[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND moved that the fees and charges paid on Bill (No. 02) to incorporate the Pontiac Colonization Railway Company, be refunded, less cost of printing and translation, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the fourteenth report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 136) to amend the Railway Act. -Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.


Hon. Mr. TRIOR asked :: What amount has been received into the Dominion treasury for sales of land, and from any other sources if any, within the Canadian Pacific Railway belt in British Columbia, giving the amount for each year separately?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND.: The revenue received in cash and scrip from sales of land, timber dues, &c., within the Canadian Pacific Railway belt in British Columbia is as follows :
Fiscal year.
1885-	86	
1886-	87	
1887-	88	
1888-	89	
1889-	90	
1890-	91	
1891-	92	
1892-	93	
1893-	94	
1894-	95	
1895-	96	
1896-	97	
1897-	98	
1898-	99	
1899-	1900	
July 1, 1900, to Mar. 31, 1901..
Total	
$ 5,368	05
18,667	38
36,154	20
37,423	96
77,287	97
75,784	70
82,062	41
89,167	28
55,985	05
39,977	79
41,800	14
26,806	50
33.767	54
57,019	35
40,S40	45
19,820	72
$737,933	49
,	COMMERCIAL AGENTS.
Mr. KEMP-by Mr. Brock-asked :
1.	How many commercial agents have the government stationed abroad?
2.	How many are solely employed by the government?	*
3.	What is the name and location and the remuneration received by each?
Wale street, Cape Town, South Africa ; D. Treau de Coeli, 75 Marchg St. Jacques, Antwerp, Belgium.


MEETING OF AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE.
Mr. WILSON.: Before you leave the Chair, I would ask the government when we may expect to have another meeting of the Committee of Agriculture and Colonization. Mr. Pedley has not finished giving his evidence yet. I think we ought to have a meeting to-morrow, because when the House begins to meet in the morning it will be very inconvenient for members to attend that committee.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I do not see the chairman in his place. I will call his attention to it as soon as he is in the House.



SUPPLY-ROYAL MINT.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['Probably to-day.\nMotion agreed to ; and House adjourned at 1.50 a.m. Friday.', 'Friday, May 10, 1901.']
Hon.  E. G.@: PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I wish to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to a cutting that I got out of the Mail and Empire dated May 6th :


['PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I wish to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to a cutting that I got out of the Mail and Empire dated May 6th :']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I think it will probably not be well to anticipate the discussion of this legislation by making a statement upon it to-day. The paragraph to which my hon. friend (Mr. Prior) refers was not authorized in any way. We shall have to deal with the question before many days, and I can only assure my hon. friend that the views which he has expressed this afternoon have been before the government and they will receive the fullest consideration and when the time comes to make a statement, I trust it will be one that my hon, friend will be satisfied with.



Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I wish to call the attention of the government to the fact that a convention was passed between Great Britain and the United States, which was signed on the 2nd of March, 1899, and ratified on the 28th of July, 1900. According to that convention the United States are ready to give up in favour of Great Britain and of her colonies the right of aiibaine and the right of detraction, both of which the different states, in the middle ages, had arrogated, as we all know. The right of aubaine was the right for the state to seize upon the pro-Mr. PRIOR.
perty of a deceased foreigner. According to common law in England, aliens could own real estate and they can do so even nowadays, but they are not allowed to bequeath it.
Some of the states of the union have yet special provisions affecting the rights of foreigners to acquire and transfer property, but in most of the states, the law is that foreigners are treated as natives in this respect. As I have just said, aliens, in the middle ages, were not at liberty to dispose of their property, they could acquire or own property, but they were forbidden to. dispose of it ; in the event of their death, their wealth devolved to the public treasury.
In France, when the heirs of a deceased person were aliens the public treasury used to get a large portion of that person's property, by virtue of a right known as the right of detraction, and which still exists in some states. That capital is liable to very heavy taxes, whenever it happens to fall into the hands of foreigners.
The United States are ready to give up those rights, which seem to have been given up by all other nations, especially since the French revolution, in 1790, has done away with the right of aiibaine and the right of detraction, without exacting any reciprocity. However, the reciprocity system was again taken up and adopted by the Code Napoleon; but it was finally abolished by the law of the 4th July, 1819, which has placed all aliens in France on an even standing by the fact that it lias abolished the right of aiibaine absolutely and without any view of reciprocity whatsoever.
There is positively no objection to the convention between Great Britain and the United States inuring to the benefit of Canada, for all the provinces have adopted this same view. We have given up that exorbitant right which existed by virtue of common law in England and in all European countries as well throughout the middle ages.
No later than 1894 did United Canada give up that right when she adopted for the provinces of Quebec and Ontario a law according to which foreigners were allowed to acquire and transfer property on the same basis and to the same extent as were all the subjects of-the state. A law of a similar nature was enacted in all the other provinces of Confederation. For instance, in Nova Scotia, aliens were, as early as 1854, permitted to own property and to dispose of it as they would feel proper, and the law which authorises them so to do, can be found in the Revised Statutes of Nova Scotia, 1900, chap. 136. Prince Edward Island followed in 1859. True, it is that an alien cannot own more than two hundred acres of land in that province, but this restriction is undoubtedly due to the fact that the island is rather small. The law with respect to Prince Edward Island is 22 Vic., chap. 4.

Then we have had Manitoba, in 1891; the law which is contained in chap. 3a of the Revised Statutes was adopted there and it has been binding ever since February 28th, 1874. British Columbia voted a law of that kind in 1888, and it has been incorporated in chap. 6 of the Revised Statutes of 1897. New Brunswick also adopted, in 1891, a law which is known as 54 Victoria, chap. 13. Then, legal dispositions of a similar nature are in existence in every province of the Dominion, according to which foreigners and natives are equally unimpeded as far as acquisition of or parting with property is concerned.
As I have said at the beginning of these few remarks, the United States offer to give the citizens of Great Britain and those of her colonies as well, and on the basis of reciprocity, the right to own and to freely dispose of property, just as the American citizens themselves may do, within the limits of the Union. It is enacted by section 4 of that treaty, that it shall not inure to the benefit of any of the English colonies until the Secretary of State has been notified in the name of such colony by Great Britain's representative at Washington within a year from the date on which the treaty or convention has been ratified. My object in raising this question is to ask the government to take such steps as may be necessary to make the American Secretary of State aware, through England's representative, and before the 28th of July, 1901, that the Dominion of Canada is anxious to partake of the advantages of that treaty.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Chas. Fitzpatrick).: In September, 1900, a circular letter was received by the Governor General relating to the convention between the United Kingdom and the United States in regard to real and personal property, and asking His Excellency to refer the letter to his advisers to find out if there was any objection on the part of Canada to becoming a party to the convention. Immediately after that letter was received, it was referred to the different provinces, all of whom declared that they were willing to participate in the convention, or rather to become parties to it, with the exception of New Brunswick. The province of New Brunswick objected on the ground that with respect to succession duties they had a law in that province under which the estates of foreigners were obliged to pay a tax double that which was paid by those who lived in the province. We have had some correspondence with New Brunswick for the purpose of endeavouring to get them to come in with what appears to be the general desire of Canada in this matter, but nothing has been done up to the present time. I may say, however, that it is within the power of the Dominion of Canada to pjroceed in this matter under
section 132 of the British North America Act, without the assent of New Brunswick, if it should be withheld. I believe that there is a general desire that it should come into this convention. It is possible that proceeding under the section referred to we may enter the convention, but I may say that I have hopes that New Brunswick will not persist in the objection. My hon. friend (Mr. Demers) is very anxious that the government should participate in this convention, and it is largely due to his persistent efforts that so much progress has been made up to the present.


RENTING OF PRIVATE BUILDINGS BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Mr. GEO. TAYLOR (South Leeds).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I will have a few words to say in reference to the extravagant manner in which this government is managing the affairs of the country. I remember, every one in this House remembers, and the people of Canada remember, that previous to 1S96 when the Prime Minister travelled from the Atlantic to the Pacific, he promised the people that if he were returned to power he would surround himself with a cabinet of business men, and would manage the affairs of the country on business principles. He promised that he would run the business of the country for three or four million dollars less than the then expenditures, and the Hon. David Mills pledged his word that the Liberals would conduct the public business for $5,000,000 less than the Conservatives, who at that time were expending $38,000,000 a year. The Prime Minister promised to practice economy in every shape and form. I ask the right hon. gentleman, and I ask this House, if these promises have been implemented ? Did he surround himself with a cabinet of business men ? Where are the business men in that cabinet ? Just stand them up one after the other and call the roll.


Mr. BENNETT.: Put them in a private car.


George Taylor: They are simply a cabinet of lawyers. I have no objection to lawyers being in this cabinet; in fact no cabinet could be formed without two or three of them, but they should be good lawyers. However, in the selection of a cabinet some respect should be paid to the nature of the offices which the ministers are called on to preside over. Why put a lawyer as Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair), when he knows nothing about running a railway ? Why put a journalist as Minister of Public Works ? The Prime Minister is a lawyer, and the Prime Minister should be a lawyer V


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am afraid this is intended for my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


George Taylor: I have no objection to the Prime Minister being a lawyer, but look at the rest of the cabinet. Look at his lieutenant to his right, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies).


William Humphrey Bennett: Is he a lawyer ?


George Taylor: Oh, yes. What can he know of the building of ships and lighthouses ? The gentleman called on to till that office should be a man well versed in matters pertaining to marine and fisheries. Look at the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock), another lawyer. I would like to know what legal ability is necessary to run the Post Office Department. Look at tJhe Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), another lawyer. The -Than having that portfolio should be well qualified in land values, and should know all about mining and minerals. Look to the left-hand of the Prime Minister. There we have the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright), who, when he was in opposition, said that the portfolio he now holds was useless, and that it should be abolished. He expected to be the Minister of Finance, but he was shelved into this department that he said was useless, and the government knowing that he had some legal ability assigned him other duties which lie performed very well.' They assigned to him the duty of inquiring Into the tides to seats in the Senate. That is his chief duty now. The next gentleman (Hon. Mr. Bernier) on the left of the Prime Minister, Is a notary from Quebec, and for the short time he has been in office he seems to have discharged the duties of Minister of Inland Revenue fairly well. Then we have the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Mills). The Minister of Justice should be a lawyer and an able lawyer, but look at the Minister of Justice we have to-day. AVe have an able Solicitor General in the cabinet -no, not in the cabinet.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Knocking at the door.


George Taylor: He is simply what we have in our Orange lodges in Ontario; the tyler at the door. If any one wants to test the qualifications of the present Minister of Justice let them read the book he wrote last year when he was trying to get the government out of the hole they got into by their maladministration in connection with the binder twine, and then see what kind of a man he is. Then we have the Secretary of State (Hon. Mr. Scott), who is a lawyer, and they say he is toll-keeper: keeps his son out collecting tolls from the gentlemen who sell Mr. TAYLOR.
goods to the government; calling on them, for 5 per cent. Look at the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher). The Prime Minister tells the farmers of this country that he has taken one of themselves, a horny-lmnded son of toil to be Alinister of Agriculture.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: The Minister of Agriculture graduated as a B.A., and, as I understand, practised law in Montreal for some years, but he is taken into the cabinet as a farmer. If the farmers of this country knew as little about farming as the Minister of Agriculture does, it would be a bad thing for the country. Why did not the Prime Minister make a wise selection and appoint a man like my friend (Air. Smith, AVentworth), beside me here, who is conversant with farming. I referred to the Solicitor General before. He is a lawyer as he should be, but he should have a seat in the cabinet and not be kept as a tyler at the door. The Solicitor General possesses more brains and ability than half a dozen of the others put together.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: Then we have the Alinister of Public Works (Hon. Air. Tarte), a gentleman who knows nothing about building ; but who ran a newspaper and is a notary of Quebec. To fill that portfolio we should have a man possessed of all the qualifications of a builder or contractor, and one who is well trained in these matters. Think of making a journalist Minister of Finance, instead of a man who has made banking a life study. Then we have a medical gentleman as Alinister of Alilitia (Hon. Air. Borden). I have no objection to a medical man, but the Minister of Militia should be an old trained veteran who has gone through the wars like my friend the colonel here (Air. Hughes.)


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let him come over.


George Taylor: Now we come to the last business man in the Cabinet, the hon. Alinister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), a manufacturer. He knew enough about business when he was making changes in the tariff not to interfere with the duties on biscuits and confectionery. Then we come to two other business men, the gentlemen without portfolio, who have no departments to administer. One of these gentlemen, the hon. member for Quebec AArest (Hon. Air. Dobell), knows something about business ; but this government, instead of allowing him to bring his business ability into play, kept him trotting across the ocean to look after bottle-necked ships. Then we come to the other gentleman without portfolio, my hon. friend from North Oxford (Hon. Air. Sutherland),

who knows more about business than all the rest of the cabinet put together, but who has no department to administer. We have this cabinet of sixteen or seventeen members, nearly all lawyers, although the Prime Minister promised the people of this country that he would surround himself with able and competent business men, who would run this country in a practical business manner.
Now, let me point to one fact. This government knew in 1896, when they took office, that in 1901 the census would have to be taken. What did they do to provide rooms for the accommodation of the census staff ? Did they take a business view of the matter ? Would any business concern in this country, if they wanted to enlarge their premises so as to employ a few more hands, rent a place on the main business street of the city at five or six times the rent at which they could get premises equally good in some other part of the city ; or would they put up a building of their own ? When the late government took the census in 1891, Mr. Johnson, the statistician, supervised the work, and I will guarantee that the work was as well done then as it will be now ; and his whole staff were accommodated in the Langevin block. Hon. gentlemen opposite, when they sat on this side of the House, declared that the buildings were crowded with civil servants, who were tumbling over each other, and that if they came in they would dismiss a few of them. What have they done ? They have employed Mr. Blue as commissioner at a salary of $4,000, and Mr. C6te as assistant commissioner at $3,000, and they have given Mr. St. Denis an increase of salary of $600, making nearly $8,000 in additional salaries to supervise the work ; whereas Mr. George Johnson, who did it before, could have done it again without any extra help, and have saved that $8,000 to the country. Besides, in 1891 one commissioner was employed for each county; but now in most of the counties, particularly those in which a few French are living, there are two commissioners employed. The law says that there shall be one for every electoral district ; but in almost every electoral district in Ontario and Quebec, where there are French and English, there are two commissioners appointed. Now, this government knew in 1896 that the census would have to be taken in 1901, and what provision did they make for getting room for the work in case there should not be room in our own buildings ? They waited until the elections of 1900 were at hand, and then, without their calling by advertisement for premises to rent, without their making any provision at all, a gentleman, who is the proprietor of a building on Sparks street, which has been lying practically idle for the last two or three years, goes to the Minister of Public Works and has a private conversation with him. Then the Minister of Public Works went away, and this gen-,
tleman writes a letter to the acting minister, the Postmaster General (Mon. Mr. Muloek), in August, stating that he had had a conversation with the Minister of Public Works in reference to the property he owned, and he wanted to know if the government would require it. The Postmaster General sent him a letter in reply, saying : We do not want to purchase the property. Then an officer of the Department of Public Works writes a second letter to Mr. Seybold on the 22nd of September-it was coming pretty close to election time-to the following effect :
The matter of government renting your building on corner of Sparks and O'Connor, has been spoken of, and I have been instructed to ask upon what conditions you would be willing to rent it.
The Minister of Public Works no doubt wrote to the chief architect, and asked him to write this letter. On the 25th of October Mr. .Seybold writes this letter to the Minister of Public Works :
Dear Sir,-Referring to inquiries made by the Chief Architect in letters to me of the 22nd September and 4th inst., as to the terms upon which I would lease the property owned by me on the corner of Sparks and O'Connor streets to the government :
I beg to state that I would be willing to lease the same for the term of five years at a rental of $7,000 per year, payable quarterly.
All changes required to be made to be done at the expense of the government. All taxes, except water rates, will be paid by me.
The building, as you are aware, consists of basement, first, second, third and fourth floors. The rental of $7,000 is based on the following rents for each floor, which are the ordinary charges made in Ottawa, viz.:
Per annum.
Basement	 $ 500
First floor...,	 2,500
Second floor	 2,000
Third floor	 1,500
Fourth floor	 '500
I would like to have a speedy answer to this, as if the government does not wish the property, I will have to make arrangements with other parties.
There was a speedy answer. On the back of that letter was written by the minister :


Notify J.   A.@: Seybold that department will rent the building owned by him at the corner of Sparks and O'Connor streets, at the rate of $6,500 a year from the 1st of September next.-J. I. T.
That was on the 23rd of November-$6,500, without stating how many years. Now, you can go right across the street from where that property stands, ou the side of the street where property for mercantile purposes will command 25 per cent more than on the north side, and you will find that Mr. Poulin pays $1,000 a year for his store and the adjoining one occupied as a crockery store. The building Is three storeys high, besides a basement, and covers more ground space than the Seybold building. Besides, the Seybold building is not suitable for retail business, nor is it suitable for offices. Whe-

ther there is a rake-off or not, I do not know ; but there is not a man in Ottawa or anywhere else who will say that that property is worth $6,500 a year rental, besides an expenditure of about $10,000 which the government are making for permanent improvements, making about $29,500 which the government are paying for this property for three years. It; is not necessary to go on the best business street of the city to rent a place for offices. A place on one of the side streets would have done as well. Had they come down to parliament last year like business men and said : Next year we have to take the census and we must provide rooms for the staff, and we want $29,000 or $30,000 to erect a building which will furnish accommodation both for the census staff and additional accommodation for the Printing Bureau, parliament would have voted the money. The government would then have owned it, but the hon. Minister of Public Works, just at election time, marks on the back of this offer asking $7,000 : ' Rent at $6,500.' Where were the inquiries made from other gentlemen asking for their terms ? Where was the calling for tenders ? There was nothing of the kind, but simply a private bargain between the Minister of Public Works and Mr. Seybold, by which the government agreed to pay $6,500 a year rent, beginning the 1st September, and six months have elapsed, during which the government have occupied the building only a few days All the time has been taken up making improvements which are to cost some $10,000 or $12,000, and at the end of three years we will have to return the property to Mr. Seybold with all the permanent improvements added to it, so that he will have not only $19,500 of our money but $12,000 worth of improvements as well. If this government were a business administration as they declared they would be, they would have adopted the same plan that any common-sense business man would have taken.	i
No doubt the lion. Minister of Public Works will tell us that property has advanced very materially and that rents have increased. Well, this property must have increased in value very rapidly in a very few years. In the registry office there is a record of this property having changed hands on the 6th of February, 1891, for $0,800. being a transfer by J. W. Russell to J. A. Seybold for that amount.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does the hon. gentleman say that this property was sold for $6,000 ?


George Taylor: I say that there is an abstract from the registry office giving that amount. Mr. Seybold deeded it on the 10th of February, 1891, to J. R. Booth for $8,000. That is the record in the registry office. And I know that two hon. gentlemen in this House were offered that property for $17,500 only a very few years ago.


George Taylor: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When ?


George Taylor: They were the hon. members for Toronto (Mr. Brock) and Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach), and they can speak for themselves. The hon. minister produced a certificate from the land valuator, who put an exorbitant value on the property. The building is only 44 feet wide and there are 20 feet of waste land. The building is 40 feet by 80 feet in size, four storeys high, and you can go on to Bank street, or Wellington street, or Sussex street, and rent a more spacious building for less than $2,000 per year for the next three years. If my hon. friend wants to find the value of that property, let him look at the assessment roll of the city and see what it is assessed at this year.
Mr. Seybold said that he would pay all the taxes except the water rates, but as the building has been leased by the government there are no taxes to pay on it, so that Mr. Seybold has a clear $6,500 per year besides the $10,000 permanent improvements. It is a fine-looking building, but simply veneered -a cheap plain building, not at all suitable for offices, and which was built and laid out for a wholesale dry goods store.
I have no doubt it could have been rented for one-third the price. I leave it to hon. members on both sides, who must have looked at that property since the matter came up in this House-I leave it to hon. members who live in Montreal and Toronto to say whether $6,500 per year rent for three years, besides $10,000 permanent improvements, is not an absurdly extravagant price.
I therefore beg to move :
That all the words after that in the main motion be struck out, and the following substituted:
In the opinion of this House, the lease entered into by the hon. the Minister of Public Works for the renting of the Seybold property for a term of three years, at a rental of $6,500 per year, and containing a stipulation by which the government undertakes to make permanent improvements to the value of $10,000, involves a reckless and extravagant outlay of public money, and should not have been entered into by the government without first consulting parliament.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think it is necessary for me to say much in reply to my hon. friend. Some of the statements he has made himself would, in my humble view, be a sufficient answer to the charge he has made. He has asked this parliament to believe that the property in question was sold in 1891 for $8,000. All those who know anything about Ottawa know that that is not possible. Mr. Seybold is the son-in-law of Mr. J. R. Booth. In 1891 some deal took place between the son-in-law and the father-in-law. I apprehend it was a loan of money by the old gentleman to his son-in-law, for which a mortgage of $8,000 was given on the property. There is no man with a sound head on his shoulders-and my hon. friend has one-who

would persist in such a statement as he has made. It Is a preposterous statement, quite sufficient in itself to dispose of his whole argument.
That property was sold thirty years ago for $29,000. My hon. friend has always used very strong words since I have had the pleasure of knowing him, and the House generally allows a fair discount on everything he says. I think a discount of 75 per cent would be about right. That property was valued by a competent man, on the 23rd of October, 1900, before we rented it, at $110,000. Of course the hon. gentleman who has just valued it at $8,000 is perfectly welcome to hig valuation.


George Taylor: I know that the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I did not make a valuation at all. I simply quoted what appeared in the registry office from the abstract, namely, that it changed hands at this price.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course my hon. friend has done what he is in the habit of doing. He has, unwillingly no doubt, misrepresented the facts. He tried to lead the House to believe that that property had been disposed of in 1891, for $8,000. If that was not his intention, why did he quote that figure ?


George Taylor: That is what appeared in the registry office.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS! The hon. gentleman is evading the point. He fully realizes that he has made a statement he cannot substantiate. And now he is trying to get out of it. That property, as I said, was valued, on the 23rd of October, at $110,000. Now, my hon. friend and some other gentlemen seem to believe that that is a very high estimate. Well, those who know Ottawa will know the spot I indicate when I speak of the north-east corner of Metcalfe and Sparks streets, that property is just the same size as the Seybold property. But there is, properly speaking, no building upon it, only a small building, as any hon. member can see, for the place is but a short distance from here. And about the same time that I as renting the Seybold property, Senator Cox, who has not the reputation of being a fool or of paying more than he must for a property, offered $110,000 for this property. That property is situated but one block or two away from the Seybold building. It is on the same street and is of the same size-66 x 99 feet. But, on the Seybold property there is a fine building, as hon. gentlemen can see whenever they choose to pass that corner, the size of which is 40 x90 feet. That building has been valued at $40,000, and is worth at least that much. Now, I have here a letter in proof of what I have stated :
Ottawa, May 1, 1901.
A. Gobeil, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Public Works,
City.
My dear Mr. Gobeil,-Referring to our recent conversation in reference to land values in this city, I beg to say that I have no objection to put in writing my statement to you that, within the past two months, I was authorized to offer the sum of one hundred thousand dollars for the lot on the north-east corner of Sparks and Metcalfe streets. The offer was declined.
Yours sincerely,


WARREN Y. SOPER.
George Taylor: For a bank, yes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What does it matter, whether it is for a bank or for anything else ? The lot is there, and if it is to be bought, it must be bought at that price. Later on, Mr. Thompson, who is a political friend of the hon. gentleman, refused an offer of $110,000 for that property. The hon. gentleman cannot buy the property for less than that. This property and the property we have rented are there to be inspected. Let hon. gentlemen judge after they have seen them. I say nothing more about the value of the property.
When I came from the other side of the Atlantic, I was confronted by demands from the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture for space-the Department of the Interior for the excellent reason that the Bank of Ottawa had signified to them that they would put an end to the lease of property which was occupied by some officer of the department; and the Department of Agriculture because the taking of the census was to begin on 1st of April. We had to make preparations for the census. My hon. friend has reproached us with not having made earlier preparation for it. I have already pleaded guilty to the charge that long ago parliament should have been called upon to provide for additional accommodation. When we took office, there were several buildings rented in Ottawa for the public service, and since then we have been obliged to rent others. That is a state of affairs which should be put an end to. But, let us not lose sight of the fact that if you erect a large public building, a building sufficient to meet the requirements of the public service, it will be necessary to ask from parliament a very large sum of money. My predecessors in the Department of Public Works, and I also, have always been met by the necessities or the exigencies of the budget. We have been told that we ask too much, that the budget is already large enough. Well, my predecessors have not provided for the accommodation of the public service, and I have not provided for it. Still, the census work must be carried out. It was too late to discuss whether a public building should

be erected or not ; we were in the month ot November, and we had to provide immediately. I did the best I could to find a suitable building. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) is surely not serious when he speaks of advertising. Ottawa is not a large city ; the properties that are available are well known. I challenge the hon. gentleman on the other side to tell me what other building was available. That is a clear challenge. The officers of the Departments of Public Works and of Agriculture put their heads together, and we made up our mindis that the Seybold building was a suitable one, and we debated the price. Mr. Seybold first asked a rental of $7,000 a year. He had previously asked whether we would buy this property, the price he asked being $100,000. My officers thought it would not be advisable to buy the property. We did not want to pay his rental price. As I say, he was asking $7,000 a year, and he wanted us to take a lease of five years. We rented it for $0,500 a year for three years. My hon. friend says that we have made permanent improvements. We have made the improvements that are necessary to carry on the census work, nothing more. And we have secured the right to buy the property by arbitration at the end of the lease. I think the arrangement is a good one. I am sure we could not do anything else. The building is a good one, and the rental is not too high. I think that some gentleman will have to say a word on the rental. I can only add a word as to the rentals on the same street. The House knows the building in which the Canadian Pacific Railway offices are located, at the corner of Elgin and Sparks streets. Well, Sir, if you look at the report of- the Ottawa Trust and Deposit Company you will find that, outside the offices occupied by this company, they are getting rentals to the amount of $12,281, and that property is smaller, I think, than the Seybold property. Mr. Thompson, who is going to erect a building on the lot I described a moment ago, has already secured, as I am informed, rentals to the amount of $20,000 a year on the property he is going to erect there. Now, the hon. gentleman has made many exaggerated statements during the session, but this last statement of his will make it difficult for us to give much weight to statements he may make in the future. I have no doubt that on certain occasions he is carried away by his political zeal. Political zeal is a good thing, but it must not be pushed too far.
After all, no member of the government seems to have found mercy in the eyes of my hon. friend. The government is not good for anything, we are not in the places we should occupy. The Prime Minister, well, perhaps the Prime Minister will find mercy, because be is a lawyer. The hon. gentleman, who lias an eminent lawyer for his leader, has been good enough to say that lawyers, under certain circumstances, Mr. TARTE.
might be Prime Ministers. Of course there have been men of some ability in the past, who have been premiers, and who were not lawyers. Palmerston was not a lawyer, William Pitt was not a lawyer, Gladstone was not a lawyer, Salisbury is not a lawyer; and yet they have all been Prime Ministers of England, and with some credit, I think.


