GENERAL INSPECTION ACT AMENDMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 115) to amend the General Inspection Act. He said: There are two changes which I propose to make in the present Act. They are suggested, or rather, recommended by the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Exchange, with the view of bringing the grades more within the composition of those of Manitoba and Dakota.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 116) respecting the culling of lumber and the inspection of staples. He said : This measure contains no new enactment. Its object is to transfer the inspection to the Department of Trade and Commerce by a separate Act. Inspection which is established for the protection of the public and for the security of trade, has plainly nothing to do with the collection of the revenue, and should be under the supervision of the Department of Commerce.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE (Hon. M. E. Bernier) moved for leave to Introduce a Bill (No. 117) respecting the packing or sale of certain staple commodities. He said : This measure contains no new enactment. Its object is to remove from the Weights and Measures Act a number of amendments which should not have been incorporated therein, and which, in fact, have nothing to do with the Weights and Measures Act and the administration thereof. As originally drafted, the Weights and Measures Act was fairly scientific and clear. The amendments now eliminated rendered it unscientific and self-contradictory. All these amendments, which deal severally with the sale of cereals, hay, fruit, eggs, [DOT]salt, binder twine, soft coal, &c., are incorporated in the present Act.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 47) to amend the Act to restrict

the importation and employment of aliens. He said : There are three principal ideas in this amendment which I now offer to the House. The first is in connection with the penalties. By the Act of 1897 it is made an offence to import alien labour from a foreign country, practically from the United States, under contract. The penalty attached to this offence is $1,000, neither more nor less. There was no elasticity in the penalty, and if a party was convicted under the Act, the judge had no option but to impose a penalty of $1,000. This has been found in practice to be inconvenient, and not unnaturally, because it has been found better in all matters of this kind to leave some discretion to the judge and to graduate the penalty to the nature and character of the offence. So the first object we have is to modify that penalty and to make it not more than $1,000, but not less than $50, to give a margin to the judge to impose a penalty at his discretion from $50 up to $1,000. The second point relates to the recovery of this penalty. Under the law passed in 1897 no suits can be brought for the recovery of this penalty, or practically, for the enforcement of the Act, except upon the authority of the Minister of Justice, or the Attorney General of Canada. In practice it has been found very inconvenient, and after a good deal of, observation and consideration of this subject, it was thought advisable to amend the law in this particular, that suits could be authorized, not by the Attorney General of Canada, but by the Attorney General of any province in which the offence is committed, or by a judge of a court which has jurisdiction m the matter.
Mr. WALLACE.: Not by the Minister of Justice at all ?	[DOT]


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, only on the authority, either of the Attorney General of a province or of a judge of a court which has jurisdiction in the matter. The third amendment is an addition of a pretty sweeping character, but which we thought advisable to bring to the attention of the House. It is to prevent employers of labour from advertising for labour in the United States so as to be able at any moment to flood the labour market with importations from the neighbouring country. Since this measure has been introduced representations have been made to the government by several manufacturers and employers of labour generally, to the effect that this clause is too drastic, that some exception should be made, and that the employer should be permitted in certain cases to import labour from the United States, that is, labour of a certain kind which cannot be found here, special labour, or labour of a very high class, and even sometimes when there is a scarcity of that kind of labour in Canada. We have had conferences with the labour organizations and I must say that we have found them very reasonable. So far as 1 understand them, and I think that I do
understand them, they have no objection whatever that there should be a provision in the Bill introduced so as to make it possible for an employer in Canada, if he cannot get the kind of labour he must have in this country, to bring it from a foreign country, or from the United States, without any violation of the Act, but, they would insist, and this is a proposition which I think is perfectly reasonable, that the Act should be so framed, so construed and so interpreted, as to make it impossible, when there is a dispute between employers of labour and their employees, when there is a strike on, for instance, or any difficulty of that kind, to advertise in the United States and thereby get a supply of labour for the market here while the dispute is going on. That is a position which, I think, is very reasonable. I understand that some amendment may be proposed to the last clause of the Bill when the Bill comes before the committee. Of course, the government would be prepared to consider any such amendment as may be offered. I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
On section 1,
Mr. SPROULE.: If this clause is not amended will it permit what the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says he desires to leave within the provisions of the law, that is to leave it open to any person to bring in labour of a technical sort, persons specially fitted for doing some particular kind of work, fitting up machinery, or running certain kinds of machinery ? If this clause is left as it is, the importation of labour of any kind will be prohibited. I take it that if this clause is left as it is and if a new clause is put in, it would be in conflict with this one.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Chairman, there may be something in the objection of the hon. member for East Gray (Mr. Sproule). If that clause is allowed to stand we may come back to it when we have passed the other sections of the Bill.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister would state the principle upon which he leaves the question of taking action under this AU't to the Attorneys General of the different provinces. I do not quite see the principle of that myself inasmuch as the provincial government, or the Attorney General, as the executive law officer, may entertain entirely different views from those of this government in respect to the enforcement of this statute. It is true that it does throw the responsibility on the Attorney General of the province, but I would rather be inclined to think that a responsibility of that kind which deals, to a certain extent, with matters of an international import, in so far as it is confided to an Attorney General in this country, should rather be confided to the

Attorney General of Canada. It is with this government that responsibility of that kind usually rests. It seems to me that it is with the Attorney General of this government that such responsibility should rest if It is to be committed to an officer of that kind at all.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The criticism of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) would not, I think, apply. Of course, the principle of our confederation is that the administration of justice lies with the provinces. We pass all criminal laws; that is our jurisdiction, but the application of these laws is within the jurisdiction of the provinces and it is the Attorney General of every province who has to enforce them. When, in 1897, we took the power to ourselves to authorize the enforcement of the Act it was in derogation of the well-known principle which pervades our whole system. We are going back to it now. I see the force of the hon. gentleman's contention that if the troubles which are contemplated are of an international character it should be preferable to leave the law as it is and that the discretion which is vested in an officer of the law should be vested in the Attorney General of Canada rather than in the Attorneys General of the provinces. WTe have considered all that, but since we propose to make it an offence to import under contract alien labour, we have thought, after the experience we have had, that we had better leave the administration, as far as possible, with the officers of the provinces rather than with the Attorney General of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: So far a's the remarks of the right hon. gentleman are concerned, it seems to me that in respect to the considerations which I have mentioned, the law should be left to its operation without the intervention of the Attorney General or any one else. If certain responsibilities are to be thrown, in the first place, upon the Attorney General, it seems to me, notwithstanding what the right hon. gentleman says, that the Attorney General of Canada is the one who should take that responsibility and not the Attorney General of any province. However, I will not take up any more time with that. There is another nmtter in connection with this section which I would like to mention. Proceedings can be taken under this section not only with the written consent of the Attorney General of the province, but with the written consent of any judge of the court in which the proposed action as to the penalty is intended to be brought. The penalty is a sum of not less than $50, and not more than $1,000. Has the right hon. gentleman considered the advisability of a proceeding of this kind being brought before two justices of the peace or the small debt courts in the different provinces ? It is thought that questions involving responsibility such as I have men-


Robert Laird Borden: tioned may arise in connection with the enforcement of this Act, and it seems to me that it would be better to confer this jurisdiction upon courts of a higher jurisdiction such as the county court or the Supreme Court of the different provinces. To allow proceedings of this kind to be taken before a small debts court or before two justices of the peace will not give us very much safeguard in the way of responsibility, in some eases at least. If it is the intention of the right hon. gentleman to create by this enactment some safeguard against the enforcement of the Act it seems to me that it might very well merit the attention of the First Minister and his government, as to whether he has got the proper courts for enforcing the provisions of this statute.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is no departure from the Act of 1897, so far as th* court is concerned.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman will remember that then the proceeding could not be taken except by the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, but the consent of the Attorney General of Canada had nothing to do with the competence of the court.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. The right hon. gentleman is transferring from the Attorney General of Canada in the first place, to the Attorney General of a province ; or, in the alternative to a judge of one of these courts, the responsibility of saying that this Act should be enforced. If that responsibility amounts to anything,
I should think it might be better to place it upon the Superior Court instead of upon a small debts court, or upon two justices of the peace.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not think the question arises at all. It is a debt of $1,000 which has to be recovered, and, therefore, in most of the provinces it is a matter for the Superior Courts and not for the justices of the peace.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps my right hon. friend has considered it more carefully than I have, but, it seems to me possible that an action might be brought to claim the minimum penalty of $50.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The penalty of $1,000 is the maximum, and as the discretion as to the amount is with the judge, a party would have to sue in a court of jurisdiction for $1,000.


