that the parties applying for this Bill are really qualified nurses? They will become members if this Bill passes, and then have the right to say who shall be members and who shall not. Yet, we have nothing to prove that they are qualified themselves. There are many nurses, scattered throughout the North-west, who have been practicing their profession there during the last thirty years, and who are just as well qualified as any who have passed or may pass an examination under this Bill, and yet they would be excluded. This Bill has not been sufficiently considered. When it was before the committee, the Railway Committee was sitting, and a great many members of the Private Bills Committee attended the larger committee, and, consequently, were not present when the various clauses of this Bill were considered. If the measure is to be a success, it should be thoroughly looked into. Let it be referred back to the committee, and taken up next session, and let copies of it be sent in the meantime to the various hospitals and nursing institutions throughout the country, and thus give these institutions an opportunity of expressing their opinion on its various features. We all know what the position is in the medical profession. A man thoroughly qualified and authorized to practice is in one province, and cannot practice in another, and the same remark applies to the legal profession ; and the reason is just because such Bills as this were put through the local and federal parliaments without proper consideration. If this measure is to apply to the whole of Canada, all the people interested should have an opportunity of understanding what it means. Those ladies who have given the best part of their lives to a profession of nursing throughout the west- I refer to the nuns and sisters of mercy-should be allowed to become members of this proposed association purely on that ground alone, if they so desired, and not be compelled to undergo an examination at the dictates of a favoured few who form a close corporation.
Motion negatived, on division : Yeas, 41; nays, 57.


Angus McLennan: The clause under consideration reads as follows :
An advisory board for the government of the Association shall he selected at each annual meeting. The board may require candidates for membership in the Association to submit to examination before a hoard of medical practitioners to be named in each province by the president of the provincial Medical Association

therein, may impose penalties for unprofessional conduct

It is a star chamber, you see.
-rescind certificates of membership for cause, and exercise a general supervision over the affairs of the association.
It remains for these ladies to trump up a case against any lady or body of ladies whom they do not choose to have in their charmed circle. Now, in reply to the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade), I may say that there is not one trained nurse professionally practicing in Canada but has a certificate of competency from some recognized training school for nurses or some hospital. For my part, as a medical man, I consider these training schools and hospital authorities infinitely better authorities from whom to secure a license to nurse than a mere group of medical men practicing anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. They may know physiology, materia medica, anatomy, they may know all the book learning of the profession, but I would infinitely prefer a certificate of the body managing a respectable hospital than the certificate of any group of medical men in the Dominion in private practice, as I have just indicated.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hour for private Bills being exhausted, the House will resume for consideration the motion of Hon. Mr. Fielding.



SUPPLY-TAXATION OF CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LANDS.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the motion of the Hon. Mr. Fielding : That the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['But one is not allowed to insure for a hundred cents on the dollar, but for only two-thirds of the value ; therefore, the duty would not have been insured in that case.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. (Saturday).', 'Saturday, May 18, 1901.']
Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I wish to make a brief reference to a subject of very considerable importance, the question of the exemption from taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway land grant. Owing to . a very painful mission to Winnipeg when this question came up last time, I was unable to be present and participate in the debate which took place on this very important question. As a result of the debate, a resolution was passed by this House, authorizing the government to obtain from the courts a judical interpretation as to the duration of this period of exemption from taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway lands. I think it was very unfortunate that this resolution passed this House. The debates that have occurred make it very clear that if this question is submitted to the courts for judicial decision, the 'courts will not go outside of the technical reading of the clause in question, and there is very grave doubt as to what view the court will take. Hon. gentlemen, and some of them members of the cabinet, hold it to be the reading of that clause that the exemption period shall run for twenty years from the time at which these lands were patented. I learned with
satisfaction from the speech made by the Minister of the Interior that the patents are being issued for these lands, and, in a very short time all the patents will be issued. But if the interpretation be that the period of exemption is twenty years from the issue of the patents, the exemption period, instead of being twenty years, as was the intention when the contract was ratified in 1881, will be forty years, and that will be a great hardship and a great injustice to the settlers in the North-west, who confidently believed that when that contract was ratified the exemption period would extend only for twenty years from the ratification of the contract. This is a question where the broad principles laid down so strongly this afternoon by the Minister of Railways and Canals (.Hon. Mr. Blair), the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the right hon. the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) himself should apply.
In the discussion on the additional subsidy for Prince Edward Island we had a proposition laid down that it was a question which must be considered in equity. It was contended that Prince Edward Island had no legal claim, but we had the declaration made that whatever be the claim Prince Edward Island might have it had at least a moral claim, and that it should be settled in equity. Now I take it that if there is any question before the parliament of Canada at the present day which ought to be settled in equity, it is this question of the taxation of the Canadian Pacific Railway lands. I read with considerable interest the proposition made by the leader of the opposition in this House when the debate occurred recently, that the lands should be taxed and faith kept with the settlers of the North-west, and if the Canadian Pacific Railway feels aggrieved, or thinks it is entitled to compensation, then the parliament of Canada should take into consideration the question of such compensation as it might think proper. But I think at least all fair-minded men, all reasonable men, will agree that we ought to deal justly with the people of the North-west, that inasmuch as it appears from the debates which occurred when that contract was before parliament, that members on both sides of the House took the position that the exemption period was for twenty years only, and inasmuch as the people of the North-west settled there under the belief that the exemption period only extended for that time, we ought to keep faith with these settlers and say that the exemption period terminates at the end of twenty years from the ratification of the contract. Hon. gentlemen who listened to the debates which have occurred in this House from time to time will recollect that a very strong case was made out in favour of the expiration of the exemption in twenty years, not from the ratification of the contract. I myself was able to quote from a

speech by Sir Hector Langevin, then Minister of Public Works, in which he declared that within twenty years from the date of that contract no lands would remain exempted from taxation other than the roadway 100 feet wide through which the railway runs. I was able to quote from the speech of the then member for West Middlesex, Mr. Ross, now the hon. premier of Ontario, also frofn Mr. Rinfret, from the present Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) and from many others, quotations which clearly indicated that it was in their minds that the exemption period would expire in twenty years from the ratification of the contract. Now, Sir, I say that we ought to keep faith with the people there, and if we refer this matter to the courts, as parliament in its wisdom determined should be done, it is at least probable that the courts will decide on. a technical reading of the clause, and may decide upon the interpretation held by many members of the House and by some members of the government, that the twenty-year period dates from the issuing of the patents. Now if they did that it would be decided on a technicality, and that is the danger of submitting this matter to the courts. Parliament should interpret this matter itself, or failing to pass an Act of Interpretation


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman has no right to criticise a decision rendered by the House unless he intends to make a motion to reconsider. He must abstain from making any remarks upon the judgment of the House.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I am glad you corrected me, Mr. Speaker. I am not well versed in these mattters, but I will endeavour as far as possible to confine myself within the limits of proper debate. I was going to show that there is danger, if the question were submitted to the courts, that they might give a technical decision, whereas parliament should take all questions into consideration


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman has no right to criticise a decision of the House. The decision may be right or wrong, but he has no right to question it.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Of course I am not asking for a reconsideration. However, I can probably avoid trespassing upon the rule by saying that while I might move for an Act interpreting the clause, I can very well see that I should bow to the decision of parliament when it rejected that.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are occasions when the strict rules of the House are not enforced unless attention is called to them. I would suggest that in view of the desire of the hon. gentleman to bring his views before the House again, the rule be not strictly enforced in this case.
Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar) Let me express my thanks to the hon. the Minister Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
of the Interior for his kind suggestion. I do not wish to trespass upon the rules of the House. But this is a matter in which I take the very deepest interest, and I would like that the very best results should be obtained, and I feel sure that the House desires that we should reach the very best decision in this matter. I was going to say that I hold strongly the opinion that whatever might be. the judicial interpretation of this clause, it would be a great injustice to the people of the North-west if that decision should be that the exemption period should be for forty years instead of twenty, as was the original design when the contract was adopted. I put a question on the Order paper some days ago as to what contention the government would make when the case was submitted to the courts, and the answer I got, while it was not entirely satisfactory, still it might be viewed with satisfaction by many people of the North-west. The minister replied that they would endeavour to make a contention which would be in the best interests of the people of the North-west. Still it seems to me so clear what was intended at the time, that after consulting with my friends and thinking it over for some weeks, I decided to ask the House to pass a resolution requesting the government to make the contention before the courts that the exemption period begins with the ratification of the contract and expires twenty years later. Of course it would meet my views better if the question were not submitted to the courts at all. I contend with all the earnestness that I possess that we ought to deal with this question on the broad basis of equity, and if we have got to pay the Canadian Pacific Railway a yearly amount, or a large amount, to get rid of what may be a technical advantage in the clause, I say that in justice to the people of the North-west we ought to make some arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway, if we do not interpret the clause, and we ought to have these lands released to enable the settlers to reap the benefit of a general taxation.
Now parliament is the only body that can do justice in this matter. I understand that the courts would take no cognizance of what the intention might have been, nor, so far as I can learn, will they take any congnizance of the debates which occurred upon the question when the contract was before the House in 1881. That being the case, I emphasize the point that parliament alone can do justice in equity, and is the only body which can deal with this matter. In the use of the word ' grant' I am disposed to believe that a wrong interpretation will be placed upon it. The clause read that the lands should be exempt from taxation for twenty years ' from the grant thereof from the Crown.' Some will contend that the ' grant thereof from the Crown' meant the issue of the patents. Now I

claim that the ' grant thereof from the Grown' meant the gift of the land to the company, and, as 1 contended at some length in a former speech on this question, when the land was granted by statute it belonged to the company as much as if they had received their patents for it. The company applied for the money grants as they became due, but they did not apply for the land, but that was no fault of the settlers, and it might be fairly said it was no fault of this parliament. But what I say is that it was the company's own fault that they did not apply for it before they had 'sold their lands, as if the patents had been issued the day the contract was ratified. That being the case, they received what is known in Great Britain as a grant by a statute, or a gift of land, and it would be unfair to contend that the grant meant the issue of the patents. But the danger is that the courts may construe it to mean that. Such being the case, I contend that we should have this matter settled by parliament and not by the courts.
There is one clause in the contract which reiads that if the lands are either sold or occupied they shall become taxable. These lands become immediately taxable notwithstanding the fact that patents have not been issued for them and therefore, I say, if it applies in one case where there is no patent it is surely fair to assume that it applies in another case. We have been met with the opposition that to pass an interpretation Act would be to interfere with the vested rights of the company. To those who make that contention I would say that in 1894 an Act was introduced into this House by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) for the purpose of interpreting a clause in the Canadian Pacific Railway charter. Under that charter the company was allowed to import all materials required for the original construction of the railway, bridges, &c., free of duty. The company completed the road and in 1896 an order in council was passed declaring the road to be completed, but later on, the company desired to build new bridges and it applied for a drawback of duty on the material required for these bridges. Sir John Thompson, who was then Minister of Justice, reported that inasmuch as the order in council had been passed declaring the road completed it would be impossible to comply with the request and allow the company the drawback, whereupon a Bill was introduced by the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals to this effect :
That it is expedient to provide that the words ' original construction,' in section 1 ot chapter 76 ot the statutes of 1882, respecting the allowance of drawback on certain articles manufactured in Canada, for use in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, shall be construed to extend to and include the first iron or steel bridge erected in a locality, but not to any renewal or repair thereof.
That was a very clear case of the contract
being construed in the interest of the railway company. I read from ' Hansard ' :


Mr. LAURIER.: Will the hon. gentleman please explain ?


John Graham Haggart: The object of the resolution is to give interpretation to section 1 of chapter 7 of 45 Victoria, which reads :-
Mr. Laurier objected to the proposal, whereupon the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy made some remarks also objecting and declaring that this was an interpretation of the contract and should not pass. Sir John Thompson spoke as follows :
I think that is not exactly the position. Though it is quite proper that any application made, and the correspondence upon it should be brought down, I am afraid that that correspondence is of so meagre a character that it will not throw much light upon the question. But the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's contention is that the expression ' original construction ' includes every original construction on the road that is made of iron or steel. But, the interpretation which I thought we were bound to put on the Act, in order to guard the treasury as much as possible, was that it did not include these structures in consequence of our having declared, for the purpose of the subsidy, that the railway had been finished.
So, as I have said, Sir John Thompson made the declaration that it was necessary to have an Act of interpretation passed in order that the drawback could be allowed. A debate occurred subsequently and the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy used these words:
For my part, I am not willing, and I do not think this House is willing, to change the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. This is, no matter how it may be disguised, or how it may be introduced to us, simply an alteration of the contract in favour of the company. The contract says in certain terms that the company are entitled to this drawback, or it does not. X understand the opinion of the Department of Justice is that, under the terms of the contract, the company are not entitled to the benefit of this drawback, and certainly that is the view I would have formed as regards the contract by reading the statute. The company are asking, in effect, that they should receive from the government of Canada a drawback of 30 odd per cent upon the value of the bridges which they shall build in substitution of bridges built when the road was first constructed. If we may take the amounts stated in the report, and that is the only information we have, the total outlay will be something like three-quarters of a million dollars, and the amount of the rebate will reach $200,000.