The PRIME MINISTER.: So much for those who are not in the profession.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps we should be in the profession, but we are not. Well, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is no good, the Minister of Justice, Hon. Mr. Mills, is no good either. The Solicitor General is the man. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is no good, because he is a graduate of a college. If he only knew how to read and write he would be worth more, perhaps, but he is a graduate. In this country it is to be understood that for the future we must not educate our farmers, and that a graduate of a university is not fit to be Minister of Agriculture. This is the doctrine the leader of the opposition is invited to practice at a future date. Then he says that my hon. friend to my right, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) is no good either. When the others are no good, what am I ? I am a poor newspaper man, the hon. gentleman has said it.


George Taylor: And a notary.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And a notary, but I have not practiced very long. I have chosen a profession which was more quiet, I am a newspaper man, although not to the extent that I would like to be, and as I was in my better days. I have known some newspaper men who have made some little mark in the world-though not so conspicuous as my hon. friend has done-but who have climbed up the hill with some credit. I will not insist on my abilities, but if there is only this case to prove that I am not a fairly good Minister of Public Works. I would be perfectly willing to abide by the judgment of my countrymen. The hon. gentleman has made a lot of statements during this session, he has spoken about everything, he says we have been wrong on every occasion. As an instance, he mentioned the price of oil, and says the Dedepartment of Public Works were paying 87 cents a gallon for oil, when it was selling at 45 cents. The hon. gentleman made that statement in the House a few days ago. Well, that statement is just like the statement be made to-day that the Seybold property has been disposed of for $8,000. The hon. gentleman knew he was making a statement which was inaccurate.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Taylor: I produced au invoice lor ten barrels that were purchased at 49i cents a gallon in the same year that the government was paying S7 cents. I gave the name of the house in Montreal who mad * the invoice, and the hon. gentleman has no right to say that my statement was inaccurate.
The MINISTER OF PUB The hon. gentleman produced an invoice, just as he has produced a statement today that the Seybold property has been disposed of for $8,000. Well, I say that the invoice he produced is just as inaccurate and misleading as the statement he has made to-day. Why do I say that ? Because he produced an invoice for oil of another quality altogether. He must have known, because he is an intelligent man, that he was producing an invoice for what is called in the trade new boiled oil, while we were buying double boiled oil, which is a very different thing. The hon. gentleman could not avoid knowing that, and he could not avoid knowing that the statement he makes to-day about the Seybold property was inaccurate. Well, after having said that much-and I feel that I have said too much, it was not necessary to say anything -but having said that much, I will conclude by asking parliament to take such action as will show that a member of parliament who makes statements and accusations such as the hon. member for Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Taylor) has made should be severely reprimanded. The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Robinson) said the other day that members of parliament who failed in their duty should be put in the tower. Well, I am prepared to equip the tower for the use of the hon. gentleman from Leeds and Grenville. I will make him comfortable. But now while he is free, I will invite him not to repeat the rash statements he has made too often already. He has spoken about a rake-off. I challenge the hon. gentleman to come out like a man and to say on his responsibility that I have ever been, since I am in office, guilty of taking a rake-off from anybody. If any of my officers in this case are guilty of that practice of taking rakes-off let him say it. Is that word not English ? Well, I will give a little advice to him in French; I will say to my hon. friend, who is an old member of parliament, that he should not allow, as we say in French, la folle du logis to get the better of him.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Taylor).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Lancaster,
LaRivISre,
La veil,
Lefurgey,
Lennox,
MacLaren (Perth), McGowan,
McIntosh,
Morin,
Northrup,
Pringle,
Prior,
Robinson (Elgin), Roche (Marquette), Rosamond,
Sherritt,
Smith (Wentworth), Sproule,
Taylor,
Toltcn,
Vrooman,
Wallace,
Wilmot, and Wilson.-48.
NAYS :
Messieurs
Bazinet,	Lovell,
Belcourt,	Loy,
Blair,	Macdonald,
Borden (King's, N.S.),	Mackie,
Bourassa,	Maclaren (Huntingdon)
Bourbonnais,	McCreary,
Brown,	McEwen,
Bruneau,	McGugan,
Bureau,	McLennan,
Calvert,	Madore,
Champagne,	Malouin,
Christie,	Marcil (Bagot),
Copp,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Cowan,	Martineau,
Davies (Sir Louis),	Matheson,
Davis,	Meigs,
DSchene,	Mignault,
Delisle,	Morrison,
Demers (Ldvis),	Murray,
Demers (St. John),	Oliver,
Douglas,	Parmelee,
Edwards,	Paterson,
Emmerson,	Prefontaine,
Ethier,	Proulx,
Fielding,	Puttee,
Fisher,	Reid (P.estigouche),
Flint,	Roche (Halifax),
Fortier,	Ross (Ontario),
Fortin,	Ross (Rimouski),
Fraser,	Ross (Victoria),
Gauvreau,	Rousseau,
Geoffrion,	Russell,
Gibson,	Schell,
Gould,	Scott,
Guthrie,	Sifton,
Heyd,	Smith (Vancouver),
Hughes (King's, P.E.T.),	Stephens,
Hyman,	Sutherland (Essex),
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Sutherland (Oxford),
Kendall,	Talbot,
Lang,	Tarte,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Thompson,
Laurier (L'Assomption),	Tobin,
Lavergne,	Tucker,
LeBlanc,	Turcot, and
Lewis, Logan,	Turgeon.-93.
PAIRS :	
Against.	For.
Britton,	Bruce
Dobell,	Brock,
Mulock,	Osier,
Cartwright (Sir Rich'd),	Tupper (Sir Charles Hibbert),
Dyment,	McCormick,
Birkett,
Blain.
Borden (Halifax), Boyd,
Cargill,
Carscallen,
Clare,
Clarke,
Cochrane,
Culbert,
Fowler,
Ganong,
Haggart,
Halliday,
Henderson,
Hughes (Victoria), Ingram,
Kaulbach,
Kidd,
Alcorn,
Ball,
Bell (Addington), Bell (Pictou),
Bennett,



Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,
Fitzpatrick,	Casgrain,
Wade,	Gourley,
Erb.	Kemp,
Bielterdike,	Roddick,
Maxwell,	Earle,
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Lemieux,	Monk,
McColl,	Ward,
Holmes,	Maclean,
Horsey,	Reid (Grenville),
Bernier,	Clancy,
Angers,	Pope,
German,	Kendry,
Archambault,	Robinson (Northumberland, N.B.),
Mclsaac,	Hale,
McKinnon,	Calvin,
McCarthy,	Barker,
Gallery,	Gilmour,
Dugas,	Broder,
Wright,	Seagram,
Gostigan.	Richardson (GreyI,
Tolmie,	Hackett,
Girard,	Johnston (Cardwell).
Amendment negatived, main motion (Hon. Mr. Fielding) agreed to. and House went into Committee of Supply.
Ocean and mail service between Great Britain and Canada, $150,000.


Mr. WALLACE.: We would like to have the lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) give an explanation of this item.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This service, as hon. gentlemen know, was performed up to the date of the opening of navigation on the St. Lawrence by the Messrs. Elder, Dempster & Co. Hon. gentlemen will recollect that there was a good deal of discussion during last session as to the manner in which they performed this service, and I told the House then, that although I was disposed to make a large allowance for the circumstances under which the contract had been carried out owing to the great demand for vessels for the war, if there was not a marked improvement I should feel it my duty to terminate it. Unfortunately, although the Messrs. Elder, Dempster & Co., have proved themselves of very considerable service to us in the line of trade, they were not able to improve their service and I gave notice of the termination of the contract. The contract was accordingly terminated with the opening of navigation, and a contract for one year was granted to the Messrs. Allan, on condition of their employing a somewhat superior class of boats to these that Elder, Dempster & Co. had been able to supply.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: When was that contract commenced ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It commences with the opening of navigation and lasts for one year only. I have here the contract and shall send it to my hon. friend.


Mr. TARTE.: 


Mr. WTALLACE.: Another item might be taken while we are looking over this contract.
Steam service fortnightly between St. John and Liverpool, Great Britain, during the winter season of 1901-2, not less than ten round trips, $20,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This vote is practically used iu case of need to supplement the previous vote.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Has it been used ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It will probably be used the coming year, but not this year.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Is there any contract with any particular company who get this amount ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: It will be used to enable the same contractors to perform the service in the winter.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes. We have varied the old form of that contract. We give a larger subsidy to the better boat. If they give us a superior boat they get a larger subsidy, and it may amount therefore to a little more than $150,000. One cannot tell until the close of the year what the full amount will be, but I expect the two votes will enable us to pay it all.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: This $20,000 will only apply to the winter months ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Exactly. For a long time these vessels have made a demand for an additional sum owing to the delay, and they allege the increased insurance caused by calling at Halifax and then at St. John makes it more expensive than if they sailed from the one port alone.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore the $150,000 is supposed to represent the service for the year, except that the $20,000

The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE-is available in case of need. As a matter of fact it was not paid last vear at all.
Steam service between Halifax, St. John's, Newfoundland, and Liverpool from July 1, 1901, to June 30, 1902, $20,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This contract is with Furness, Withy & Company. They threw up the service for a while, but they renewed it. It starts at Halifax, touches at ]St. John's Nfld., and then proceeds to Liverpool and back again.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is tlie subsidy given because it does the trade from Halifax to Newfoundland ?


Tbe MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is largely for ,the interprovincial trade, but I think some merchandise goes to Liverpool.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Do they carry mails ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We send mails from Halifax to St. John's, Nfld., but it would be too slow for the English mail service.
Steam service between St. John and Glasgow during winter of 1901-2, $7,500.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is the usual vote to the Donaldson line, known as the Reford firm. They performed the service very satisfactorily last year.
Steam service between St. John, Dublin and Belfast during the winter of 1901-2, $7,500.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is for the Ulster Steam Company, known as the Head line.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Would the minister give us full information as to what business they do ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It has been our object, as the hon. gentleman knows, to establish direct communication with as many important centres in the United Kingdom as may be. As far as possible we do not allow these steamers to carry more than a certain percentage of deals ; they carry a general cargo to Dublin and Belfast. Around these two cities, there is a considerable consuming population, and more particularly around Belfast. Our agents report to us that we are greatly increasing the consumption of Canadian commodities in these centres. There has been a pretty steady increase but nothing very rapid. Still, Canadian goods are finding their way more and more into consumption in the north of Ireland especially.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Food products ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I refer to them more especially.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: It so happens that I know some of the details in connection with this steamship company. These large steamers trading between Canadian ports and Dublin and Belfast carry a large quantity of *food products from Canada. At Belfast they tranship a great many of these food products from Canada, such as w'heat, flour, and oatmeal, to their Baltic and North Sea steamers, and find markets for them at ports in Norway and Russia. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture 4f any 150*
steps have been taken to have any of these Irish ports, Belfast, for instance, made a port to which cattle may be sent and slaughtered the same as at Liverpool.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I know the Minister of Agriculture has been trying to do that, but I do not know that he has succeeded in the case of Belfast. The British government, perhaps at the instigation of the agriculturists of Great Britain, has been very chary about giving us the privilege of landing and slaughtering cattle at all points. I think it would be desirable to have the privilege extended to an Irish port. I am not a farmer, but I should be inclined to think that Irish pastures would be specially suitable for our Stockers if they were allowed to land, and a considerable trade might be developed in that way. Everybody who knows anything of Ireland knows that whatever the green isle may or may not do, it can pasture cattle exceedingly well.


Samuel Hughes: I am glad the hon. minister takes that view. The objection urged at the pfesent time is that the landing of our cattle at an Irish port would interfere with the Irish cattle trade and create a prejudice. I think all that is necessary is to educate the people there to the advantages of it. We could not send Stocker cattle there, because our cattle would have to be slaughtered on their arrival; but at present our cattle are sent to Liverpool and slaughtered there, and hundreds of tons of the meat is shipped to Belfast and other Irish cities; and why the same meat should not be allowed to land at Belfast and be slaughtered there passes my comprehension. As the Minister of Agriculture is now present, I would like to ask him what steps have been taken towards having Belfast made a port for the landing and slaughtering of our cattle ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the hon. gentleman is aware that last year I sent representations to the High Commissioner, who forwarded them and personally supported them before the Department of Agriculture in England; but that department, I may say, flatly refused. The hon. gentleman is no doubt aware that there are strong influences in England against any relaxation whatever of the regulations regarding the importation of cattle into the United Kingdom, and these influences seem to be powerful enough to prevent any steps so far tending towards relaxation" The scheduling of Canadian cattle took place I think in 1892; and the amending Act of 1893 required that' our cattle should only land at certain specified ports, and Belfast is not included in the list of those ports.


Samuel Hughes: What ports are they ?
I


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Speaking only from memory on the spur of the moment, they are Liverpool, Glasgow, j Manchester, Cardiff, Bristol, London, Newcastle and Dundee. These scheduling of our cattle has been a grievance which we Canadians have protested against again and again. When 1 was last in England I interviewed the Minister of Agriculture there, and took very strong ground, but without the slightest avail. I may inform the hon. gentleman and the committee that at the present time a very strongly worded mem-oradum is on its way to Great Britain on that subject, and I hope to follow that up when I go to England, as I hope to do within a few weeks, with the most strenuous representations against the injustice and unfairness of scheduling our cattle, which not only affects our trade with Great Britain, but which constitutes an aspersion, I might almost say a libel, against the health of our Canadian cattle. We say, and I think I can prove, that there has never been iu the Dominion of Canada a case of contagious pleuro-pneumonia. The excuse given for the scheduling of our cattle in England was the supposed finding in 1802 of three cases of what the English veter-iuaries called pleuro-pneumonia; but our veterinaries in this country took the opportunity of examining the lungs of those animals, and they were strongly of opinion, and asserted it strongly, that these cases were simply eases of what as called transit pleuropneumonia, which is not contagious. Cases of the same kind had occurred before and the cattle had been accepted, the Imperial authorities acknowledging that they were not contagious pleuro-pneumonia, but only transit pleuro-pneumonia; and the cases on which the schedule was founded were identical with those. So strongly am I convinced that they were not cases of contagious pleuro-pneumonia that I would not hesitate to argue the case out. Contagious pleuro-pneumonia is an exceedingly contagious disease. The animals affected by it have to be strictly quarantined, as the disease is sure to spread with great rapidity and virulence. The districts of Canada from which the animals in question came in 1S92 were thoroughly searched; yet not a single case of contagious pleuro-pneumonia was found in them. Those districts were watched afterwards with the greatest assiduity; yet no case of contagious pleuropneumonia has ever been found in the country. It is beyond the power of belief that contagious pleuro-pneumonia could have occurred in that part of the country without the disease spreading and other cases being fouiid; but from that day to this not a single case has been found in Canada, and since that time we have sent to England nearly 800.000 head of cattle, all of which have been inspected by the authorities in England at the point of debarkation. Not one case of contagious pleuro-pneumonia Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
J was found in any one of the 800,000 Canadian cattle slaughtered there. If pleuropneumonia existed in this country, it is incredible that some case would not have been discovered, either by our own veterinarians, who are always on the look-out for it, or amongst those 800,000 cattle sent to England and slaughtered during those eight years, under the inspection of the Dejiartmeut of Agriculture there. Under the circumstances, the Imperial authorities have not a leg to stand on. They may continue scheduling our cattle, but I have already protested by despatch, and propose in person to present the case to the Canadian farmers and stock dealers against this aspersion cast upon the health of our cattle in Canada- an aspersion which affects us in the trade there and elsewhere, because it is an announcement to the world that the Imperial authorities consider Canada a dangerous country from which to import cattle. It is unfair and improper for the government at the centre of the empire to cast such an aspersion upon an important part of the empire. Every argument will be placed before the authorities with all the strength I am capable of, and I trust will have some effect, because while the Imperial authorities are naturally anxious to safeguard the interests of the inhabitants of the British Isle, they still are imbued by a sense of justice, and a desire for Imperial unity, which may at this time be effective.


Samuel Hughes: I am much pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is still pegging away along the line he started on a couple of years ago, when I first brought this matter before liis notice. At present Canadian cattle entering British markets are somewhat handicapped as compared with the cattle of other nations, which may be classed as Britain's enemies -for instance, Germany and Russia. The cattle from Russia enter Britain to-day on better terms than Canadian cattle, owing to the shortness of haulage and cheapness of freight rates. In other words, Canada, an ally of Great Britain, a country that does not cost Great Britain a farthing for defence or offence, is handicapped in the British market by Russia.
If our cattle can enter Wales, England and Scotland, why should they not enter Ireland? We have a line of steamers which trade largely in winter between the maritime provinces, and in summer Quebec and Montreal ports and the old land, and then on to the Baltic and Norway ports, bringing the produce of this country to the markets of the old world. Could that steamship company carry cattle on the decks of its vessels, the freights would be considerably reduced, because a very large competing line would be thus brought into the market for the cattle trade. At	present these
steamers only take part cargoes, so to speak, and the freight rates must, therefore, be higher than they would be if they

could take on deck-loads of cattle. I trust tliat tlie bon. minister will endeavour, now that the British public shows a disposition to move, to place the demands of the Canadian people in this matter before the British authorities. There is no reason in the world why Canadian cattle should not be shipped direct to Belfast and Dublin, and there slaughtered, just as they are now sent to Liverpool and other English ports. There is no reason why cattle should not be brought to Belfast and Dublin and there 'slaughtered, and the carcasses sent to Liverpool and other English and Scotch cities for distribution. There will be no more danger of disease in Ireland than there is in England. Cattle are brought to and fro between England and Ireland, so that if there should be any disease in England, it is certain to be brought to Ireland, and vice versa, and there is no satisfactory reason why the vessels I have referred to should not have the privilege of carrying deckloads of Canadian cattle. lam satisfied that if these enormous steamers have become engaged in the carrying trade of cattle, the freight rates would have been reduced materially and the Canadian farmers have profited.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I certainly listened with a great deal of pleasure to the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and am glad indeed that he is going to press upon the British authorities the desirability of admitting Canadian cattle on freer terms. I have often thought that the present government lost the golden opportunity to secure this great privilege, which they had in 1897, when they proffered to the people of Great Britain a preference in the market of Canada. The government then should certainly have insisted on our obtaining in return a preference for some of the products of Canada in the markets of Great Britain. But, they failed to take advantage of that opportunity, and they failed, no doubt, because of their extreme free trade principles. They told the people of England that what they were giving was a free gift, for which they wanted nothing in return, so that it is no wonder the people of Great Britain have persistently refused ever since to allow our cattle freer access into their markets. I hope that the hon. Minister of Agriculture, if ever such an opportunity occurs again, will take a firm stand on behalf of the farmers and secure them the tremendous boom which would accrue to them if they only had freer admission of their cattle into the British market. The hon. minister has told us that during the past eight years, some 800,000 of our cattle have been landed in Great Britain from Canada. Assuming that 400,000 have been sent over since the time we gave British preference without obtaining, as we might have done, a preference in return for our cattle in the British market.
and estimating the loss at the rate of $15 per head-which I believe is a small estimate of the loss due to that embargo-the loss suffered by our farmers would amount to a total of $8,000,000 during the past four years. That is one of the penalties our people are paying for the preferential tariff, and not the only one. But that one alone is sufficient to condemn the whole principle of the preference, and the government, in the eyes of the farmers of this country, that allowed such a fraud to be perpetrated upon our people.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: I do not see how this government can be blamed because the embargo was placed on our cattle. That was the action of the British government, and it was taken because of tuberculosis and other diseases prevalent in our cattle- so said. This government could not prevent that. But, since we have no contagious diseases among our cattle, it is the duty of this government, who are watching or should be watching in the interests of the farmers, to make an effort to have that embargo removed, so that our cattle may be taken freely to any part of Great Britain. We know that cattle taken across the Atlantic will often shrink in weight; and consequently, if they have to be slaughtered at the port of entry, it is a decided disadvantage to the shippers. If the graziers were allowed to purchase the cattle and fatten them on their farms, these cattle would bring nearly as good prices as the fat cattle. The government are not to blame for what the British government did, but they will be to blame if they do not make an effort to have that embargo removed. I think also that the government will be to blame if they do not make an attempt to establish abattoirs where our cattle can be slaughtered, the dead meat being shipped to England, making such an industry as they have in Chicago. I believe that capital can be secured to establish that industry. If it were established, we should have the offal and by-products which could be made the basis of other industries. The hides could be manufactured into leather on this side, and other manufactures could be carried on. Besides, the loss through the shipping of the live animals could be avoided. I have taken cattle across the Atlantic, and I know well the difficulties involved in the attempt to land the cattle in Liverpool, London, or Glasgow, in as good condition as when leaving here. I think it is the duty of the government to try to encourage capital to go into the dead meat trade. I do not like to hear it said that it is on account of the preferential tariff that we do not carry on a larger cattle business with Great Britain. As I said the other night, I wish we had the duty still further lowered and a still greater preference given. Great Britain gives us a free market for everything we wish to send,

except tobacco and whisky-and cattle when they have tuberculosis. And we give her a preference of 33A per cent. Let us look at this thing fairly. Instead of saying that Great Britain is trying to take advantage of us, we should acknowledge that it is rather Canada that is trying to take advantage of Great Britain. As we are part and parcel of this great empire, I think we ought to treat Great Britain fairly. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will discharge his duty faithfully, and will secure such changes that the farmers of this country will be able to send their cattle to any part of Great Britain, if those cattle are free from disease.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I shall not reply to the statements made by our good friend from West Elgin (Mr. Robinson). And I am loath to object to anything that the Minister of Agriculture says, because I am in mortal dread of his giving one of those long and dreary speeches of his and taking up the time of the House for a whole day. But there are one or two points in the hon. gentleman's statement to which some reference should be made. In the first place, he tells us that he is going to Great Britain in person this year. To do what ? To endeavour to have the embargo on live cattle from Canada removed. Is that what I understood the minister to say ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is one of the things I propose to deal with.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is the principal thing.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not say it was the principal thing- it is one of the things.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I will say it is the principal thing.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Ail right.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Minister of Agriculture has been in office for five years; and now he is going to make an effort which he should have made years ago, for these hon. gentlemen pledged themselves that they would do it the very moment they came into power. But, in any effort in that direction they have handicapped themselves by allowing free exchange of cattle between the United States and Canada. The hon. minister tells us that in 1892, when the embargo was put on Canadian cattle there was no contagious tuberculosis


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Contagious pi euro-pneumonia.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That being the case, this embargo was an injustice to those interested in the Canadian cattle trade. We |
know that it was done in response to the sentiment of Great Britain rather because of the finding of actual facts. After five years, the hon. minister tells us that he is going over in person, and that with all the eloquence he can command, with all the vigour the English language allows, he will press the Canadian case for justice in this matter and some others. The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes), I think, made a strong and pertinent point when he tried to ascertain why some parts of Ireland were not included among the ports open for the landing of Canadian cattle. The minister gave us the names of ten or twelve such ports-two or three in Scotland and the remainder in England or Wales, but not one in Ireland. Yet, the population of Ireland is about twice that of Scotland in round numbers, and it would seem that we should have access to Irish markets if to anywhere in Great Britain. Now, I have said that we are handicapped by the arrangement that the minister lias made for the transmission of cattle free from quarantine proceedings from the United States to Canada. I think that when he goes to Great Britain this is one of the strong objections that they will raise, knowing as they do that Texas cattle as well as cattle from various other parts of the United States have had tuberculosis and have had pneumonia in contagious forms. But at any rate the point that has been made by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) is a strong one, that when we were reducing our tariff to Great Britain and increasing it to other countries on those products that Great Britain furnishes to Canada, we made no effort to get any favours in return. The Minister of Agriculture, I understand, does not profess that he is going there to ask for any favours, but he professes to go there this summer to get justice done to Canada. Whv did not the government do that four years ago at the time of the Jubilee, when the heart and arms of Great Britain were open to Canada, and there was every opportunity of getting justice done ? Why lias he allowed these four precious years to elapse without doing anything?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did go three years ago.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And what was done ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: With no result.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: He said he made representations last year to the High Commissioner, who, on referring the matter to the British government, met with a point-blank refusal. He did not say what the refusal was. whether it was a refusal to admit live cattle, or whether it was a refusal to make any port in Ireland a port for the landing of live cattle.


Jabel Robinson: 


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: That is what I said.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think that was a pretty curt reply, and a very unreasonable one, too, because if there is any reason why a port of Great Britain should be open, the same reason exists why a port in Ireland should be open for the landing of Canadian live cattle. However, we shall look with interest to see what the Minister of Agriculture will do, and what representations he may make to the government of Great Britain in order to secure the landing of Canadian cattle in Ireland, and to have the embargo removed on our cattle on the ground of disease, which the minister assures us does not exist.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I would suggest that, while this is interesting and important, aud I feel great reluctance to interrupt, we are straying rather far afield from the item immediately under discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid the Minister of Trade and Commerce is getting side-tracked.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister invited it by sending for the Minister of Agriculture.