Mr. CLARKE.: Is it the intention that any one who desires to enforce the provisions of the Act would have to go to the Attorney General of the province, or to a judge of the Superior Court ?
[DOT]2461


The PRIME MINISTER.: A court of competent jurisdiction.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What would be a court ot' competent jurisdiction within the meaning of this section ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: A court of competent jurisdiction is a court that has power to try an action for $1,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That would be a Superior Court.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: In Ontario the county court would have jurisdiction for $200. Now, if you sue for $1,000, and not recover that amount, you would be liable for all the costs, and you would, therefore, run quite a risk. I suppose the intention is that the Act should be enforced, and this would not be a very good means. In Ontario, if you sue in the Superior Court, and do not recover more than the jurisdiction of the inferior court, you have to pay the extra costs unless the judge certified, which he would not be likely to do in this case. It seems to me that this section is very confused. It is not likely any one would seek to enforce the law if he incurred the risk of having to pay the costs of a Superior Court action, when he failed to recover the full amount.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You put the onus on the party who enforces the Act of proving a prima facie case before the Attorney General, or before some judge, instead of leaving it open to any one to make an allegation on his own affidavit and set the machinery in motion. I think the latter course is the one which should be allowed. It seems to me that the law is just as objectionable now as it was before. Under the Act of 1897, you had to apply to the Attorney General of Canada, and because of the red tape necessary, people did not take advantage of the law. I do not think that the amendment renders the Act any more easy to work.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The question is very clear to my mind. For every violation of this Act, the person who violates it is liable to pay a sum not less than $50 and not more than $1,000. That necessarily confers exclusive jurisdiction upon those courts which are competent to try cases for $1,000.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: Why ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Because the limit of the forfeit is $1,000.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Suppose the man chooses to sue for $50, surely that action could be tried before the circuit court in the province of Quebec ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: If he did, then I think his action would be dismissed on demurrer.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I do not think so.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: My hon. friend has evidently not read the statute.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes, I have.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The forfeiture is a sum not exceeding $1,000, and the judge trying the case can fix any amount between that and $50.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: This section has evidently not been drafted with the ordinary care which the government usually exercises in drafting its measures. in chapter 11, section 3, which it is sought to amend, there could be no doubt at all, because the penalty was fixed at $1,000, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court in the province of Quebec, and, I fancy, the Superior Courts of the other provinces. But, in the section which we are now discussing, you say, in so many words, that the prosecutor can sue for $1,000, or for any less sum down to $50. It is not essential to the putting of the law in motion that one should sue for the full penalty. If a person thinks he is aggrieved only to a certain extent, and he does not want to take upon himself the risk of paying heavy costs in a court of superior jurisdiction, he will simply take an action for a part of the penalty as the statute authorizes him, and it may be for $50. I think the Solicitor General is a little in error when he says that upon demurrer such an action taken in the circuit court in the province of Quebec would be dismissed. The informer is dominus litius. I cannot see any reason why it would not be competent for him to take recourse in a court which he thought fit to take his action before, and the jurisdiction of that court would be determined by the amount for which he would sue. The Solicitor General knows very well that in a great many instances the whole penalty is not sued for. Under divers other laws, only a-part of the penalty is sued for, because the parties who sue under these laws do not want to incur the risk of heavy costs in a court of superior jurisdiction. It seems to me it would be making the law much clearer if it were said in section 1 : That the court in which this action would be brought would be a court of superior jurisdiction, or, on the other hand, you could determine the jurisdiction of the court by the amount which is sued for.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The informer is never dominus litus. The informer had never absolute control over the penalty. All the informer can do is to move the court in a particular direction, and then the court has control over the whole issue between the parties, and the court determines whether or not the penalty shall be $1,000, or any sum down to $50. You cannot separate the penalties. You have simply to do that which the statute em-

powers yon to do, and all the informer has to do is to move the court.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the learned Solicitor General, though he is usually right, is not right in this case. He overlooks the fact that the penalty is to he sued for as a private debt. It is not a prosecution on the part of any person acting for the Crown.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Will my hon. friend tell me how he would distinguish between a forfeiture and a penalty ?


Robert Laird Borden: In what I am saying I do not require to make any distinction between them. If this were a proceeding by any person acting for the Crown, I would agree with the hon. Solicitor General, but it is not so. As my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) says, in such a ease the person who brings the suit is dominus litius, and it is competent for him to bring an action for the sum of $50. He need not in his action demand more than the smallest penalty, and, if so, I venture to think that the inferior courts to which I have referred would have jurisdiction. But why is it necessary to waste time over this ? We all agree as to what we want, and why not amend the statute and say that any court which has jurisdiction to the extent of $1,000 shall have jurisdiction in this case ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Will my hon. friend allow me to draw his attention to the fact that the person who is to receive the proceeds of the judgment is the Receiver General, and section 7 provides that the Receiver General may pay to any informer a certain share of the penalty, not exceeding 50 per cent; showing that the Informer has absolutely no interest in the matter beyond setting the law in motion. The debt is due to the Receiver General and may be recovered as a result of an action instituted by the informer.


Mr. MONK.: The informer is liable for the costs.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: How far would he be liable for the costs In view of the preliminary proceedings which he would be obliged to adopt, such as getting the consent of the judge or the Attorney General, and in view of the fact that the proceeds of the judgment go to the Receiver General ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Surely he would be liable if after evidence adduced the action were dismissed, even if it were taken with the consent of the Attorney General.


Robert Laird Borden: What the Solicitor General has suggested is only another illustration of what my hon. friend from Montmorency stated, that this statute was drafted with an absolute disregard of what


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: was the intention at first. It is true, the language which the Solicitor General refers to is here, but there is not the slightest machinery in the statute for carrying it out. It could be carried out by the court directing that the proceeds of the judgment should be paid, not to the informer, but to the Receiver General of Canada ; but no person who is a party to the suit has the slightest control over the suit in the way the section is drafted at present. This incongruity has arisen by reason of the fact that the language which was applicable when the Attorney General of Canada was to bring the action has been left in the statute after it was amended to enable a private individual to bring the action. It is an illustration that the original object of the statute was overlooked when this amendment was made.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If it is not intended that this amended Alien Labour law shall be just as dead a letter as the one it proposes to amend, it will have to be altered. Just imagine two or three persons who feel aggrieved by reason of being thrown out of employment in consequence of the employment of aliens to take their places, having to go before a judge and get his written consent before they can take any action. The proceeding is too cumbrous and expensive. What is required in the province of Ontario, if the Act is to be worth the paper it is written on, is a more simple and convenient machinery for enforcing it. I would suggest that in cities and towns where there are police magistrates, it should be sufficient for those who feel aggrieved to go before the police magistrate and lay an information, upon which the law would be put in motion by the intervention of the County Crown Attorney or other proper officer. That would be a more simple, efficient and less expensive method than the one under discussion. I appeal to the Prime Minister to take this into consideration, because if the law passes in its present shape, it will be practically a dead letter.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if, when the amendments now proposed are adopted, the Alien Labour law will be a duplicate of the American law ; because he and the House will remember that he stated that if Canada passed an Alien Labour law, it should be word for word and line for line a copy of the American law. I ask him whether that will be the case, and whether it will be as workable as the American law; because, as the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) says, the law that has been adopted has been unworkable, and will continue to be so if it is left simply to the option of the government to enforce it. Unless power is given to any person who feels himself aggrieved to go before a police magistrate

and set tlie law in motion, as the American law is put in motion by a private individual, it will to my mind be ineffective and unworkable.