Mr. CHARLTON.: It is more than that, because it is necessary to complete the work, and the company has been putting in bridges since 1891.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I am not prepared to alter the contract in one line or one letter. Under the contract the company have been able to float their securities, construct the road and pay dividends, and, according to the contract, as I have said, they are entitled or they are not entitled to get the drawback proposed. I would not deprive the company of a single right under the contract, hut I am not prepared, and, in fact, I do not understand why we should in-

terpret the contract in a different sense from the meaning which its language bears.
Mr. McCarthy spoke as follows, later on :
I think the House will perfectly understand that this alteration in the contract will mean before we are done with it, probably up in the millions.
This is an important statement.
I think we had better realize and understand what we are doing. Of course, that ought to make no difference if the railway company were entitled to the change-because change it is-in the contract which is sought to be made now at the instance of the hon. Minister of Railways. But, for my part, I do not look upon it by any means as a technicality. I look upon it as a substantial change in their contract.
Then, a long debate followed in which many members participated. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Hon. Mr. Tisdale), as I pointed out the other day, urged the House to take a broad view of the question and not rest its decision upon any technicality. Although, when I made my motion in the House previously he took strong ground against it and hoped he would not be a party to interpreting any contract, because he did not think it would be proper in any British country. He, however, in the debate in 1894, from which I have quoted, took strong ground in favour of interpretation. I find that just before the division there is a brief statement by Mr. Mills, of Bothwell, the present hon. Minister of Justice, who said :
I am prepared to oppose what we have a right to oppose, and what is no part of the compact as X understand it, but I am not prepared to alter what I regard as the original intention of both the parliament on the one side and the company on the other.	[DOT]


Mr. MULOCK.: Where do you find that intention ?


David Mills: I find it in the statutes and in the discussion that took place at the time the compact between the company and the government was entered into.
So that, according to Mr. Mills, he was governed by the discussion which occurred when the contract was ratified in 1881.
If therefore that was the view of the Minister of Justice at that time, surely the contention which I make is a fair one, namely:	That this parliament should settle the question and should see that the rights of the settlers in that country are protected, and that the exemption does not extend for a longer period than twenty years from the ratification. I have looked over the division list and I find such names as the following who voted in favour of that interpretation :	Mr. Beausoleil, Mr. Bennett, Sir John Carling, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Choquet, Mr. Montague, Mr. Guay, Mr. Haggart, Mr. Harwood, Mr. Laurier, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Maclean (York), Mr. McGregor, Mr. Mignault, Mr. Mills, Mr. Rinfret, Mr. Tarte, Sir John Thompson, Mr. Wilson, and many other prominent men of that day. I find that that Act of interpretation passed by a vote of 100 to 15. If Mr, RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
you could get a vast majority of members of parliament to vote an interpretation in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway, surely I do not ask an unreasonable thing when I say that the interests of the settlers should be protected, and if to that end we do not get a majority of 80 or 90, surely we could get a majority of this House to do justice to the settlers in this matter. I want to apologize to the House for taking up time at this late period of the session. I have discussed the question once or twice before, and as I have said already it is only the great importance of the question that prompts me at the present time. I beg to move seconded by tbe hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) :
That this House having, by resolution adopted on the 2nd day ot April last, declared its intention ol obtaining a judicial interpretation of tbe clause in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract relating to the exemption from taxation of the company's land grant, the House now request the government to make the contention before the courts that the exemption period contemplated in the contract began when the contract granting tbe subsidies, both in cash and lands, was ratified by parliament.	. ,
I may say that while it is desirable that the government should make that contention before the courts, I urged it because 1 thought it was the clear intention of parliament when that contract was ratified, and if the government make that contention they will not be debarred from obtaining a more moderate construction of the clause. I think we should at least contend for the most, but as I said at the outset, I greatly regretted, and do still regret that the intention seems to he to refer this matter to the courts. I think it should not be referred to the courts at ail. 1 think it should he dealt with by parliament and justice done to the settlers of that country on the broad basis of the equity of the claim.


The MINISTER OF THE INFERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I do not think that my hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) need apologize for taking up the time of parliament upon this question, because the importance of it is quite sufficient to justify the attention of parliament for the length it has occupied our consideration this session. I cannot see, however, that my hon. friend has added anything to the discussion which took place in the House upon one or two former occasions. I need only reiterate: That the precedents which were referred to, and the precedent which is referred to as having been set this afternoon in the case of Prince Edward Island, were all cases in which the two parties got together and made an agreement as to what should be done. For instance, in connection with the drawback clause in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the company and the then government discussed the matter and made an arrangement themselves as to what they

mutually thought the contract meant. Then the government, for fear that might not be held to be the legal construction of the contract and in order to protect themselves in the carrying out of their view, brought legislation to parliament for the purpose of making that clear. There was no precedent there for the alteration or determination or interpretation of a contract by parliament against the wishes of one of the parties to the contract. That is so clear that it would be sheer waste of time to discuss it longer. My hon. friend refers to the possibility of this House considering the question of compensation for the loss sustained by the settlers of the North-west in not being able to tax these lands at the time when it was anticipated they would be able to tax them, but that is a question which is not before us and which I submit cannot come before us until we actually know what this contract means, and what the courts shall decide it does mean. So far as the resolution is concerned, I think it would be manifestly unwise for the House to attempt to bind the government in that connection. I am quite free to say now, as I said the other day, that if the law officers of the Crown; counsel employed by the Crown or the Minister of Justice, should advise the government that there is any reasonable prospect of success in making the contention that the period from which the twenty years began to run dates from the period when the contract was ratified by parliament; the government will be only too happy to make that contention before the court. But in the absence of a full and deliberate consideration of the matter by the law officers of the Crown, I think every person in the House will agree that it would be unwise for the House, upon a motion the exact terms of which the government have not been able to consider, and of which the government had no notice until it was read by the hon. gentleman


Robert Lorne Richardson: I gave notice of the motion about three weeks ago.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: In the terms which the hon. gentleman has read ?


Robert Lorne Richardson: Exactly. The motion has been published in the Votes and Proceedings for two or three weeks.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I must admit that the notice has escaped my attention. The matter has been under discussion several times, and I assume that the notice escaped my attention owing to the fact that there were many proceedings taken on the same matter, and I was not aware that a new resolution was to be moved. I still say that I think it would be manifestly unwise for the House to bind the government in a legal proceeding to a course which might, in the opinion of the law advisers of the government, be considered unwise, and not likely to result in a successful issue. The question has been in one form or another before the courts on more than one occasion. There was a case tried in the province of Manitoba in which there was a dissenting judgment given by the present Chief Justice of that province, who is a very able jurist. He discussed the whole question at very great length and with very great ability. There is nothing in that judgment, I am bound to say, that wmuld justify the contention that the period from which the twenty years would run began with the ratification of the contract. There is much in the reasoning of the Chief Justice which would lead to the conclusion that the point might be safely taken, that the period of twenty years began to run from the time when the lands were actually earned, and when the government therefore would have been in a position to satisfy the demand in the clause of the contract which provides for the exemption, and grant the lands from the Crown. In view of the whole position I feel it is the duty of the government to take the ground that this resolution ought not to pass, and that the government ought not to be bound as to the terms of the reference. I say again that the government will endeavour to place the matter before the courts in such a way as to get the most favourable interpretation possible.
Mi;. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta). I am very sorry to delay the House at this date of the session, but the question is of such very overwhelming importance in the district I represent that I would not be justified in allowing this opportunity to pass without expressing my views upon the subject. When the question was brought before the House on a former occasion, the House decided not to interpret the statute. What I desired on that occasion was, and what I desire on this occasion is, to put before the House the reasons why the lands should be held to be taxable twenty years after the Act was passed, that is to say, to give reasons why the land should be held to be taxable after the 15th of February last. I feel that it would not be fair to let the idea go before the country that because the House was not willing to agree to the interpretation of a contract, the position which I took then, and which I take now, was, therefore, unsound. 1 maintained then, as I maintain now, that there is only one interpretation to that statute-that there is not now and never was any reason to doubt what that interpretation is. I have been no party to raising any doubt as to the meaning of the statute. I was surprised beyond measure when I heard that there was any doubt upon it, and I have been still more surprised since to find that members of the House, to whose legal knowledge and ability I am bound to pay great respect, do consider that there is a doubt as to the meaning of the statute. It is not because of any doubt I

hold, but it is because of the doubts they hold, that I desire now to put the case before the House as I understand it.
There are three contentions in regard to the date of expiry of this exemption ; one, that it expires twenty years from the passing of the Act; another, that it expires twenty years after the lands were earned under the Act; and, third, that it expires twenty years after the issue of the patent. There is a great deal of difference to the people of the North-west in the result of these several contentions. Under the first contention, the twenty years exemption has already expired, and the lands have now become taxable as soon as the patents are issued ; under the second contention the lands will not become taxable for some years yet, which I contend is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Act, and is to that extent unjust to the people of the North-west; while the third contention, in my humble judgment, is utterly absurd-is not tenable on any grounds whatever. I hope I say that with all due respect to those who hold a different view. Such a contention is so utterly contrary to anything that was in contemplation in the mind of parliament or in the mind of the country at the time the Act was passed, that I cannot see how it can be held. To hold that twenty years means forty years is, it seems to me, the height of absurdity. The fair question, as it appears to me, is whether the exemption expired on the 15th of February last or whether it shall expire twenty years from the date when the lands were severally earned. I take the liberty of arguing now that the exemption did, as a matter of fact, according to the letter and the spirit of the Act, expire on the 15th of February last. The whole question turns on the meaning of a single word-the word ' grant.' The question is whether that word means ' gift ' or means ' patent.' I hold that the word ' grant ' is entitled to be used in the ordinary dictionary meaning of 1 gift,' and is not entitled to be used in the technical or legal meaning of ' patent.'
In support of that contention, I read an extract from a report of the committee of the hon. the Privy Council, dated the 20th of February, 1900, relating to the land grant of the North-west Central Railway, in which the word ' grant ' occurs. From this I hope to establish my point as to the usual and ordinary meaning of the word ' grant ' : and the meaning which is attached to it in orders in council and other government documents similar to Acts of parliament. This report states that on the 22nd of July, 1880, an order in council was passed authorizing the grant of a charter ; that on the same date an order in council was passed granting the charter; and that on the same date an order in council was passed authorizing the grant to the company of a land subsidy of 0,400 acres a mile. In the first two instances the word ' grant is Mr. OLIVER.
used as ' gift,' and there is no reason to say that in the third case the word ' grant ' is not used as ' gift.' It certainly cannot be used as ' patent.' However, in this case the words used authorize a grant, and it may be held that in that case the grant is not actually made. But, as a matter of fact, the grant is actually made by this very order in council authorizing the grant. The same paragraph goes on to say :
The grant to consist of the unoccupied and unclaimed odd-numbered sections within ten miles of the line of railway on either side thereof in so far as practicable without interfering with any previous grants or reserves.
That means that that land was granted then by that order in council, because it was reserved and preserved from any other occupation or ownership by that order in council then issued. I say that in that case the word ' grant ' meant the gift of that land, and it did not mean, and could not be construed to mean, patent. Then, further down, in a subsequent paragraph, the order in council recites that ' the company having forfeited any further rights it might have acquired in respect thereto.' What rights it had it forfeited at that time ; therefore, the land was not patented to it. To make that binding, a subsequent paragraph says that ' no land has so far been passed to the company.' So, the word ' grant ' has been used in all the preceding part of the document, and here in this paragraph, which says that ' so far no land has been passed to the company,' the word 1 passed ' is used as synonymous with the word ' patent.' Further on, this document recites: 'The annexed schedule of land be substituted in lieu thereof, in satisfaction of the land grant to the North-west Central Railway.' If I read the English language correctly, the land was granted, and this land was scheduled in satisfaction of that grant. The grant was made when the order in council was passed, and was satisfied when the lands were scheduled to the company. But, that was not when the grant was made. It was made in the beginning, when the land was reserved to the company, that is to say, when the order in council wTas passed.
In conclusion I read from the heading : ' Schedule of lands granted to the company,' the words ' lands granted to the Great Northwest Central Railway west of the first meridian.' There again the word * grant ' is used and yet the patents had not been issued for any of those lands, so far as this order in council is concerned. I make the contention then, that the use of the word ' grant ' in Acts of parliament or orders in council is not interchangeable with the word ' patent,' I make the contention that there is not any doubt whatever as to the meaning of that Act of parliament, and the proof I claim is contained in this as it would be in any other order in council that might be issued or Act that might be passed.