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I won't do it again.
A line or lines of steamers to run during the summer months between St. John, Halifax and London, and during the winter months between St. John and London direct, and Halifax and London direct, $40,000.


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is a vote we have had for a considerable number of years. The service is performed by Furness, Withy & Co. I may, however, explain that for the past year, only a portion of the service was performed, and $15,000 was deducted. This year I hope the whole service will be performed in terms of the vote.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this the service about which there was some difficulty as to the terms of the contract this year ? I had some communication with the Board of Trade of Halifax with regard to it.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I think my hon. friend is referring to the Manchester service, not to this one. If anybody complained here it would be the Board of St. John, and not of Halifax.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is right, it is the Manchester service.


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: There was considerable discussion going on with the board of Halifax about the Manchester service.


Mr. KAULBACH.: Would it not be possible for the ships on this service in the summer time to take the southern edge of the grand banks of Newfoundland instead of crossing directly over ? It is known that these waters where they pass now are largely occupied in summer time by a fleet of fishermen, and for several years past the port of Lunenburg has suffered severely in the loss of property and life as well. I think the government would do well to communicate with the companies employed in the shipment of products of Canada to Great Britain and other ports in Europe, and represent that it would be advisable for them to take a more southern route. I think they would readily concur, when they saw that this sacrifice of life and property could be avoided.


The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That point has been brought up more than once, and it has been repeatedly suggested that steam lanes, so to speak, should be established for the express purpose of avoiding collision with these unlucky fishing craft, of whom I fear a certain percentage every year have been run down by the various steamers. But it appears to me that in order to make it of any real service, at least Great Britain and the United States must concur in establishing such a southern route as he speaks of. I have taken note of his suggestion, and I will, through the High Commissioner, communicate on the subject to the proper authorities. I have had occasion, as well as the hon. gentleman, to see how seriously the perils incident to the fishing service are increased by the great speed with which these great liners sometimes traverse the fishing banks. Still, to be of any real service I think that certainly Great Britain and I the United States, who are chiefly interested, and probably France, ought to cooperate in laying down such a route. I do not think it would add to any appreciable ( extent to the length of the route, at any rate, to New York. It appears to me that i the suggestion is a good one.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I would like to ask the hon. minister if, in making these subventions to the steamship companies, any arrangements are made to protect perishable products in crossing. In carrying apples and other perishable products enormous losses have occurred, and it strikes me that in making these arrangements with the steamship companies provision should be made to compel them properly to protect | perishable products going across.
i The MINISTER OP TRADE AND COM-MERGE. In a good many cases, as my I hon. friend probably knows, the Department of Agriculture have made arrangements for that "purpose, but not with this set of ' steamers. I am afraid, to make arrange-

nients of any service, it would require a considerable addition to the vote. But the matter will be looked into. This is a service of considerable duration, I think it has lasted for a long number of years, but the conditions the hon. gentleman speaks of have not hitherto been attached to our arrangements with them.
A line or lines of steamers to run between St. John and Halifax, or either, and the West Indies and South America, $80,700.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is a case in which the British government pay an almost equal subsidy to that which we pay ourselves. We pay $80,700 and the British government supplement that vote by a payment of $60,000.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot concur in an estimate of this kind from the fact which I have stated at other sessions, that it interferes very materially with the shipment of our products from Nova Scotia, especially with the products of merchants engaged in the fishing trade. The reason is that when a steamer takes her departure from Halifax laden with a certain cargo the bill of lading is sent directly to the West Indies and the traders there are made aware of what the contents of the cargo are with the result that vessels leaving our ports, outside of that of Halifax, are subjected to a very great deal of inconvenience and loss. It appears to me that this is an injustice done to the owners of the vessels that are now built and are employed in this trade. The vessels that we have in Lunenburg are of a superior class and constructed in such a way that they make speedy passages.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Sailing vessels, I presume.
Mr. IvAUDBACH. Yes, sailing vessels. They very often make the voyage more quickly than a steamer, barring bad weather and having a favourable wind. The inconvenience they find is that when they arrive ahead of the steamer they are compelled to await the arrival of the steamer in order that they may have a market, or even an offer for their products. This is a serious loss, and shippers look upon it as unfair to them for the reason that this boat is subsidized to carry the products which it can carry much more cheaply than these vessels, simply because of the bonus. I feel satisfied that a bonus should not be given but that we slioidd let every one be placed on the same footing and take his chances of getting to the market as best he may. This bonus has been granted in previous years and I have always looked upon it most unfavourably.
I am speaking now on behalf of the traders of the ports outside of Halifax and of the fishermen, those whose vessels are engaged in the summer time but which are compelled to remain idle in winter for want of employment which they are deprived of by the


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: subsidized steamers taking everything that they, the vessels, could otherwise have for themselves. I certainly, therefore, offer my protest, and I feel satisfied that it is only a matter of justice to these vessel-owners that I should give expression to the views that I have placed before the committee.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: At what ports in South America does this vessel call ? Does it call at the Argentine ports ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, it goes to the West Indies and British Guiana. That is the only part of South America it touches at. It does not go to Argentina at all.
Mr. IvAUDBACH. In previous years we had our trade, particularly large with Porto Rico, but since that island has been ceded to the United States, we have been deprived of that market and we are compelled to go seeking a market among the British islands and sometimes to the Brazils, which gives us a very limited market and sometimes an inferior one, and we are thereby deprived of the trade we used to have. In the course of time, if matters continue as they are at present, we will have to quit the business entirely.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: If you are going to do anything in the way of promoting trade with the West Indies you must take into consideration that this is a mail service too and this can only be done by a subsidized line to be maintained with any regularity. We have to go to Hamilton, Bermuda, Port of Spain in Trinidad, Kingston, St Vincent, St. Dominique, Demerara, Antigua, St. Kitts, St. Croix, and one or two other points in British Guiana. These have to be visited at certain regular intervals, and the service is now considerably faster than in former times.
I do not know how we could possibly hope to maintain, much less increase, our trade with these islands without the aid of a steamship service capable of conveying the mails with reasonable regularity. I can quite see that unfortunately anything of this kind that is done may be disadvantageous to the owners of sailing craft, but I do not see how you can hope to increase your trade with the West Indies except through the medium of some such a line as this. The British government took that view so strongly that they voted an equal subsidy to our own in respect to every service except that from Jamaica.


Robert Laird Borden: It is quite true that the steamship service must necessarily interfere with the trade which was formerly carried on by schooners. It is quite true of the city of Halifax, but I think as far as the interests of the country as a whole are concerned my hon. friend from Dunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) would be prepared to admit that there is something to be said in favour of this subsidy. It has had some effect in assisting trade between some parts of this

country and the West Indies. At the same time, 1 can see that it may affect prejudicially the trade carried by schooners. This is a service that is looked upon favourably by the British government, and if we ever are to hope for any great increase of trade between the British West Indies and Canada I do not see how we can dispense with this service.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I would like to ask the lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce if any approaches have been made with England in regard to the sugar trade of the West Indies, and if the British government have been asked to allow a preference to be given for the cane-grown sugar of the West Indies over the bounty-fed beet-root sugar of France, Germany and Belgium ? We find that our trade with the British West Indies is more than crippled in consequence of the fact of our not being able to have return cargoes of sugar, they having given up the idea of growing sugar now almost entirely for want of a market, but if it were to be shown in England that the colonies have been and are at present suffering very materially in consequence of the hard and fast rule they have made in respect to the sugar product of the West Indies being only allowed to enter the ports of Great Britain on the same terms as the bounty-fed beet-root sugar of Germany, France and Belgium, and if they would make some concession to the West Indies, to enter the markets of England on preferred terms, relief might be afforded. If Great Britain adopted this course she would confer a benefit upon the colonies, and Nova Scotia in particular, which now suffers from the want of trade with the West Indies, because the cane-grown sugar industry being a thing of the past, they are, in consequence, unable to purchase our goods and give us a return cargo of sugar.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The matter, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kaulbach) knows, has been brought before the attention of England in the past times without number. I should say that during the last fifteen years the most earnest representations have been made on the part of the West Indian colonies on the subject he speaks of. But he will have noticed from the recent attitude taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there does not appear to be any immediate prospect of England acceding to their wishes. My hon. friend beside me (Hon. Mr. Fielding) gave a certain advantage to West Indian sugars in one of the items of his preferential tariff. They do get a certain benefit of it. That it is enough to compensate I am not prepared to say. But some benefit we have given.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Has the injury done to Nova Scotia been properly placed before the British authorities, with a view of coming to the rescue of the sugar producers of
the West India Islands, and thereby advance our fish trade, or, in other words, have mutual benefits ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We have made very strong representations as to the great hardship, and as it appears to us, the unfairness of interfering with Nova Scotia's market in Porto Rico and in Cuba by the adoption of the tariff the Americans have proposed, which has, I fear, operated seriously to the disadvantage of a portion of the maritime provinces. We lost no time iu calling the attention of the British government to that, and they, to my knowledge, remonstrated very vigorously with the United States authorities on the subject, but, as yet, they have not been able to succeed in obtaining any relaxation.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Have careful inquiries been made as to whether or not a profitable trade could be carried on with the Argentine Republic, by means of a subsidized line, if necessary ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We have an agent in Buenos Ayres, and we have been directing a considerable amount of attention to that subject, but it is not yet in such a state that I could venture to come to the House and propose a subsidy. I am afraid it would not do any good. Any subsidy that would be of use would be rather larger than the present prospects would warrant us in asking. We are doing what we can to extend the trade. The question of further subsidies is a critical one.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I do not know what the possibilities might be in regard to the general trade, but, in the one article of apples, a profitable trade might be done if we had a direct line of steamers with cold storage. I know a gentleman who took advantage of a friend going to the Argentine to ship apples on an ordinary vessel, and as the friend saw that they were kept on deck, they arrived in good condition and sold at a fine price. An ordinary shipment made in the ordinary hold of a vessel was three-quarters rotten when it got there, but the quarter that was good sold for enough to make a profit on the whole venture. I am satisfied that if we had proper facilities, a very profitable trade in fruit could be done with that country, because their season is the opposite of ours. We know that Australia and Tasmania do quite a large trade in Britain with their apples, although they are at a great disadvantage because of the distance and cost of transportation. However, their apples arrive when ours are out of the market, and the same principle might apply to our trade with the Argentine Republic.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The distance is long and the cost would be great.

Steam service between Victoria, B.C., and San Francisco, $5,000.


Edward Gawler Prior: I am informed that this contract expires some time in June next.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It is being at present renewed from year to year.


Edward Gawler Prior: Has tne minister made any arrangement as to what company should carry on the service ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: At present we are doing it with the firm who have been performing it for a very long time. Of course, this is a service which is called for under the terms of confederation.


Edward Gawler Prior: I understand that. Is it the intention of the minister to continue the contract with the same firm ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: As at present advised, I have had no complaints. I understand that the service is giving satisfaction to British Columbia.


Edward Gawler Prior: So it is. It is first-rate.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
Edward Gawler Prior: Does not the hon. minister think that a service such as that is worth more money ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That is quite another thing. If I can get it for $5,000, I am bound to get it.
Steam communication between a port or ports in Prince Edward Island and a port or ports in Great Britain, $5,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this a regular service ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No. We have had a great deal of trouble with this service, and I think I shall be compelled to ask the House in the supplementary estimates for an increased vote, in order to enable that service to be performed. We have been unsuccessful in obtaining proper vessels to do this service. I hope that with a small addition to this vote we will be able to obtain an efficient service, but so far it has not been satisfactory. We did not use the whole of the vote last year because we could not get the vessels to supply the service. But, I anticipate that with a small increase we shall be able to secure a regular and permanent service from the Island to Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: With respect to the service which was performed last Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
year, was the amount of freight considered adequate ? Did it come up to the expectations of the department ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am told that the cargoes were reasonably full ; but there were too few trips to test the service properly. A more regular and frequent service is necessary for a fair test.
To promote direct communication and trade between Canada and South Africa, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The vote of last year was not spent, but I thought it well to repeat it, because I am in hopes that when the war terminates we may be able to do a considerable amount of business in South Africa. I have retained the services of a gentleman of some considerable commercial experience, who is travelling over Cape Colony, Natal, Rhodesia and the Transvaal, with the view of ascertaining and reporting to us in what way our trade can be best facilitated there.


Hon. Mr. IIAGGART.: Who is the gentleman ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Mr. Cummings, of Lyn or Brock-ville.


Uriah Wilson: What are his salary and expenses ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I think he gets his travelling expenses and some three or four hundred dollars a month.


George Taylor: Was Mr. Cummings a defeated candidate for the riding of Brock-ville a few years ago ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, I think so. My hon. friend is a near neighbour, and would know exactly.
Steam communication during the season of 1901, i.e., from the opening to the closing of navigation, between Baddeck, Grand Narrows and Iona, and one trip each fortnight to Big Pond and East Bay, $4,000.


Mr. BELL (Pictou).: I have had some communication with reference to this service. Some parties seem to think it is very highly paid in proportion to the service rendered. I suppose it is the same as last year ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The same vote as last year.


Adam Carr Bell: Has any effort been made to get a lower rate for the service ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: If I am not mistaken, the efforts were the other way. Strong representations were made to us that under existing circumstances the population served

by this line had a right to have navigation for a longer period than the contract called for, and we have been beseiged with applications to give a small increase of the subsidy for that purpose. The contractors complain that the service has been carried on at a great loss to them, particularly during the last season, owing to the increased price of coal and other things.


Adam Carr Bell: I may be misinformed, and if the minister says there have been applications for an increase of the subsidy, I will not object to it.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman, in the supplementary estimates of which he speaks, be prepared to make a statement with regard to the fast Atlantic service.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: As far as circumstances will permit.
Through service from Annapolis, N.S., to London, G.B., three trips at $750 (revote), $2,250.


Mr. SPROULE.: Is this steamer fitted up with cold storage ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I recognize this as very appropriate and most essential in the interests of the shippers of apples.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: If the apples do not get better accommodation than the hon. member for Annapolis said they did last year, better either to have an increased subsidy or give none at all.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That would be more praticularly a question for the Department of Agriculture. Any question of providing cold storage accommodation rests with that department and not mine.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committe resumed at eight o'clock.
Miscellaneous-Department of Labour-Further amount required to meet expenditure, including $416.66 each to C. P. V. Beroard, French translator, and W. J. Johnson, accountant, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $17,100.


Uriah Wilson: Would the acting minister please tell us the whole cost of this department ?


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: The total cost for the current year since the establishment of the department is $27,100.


Uriah Wilson: How many are there on the staff ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I will give the details


Robert Laird Borden: Before the hon. gentleman goes into that I would suggest that perhaps it would be better to give some information as to this vote. I have never before seen a vote put in at so much for a department without any details.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. gentleman will remember that this is a new department. There was a vote of $10,000 last session, but no details could be given, because the minister could not tell except in a general way how the organization was to be laid out. In the future, votes for this department will be put in the same form a? votes for the other departments. The following is the expenditure as it is estimated to be up to the 30th June next :
Salaries of the staff	 $ 5,240 34
Salaries of correspondents ....	1,986	07Printing Labour Gazette	
10,489	67Printing, sundries	
3,385	40Stationery	
2,620	98Miscellaneous	
3,377	54Total	
$27,099 95


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the department is organized so that in future the items will appear with details as do the items of other departments. I see that this item provides for the payment of a French translator and an accountant notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. Are these officers of the civil service drawing a salary in some other capacity than in connection with the Department of Labour ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It was thought that instead of engaging an expert accountant at a high salary, it would be desirable to make use of the spare time of an experienced officer, as that would be a considerable saving. Mr. Johnston is accountant of the Post Office Department, and he can do this work satisfactorily without interfering with his other duties. Mr. Beroard is engaged in the Post Office Department also. This payment is for his services in translating the Labour Gazette. These officers are paid for their services in connection of labour at the rate of $500 a year each.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will the balance of their salary be charged against ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: This is not a balance, it is a payment at the rate of $500 a year. But the department has been organized only ten months.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But they will still draw their salaries in some other capacity ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes ; they will be able to do this work, it is thought, for at least another year. We could not get men qualified to do the work for less than three times what these men are paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But their salaries must be charged to some department.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They draw their regular salaries from the Post Office Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then this is extra work?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They do this principally after hours.


David Henderson: Very strong exception has been taken in the past to a civil servant drawing salaries from two different departments. If I remember rightly, when hon. gentlemen opposite sat on this side they attacked the government of the day very strongly for this practice. If it was wrong then, I do not see how it can be right now. It seems to me to be wrong especially in the Department of Labour, a department which is supposed to be run in the interest of the working people, men who earn their living by their day's labour. It seems a very strange system that one man should be employed in two capacities, and another deprived altogether of legitimate employment. It seems to me that the Labour Bureau is setting a very bad example, and a system of that kind should be done away with as quickly as possible, and the employment in this department distributed instead of being given to a favoured few.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: On general principles I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson). But he will see that this is not an allowance for extra work in the department. This is expert work, and it is done in this way only to make a considerable saving-to have the books put in shape and the translating done by experienced men. The arrangement is a temporary one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What salaries do these men draw in the other positions they occupy ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: My impression is that they receive $1,200 or $1,300.


David Henderson: That would make a salary of $1,700 for each of these men ?
Civil Government-Post Office Department- Contingencies-Sundries, further amount required, $500.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I explained this item when the estimates were under consideration, but it seems to have been overlooked. The extra amount was paid principally for cablegrams in connection with the Pacific cable service and the South African war.	.
Harbours and Rivers-Quebec-Sorel, deep water wharf, $100,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What is the depth of water there now along the cribwor^ ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It varies from 11 feet up to 20.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What important business is done there that justifies this large undertaking ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The explanation I have just given will be sufficient, I hope, to convince my hon. friend of the importance of that work. There are three railways coming into Sorel. The new line which was built less than a year ago will connect with the American system of railways. The Rutland system has obtained control of these two roads, and intends to take to the St. Lawrence route as much American trade as they can. In view of all these circumstances, I have consented to ask parliament for this sum of money. I acknowledge that it is a large sum; however, I will ask my hon. friends from Ontario to remember the cost of harbour works on the different lake ports in that province, ports which are perhaps less important than the port of Sorel.

All'. TAYLOR. What is the population of Sorel ?
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. About 0,000 or 7,000, and it is increasing very rapidly. There is a large trade flowing from the United States through the Richelieu river. For instance, there is a great trade in pulp wood and coal. Sorel is the main terminal point of the boats of the Richelieu Company throughout the navigation season, and the boats winter there. The government has also a large shipyard there.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman will take the Canadian Pacific Railway and go down to Broekville, 70 miles from here, he will strike a town with a population of
10,000.	He will find three railways entering there, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Broekville, AVestport and Sail It Ste. Alarie Railway. A ferry-boat crosses the river to the United States, about a mile across, and there connects with the American railways. I would like to inquire how much the government have ever spent on the port of Broekville in building piers and wharfs ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC AYORKS.: Perhaps the port of Broekville has not been attended to as it should have been, it has not been called to my attention yet. But I know that the government has spent, and is spending large sums of money in the ports of Ontario, a large amount at Owen Sound, a large amount at Alidland, a large amount at Collingwood, and large amounts in many other harbours. I think the government has spent at Port Burwell, up to date, over $200,000. At Port Stanley we are spending large amounts of money, and at Port Colbome.


George Taylor: 
The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These works that we are now considering are at an important point on the St. Lawrence. ' The Richelieu river is on one side and the St. Lawrence on the other.
All-. SPROULE. I am not complaining of the expenditure, but I am asking whether there is an amount of shipping at that point which justifies this outlay ? We would require that information so as to intelligently judge as to whether the expenditure is justified.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may add-I do not know whether it will materialize or not-that I had a letter from the manager of the Rutland road, in which he says that if this pier is built they will erect a large elevator. We are very glad to see that the Americans are turning their eyes towards Canada, and that they intend to bring trade to us. In view of that, I
think we are justified in asking parliament to vote this money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: AVhat will the work cost?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About $255,000. Tenders have been asked, and the lowest tender is $255,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Last fall the hon. Minister of Public Works had some very elaborate plans prepared and circulated in the town of Penetanguishene for contemplated improvements at that point. They included, in the main, I think, a large amount of dredging. Since there is no item in the estimates, either original or supplementary, for this work, may I ask the hon. minister how he can explain that, after the forwarding of these plans to Penetanguishene, and after giving every assurance to the people there that the work would be undertaken, no appropriation has been made for this work ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know whether plans have been sent to Penetanguishene.


William Humphrey Bennett: Excuse me, they were sent last fall.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say I do not know. I did not say that they had not been sent. If the hon. gentleman (Air. Bennett) says they have been sent, I take his word. I was away for some time, and a minister was acting in my place.


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps the hon. minister can ask his engineer if they were sent ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC AYORKS.: I take it for granted that plans have been sent. We all know that Penetanguishene is an important point. The hon. gentleman must not forget-he is an old member of parliament-that the items contained in the main estimates are only those for works that have been begun, and for which money was voted in the previous year. Would my hon. friend be very muen annoyed if the supplementary estimates were to comply with his wishes ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, I would be pleased.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not say that they will, but I only ask the question, because I have no right to say more. To-morrow, perhaps, we may see the hon. gentleman in first-class humour.


William Humphrey Bennett: Were the plans that were circulated there authentic and from the department ? The chief engineer is here, and he will know whether they were or not.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer tells me that there was a demand for plans, and that these plans have been forwarded.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask tlie lion, minister whether this demanu was made this year or last fall ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Last fall. I think my hon. friend will not have as much fault to find with me on this occasion as he has on others.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am pleased to know that the plans were authentic and from the department. It was right on the eve of a general election, but by reason of the custody of the plans with the people in whose possession they were, they were mistrusted, and I am glad to know that they emanated from the hon. gentleman's department, and, having emanated from the hon. gentleman's department, I am surprised that he should have acted as he has done. In face of the fact that these plans were issued last November, here are the supplementary esti-ates with not a dollar for the work contemplated there, on which the hon. gentleman proposed an expenditure of upwards of $75,000. In view of the fact that these plans were solemnly sent up there from the hon. minister's department, and in view of the fact that the persons who held the plans pledged themselves to the statement that the minister was committed to the expenditure, here are supplementary estimates without a single dollar for the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is altogether mistaken. These are not the supplementary estimates at all. These are the main estimates. The supplementary estimates are not down. They [DOT]will be down to-morrow.


William Humphrey Bennett: I must call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that he has issued further supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For this year ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Up to 1901. In view of the fact of the hon. minister's department sending these plans up there on the eve of an election, calling for a contemplated expenditure of from $50,000 to $75,000, had it been intended that the money should have been expended, or at all events, anything like the amount that was anticipated, surely we would have found provision made for it in these supplementary estimates. I will wait with interest and find whether or not, in the further supplementary estimates that are to be brought down, there is a grant in proportion with what was promised by the people who pledged themselves that they had the authority of the minister for making the statement.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not make any promise.


William Humphrey Bennett: Those who were entrusted with the plans pledged themselves Mr. TARTE
to the statement that they had the authority of the minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Those who had the plans may have said what they were pleased to say, but, I must take exception to what the hon. gentleman assumes to believe. I have not made any promises. I was not in a position to make any. I was not here.


William Humphrey Bennett: Last November ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was here during the election, but I was not here when these plans were sent. I did not make any promises at all. I hope that Penetanguishene will not be unfairly treated. I am sure it win not be unfairly treated. I want to correct my hon. friend's views. Our supplementary estimates are those which have been brought down only to cover the expenditure up to the 1st of July this year, and the amount of money, if there is any, for the works at Penetanguishene, will be found in the supplementary estimates for next year.