Mr. CHARLTON.: I would suggest to my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that it is not desirable to bring the machinery for putting this law into operation down to such a point that ordinary magistrates can initiate proceedings.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why not ?


John Charlton: My experience has been that the majority of these complaints are ill founded, vexatious and require careful scrutiny before proceedings are taken. I am cognizant of one case where a person who was establishing a manufacturing industry in Canada and was obliged to import skilled labour, had a complaint entered against him, and among the counts in that complaint was the charge made by one individual that he had applied for and been denied employment and an American had been taken on in his place. When the charge came to be examined, it was found that the individual who made the complaint was a drunkard whom nobody would employ, but whom this manufacturer had employed, and that it had taken three months to get him out of the boarding house where he had implanted himself. These proceedings are liable to be of a most vexatious and damaging character. It is in the interest of, Canada to encourage the investment of money in the starting of enterprises and the immigration to Canada of a desirable class of operatives and skilled mechanics, and I do not know of any manufacturer who has attempted to import any labour except that which could not be obtained in Canada, because it would be cheaper for him to employ labour obtainable at home. This law, is simply copying a piece of barbarism from the laws of the United States.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that a manufacturer was establishing a business in Canada and bringing skilled labour from the other side, and that the law was put in motion against the importation of such skilled labour.


John Charlton: I am referring to a case of a general character, and am partly supposing a case that might arise and am instancing one that did arise.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where is that ?


John Charlton: I do not feel at liberty to mention where, but I state on my own responsibility as a member of this House that such a case did arise and the complaint was made by a common drunkard.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Under what statute did he lay the complaint ?


John Charlton: Under the Alien Labour law, and the complaint was investi-78
gated by the Labour Bureau. When the hon. gentleman interrupted me I was proceeding to say that we are seeking, and will be more in the future, to transfer manufacturing operations from the United States to Canada and will find it necessary to bring a certain class of mechanics and skilled operatives to this country to put these enterprises into operation. But wherever this is done, that will lead to the employment of a large amount of Canadian labour of a character that could not be used in initiating the industry but could be utilized after the industry was started.
This law is a copy of one which is a disgrace to the statute-book of any civilized nation and is simply a piece of retaliation, and while I have no objection, for the sake of retaliation, to adopting such a law, yet I say the government are perfectly justified in hedging it with such safeguards as will make its operation not a hardship upon men investing money in Canada and increasing the business of the country. I do not believe that we would be justified in allowing proceedings to be initiated by a complaint made before a police magistrate or justice of the peace, but let some jurist who has sufficient knowledge to enable him to judge justly and correctly between the parties and act with prudence and sagacity, receive the complaint.


Mr. PUTTEE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) says that a law-which, by the way, has not been enforced-has proved vexatious and damaging to the parties interested. I am afraid that he takes very little note of the number of vexatious and damaging operations against the very men who are asking for the amendment of this law. During last session I presented over a score of petitions from all jiarts of Canada calling attention to the operations of some of the mine-owners of British Columbia and the vexatious and damaging practices resorted to in that country against the Canadian miner. I will just read the first clause in one of these petitions so as to give an idea of what was going on at the time :
That aliens and toreigners have within the two months last past been, and are now being, imported in large and small companies from the state of Minnesota to the Slocan district in British Columbia, to work in, and are being employed in, the mines in that district, to the exclusion of the citizens of this country, and that amongst such importations were the following : One on January 14th of twenty-eight men; January the 28th, of twenty-three men; February 4th, of six men; and February 18th, of twenty-five men, to the Payne mine near Slan-don, B.C. On February 26th, twenty-five men having lost their way to the Slocan, arrived at Rossland, and none of said named company of men, and the majority of all other such aliens and foreigners, some being imported, cannot speak or read the language, and are, as a rule, undesirable citizens and inferior miners ; and that all of such importations have been, and are being induced, solicited and assisted by



mine-owners of the Slocan district, or their agents in this country and in different parts of the United States, with the definite purpose in view, as your petitioners do believe, or wrongfully forcing from this country the Canadian miners belonging to Canadian organized labour; and that 90 per cent of such miners belong to such organizations.'
That is my position exactly on this Bill. If this were moved as an Alien Labour Bill pure and simple, if it were simply a copy of a barbarous law on the United States satutes, I would be against our going any further in this matter. But what is wanted is an anti-contract law, so that any of our own labourers will not be liable to be driven not only from employment but from the country by the importation of contract labour. And these contracts are entered into by foreigners to their own damage. These foreigners are brought in from Minnesota and the Dakotas and Montana, their railway fares are paid, and when they come into this country they are not given work but turned loose at the mouth of the mine, so that they will be forced in a few days to work for lower wages and our men must follow suit or be deprived of employment, and all this Is done with the object of breaking up -the organized labour unions throughout the country. In my opinion the anti-contract labour law should be put into operation in the ordinary way by the laying of information. I understand there is some force in the contention that it would not do to expose some industries to the caprices of irresponsible persons. But my idea of the amendment that is proposed in this Bill certainly was that it gave a choice of the courts to the person who wished to proceed, that the complaint had not to be laid in a court whose jurisdiction went up to $1,000, but that if it was desired to proceed in order to collect $50, the action could be taken in a minor court. If that is not so, it seems to me the object of this clause has been missed, and I think it should be re-drafted so as to meet that case.


Mr. W. P. McCREARY (Selkirk).: I have before me the most recent edition of the United States Alien Labour law, that of 1900. I find that the clause in reference to utilizing the law is this :
That the circuit and district courts of the United States are hereby invested with full and concurrent jurisdiction of all causes, civil and criminal, arising under any of the provisions of this Act; and this Act shall go into effect on the 1st day of April, 1891.
I think that the machinery of our law should be made as simple as possible, if we are going to make the Act operative. I made a few remarks when this subject was up before, and I see that what I said was construed to mean that I thought this Act should remain as at present. My only object in speaking this afternoon is to make my position clear. If this law is put on Mr. PUTTEE.
the statute-book, I want to make it workable, so that the ordinary workingman can get the benefit of it. If a man is going to sue to recover a penalty, he should be allowed to go to the nearest and cheapest court. We should have sufficient confidence in our judiciary to believe that they will administer the law with discretion, and will not allow anybody to conduct a malicious prosecution. Another point is that there is no provision here for deporting aliens who come in in contravention of this Act. That is one of the clauses that should be amended. The United States have amended this part of their law, since 1882, four times, and now they have it in pretty fair shape. Here is the amendment of 1891 ;
Any alien immigrant who shall come into the United States in violation of law may be returned, as by law provided, at any time within one year from the date of his arrival, at the expense of the person or persons, vessel, transportation company or corporation bringing in such alien; and any alien immigrant who shall become a public charge within one year after his arrival from causes existing prior to his landing may be returned at the expense of said above-named parties.
It is also provided that they are to have an inspector at each custom-house under the Act. The same machinery for enforcing the law in the United States should be established under this Aet. Suppose an alien labourer comes into the city of Winnipeg. At present there are no means of deporting him. But, if we had power to send him back at the expense of the railroad that brought him, there would not be so many of these aliens coming in in contravention of the law. In 1897, when this Act was brought into force, some hon. gentlemen said that it would have no; effect. But, as a matter of fact, it had a wonderful effect. But for this law there would have arrived for work on the Crow's Nest Pass road about two thousand Italians. These people were hired by labour agents in Minneapolis, Duluth, Chicago, and some were actually on the train to come to Canada ; but, when it was known that this Act was in force they were stopped. My authority for that is Foley Bros. & Doherty, who said that, not being able to bring these people in, they had lost money on their contract. They were skilled Italian labourers on dump work. There was really nothing to prevent them coming in, because the Act was a dead letter. If we are to make the Act worth anything we must take time to consider and make whatever amendments are necessary.