Here is a list of the lands which have been granted, and not an acre of those has been patented, although they are said to have been granted, were at first granted by order in council, and now are scheduled or listed in pursuance of the grant then made. All we ask is that the government shall make a contention that is according to the letter and spirit of the law, and in the public interest, not only of the western territory, but of Canada as a whole.
It is not only the western settler who is at a loss because of the exemption from taxation. Mention has been made of compensation to be demanded on the one hand or paid on the other because of this exemption. Possibly the House is not aware that such compensation has been paid every year. Consideration has been given in estimating the amount of grant to the North-west Territories ; and because the schools and the roads of the Territories are not able to secure that general taxation upon the whole land owned in the country which is their due, the subsidy has been increased accordingly. And let me tell the House that the subsidy will have to be still further and very largely increased, if the needs of the country are to be met, on account of this very exemption.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I would like to say a few words in connection with this matter. With reference to the arguments set up by the last speaker, I quite agree with him in many respects, but I submit his arguments should be used before the courts and not this House. What are the facts ? There is a contract between the government and the railway corporation, and the question comes up as to the interpretation of a certain portion of the contract. The government may think that the views of my bon. friend are right and that these lands should be subject to taxation from the loth of February last, or may hold that the lands were granted when earned. But the other parties to the contract dispute these contentions and say that these lands are not subject to taxation until twenty years from the date that the patents are issued. What, then, is the government to do ? My hon. friend who moved this resolution, and my hon. friend who has just spoken, discussed the matter on several occasions in this House and a vote was taken, and they know that the House by a great majority decided against their resolution. I then moved a resolution on the 2nd April to have the question as to when these lands became taxable submitted to the courts. I have no doubt that the whole thing hinges on the interpretation of the word ' grant,' and that the general consensus of opinion in this House is that the lands were granted when earned some twenty years ago, and I have no doubt that the court shall so decide. In discussing this question the hon. Minister of the Interior stated that the government were prepared, whenever any school district or
municipality assessed a certain portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway land and their assessment was disputed, to pay the expenses of carrying the matter into the courts, even so far as the Privy Council, in which case we would have a decision to go on. That is the only way it can be settled. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) said he did not want this case submitted to the courts because he was afraid of them. Well, he is the first man I ever heard say that he was afraid of the courts in this country. Does he put his judgment against that of the courts ? If so, I am afraid that he will not find many who will agree with him. Why is he afraid of the courts ? Because the debates on the question in this House might influence the Supreme Court and the Privy Council of Great Britain. I do not take that view. I do not think that the courts are going to be guided by any debates in this House. I believe that if this case comes before them, they will decide it on its merits, and I am satisfied that their decision will be in favour of the people and against the railway corporation.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It is going to be decided without regard to what the understanding of parliament was. That is what I complain about. We are told by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Finance that the courts will decide on the reading of the clause itself without regard to what parliament intended.


Thomas Osborne Davis: When the case comes before the courts, we shall haive our counsel there, and they will take up all phases of the question and place them before the court, and all these matters will be taken into consideration in coming to a final decision. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson) said that he was sorry that this resolution has passed the House. I believe that this resolution, which was proposed by myself, is a step in the right direction. At any rate it is something accomplished for the settlers of the North-west. It is not got up for cheap notoriety in the newspapers or to be used in stump oratory in the back concessions of the North-west constituencies. It was designed for the purpose of accomplishing something for the people. Now, let me read this resolution that my hon. friend says he is sorry that this House has adopted :
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House, the government should take such steps that may be open to it under the law to obtain authoritative interpretation from the Supreme Court of Canada of the meaning of the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in relation to the exemption of lands from taxation ; and
That the patenting of lands earned by railroad companies should be proceeded with with all practicable speed.
Now, my hon. friend says he is sorry that is passed.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I had no reference to the issue of patents. I am not

sorry about that. I could hardly be sorry for it, for I had a resolution on the paper calling for the issue of these patents.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman took in the whole resolution when he said he was sorry that it had been passed.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I did not.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am in the judgment of the House when I say that the hon. gentleman said that he was sorry that the House had adopted this resolution


Robert Lorne Richardson: Is the hon. gentleman going to take the picayune position of trying to make me sponsor for a thing like that ? Surely, when he knows that I had a resolution on the paper calling for the issue of these patents, he would have more common decency than to take such a position. To try to make the House believe Jfiltat I was opposed to the issue of these patents when I had a resolution calling for the issue of them is the most absurd thing [DOT]that I ever heard of.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) should not use the expression 'decency' in that connection when speaking of hon. members of the House.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am sorry the hon. member (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) has taken this proposition so seriously. But, as I said, I am in the judgment of the House. The hon. member made the statement that he was sorry the resolution was passed, and he did not except any portion of the resolution. I do not think any person in Manitoba or the Northwest Territories will be sorry that the House has adopted this resolution-this portion of it at least, or the other portion either. Now, as I said, the hon. gentleman had been bringing this matter before the House for three years or so during the last parliament. But what did he accomplish ? He may have gained a little cheap notoriety in the newspapers in the west or in the back districts of Lisgar; but, so far as anything practical for the settlers is concerned, it is mere moonshine. On the other hand here in this resolution is something practical, something that this House could adopt and did adopt, and not a resolution calling upon the House to interpret its own contract with another party which the hon. gentleman must have known this House could not pass. I do not wish at this advanced period of the session to take up more time of the House, but 1 desire to say that I believe that this resolution covers the ground, and, if the government carries out the proposition as laid down by the Minister of the Interior, I have no doubt that the decision will be in the interests of the people, and that something substantial will be accomplished for the people with very little talk.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am not going to say anything further, except that I do not wish to be understood either on my own behalf or on behalf of the Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).
government as taking the position that the contention of the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and the contention suggested in the motion of my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) is not correct. I simply say that I do not think that it would be wise for the House to bind the government in a matter of this kind, a matter in regard to which we must act when the settlement of the proceedings comes, according to the best advice we can get.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Richardson, Lisgar) :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Blain,	Oliver,
Bourassa,	Puttee,
Johnston (Cardwell), Richardson (Lisgar), Lavell,	Robinson (Elgin),
Maclean,	Roche (Marquette), and
McGowan,	Wallace.-12.
NAYS :
Messieurs
Angers,	Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Bazinet,	LeBlanc,
Belcourt,	Lemieux,
Bell (Addington),	Lennox,
Bernier,	Lewis,
Birkett,	Loy,
Blair,	Macdonald,
Borden (Halifax),	MacLaren (Huntingdon),
Borden (King's),	MacLaren (Perth),
Britton,	McCarthy,
Brock,	McCormick,
Brown,	McCreary,
Bruce,	McGugan,
Bruneau,	Mclsaac,
Bureau,	McKinnon,
Calvert,	McLennan,
Olancy,	Madore,
Clare,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Clarke,	Martineau,
Cochrane,	Matheson,
Copp,	Mignault,
Costigan,	Monet,
Davies (Sir Louis),	Monk,
Davis,	Morin,
Delisle,	Morrison,
Demers (St. John),	Paterson,
Dugas,	Prfifontaine,
Emmerson,	Reid (Restigouche),
Erb,	Richardson (Grey),
Ethier,	Ross (Ontario),
Fielding,	Ross (Victoria),
Flint,	Schell,
Fortin,	Scott,
Fraser,	Slfton,
Gallery,	Simmons,
Geoffrion,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Gibson,	Talbot,
Girard,	Tarte, Taylor,
Hackett,	
Haggart,	Thompson,
Halliday,	Tolton,
Harwood,	Turcot,
Henderson,	Turgeon,
Hughes (King's),	Vrooman,
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Wade,
Johnston (Lambton),	Ward,
Kaulbach,	Wilmot,
Kendall,	Wilson, and
Kendry, LaRivi&re, .	Wright.-99.
Amendment negatived.



Mr. A. W. PUTTEE (Winnipeg).: Before you leave the Chair, I wish briefly to call the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to the strike that has occurred in the locomotive works at Kingston. I understand that at. these works a number of locomotives are being constructed for the Department of Railways and Canals for use on the Intercolonial Railway. I understand also that there will be a bonus given to the company for having some of these locomotives completed by a certain time. It appears that this necessity has led to the company offering piece work and premiums to its employees, and that this system has operated very injuriously. I am informed, and my correspondent is the secretary of the Ironworkers' Union in that city, that the operation of this system has resulted very detrimentally to the principle, as he puts it, of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. It appears that with the object of getting 'extra work out of the men so that these engines may be turned out on time, the men are induced to perform extra labour for less remuneration even than they should be receiving for a full day's work. This has resulted in a strike of ISO iron workers, and their stoppage of work has necessarily caused the stoppage of work of over 200 other men, so there are now 400 men on strike in that city. The question I wish to put to the Minister of Railways and Canals is this : Does the contract for these engines contain the current-wage clause ? I fear not. If it did, I think there would have been little possibility of this trouble arising. You will remember, Sir, that at the last session of this parliament this House practically instructed the members of the government, in letting contracts, to include this current-wage clause. It seems to me here is a case where it should have been put in, and if it had been put in it is probable there would have been no trouble at the present time. I would also suggest to the acting Minister of Labour, seeing that this factory is now employed on government work, that it would be well, perhaps, to send the deputy minister or an agent down there to see if something could not be done in the way of conciliation before the trouble goes any further. It is a serious matter for the city of Kingston to have 400 men on strike, and I should imagine too it is a serious matter for the Department of Railways and Canals, who want to get their engines as soon as possible.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I cannot say that I quite apprehend my hon. friend's purpose in making a reference to me, or what results he thinks could be achieved. I understand that he is of opinion that it would have been well to incorporate in the
contract made by the government with the Kingston Locomotive Works Company what is called the ordinary labour clause, and that if it had been done it might have enabled the Department of Labour to intervene effectively in the present difficulty. If that is my hon. friend's view, I cannot say that I entirely agree with him that the inclusion of that clause would have enabled anybody to avoid the trouble which he says has arisen among the workmen in that city. I gathered from what he stated, as near as I could hear him, that the trouble has arisen out of the action of the company in offering special inducements to certain of their workmen to work longer hours with a view of hastening the completion of the locomotives which they are now building for the government. If that has been che cause of the trouble, I cannot see that any clause which could have been incorporated in the contract insisting that the labour should be paid fair wages, would have bettered the case for the men. The complaint is not that any of the men employed are paid below the current rate of wages for such work, but that some are, in effect, being paid more than the current rate of wages. That appears to be the case, if I gathered correctly the purport of the hon. gentleman's statement. I do not think that the inclusion of that clause in the contract would have benefited the position of the men, or would have enabled anybody to intervene with any hope of success. I am not at all sure that the contract which we made with that company is one that could be drawn so as to include that clause he refers to. There are a good many conditions to be considered in connection with 'work of that kind that would add to the difficulties of working out such a clause. I am well assured of that, because the company have been offering inducements to the men to work harder and to work longer hours under their contract, but that is not a fact which could be pointed to as a violation of any such clause. I think every one will agree that it is most unfortunate that this difficulty has arisen. I am also certain that anything the acting minister can do, if the proper conditions exist to justify his intervention, he will be only too glad to do. There is nothing that I can see that the Department of Railways can do in the matter, and I am unable to offer my hon. friend any encouragement from my department, though I think that if there is anything the acting Minister of Labour can do, he would be very glad to tender his friendly offices.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I would like to ask the minister who presides over the Department of Labour if he has had any intimation of the strike at Kingston, because if he has had intimation. I think it is time he sent his deputy there to ascertain the facts, and if the government have contracts with the company, the government should see that justice is done to the men.