William Humphrey Bennett: All right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister says that a tender of $255,000 has been received for this work at Sorel. What is the nature of the work to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just explained it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it is cribwork.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Cribwork, filling and dredging. It has been advertised, and the lowest tenderer will get the contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do any of the large vessels, going up and down the St. Lawrence, call there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The St. Lawrence is on one side and the Richelieu on the other. The work extends 700 feet on the Richelieu and GOO feet on the St. Lawrence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the business of that place demand such a wharf as the one which the hon. gentleman' has described, 700 feet in one direction and 600 feet In another ? That ought to accommodate a great deal of shipping.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, it is intended to have an elevator, warehouses and so on, there. If the Rutland railway system carry out the pledges that they have given us, and I hope they will, a very large trade will be developed. Beside that Sorel is the terminal point of the Richelieu Company. It is also the place where our shipyard is located. The government have built a large pier there.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think the explanations given by the hon. minister are not as satisfactory as they should be. He has told us that the trade of that port is growing very rapidly. That is what I understand his statement to be. I have looked up the Trade and Navigation Returns and they tell an exactly opposite story. In 1896 the Trade and Navigation Returns show that the customs duties which constitute about the best evidence that we have of the trade ef a port, amounted to $7,592. The last year for which we have a report it is $9,925 showing a small increase of about 20 per cent, but that increase is caused by increased prices rather by an increased importation.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: This is not an import port and it is not intended to be to a large extent, although later on it might be both import and export.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It is abundantly clear that the trade and the business done at Sorel does not warrant this large expenditure. Twenty-nine vessels arrived at the port of Sorel during the last year


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Ocean going vessels.
Mr. WALLACE-. Twenty-nine vessels of British origin and 64 vessels of foreign origin. The 29 vessels had a tonnage of .21,784 tons or about 700 tons each, and the 64 vessels of foreign origin had a tonnage of 8,052 tons or about 125 tons each, showing -that they were small fishing vessels or something like that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Engaged in the coasting trade.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I presume that every vessel that called at that port is included in these figures. The 25 vessels that departed from Sorel had a tonnage of 14,3S9 tons or less than 600 tons each ; they being the same vessels that arrived, although there appear to be 4 less. That is the total business done at the port of Sorel; and it does not appear that there is any substantial increase in it. St. John, New Brunswick, had 1,197 vessels of British register as compared with 29 vessels at Sorel. Montreal had a tonnage of 964,000 tons, and Quebec 580,000 tons. Even a little place called La Have in Nova Scotia had 105 vessels of British register arriving there, and a larger number clearing from there. There are scores of places having a larger business. Sorel is not a new port in which we can -hope for any marked increase of trade that will require extra facilities. I think it owes its position largely to the fact that the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has established his works there, which I presume adds largely to the population of the place and increases
its prosperity which I am delighted to hear of. How many men has the minister employed at Sorel ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It depends on the work we hare on hand; sometimes 200, sometimes 300, and sometimes 400.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And sometimes 600 or 700.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not as much as that.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think it was stated last year that at times 500 hands were employed there. However, that may be, there is nothing at Sorel to warrant the expenditure of $265,000. The minister has not yet justified it. The shipping and the commerce of the port in no way justify this expenditure. Is that $265,000 the total expenditure from the beginning to the end ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From beginning to end. The lowest tender was $255,000, and we suppose it will cost $10,000 or $12,000 more.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That completes the job.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The whole thing.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Are there buildings to be put on these wharfs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. The Rutland Railway Company have stated to us in writing that as soon as these wharfs are completed they will erect an elevator and a warehouse for their trade, but at their own expense of course.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The customs will probably require a warehouse there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will be a small amount of money.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) is not very small in his ideas of public expenditures. It is a growing time with him and he is not afraid to make the Custom Department grow as rapidly as any other department of the government. On the whole there is no justification for this immense expenditure at Sorel.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace), that the small trade done at Sorel does not justify this expenditure, is no argument whatever in this case. Sorel has great natural advantages, and if its trade it not larger than it is at present it is simply because there is no such accommodation as is contemplated under this vote. Not later than five years ago, I do not think there was a single dollar's worth of imports or exports at Parry Sound. There is a large trade there now, which has grown up in consequence of the accom-

modation which has been given to that locality. And so it is with Sorel, which is to-day a growing and thriving town of about 8,000 souls, at the junction of the St. Lawrence and Richelieu rivers. The Richelieu river is one of the most important of the many important rivers which we have in the province of Quebec. It is the outlet of Lake Champlain, and it waters one of the finest valleys in the world without any exception, even in the province of Ontario. It waters five or six of the best counties of the Dominion-VerchSres, Rouville, Richelieu, St. Hyacinthe, Iberville, St. John, Bagot and Missisquoi. Many years ago there was a very large and important trade at Sorel, because it was the outlet for that section of the country. That was previous to the era of railway transportation. Since the railways have been established, the trade of Sorel has gone down, and has been transferred to Montreal, which is allied with that section of country by railways. Afler the railways were built, the counties which I have named had no means of export except by railway to Montreal. Some of the lines of railway have been consolidated. The South Eastern, the United Counties, and the Rutland system are all concentrated under one management. It is manifest that a great trade must be carried on by that system of railways to Sorel if, instead of finding entrance to Montreal over the Victoria bridge, it can find a harbour at Sorel. This will be the case not only with the trade in agricultural products, which is large, but with the trade of several thriving towns on those lines of railway, such as St. Johns, St. Hyacinthe and Iberville. But above all things it is an agricultural country, productive of all cereals except wheat, as well as butter, cheese and hay. I do not believe there is a more thriving population anywhere in Canada than in the valley of the Richelieu river. It is also connected with the Canada Atlantic, the Intercolonial and the South Shore Railways. Then, besides the counties I have mentioned, all the border counties of the St. Lawrence-Ya-maska, Nicolet, Lotbiniere-will be connected by railway with this harbour. When it has the facilities which it will have when this work is completed, it must have as a natural consequence a very large trade. We know from experience that when there are good natural conditions, and the accommodation is provided which is required by the modern means of traffic, the traffic will come. The province of Quebec up to the present time has had only two harbours-the harbour of Montreal and the harbour of Quebec. These harbours are going forward by leaps and bounds, but they are not the only harbours which are showing signs of progress. The harbour of Three Rivers will be one of the most important of the Dominion in a few years, and Sorel will be another. The trade of Canada at the present time is growing at such a marvellous rate that my lion.


Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.: friend will not be surprised if we give some accommodation at Sorel for the trade, which is only awaiting the required facilities to find its way to that locality. In the maritime provinces there are ten or twelve great harbours. I do not complain of that ; on the contrary, I am delighted, and would like to see more of them. In this matter, although the expenditure seems large, there is every reason to believe that it is warranted by the condition of things existing at Sorel.


Samuel Hughes: Will the elevators be built by the government ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Samuel Hughes: Is it the intention of the government to build docks in all the harbours of Canada ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not in all the harbours, but wherever they are required.


Samuel Hughes: I understood that the shipping companies and the various municipalities interested constructed their own docks throughout Canada ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not found that in the province of Ontario. I have been obliged to ask parliament for large sums of money for Ontario. 1 do not regret having done so, and I expect to do it again.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What about Toronto ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The government have spent over a million dollars at Toronto.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Have they spent a dollar in constructing docks ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They have spent nearly a million and a half in building the harbour.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am speaking of docks.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The former government spent about $500,000 in building docks and jetties at Hamilton. They spent over $500,000 in building the harbour also. My hon. friend has only to open the estimates of the Department of Public Works to find that we are building very large works. For instance, I awarded a contract a few days ago for the expenditure of $139,000 at Depot Harbour.


Samuel Hughes: I think it is the duty of the government to keep the harbours dredged which are not owned by private corporations. Whether it is the duty of the government to build docks for the use of private corporations all over the country is another question. Who will charge the fees on the docks at Sorel ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We shall have to charge fees, as we do elsewhere. When the work is completed, the Department of Public Works will transfer

It to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and then the law will apply. If my hon. friend is serious, he will find that all the governments which have preceded us have built docks. We have built none of them. We have between 1,200 and 1,300 docks that we have built ourselves. It would Simply be out of the question for this government not to build docks. One of the main duties of a government is to supply accommodation in the shape of docks and wharfs and harbour works.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to know when the minister is around. I will go to see him and lay some plans before him.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the plans are good ones, I will give them every attention.


William Humphrey Bennett: Hon. gentlemen opposite will be delighted with the statement of the Minister of Public Works and the country will be astounded by it. His statement is this, that from this out it will be the policy of the department to erect and maintain public docks. I am aware that the hon. gentleman's department, since he has been in office, has been carrying out that policy. Let me mention some of the instances. Take one in the riding I represent. At a point called Hawkestone, a village of about 300 people, with a railway passing right through it, between Barrie and Orillia, and with no business there for a dock, the Postmaster General thought it advisable, in political interests, to erect a dock there costing about $2,500. What was the result? When that dock was about to be begun last fall, during the elections, I went to the village and told the people that it was a waste of money, and I instanced it as only one of the samples of bribery conducted wholesale by this government for the purpose of purchasing ridings. So strong was the feeling in that very district against the construction of the dock, that I got a majority there, where I had not a majority before. The people openly repudiated such barefaced expenditure of public money. I am not going to blame the Minister of Public Works for this, because he was simply an instrument in the hands of the Postmaster General. It was a disgrace to spend that money there, and Liberals right in that, district condemned the expenditure. They asked themselves if there was such barefaced waste of money there, what must there be all over the Dominion ?
A moment ago the hon. minister announced that he was spending $139,000 at Depot Harbour. Well, what are they doing at Depot Harbour to-day ? At that point Mr. Booth and the railway with which he is connected have a very large dock, on which they have erected a large elevator. What right has the Department of Public Works, 151
in the name of common sense, to take the money of the people and build a dock for Mr. Booth, which is to cost $139,000 ? What justification is there for permitting Mr. Booth, through the instrumentality of this government, to put his hand into the exchequer of the people and take out $139,000 for the construction of a dock which he wants, but does not want to construct himself ?
The hon. gentleman's department has been doing that kind of thing all along the north shore of Georgian Bay. At the village of Bruce Mines, a private party had a dock. A line of steamers called at that village, and no doubt, acting on business principles, went to the party who owned that dock and asked what rental the owner would charge to allow their boats to stop there. But the government, for political purposes, and no doubt in accord with the wishes of the hon. member who represents that county, spent at Bruce Mines $13,550 on the construction of a public dock. For what? Simply to let a line of boats call at it and make the dock of a private party utterly worthless. The hon. minister might as well go through the country and erect livery stables in every town and then hand them over to political friends and ruin the business of private parties.
In the Algoma district, the hon. minister spent upwards of $10,000 in the construction of a dock at the village of Hilton. There was a dock owned by a private party at Hilton, a political follower of the hon. gentleman. That dock had been purchased by him from a bankrupt estate for a mere song, and he unloaded it on this government for $5,000, and the hon. minister has since expended on that dock the large sum of $10,460 in addition to the $5,000.
When is this thing going to stop? The hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace) took the Minister of Public Works at his word and asked where in the city of Toronto was there a government dock ? I challenge the hon. minister to name a single public dock in Toronto. What has been the case in Toronto ? Different parties have purchased the water lots on its water frontage, on which they have constructed docks, and when steamboat owners want to use these docks they make terms for the renting of them. That is a business proposition. But the Minister of Public Works says: We have hundreds of these docks. I know of only one dock constructed, in the section of country from which I come, by the late government, the dock at Beaverton. There was some little defence for that, because it was the only point which boats could seek as a refuge in a storm. Yet this work was condemned by hon. gentlemen opposite most vigorously as being a baiting and bribing of that constituency. Now the Minister of Public Works comes down and tells us that he is going to con-



struct docks wherever he pleases. They will be constructed either to meet political exigencies, as in the case of Mr. Booth, or to meet a large corporation which may happen to have influence with this government.
I see in the report of the Minister of Public Works that a dock has been constructed at a place called Keene in the riding of East Peterborough. When the vote for that work was before the House, I called the hon. minister's attention to it. What was his defence? Why, he did not know exactly where it was going to be constructed, and when I told him that it was to be erected on a creek, hardly the width of this room, what was the defence put forward by the hon. member for East Peterborough ? Was it that the work was necessary ? Not at all. His only defence was that they never had any money spent in that riding for docks, and he thought it about time there should be some. That was really the only reason why this expenditure was made at Keene, I think amounting to $2,500. The member for the riding admitted that there was no public necessity for it, but that it was simply being constructed because no public money had been expended there before.
So you can go all along this line of docks erected on the north shore of Georgian Bay. One and all of them were constructed to meet political exigencies just as that dock was constructed at Hawkestone.
What did the hon. gentleman do in the riding of North Simcoe? The hon. member for that riding made it one of his boasts in the last campaign that he was going to have a dock built in the town of Barrie where they had one already. But it was going to cause the expenditure of public money, and he thought that was ample justification.
Now the hon. gentleman is going to erect this large dock for Mr. Booth at Depot Harbour, where there is no public necessity for it, and where it will meet only the private needs of that gentleman. And the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has laid down here to-night the dangerous and pernicious doctrine that, whenever he thinks lit, even though he may be moved by considerations of party exigencies, he will construct docks. The construction of harbour works is one thing, but the construction of docks for boats to call at is an entirely different thing. Where private parties have constructed docks and the receding of the waters has 'made it impossible to carry on traffic as before, it is quite right for the government to dredge in order that navigation may be carried on. But 1 dissent from the doctrine that the hon. gentleman should be allowed to go into any harbour in this country and build wharfs even though it may ruin private parties who already have docks built there. If that is the principle that the hon.


William Humphrey Bennett: gentleman laid down in the case of Sorel, I say that it is a bad principle. I do not express an opinion about Sorel, because I know nothing of the facts. But in Hawkestone, in the riding of East Simcoe, the public money was spent in a manner which was a disgrace. Liberals living in that district distinctly reprobated such extravagance and waste of the public money. And I believe that the same sentiment will prevail wher-pver the hon. gentleman carries on such outrageous expenditure as was seen in that case.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) complains that $2,500 lias been spent in Hawkestone. He believes that it was not justified. He argues from that special-and, after all, very unimportant-fact, that I laid down an outrageous principle in saying that the government should provide accommodation wherever it is necessary. 1 repeat what I said, and I am sure that hon. gentlemen on the other side will not take exception to it by a formal statement of the contrary policy. The leader of the opposition or any important member of the other side will not make a motion or lay it down as a policy that the government of Canada must not construct wharfs. No man who will spend five minutes over that proposition will accept it. The government must afford accommodation for the trade, and one element in doing that is the building of wharfs. Wharfs have been constructed by the government for the last fifty years, and we must go on constructing them. I grant that we must be careful, that we must not spend money uselessly. My hon. friend has given instances in which he says the expenditure should not have been made. I will speak of only one of .these instances, Parry Sound. The hon. gentleman has made a mistake in speaking as he did. The government built the port of Toronto, the port of Hamilton and many others-they have been built exclusively out of the public exchequer. Now, Mr. Booth, an enterprising citizen, one of the best men Canada has ever produced, has risked millions and millions of his money in building a railway. By going on with his large lumber trade Mr. Booth could have piled up millions in the bank, or he could had have withdrawn from business and rested. But, instead, he has plunged into national business. In Parry Sound he has spent three quarters of a million, to equip a harbour, that, I say without hesitation, Canada should have equipped. Mr. Booth is carrying to the St. Lawrence route more trade than any man I know of. Last year he took to that route,
13,000,000 bushels of grain. He also carries an immense amount of package freight-an amount that would surprise the people of Canada if it were known-a return package freight between New York, Philadelphia, Boston and other eastern cities and the cities tof the west. He has given more of his

private means than any other man I know of to develop the trade of his country. He came to me last year and represented tlia! he has spent nearly three-quarters of a million to equip at Parry Sound a great national harbour, and asked me whether the government would not help him. The breakwater I am going to erect is intended to receive an additional elevator and additional warehouse. I make bold to say that when that work is completed, 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 more bushels of grain and perhaps more will be taken through the St. Lawrence route. I leave my hon. friend's speech and my statement to the judgment of the House. The government and the Liberal party are prepared to stand by the piolicy we are carrying out now. I shall always be glad to receive suggestions from the other side as to the development of this country. This is not a party question. Hy hon. friend claims that during the last election certain election work was done. Well, he should not complain

Hi-. BENNETT. I did not complain, I only wanted to get the facts.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) has no great ground of complaint. He has beeu elected in spite of the atrocious corruption about which he has grown eloquent. But we know what all that means. I say that my hon. friend's policy will not be endorsed hy his friends.
I have already explained the Sorel works. These works have to be carried out. But there are many and many small harbours that are developed by small expenditure of money. Now, the government must not decline to entertain the claims of small communities. My hon. friend's riding is no ex-, ception. I shall look into the records of the department, and it will surprise me very .much if for every work carried on in his riding or in Algoma there are not petitions very numerously signed. People come to us and ask for works. We judge whether the works are useful or not. When we think they are useful, we carry them out. My hon. friend says that is a bad policy. His friends will not endorse what he says, because the Conservative party in the past carried out the policy that we are carrying out to-day. They have been building wharfs and giving accommodation to trade, as we are doing.


Samuel Hughes: I understood from the minister that this work he is erecting at Parry Sound is a breakwater and not a wharf.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will be used for both purposes, it is a wharf and a breakwater at the same time, for the improvement of the harbour.


Samuel Hughes: I wanted to know if it was the policy of the minister to build wharfs throughout the country wherever they are asked for, because If so, I will interview him In order to get some.
151*


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Throughout the country-this country covers a vast area, I do not say I will cover that with wharfs. But, there are points, perhaps, that should be covered which have not been covered yet.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister in his reply has avoided the point I referred to. The minister did not dare defend that expenditure at Hawkestone.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: It was voted last year. What can I do ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Let me give the hon. gentleman a little advice. The hon. gentleman is a perfect tower of strength to this cabinet. Whenever such propositions as these are made by an Ontario minister, let him resent them, and it will be to his credit if he does. Coming down 4o the question of the Booth expenditure, in the words of the minister, Mr. Booth is asking for a dock at that point upon which he propoises to erect an elevator. Now, if it is the business of the government of Canada to erect docks upon which Mr. Booth, or any other gentleman, can erect elevators, then the hon. gentleman is starting out on a dangerous policy. If that is the principle, I hope he will come down to Midland. The Grand Trunk Railway people are there, and they would like more docks. But neither the hon. gentleman nor any of his predecessors have ever constructed docks there for the Grand Trunk Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway constructed docks there for themselves, as In the town of Collingwood.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No doubt the hon. gentleman knows there is a strong pressure put upon me now to induce me to build a dock at Midland. Is the hon. gentleman against that dock ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, I heartily welcome the expenditure. I say that when money is being spent all over the country, I am not going to stand by and object to an expenditure at Midland. But wliat I contend is, that the general principle Is wrong upon which the hon. gentleman has begun. I can tell the hon. minister that if he is asked to construct a dock in the town of Midland, he is being asked by certain heelers of the hon. gentleman, who want to unload a dock of their own on this Dominion. That is the point in the town of Midland. Party friends of the hon. gentleman have a dock that they want to unload on this government, just like this man at Hilton.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am asked to build a new dock.


William Humphrey Bennett: That means that he has to buy the old dock first, because the government does not own a foot of frontage in the harbour of Midland where they could build a dock. Now, since the hon. gentleman has made this statement, I want to know who asks for the dock ; is it the cor-

poration of the town of Midland or a private party ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not asking any money from this parliament for that dock this year, and I am not going to make any statement. I say there is a suggestion to build one. I am sure there are many other parts of the hon. gentleman's riding where they would like docks very well.


William Humphrey Bennett: Now, it was not a piece of braggadocio on the part of the minister to say that he was asked to build another dock. I know that certain parties there are endeavouring to unload on the Dominion their dock property at fancy prices, and if that proposition ever comes up here, that the government shall pay an extravagant sum for it, I shall object to it. There are private docks there, the Grand Trunk Railway Company and other parties have docks, and let the people who use them pay a proper rental to the parties who own them. That I contend is the business principle upon which all public works ought to be constructed, and not on the principle of the expenditure in Depot Harbour, where a man like Mr. Booth asks for an expenditure of money to build a dock where he can erect an elevator. But, we have this consolation, that since this government intends to buy the Booth line, they will have to buy back these works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is the hon. gentleman sure that we are going to buy it ?


William Humphrey Bennett: There have been many rumours about it.


Mr. BRITTON.: I do not want the committee to adopt this item without saying that I hardly understand the statement of the Minister of Public Works, to be, that this government is going to build docks where anybody wants them and wherever there is a harbour. If such is the understanding, I dissent from it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Who said that ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Nobody, I wanted to say that I do not so understand it. But,
I want to say further that this is a thing that growts by what it feeds on, and it has grown to proportions that I do not think are warranted, and it has not grown wholly under the present government. When the present government came into power they found a certain state of things existing in reference to docks, not so much, I am bound to say, in the province of Ontario as in the province of Quebec. Unquestionably, there were a good many more docks there built by the preceding government, perhaps necessarily. and maintained by the government, three to one, yes, four to one, more than in Mr. BENNETT.
the province of Ontario. But, there were some in the province of Ontario.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does the hon. gentleman say we have spent more money in Quebec than in Ontario '?


Byron Moffatt Britton: I say more on docks.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is altogether mistaken, from beginning to end.


Byron Moffatt Britton: That is a question that can be very easily settled by a reference to the expenditure of public money. If I am mistaken I am willing to make an apology. But, this is not the first time I have said that in thiis House. I have referred to it before when I was not so sharply corrected as I am to-night by the Minister of Public Works. I believed then, and I believe now, that on the lower St. Lawrence there are more docks constructed at the public, expense than there are in the province of Ontario. If I am wrong in that statement, I am willing to take it back when proof is offered. But, what I rose to say was, that not long ago the member for Frontenac, finding that condition of things, said while here : If there are going to be docks built at the public expense, I want one in my county. He applied to the government of the day to build a dock at the little village of Portsmouth, near Kingston, and a dock was built there by the late government, showing that the system was not initiated by the present government, but by tne preceding government. If I recollect aright, I said on a former occasion that the system was fraught with evil, not only on account of the original expenditure of public money for private purposes, but because the moment it was expended the government were bound to maintain the dock. I find now that what 1 said there has been borne out by what has taken place. The dock was built there by the late government, not so much, I think, in the interest of the great transportation question, but because the hon. gentleman who represented that county had the ear of the government. Last year, in order to prevent that dock from being positively dangerous, and entailing on the government, if not a legal liability, at all events a moral liability, for loss of life and limb, the present government had to spend a couple of thousand dollars in repairing and maintaining that dock. That is the state of things, and I close by saying what I wanted to say at the beginning, although hon. gentlemen seem to think that I have not made myself understood by the hon. minister. I do not understand, and I should be sorry to understand that this government intends to build a dock wherever it is not necessary. I can point to places all over the lake from Hamilton to the border line of Ontario, where docks have been built by individuals, and there has not been a dollar spent on any of these docks by the government. It will be unfair

to these men if a dock were to be built at the public expense in competition with them, and it would be unfair to the people of this Dominion were these private docks to be expropriated and put down as a charge upon the country. I do not understand that this is the intention of the government. So far as I gathered the hon. minister's meaning it is that wherever it is necessary for the development of the resources of the country and for the purpose of improving the navigation of the transportation routes to dredge a harbour, or perhaps to construct a dock, it is proposed, to that extent and to that extent only, to expend the money of the country and we cannot object to it.
put upon me, but I complain of the fact that 1 am reproached with having been lavish in my expenditure in the province of Quebec, when we have had scarcely any money spent in that province and when we have spent a large amount of money in Ontario for a good purpose and for which I feel that I do not deserve any reproach.


Byron Moffatt Britton: 
Mr. CLANCY.: And Nova Scotia as well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC M ORKS.: I have no objection to it.


Uriah Wilson: Why not make it for all the provinces ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was forgetting a point that I want to make clear. My hon. friend has spoken of private wharfs. Does he know that a great many of the wharfs and breakwaters in the province of Ontario that have been erected with private money have not been kept up ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: I know a great many of them have not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson) will only permit me to go on with my iittle statement, I will show why I am making it. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) has got up in his seat and stated that we in Quebec have been spending a lot of money on wharfs. I told him that lie was mistaken. He seemed to think that I did it in the way of a rebuke, but such was not my intention at all. Now, I make bold to say that there have been three times, yes, four, or five times as much money spent in the province of Ontario since confederation as in the province of Quebec. I do not complain of it, but I state the facts as they are. There has been scarcely any expenditure of public money in Quebec. Perhaps the reason why I was a little ruffled is that there are too many people in the province of Ontario who seem to be always down on Quebec. It is a little tiresome. When a statement of that kind comes from the other side of the House, I can keep pretty cool, but when it comes from this side of the House 1 cannot do it, and especially when such a statement is not borne out by the facts. Poor Quebec, after all, is obliged to carry a very heavy load at times. We vote well, however. Before confederation, between 1850 and 18G0, there were large sums of money spent on wharfs below Quebec, but since then there has been scarcely any money spent in the province of Quebec. Now, my hon. friend from Kingston may rest assured that I have more pressure to resist from the province of Ontario on account of wharfs than I have from the province of Quebec, because the lakes are in the province of Ontario. I do not complain of the pressure that is


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So much so that the public come to us and the government and tell us, as they have told other governments : Here are docks that have been erected and have not been kept up, and in the interest of trade the government must buy these properties. In my 'estimates I have placed money asked for by the province of Ontario to buy private docks and wharfs that are not being kept in good order by those who erected them. We must not be' dogmatic on this question. This is a question of business. I believe that the people of the country will stand for a wise expenditure of money in developing trade through the construction of harbours, wharfs and public works of that kind.


James Clancy: I am not going to discuss 'whether there are more docks in Ontario or Quebec, but the hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that there are no doubt persons who wish to get rid of their property by unloading *t on the government and that the pressure from political friends and others will be strong. I fancy that governments, former governments as well as the present government, have found and wall always find what would appear to be a plausible excuse to take property off a private individual's hands in the name of the public. If the hon. gentleman is prepared to adopt the course of taking private property off the hands of its owners, I do not think the people will agree to that proposition. I do not care whether these properties are in Quebec, or Ontario, or in any other province. I regret very much to hear the statement made by the hon. Minister of Public Works that the public are prepared to sanction things of that kind.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I said they would sanction a wise expenditure of money.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that this has happened before, and is likely to happen again. I am sorry to hear the hon. gentleman give this invitation


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, no.


James Clancy: Yes, my hon. friend has given an invitation to the people to come forward with private properties that he is prepared to take off their hands.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I take ,back the invitation.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman will retract what he said I am sure the country will be pleased.


George Taylor: In reference to the dock that the late government built at Portsmouth, I would like to ask the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) if that was not in connection with the penitentiary and the asylum ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: No, the penitentiary was on the other side of the bay. The asylum was on this side. It is a village dock. I do not say that it is not useful, but the dock has no connection with the penitentiary or the asylum.


George Taylor: It had at the time it was built. The penitentiary had not a dock then and they used that dock. Later on they had one of their own.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. Minister of Public Works does as he vefy often does- flies off on something else. A question was asked about a dock, when I1-3 turns around and says :	I spent a million dollars at
Toronto and half a million dollars at Hamilton. We were not discussing that question at all. We were discusing a special question of docks and he flies off to an expenditure of another character altogether. I remind the House that these gentlemen opposite are expending money lavishly in various parts of the country. We remember that the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) told the people of Meaford-a very liberal grant was made for the harbour there, although perhaps some people thought it was not liberal enough-he told the people of Meaford that he was surprised at their moderation and modesty, and that if they wanted more all they had to do was to ask for it. In that way the Postmaster General was going around barefacedly and brazenly corrupting the electorate.