John Charlton: In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), I thought it would be of service to the committee to place before it certain information as to the practical hardships caused by the operation of this Act. I have in my hand a letter from the Michigan Land and Lumber Company, a

firm that are establishing a large industry at Blind River, at the north shore of Lake Huron. They bought the old Blind River property, and are reconstructing it and making out of it a modern mill, and investing in that mill, I understand, some $200,000. A complaint was laid against the company recently, and Mr. Williams the labour agent of the bureau here, visited Blind River, and made investigation. The course pursued by Mr. Williams was very satisfactory. So far as he was able to do so, he carried the law into effect in a way to injure their interests as little as possible. Mr. Fisher, whose respectability is guaranteed by the fact that he was candidate for Governor of the state of Michigan two years ago, writes as follows :-
Our company regrets keenly that we have made any investments in Canada for manufacturing. The scarcity of labour and the high price we had to pay, so increased the cost of our product that no money was made on our last year's business. We have been tearing our mill all to pieces this winter, and when done, will have practically a new mill, the latest and best of its kind. We supposed that we were conducting ourselves properly in building an industry at this point, benefiting the locality by increasing its population, enhancing the value of the property and in every way benefiting our Canadian friends.
It is not possible to go on with this mill and have it ready for business, depending on Canada for the skilled labour, nor is it possible for us to operate the mill when completed if we depend altogether upon Canadian help, as our machinery is different from that in Canada and needs experienced help to operate it.
If this law is to be strictly enforced against us, we may as well abandon it where we are. Our only source for securing labour of any kind is Sudbury, 102 miles east of us, or the Canadian ' Soo,' eighty miles west of us, v'hile to the north is an unbroken wilderness. At the two points mentioned no millmen are to be had, simply woodsmen and common labourers. These we cannot employ without the mill being in operation, and the mill can only be operated by experienced men. The operation of the mill will give employment to a large number of Canadians.
I have another letter from Messrs. Eddy Bros., who have acquired large limits on the Mississagua River, and are transferring their milling operations from Bay City to Canada, building a mill costing $250,000, and digging a canal from the Mississagua River to good logging and booming ground near Blind River-establishing an industry that will, turn out 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 feet of lumber a year, and will employ a large number of men. Mr. Eddy was one of the parties against whom charges were preferred. He was the gentleman who ascertained the name of one of the complainants, and it turned out that the man was a drunken scallawag, [DOT] whom it had taken two months to get out of his boarding house. The charges were explained satisfactorily. Another man felt himself aggrieved and gave notice that he would 78}
complain. Mr. Eddy attempted to get an interview with him, and went so far as to follow him to the station to explain the circumstances that was the cause of the grievance and get the man to go back to his work. But he failed to find the man, who went away and afterwards entered a complaint. Complaint was made, nominally by sixty-five persons, but many of the names were afterwards found to be fictitious. Under the operation of the law it is impossible for the party complained against to learn who the complainants are, he cannot get their names, they are kept private. That is a sort of proceeding which, it strikes me, is irregular, that a man cannot confront his accusers and meet the charges. Mr. Eddy writes :
We are situated seventy-seven miles from the Canadian ' Soo,' and 102 miles from Sudbury.
That is a stretch of country, I may say, along the North Shore where the population is very sparse. Large milling industries have been started recently : The two mills already referred to, one at John's Island opposite Cutler, one at Cutler, and another at Little Current. Five new mills have been constructed, besides the old mills that are now standing idle. There is a great scarcity of labour. Mr. Eddy informed me that he had sent a party to Ottawa to attempt to hire men, and after he had been here two weeks he had only been able to find five men, when he needed a couple of hundred. He writes :
We are situated about seventy-seven miles from the Canadian ' Soo,' and 102 miles from Sudbury. In this stretch of 179 miles, the country is very sparsely settled, and there is no place to secure labour. It must be generally understood that one has to go to some thickly populated centre to secure a large crew of men for a large industry to get it once started. On account of the boom at the Canadian 1 Soo,' there being no mills in that locality, we have no outlet that way through which to secure a class of men such as we need; and the most easy place for us to get men of this class would be at Ottawa, 420 miles east of Blind river, which you will readily understand is a serious task, as they want all the skilled labour they have at Ottawa themselves. To give you a little more definite idea of the settlements in the neighbourhood of Blind river, there is only one wagon road out of that place, which runs north-westerly, following the Mississaga river, and there are very few settlers on the road. Thessalon, twenty-seven miles west of us, is the only town entitled to the name of a village along the whole Canadian Pacific Railway road between Sudbury and the ' Soo,' and this whole district can scarcely supply any number of men towards our wants. You understand that three years ago there were no saw-mills in that part of the country running; now there are eight mills between there and Little Current, aDd all the labour these eight mills may need (coming by rail) must come to Blind river, Spargge or Cutler; and we cannot see how we are going to supply skilled labour to run these mills except by getting them there by some inducement. Common labour we can probably secure all right,

but as there are no skilled mill men around there, some inducement must be held out to get them there. Now, there are abandoned mills all along the line from Canadian ' Soo ' to Bay City, Michigan (points most convenient for us to reach from there), and experienced labour in this line could be readily obtained from this locality. This applies strictly to skilled labour required in lumber mills.
Under the construction of the Alien Labour Act, I cannot conceive any way for us to get these men to Canada that would not be construed as a violation of the law if strictly enforced, and we do not know where we can secure this class of men in Canada. We have taken this matter up with Mr. Williams, and there are two very essential points in the law that might be amended, and we think the department inclines to recommend them.
Then he goes on to explain the points. The suggestions he makes are :	.
The clause that refers to a new industry and reads, ' a new manufacturing plant or factory.' Our plant, as it reads now, will not be classed as a new industry; under such an amsndment we would get the benefit for at least the first year. The next and probably the most important amendment would be that the offcers of the department should have some power to suspend the law in the interests of new factories or mills, as in their judgment it will be to the interest of Canadians to encourage these industries by allowing the importation of skilled labour.
Now, Mr. Chairman, here are two cases where the establishment of industries are matters of great importance to Canada, two establishments that will give employment to probably 450 or 500 men ; but a strict construction of the provisions of this law would prevent these industries from being started, because the owners would be unable to procure the skilled labour that would put these establishments in operation, and by that means afford employment for common labour. They can get, as they say, common labour, but they cannot get skilled men for running band saws, and for caring for the delicate machinery in these modern and highly improved mills. To say that they should not by some means be permitted to introduce that class of labour which is absolutely essential to the successful working of their plant, is simply to say that these Industries shall not be started, and that employment shall not be furnished to the hundreds of common labourers that would otherwise be employed if they were allowed facilities for putting these establishments into operation. I merely put these facts before the committee 'in order that it may realize some phases of this matter which are not probably understood, and have not been brought to the attention of the members of the committee generally. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that the introduction into this country of large amounts of capital, the starting in this country of manufacturing establishments of any kind, and the introduction of skilled labour that is necessary to make these investments a


John Charlton: success, and would furnish employment to our own people-I cannot conceive In what way this can be looked upon as a class of operations that should be impeded or prevented by the operation of Canadian law.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the law on the other side ?


John Charlton: It is utterly absurd ; and if my hon. friend wants to be an ass because somebody else is, why of course


Edward Frederick Clarke: I ask if there is not a similar provision in the Act on the other side ?