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND (North Oxford).: I may say, in reply to my hon. friend, that no application has been made concerning this strike to the Department of Labour. No one knows better than my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) that the department could not interfere, under the Conciliation Act, except on the application of both parties ; both parties must be ready to accept the intervention of the department, who will then endeavour to arrange the difficulties between them. If any application is made to the department it will receive the best consideration, and every effort will be made to bring about conciliation between the men and the company.


Arthur W. Puttee: My principal suggestion /was that, seeing the work being done is government work, and that the fair-wage clause has not been included in the contract, probably it would be as well if the Department of Labour went even a little beyond their powers and sent a man clown there so that he would be ready to tender his services for conciliation, because a trouble of this kind is so much more easily dealt with in its first stages than after it has run a week. This strike is now only two days old, and an effort at conciliation would be worth ten times as much now as it will be later. It seems to me that there is no great breach between the company and the employees, it is only this question of piece work that is in dispute.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he has already spoken. He can only speak again with the consent of the House.


Arthur W. Puttee: The minister seems to have misunderstood me, and I was only explaining that if he understood me to complain that because of the piece work system that has been put in vogue there, some men are earning more money, I did not make myself plain. It always occurs in piece work that after a short time the men are given more work for the same pay, and. therefore, they claim that they are getting less than a day's pay for more than a day's work.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The answer that the hon. acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Sutherland) has given to the House will not. I think, be considered very satisfactory. The Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) brought in a motion in reference to, and including a fair day's wage on all government contracts. Hon. gentlemen boasted, during the election campaign all over the country, that that was one of the commendable features of their legislation. They pointed to the fact that they had brought this resolution into the House. Now, we find in reference to a contract given by the government to the Kingston Locomotive Works that the very clause that they had been boasting about has been omitted from the contract. There is no excuse in this Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).
case at all, because they gave the company a big price. The contract was given -without competition. After this House was solemnly assured that this would become the law of the land, although it did not become the law of the land in the sense we contended it should be by Act of parliament-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace), but I would remind him that he has already spoken on this question. Before six o'clock the motion to go into Committee of Supply was made and the hon. gentleman spoke on the question which was raised by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke). It is the same question that is now before the Chair.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Since then there has been a motion made before the House and the House has voted on it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: This is the same motion. The motion was to go into Committee of Supply and there has been an amendment; so that the motion we are now considering is the same motion.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I had made my statement, Mr. Speaker, before you called my attention to the rule, and I shall not say anything further. I was not aware of the fact to which you have called my attention, or I should not have transgressed in any degree the rule of the House.


TRENT YALLEY CANAL.
Mr. H. A. WARD (East Durham).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to bring to the attention of the government and of the House a few facts relating to the Trent Valley canal. It is not my intention to discuss the wisdom or utility of that great undertaking, the value of which has already been recognized by the governments of both political parties. The former government initiated the work and the present government from time to time are, with the sanction of parliament, appropriating sums of the money looking towards the completion of it. I intend to confine the few remarks I have to make to a statement in reference to the southern end of the canal; that is, to the proposed outlet from Rice Lake to Lake Ontario. It is well known that the proposed outlet to Lake Ontario has always been by the Trent river, and I desire to place a few facts before the House and the government to show that in my opinion, at least, Port Hope is the proper place for that outlet. Quite a number of non. gentlemen who represent constituencies in this House are thoroughly conversant with the ground through which this canal runs, but those hon. gentlemen who are not familiar with the geographical features of this portion of the proposed canal, I will give a short explanation of those features. Rice lake, which lies almost midway between Port Hope and Peterborough, is a lake of about 18 miles in length running


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does not Mr. Rogers explain ?


Henry Alfred Ward: I can find no explanation in the report. There is simply the statement in his estimate, that the amount of earth excavation is 5.500,000 cubic yeards and the amount of rock excavation 175,000 yards, which bears about the same proportion to the amount of rock excavation in Mr. Main-gy's report, as does the amount of earth excavation. Mr. Rogers further estimates the Frankford section of the canal, that is the nearest section to Trenton, at $750,000,

while Mr. Rubidge, another government engineer, estimates that section to cost $1,200,000, or a trifling difference of half a million. Perhaps the hon. Minister of Railways can explain the difference between these two estimates. Mr. Rogers offers no explanation, but simply states that his estimate is $750,000, -while Mr. Rubidge places it at $1,200,000. Again, Mr. Rogers in his estimate puts in almost everything that can possibly be required for completing the canal by way of Port Hope, such as the buying of the harbour, the repairing of the wharfs, &c., which he places at $300,000. But there is not a word said about the harbour of Trenton. 1 believe that the harbour of Trenton has not anything like the depth that the harbour of Port Hope has, and there are no docks there. In all fairness Mr. Rogers should have put iu his report as to the cost of the Trent Valley section, certain expenditure to correspond with that he has estimated in regard to Port Hope. Perhaps I should have stated that in his report he says that the caDal by way of Port Hope will cost just one million dollars more than by way of the Trent river route. My object in comparing the. two reports is to show that Mr. Rogers has not made the same comparative estimate for the Trent river as he has for the Port Hope route. In order to get $2,800,000 as the cost of the Trent river section he takes his own estimate of $750,000 for the Prank-ford section, and he adapts exactly Mr. Rubidge's estimate of the Hoard's creek section which is $2,078,000. He makes no estimate whatever as to the cost of making the remainder of the Trent river navigable. I understand there is a large portion of that river which will require blasting in order to make it navigable. He makes no estimate whatever as to the cost of lands that will be drowned or for lands for right of way.
In all these features of his report, I say he has not been fair to Port Hope in that he has put all these items of expenditure necessary by the Port Hope route, and has taken no notice whatever of them in his estimate for the route by the Trent river.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: As I have already spoken on the motion and will not have an opportunity of saying anything on this subject, perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr.. Ward) will permit me to ask him if he will be good enough_to refer to Mr. Roger's serious objection to the Port Hope route, upon the ground that there is a long mileage there in which small craft .such as will use the canal, would be exposed to the stoi'ms of Lake Ontario; whereas if the ordinary route via the Trent is used there would be protection afforded by the islands all the way down to Lachine.


Henry Alfred Ward: I propose to deal with that question, and I might as well take it up now. The hon. minister will remember that five or six weeks ago an influential deputa-


Henry Alfred Ward: tion waited upon him from, Campbellford, Trenton, Peterborough, Lindsay and other places. By the courtesy of some of its members I was allowed to attend with that deputation, although I- had no opportunity of making any statement there. The minister will recall to mind that in all the speeches before him-possibly with the exception of that of Mr. Dumble, who spoke about the Trent river canal being possibly a rival to the Erie canal-not one of those gentle-imen who addressed the hon. minister on that occasion spoke in any other way of it, but as a route for local traffic. I think this is an answer to the objection that is made in regard to the haul between Port Hope and the Murray canal. I remember how very strongly these gentlemen urged that Peterborough was becoming quite a manufacturing centre and that the large manufacturing interests there required this canal to be built as they should have an outlet to Lake Ontario. In that connection I would bring the attention of the minister to the fact, that at Port Hope there are already three elevators which are quite capable of handling the grain traffic which would come in that direction. I can also point out to the minister, that for this local traffic the freight-would naturally seek an outlet to the city of Toronto, and by the Port Hope route, Peterborough and the districts surrounding is 87 miles nearer Toronto than by way of the Trent river.
There is another consideration which I would bring to the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and that is, that Oak Orchard on the American side is only 39 miles distant from Port Hope, and that there have been frequent discussions about eistablishing a system of very large ferryboats running direct from Oak Orchard to Port Hope, with the idea of the coal supply being brought there for distribution in the country to the north. That is another evidence that Port Hope -would be the proper place for that particular end of the canal, for this reason, that the barges which would bring coal across that short distance of thirty-nine miles, and which would not go by the canal, would be able to tranship the coal at Port Hope, so that it could be landed at Peterborough by a route eighty-three miles shorter than by the Trent river route.
And another thing, Mr. Speaker, by the Trent river route it is necessary to cross railways five times, whereas, going by way of Port Hope, the canal can go under the viaduct, and there is not one crossing really needed ; the advantage of this in the working of the canal is apparent.
I have simply brought these few facts to the attention of the government, with the idea that if they are looked carefully into, and the different reports upon the subject are carefully compared, the government will be inclined before deciding on one route or the other to have a report made by an entirely independent engineer. I do not mean

to attribute to Mr. Rogers the favouring of one route over the other ; but I simply say that from his long association with the canal projected in the other direction, he might possibly have a little bias. I do not go beyond that but I think that the fact of all these discrepancies between his report and the other reports would justify the government in having a report from an independent engineer before a definite conclusion is arrived at, and I would strongly urge the government to do that in justice and fairness to the town of Port Hope. The hon. minister will remember that quite an influential deputation waited upon him, I think, last year, and urged the claims of Port Hope in connection with the canal, and probably most of these facts were then brought to his attention, and I think the hon. minister held out some hopes to the deputation that if it should be found that Port Hope was the natural outlet for the canal, and that its construction could be accomplished a great deal more cheaply in that direction, possibly something would be done-at any rate, that it would be given full consideration before a decision was come to. That is all I ask of the government-that full consideration should be given to the claims of Port Hope, and that the report of an independent engineer should be had before a final conclusion is arrived at.


Mr. JAMES KENDRI (West Peterborough).: I am very glad to hear the hon. member for East Durham (Mr. Ward) discuss the Trent Valley canal ; but I suppose he understands that the idea of the canal going by Port Hope is regarded in this House as a joke, because the distance by that route would be very much longer than by the Trent river, which is the natural route for the canal. Moreover, if the canal went by Port Hope, the damage to the flow of the river would be very great all the way down to the mouth. I have always heard that the engineers favoured the route by the Trent river, and I am very much surprised to hear the hon. member for East Durham advocating the Port Hope route, though I know he is speaking in the interest of his constituents. The hon. gentleman claims that the distance to Toronto via Port Hope would be eighty-seven miles shorter than via Trenton ; but the distance to Montreal would be that much greater. The route by Port Hope would really be a roundabout route. I do not think the hon. gentleman expects that the canal will ever go by Port Hope ; he might as well talk of it going by Toronto. Then, the dangerous part of the lake is between Port Hope and Trenton. I will not object to any surveys being made of the route to Port Hope, because X know that when the Minister of Railways and Canals looks over it, he will see that that is not the proper way, even if it is shorter to the city of Toronto. The object of the canal is not to run to the city of Toronto, but to form part of 171	[DOT]
a through route from the Georgian Bay to the city of Montreal. When the Trent Valley canal is built, I believe it will be equal to the Erie canal. I do not wish to discuss the matter further than simply to protest against the suggestion of the hon. member for East Durham in favour of the canal going by Port Hope.


Henry Alfred Ward: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if the diversion of the water would not be the same by running the canal across the neck of land at what is known as Hoard's creek ? Would not the diversion of the water cause damage there as well ?


James Kendry: It might cause slight damage, but if the canal went to Port Hope the channel would be diverted westward, and the damage would be very great. I know that the Minister of Railways, who has examined this route, will say that the canal migh as well be run to Toronto as to Port Hope. I do not wish to say any more. I simply make my protest.


Mr. BENNETT.: I would like to ask the minister when the completion of the contract between Kirkfleld and Lake Simcoe, on which work is now being carried on, is re^ quired ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not in possession of the information at the present moment. I do not remember the date when the contract for that particular work was to be completed; but when we are in supply I shall have the information for the hon. gentleman.


Henry Alfred Ward: I do not desire to say anything further on this matter ; but I wish to make a correction of one statement I made in my previous remarks. I intended to state that Mr. Maingy's report was for a Afoot canal on the mitre sills, and Mr. Rubidge's and Mr. Rogers' report was for a 5-foot canal.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mr. Rogers' was for 6 feet, I think.


Henry Alfred Ward: Mr. Rubidge's estimate is certainly for a 5-foot canal, and I think Mr Rogers' is the same. I wish to make this statement, in order to be perfectly fair ; but I do not think that even 2 feet of earth excavation would make that tremendous discrepancy, and I believe there is only a difference of 1 foot.