James Clancy: Advertising for demands on the treasury.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Exactly. He said that if there was any place that was not satisfied the government would furnish the peo-


James Clancy: pie of that place with all the facilities they could possibly imagine. Let me ask the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte), upon whose ground this structure is to be erected at Parry Sound


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think the hon. gentleman has goue to Parry Sound.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I was there before the hon. gentleman was.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope he will go after me, because I wish him a long life.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I was there twenty years ago.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Our breakwater will start from the island, and Mr. Booth has already erected a long breakwater there.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Does any one own the water lot there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The breakwater is being erected in the bed of the Georgian Bay which is public property.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is not Mr. Booth going to put an elevator on that breakwater ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Then it is more than a breakwater, it is a dock?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC 4VORICS. Well, it is a dock and a breakwater at the same time.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Why did not the minister say that?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: You did not. This is a dock, and Mr. Booth is going to erect an elevator on that dock. Is he putting it on government property or is it on his own property?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He has put an elevator and a warehouse on his own property, and we will certainly allow him to put an elevator on our wharf. We will make an arrangement with him.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: He is not to own the property?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: There are no water lots there owned by Mr. Booth on which there has been government money expended?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.	.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The property is the government's absolutely?

The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, for this expenditure than they have made It is the hed of the Georgian Bay.	out, I do condemn it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: To a certain extent it is, but it is a dock and not a breakwater, and Booth builds his elevator upon that dock.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Booth has built a breakwater from the shore to the island, and by our breakwater we are going to close the gap between Mr. Booth's work and the island, so that it will be at the same time a breakwater and a dock, and the harbour will be a pretty good harbour then.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And there will be a railway track along the whole length of it ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Very well.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) who has a more intimate knowledge of that place has also condemned the expenditure.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then two are wrong instead of one.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Prime Minister need not try that bluff game. I have no hesitation to condemn expenditure anywhere if I think it is wrong.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Sometimes it is right.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer tells me, yes; there is already one on Mr. Booth's wharf.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We understand now a little more about it than before. Mr. Booth is the owner absolutely of one-half of the connection between the island and the mainland.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He has built that himself.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: He is the owner of that, and the government is going to make that connection from the island to meet it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite so, and the contract has been awarded and the money voted last year, and my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) did not take the smallest objection to it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister was not here, and he does not know.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But I have read the debate, and I do not think the hon. gentleman said a word.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: If the government came along last year with the most important expenditure in the last hours of the session when it was impossible to give them that attention which they demanded, the government should not turn around now and take advantage of their own wrongdoing -in order to shield themselves, and to put the blame upon others.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Does my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) condemn that expenditure ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Do I condemn the expenditure?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am making inquiries about the expenditure. The right hon. gentleman need not try on that little game of asking do I object to the expenditure. So far as information has been vouchsafed to us to-night, I do condemn the expenditure. If the government have no stronger case


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Sometimes it may be right and the government has to demonstrate it is right, and they have not done so yet in this case. I repeat that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), always gets away from the subject when he finds himself in some kind of a dilemma. We were discussing the erection of docks, and he changed the discussion into the construction of harbours and works of various kinds, and when we criticised the expenditure at Sorel the minister said : Oh, that is attacking poor old Quebec, and poor old Quebec had many things laid on its shoulders which it does not deserve. I think it is time that the House was treated to something more intelligent than such clap-trap as that. We have a right to discuss the expenditures in any province of the Dominion, but if we discuss any expenditures in the province of Quebec, according to the Minister of Public Works, we are attacking Quebec. So far as I am concerned, I have not a particle of sectionalism in my composition.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I suppose that came from the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) ; it could not come from any other quarter. I say for myself that I am free from sectionalism. I want to see every part of this Dominion developed ; I want to see the money of the people of Canada placed where it will produce the best results and where its expenditure can be justified. The way to do that is to get the fullest information with regard to these expenditures, and I shall not be deterred from making inquiries or criticising an expenditure in any place or every place, as it is our duty as representatives of the people to do. With regard to this enormous expenditure at Sorel, the minister did not make out as strong a case as I would like him to make, to show the business that would justify it.
The MINISTER OF PU/BLIC WORKS. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I deserve the reproach of want of frankness in the discussion of my estimates before the House. I

do not believe any hon. gentleman on either side of the House will reproach me with unwillingness to give every information that is at my command. If I do not succeed in convincing everybody, it is because of my inability to do so. The hon. gentleman has not been candid with me. I did not try to get away from the item before the House. My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) raised a debate. It was his right to do so. In the course of that debate my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Britton) got up and gave us advice as to our future policy. He said that a great deal more money had been spent in the province of Quebec than in the province of Ontario. I denied the statement. It is not raising a sectional cry, I suppose, to put the facts clearly and truly before the House. I stated what was true, what it was my duty to make clear to the House. My hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace) is endeavouring to put himself right. I do not object to his doing so. He greatly requires to straighten his case, and in that object we will not try to cause him any embarrassment.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Because you cannot.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We may all have made statements that we regret. My hon. friend has made many statements which I am sure he would be pleased not to have made at all. He is attempting to put himself straight. He is a public man of importance ; lie occupies a pretty prominent position in this country. He says there is no sectional feeling in him. I am delighted to hear him say so.


Samuel Hughes: You snj* so about yourself, too.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is so well known that I need not say it myself. I do not feel the necessity of insisting on that point. I have given in my public career so many evidences that I am above sectional feeling that I need not make any eloquent speeches in this parliament to prove it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I just wish to say, with regard to the insinuation of the Minister of Public Works that I am changing front or changing base in any way


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I did not mean that.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. minister meant that or he meant nothing. There was no point in his remark if he did not mean that -that at some time I said things which I would rather not have said. That is a very general statement which a man would have to have the qualities of perfection to deny. But I can say this, that I have made no public statement that occurs to me that I need to retract, and that I can safely stand to-day by the positions I have always taken. So that when the Minister of Public Works Mr. TARTE.
makes the statement that I want to put myself right in some way, he is making a statement for which he has no proof.
Mr. BKixTON. I wish to say a word, as unfortunately a remark of mine seems to have introduced the sectional question, which was the last thought I had in my mind. My reference was to the docks in the St. Lawrence, and I thought there was more expenditure below the provincial line than above it. I did not object to that because it happened to be in the province of Quebec. I am the last man in this House or out of it to raise any sectional cry.


James Clancy: How much of this work has been constructed by Air. Booth, and how much by the government, approximately, and who is to maintain the whole ? Is the whole property, including that of Air. Booth, to be government property ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Air. Booth has spent three-quarters of a million in round figures to build docks, breakwaters, and so on. We are simply adding to the work he has been carrying on. Our work will cost $139,000. The contract is let to Davis & Company. The part of the work we are going to do ourselves will be our property and Air. Booth will keep the ownership of his own dock.


James Clancy: Will the public have the use of both ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We cannot ask Mr. Booth to give the use of his own dock to the public. The public will have the use of our dock.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the distance between this mainland and the island ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Our own wharf will be 1,300 feet long. As to the exact distance, I believe it is, 500 or COO feet.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the island owned by Air. Booth ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is public property.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who owns the intervening water frontage between that island and the mainland which is owned by Air. Booth ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is public property.


William Humphrey Bennett: Any one who is at a.ll conversant with these matters knows that in every public harbour there are water frontages. Perhaps the Alinister of Alarine can inform his colleague whether or not this water lot has been deeded over to Air. Booth.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no water lot in this case.


The AIINISTER OF AIARINE AND FISHERIES.: It has not been deeded to Air. Booth.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has Mr. Booth made application for the water lot at Depot Harbour?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I could not tell now, but as a matter of fact we have been very cautious in the granting of these water lots. I have gone over them half a dozen times and have not yet recommended the granting of any.
facts of this case. Perhaps it has not been brought before him, and I suppose this would be the proper time, in view of the announcement made in the Globe that the Minister of Marine is about to quit his place here and the hurly-burly of politics is to know him no longer, to felicitate and congratulate him on his elevation to the woolsack.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is idle to attempt to convince the House that Mr. Booth is going to erect a large elevator on a government dock unless the ownership of that dock is to be exclusively vested in him. It would be absurd to suppose that a sharp, keen business man is going to erect a large elevator, costing 8250,000, on this dock, and then be at the mercy of the government and liable to be considered a trespasser. I have no doubt that Mr. Booth is the owner of the water frontage. Surely he is the owner of the water frontage where he is constructing docks. Surely he did not build an extensive dock and a large elevator on property that is not his own. It is idle to ask the House to believe that he did. No doubt this water frontage-and it was the proper thing to do- has been deeded to Mr. Booth and he has the patent for it, and the ownership of the intervening Space, where this dock is contemplated is also vested in him.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman knows Parry Sound and the House does not. There is no water lot whatever opposite the work I am erecting. This sketch, which is a very simple one, will explain the whole business. (The minister explained the sketch to hon. members.)


William Humphrey Bennett: What has the hon. minister got ? He has shown, according to his 'sketch, that on .the north side of, the bay, Mr. Booth has at present a dock. That is qiuite true, and I have no doubt that Mr. Booth owns the property on which the dock is built and has the patent for the water lots opposite. What is the next move ? There is an island lying west and a little to the south of the present line of docks, and it is proposed to construct, a dock from Mr. Booth's present dock out to this island. The hon. minister said that on this proposed dock, Mr. Booth is going to construct an elevator. I am bound to say that Mr. Booth is too shrewd a business man to erect a large elevator on tliat dock unless the ownership of the water lots was vested in him.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What is the use of talking of water lots when there are none.


William Humphrey Bennett: Evidently the hon. minister does not understand. A water lot is land covered by water that is contiguous to the land which is not so covered ; and the land that is covered by water opposite Booth's present lot is the property of Mr. Booth. I am afraid that the lion. Minister of Marine does not remember the principal


Mr. BLAIN.: What is the policy of the government with respect to the expenditure of public money on docks owned by private individuals ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Both the late government and this government have spent money on private property. We have not spent a large amount, but we have spent something.


Richard Blain: Where in the province of Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot name the places now. The government of Canada, during the last twenty years, has been repairing private docks and harbours that were built with private money -Oshawa, Granby, Pickering and other places.


Richard Blain: The reason I ask is because the government refused an expenditure in a county in Western Ontario last year, on the ground that they never expended public money on docks owned by private individuals. I want to find out the policy of the government. I now understand that the government do expend public money on docks owned by private individuals.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The late government have done It, and perhaps we have done it ourselves. It has happened on several occasions during the last ten or fifteen years that money has been spent on docks built by companies.


Richard Blain: Since this government came into power ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose so. We have not done better, perhaps, than the others did.
Immigration-Salaries of agents and employees in Canada, Great Britain and foreign countries, $110,000.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to ask some question with regard to Mr. W. T. R. Preston. How comes it that Mr. Preston is in Canada ? Did he come here at the request of the minister ? Why is he here so long- I believe he left the old country on the 28th of February, over two months ago ? When is he likely to return to Europe ? What is he doing while here ? What is his official position in connection with immigration ? I have heard it stated that the immigration agents in Great Britain and Ireland do not recognize Mr. Preston's authority, they feel that they are not re-

sponsible to the Interior Department, but to the High Commissioner in London. What is Mr. Preston's position with reference to his duties on the continent of Europe ? Has Mr. Preston written instructions ? These questions will do for the present.
The MINISTER OB1 THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton). Mr. Preston came to Canada at the request of the department.	He came specially for two purposes. The first was to go into the question of steamship rates between Canada and Great Britain, in regard to which there has been and is some difficulty.


Uriah Wilson: Would it be necessary, under the circumstances, for Mr. Preston to get leave of absence from the High Commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not know what passed between Mr. Preston and the High Commissioner, but it would not be necessary to get leave from the High Commissioner if the department instructed Mr. Preston to come. As a matter of courtesy, the High Commissioner would be consulted, but he would not raise any objection if Mr. Preston were wanted by the department. In connection with the question of steamship rates, Mr. Preston was desired to come over by the deputy minister to discuss the question of bonuses on account o? continental immigration. I am informed that while Mr. Preston was here attending to that business he was subpoenaed before the Senate committee


Uriah Wilson: By whom ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I do not know. Any of the persons before the committee would have the right to subpoena Mr. Preston, and if he did so he would be required to appear there. That is the explanation of his lengthened stay. He was under instructions from the deputy minister to go to the North-west Territories to examine a certain portion of the country where European settlers were located, in order that on his return to Europe he might give better information with regard to that district. I understand that he has gone there. As to Mr. Preston's duties, he is under the High Commissioner in charge of the immigration for Great Britain, Ireland and Europe generally.


Uriah Wilson: Has there been any complaint from Mr. Preston that the agents in the old country do not recognize his authority ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: No.


Uriah Wilson: Mr. Preston never said anything about that ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I am informed that no complaint has been made. The question of the adjustment of Mr. WILSON.
Mr. Preston's position and duties was discussed between Lord Stratheona and myself when I was in England. The position is simply this-Mr. Preston is head of the immigration service under the High Commissioner. And, while the Deputy High Commissioner, Mr. Colmer, formally takes the place of the High Commissioner in a great deal of the formal correspondence. Mr. Preston is recognized as the head of the immigration work under the High Commissioner.


Uriah Wilson: Is he so recognized by Mr. Colmer ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I did not ask Mr. Colmer whether he recognized Mr. Preston or not. I do not think I am very much concerned about that. Mr. Colmer is an official of the government. Mr. Preston's position is as I have explained it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not think that is a very satisfactory explanation.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: If the hon. gentleman will tell me what further he wants, I will try to give him the information.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) has asked definite questions.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: And which of them have I failed to answer?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: One of the questions was as to the relative position Of the High Commissioner, Mr. Colmer and Mr. Preston.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I explained that.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The explanation given by the hon. minister is that he is not concerned whether Mr. Colmer agrees to it or not. That is not an answer to the question.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I think it is.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. minister may be satisfied with his own explanation, but I venture to think that no one else is.
The	MINISTER	OP	THE	INTERIOR.
The question is not	what Mr. Colmer thinks
or does not think, but what the facts are, and so I explained to my hon. friend. I said Mr. Preston was the head of the immigration service in Great Britain and Ireland, and on the continent of Europe, under the High Commissioner. That is quite clear,
I said it was so recognized, I said that Mr. Colmer is the deputy of the High Commissioner acting somewhat in the same position as the deputy head of a department here. Mr. Colmer conducts sometimes official correspondence respecting matters of immigration, but Mr. Preston is regarded as the manager of the immigration work.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Is Mr. Preston under the direction of the High Commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, not under the direction of Mr. Colmer.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: When the High Commissioner goes away, are his duties performed by Mr. Colmer ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: So far as immigration work is concerned, Mr. Preston is the head of that work when the High Commissioner is away.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is not answering my question. Does Mr. Colmer perform the duties of the High Commissioner when the High Commissioner is away ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERLOIt. In regard to immigration ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not mean specially with regard to immigration, but I am asking a general question.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have already explained that Mr. Colmer is the deputy of the High Commissioner, so recognized by statute, and, therefore, when the High Commissioner is away, formal documents which require the High Commissioner's official signature are signed by Mr. Colmer as deputy.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Then he is acting High Commissioner ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: He signs his name as secretary of the High Commissioner.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister knows that when he is himself away his deputy has not hi's powers, but that there is an acting Minister of the Interior in his place. So, the parallel does not hold good that lie is attempting to make.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I simply stated the facts to the hon. gentleman, which he does not seem to desire to understand.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Now, the minister has made a further statement, that when the High Commissioner is away Mr. Colmer performs his duties and signs official documents.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Which a secretary can sign.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: And that Mr. Colmer takes his place in all respects except in immigration.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, I did not say that.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is what I understood. The minister stated that when the High Commissioner was there Mr. Preston was under his control. But when the High Commissioner is away Mr. Colmer has no control over Mr. Preston.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Not in immigration matters.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But, Mr. Colmer has control in all other matters, generally speaking ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think so.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Except in immigration matters, where Mr. Preston is not controlled in any way by Mr. Colmer. Is there any friction between these gentlemen ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Not that I know of. They are the best of friends, so far as I know.


Uriah Wilson: I suppose we are not at liberty to refer to what was said at that committee, since it has not been reported to the House. But, we have been treated so unfairly this session with repect to immigration business that I think we ought to be permitted to refer to the evidence, although it has not been reported. I do not think, from what Mr. Preston said to the committee, that he believes he has full control of the agencies in Great Britain and Ireland. What he stated of his own business before the committee seems to be a little different to the description given by the minister. He says the steamship companies have made an arrangement whereby they discriminate largely against Canada, that they will take passengers to points in South America for about one-half what they will bring them to Canada for. He says that state of things has existed for years, and I understand from himself that his principal business here was to negotiate a settlement of these difficulties.
I thought it was a little strange that a man had to be brought all the way from Europe, a mau whose business must be important inasmuch as his salary is $3,000 a year and expenses-to settle questions of this kind. Perhaps the minister can explain that.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I presume the hon. gentleman does not intend to hold me responsible for the facts that steamship companies enter into a pool ?


Uriah Wilson: What I want to know is, why it was necessary to bring a man all the way from Europe to settle that ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I presume that has not been attended to before because it was not brought to the attention of our department. It was not brought to our attention until we had an inspector of immigration there, whose business it was to inquire into these matters. There could be no better justification of the appointment of an inspector than the fact that he has brought this matter to our attention. I may say generally that since Mr Preston has been in Europe he has been able to understand the situation there with regard to immigration matters much more

clearly and satisfactory than it has ever been understood before. The appointment of an inspector was made at the urgent and repeated request of Lord Strathcona, who pointed out that the duties that he had to perform were of such a character that it was absolutely impossible.for either himself or any official of his department to give the subject the careful attention which it ought to receive. The remarks which Lord Strathcona made to me on that occasion l have spoken of a couple of times in the Bouse before, and need not repeat now. But, I am satisfied that the officers of the department here who have to do with the subject of immigration have found that the appointment of an inspector has been of the greatest possible value, and has put them in possession of definite information with regard to the work in Europe which it was not possible for them to get before. Mr. Preston has been discussing matters with steamship companies in Europe at various places where they have offices, for the purpose of getting further information, and of Improving facilities for bringing immigrants to this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood from the answer of Mr. Preston last year that there did not exist the most cordial relations between him and Mr. Colmer, that Mr. Colmer had rather interfered with the carrying out of the plans which he had regarded as important in the interest of immigration. Prom the answers given by Mr. Preston, it would appear that Mr. Colmer rather looked upon him as an interloper than as a man having the authority of an inspector of immigration agencies. If that continues it certainly must result in great detriment to the promotion of immigration. He is there for that purpose. Has not Mr. Preston communicated any of this information to the hon. Minister of the Interior or consulted with him about it when here the last time ?


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I do not definitely remember what took place in the discussion when the subject was mentioned. There was-I would not call it friction-but there was a little difficulty as to the exact position of Mr. Preston when he went there, and when I was in England I discussed the matter with Lord Strathcona, Mr. Preston and Mr. Colmer, and it was satisfactorily adjusted. I do not know of any friction ; there may have been some misunderstanding, but it was nothing serious. It was discussed when I was there, adjusted and finally put in a satisfactory position.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not understand that It is adjusted yet. I think it exists to-day the same as before.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: Where does the hon. gentleman get his information ?


Mr. SIFTON.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In reference to one or two incidents that took place in connection with Mr. Preston's duties, I may say that he went there ns inspector and I think he disclosed in one of his reports that a very large amount of printed matter, in fact, tons, that were sent to England to be distributed through certain agencies, were found lying in cellars.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: That was at the European agencies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When an effort was made to ascertain the reason of this from Mr. Colmer, I understand, that instead of Mr. Colmer assisting Mr. Preston to get the information he, Mr. Colmer, rather pooh-poohed the matter and paid no attention to it, and that when efforts were made in connection with other agencies Mr. Preston was not given that assistance that he thought he was entitled to receive, nor was he able to do his work as effectually as he would have been had he received the cordial sympathy of Mr. Colmer. If that be the case, and I am satisfied it is, it seems to me the first thing the government ought to do, if Mr. Colmer's services as agent are of such importance that he cannot be dispensed with, is to give instructions to both of these gentlemen so that they may know what their relative duties are and so that one shall not be hampered by the actions of the other or interfere with the other.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: The information which I have is that the grievance to which the hon. gentleman refers took place before I was there. I placed the matter before Lord Strathcona and I understood that the arrangement made was perfectly satisfactory, and I have no reason to believe it was not satisfactory. My deputy tells me that no difficulty has been heard of since I was there.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. minister is not evidently sticking to his original statement. He told the House that so far as he knew these two men were on the most friendly tei ms.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: When I left there.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Not at any particular time.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: I said when I left there.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister did not tell us that they had been on unfriendly terms. He did not say that there was any friction. He said that to his knowledge they were on the most friendly terms. But, he tells us a little later on that he found it necessary to have a conference with the High Commissioner in regard to the positions and duties of these two men. He tells a different story as the tale progresses, and then he tells us still further that he has not heard

since he left there of any difficulties or fraction. He has this roving commissioner right here at his elbow in Ottawa, and he can get the information from him if he wants it. He has got that information, and he is: in duty bound to communicate it to the committee, but he refrains from doing that. The papers [DOT] throughout the country are not so reticent as the hon. Minister of the Interior. They speak right out in meeting. I have an article here from the Stratford Beacon, a paper which is as strongly Gritty as any one I know of, and that paper in a recent Issue says this :
The public has heard a great deal lately about the doings in Canada of Mr. W. T R. Preston, inspector of European immigration agencies for the Dominion government, and it naturally wants to know why he is not in Europe attending to his duties instead of floating around Ottawa talking politics and instituting libel proceedings over family wranglings.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: What paper is that ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The Stratford Beacon.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: A Liberal paper, I suppose ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: A Liberal paper, as the hon. gentleman knows very well-a very strong Liberal paper. I see the hon. gentleman smiling in an incredulous way, but all he has to do is to ask some of his colleagues from Ontario, if he refuses to accept my statement. He will have to accept my statement about it, anyway.
The sooner the government comes to realize that Mr. Preston is something of a nuisance, the better it will be for all concerned. He seems to have faculty for interfering in business other than his own, and of blundering. The Ontario government made the mistake of not keeping him down to his official duties when he was a member of its service, and the Dominion government is making the same mistake. If Mr. Preston had stuck to the work he was paid to perform, the Liberal party would not have attached to it the odium of machine-hugging telegrams or Cook interviews. He has been well rewarded for any service he ever rendered the party, and ought to have the sense to see that his influence as a politician is gone. But if he does not see it, he ought to be told so by those in authority.
That is the information and advice given to the hon. minister by one of the best-informed Liberal political organs in the province of Ontario. That is a statement about the appointment of this man for whom the hon. minister is entirely responsible. As we all know, that is an exact and truthful statement of the case. His attention has been called to the fact by the hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) that Mr. Preston is spending his time here. We want to know what he is doing. Doing as he pleases, dictating to the government, and why ? Because he knows too many of their secrets and they dare not punish him. They had
to appoint him to an office, they had to promote him from an office in the Ontario government service to an office in the Dominion government service, a much higher and more lucrative office and one in which he can spread himself easily because he gets $3,000 a year salary and his travelling expenses. I only wish to say that I think it is a scandal that a man with such a salary and with expenses going on every day, who is here performing no duties, rendering no service to the people, having such a recordj and such a reputation as he has, should occupy such a high and responsible position and be taking the money of the people of Canada. When the disclosures were made in the West Elgin case, any government with proper self-respect would have dismissed him from their employment. When attention was called to the statements made by his . cousin, Mr. George Rochester, of Ottawa, the government should have investigated, and if the statements were true they should have suspended or dismissed Mr. Preston without a day's notice. But, Mr. Preston is still floating around here. He is still drawing his salary of $3,000 a year and whatever expenses he might choose to put in.


George Taylor: $1,822 last year.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes, and that expenditure for salary and expenses is absolutely unjustifiable. In entering my protest against it I am backed up by the people of Canada, because even leading Liberal newspapers have entered a strong protest against it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: As to the relations between Mr. Colmer and Mr. Preston, nothing that I said subsequently is inconsistent with what I stated before. I stated very definitely, that when I left there, as far as I knew, they were upon the best of terms. I explained that I did not think there had been anything in the nature of friction between them, but there had been misunderstanding as to the exact definitions of their duties and I went into that, and I think satisfactorily adjusted it. I am informed there has been no appearance of difficulty since that time. As to the opinion of the Stratford Beacon which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) certifies to be a very reputable journal, I have nothing to say except that in so far as that journal is of the opinion that the government is permitting Mr. Preston to do anything but attend to his business, that journal, like my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace), is mistaken. I have stated clearly that Mr. Preston came here to attend to extremely important business in connection with immigration. It is a most important phase of the immigration question and most complicated, and nobody knew anything about it at the time Mr. Preston took up his work, because we were not able to get the information from our officers, and Lord Strathcona himself told me that it was quite impossible for him to give such atten-
4S27

tion to the details as would enable him to get the information. Mr. Preston has made himself master of all the facts in connection with it, which were most difficult to acquire, and he was here for the purpose of adjusting that question with the help of the department. He did not come here to do any political work or to waste his time. He came (here to do the business he is paid to do. When he was here he was subpoenaed by the Senate committee, and my deputy tells me that when the investigation was concluded Mr. Preston arranged to go westward, as he had been instructed to do before, for the purpose of getting further information respecting the foreign colonies in the Northwest. I have been away for some days, but my deputy informs me that Mr. Preston was detained a day or two by the necessity of appearing before the Committee on Agriculture to give his evidence.


Uriah Wilson: I do not know who asked him to appear there.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My 'hon. friend is not the only member of the Agriculture Committee. I have just as mucli a right -to send a witness before the committee as he has.


Uriah Wilson: There was no motion of the committee.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Was he not examined before the committee ?


Uriah Wilson: Yes, and he had very little information to give.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman will admit that other members of the committee have a right to call a witness.


Uriah Wilson: I do not dispute that. I said there was no resolution of the committee asking him to appear, and I do not know who asked him.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentlemen undertook to controvert my statement that Mr. Preston was detained by the necessity of appearing before the Agriculture Committee. If my hou. friend makes it his business to examine officers of the department before the committee, I have a perfect right to request an officer to go there to give evidence.


Uriah Wilson: Nobody denies that.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman has no right to controvert my statement that Mr. Preston was 'delayed a day or two by the necessity of appearing before the Agriculture Committee.


James Clancy: My hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) stated over and over again, that without the knowledge of the committee as a committee, Mr. Preston appeared there to give evidence and the first thing we knew about it was when Mr. Preston came there.