John Charlton: It does not matter whether there is or not.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The discussion which has taken place has brought to the front two questions : first of all, the question of jurisdiction which is contemplated under the Bill, and then the suggestion that the jurisdiction itself ought to be vested in some court, and what .court it should be. As to the first question, I may say that the intention of the Bill was to place the jurisdiction where it was before, that is to say, in a Superior Court. The hon. leader of the opposition has taken exception to this, not perhaps to the policy, but to the phraseology of the Bill. He is of the opinion that as the Bill is worded the jurisdiction might be in one of the Superior Courts and it might be in inferior courts, division courts, or courts of justices of the peace, which have jurisdiction for debts of $50. That was not the intention of the Bill. The Bill was drafted with some care, and the intention was to vest the jurisdiction in the Superior Court. Such being the intention, is the wording of the Bill sufficient to prevent any possibility of doubt ? The section is framed in these terms :
For every violation of any of the provisions of section X of this Act. the person, partnership, company or corporation violating it by knowingly, assisting, encouraging or soliciting the immigration or importation of any alien or foreigner into Canada to perform labour or service of any kind under contract or agreement, express or implied, parole or special, with such alien or foreigner, previous to his becoming a resident in or a citizen of Canada, shall forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding $1,000, nor less than $50.
Now, the offence itself carries the penalty with it, and there is a forfeiture of $1,000 imposed by the law itself, and at the discretion, not of the complainant, but of the judge. If it can be contended under this Act that the discretion is left with the complainant, then I can understand the argument of the leader of the opposition ; but if it be made clear that the discretion is not with the complainant, but with the court itself, that the judge may say whether the penalty should be $50, $100 or $1,000, it seems to me that the objection of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition falls to the ground.-


Mr. MACLEAN.: Why not make the jurisdiction clear as it is in the American Bill, as it has been quoted here ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: That would serve no purpose, because our Bill differs from the American Bill. At all events I am explaining the objects of the Bill, I am simply answering the criticism of the leader of the opposition, that we do not carry out the intention which was in our minds, and leave a doubt. I think there can be no doubt, at all events, that what we had in our minds was to leave the jurisdiction in the Superior Courts competent to deal with questions affecting a sum of $1,000.
So much for this first point. Now I come to the criticism which has been made by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), that the jurisdiction ought to be, not in the Superior Court, but in the minor courts, the police court, the division court, and so on. His criticism has been taken up by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee), and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), and the argument that has been adduced has been this : Why not allow any complainant under this Act to go to the nearest court and have his redress ? The objection to that is this : the experience that I have had in the working of this Act has been, that any complaint as to the violation of the law has been taken up by the labour organizations and not by individuals. If ever there has been cause to invoke the aid of the law, if there has been alien labour imported into this country against the provisions of the Act, invariably the complaint was taken up by the labour organizations themselves, and in no case so far as I know, has it been left to individuals to bring action under this Act. I will say that it is very much to the credit of the labour organizations-and I am proud to say, at this moment, that when drafting the Bill, we drafted it after a conference with the labour organizations-that ever since the Act has been in force since 1897, the labour organizations have been very moderate in their demands, and have never tried to abuse the powers of the law, but have tried simply to have the law faithfully carried out. They have never left it to an individual to rush to the Minister of Justice to ask for the enforcement of the law, but they have investigated the complaints themselves and brought them to the Minister of Justice. In these eases, the labour organizations have never had any intention, so far as I know, beyond the fair enforcement of the law. I know there have been complaints, sometimes, that, perhaps, strictly speaking, the law had been violated ; but, they recognized that there may be some justification for the importation of labour under certain circumstances, and they do not ask for the application of the law to such circumstances. If the enforcement of the law is to be undertaken by the labour organizations themselves, and they want, I think, no violent enforcement of the Act, but simply its enforcement when there is cause for it, there is no harm in proposing that the remedy should be left in the court of highest jurisdiction. If you leave it in the power of any one to rush to the neighbouring court, or to go to the neighbouring justice of the peace, to lay his case before him, very probably you will have a good deal of heartburning somewhere. For instance, take the complaint laid down by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He mentions the case of a man wno is a large employer of labour, who has introduced capital into this country, and that man would feel very much aggrieved if it were in the power of any workmen to rush to a neighbouring justice of the peace and commence action against him. We want to preserve for Canadian labour the Canadian market. As to that we are all agreed, and while that is the policy which we want to adopt, and which we are willing to enforce, it is not unfair to ask that the court should deal cautiously with all such matters, and should not interfere except when there is due cause shown; not the primary court, but the highest court of jurisdiction. That is what has been conceived to be the principle of the law, and in this respect, I understood that the Bill would be acceptable to the labour organizations of the land.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the right hon. gentleman submitted the Bill to the labour organizations, and has it received their assent ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We have submitted the Bill to the labour organizations of the country.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: I agree with the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) in the view he has taken on this question. I quite agree with the right hon. Prime Minister that it-would be utterly out of the question to have these matters dealt with by the police magistrates in the country, because it would not be expected that the magistrates of the country would be conversant with the law, and would be prepared, owing to local prejudices, to deal fairly with the subject; but, owing to the fact that you must have some simple method of enforcing the law, I would suggest that some method should be adopted along the lines suggested by the hon. member for West Toronto. In the towns most of the police magistrates are members of the bar, and they bring a legal mind to bear on the adjudication of the cases entrusted to them. But, one might go farther than these police magistrates and have the cases dealt with altogether by the county court judges. Take the statute as it is, and as it is proposed to be amended ; of necessity these cases must be dealt with in the Superior Court. Any man who is possessed

of any property, or who has any standing in the community, would not feel it incumbent upon himself to commence an action of this kind to vindicate a principle, because, in the event of being defeated in his case, his property would be available for the costs, and there would be a deterrent factor against actions being brought. Then, assuming that such a case as that suggested by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) should arise ; a person may come' over from the United States'under contract to fit up a mill, or to erect a mill. That might happen in the spring of the year ; assuming that the Superior Court for the district had held its sittings, because, in the province of Ontario we have a spring and a fall court of assize, and if action were brought against a person after the spring assizes were over, it would not come to trial until late in the fall. Before that the work would all have been completed, and these alien employees might have returned to their homes. Furthermore, the action would be defeated by reason of the fact that the man who was figuring as defendant would have no goods in the country out of which costs could be realized. I quite agree that it would be utterly unfair to have these actions relegated to country magistrates, but I think they should be dealt with either by county court judges, or, in large towns, in towns of over 5,00b, by the police magistrates. There are some other things in the Bill that are objectionable. In the event of any damages being recovered, the amount is payable to the Receiver General. Why not make that amount paj <u)Ie to the party instituting the action rather than to the Receiver General ? I trust, before the Bill becomes law, that a change may be made in this direction, and that provision may be made so that some summary proceedings may be taken before a county court judge, or a police magistrate in a town of over 5,000 population. There is a great deal of complaint, since the matter has been introduced by the hon. member for North Norfolk, in reference to the mills on the north shore of the Georgian Bay. The case of Fisher & Co. I have heard mentioned in my own town. Labour was openly advertised for in the newspapers of Bay City, and these men came over. I think that the hon. member for North Norfolk unwittingly did an injustice to the skilled labour employed in the mills. We have in this country just as modern mills as they have in Michigan. We have men who are accustomed to working band saws and all kinds of advanced machinery in the saw-mills, and it is rather humiliating to young men in the country, after working for years in the mills, that, while there are only one or two superior positions in these mills, they cannot obtain them, by reason of the fact that these positions are filled by men coming from the other side. Not only that, but I was assured by a reputable gentle-Mr. BENNETT.
man that this very firm of Fisher & Co., of Blind River, openly advertised in the Bay City newspapers for skilled labour to come over to Canada to work in these very mills. I trust that some less cumbersome measure than this will be passed.


John Charlton: It would be well to produce that advertisement so that we may not go on hearsay evidence, because I am . informed that nothing of the kind was done.


William Findlay Maclean: What can be the objection to clearly defining what court shall have jurisdiction in this matter ? It is very easy to say that the jurisdiction shall be in the Superior Court and also in the county courts, and also with magistrates in cities of over 5,000 population.