STRIKE AT KINGSTON LOCOMOTIVE WORKS.
Mr. B. M. BRITTON (Kingston).: I hope the House will allow me to make a reference to the strike at Kingston. Not that I desire to force myself on the House, but I think I ought to state the facts of the case. The strike was sudden and entirely unexpected by the proprietors of the Kingston Locomotive Works. The labourers made a

demand against the company for 10 cents per day increase in their wages. I may add that the strike is entirely confined to the labourers and does not extend to the other classes of workmen. The labourers were already paid from $1.20 to $1.65 per day. The superintendent was out of town, and the proprietors asked that the limit of ten days-which was given in the ultimatum of the labourers, after which they declared they would go on strike if their demand was not acceded to-be extended. They had every reason to believe that this request for an extension would be granted because of the very pleasant relations which hitherto had existed between them and the men. However, no answer was given, and on the 16th the men went on strike, which involved practically the closing of all the works, as the machinists could not work when the labourers did not.
While my sympathies would naturally be; with the men, if they are underpaid, I think it but fair that I should put before the House the case of the proprietors, as it was stated in last night's papers by Mr. Birmingham, one of the managers :
We received no reply to the answer we sent the union or any intimation that our answer was unsatisfactory until we found that the men were on strike. We have no fight with the machinists. The premium system is now in operation in all the shops. The men have asked for it. Through its workings the amount of wages paid the men has increased 17 per cent since January. In some cases we have already decided upon an increase. In other cases, we have decided not to grant an increase. We propose to pay as much as similar labourers get in other shops. It seems extraordinary that we should be singled out by the unions, when the Kingston foundry pays only $1.10 a day for the same work as we pay $1.20 for. The fact is, we are paying higher wages to labourers than similar labourers in other institutions are receiving. We told the committee this morning that the men could stay out or come back, just as they liked. A committee representing the striking union waited upon the company this morning and were given an audience. President Flanigan explained that the company's reply to their demands had been favourably considered, but the company's 'action in discharging one Connolly yesterday had precipitated the trouble. The union thought other men would be discharged to-day, more next day and so on, until the power of the union would be broken.
That is practically the position of tbe matter to-day. While I admit that the Minister of Labour, under tbe recent Act, lias no authority to act in a matter of this kind, it seems to me that bis mediation might very well be offered. Although tbe labouring men believe that their wages are too small, these wages are larger than are paid for similar work in other shops, and the employers declare that they have decided upon a certain advance, so that very likely, even without any intervention, the trouble will come to a speedy termination. But I agree with tbe bon. member for Winnipeg that the best way to settle these difficulties is to Mr. BHITTON.
act promptly, and I hope that the acting Minister of Labour will offer his services as mediator at this juncture and that tbe difficulty will be brought to a close.


Robert Laird Borden: It might be desirable to know to what extent Mr. O'Donogbue, tbe fair-wage officer of the government, has reported on tbe wages paid to these men. In an issue of tbe Labour Gazette of September, there is a statement of tbe qualifications of Mr. O'Donoghue for a position to which be was appointed, and tbe writer proceeds as follows :
In connection. with the duties of his office, Mr. O'Donoghue is required to report to the government on the rate of wages current in the districts where government work, whether by contract or otherwise, is being carried out. It is also his duty to assist in the preparation of * fair wages ' schedules, to be incorporated in the conditions of contracts awarded by the government, and to see that contractors comply with these conditions when made. Mr. O'Donoghue entered upon the duties of his office almost immediately after his appointment, and has since visited industrial centres in all parts of the Dominion where government work is being carried on. In one or two instances he has reported that the rates being paid were not those current in the district, and the government has taken immediate steps to secure the payment of a fair wage.
Putting aside for a moment the question of the duty of tbe government to have incorporated tbe fair-wages clause in tbe contract for this work, it would seem that the duties of Mr O'Donogbue involve his reporting to the government on tbe rate of wages paid on this government contract. On that point, we ought to have some information from tbe acting Minister of Labour. I did not quite catch from the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston what is the rate of wages paid.


Byron Moffatt Britton: $1.20 to $1.25 per day.


Robert Laird Borden: On looking over the schedules of wages, many of which are incorporated in tbe Labour Gazette for September last, I find that, with one or two exceptions, the wages amount to at least $1.25, and in many cases to very much more than that, for ordinary labourers, and that in districts not remote from Kingston.
For example, take tbe drill hall at Brock-ville, ordinary labourers received $1.25, and for skilled workmen tlie rates ran up to $3 a day. In tbe works on the St. Andrew's rapids, Manitoba, ordinary labourers were paid $1.80 a day, while tbe rates for skilled workmen ran up to $4 a day. Then, take tbe case of tbe contract for a high level pier and two bulkheads, Montreal harbour-ordinary workmen, $1.25 a day, skilled workmen, $2.75, and some as high as $3.25 a day. Then, tbe contracts for tlie superstructure for the highway bridge at Ottawa, ordinary workmen, $1.35 a day, skilled workmen all the way up to $3 a day. Then, take the contract for the drill hall, Windsor, Ont.: ordinary labourers $1.50 per day, and skilled
5445 MAT 17, 1901 5446	
workmen, $3 a day. Then, certain work to be done in connection with the Chaudiere slide, Ottawa ; in respect to tbe work to be performed in Ottawa, ordinary workmen received $1.25 a day, and skilled workmen $2.25 a day. And so on, in half a dozen other cases with which I will not trouble the House. In no case, with one or two exceptions, do I find the rate for ordinary labour to be below $1.25 a day. Now, I think it would have been proper, this resolution having been passed by the House last year- and we on this side desired that it would take the form of a statute, but it did not take that form-I see no good reason why the clause should not have been inserted in this contract; and, even if not inserted, there seems no reason why Mr. O'Donoghue should not have employed himself to see that the labourers in Kingston were paid such rates as were fixed by the government themselves. The terms of the resolution of last year, so far as I could understand them, would seem to include a case of this kind. I will read a portion of it that is applicable : That it be resolved, that all government contracts should contain such conditions as will prevent abuses, which may arise from the subletting of such contracts, and that every effort should be made to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried out. If the government had insisted upon this clause being inserted in this contract and had prepared such a schedule as was prepared in other eases, there is not much doubt that the wages would have been fixed at rates that would have prevented this trouble. Judging by the press reports the strike seems to be an important one-400 men out of work. The question between the men and their employers, as I understand it, is whether $1.20 a day is enough for ordinary labour or not. The newspaper report that I have is that they demanded an advance to $1.25 per day. But the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) understands that their demand is for $1.30 a day. Mr. BRITTON. They demanded an increase of 10 cents a day on whatever the amount was. Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND. With the permission of the House, I will say a word to the hon. member (Mr. Borden, Halifax). There will be differences of opinion, of course, but a contract such as this has not been construed as one of those to which the resolution applied. Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). Is there any difference in principle ? Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND. There may be a considerable difference in principle. Where the government let a contract they have direct control. But where they purchase goods from individual firms, I do not see how they could well go so far as to regu-171i	late wages. However, as I say, it is a question on which there are differences of opinion. The statement of the manager is that the labourers are receiving $1.20 to $1.60, which would be considerably over the average rates that the hon. gentleman has quoted as the current rates for the different districts. He quoted wages in districts all the way from Montreal to Windsor. Mr. BORDEN (Hailfax). With the hon. gentleman's permission, I would say that the increased rates to which he refers are, according to the report which is before me, not applicable to ordinary labour, but applicable to skilled labour, for instance, drillers, $1.35 ; fitters' helpers, $1.30, and so on, through a long list which I need not quote. Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND. I am not able to say from personal knowledge, but I have stated that no information has been sent to the department in regard to the matter, nor has any application been made by either party. My hon. friend will easily see that the Department of Labour, to be effective, must act under the statute. On the other hand, it will be always ready to offer assistance that can be accepted by the parties. The object of establishing the department is to bring about conciliation between employees and employers. I am sure that the department or its officers will not stand upon any point of etiquette, but will be only too glad if they can by offering their services bring about an arrangement between the parties. As to the contract being one that would come under the resolution, there seems to be a difference of opinion. But I doubt very much if my hon. friend would say, if it were the case of a government purchase of an article from a firm or an individual that the government could interfere with the wages paid. Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). My hon. friend, of course, will see that the argument I made did not require me to go that far. I was talking about the case of a government ordering things to be manufactured by a company that does that kind of work. I do not at present, subject to my hon. friend's correction, see that there is any difference of principle between a case of that kind and the case of a government employing a man to erect a bridge. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. Or giving a contract for the making of mail bags. Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND. Some of the officials in the different departments have put a somewhat different construction upon it. The endeavour of the department and its officials is to carry out the spirit of the resolution. So far as I am concerned, I will endeavour to take whatever action I can to bring about conciliation between the two parties. Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Before going on with these items, I desire to correct a mistake I made the other night when I was asked about the reports of the Geological Survey. I think I left the impression on the committee that there was no special arrangement under which these reports were supplied to the book stores. I find that there has been for some years a practice in the department of placing these reports in the hands of certain booksellers In different parts of the country, and they sell them at the schedule price, and are allowed a commission of 25 per cent. My hon. friend who brought the matter up was quite correct, and I was wrong.
Department of Indian Affairs-To provide an additional amount for day, boarding and industrial schools-Manitoba and the North-west Territories, $6,800.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is- the additional amount required ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are three residences which we find it necessary to provide the principals of the industrial schools, at St. Paul, near Winnipeg, Calgary and Elkhorn, 81,800 each. For the Elkhorn school we have to provide for fire protection, 8400 ; for painting a portion of the building, 8300 ; Oxford House, teacher's salary, 8200 ; Island Lake, 8300 ; Norway House, enlarging the public school building, 8600 ; to provide material for boarding school, Norway House, 8100. These were matters which had been pressed upon my attention during the early part of the year, but I had not decided to recommend them until after the main estimates had been settled. I had not as much information about them as would enable me to settle them, and parties came and pressed the matter upon my attention, and gave me further information, and amongst a large number of similar applications that were made, I decided to recommend these small amounts.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman will permit me to mention a matter that I should have brought to his attention when the items respecting the Geological Survey were before the House. I have had placed in my hands a letter in which it is stated that the Minister of the Interior had granted leave of absence to one of the members of the Geological Survey to do some exploring for a Dr. Mond, of England. The complaint is, that if a privilege of that kind is granted to any one person it should be granted to others. As a matter of fact, I 'think it ought not to be granted to any person. I do not know whether there is anything in the statement, but, I think it my duty to bring it to the attention of the minister.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I may say that one of the most serious difficulties in administering the affairs of the Geological Survey consists in maintaining a Mr. SUTHERLAND (Oxford).
dividing line between work of a commercial character and work which is done for the scientific purposes of the department by officers of the Geological Survey. We continually have applications for officers of the Geological Survey to make an examination of particular places where we have reason to believe that the reports are intended to be used for speculative purposes, or for the purpose of enhancing the value of certain properties. We have endavoured consistently to avoid that in every case where it has been possible to do so. But, in the case referred to, after a good deal of consultation with Dr. Bex, the acting director of the survey, I concluded that it was a case in which we could afford in the general interests of the country, to relax the rule. Dr. Barlow is the gentleman referred to. Dr. Mond is a wealthy Englishman, who has also some pretention to being a scientific man, being a member of the Royal Society of England. He has expended, I believe, in the neighbourhood of a million dollars in the development of the nickel industry in the vicinity of Sudbury. He made a special request to the director of the survey that Dr. Barlow, who had given special attention to the deposits of nickel, should be allowed to spend six months in working up that 'portion of country, and offered to defray all his expenses, the conditions being that the survey should have the scientific results In the form of a report from Dr. Barlow at the end of the term. I am aware that it was a departure from the ordinary rule, but after consultation with the acting director, and after receiving his strong opinion to the effect that it was advisable under the circumstances, I decided to do it, and I think in this particular case it was desirable to relax the general rule. The hon. gentleman will see that, because this industry is being developed on such a large scale, the person promoting it, desiring to secure the services of this one man whom he conceived to be a man in whom he could have absolute confidence, and the whole country being interested in the development of that industry, I agreed to a departure from the rule in that case. I do not believe in permitting the officers of the Survey to be diverted from their work, but I think in this special case I was justified in doing it.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think that it would be better to permit officers to perform such services only in very special cases, and I am not sure that it is wise to per-1 mit them at all, because the hon. gentleman will see that it is bound to produce feeling among other people who are seeking to develop mineral interests in adjacent territory. They will come to the hon. gentleman and ask a similar favour. If he persists in allowing that, in a great many cases, it must interfere with the work of the department, and if he does not do so it is bound to produce feeling. I think there is another reason stronger than that, and it is

that the members of the Geological Survey should be kept free from connection with business matters of this kind. The country no doubt has sustained very great loss in the death of Dr. Dawson who, in that respect, as in all other respects, set a splendid example to the members of the Geological Survey. I am of opinion from What little experience and knowledge I have of these matters, that it is not a desirable thing that members of the Geological Survey should be employed by persons in this way at all. I do not say that the circumstances in this case were not of a special character, but I th.nk it would be a wholesome rule if it were not permitted to be done at all. I think there would be less danger in that way than in pursuing the other course, because those seeking to develop the country can procure the services of experts apart from the Geological Survey. I do not think the interests of the country will suffer much by refusing the services of officers of the Geological Survey which I think they may suffer if this practice is indulged in.