Clifford Sifton: The committee should have been consulted. If the minister took it upon himself to send Mr. Preston there it was his affair, but it was not asked for by the committee and as a committee they had no knowledge of it whatever.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not dispute that. I said Mr. Preston appeared before the committee and gave his evidence.


James Clancy: But the minister said that the committee detained him for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I say that it did not rest solely with my hon. friend for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) or my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) to decide who should appear before that committee.


James Clancy: The minister should be fair enough to say that Mr. Preston appeared at his instance.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 did not say the committee had ordered Mr. Preston to appear.


Jabel Robinson: I notice that Mr. Preston charges the government $205 expenses for a trip to Canada. I would like to know if the minister instructed him to come to Canada at that time ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not remember the trip to which my hon. friend refers, but I am informed that there is no doubt that Mr. Preston was instructed to come.


Jabel Robinson: Well, what for ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 do not remember at the present time.


Jabel Robinson: You noticed the item in the account.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I did not, but I have no doubt that my hon. friend's statement is correct.


Jabel Robinson: Can you tell us what he came here for ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not remember.


Jabel Robinson: Will you find out and let us	know ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Yes, I will be very happy to. The superintendent of immigration informs me that Mr. Preston was requested to come here and make a report to the department on the work in Europe.


Jabel Robinson: Well, it is very singular that he came just at the time of the investigation into the West Elgin troubles, and in time to be subpoenaed there.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.These	coincidences	will	happen sometimes
in life in the strangest possible way.


Jabel Robinson: Remember tbnt ' hug-the-mackine-and-sbake-hands-with-the-boys ' story. I hope the minister is right, that he came for no object but a pure and good one.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I may tell my hon. friend at once that it is absolutely impossible for tbe head of the department to keep track of the movements of all the important officials, unless I am in direct communication with them. I quite remember that Mr. Preston was there last year, and I am obliged to depend on the statement of the head of that branch of the work, that Mr. Preston was requested to come and report on his work.


Jabel Robinson: And he happened to have been subpoenaed to West Elgin at the time.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, .lust as he was subpoenaed the other day before the Cook committee. My hon. friend would not suggest that he was ordered from the other side just for that purpose.


Jabel Robinson: He happened to be here just at the time.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Subpoenas seem to follow this gentleman. Some of our friends seem anxious to get poor Mr. Preston into the witness box.


Jabel Robinson: I do not desire to get him anywhere. I did not know him until the other day. I have no knowledge of the gentleman other than what I read about him, and that has certainly not been to his credit.
not a very surprising thing in view of the fact that Mr. Preston was a new officer and that an exact definition of his duties had not been fully made; and I may say that it was not made, simply because it was largely left with Lord Strathcona to define the duties of the superintendent or the inspector on the ground. When I went over there, I went into the matter with Lord Strathcona, and discussed it with Mr. Preston and Mr. Colmer, with the result that it was adjusted, and since then the department has received no indication that there is anything but the best relations between the two gentlemen.


James Clancy: Was there at any time any matter of difference other than the relative duties of Mr. Preston and Mr. Colmer?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The term relative duties refers of course to the performance of duties and the matters arising out of them. Mr. Preston called attention to certain matters connected with the distribution of immigration literature, and there was a difference between the two gentlemen about that. That was before the time I was there, but these matters were adjusted, as I have stated.


James Clancy: Is it not a fact that Mr. Preston was endeavouring to get Mr. Colmer out of that office?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not know anything about that at all.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman had no communication of that kind ?


James Clancy: I understood the hon. minister to say that there was no friction in the office in London between Mr. Preston and Mr. Colmer. Am I right in that statement? If the minister says no


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I cannot answer it with yes or no. I will explain it.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman says there was some friction, and lie wants to explain it away, that is his right. But I understand that there was some friction there, and that tbe lion, gentleman was obliged to settle it between Mr. Preston and Mr. Colmer. I would like to ask him whether he used his good offices for that purpose. and whether he succeeded in removing the difficulty that Mr. Preston was complaining of.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have just explained that twice to the committee, but I have no objection at all to repeating it for the benefit of my hon. friend from Bothwell. Some time after Mr. Preston went over, there was some misunderstanding between these two gentlemen as to their relative duties, which was


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: None whatever.


James Clancy: Oral or in writing?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, none whatever.


James Clancy: Then, I am afraid I shall have to ask the hon. minister to judge of the accuracy of Mr. Preston's statement. I am now reading from page 514 of the evidence taken last year before the Committee of Agriculture. Mr. Preston was giving evidence. He had stated in evidence that he thought there should be a Canadian in Mr. Colmer's place, that a Canadian would do better service than Mr. Colmer could, because he would have better knowledge of Canadian affairs. Mr. Preston was then asked :	.
Q. Do you think it would be an advantage to us to have some Canadian official conversant with our affairs in the position?-A. I think so.
Q. Have you made any suggestion of that kind, Mr. Preston?-A. Not officially; only in an informal way.
Q. Informally; hut you never made any official suggestion?-A. Not officially. It is a subject of negotiation now. I am bringing it before

the department. I can say that without violating secrecy.
Q. Has that suggestion been well received?-A. It has.
Now, I am going to ask the Minister of the Interior to reconcile that statement with the one that there were nothing discussed except matters relating to the respective duties of Mr. Preston and Mr. Colmer. I understand that it was a matter of contention that Mr. Preston wanted wider	scope than he was then	having.The	MINISTER	OP	THE	INTERIOR.
All I can see in the evidence is this, that Mr. Preston was called before the committee.


James Clancy: No, he came at the suggestion of the hon. minister.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
He was here and his evidence was taken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By whom was he called?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
It makes no difference.


James Clancy: It is unknown in practice that a minister or any one else should send any person to be examined before a committee without the committee having given its order. The hon. gentleman has no more right to send a witness there than I have. He must not assume because he sends a witness there, that that witness has been ordered by the committee.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend has a most remarkable idea of the proceedings of a parliamentary committee if he undertakes to make the statement that a minister has no right, when his department is under examination, to send an official of that department to explain the matters being investigated. The committee may refuse to hear the evidence, but they did not do so. They ordered that Mr. Preston be heard and he was heard. If my hon. friend takes the position that he and one or two others can go to a committee and investigate matters connected with a department, and that no official can be sent by the minister to explain these matters to the committee, he is taking a position wholly unwarranted.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is not warranted in making the statement that I objected to Mr. Preston. No one objected, but I am only setting him right.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman is trying to make out that Mr. Preston was not properly examined.


James Clancy: No.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Then there is no point in what the hon. gentleman says. When Mr. Preston caime before the committee, these gentlemen pro-Mr. CLANCY.
ceeded to ask him his opinion about the state of affairs in the Loudon office and Mr. Frestou gave his opinion. He was compelled to give it because he was under oath.


James Clancy: He was not under oath at all.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Then he should have been. If there was a lawyer on the committee on agriculture, he would see that witnesses were properly examined under oath. These gentlemen were then contemplating making an attack on the department for not having more Canadians in the office and they wanted an expression of opinion from Mr. Preston, and Mr. Preston said that there should be more. Now, a couple of years later, they want to make out that Mr. Preston wanted Mr. Colmer's position. I never heard the suggestion made directly or indirectly, officially or informally or in any other way, that Mr. Preston should be given Mr. Colmer's position. I have not heard the suggestion that he wanted it, or that there should be any exchange of position between him and Mr. Colmer at all, but there was some difference of opinion between them as to Mr. Preston's duties, when Mr. Preston went over first.


Mr. INGRAM.: What are the duties of the High Commissioner in London.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The High Commissioner is not in my department or connected with it, except as being the head, officially or formally, of the immigration service. His office is, I believe, connected with the Department of the Secretary of State. His duties are of a general diplomatic character ; he represents Canada in all matters where an official representative is required. If my hon. friend will look at the debate which took place at the time when Sir Charles Tupper was appointed to the office of High Commissioner, he would get a full and clear exposition from the leadens of the House on the Conservative side of the duties the High Commissioner is expected to perform and the extreme necessity there was for the office at that time. I believe that the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister and other members of the government occasionally require to make use of the services of the High Commissioner, and they find him an officer of the greatest value to the Dominion, 'fhe office is especially valuable to the Dominion because we have occupying at the present time a gentleman of such strong personality and influence as Lord Strathcona, whose personal position in Great Britain lends great weight to the office. I do not suppose that my hon. friend desires to enter into details ais to the High Commissioner's duties, but outside of those to which I have referred, in a general way, he has superintendence of the office where Canadians go to register and where they

receive such information as they desire, and also where information iis asked by those who are interested in commercial questions connected with Canada. Particularly in relation to information to intending immigrants, Mr. Preston is supposed to have charge in the High Commissioner's office, and Mr. Colmer devotes his time to other work in connection with that office. The High Commissioner, I believe, shows in his report the correspondence of an official nature that takes place, and also the correspondence handled at the office for Canadians who are in Great Britain and in Europe. That is one of the duties that employs a great deal of the time of the clerks.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The question of the location of the High Comissioner's office in London is one in which there is plenty of room for difference of opinion. The whole subject of the organization of our office in London is one that, in my judgment, will repay early attention. But, up to the present, it has not been decided by the government to make any permanent change. The office is in Victoria street, and is in what might be called the diplomatic portion of the city, and in the quarter where the colonies generally have their agencies. In this connection, the office is in the best place in the city. As an office for the receipt of questions respecting 152
matters of trade, it is not in the place where I would consider it to be best located. So far as immigration is concerned, it is not clear that a change would be of special benefit, though I understood from Mr. Preston, when I was there, that he was rather favourable to a change. My own opinion is, that the question of location is not an important one from the standpoint of immigration. As to its relation to matters of trade, as I have said, the question will repay consideration. My hon. friend is aware that it has been to some extent discussed in the press of this country, and that some of our people who have visited London on commercial affairs have been of opinion that a change ought to be made. I am not in a position to say whether such a change will be made, but it is a question upon which there is room for differences of opinion. The question of the location of the High Commissioner's office is one to which the High Commissioner himself has given some consideration lately, and I understood that there had been some communication, either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State, on that subject. I do not know the result of that communication, but I am safe in saying that no removal from the present premises has been authorized.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I spoke of was the statement that inquiring immigrants could not get information. If these parties make it a point to inquire at the office and cannot get information, I say there is something radically wrong. Because, I have always understood that the literature prepared by the department of immigration was sent to the office in London, England, for the purpose of distribution, and that all the information necessary for prospective immigrants to this country could be obtained at that office. If this statement of Mr. Preston's is correct, there must be something wrong in the management of the immigration department at London. It shows carelessness in the distribution of this information.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The remarks which Mr. Preston makes in this report to which my hon. friend refers, simply indicate that in his opinion there should be a rearrangement of the rooms in the building so that a portion might be exclusively devoted to immigration and commercial work, and if possible an exhibit should be displayed of the natural resources and products of this country. In the office of the High Commissioner at the present time there is no room for anything in the nature of an exhibit. But we have an exhibit at the present time In London, it is placed in the building known as the Imperial Institute. I have urged upon my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture to take official charge of that exhibit, and to make the necessary arrangements for re-



newing it and keeping it in the best order. The Imperial Institute contains exhibits from the various British colonies, and the arrangement with Canada was that the various provinces should place their exhibits and maintain them there directly, and this course has been followed heretofore. But I have urged, as a result of personal examination of the matter, that the Minister of Agriculture should take charge of it directly, because the various provinces have not given that attention to the matter which is desirable in order to keep the exhibits in proper shape. The exhibit in the Imperial Institute enables us in the city of London to direct people to a place where they can get a fair idea of the resources of Canada. With the exception of the fact that the Imperial Institute is not just where the High Commissioner's office is, I do not see what better arrangement could be made.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then prospective immigrants have no means then of obtaining information with respect to Canada at the office in London.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman is drawing an inference that is not warranted by the report. Mr. Preston says that a certain thing ought to be done to make an improvement. Of what use would an officer be if he did not try to make an improvement in whatever quarter he is sent ? He does not say that a person cannot get any information ; if he does, it would be an incorrect statement, because I have explained that there is an exhibit in the Imperial Institute at the present time, a very much better exhibit than could possibly be made in any part of the High Com-nissioner's office. The High Commissioner's office contains and always has contained abundance of literature for the purpose of giving that information which is available to any person who inquires for it. It was for the purpose of putting somebody there who would have a more definite and exact knowledge, and be better able to give information in regard to Canada, that we sent Mr. Preston, and up to the present time I am pleased to know that he has been able to fill the bill very satisfactorily. No complaint whatever has been received. and I believe that the work of his office has been most efficiently performed. Mr. Preston says in this paragraph that there should be a combination of immigration work and commercial work, and that there should be a considerable portion of the office devoted to that, with an exhibit for the purpose of making a better display of the natural products and enormous resources of the Dominion.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman start at' the 7th line from the bottom and read that sentence to the end of the paragraph ?


Clifford Sifton: 


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (reading) :: At present inquiring and prospective emigrants cannot see anything at the official headquarters of the Canadian government in London giving an adequate idea of the resources of the country.
That is correct. I have been trying to make the hon. member understand for the last twenty minutes that in an office of that kind you cannot put an exhibit that will give an adequate idea of the resources of the Dominion of Canada. Why, even in the industrial fair of Toronto you do not get an adequate idea of the industrial resources of Canada, you can only do that by travelling around. But in the Imperial Institute we have an exhibit, of moderate size, it is true, but which gives a fair and reasonable idea of the resources of Canada. If the hon. gentleman is endeavouring to play upon a line in which Mr. Preston says there is nothing at official headquarters to give an adequate idea of the resources of Canada, in order to create the impression that such information is nowhere available, he will not succeed. The whole space in that office is not larger than one-half of this Chamber, and how can there be in that office an exhibit which will give an adequate idea of the resources of Canada ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We have been accustomed to charging Mr. Preston with prevarication and misleading statements. But he is only a junior apprentice compared with his chief, who is past master of all the arts, apparently. Now, we have statements of almost every description made tonight. When the minister does not want to make a positive statement, he makes another one, sliding all round the surface. He has done that on every point that has come up for discussion to-night. First, with regard to the examination of Mr. Preston. He said that Mr. Preston appeared before the committee. The member for Lennox asked who sent him there. Why, of course, says the minister, you gentlemen are not the only pebbles on the beach, there are other members of that committee. Then the minister was reminded that no other members of the committee had asked for Mr. Preston, that there was a regular routine for summoning a man to be heard before the committee, that some one makes a motion, the chairman puts that motion, and it is adopted by the committee. Then when the minister found himself cornered in that, he comes out with this statement- and why did not he make it at first-that be himself had sent this man Preston over without any authority from the committee, to make statements to suit the minister.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No. I did not make that statement at ail.


HAT 9, 1901 4837
Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister will quibble out of that as he does out of the other statements.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I said I had authority to send an official there, if I chose, to tender his evidence to the committee. I have not stated I sent him there at all.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, not yet. Hon. gentlemen here said that no proposal had been made to bring this man before the committee. Then he was driven from that position, and he said that as minister he had power to bring this man before the committee, and it turns out that he is the only one who did; because either Mr. Preston pushed himself into committee, or the minister pushed him in. It is one or the other. Mr. Preston, being a very modest man, would not do it. There was nobody for it but the hon. Minister of the Interior and the hon. gentleman sent this man over there, not to have a motion made by some member of the committee that Preston be heard, because we have the evidence of these gentlemen that no such thing occurred there at all, but the hon. gentleman himself sends this precious agent of his over there, because he wanted to have a presentation of certain statements made by Preston to try and influence the committee on certain matters. Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to another matter. The hon. gentleman was very indignant that the examinations were not made under oath before this committee, which shows that he has not taken much interest in the proceedings of the committee when that is all he knows about the matter. I do not suppose it would make any great difference to Preston whether he was under oath or not. That is my opinion. But, outside of that, it would be a ridiculous thing that a man who is making a statement about agriculture, or giving his opinion of farming, or planting, or seeds, and all such thing's before the committee should be put on his oath. The thing is so absurd that if I could be surprised at anything the hon. gentleman would say, I would be surprised at this.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: As respects the duty on steel rails for instance.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: A man is liable to make a mistake once in his lifetime and that is the only instance that the hon. gentleman can give where I have made a slip. I acknowledged it at once. But, there was another statement the hon. minister made It is quite irrelevant to this question, but he has called in other matters. I made a statement when the debate was up that the Mennonites were brought in under conditions and regulations made by the Conservative party before they went out of power The hon. minister exhibited a book and said 1524
that it was in 1875 that the conditions were made under which the Mennonites were brought in. I make this statement now, and I challenge the hon. gentleman to contradict it, that the arrangements were made to bring in the Mennonites and the conditions were made under which they came in either in July or August of 1873, and that the Liberal party did not come into power until November of 1873, so that the arrangements were made by the Conservative party. That is all in regard to that and I will challenge the hon. gentleman at any time to make any statement to confute the statement I now make.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The statement I made was that in the session of 1875 the money was voted. The resolution I referred to was in ' Hansard' which I had In my hand. I said that in 1875 the money had been voted for carrying out this arrangement, and that the press of the hon. gentleman attacked the government for doing it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, that is not the statement that the hon. gentleman made.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Just as the hon. gentleman now for political purposes is attacking us.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That was one of the things the hon. gentleman said, but not all that he said. What he said was that the arrangement was made by them and that the Conservative party found fault with it. It is true that the arrangements for the loan were afterwards made.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: And the Conservative party found fault with them.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But, I said that the arrangements for bringing these people to this country, the conditions of the bargain under which they came, and I can prove by the documents of the House of Commons, were made in July or August, 1873, by the Conservative party when they were in power, and therefore they could not condemn the Liberal party for it because they had done it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I asked why they did it. The hon. gentleman and his party are doing the same thing now.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman said that we found fault with what had been done in that regard. I said that we were the parties who did it and if there was any fault found it was by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, and I repeat that statement. Now, in regard to another statement made by the hon. Minister of the Interior as to the duties of the High Commissioner, he was asked by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) to state the duties of that officer and he did state a

number of things in a general way, but he said to the hon. member for East Elgin : If you want any particulars about the duties of the High Commissioner look at the date of the appointment of Sir Charles Tup-per and at the debate which occurred in parliament in reference thereto and you will find it very clearly set out, if you read the Conservative speeches, what the duties of the High Commissioner are. I would add that if you look at the speeches made on the opposite side, I have no doubt that what you would find would be how utterly worthless and useless this office was. As to the location of the office in London and as to the performance of duties in connection with immigration there, Mr. Willison, the editor of the Toronto Globe, who was over there a year or two ago, wrote very elaborately as to this particular question and his conclusion was that the location of the office was not what it should be for the purpose of promoting business and for promoting immigration. Furthermore, he held that the constitution of the office was not such as to promote either business or immigration to this country. I have been over there several times and have found it quite convenient for a Canadian visiting London in many ways to go there, but I cordially endorse what was said by Mr. Willison in the Globe, which he has elaborated with very great care and exactitude, that the arrangements for the promotion of business are not satisfactory at all. In the first place the location of the office is not suitable for business, and in the next place the machinery of the office it not adapted to the promotion of the commercial business which is required or to the business of immigration. The hon. minister simply sits and folds his arms. Some people may think this and some people may think that and he may think something else, but he has no positive opinion about it and he does not know. The minister ought to come here knowing something, he should have some positive opinions on the matter himself connected with the duties of this office. He ought to know, because he has been there himself, and he spent a great deal of his time there, I presume, whether the duties required in Great Britain on behalf of the Dominion of Canada are effectually and properly carried out under the present arrangements. We all know the distinguished position of the High Commissioner, Lord Strathcona. We all know his great patriotism, his love for Canada, and his efforts to make Canada appear well before the world. Those high qualities we know him to possess and we honour him for it, but we want the business of Canada carried on in other matters. The High Commissioner does not undertake to give that attention to commercial business and to immigration matters which the interests of Canada demand. These are the points that we are making and the hon. minister who has immigration matters under his control Mr. WALLACE.
simply has no opinion to give. He does not know whether it is this way or that way, though he has been over there and has made a personal inspection of these matters. He blusters around; he imitates his latest appointment, Mr. Preston, in many ways, and one of them is the facility with which lie can evade a question and turn a corner at the very shortest notice. Mr. Preston told us to-night-no, Mr. Sifton told us; I get the two mixed up not only because the names are somewhat similar, but because the characters are somewhat alike. He told us that he presumed Mr. Preston was sent for. He consulted his officers and he . said :	Yes, Mr. Preston was sent for because we had some matters of the most important character that Mr. Preston alone could discuss with us. The whole information was to be found in the bosom of Mr. Preston alone. Now, what were these important matters of state '! Mr. Preston comes over here year after year as a matter of course. He don't ask the minister; he don't ask Lord Strathcona. He comes over because he made a bargain, an arrangement, that he was to come over here.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) is making a statement that is wholly untrue.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I call the minister to order. He says that I made a statement that I know to be wholly untrue.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I did not say that at all. The hon. gentleman is misrepresenting what 1 said. I did not say that he made a statement which he knew to be wholly untrue, but I did say that the hon. gentleman had made a statement which was wholly untrue. 1 understand the hon. gentleman to make the statement that Mr. Preston came over here year after year because he made that arrangement. I say that is absolutely untrue.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I say it is absolutely true, and more than that I can prove it as I can prove every statement I make.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes. Here is the report of Mr. Preston's examination in Ottawa :
Q. Do you think any useful changes could be made?-A. Well, I have made the suggestion there, and I think I can make it here without being misunderstood, that I think there should be an interchange of officers. I made it one of the conditions when I went over there that I should not be allowed to remain there and get rusty on Canadian affairs; I should be allowed to come home once a year.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. Chairman


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. minister will sit down and then when I get through he can crawl out of any holes he likes.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: What I say, Mr. Chairman, is that there is no such arrangement as that. I made the statement, in reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace), that he was making a statement that was wholly untrue. I say now that no arrangement of the kind to which Mr. Preston refers was ever brought tc my notice.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Another twisting around a corner worthy of the Minister of the Interior; worthy of a gentleman of his record. He says now that it never was called to his attention. He first said that the statement I made was wholly untrue, and he repeated it more than once, and now he says that it was never called to his attention. But I say that it was called to his attention ; I say that he knew it or else Mr. Preston is a confounded liar and is putting the minister in a false position, and the minister should call him to account for it in the morning. Will he call him to account for it '! Not much. He dare not do it. They will get down together and they will laugh at the way they hoodwinked the Agriculture Committee and the way they tried to hoodwink the House of Commons, but could not succeed. Where is the Minister of the Interior with his Doasts about his accuracy ? Where is the Minister of the Interior after accusing me three times within fifteen minutes of making a statement which was wholly untrue ? At first I thought he said I knew it to be untrue, but he withdrew that if he said it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I did not withdraw it, and I did not say it.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We will accept that, but he repeated that the statement I made was wholly untrue. Where is the untruth now V Preston says it is true, although he does not say it under oath.


Mr. FOWLER.: It is all the same so far as Preston is concerned.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes, I would just as soon take his statement here as take his statement on a stack of bibles. The Minister of the Interior has given Preston a high record this evening for being absolutely charming and of beautiful character, and for being a man that he is proud to have in his department. But Preston says one thing and the minister says the very opposite. I will read it again just to refresh the minister's memory and to be a lesson to him that he should not be quite so positive and bumptious in the future :
I made It one of the conditions when I went over there that I should not be allowed to remain there and get rusty on Canadian affairs. I should he allowed to come home once a year.
And he does come home to see his friends.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: What is the hon. gentleman quoting from V


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am quoting from a publication called the Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, 5th session, 8th parliament, year 1900.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: What page ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Page 515, line 8 or 9, and the name of the witness is W. T. R. Preston. Who did Mr. Preston mnke this arrangement with and how ? Did the minister make the engagement with Mr. Preston ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: [DOT] It was made after interviews with me. I discussed it. There were of course discussions with my deputy and with other officers of the department as well.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Precisely. The minister discussed it with Mr. Preston personally and went over different matters, and as Mr. Preston tells us here was a matter of great importance :
I should be allowed to come here once a year.
It was said by the minister that my statement with regard to that is absolutely untrue. Will he not get up like a gentleman and apologize to the House and say that he is sorry for that, or, if Mr. Preston has been telling of a fib, won't he make Mr. Preston write and correct it. The minister is bound to do one thing or the other. I think we are entitled to say that the minister has tried his bluff game just once too often in the House.
Mr. MeCREARY. Does the hon. gentleman, mean to say it is wrong for Mr. Preston or any other agent of the government to come here once a year and study the conditions ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I have never raised that question at all, and I will not let the hon. member for Selkirk draw a herring across the trail. What I said was this, that there was no need of Mr. Preston being sent for to come over, because he had made a bargain with the department that he was to come over every year. The Minister of the Inte-iror said* that was absolutely untrue. He repeated the statement three times, but he cannot repeat it again.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman is no doubt justified in making the statement which I contradicted, in view of the statement which Mr. Preston made in his evidence. Therefore I withdraw the contradiction with reference to the hon. gentleman's statement. I was speaking from my own knowledge of the arrangement, and from further knowledge which I derived from asking my deputy minister if he had any knowledge of such an arrangement; and what I say now', that there was no such arrangement with my department, is correct, and I am satisfied that Mr. Preston did not

intend to convey to the committee, when lie gave this evidence, that there was anything in the nature of a contract with the department that he should of his own motion, willy nilly, so far as the department is concerned, come across the water once a year. Mr; Preston said :
Well, I made the suggestion there, and I think I can make it here, without being misunderstood, that I think there should be an interchange of officers. I made it one of the conditions when I went over there that I should not be allowed to remain there and get rusty on Canadian affairs-I should. be allowed to come home once a year.
That may be susceptible of the construction that he intended to say that there was a contract that he should come home once a year ; hut it is equally susceptible of the construction that he simply intended to say that there was an understanding that he should not be compelled to stay there permanently, as the other officers were, and that he thought he should he allowed to come home once a year.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No two constructions can be placed upon those words.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will go this far. I will say that my hon. friend may have been justified, on rending this, in saying that Mr. Preston intended to say that he had a contract to that effect. I do not believe in the slightest degree that Mr. Preston intended to make such a statement to the committee, because he knew perfectly well, and he knows now, that there was no contract of that kind ever made by myself or the deputy minister, or by anybody who has authority to make such a contract on behalf of the department'; and the evidence of Mr. Preston is perfectly consistent with that construction. Moreover, Mr. Preston, has received instructions from the department on the two different occasions when he has come to Canada, which is a clear and distinct indication of the position which the department has taken ; and I say to the committee with the most absolute positiveness that no such contract was made with Mr. Preston or with any other officer to my knowledge. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are discussing estimates aggregating something like $445,000 upon the subject of immigration-one of the most important subjects that can be discussed in the House of Commons. The question as to the securing of a proper class of people in sufficiently large numbers to settle the vacant lands of this Dominion is second in importance to no question which can come before this House. Upon former occasions when we have discussed this question, we have had very amicable and very satisfactory and very profitable discussions between the two sides of tbe House, upon all occasions except when the name of Mr. Preston has come before this committee. But hon. gentlemen opposite have evidently made up their minds that Mr. SIFTON.
the question of immigration has no interest whatever for them except as it is connected with the name of Mr. Preston ; and during the two hours that we have been discussing these important estimates, apparently the only thing the hon. gentlemen have found to devote their attention to, the only ideas they have been able to give to this committee, have been the relations between Mr. Colmer and Mr. Preston-whether Mr. Col-mer bows with sufficient deference to Mr. Preston, or whether Mr. Preston bows with sufficient deference to Mr. Colmer ; and they have found certain admitted discrepancies in connection with Mr. Preston's report which do not substantially affect the question of immigration in any shape or form. I make an exception of the reference made by my hon. friend from West Elgin to the question of the location of the office and the desirability of an exhibit, which is a perfectly proper criticism. What I would suggest to the hon. gentlemen, if they desire to discuss tlie question of Immigration, is that they should give us the benefit of some practical suggestions on the question. If they can suggest auy improvement in the method of expending money, I shall be very much pleased to hear what they have to say.