Mr. IIAUGHTON LENNOX (South Simeon).: 
Mr.   ATTT@: AY MORRISON! (New Westminster). The First Minister stated that it was the intention of this clause that the case should be dealt with in the Superior Courts. I presume that the government have been mindful of all the provinces in drafting this measure, and it would be well for them to consider that in the province of British Columbia the jurisdiction of the county court extends to $1,000. In regard to the section as a whole, I am in very great sympathy with the views expressed by the member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) and in some respects by the leader of the opposition. If there is one matter more than another in respect of which there should be the greatest clearness and simplicity it is in a matter of this kind, and, in my opinion, section 3 as it stands is susceptible of very great difference of opinion and controversy. I believe jurisdiction should be given to the county courts and probably also to stipendiary magistrates, who, I presume, are only appointed in towns. The jurisdiction of a stipendiary magistrate, as we all know, is equal to that of two ordinary magistrates, and as the maximum penalty is $1,000, magistrates would have no jurisdiction. It is my opinion that stipendiary magistrates, and county courts, as well as Superior Courts should have jurisdiction in this matter. All reasonable facilities should be given to initiate an action under this section. The very reading of the lines fixing the amount presupposes that more than one court is considered; for this section says : ' With the written consent of any judge of the court in which the proposed action is intended to be brought.' Having regard to these words and the amount involved, one might presuppose the county court to be meant. If it is intended to be the Superior Court, and the section is susceptible of that reading, you have at once a contest. If the action were laid in the county court, the objection might be raised that it should be laid in the Superior Court. I think it is a matter of the greatest ease to make the meaning clear, even if you have to mention a certain court for each province. Moreover, I believe that in Ontario at present the question of extending the jurisdiction of the inferior courts is being considered. Taking merely a casual construction of section 3, and with all respect to the gentleman who drafted it, I think it is somewhat vague and loosely drawn. It should be a little more explicit as to the courts in which these actions are to be brought. I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He has given one or two isolated instances in which hardship might be caused to employers of labour. But, as the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) has stated, you must look at the other side of the picture. For instance, in the province of British Columbia, on the Fraser river, where there are probably some 12,000 or 15,000 engaged in connection with the salmon fisheries for a very short time each year, a great many people come from Puget Sound ports-Seattle, Tacoma and Port Townsend-in their scow houses and large boats, and live in British Columbia waters. They are aliens, they have absolutely no interest in the province except to fish there, and many bring their supplies. They take away the fruits of that Canadian industry and go back to American territory, and neither the province nor the Dominion of Canada gets any advantage at all from their advent. If there is any law to prevent that sort of thing, it has not yet been enforced. I could give a number of instances of that kind. Although 1 will go as far as the hon. member for North Norfolk to safeguard the interests of our manufacturers and manufacturing industries, at the same time we must not be unmindful of the inroads of alien labour, in the western parts of the Dominion in particular. It would not be so bad if those aliens were coming here with a view of remaining permanently; but they come to stay only four or five weeks or two months at the outside, and then they go carrying the fruits of their labours with them. When this Alien Labour Act is being amended, I think it should be amended so as to cover every conceivable case of hardship on the part of the labouring people of this country. At present I do not think it does. If it can be shown to extend to the people I have referred to, then it is not enforced. Who is to blame for that I am not prepared to say. It is well enough for the government to consult labour organizations; but the practice I have spoken of goes on year after year, and I intend to refer to it in the future on every occasion that I have an opportunity, publicly and personally. Now that the Alien Labour Act is being amended, I trust that the government will listen to suggestions made from either side of the House, in regard to restricting in the strongest way these aliens who are coming in and taking the fruits of labour out of the hands and the mouths of our own people.


Mr. ROSS (South Ontario).: I think hon. gentlemen have overlooked the fact that

we have under our control at present one of the greatest forces in the country for the enforcement of the Alien Labour Act and the settlement of labour disputes; I refer to the Department of Labour in this government. We had a dispute in the riding which I have the honour to represent, and it was so satisfactorily settled by the Department of Labour that I went to see what sort of an institution it was. There I found an issue of the Labour Gagette for January, 1001, by which I saw that not only had that department settled labour troubles, but it had also enforced the Alien Labour Act. I will read from the Gazette for January, at page 240 :
During the month of December, six complaints were made to the department of alleged infractions of the Alien Labour Act, and live, of six complaints partially inquired into in the month of November, were dealt with. Four of the six complaints laid during December were fully investigated by the special officer of the department for the enforcement of the Act. The
evidence was sufficient in. one case to warrant the ordering of the deportation of two alien workmen ; in the second and third cases, the alleged aliens proved to he British subjects, and in the fourth case the evidence showed that the Act had not been wilfully or unnecessarily violated. Of the six complaints received during the month, five were in the province of Ontario and one in Quebec, as follows -three in the city of Hamilton, one in Dunias, one in Bruce Mines, and one in Montreal, Quo.
The following is a detailed statement of the complaints made or dealt with during the month, and of the action taken in regard to each .-
Then it goes on to give a list of the complaints made before the mouth of December, and dealt with during that month. There were several persons deported. Then it gives a list of the complaints made cTtiring the month of December. I will just read this, because it has not yet come up in this discussion, and I find that our own government is doing the very thing we are asking to be done :



COMPLAINTS MADE DURING MONTH OF DECEMBER,

[Stage Direction]
Dundas, O....	Machinery and tools ...	Dec. 3..	Alleged employment of alien workman.Bruce Mines,0	Copper mining industry.	„ 4..	Importing and employing alien workmen.Hamilton, O..	Fire extinguishing plant	ii 4..	Employing and importing alien workmen.Montreal, Q...	Jewellery trade	4..	Importing and employing .alien jewellery auctioneer.Electric light plant	ii 15..	Importing and employing alien workmen.Hamilton, O..	Railway transportation.	20..	Importing and employing alien workmen.
Proved to be a British subject,no action taken.
Act not wilfully violated. Insufficient supply copper miners.
Two alien workmen ordered to be deported.
Proved to be a British subject.
Under investigation.
There you see our government is active in enforcing its own law. Some information was given to me regarding the number of people who were deported under this law, and I find that from the 20th of August, 1900, to the 4th of March, 1901, the Department of Labour has deported forty-five people for infraction of the Alien Labour law.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. ROSS (South Ontario) list here, and will read it:
Have you got the list ?
I have the
REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR STATING NUMBER OF ALIENS DEPORTED BETWEEN AUGUST 20th, 1900, AND MARCH 4th, 1901.
Locality.
Hamilton, O. Preston, O... Toronto, O .. Hamilton, O
Ottawa, O... Toronto, O .
Rossland, B.C. Dunnviile, O...
Total number deported.
Trade or Industry.
Date
of
Deportation.
Furniture
Sewer construction. ... Silver-plating industry.. Organ manufacturing .. Railway construction.. . Fruit canning	
Sept. 5..	o
29..	2
Oct. 12..	5
Nov. 10..	1
Feb. 2..	2
Jan. 30. .	1
.. 30..	3
Feb. 1..	1
Mar. 4..	16
Sept. 6..	*
No.
Deported.
Employer deported six persons shortly before arrival of officer at Dunnviile, and a similar number deported by employer at St. Catharines during investigation, making the total number of aliens deported during the above dates, forty-five (45).


William Ross: 24S1


John Charlton: Add to that the eleven deported from Blind river during the week to whom I have referred. That was done by the Department of Labour.