Mr. OLIVER.: Does the hon. gentleman-(Mr. Borden, Halifax) object to the principle of lending members of the Geological Survey ?


Robert Laird Borden: To business enterprises ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I most certainly do.


Frank Oliver: Because I would think, as far as I have been able to judge by the results. that it would be rather a good thing for this country if we could persuade some body to steal them all.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I do not know about that.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) made this remark as a joke, I would not think it was necessary to reply to it, but I rather think he is serious on the question.	I
wholly and entirely differ from him.	I
think the country owes a great deal to these men that it will never be able to repay, and I trust that we will be able to give a reasonable appreciation to the labours of the scientific men who have devoted themselves to the country. We have men in the Geological Survey who could earn three times the salaries if they did not desire to devote all their lives to the scientific calling-in which they are engaged.


Robert Laird Borden: Outside of Dr. Dawson I have had very little connection with any of them, but I have been brought into contact with two or three of them and I think they are men of high character anti ability and in every way satisfactory.
Indians-To provide an amount to promote the education of Indians in Yukon territory, $5 -*000.
- 

f


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are about 300 or 400 Indians in the Yukon territory, and I have asked the new commissioner, Mr. Ross, to be prepared to make a recommendation as to the best method beginning the work of providing some education for the children. I have asked for this vote in a preliminary way to get the work started.
Dominion Lands-Chargeable to Income-Additional sum for salaries of extra clerks at head office in connection with patents for railway land grants, $3,500.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the necessity for so many additional clerks ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This is simply a vote for the purpose of paying for such copying clerks as may be required for the purpose of copying patents. I took an additional grant in the main estimates of $5,000, and we find that is not likely to be quite sufficient. We hope to get the work done during the next nine or ten months. Of course, this particular vote will be expended in accordance with the Civil Service Act. Any clerks that will be employed will have to pass the civil service examination.
Dominion Lands-Chargeable to' Capital-Further amount required for surveys, $50,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total amount for surveys, and why is a further amount required ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: In the main estimates, in which we provided for surveys, the surveyor general did not include anything for surveys in the Yukon, and the estimate which we make for the work in the Yukon is as follows : We shall have eight employees besides the labouring men, and the salaries will amount to $10,145, and living allowance to $11,400, making $21,545. In addition to that there is $25,000 for -the purpose of paying the cost of survey parties, which makes altogether $46,545. There may be some small expenses in the way of the payment of labouring men required so that we have to ask for a vote in round figures of $50,000.


John Graham Haggart: Why is the amount so much increased this year over last ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The department is simply struggling to keep ahead of settlement and as the lands are exhausted that have been subdivided we have to survey all parts of the country wherever the settlers go. It would be cheaper to survey in a block, but the people go wherever the land is reported to be desirable, and it is quite impossible to keep ahead of settlement with the amount of money at our disposal.


John Graham Haggart: What are these surveyors doing in the Yukon ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: These gentlemen are making surveys of the creeks on which there are mining locations. The whole difficulty which arose in connection with the administration of mining claims in the early administration of that country arose from the fact that there was no survey, and the descriptions were so indeterminate that the mining recorders were necessarily led into mistakes. Now the mining recorder despatches a party to make a survey of the creek and record it. It is impossible to administer the mining laws without that.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. Are the surveys done by contract, or by the day ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: All by the day ; we cannot get them by contract there.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. Who are the surveyors?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are three qualified Dominion land surveyors ; James Gibbon, P. C. T. Dumais, and C. W. McPherson.


John Graham Haggart: How much do you pay them ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We give the qualified land surveyors .$150 per month with the usual monthly allowance of $150. It is very hard to keep them there.
To build fence between Ridingstone police post and Milk River along international boundary, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF INTERIOR.: There is a fertile strip which runs up from the boundary line almost south of Lethbridge, and for many years past the American stockmen have made a practice of allowing then-cattle to drift up this fertile strip and enter the Canadian territory, eating the grass and practically driving the Canadian ranchmen out of their field. The ranchmen have made complaints continually for the last four years. Various remedies have been suggested, but I took the ground that we were not getting sufficient revenue from that country to justify us in doing anything to protect the grazing. Most of the men who are grazing cattle there were not paying? any rent, and I said that until we got some rent out of this portion of the country, we could not afford to spend any money. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture employed some line riders to keep the American cattle out, but that was abandoned. There has been a number of leases recently taken out by ranchmen in that neighbourhood, and these leases will give us a yearly revenue of about $7,000 or $8,000. There are other applications before the department which will bring that amount up to double that amount. Lately, when I was in the west, a number of these ranchmen took the trouble to come all the way down to Winnipeg to meet me, and after discussing the situation fully I thought it would be Mr. HAGGART.
economy for us to put up these fences and prevent the American cattle from drifting in.


John Graham Haggart: Don't you think the ranchmen ought to build the fences themselves ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The ranchmen undertook to supervise the construction of the fence ; the government paying for the material and labour.


James Clancy: Who will maintain the fence in the future ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The ranchmen undertook to maintain the fence and see that it is maintained in order.
Amount required for engraving, lithographing and printing large maps of the Dominion, $25,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think the time has come when we ought to have a good map of Canada. The various departments have issued different kinds of maps for one purpose or another. My own department has been engaged in issuing sectional maps of Dominion lands, but for a considerable number of years there has been no good map of Canada. The demands that come to the government in a great many ways for an accurate map, puts us in the position of being practically compelled to do this. The geographer of the Department of the Interior, who is a very capable man, has been engaged now for over a year upon this work. The map I think will be creditable to the country. It will be engraved on copper and the details will be brought out in a thoroughly satisfactory way. Of course the preparation of a map is a very difficult task and sometimes maps are very disappointing when they are issued, but I have very great hope that this map will be a very creditable production. For the first time in Canada a map is being issued of the whole country, engraved on copper, and giving detailed information in such a way that the small places can be found without difficulty. Information regarding water powers will also be shown. We cannot hope to show them all of course, but they will be given in the more important places and the number of feet of the fall will be indicated. All valuable information which will not encumber the map too much will be included. We intend to issue a second edition giving geological information, showing the different formations, and that, I think, will be of very great interest. I expect that $25,000 will pay the expense, but it may be necessary to ask for a small supplementary vote next year.


John Graham Haggart: We have been promised the geological map for four or five years, and it is high time it should be ready. Portions of that map were engraved on copper and the government should possess the copper plates, as you need only to supplement them to a small extent for the

purpose of getting an excellent map of the Dominion. That geological map has been dribbling along for thirty years, and surely it should be ready now. I think there were large sums of money paid to the party who had the printing of the notes for the government. I would like to know if the government have possession of the plates, and intend to utilize them ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have no doubt we have the plates, but I cannot say when we are likely to get out the ,map. Some little time ago I had a talk with Dr. Bell about it. He admitted that it was pretty far behind, and he asked me for a vote of $4,000 for the purpose of bringing it up-to-date. I am quite willing to engage that before next year I will see that every possible expedition is used in its preparation. Of course, there is a vast amount of information which has to be placed on the general map of Canada which would not be placed on the map to which my hon. friend refers. As to the copper plates for this map, we shall have them in our possession, and they will be available for any future issue, as fresh data can be engraved upon them.


John Graham Haggart: I think that possibly the delay in the issue of the map is due to differences of opinion on the part of the officers of the department as to the geological strata of the country. One lays them down in one way, and his successor changes them. I think you ought to impress on the department the necessity of immediately getting out that map.
To provide tor expenses and salaries connected with the commission appointed to inquire into halt-breed claims in the North-west Territories, out of which payment may be made to J. A. J. McKenna as half-breed commissioner, notwithstanding anything In the Civil Service Act, $10,200.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This is for the completion of the work of the half-breed commission which has been sitting off and on for the last two years. I think this is the last vote that parliament will be asked for in connection with it. Mr. McKenna is going out in a mouth or two to dispose of the cases not hitherto disposed of. The estimate is made up as follows : Remuneration of the commissioner to September 30, three months, at $5 a day, $450 ; remuneration of clerks, one at $150 a month, $450 ; and two at $100 a month each, $600 ; transport, cooks and other persons, $5,200 ; supplies, living expenses, &c., $3,500. I think the work of the commission will be completed before September, so that ,we may not be required to spend all the money.


John Graham Haggart: What has been the total cost of this commission up to the present time ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We took last year $29,465, and we are now asking $10,200, which will make the total about $39,665.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. What sittings are to be held to complete the work ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, I have not a copy of the notice sent out; but sittings will be held at Birtle, on the west side of Lake Manitoba, at Killarney, at Regina, at Calgary, at Edmonton, and probably at one or two points further north. My hon. friend will see that we have avoided holding sittings in the old province of Manitoba.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I understand that there are a few claims in the old province of Manitoba that have not yet been disposed of.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There may be, and if such claims are brought to the attention of the commissioner, he will have authority to hold a sitting at Winnipeg.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Will there be a sitting at Winnipegosis ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, one in that neighbourhood.
To provide for costs of litigation in re Qu'-Appelle vs. the King, $5,000.


James Clancy: What is that ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The government is sued by the Qu'Appelle and Wood Mountain Railway Company for the specific performance of an agreement to give a land grant. There is a dispute as to the quality of the land, and the matter has been brought before the courts.
Further amount required for the cost of investigations and demarcations in connection with the international boundary, and other astronomical work of the department, $27,500.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I explained, when the supplementary estimates for the current year were before the House, that we were now engaged in preparing for remarking the international boundary line under an arrangement with the United States government-not a treaty-at certain points where the mounds and posts have been removed. The total estimate was $35,000. We took an estimate of $7,500 .which paid the expenses up to the 1st of July, and this is the balance.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Would it not be possible to arrange with the United States to remark the south-eastern boundary of Manitoba, in order to avoid the crooked line that has been made there, and to obtain that little portion of territory which properly belongs to the province of Manitoba, but which is now claimed by the United States.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I
do not think there would be the least use of

holding out any encouragement that any arrangement satisfactory to us could be made in regard to that piece of territory. There is no doubt, I think, that the United States are entitled to it under the agreement made. The only way tq get it would be to trade off something else for it. Since my term of office there has been no communication in regard to it, but there was in a former period, and no encouragement was held out by the United States that they would relinquish that piece of territory.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know what is the state of the facts in regard to the international line between Canada and the United States. I tried to ascertain by examining ' Hansard ' for 1899 and 1900, and I found that the premier mentioned that a proposal had been made to the United States. When the arrangements were completed the papers were to have been laid before, the House. I have looked over the indices of 1899 and 1900, and can not find any reference to the papers having come down.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The papers have not been brought down. In pursuance of the arrangement arrived at to agree on a provisional boundary, commissioners were appointed by the two governments. We appointed Mr. W. F. King, chief astronomer of the Department of the Interior, who had been commissioner when the former arrangement was made. He proceeded with the United States commissioner, and they marked out a provisional boundary line between British Columbia and this country. The part of the boundary line which required to be marked was that extending westward from Chilkoot Pass, covering the territory north of what is known as Pyramid Harbour. There was no necessity for marking the boundary in the Chilkoot Pass, because it was agreed that the summit should be the provisional boundary. The same may be said of the White Pass. There is no travel at other than these points because they are simply mountain ranges. But there is travel by way of Pyramid Harbour and what is known as the Dalton trail. Of course there it was necessary to make a provisional boundary. These lines the commissioners have marked. The papers were only laid before me for my formal approval a few days ago, and the order in council approving of them is only recently passed. We can have the papers laid on the Table before the House rises.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be very glad if the hon. gentleman would do so. I think that the papers should he printed and put in the hands of every member.
To provide aid to cottage hospitals in the North-west Territories, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This is in connection with what is known


Mr. SIFTON.: as the Lady Minto scheme for cottage hospitals, whereby these small cottage hospitals will be started at places where no accommodation of the kind is provided. The largest portion of the expenditure is provided by private subscription.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a grant we should all support.
Additional for North-west Territories exhibit at Buffalo, $1,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is this a separate item ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The North-west government is not in the position of a provincial government. It is still supposed to be in swaddling clothes. They get a certain fixed sum which they expend in a certain way, and if anything extra turns up we have to make a special grant. I was anxious, too, that we should have an exhibit from the Territories at the Pan-American exhibition, because there will be many visitors from the western states from which we expect to get immigration.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax. I was not objecting, but only wanted to know why there was a special vote.
Preparing and printing Dr. Rand's English-Micrnac dictionary (revote), $935.	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Years
ago Dr. Rand's dictionary was undertaken by the Dominion government, and a portion of the work remained undone, and it was deemed well to take an appropriation of $1,000 a year ago. We have only spent a very small sum, and this is a revote.