James Clancy: If tlie lion, gentleman imagines that he is going to escape the just criticism to which his department ought to be subject by this display of intellectual fireworks, I can tell him that he is very much mistaken. If the hon. gentleman ever expects to make the immigration department a succes, he must put a clean man there, a man who is not dragged before the courts and charged with the most serious offences that could be charged against a man. I have never spoken an ill word against Mr. Preston ; but it is a matter of unsavory notoriety in Canada that Mr. Preston has been connected with things that have unfitted him to inspire any confidence on the part of the people of this country. The hon. gentleman says we have not been discussing the immigration question ; but I cau tell him that there is nothing so important to a proper immigration policy as to put a man there in whom the people can have confidence. The time we have spent has not been wasted. We have had the hon. gentleman standing up in this House, in the open glare of public opinion, and being compelled to repudiate statements made by Mr. Preston. Mr. Preston declared in most unequivocal terms that he made it a condition on going to England tiiat he was to be permitted to return to this country once a year. I am not going to say that the minister"ever entered into that contract. I believe what the minister says to be perfectly true. But 1 tell the hon. gentleman that Mr. Preston has deceived him as he has deceived others. Mr. Preston came before the committee and made the statement that there was an arrangement of that kind, which the minister

is forced to repudiate ; aud that being the case, whatever Mr. Preston's usefulness mayj have been in the past, the hon. minister must! conclude that it is now gone.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There can be no question that Mr. Prestonj intended to convey to the committee the impression that his understanding with the department was, that he was occasionally to visit Canada and not to be kept over; there permanently, as the other oflicialsi are. I do not think he intended to leave; on the minds of the committee the impression that he had any hal'd and fast contract.
I do not think that the evidence justifies any such conclusion.


Uriah Wilson: It certainly does. I did not ask a single question that I had not the right to put. We are paying Mr. Preston $3,000 and his expenses, amounting to some $1,800 more, and we have a perfect right to know what he Is doing, when lie is staying two or three months away from his! regular work. I entirely dissent from the statement that we kept him here to attend the committee. The committee never asked him to appear before it.


Mr. McCREARY.: My information was that Mr. Preston was asked to go before the committee by the chairman.


Uriah Wilson: He was not asked by the committee, and I am through with Preston for the present. We are spending a large amount on immigration and getting very little, aud spending it very injudiciously in certain places. We have in England three' immigration agents : Mr. Jury, at $1,800 ; Mr. Dike, at $1,200 ; Mr. Griffith, at $1,500. or a total of $4,500 for three agents to a population of nearly 30,000,000 according to the census of 1891. In Scotland, we have Mr. Murray, $2,000 ; Mr. Grant, $1,200 ; Mr. Duncan, $1,500 ; or a total of $4,700 for a population of 4.025.000. In Ireland we have Mr. Devlin, at $2,000 ; Mr. O'Kelly, at $1,800 ; and Mr. Webster, at $1,500 ; or $800 more than we are paying the ageuts of England and Wales. Last year the minister said he was making an effort to take Mr. Webster from Ireland and put him in the north of England or Scotland, and that he would try to cut down expenses in Ireland without interfering with the efficiency of the work. Will he pretend to say that he is getting good value when he is spending on these officers alone for salaries the amounts I have given, which, with other expenses, will reach $10,000 or $15,000 a year in Ireland, when 765 immigrants is all we got from that country. And Mr. John Redmond made the statement the other day that 45.000 immigrants left the past year, out of which we got 765. I am under the impression that we would get just as many if we had no agents there at all. 1 would like the minister to explain how it is that the United States got 45,000 immigrants
and that we only got 765. I am opposed to spending so much money for so little result.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:: So far as Ireland and Scotland are concerned, I can hold out no inducement that there will be any immediate reduction in the expenditure. I am perfectly satisfied that we would not get anybody at all from these countries if we did not maintain the staff in its present strength. When I visited the office last year, I made careful inquiry, and came to the conclusion that while we are not getting a large number, yet the people we were getting were obtained almost directly as the result of the work done, and they were people of an exceedingly good class. That information is corroborated by the hon. member for Selkirk, who was immigration commissioner at Winnipeg, and through whose hands most of these people passed. I do not regard the expenditure in Scotland as being excessive in view of the results. In 1900. we got 1.411 people. The railway companies in the United States reckon that on an average every settler they are able to get placed upon land in the vicinity of their railway lines costs about $500. We would think that we were incurring an enormous expenditure if we had to expend the one-half that amount. As the result of our work, we have succeeded in getting an immigration during the last year of 44,500 for an expenditure of $445, 000. or about $10 per head. And that includes the foreign expenditure, the expenditure in Canada taking care of the immigrants, the expenditure of the office at Winnipeg, the land guide, and all the officers charged with duties in that connection. So that the whole 44,500 people whom we secured as permanent settlers last year cost this country about $445,000. As I said, that includes every payment, bonuses to steamship companies and all others. Now, men who have given study to the subject of immigration will not agree with the view expressed by my hon. friend that you are to cease expenditure upon a particular place when you look at your returns and find that you are not getting many people from that place. If you are going to carry on an immigration work successfully, you will have to work the harder and spend the more money upon a locality when you get few people or none. You must keep at the work when the movement is low as well as when it is high. The movements that take place in different countries and at different times, and which ii: is impossible to control, will not yield you any advantage if you abandon the work as the non. gentleman suggests. In one year people move in large numbers from England, in another year they move in large numbers from Germany, and so on with other countries. If we are to carry on an immigration work at all- and I submit, as I said, that there is no
4S47

4*48
more important work undertaken by this government-we must spend our money and work away even when, in some years, we do not find that we realize what we might desire. If my hon. friend says that the immigration work of this government lias not been a success, I am bound to say that I do not agree with him in the least possible degree. When I took charge of the work of immigration in the fall of 189(1, I was told by the officers charged with the work that the immigration work was practically at a standstill, and I was told, to all intents and purposes, that it must remain at a standstill, that they could not suggest any way in which it could be successfully carried on. I want my hon. friend to look at the returns and he will find that from that day to this the immigration has steadily grown, and that we have now arrived at the point where we have forty or fifty thousand permanent settlers going upon our vacant lands every year. I am safe in saying that for the last three years that is about the number that have settled in Canada, and these are all, practically, settled in the North-west. Though we have had some people of the classes to which the hon. gentlemen on the other side have seen fit to take very strong objections-objections which, I think, have been well and fully and convincingly answered by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary)-it is an entire mistake to suggest, as has been constantly done, that the Galicians and Doukhobors that have come to this country constitute the great bulk of the immigration we have received. They are a comparatively small proportion of that immigration. In the calendar year 1900, the immigration was as follows :	From the United States, 15,-
500. Now, hon. gentlemen opposite when in office undertook to work up immigration from the United States. The most utter and ridiculous failure that any government ever made in connection witti the operation of a department was made by the late government in its immigration operations in the United States. When I told the officers of the department that I purposed engaging in work in the United States, I was met with the smile which indicated that my predecessor had not been remarkably successful in that direction. I organized a staff of officers in the United States; and in tl'.e last calendar year we have received no less than 15,500 settlers from the United States, who settled upon the vacant lauds of the North-west and wrho are the very best class of settlers that can be got to fill up those lauds. I can tell the hon. gentleman that if he were on the line of the Calgary and Edmonton Railway, he would find people camped along that line, in some towns and villages occupying tents because they cannot find accommodation anywhere else. This influx of people is the direct result of the work we have been carrying on. It is an expensive work, I admit, but it cannot Mr. SIFTON.
be carried on in any other way. I do not believe that the people of Canada appreciate the value of the settlers who have been placed on the lands of the North-west Territories in the last four years. These settlers are producing in large quantities and will produce in much larger quantities; and are becoming some of the most reliable and valuable customers the people of eastern Canada have. My hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) made a violent attack upon the government in connection with the Doukhobors and Galicians. A little afterwards, my attention was called to one fact which 1 will submit as an illustration of the results of placing settlers upon the vacant lands of the North-west Territories. In one settlement of Galician people-not United States settlers, who are very much in advance of the Galicians according to our ideas-the people purchased and paid for $150,000 worth of agricultural implements. Where were those implements made ? Almost exclusively in the province of Ontario. And those that were not made in that province were made in the United States and paid a substantial duty to the revenue of this country. I want my hon. friend to understand that though I do not take up much of the time of tills committee in the discussion of this subject, it is not because I feel that there is any apology needed for the work of the department or for its expenditure for the last five years. If he is disposed to go, we can start at the Red river and go through to the Rocky Mountains, and I can show him towns and villages that have been built up as a result of the work of the department. Yes, I will give him information of much more value than that which , he takes out of the Auditor General's Report, muddling his mind with the blue-books, as he is in the habit of doing. I can take him to places where, four years ago, there was nothing but bare prairie, and I can show him now thriving towns and villages. I can take him to one place which was almost uninhabited, and where, the last time I was there, I was told that within 30 miles there were no less than 8,000 actual farmers. I can take him to various places in the North-west Territories where, instead of the bare prairie, unproductive as it was, unproductive as it remained under the policy of hon. gentlemen, we have at the present time thriving and prosperous settlements. We have settlements where people are producing in large quantities agricultural produce. Now it is for the purpose of filling up that great domain that we are asking parliament to expend this money. You may be able, so long as there is a department of immigration, to go to the Auditor General's Report and to say that although in a particular year a good deal of money has been spent, yet very few people have been obtained. You might just as well expect that

a general could account for every bullet that was fired off In a battle as to expect the minister In charge of the immigration department to show settlers for every dollar that was expended. The work must be carried on under a general system of spreading information, and you have then to take your chances of a favourable result. An attempt to carry it on in any other way would result, as it did under the former government, after a lapse of years, in a dismal failure.
Now our hon. friends opposite find fault with a great many things, but they do not find fault apparently with the general results of our work, and they are not able to controvert the statement that in the course of the last four years the department has been successful in initiating a movement of people to Manitoba and the North-west Territories which is rapidly settling up that great country, and rapidly assuring the future of the Dominion of Canada. Sir, we all understand, and it has been admitted by those who have observed the national affairs of Canada with any degitee of attention, that the producing population of this country must be increased if the financial burdens of this country are to be easily borne, and it is by actual settlement of those prairie lands by an agricultural population that the burdens of Canada can be easily borne. We have been carrying on that work successfully, how successfully I have indicated by showing the numbers of people that we have received: and the indications are at the present time that from among the farmers of the western portion of the United States, there is an increasing movement, and we are likely to receive next year a much larger influx from that district than in the years past. Hon. gentlemen opposite will learn by inquiring from any gentleman who represents a North-west constituency that the people we have received from the western states are the very best settlers that any country can get. They are adapted for the work of prairie farmers, they have been trained in that direction, they are selfreliant. energetic, and in every respect they are calculated to be model citizens. We cannot have too many of them, and we are glad to know that the vacant lands of the Edmonton district, particularly, are being rapidly settled up by these people.


Uriah Wilson: The minister is evidently in no hurry to get through with his estimates, because he seems to take up as much time in speaking as all the rest of the members. I do not find fault with that, it is perfectly legitimate. But there are two things I am not satisfied with, the spending of money with very little result, and the bringing into this country of an undesirable class of settlers. The hon. gentleman made a long speech, and he hardly referred
to the question I asked him as to what he was going to do with reference to Ireland. He boasts of the number of immigrants he is getting from various places. Now, we got from England and Wales last year 8,184, and from Ireland 705, while he is spending in Ireland for salaries alone to agents, $450 more than he is spending in England and Wales. Now, is that a reasonable thing ? Is that the way a business man would do business ? I do not think so. As for claiming credit for success in that respect, officers of the department before the committee have time and again said, when we asked them the question, that they were simply following out the practice of their predecessors. I do not find fault with that,
I only hope they will be more successful than they have been in following the practice of their predecessors, always provided that they bring in a desirable class of people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. Minister of the Interior made one statement which I was almost ashamed to hear made in the presence of members in this Chamber. He said that the policy of procuring immigrants from the United States carried on by the Conservative government was a dismal failure.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It was, no doubt about that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman was as well informed as he ought to be for a minister of the Crown, he would not make that statement, because if he knew the records of what took place before that time, he would know that Mr. Webster came year after year before the committee and showed photographs of train-load after train-load leaving the United States, bringing settlers and settlers' effects to Manitoba and the North-west Territories to settle there : and he in years afterwards read letter after letter showing their success in that country; yet the hon. gentleman stands up and says the policy was a failure. There were train-loads, some thireteen or seventeen cars, some with over twenty-three cars, and, if I remember correctly, there was one trainload of over thirty cars of settlers and their effects leaving at one time for Canada. That system was carried on successfully, and still the minister has the effrontery to say it was a dismal failure. He either knows or he does not know. If he knows, he made a statement which is disgraceful ; if he does not know, it is equally shameful for him to make a statement without knowledge, because it is an easy matter for him to ascertain the facts. Why was the immigration policy a failure to a large extent under the former government ? Because the expenditure for immigration was attacked year after year by the then opposition. I remember distinctly that under the attacks of the opposition during the Conser-

vatives' regime the appropriation for immigration was reduced year after year until it got down to $120,000. Could immigration be carried on successfully with that expenditure ? If the work has been going on and developing since, it is because this government is employing an army of agents. There are over 250 agents in the United States who are receiving pay for every man, woman and child they bring in. To-day this government is expending, not $120,000, but $445,000 for doing the same work for which they said a few years ago $120,000 was too much. The minister says the system was a failure, but they are carrying it on exactly on the same lines as their predecessors. We complain for one thing of the character of some of the agents they employ. We complained about the appointment of Mr. Jury in England. JWe said it was unwise to take a tailor from Canada and make an immigration agent of him in England, and our complaint was justified. Now, we are not condemning the principle of immigration, we do not say that money should not he expended for that purpose; but we are condemning the system upon which the work is now carried on in some lines.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The hon. gentleman says that I either know or do not know as to whether the immigration work of the late government in bringing in settlers from the United States was a success. I have to tell my hon. friend that I differ from him. I do know. I, fortunately or unfortunately, happened to live in the western country, and was personally familiar with the work that was going on for four or five years before I came to take charge of this branch of the service. I tell the hon. gentleman, and I do not care what he or any one else says, that it was a matter of notoriety that for several years prior to the time that the present government came into office the work that was carried on in the United States by the late government was an absolute failure, and that everybody in the North-west Territories knows that, who knows anything about it at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have had several men from the North-west who have given that statement a flat contradiction.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am speaking of that which I know and of that which the hon. gentleman knows absolutely nothing. The hon. gentleman says that we have in the United States at the present time something like 200 immigration agents. He leaves the impression on the minds of the members of the committee that we are paying salaries to 200 agents. He did not say that, but that is the impression that he sought to impart. The number of salaried agents that we have in the United States is. I think, 22 and the large number Mr. SPROULE.
of agents to which the hon. gentleman refers are not salaried agents at all but agents who are paid for the actual number of people they send in here and settle in the country. I fancy every member of the committee will admit that it is a businesslike proceeding to employ these people in this way, so that we shall not pay them for what we do not get. I want to say one word on a question which has been before the committee in respect to matters affecting immigration a good many times in the four years that I have had charge of that branch. I have had occasion to appoint a number of gentlemen to this service who have rendered political services to the Liberal party and in consequence of the fact that I have appointed to this branch of the public service, certain gentlemen who have rendered political services to the Liberal party, I have been very bitterly assailed by hon. gentlemen opposite and these hon. gentlemen, upon every occasion that the immigration estimates are before the House, seek, as my hon. friend says, to attack certain phases of that immigration work, and the phase of that immigration work which my hon. friends seeks to attack consists in the appointment to office of gentlemen who have been unfortunate enough, from his standpoint, to render political services to the Liberal party. I will say this to my hon. friend in all confidence, that I am afraid my hon. friend and myself will never be able to agree upon that question. I am afraid that so long as I have charge of that branch of the service and there are officers required and there are capable and intelligent men upon the Liberal side, who have rendered services to the Liberal party, I shall be compelled to offend the sensibilities of the hon. gentleman and appoint these men to office. I want to say to my hon. friend that I do not regard the fact that a man has occupied a somewhat prominent position in the organization of the Liberal party and has been regarded as a capable, intelligent, experienced, and valuable man by the Liberal party, that that is any reason why he should not be appointed to the public service. But, other things being equal, I regard a man of that kind as likely to be a good public servant. I believe that the same capability and intelligence which make him a valuable man in connection with political affairs make him a valuable public servant Let me say to my hon. friends that if they had done as I have done, if when they appointed their immigration agents in the United States, instead of picking out the political friends who were of no use to them, who had never been any use to them and putting them at this work, they had picked out some of the men who had shown themselves to be good men, their work would have been more successful and successful probably to the same extent that ours has been. I can assure my hon. friend that we have only taken men of the very best class in connection with our immigra-
tion work, and if lion, gentlemen keep on attacking these gentlemen we shall be forced to the conclusion that it is the recollection of the exceedingly valuable work which these gentlemen did when they were actively engaged in politics that makes hon. gentlemen opposite so determined to attack them now. I do not know that there is anything more to be said on this phase of the question, but I feel bound to reiterate the statement that I am afraid that I am not a very likely subject of conversion to the view to which the hon. gentleman referred, and I am afraid that he will not be able to succeed in inducing me to cease the practice which hon. gentlemen, no doubt, regard as very reprehensible, of appointing Liberals to office when there are vacancies to be filled.


George Taylor: If the hon. minister will turn up the Auditor General's Report, page L-16, he will find that the Rev. S. Houston received a salary up to February 28. 1900, of $800 ; fare, $148.72 ; freight, $19.60 ; living expenses, $332.15 j porters, $7.80 ; postage, $11.80 ; printing; $9.37 ; stationery. $12.03 ; making altogether $1,341.47.	1
would like to inquire of the minister who the Rev. Mr. Houston is, where he lives, and what work he did for this money.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. Houston, I understand, is a clergyman residing at or near Kingston.


George Taylor: Yes, in the city of Kingston.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: He was recommended to me very strongly as a very valuable man to send to the North of Ireland to speak on the subject of immigration, being from the north of Ireland himself. He was recommended by the Rev. Principal Grant of Queen's College, and upon Principal Grant's recommendation he was appointed. I may say that he performed his work for some time and that his services were dispensed with because we did not care to incur that additional expense in the north of Ireland at that time. It was not because he did not do his work faithfully and honestly, but because we did not care to incur additional expense.


George Taylor: I believe there was another recommendation behind the recommendation of Principal Grant. I think another gentleman had something to do with Mr. Houston's appointment, the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton).


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I can tell my hon. friend that it was upon Principal Grant's recommendation that he was appointed.


George Taylor: I have no doubt that had something to do with it. I know Mr. Houston very well and I know that he rendered political services fairly well too. I have no
objection to a clergyman being appointed if he is a competent man to do this work, but I remember the attack which was made on the Rev. Dr. Benson. A few years ago when Dr. Benson was residing in Ottawa he delivered a lecture on Canada and Sir John Macdonald heard him deliver it. He thought it would be a good idea to have that lecture delivered in a few towns in the old country and he proposed paying Dr. Benson's expenses over in order to deliver his lecture. Dr. Benson went and delivered the lecture. A sum was placed in the estimates to pay his expenses, and hon. gentlemen, sitting on the other side of the House, attacked that item and fairly hounded Dr. Benson out of the country by the attack they made upon him. Here is $1,341 paid to Mr. Houston who is a strong political supporter of hon. gentlemen opposite. They sent him over to Ireland, and I find that no less than six other clergymen drew sums of $075, $572, and so on. for pleasure journeys of the same kind. If these gentlemen have rendered faithful service, well and good. But why should hon. gentlemen have attacked the late government for doing what they are doing themselves to-day, only doing to a very much larger extent. I want to know from the minister the services Mr. Houston rendered for that $1,341 to go home for a pleasure trip to the old country to deliver lectures.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I know Mr. Houston very well.


George Taylor: So do I.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I probably know him better than the hon. gentleman.


George Taylor: No, he lived in my riding longer than he lived in yours.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Instead of this being a pleasure trip, it was purely a matter of business. Mr. Houston was a minister of the Presbyterian Church, connected with Cooke's church in Kingston. He had come from the north of Ireland, and used to go home occasionally, and he lectured on Canada as Dr. Benson did. He severed his connection with his congregation, and was out of employment. The question was whether he would remain in Canada or whether he would go home to Ireland, and he thought he could be of some service to Canada as an immigration agent.


James Clancy: Wais that after he severed his connection with his congregation or before ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: It was after. He was a man of great respectability, and a man of great ability.


George Taylor: I agree with all that.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Then, I need not argue it. Principal Grant, it is said, and I have no reason to doubt it. thought that Mr. Houston's services could be utilized for the bene-
4S55

4S56
.fit of Canada, and lie made application, and recommended him to the Minister of the Interior, thinking that it would be a good *thing for this country. Although Mr. .Houston was a Liberal, 1 never knew him of taking part in politics more than voting. A good many members of his congregation, perhaps most of them, are my supporters, and Mr. Houston was a Liberal as are other ministers.


Mr. FRASER.: Every Presbyterian in *Canada.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I never interfered in any way with reference to Mr. Houston's appointment. I did solicit the Minister of the Interior, as he will remember, very strongly for the continuation of that appointment, but he told me that the expenses were so large in connection with Ireland, that he did not see his way to continue Mr. Houston in the employment.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Do I understand the member for Kingston to say that he did not recommend him in the first instance when he was engaged ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Then, he did not re-[DOT]commend him at all.


Byron Moffatt Britton: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He had not so much influence as Principal Grant.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I am not at all careful to conceal the fact, that I have not got influence to get people appointed, and very good people too, when I want it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We all have the same experience. .


Byron Moffatt Britton: Principal Grant did know dlie qualifications of Mr. Houston for that work better than I did, and Principal Grant surely was not in any way interested in The matter, except to be of service to Canada. I submit, that if any one could influence immigration from that country, Mr. Houston had peculiar qualifications for the work. He lived in Ireland ; he had lectured there: he knew the people of the north of Ireland, and he lived long enough in Canada to know Canada's resources and was as fit as any man could be to discharge those duties. I believe he faithfully tried to do hiis work. If he was not successful he was only the same as many others. It is not fair for the hon. member (Mr. Tay-Icr) to attack this appointment. I venture to say-and I will take the Rev. Dr. Benson's own words for it-that the bon., member for Leeds is not strictly correct in his statement that Sir John Macdonald, having heard this lecture of Dr. Benson's, proposed that he should deliver it on the other side. I will venture to say that the application for em- : [DOT]ployment by the Dominion as immigration Mr. BRITTON.
agent came from Rev. Dr. Benson, and not from Sir John Macdonald.


George Taylor: I did not say one word against the qualifications of the Rev. Mr. Houston. I know the reverend gentleman better than does the hon. member for Kingston, because he resided in the county I have the honour to represent longer than he did in Kingston. Everything the hon. member (Mr. Britton) has said respecting Mr. Houston's qualifications I fully subscribe to. But, the point I make is, that when the late government did just what tuis government is doing, these gentlemen on the Treasury benches attacked them for it. My hon. friend (Mr. Britton) will not say that Rev. Dr. Benson is inferior in any respect to the Rev. Mr. Houston, but because a few hundred dollars was voted to Dr. Benson, the Conservative government was attacked by these gentlemen opposite.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They went too far, that is all.