Mr. EOSS (South Ontario).: If hon. gentlemen who are interested in the labour question would procure the Gazette they would find much interesting information therein in connection with the labour problem. I visited the Labour Bureau and was very much surprised to find that our government was doing so much for the interests of labour, and I would appeal to hon. members to lay aside their party prejudices, and where they find the government doing good work, encourage that work all they can, and help the labour industry in every possible way. In my opinion, we should have a similar law to that of the United States, in order to properly look after the interests of labour. The government has been active in connection with the enforcement of this law, and I was just wondering whether in discussing the section we have been considering, hon. gentlemen have taken into account the fact that the Department of Labour has assumed the position of undertaking to see that this Act is enforced.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: It seems to me that there is unanimity on both sides to make the Act as perfect as possible. Certain considerations suggest themselves. One is that the Act should provide speedy justice as much as possible, and another is that such justice should be as inexpensive as possible. In the province of Ontario, the right hon. gentleman can find a precedent that perhaps would be of use. Under our criminal law, we have provided for speedy trials before county court justices. If we would refer the cases under this law to these courts, we would be met with the same difficulty as in the Superior Court, and that is that they only meet at rare intervals. If there be no provision that the cases may be tried without jury, as our county courts sit only twice a year with juries, the same objection applies to them as to the Superior Courts. But if power were given to have these cases tried by police magistrates in the cities and towns where there are such officials, and by county court judges, in places where there are no police magistrates, and give these officials the same power as is given county court justices in the speedy trial cases under the Criminal Code, a cheap and inexpensive way would be provided for dealing with such cases.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, there is a fact that should not be lost sight of, when dealing with this question, namely, that there are two interested parties to the trial, the defendant as well as the party aggrieved. The hon. gentlemen who have so far taken part in this debate seem to have
taken into consideration but the interests of the aggrieved party or the prosecutor ; but the interests of the defendants must not be lost sight of. These men are also citizens of this country, and they are entitled to a fair and just treatment at the hands of Parliament. The workingmen of this country are no doubt entitled to protection at our hands, but they cannot fairly claim any exclusive privilege. Now, what is the purport of the Bill now under discussion ? This Bill provides for the recovery of certain penalties. Under this Act, the responsibility for taking action should rest witli the attorneys general of the provinces. There is no question here of allowing proceedings of this kind to be taken either before the Superior Court or the County Court judges, but this penalty, like any other penalty recoverable under other statutes, shall be recovered in the ordinary wray.
In the province of Quebec, under section 16 of our civil code, the case shall have to be dealt with in the Superior Courts, because the penalty to be sued for is $1,000. The party aggrieved brings a suit for $1,030 and may recover any sum from $1,000 down to $50. Therefore, it is an action for $1,000.
I object to referring cases of this kind to a magistrates' court, from which there is no appeal. Besides, you should not forget that there are as many penalties as there are offences, each offence involving a penalty which may amount to $1,000. You could easily ruin a man ; it would all depend on the view a judge would take of the case. That man might be ruined, and he would have no right of appeal to a higher court.
As I said, this Bill tends to create a privilege in favour of the working classes ; but the workingmen of this country want no such privilege ; all they ask for is equal rights and to be put on a footing of equality with the other classes of the community.
I am opposed to the proposed amendment, because it does not involve the right of appeal. When I am sued by a labour organization or by a private citizen, I have the right to be tried before a court of ordinary jurisdiction, and moreover I have the right of appeal from that court to a higher court.
Now, I think there is a very simple way out of the difficulty. Since you provide that summary proceedings shall be taken under this Act, you ought also to decrease the penalty, and make it, say $50.
But as to imposing a penalty o' $1,000, as provided by this Bill, with a summary trial, I say that the House should not accept such a proposition. Let us make the maximum of the penalty $50 ; or if not, allow the case to be tried by a court vested with ordinary jurisdiction.


Mr. GALLIHER.: It seems to me that this is one of these Bills which are of a quasi criminal nature, and therefore we should be careful not to cause expense to the labourer or party aggrieved. I have

not looked into the legal aspect very closely, but I would suggest that proceedings should be taken on sworn information laid before a justice of the peace or stipendiary or police magistrate. Such official would, in the first instance, try the case, and then the party deeming himself aggrieved by the decision should have the right of appeal to a Superior Court. In the province of British Columbia the judges of our Superior Court all reside at the coast, and if we had to go before a Superior Court judge to lay our complaint, we would have to travel a long distance in some cases-say from Kootenay or other portions of the interior- which would render it impossible for the persons aggrieved to proceed. I see no reason why we should not treat this as a quasi criminal act and make the burden of expense as light as possible on those who are not the offenders.


Mr. BRITTON.: No doubt the fact of the Act being on our statutes has a considerable deterrent effect, and probably the effect will be still greater if this amendment be passed. I agree in the desirability of making the law as workable and simple as possible. But so long as the maximum penalty is made $1,000. I do not see how there can be any difference of opinion as to the courts in which the cases must be brought. They must be brought in the court which has jurisdiction over cases of that amount and cannot be brought in any other. I do not know whether there is any virtue in having the maximum penalty $1,000. .lust as much could be accomplished by having a smaller amount, and in that case such cases could be tried by a court of inferior jurisdiction.
There is another point that should receive consideration. If this action for penalty is brought in the high court in the province of Ontario, it may be triable by a jury as well as by a judge. The question arises, whether such an action ought to be tried by a jury or whether it is not something that ought to be tried only by a judge. There is another xioint. It is true that the action is to be brought by an individual. An individual, perhaps, may not undertake such an action at his own expense, but only when he is backed by a labour organization of the district or when he feels that he is fulfilling, to some extent, a public duty in bringing action of this kind. Still, it is an individual who must bring the action. He would naturally be liable for costs if he failed. But it is provided in Ontario that the individual who bringa an action for a penalty must give security for costs. It may be well for the House to consider whether a man should be placed in such a position that before he continues an action under these circumstances he would have to give security for costs, as he does in an ordinary case where suit is brought for a penalty. Then, there are a good many matters of detail that have to be considered. What is Mr. GALLIHER.
true in regard to British Columbia is true- to a less extent, I suppose-in every other province. In the province of Ontario all the high court judges reside in Toronto, and application would have to be made there to get the consent of the Attorney General or a high court judge before bringing an action. The county court judges are local judges of the high court ; but they do not come, it seems to me, within this section and would not have power to give consent to bring such an action. This would leave it to the individual to seek the consent of the Attorney General or the judge in Toronto, before he could bring an action. These are points to be considered in order to make the working of the Act as easy and as effective as possible. Under the Customs Act, severe penalties are provided for the infraction of the law, and yet the penalties, to a very considerable amount-certainly to the amount of $200-are recoverable before two justices of the peace or pefore a stipendiary magistrate or police magistrate, who has the power of two justices of the peace. If the penalty is $1,000, there is no help for it, it must be recoverable in a court having jurisdiction for that amount. If it is thought to be in the interest of the labouring classes that the penalty should be reduced, some simple mode of recovering it and bringing an action to enforce the penalty might be provided, it seems to me, with all the safeguards that are necessarilv thrown about it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I desire, to propose an amendment to this section 1. The right hon. leader of the House told us that this Bill had been submitted to the labour organizations, and that those bodies approved of it. It would be interesting if the right hon. gentleman would tell us to what organizations it had been submitted. I confess that if those bodies are satisfied that this provision is workable, it might modify my views respecting it and the advisability of making changes. I move in amendment :
That all the words after ' fifty dollars,' in section 1, be omitted and be replaced by the following : ' Recoverable in the name of Jlis Majesty in a summary manner with costs, under the provisions of article 53 of the Criminal Code of 1892, before any police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, judge of session or county court judge having jurisdiction where the offender is to be found or where the offence was committed.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex).: Just before this amendment was moved, I was about to say that I thought the best course to take was to reduce tlie hmount so as to bring it within the jurisdiction of a county court judge. As I said when this subject was under discussion, this is a law which, under the existing conditions, must be very carefully enforced. For Instance, in the city of Windsor, the ferry to Detroit takes over every morning five or six hundred people who cross to their daily occupation in the city of Detroit. Every time we have an

agitation about the enforcing of the Alien Labour law, these people are told-this has been done repeatedly-that the effect will be that they must be given the choice of taking up their residence in Detroit or losing their employment. The result would be that we would not only lose three or four hundred people who are thus employed, but also their families-within a month the city of Windsor might lose a thousand people. Therefore, every time this agitation is raised, we are very much concerned about the matter. I agree, on the other hand, that we should have a speedy and effective remedy under it. X think the proper course is to give jurisdiction for trials and actions of this sort to a county court judge, reducing the penalty from $1,000 to a less sum. I think $400 is the limit of the present jurisdiction of the county court. That may be increased at the present session of the local legislature, as a Bill for that purpose is under discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not necessary to decrease the penalty. This, parliament can give jurisdiction to the county court without that.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes, that is true-this parliament could confer jurisdiction in express terms, leaving the amount as it is. I disagree with another view expressed some time ago, to the effect that the informer should recover the penalty. The obvious objection to that is that a man who has been discharged or who has been refused employment might, out of mere ugliness or to seek revenge, lay information and make a great deal of unnecessary trouble. No doubt, that feature of the Act is commendable which provides that some competent person must pass judgment on the question whether action shall be taken or not. Whether this authority should be the Attorney General or the county court judge, is for us to settle. I would suggest that either the Attorney General or the county court judge should be made competent authority on this matter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There has been a good deal of valuable information imparted by this discussion, and on both sides of the House there is a consensus of opinion that the jurisdiction of the courts should be more definitely settled than it is now. If I understand correctly the sentiment of the committee it is that the jurisdiction should be vested in the county courts. I am not prepared at this moment to accept the amendment nor to reject it, and I would ask that the whole clause be allowed to stand that we may take further advice on the matter.