Mr. KAULBACH.: As we are discussing estimates of the Interior Department, I would ask the bon. minister if the geological branch is confined altogether to minerals ? Would it not be in the interests of the country that we should have a bacteriological department ? There is only one in Canada, the one at Montreal.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not care to express any opinion, because that is a matter which would come under the Department of Agriculture and not of the Geological Survey.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: No portion of that is in the branch of agriculture, but I care not in which department it may be, provided there is one here.
Additional plant for Printftig Bureau (revote, $21,000), $23,800.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a general desire that we should do more work in the Bureau. We have not provided for an extension of the building, but this is for additional plant which all agree is necessary.


James Clancy: Will that equip the Bureau fairly well ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It does not go as far as the report of the Committee on Printing has recommended. The committee have recommended an extension of the building. This is simply for additional plant.
Miscellaneous-To pay for 500 copies of the Parliamentary Guide, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a volume with which hon. members of the House are familiar. It is issued every new parliament, and provision is made for the purchase by the government of a reasonable number.
Miscellaneous-To pay expenses1 in connection with the King vs. British American Bank Note Company, $7,500.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may explain this case generally, though the Solicitor General will give further information if it is desired. This is to pay the legal expenses for prosecuting a suit against a company in Ottawa with which the government had difficulty.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What was the difficulty?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The suit was taken against the company on the ground that it had not supplied certain material which it was required to supply under its contract with the government. The government have practically obtained a decision in its favour, though I think it is yet to be confirmed formally by the judge.


Robert Laird Borden: If the government have practically obtained a decision, why is it that the expenses should be so high as to require this amount of money ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If there is any question I would be contented to leave the matter for the Solicitor General to explain. The question, as I understand it, was referred to an officer of the court for examination, and a report has been made favourable to the government. I am not quite prepared to say at this moment that the matter has been finally decided.


Robert Laird Borden: This may be to provide for expenses which may be recovered. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) might make a note of it and explain, the matter more fully at a later sitting. In the meantime, let the item pass.
Miscellaneous-To provide for expenses of reception to their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York, $120,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This item does not require much explanation. We are all aware that, to the satisfaction of the people of the whole Dominion, Her late Majesty was pleased to express her willingness that their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York should
pay a visit to Canada. The death of the Sovereign created some doubt as to whether this would be carried out; but, the King has been pleased to confirm the decision given by the late Sovereign. As it is well known, their Royal Highnesses are now in Australia. It is expected that they will reach Canada in the autumn. The time allowed for their visit is but too short. According to the plans prepared by the Imperial government, they will be here but thirty-two days. , Up to the present time, we have no detailed plan of arrangements for the visit to the Dominion. No doubt, later on, the official programme will be prepared. We shall be subject to such arrangements as will be agreeable to the Imperial authorities. Our idea is that in most of the provinces the local governments and municipal authorities will make liberal provision for the reception of the royal party. But, here and there there will be links to fill in. The royal party will cross the continent and will return. It was thought they might be induced to land on the Pacific coast and cross to the Atlantic. However, for various reasons, that was found inconvenient. They will land on the Atlantic coast, there is still some question whether at Halifax or at Quebec. This will be decided soon. The present vote, as I have said, is to make provision for the proper reception of their Royal Highnesses, and to supply deficiencies in the provisions made by municipal or provincial governments. Of course, we are all anxious that the reception of the royal pair should be characterized by the dignity which is due to their distinguished position. Therefore, we think it well to take this general vote. -
Post Office-To increase the.salary of the postmaster of London, Ont., from $2,200 to $2,400, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


James Sutherland: Under the
Act, postmasters of offices the revenue of which is $60,000 or $80,000 receive a salary of $2,400. As the revenue of the London post office is between $05,000 and $70,000, the postmaster there is entitled to this under the Act.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: How long has the present incumbent been in office ?


James Sutherland: I think a
couple of years. He is a very efficient officer, one of the most efficient in the Dominion.
Post Office-To increase the salary of B. J. Hanlon, letter carrier at Kingston from $390 to $420, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.


Mr. WILSON.: Under what conditions do postmasters who are paid on commission receive the rent of boxes, and for what do they receive them ?


James Sutherland: There is no fixed plan, but I understand that where the postmaster is paid a commission, he gets the rent of the boxes as well. There is no fixed plan.


Uriah Wilson: There must be some general principle. Take a case where there is a public building owned by the government. There are boxes which a customer may rent.


James Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman refers to cases of public buildings, I will get the information.


Uriah Wilson: I presume that where they have to rent their own building, they put up the boxes at their own expense, and are entitled to the rent of them. But, when the government provides a building, I would like to know on what condition the postmaster is entitled to the rent of the boxes. I understood that formerly they received a large portion of the rent in return for keeping the place in order ?


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to bring to the attention of the acting Postmaster General a matter which I brought to the attention of the Postmaster General in 1899 and 1900. This is a grievance with respect to private mail bags, the gentleman complaining being Mr. W. C. Henley, of Spry Bay, Halifax county. If the hon. gentleman will refer to my letter to the Postmaster General, of 15th August, 1900, and the file of correspondence, which is somewhat voluminous, he will understand the situation directly. The Postmaster General complied with the request that I mad^ in 1899, and restored to this man the privilege of having his mail brought to him in a private mail bag; a practice that prevails in many other places in the province and in the Dominion. Afterwards, some technical objection was raised with regard to it. I have pointed out that the same practice prevails regarding two or three other persons in the county of Halifax. This same objection prevails with regard to these. I find that the privilege which Mr. Henley asks for is allowed to Henry Hall, John Kirker, Alice McKenzie and John G. Reynolds, very respectable people in the county. It is not a question of cost at all. The post office carrier is willing to bring the bag back. Mr. Henley is perfectly willing to say to the Post Office Department that he does not require them to be responsible for the mails so delivered. An objection has been raised on a ground which the hon. gentleman will see, if he looks at the correspondence, applies to at least three other cases in the county. I say that all those men should be treated exactly alike. If it is not right in Mr. Henley's case, it is not right in any case ; but if it is right in other eases, he should be allowed the same privilege.
To increase the salary of H. A. McGrady, third-class clerk in the office of the superintendent Mr. WILSON.
of railway mail service from $400 to $600, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $200.


Arthur W. Puttee: I see there is no provision made for a general increase in the letter carriers' salaries. The acting Postmaster General and the Minister of Finance will remember that a day or two previous to the Postmaster General leaving for Australia, he promised a delegation that he was leaving a memorandum for the consideration of the government favourable to the request that was then being made. Myself and a good many others looked forward with anticipations that they would be provided for in the supplementary estimates. I should be glad if the acting minister could give us any hope that the matter is to be dealt with.


James Sutherland: I may say to my hon. friend that the Postmaster General, as he knows, left rather hurriedly, and this is one of the few matters that he left for consideration. He had two or three plans under consideration, and with regard to them there was a difference of opinion. I came to the conclusion that it was in the interest of the letter carriers that this matter should be left over until the next session. I am satisfied, after the consideration that I have been able to give it, and after a consultation with a deputation of letter carriers and with my colleagues, that it would be to their advantage to have this matter left over until next session, when a plan that I think is sure to meet with their wishes, will be carried out.


Arthur W. Puttee: The case of the letter carriers is apt to suffer somewhat by delay. It will be remembered that their case is principally based upon the ground that the cost of living has materially increased in this country during the last two or three years.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think it is discreditable to the government that no conclusion has been arrived at in this case. We know that the government has not given the statutory increases to which the letter carriers are entitled. We know that the government has not considered, favourably at any rate, the question of increasing the pay of the letter carriers. Memorials have been presented and facts have been given for the increase of their salaries, and I think they have made a strong case. We were led to believe that this matter was going to be provided for by the Postmaster General, and now we have the acknowledgment of the acting Postmaster General that nothing has been done in the matter. Of course, the acting minister may feel that it is not incumbent on him to take any part in the matter. I think it is, because the absence of a minister is no reason why the public service should suffer, and why injustice should be done to a large army of employees who do their duty faithfully and efficiently, and who are perhaps

the most hard-worked officers in the whole public service. We had an assurance from the Postmaster General last year that during the recess, the matter would be investigated and justice done to the letter carriers. But so far he has not redeemed his promise.
I think the statement made by the acting Postmaster General that the scheme will be more satisfactory if left over until next year, is less satisfactory still, because that was the story told last year. The letter carriers are losing their statutory increases, to which they are entitled, and they are losing the larger consideration of a general increase in salaries, making the maximum higher than it is at present. I think they are at present the most underpaid of all the civil service officials.


James Sutherland: There are two sides to that question. I agree with the hon. gentleman that we have no right to shirk the question on account of the absence of the Postmaster General. But there is a difference of opinion with regard to the best way to meet their wishes. My hon. friend must not forget that he was a member of the late government, which passed an Act by whieh the salaries were reduced and fixed.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Did the minister say the salaries were reduced ?


James Sutherland: I understood so, speaking subject to correction.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Not at all. More than that, they got their statutory increases every year, those that were entitled to them. The present government have stopped their statutory increases, and the statement that this is a legacy is quite erroneous.


James Sutherland: I would ask my hon. friend to look into the facts.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: ^1 have done so.


James Sutherland: And we will decide as to whether it was not under the Act of the late government. There are a great many cases that have come under my notice, and I have done all I could under the regulations to better the condition of carriers in the cities, and I think to the satisfaction of those directly interested. X am satisfied it will be in the interest of the letter carriers. It is only a matter of a few months when we will have an opportunity of agreeing upon a plan that will be in their interests.
To provide for the appointment of six train porters, $2,400.


Robert Laird Borden: May I take this opportunity of asking the hon. acting Postmaster General to look into the mail service between Sheet Harbour and Moser's River via Dufferin Mines, and also the service between Sheet Harbour and Sherbrooke. Sheet Harbour is in the county of Halifax.


Mr. FRASER.: Tenders have been called for a daily service from Sherbrooke to Sheet Harbour, and the time will be up on the 24th.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the service throughout the winter has been very poor indeed. It has been described as simply disgraceful. I have a large number of complaints with which I shall not trouble the committee, but I will put them in the form of a letter to the hon. acting Postmaster General so that he may consider what remedy shall be proper. I have a second letter stating that tenders have been called for the service between Sheet Harbour and Sherbrooke, but I do not know whether tenders have been invited for the service between Sheet Harbour and Moser's River by way of Dufferin Mines.


James Sutherland: I will look into the matter.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: What the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has said is absolutely correct. It was a triweekly service and it was wretchedly performed, but now they are to have a daily service.


James Clancy: What are going to be the duties of these train porters ? Do they take the places of the mail clerks ?


James Sutherland: When the Bill was put through providing for the appointment of these train porters I explained their duties very fully. It has been represented by officials of the department and particularly by the superintendent of the railway mail service that we pay out a large amount of money in mileage to railway mail clerks who simply accompany the regular mail clerks on days when they have a very large mail, principally out of cities. It would be a considerable saving to have a class of train porters such as has been provided for iu the Bill. They do not act as mail clerks. When a regular mail clerk is sent out he has practically to do manual labour, handling bags, &c., and he draws his mileage. These men are appointed at a minimum salary of $600, and they will do this work at a considerable saving to the department.


James Clancy: Is that salary stationary ?


Arthur W. Puttee: Is the salary $600 ?


James Sutherland: I think it is.


Arthur W. Puttee: You are only asking for $2,400, which would only provide for four train porters.


James Sutherland: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. The salary is $400 to begin with, and they are entitled to their increase.


Arthur W. Puttee: I think the department shouid try to get along with a less number of train porters and give them a larger amount each. It does not seem to me that

we should he starting more men at a salary of $400 a year. These men will be travelling, they will have to live in cities and if they are not allowed any mileage as I do not suppose they will be, the pay which it is proposed to give them is altogether inadequate. I think that four train porters at $600 a year each would be a better arrangement.