George Taylor: Then, why do they not make amends for their conduct ? Here are seven or eight clergymen of the Reform persuasion, sent over on a holiday trip and granted large sums of money. Why should not the question be raised in this House ? It is no excuse for these gentlemen opposite to say that the late government did this, because they condemned the late government for doing it. I have no fault to find with Mr. Houston. He may have done good work, but he was paid $1,300 for doing it. whereas the Rev. Dr. Benson was only paid $300 or $400. If the hon. member for Kingston will inquire he will find that my statement was correct, and that the proposition came from the late lamented Sir John A. Macdonald and not from the Rev. Dr. Benson.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am one of those who rather approve of the appointment of Mr. Devlin, and I am ready to say that the Minister of the Interior has made some rather good appointments. In my judgment. Mr. Devlin is an able man, a man of good address, and a man who will do honour to Canada in Ireland. But, Six-, I do protest against the barnacles and political heelers of the Ontario government being appointed by this government, when we have respectable gentlemen, who have occupied seats in this House, who have been consistent supporters of the Liberal government, who are more competent than Mr. Preston, and who, I am isorry to say, are in such a position today that an office of this kind would be very acceptable to them. Thei'e are very many ex-members of this House who would fill the position much better than Mr. Preston.


An hon. MEMBER.: Or Jury.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, or Jury either. The sooner this goveimment stops employing men of that character the better it will be for

the government, the better for the minister in getting his estimates through this House, and the better for those gentlemen who have been faithful supporters of the Liberal party in Canada.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Just one word, to bring it down to dollars and cents. The best authorities say that every immigrant is worth $1,000 to the country. Now, I want to know any better business proposition than an investment of $10 to make $1,000.


Uriah Wilson: The hon. minister will probably remember a debate which took place in the House in 1899 with reference to furnishing uniforms to immigration agents. He then stated that it was not the custom of the department to furnish two uniforms in a year to any one of these agents. He will find, however, that there are eight agents at Halifax each of whom was furnished with two uniforms last year. He will find that at Quebec Mr. Anderson was furnished with an overcoat at $20, a suit of clothes at $22.50, and two uniforms besides, and that there were nine agents there who were furnished with two uniforms each. 1 would like to have his explanation.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 am informed that the uniform practice of the department is to furnish each of these officers with a suit of clothes, an extra pair of nether garments and an overcoat once a year ; and if the accounts show that two suits were paid for in one year, the explanation is that the accounts of the two years got into the Auditor General's Report for one year.


Uriah Wilson: That was the explanation the minister gave before, and he said it would not occur again.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend will see that 1 could hardly have said that ft would not occur again, because I do not regulate the time when the tailor sends in his bill. It is paid whenever it is rendered. My deputy informs me that in every place except Halifax there is only one suit a year furnished. At Halifax two suits are furnished.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I would like the minister to explain an item on page L-17 : ' Quebec and Lake St. John Railway-in payment of coloniation services rendered and to be rendered.'


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 think it was first in 1897 that a grant of $8,000 was made to the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway. The authorities of this railway represented to the government that they had been expending a large amount of money in repatriating French Canadians who had gone from the province of Quebec to the United States, and had been bringing them from the United States and settling them in the Lake St. John district. In consequence
of those representations, we gave them assistance to the extent of $S,000, and I think we have given them the same assistance-each year since. In the first year after the payment was made the matter was very fully discussed in the following session of parliament before the Committee on Public Accounts and in this House, and I think I shall be within the recollection of members of the House when I say that our friends on the other side of the House did not object to the payment being made. The late member for York, the Hon. Geo. E. Foster, who discussed the matter at considerable length, stated that he had no objection to the grant being made, but his objection was that it ihad not been specially voted. I have no doubt myself that the railway companies are doing a very valuable colonization work. For the six months ending the 30tli of June. 1900, the company were instrumental in bringing to the Lake St. John district 875 settlers, of whom 450 were from the United States.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The minister has not explained the important part of it-' services rendered and to be rendered.' What is the meaning of that ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not know what the exact meaning of the words placed in the Auditor General's Report is intended to be, but I state exactly what the transaction is.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not understand that the railway companies bring them in free. They pay their fares, I presume.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is a matter into which 1 did not enter at all.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: It is a most extraordinary proposition that the government should undertake to pay a railway company a lump sum on their own representation that they are promoting immigration from the United States or promoting immigration, as they are doing very largely, from different parts of the province. They are trying to get people to go into the Lake St. John district and bring them from all parts of the province, and the government hands them out $8,000 every year for doing this, This is a pretty fair sample of the way the government have spent that $445,000 which they have asked parliament to vote for the promotion of immigration. The Minister of the Interior, when questioned about these various matters, disclaims any knowledge at all. He cannot be expected to know all the details, but, as the head of his department, lie should be prepared to give us some information. He does not, however, furnish us with a single line to show that our 250 or 500 immigration agents or our 22 paid agents in the United States have verified this expenditure of $S.OOO or given any results from that expenditure.
4S59

All we have is the statement of the railway company itself that S75 settlers went into the Lake St. John district last year and that a number of them were from the United States. I am not disputing the statement, but that is a curious way of doing business. We have an army of immigration agents, and the hon. minister should have been able to come down and tell us that his agents had examined into the work that is being done for this expenditure of $8,000, and were able to show that good value had been given. But the hon. minister says he does not know the first thing about the results and asks us to vote the money.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is the most extraordinary statement I have ever heard. I have just read the reports of the results of the work of last year.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: As made by the railway company and not by the hon. gentleman's own officers ?


Uriah Wilson: I asked for a full statement, under the different heads of expenditure, but owing to a misunderstanding between Mr. Pedley and the reporters, he only gave a partial return. 1 want to get a complete return so that we can have the whole thing on ' Hansard.'
The amount paid for advertising during the year 1899-1900 was as follows :
under the different heads, I would be very glad.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The statement is being made up, and we will give it some day before the House rises.


Uriah Wilson: The understanding was that Mr. Pedley was to have the statement sent to the committee so as to have it entered in the report. If the hon. minister will consent to have the complete statement put in the report, I will be satisfied.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will see the chairman, and with the consent of both sides will have it put in. We can call an emergency meeting of the committee for this purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to refer to the statement of the hon. minister regarding the dismal failure that took place in the immigration branch under the late government as regards our immigration work in the United States. I have here the report that was submitted to the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization for the years 1893-4-5. I am dealing simply with the immigrants from the United States and the homestead entries made by them.
No. of Entries. souls.
1893	
818	2,3001894	
850	2,5881895	(first	ten months)....	529	1,822Canada 	
Great Britain 	
Continent 	
United States 	. $ 1,813 25 . 13,364 63 . 1,882 58 . 31,319 16Total 	. $43,379 62Amount paid for printing pamphlets, copies papers and literature was about :	Canada 	
Great Britain 	
Continent 	
United States	. $31,861 05 . 9,243 61 . 2,563 42 , 8,202 03
Total 		
-	
Total for advertising and literature, $100,249.73.
Cost of agents' salaries, commissions on settlers, advertising and literature in the United States, was about $55,173.21.
Cost of agents' salaries, advertising and literature in Great Britain was about $26,758.24.
Cost of agens' salaries, advertising and literature on continent was about $6,922.69.
Grand total, $89,854.14.
The total expenditure in Canada for all services was about $196,500. This includes salaries, office and travelling expenses of all officials and employees in Canada, transport and location of immigrants, grants to Quebec and Lake St. John Railway, repatriation society, hospitals, Women's Protective Immigration Society, Girls' Home of Welcome, &c.
These different items amount in all to $286.000 out of a total expenditure of $434,500. If the minister would give us the balance Mr. WALLACE.
And this is at a time when the immigration business from the United States was practically the only commencement. And yet the hon. gentleman says that it was a dismal failure.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Will the hon. gentleman read the figures for 1S96 ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not them at hand.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The number of entries was 190, the number of souls was 608.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have submitted the evidence I had, which, I think, justifies what [DOT]I said that if the minister did know the facts he should not have made the statement he did, and that if he did not know the facts he ought to have known them.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend has shown what the returns are. In 1894 the number of souls was 2,588, in 1895 it was 1,912, but he did not give 1896 which was the last year of the previous government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I gave the reason for it- d had not the figures at hand. I did not have time to get them.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will supply the unintentional omission of my hon. friend. The number of settlers

fell from 1,912 in 1895 to 60S in 1896. We got to work and in 1898 the number of souls was 9,900 in 1899 it was 11,545 ; in 1900 it was 15,500, and it will be 20,000 or over this year.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) spoke of twenty cars at a time filled with immigrants as though it was a daily occurrence. A car would carry about 50 people. At the rate, twenty cars would give 1,000 immigrants.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Could not one settler have a whole car-load of settlers effects ?


Mr. HOLMES.: Oh, oh.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes) laughs.


Robert Holmes: Certainly, at such a ridiculous statement.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Holmes) that it is Quite the ordinary thing for a settler from our section to fill a ear with settlers' effects. It is easy to fill a car with horses, cattle, household furniture and agricultural implements. It may l>e a matter of laughter for the hon. member for West Huron, who is as ignorant of these matters as he is of others that he professes to discuss in this House. But there are things that he does know apparently.


Robert Holmes: Name them.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: For instance, how to manipulate an election in West Huron. And one of the things that he does not know is that a settler from Huron can easily bring a car-load of settlers' effects, and I have no doubt that each settler does that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to give the facts which accounts for the falling off to which the hon. minister has referred. I said that the immigration system was attacked by the opposition year after year until the government of that time unwisely as I think, contracted that expenditure. I have here the evidence given before the committee in 1895, from which I read briefly :
Q. Have you mapped out any change in the system during the coming year from that of last year?-A. The chief change has been in the direction of drawing in our horns. Our vote was $70,000 less than it was last year.
Q. How much has been expended last year?- A. Our appropriation was $200,000.
Q. You intend to reduce that to $130,000?-A. We intend to reduce it to $130,000 this year.
This reduction of expenditure accounts for the figures not showing so well. And what brought that about ? It was the successful attacks upon the system year after year by the opposition of that time.


William Forsythe McCreary: I have a word or two to say with regard to the effect of immigration expenditure. I think there are one or two phases of the question that the minister himself has not touched upon showing the
cost of immigration during the years the Conservative party were in power. Now, *with regard to the statement of the hon. member for East Grey that the former government had brought in immigrants from the United States. 1 believe they did, but the unfortunate part of it was that these immigrants were not properly located and for these and other reasons the result was that a large percentage of them left the country. So serious did this condition of affairs become in 1896 that the city council and board of trade of Winnipeg held meetings and took steps to try to prevent this outward movement going on. In a few remarks I made the other day, I stated that in a short drive from Winnipeg to Deer Lodge, a distance of four or five miles, we had met twenty-nine covered wagons each containing a family on its way back across the line. They had no money left and a large number of them left the country. It will be remembered that the census of 1891 failed to show where the settlers were who came in between 1881 and 1891. And, if a census had been taken in 1S96, it would have been found that the settlers alleged to be there were not there. I would like to lay before the committee one or two reasons why they were not there and to show how the money of the country was improperly and I might almost say fraudulently squandered. The figures for this year show a cash expenditure of so much. Formerly the cash expenditure showed large sums, and there was also a large quantity of lands given to colonization companies which at $5 an acre would give a very much larger sum than was shown in the blue-books, and which should have been charged to immigration expenditure. I want to show the circumstances under which the patents for these lands were got, and also to ask if something cannot be done to recover the lands held by these colonization companies when they have not done the work in consideration of which these were given. Most of these companies secured lands near the railway stations. At Yorkton, Saltcoats, Russell, Churelibridge and other places this was the case. Some of these companies did honestly carry out the compact made with the government. I may mention one of the best Of these companies, one in which I think my hon. friend from York (Mr. Wallace) is interested-the York Farmers' Company. I believe that that company were honest in their endeavours to carry out the arrangement they made with the government, and they brought in some good settlers. They also expended some money, and I do not think it was a paying transaction for the company. But I will enumerate some of the other companies.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman says that the colonization companies took care to locate their land around the railway stations.


William Forsythe McCreary: Yes.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: So far as the York Farmers Company, to which he referred is concerned, their location was made ten years ahead of the railroad. They could not know where the railroad was to be built at the time, and they took a section of country, and settlers went in, and the railroad followed the settlers. It was not a colonization company picking out the lands around the railroad, because they had selected those lands ten years before the railroad came.


William Forsythe McCreary: It may be just a coincidence. Of course that would be in 1870 you selected your land, because the railroad went to Saltcoats in 1886.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: No, it was in the winter of 1882 that the lands were selected, and the railroad did not go there until 1892 or 1893.


William Forsythe McCreary: I think it went to Saltcoats in 1880. However, I will refer to one or two other companies. Now, the Imperial Colonization Company brought out fifty families of Crofters, in 1889. These people were uusuited for farming, they had been fisherman in the Island of Skye and other places in Scotland. The Imperial Colonization Company loaned $000 to $1,000 to each of these people.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: But not by the government.


William Forsythe McCreary: The government said to these parties, If you will bring out a settler we will give you a quarter section as a homestead for that settler, and another quarter section as the price of your bringing out that settler. That is 320 acres of land they got for each settler. Fifty families came out, and there are now only eleven to be found in the entire district. They did not stay upon their homesteads, the most of them only stayed a year. I claim that in that case there are thirty-nine times 320 acres of land that has not been honestly earned, and that this government should not give patents for. Calculate that into money at $3 an acre, and you will understand what loss the country has suffered in that respect. I believe some of them got patents, but more of them are now before the government, and the lands are untaxable.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I know with regard to our company, we were compelled to take out patents whether we wanted to or not, and become liable for school taxes and other taxes.


William Forsythe McCreary: My object is to lay before the minister this information to enable him to see the situation of affairs, and the desirability of appointing a commission during the summer to find out what portion Mr. WALLACE.
of these lands have been fraudulently obtained. Now, in 1891 and 1892, ninety more families were brought into the country from South Dakota, and settled north-west of Yorkton, in what is called the Sheho district, townships 29 and 30, ranges 10 and 11. They came in under the auspices of the Canada Settlers' Loan and Trust Company, who advanced to each settler from $600 to $800, paying their fare from South Dakota, and supplying them provisions as far as the money went. They have all left the country but 17 families, and the loan company is applying for patents. My information, that I procured at the time, was that there were only thirteen families left, and they were Germans. Here again there are 77 times 320 acres of land that should be looked into. This commission would not cost much. If we can get a lot of that land back it would pay the country for the expenditure on the commission. Now, I will go on and give some names; I do not think I am betraying any trust in doing so. 1 will give you Mr. G. De Balinhard, Dominion government land agent at Yorkton at the present time, a strong member of the Conservative party. He has been in that employment for years, and he told me that some of those companies came to him, when he had been in the country two years, and asked him to subscribe his name to a declaration that he was a settler brought in by them. He foolishly made the statement that he was brought in by that particular company, and on the strength of that they got 320 acres of land. Mr. Livingstone, a hardware man at Yorkton, was another case. T^ese men were there two or three years before the companies were ever formed, and yet the report was sent down that these men were immigrants brought by these companies. The colonization company will apply for patents. I may say that a great deal of correspondence took place with the minister about the hardships of some of these settlers. The interest heaped up, and the debt became burdensome. I tried to suggest means of their taking homesteads, but that could not be done. I suggested taking them in their wives' names, but that could not be done. The consequence was that they had to leave the country. In 1887-8 the government imported from England, from the cities and towns, a large number of settlers under the auspices of the Commercial Colony Loan Company, now merged into the Canada Settlers' Loan Company, who paid the passage money from England to Saltcoats, and supplied them with provisions, making a loan of from $000 to $1,000. and taking a lien on the land. Eighty per cent of these settlers are gone, and the land is locked up from settlement the same as in the Sheho district. There was another settlement of about 50 families brought out from London under the auspices of the Church of England, who settled at Chnrehbridge.

There is only one settler of these left now. All this land is also locked up from settlement. There are consequently in this case 49 times 320 acres of land that should be charged up to the Immigration account of the old government. The same thing occurred at Moosomin. There were 50 families brought out by the government in 1884 from East London. They were given government aid in the form of a loan, and got seed grain twice on the eve of an election. They are all gone now but three families. Also there was a lot of Jews settled by the late government near Moosomin, and they are all gone, and the land is locked up from settlement. There was another settlement north of Yorkton, established in 1888, of Russian Germans, called the Ebenezer colony. They are the only colony who have made a showing, which was established by the late government. Some seven of them left. They also came under the thumb of the loan company, but since the change of government and better times, they have done well, and are buying more lhud, and are able to pay off the loan, which was not so large as the English people got. I find that of the English-speaking people that came to the country 75 to 80 per cent are gone, leaving the land to the loan or colonization company, while only 25 to 35 per cent of the foreigners have left, and they have been replaced by others. In fact, the late government had no policy of immigration, they let the loan companies and colonization companies do the work. As soon as they incurred debts in this country they skipped to avoid paying them. I see that the Hon. Mr. Daly, in his report of 1896, encourages this very thing. I see in a circular issued by Mr. Preston that he also advises the formation of colonization companies, and advancing certain sums of money to bring out settlers. That has been tried in the North-west and found wanting. I believe it is a wrong policy now, and cannot be made successful. When a man comes out and gets a loan of $500 or $600, invariably he never makes a success, and I would not advise the minister to encourage that system. It has been invariably found that a man who goes out there and settles on land, puts up his own house, buys cattle with his own money from his own earnings, makes the best settler. Now, I ask the minister to take into consideration this question, during the recess, of appointing a commission. In one month they should be able to get from the returns all the names of the settlers alleged to have been brought in. If they are fraudulent, cancel all the patents now obtained. I think in this way 100,000) acres of land or more could be got back by this government, and that would assist to pay the immigration expenditure for the next two or three years.
Now, there is just one or two other mat-153
ters in regard to which I wish to say a word. One is in regard to the immigration that is going up the Alberta line. I regret very much that the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is not in his seat. After I spoke the other day that lion, gentleman complained of the character of the immigration that is going in there. Well, I have cut an extract from his own paper, the Edmonton Bulletin in regard to the railway earnings of the Calgary and Edmonton Railway, a line of railway running from Fort McLeod and Calgary to Edmonton. It was in the hands of a receiver shortly after it was constructed. This road was very heavily bonded and did not pay a few years ago, but, as the result of the immigration which has been going into the country traversed by this line during the past four years, it paid better than any other line of railway in Canada and probably better than any line of raiTway in the United States :
The earnings per train mile of the Calgary and Edmonton Railway for the year ending June 30, 1800, were larger than those of any other Canadian road with an equal mileage.. In the Railway and Shipping World for March is given a tabulated statement of the gross and net earnings of every line in Canada, together with statements of the proportion of their earnings to working expenses, earnings per train mile and operating expenses per train mile. The mileage of every road is also given. Eighty-eight roads are on the list. The gross earnings of the Calgary and Edmonton for the period stated (with a mileage of 295[DOT] 07) were $326,126.29, and its net earnings $128,264.66, leaving working expenses $197,861.63. The proportion of earnings to working expenses is 165 per cent, its earnings per mile 183-76 cents, and its operating expenses per mile 111-49 cents.
The gross earnings of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan, with a ipUeage of 253 96, were $100,702.68, and the line had a deficit in operating expenses of $14,776.56. It earned 154-07 per mile, and it cost to operate 176-67- being 34-82 more than the Calgary and Edmonton.


George Taylor: Put it in as read.


William Forsythe McCreary: I notice tbat bon. gentlemen opposite did not put anything in as read.


Andrew B. Ingram: How long is it since that report was made up ?


William Forsythe McCreary: This is up to the 30th of June, 1900.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that the Calgary and Edmonton road runs one train every other day.


William Forsythe McCreary: I can tell the hon. gentleman that the Calgary and Edmonton road run four trains a week on the regular service and that they are running two trains a day special for immigrants alone now.


Andrew B. Ingram: How long is it since that has been done ?
Revised edition


William Forsythe McCreary: It starts about the loth of March and will continue probably to October.


Andrew B. Ingram: When, this last year ?


William Forsythe McCreary: It is going on now, and it went on last year. There is just one other matter that I would like to refer to. The hon. member for Alberta, the other night, made some rather serious reflections on the Galicians and Doukhobors. I took occasion to write to Edmonton to get some information in regard to this class of immigration. The hon. Minister of the Interior has to-night made some statements conveying some of the information that I got, particularly the statement that the Galicians in the Edmonton district had purchased $150,000 worth of new machinery. 1 would like to read to the committee an opinion from a newspaper published in Edmonton which goes to dispose of the assertion of the hon. member for Alberta that the statements I made were incorrect, because as he said I did not live at Edmonton, and he did.


Uriah Wilson: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) if he wants to go into the discussion of that matter now ?


William Forsythe McCreary: I want to put myself on record, I am showing that the statements I made about the Galicians around Edmonton and the opinion of them held by many of the people of the Edmonton district were absolutely correct.


Uriah Wilson: I purposely avoided going into that question because it was late both in the session and in the night.


William Forsythe McCreary: Surely, 1 am to be allowed an opportunity of replying to the hon. member for Alberta, and I have a perfect right to put on file the opinion of the Conservative organ of Edmonton, The Edmonton Post, in its issue of April 30, commenting upon the discussion that took place in this House. I shall read a portion of the article and then file it. Here is what it says :
Mr. McCreary, member for Selkirk, in the House of Commons the other day, made a vigorous defence of the Galicians as settlers in the North-west, and the facts of the case justified his utterances. We know nothing up here about the Doukhobors, save by hearsay, and it is very unsafe to go on that, but we do know the Galicians, and it must be admitted by all unprejudiced persons that they have proved themselves industrious settlers, hard-working, persistent and patient. We had occasion before to refer to this subject and to express admiration for the men who, without means save in their own strong arms, go upon the land with a spade and bring wild land under tillage. That is what these settlers have done. When they first made their appearance here their dress, their manners and their condition aroused protests against them, but the resolute way in which they went


Andrew B. Ingram: to work on the land that fell to their portion disarmed the critics, and there is no fair-minded man to-day who, being advised of the earnest efforts of these people to better their condition, will not say that they are entitled to admiration, They occupy but a small area of the great west, but an acre compared with the almost illimitable country round about them still awaiting settlement, and as soon as this vast territory is populated, as it will be, they will be but a small handful of population compared with what the country can accommodate.
Now, I do not need to read the entire article to show that the statement I made about the Galicians around Edmonton was correct, and that the statement made by the hon. member for Alberta did not represent the sentiments of the people of that town. This paper is published by two gentlemen who formerly lived at Fort Saskatchewan, twenty-five or thirty miles from Edmonton, and within ten miles of the district occupied by the Galicians. They lived there until they started this paper, and had an opportunity of acquainting themselves with the condition of these settlers. There are one or two letters that I have received, dealing with the same subject. I have a letter from Messrs. La Rue & Picard, of Edmonton, a firm amongst the most extensive dealers in that town, who do business with the Galicians. They say :	[DOT]
Regarding information as to the new colony of Galicians and Russian peoples, we are glad to state that they are reliable in all points of view, intelligent, hardworking and honest. Having had occasion many times to deal with them, we have always found that they were improving all the time, so we can recojpmend them as one of the best immigration peoples of our country.
Yours truly,
(S3.) LaRUE & PICARD.
Next to the Hudson's Bay Company and to McDougall & Secord, they are the largest merchants in Edmonton. I think this evidence is sufficient to convince the committee that the statements that I made about these people were absolutely correct. 1 would just say a word in regard to the Doukhobors. There was something said to the effect that these people were not desirable immigrants, and in that connection I would like to read a resolution that was passed by the Board of Trade of Yorkton, at the time these people were about to be removed from Yorkton. This resolution is dated April 3rd, 1900, and it reads as follows :
Whereas, it has come to our knowledge that a representative of the Northern Pacific Railway is at present in this district for the purpose of encouraging the Doukhobors to move to California, it is moved by William Simpson, seconded by J. J. Smith, that we strongly protest against such proceedings on the part of any railroad company which has in the past and may in the future receive government aid, and (bat a copy of this resolution be sent to the Northern Pacific Railway, Winnipeg, the

Commissioner of Immigration, and the Winnipeg daily papers.
(Sgd.) W. D. DUNLOP,
President.


J. A. GREGORY,
[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
So, lion, gentlemen will see that those who knew these people best wanted them to remain where they were. I have other evidence as to the suitability of these people as immigrants, with which I shall not trouble the committee at this time. Before 1 sit down, however, I would say that I think it is to be regretted that the expenditure for immigration should be criticised in the manner that it has been, because I think there is nothing more important which the government can Undertake than this work. Hon. gentlemen talk about immigration as it is carried on by this government, but I noticed the other day a very peculiar circumstance that occurred in connection with the Manitoba government. The gentleman who ran against me in the recent election, Mr. Haslam, was not a thorough-going Conservative according to Mr. Roblin's idea, and a little row has taken place between him and Mr. Roblin. Mr. Roblin said that he was a disgruntled politician, that because he wais not appointed an immigration agent lie turned against his party. When Mr. Haslam wanted to be appointed an immigration agent in Dakota, Mr. Roblin told him, according to an affidavit which Mr. Haslam has made, that he was going to keep the $20,000 voted for immigration purposes for needy supporters of his own. I do not think this government can be accused of anything like that. I think that the results of the immigration policy pursued by this government have borne good fruit, and that the people of the west are thoroughly well satisfied.
Immigration-Contingencies-British and foreign agencies, including salaries of clerks at head office, $330,000.
Andrew B. Ingram: Some days ago the minister answered that the Doukhobors did not receive any loan for immigration, but that there was something like $20,000 paid out for expenses of one kind or another that it was expected would be repaid. Has that been repaid ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I am informed that the money has not yet been paid back.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much of this vote is for salaries ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.$5,000	for salaries	at the head	office.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it include commission paid to agents ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was paid as commission to agents last year ?
153}


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: $0,410 was paid in the last fiscal year for commissions to agents in the United States.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many extra clerks are employed in the head office here ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are twelve at present. They have passed the civil service examination, and they are, to all intents and purposes, regular officials.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many were appointed last year ]


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Five.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is very late now, and I think we had better adjourn. This is a subject that usually takes a great deal of time.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: All right.
Some resolutions reported.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES (Sir Louis Davies) moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What work will be taken up to-morrow ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The Bills on the Order paper, the government notices of motion, and then supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Supplies for what department ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. The Minister of the Interior will take his supplementary estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the Minister of 'Finance tell us when the further supple-mentaries will be brought down ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Probably to-day.
Motion agreed to ; and House adjourned at 1.50 a.m. Friday.

Friday, May 10, 1901.