Edward Hackett: I would like to call the attention of the kon. acting Postmaster General to the fact that the mails which arrive at Summerside in Prince Edward Island every evening from Pointe du Chene are transferred to Charlottetown, are there assorted after going over fifty miles one way and are then sent back over the same route to the people living in the western part of Prince county to be distributed twenty-four hours after they arrive at Summerside. It is a matter of great importance that the people residing west of Summerside should have their mails with the greatest despatch possible, especially at this time of the year when the industries of that part of the country are in full swing.


Edward Hackett: I 'am pleased to hear that the hon. gentleman will do that, and if he does he will assist greatly the people living west of Summerside. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is acquainted with the geography of the country, but I will repeat that when the mails arrive at Summerside .in the evening they have to go east fifty miles where they are assorted, and they are taken by the train next morning to the people west of Summerside.


James Sutherland: I will get a report from the superintendent and then I will consult with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett). We will then have a consultation as to the state of affairs.


Edward Hackett: There should be no great consultation required, because the fact is that we are deprived of our mails west of Summerside for twenty-four hours after they arrive at Summerside. They should be delivered west of Summerside within a few hours after their arrival.
Legislation-House of Commons-Additional amount for newspapers, $200.


James Sutherland: May I ask the hon. gentleman, if he has a grievance, what remedy he would suggest to overcome that delay ? Has he a change to suggest that would get over the delay ?


Edward Hackett: There is a mail clerk on the boat arriving from Pointe du Chene and when the mail arrives at Summerside there should be a train waiting to carry it west instead of having it go down to Charlottetown, and remain there for twenty-four hours before it is delivered to the people residing west of Summerside. Surely if the hon. gentleman would say to the 'lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) that he requires a train to carry these mails west, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals would give him that train. This is a very important matter. In perhaps fifteen or twenty days we will have that arrangement, but this is the time of the year when people west of Summerside require that accommodation. I would ask the hon. gentleman to consult with his colleague and see that when a mail arrives at Summerside there will be a train to carry it west without having the mail go to Charlottetown to be assorted there, return next day, to be delivered west of Summerside.


James Sutherland: It certainly seems a proper case to be looked into, and I shall be very glad to have it looked into at once, and if the cost of making the change is not altogether out of proportion to the service to be performed I will be g-lad to see that a remedy is provided. I quite recognize that it is desirable, in carrying the mails, that they shall be distributed from a point whence they can reach the people as quickly as possible. I shall be glad to take the matter up at once with the officers of the department.


Arthur W. Puttee: 


Uriah Wilson: I would like to know what the newspapers cost altogether?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not? know how much they cost, but we have to ask for this additional amount of $200 on account of the fact that the number of papers has increased. We are obliged to take all the papers which are published in the country and even some papers published outside. As to the total amount I cannot exactly state it to the hon. gentleman, but if he' wants it I will be very glad to get the information.


Uriah Wilson: I am not objecting, but I would like to know the total amount, and if we could get in addition to that the cost of newspapers in the Senate.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have nothing to do with that. That is dangerous.


Uriah Wilson: It does look strange that we should have two reading rooms so close to each other; with a good many newspapers that are not looked at. If the House of Lords would not think it undignified to read in the same room with the commoners, we could get along with one room.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is a serious problem. I do not know that the members of the Senate would care to become too familiar with the members of the Commons.
Additional amount for printing, printing paper and binding, $25,000.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The usual vote for this service is $85,000, but I understand that this is inadequate. We have to publish the monthly reports of the Trade and Commerce, and the number of documents is increasing each year. For example, the English report of the Auditor General has cost between $6,000 and $7,000.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What have we to do with publishing the reports of Trade and Commerce ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My information is that all these reports that are published under the authority of the House of Commons are paid for by the House of Commons.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Do you mean the annual reports ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes, I would suppose so.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Each department pays for its own reports.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My information is that all the reports which are brought down during the session are paid for by the House of Commons.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Minister of Customs got an appropriation for the very same thing.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: It is printed by order of the House of Commons.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am not very positive concerning this matter, but the note handed to me contains the information I have given. I will inquire and let the hon. gentleman know.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: The report was printed by order of the House of Commons, and whatever the House of Commons orders I suppose it pays for.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Does not the minister know what his own department pays for V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand that the general printing of the department is paid out of departmental votes, but my impression is that all departmental reports submitted to parliament are charged against the parliamentary vote for printing.


Robert Laird Borden: The vote in the main estimates together with this vote makes a total increase of $40,000.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: I think the chairman of the Printing Committee told me that there were some arrearages which he was trying to get straightened out. I think this probably covers more than one year's business.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps we can get some information later, because the increase is large.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Yes, we will get the information.


James Clancy: Are the monthly Trade and Navigation reports distributed the same as the monthly reports of Trade and Commerce ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I should suppose so.


James Clancy: So far, I have not got any.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: They are distributed from the office upstairs and I will speak about it.
To provide increases to the following : A. H. O'Brien, $100; James Dalton, $50; R. Tremblay, $50; C. George, $30-$230.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is one getting $100 increase, and the others only $50 increase ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is for Mr. O'Brien, the assistant law clerk. He had only $1,800, and he was appointed by Mr. Speaker White on the understanding that he would have an increase of $50 per year. That was specifically mentioned in Mr. Speaker White's letter. Mr. O'Brien did not receive any increase since 1896, and this year the board of Internal economy recommended that he should get $100 increase.


Robert Laird Borden: I would say, under the circumstances, he was not getting enough.
Customs

Additional amount required, $20,633.67.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I may say that the main estimates are prepared at an early period, and we make provision for what we think will do ; but on coming nearer to the beginnig of the year, we find that calls are made upon us which the main esti-. mates do not cover. So we find it necessary to take this supplementary vote for the services for the coming year. I hope to be able next year to bring in estimates at the beginning that will cover the expenses of the year.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think we might get on with two estimates, and I hope the hon. gentleman will not require to have a supplementary estimate next year.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is what I want to do ; but the hon. gentleman, will understand that in my department there-are unexpected services continually cropping up whch it is impossible to foresee when the main estimates are prepared.


Robert Laird Borden: We have a great many estimates, and I think it would be far better if he could get them all in the main estimates, and have as few supplementaries as possible.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may say that the ministers are always ready to make liberal estimates, and if they were all accepted as prepared, there might not be so many supplementaries. They keep a Financial Minister, however, for the purpose of restraining this tendency, and I must take the responsibility of not giving them all they ask.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think this estimate Is quite unjustifiable. In the first place, you have an increase of $46,000 in the main estimates, and in the next place you have
*5467

$20,GOO here, a still further increase within a few weeks. Surely the government investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that $1,121,000 was all that was required for the Department of Customs, an increase of several hundreds of thousands qlf dollars over the expenditure of a few years ago, when the extravagant Tories were in power. I think this is a very slipshod way of doing business. Nothing can have occurred within the last month or two to justify an additional expenditure of $11,000 in Ontario. Has the minister a detailed statement of what these increases are required for, and can he tell us why he could not have included them in the main estimates, instead of dribbling along without our knowing just exactly what the department does cost ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The difference is not as much in the main estimates for the year 1902 as would appear on the face of a comparative statement. We ask some $46,000 in the main estimates more than we did last year ; but there is a decrease of $16,000 in contingencies, which arises from the fact that we took a vote of $15,000 in contingencies last year for preparatory work in the statistical department. Then, in the supplementary estimates for the current vear, I have to ask for $12,000. ,So that if the $15,000 and the $12,000 are put together, there would be about $19,000 extra which I am asking besides the $20,000 here. The hon. gentleman asks why I ask for this vote. I have some of the details, but unless the hon. gentleman presses for them, I do not think it is necessary to give them. For instance, the Pan-American exposition makes it necessary to employ extra officers at Toronto, Fort Erie and Niagara.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think the staff now at Fort Erie is quite large enough.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is expected that there will be thousands and tens of thousands of people crossing there. In fact, it is thought that a great many people will reside temporarily on the Canada side. At any rate, that is our inspector's report, and we have to provide accordingly. If we do not need the money, it will not be spent. Then, the elevators at Quebec have been Opened, and we shall have to have two or three men there. There are things such as these cropping up continually during the year, and we must be trusted to have a iittle extra sum to provide for them. I need not have asked for this vote this year. I could have let it go, and have taken a supplementary vote for it next year ; but my mind runs in the same direction as that of the leader of the opposition, that it is desirable, as far as possible, each year to get a sufficient vote in the main estimates to carry m'e through.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister has not even given us the assurance that he will not ask for supplementary estimates next year.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: 


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I cannot do that.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: He still leaves himself *open to come next year and ask as much as he likes.
To pay H. A. Nelson & Son interest at 5 per cent on $1,395.25 from May, 1892, to July 1, 1901, $633.67.


James Clancy: Why is there a special vote for this interest apart from the vote for the amount of the capital ? Is this an afterthought ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, it was omitted by error in the supplementaries. My hon. colleague, the Finance Minister, suggested at the time that I should let the item drop and put both capital and interest in the additional supplementaries, but I thought it better to let it go through as it was and then bring in an additional vote for the interest.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Was the Department of Justice consulted ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, it is jmrely a question of equity and not of law. The firm had imported the goods and paid the duty on them. A part were removed and a part were not removed. A fire took place in the warehouse which destroyed the part not removed, and we are refunding duty on that part.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The government is not liable for the safety of goods imported into the country. In this case the duty had been paid and the goods were released.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No doubt legally they had no claim. But the fire took place the very day the duty was paid, and before the parties had time to remove all of them. Other goods had to be import-ted in their place, on which the duty was paid.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It does not alter the case whether the goods were one day in the government warehouse or ten days, and whenever goods are destroyed by fire other goods must be imported to replace them. I do not see any reason in equity why a different course should be taken in the case of Nelson Bros, than that of any other person who loses goods by fire on which the duty is paid.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The question of the insurable interest in these goods influences very much in all cases of the kind. In ordinary cases the goods are removed from the ship and placed in the man's own warehouse, where he can protect them by insurance. These were practically in transit between the ship and Nelson Bros', store, and before they could get into the store they were destroyed by fire. They were no doubt insured while on board the vessel, but that insurance ceased as soon as they left the vessel, and before Nelson Bros, had time

to reinsure them in their own warehouse they were destroyed by fire in the government warehouse. When these goods were landed they would not have been covered by a marine insurance policy. Messrs. Nelson have represented-and they are a reputable firm-that they would have had them insured if they had the time to get them into their warehouse. They were destroyed the same night while stored in the government warehouse.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Not a government warehouse-the government does not take into customs warehouse more than one package in ten or fifteen.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not mean that they were in a bonded warehouse.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister means simply that the government has a covered shed in which the goods of the people are put to protect them from the elements. It cannot be said that they were in the custody of the government at all. As soon as the duties are" paid, the goods are relieved and can be taken away. The duty having been paid, I think it was not an act of equity that the money should be refunded to H. A. Nelson & Son, nor the interest either.


James Clancy: Were there other claims made for goods destroyed at the time, or were there no other goods destroyed than "those of H. A. Nelson & Son ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: A great many goods were consumed, but these were the only goods upon which the duties had been paid. If they had not paid the duty, they would not have been obliged to pay the duty at all, the goods having been destroyed. Or, had the goods been in their own warehouse, they would have been insured. The government loses nothing, because, as I said, there had to be a re-importation of these goods. As to the point that the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) mentions, as to asking the Department of Justice whether the government were legally liable, I think that the difficulty of the previous government in allowing the claim was not that the law was against it, but they did not take the course we are taking in asking parliament to vote the money. I think it was not hostility to the claim that prevented it being allowed, but it was one of those cases where a claim was not settled, and goes on from year to year.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, I remember that there was a thorough investigation.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not think the record shows that. I think the record will show that the hon. gentleman favoured the payment.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It was before I became Controller. But, in our time this claim was thoroughly investigated, and it was found that there was no legal claim, and that
there was no difference between having paid the duty and not having paid it. As to their having them insured if they had got them into their own warehouse, we do not know that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is the usual custom.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Usually a man has his stock insured for a certain sum.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then, these would have been covered, a general policy of insurance would have covered them.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But one is not allowed to insure for a hundred cents on the dollar, but for only two-thirds of the value ; therefore, the duty would not have been insured in that case.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. (Saturday).

Saturday, May 18, 1901.