John Charlton: There are one or two points in connection with this matter that have occurred to me, and without unduly detaining the committee I wish to dwell upon them. My hon. friend opposite (Mr. Ross, Ontario) informed the committee that the Labour Bureau was doing efficient service in enforcing this law. I wish to endorse that assertion. He gave us a list of some 45 deportations that had taken place under the operations of the Labour Bureau, and I have added to that a list of eleven more operatives which were deported from Blind River, and were employed by the two firms that I have mentioned. There-are 50 deportations that have taken place under the operation of the Labour Bureau. I venture to say that this is ten times as many deportations as have taken place through Mr. De Barry under the American Alien Labour law. I venture to say that the enforcement of this law is more efficient at the present moment, under the supervision of the Labour Bureau, than the operation of the American law is made to be. I do not believe that there is any necessity for changing the provisions of the law or increasing the efficiency of its enforcement above what is being done at the present moment. I believe that the operations of the Labour Bureau are efficient, are simple, are ample, and cover the ground.
I wish to say in addition to this that we want to bear in mind that in this case we are playing with edged tools. The hon. gentleman wiio spoke last informed us that some 500 residents of Canada find employment in Detroit, and cross the river daily. That is permitted, the fact is well known by the American authorities ; no attempt is made to prevent it, no attempt will be made to prevent it until bad feeling is engendered by some act of our own. But some bright morning every one of these men could be stopped, and they would be left with the alternative of staying at home and seeking other employment, or moving with their families into the city of Detroit. On the borders of Lower Canada hundreds of French Canadians have what they call four harvests. They have the sugar harvest at home ; then they cross the border into Maine and have the harvest of driving logs on the streams ; then they have the oat harvest ; then they come back home and have their own harvest. These men go back and forth finding employment in Quebec, and finding employment in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, and they are not interfered with. It is a great blessing to these men to be permitted to find this employment. It doubles the amount they receive in the shape of returns for their labour. Rouse a feeling of animosity by the enforcement of this law, and the employment that these men secure in the United States will at once be cut off, and they will have the choice of losing what they make or of emigrating to New England.
Talk about the importation of labour! Why, it is impossible to start many new industries in Canada without importing skilled labour. Here are boot and shoe establishments down in the city of Quebec, and at other points in the province of Quebec ; it is necessary to import American

machinery and it is necessary to import American mechanics to put that machinery up, and set it in operation, and learn the French Canadians how to run it. You have got to do it, you cannot start the industry without doing that very thing. With regard to electrical apparatus, we cannot set up establishments with electricity as a motive power for running manufacturing operations without bringing the apparatus from the United States, and the men to set the apparatus up, and to educate skilled labourers in Canada for that business.


Mr. OSLER.: I think we have first-class skilled electricians in Canada. We have in the Peterborough factory men who are quite capable of erecting the largest electrical establishments in Canada, and they are now erecting some of the largest electrical works on the continent.


John Charlton: My hon. friend from Toronto is mistaken in one respect. We may have skilled electricians in Canada, and establishments for making electrical apparatus, but we have not enough of them. My hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) told us awhile ago that the saw-mills could find skilled labour in Canada. But for the class of mills that are being built here you cannot find skilled labour, because the mills that are in operation have no skilled labour to spare, and these men have to bring their skilled labour with them, knowing the men, knowing their capabilities, knowing what they can do, knowing that they are making-no mistake, and that their mills will be put into operation without any breaks, or without any loss of time, or any proceeding to make up for mistakes. With regard to electrical business, while we may have an establishment at Peterborough and while we may have skilled electricians, yet the business of putting in electrical plants and introducing electricity as a motive power is so extensive that we have not enough of them, and we must introduce American machinery and American men to learn our own people and educate them as skilled electricians. Then with regard to the pulp business, and the paper business, one of the great industries looming up in the future, you cannot establish a pulp business in this country without introducing pulp machinery and without bringing in men to set that machinery up, and run it, and to learn our own people to run that machinery. The same with woollen mills. The trouble with our woollen mills is that their machinery is antiquated, out of date, and it is necessary, if they are to succeed in keen competition, to put in improved machinery, and they must bring the men that can set up that machinery, that can run that machinery until such time as they have educated Canadians to do the work. The whole of this thing is an absurdity. The law is a barbarism, and its operation will be disastrous to ourselves, will be a boomerang that will come back and will


John Charlton: hit us on the head, if we desire to grow in this country. I have sat in this House year after year and have heard how Canadians were departing for the United States, we have a million and a half Canadians in that country ; yet here is a law which says that we shall not import men, that while we invite people to come into this country we meet them with a club at the border and say they shall not come in. Of course I am desirous that we should protect our own labourers, and I have nothing to say against adopting a course that will prevent the making of contracts for the importation of common labour. But we have got to guard our own interests carefully in this matter of skilled labour, or we shall inflict upon ourselves a most serious damage in this matter.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I wish to* correct an impression which I fear will go abroad by what has been stated by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), that we have not skilled labour, that we have not skilled electricians, that we have not efficient workshops to turn out the electrical apparatus that we require in Canada without going to the United States. Now I wish to correct that error. We have just as good skilled labour, just as efficient and able electricians in the Dominion of Canada as they have in any country in the world. I wish to inform the hon. gentleman that within one year six of our foremost electricians have been taken from Toronto to England to learn the English people how to put up the apparatus and run their factories. We have factories at Peterborough and at Montreal that turn out just as good material as can be found anywhere in the world. I wish that fact to be thoroughly understood.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 2,


The PRIME MINISTER.: Section 5 of the present Act reads as follows :
Provided, that nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting any person from assisting any member of his family, or any relative or personal friend, to migrate from any foreign country to Canada for the purpose of settlement here.
We have found that these words ' personal friend ' are very elastic and we have thought it better to strike them out. There will be no objection to that.
On section 3,


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the object of that ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The object is simply to make tbe wording clearer. We can deport at the present time. Section 6 of the Act reads :
The Attorney General of Canada, in case he shall be satisfied that an immigrant has been allowed to land in Canada contrary to the prohibition of this Act, may cause such immigrant, within the period of one year after land-

ing or entry, to be taken into custody and returned to the country whence he came at the expense of the owner of the importing vessel, or, if he entered from an adjoining country, at the expense of the person previously contracting for the services.
We propose to take out these words in order to make the intention of the law more explicit.
On section 4,


Mr. SMITH (Vancouver).: Mr. Chairman, complaint has been made that in the event of starting certain new industries in this country, skilled labour cannot be obtainable. So far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as the labour unions are concerned, they have no intention of bringing about any embarrassment of that kind. It is not the spirit or intention of the Bill, or of any labour Bill, to interfere with the industries of the country. The workingmen of this country are sensible enough to know that if such a condition of things were brought about by any action of theirs, they would be working against their own best interests. If there is a necessity of providing, after proper precaution has been taken, that men from the other side may be brought in to assist in the establishment of certain new industries, I am certain there will be no objection on the part of organized labour to such provision being made. However, we are anxious that every precaution should be taken to demonstrate that the party desiring to introduce this labour has done everything possible to prove that such labour cannot be obtained in this country. I am sorry if anything that has been said by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has reflected upon the skilled labour of this country. So far as Ontario is concerned I do not know how far this matter may go, but I do know that in British Columbia they have initiated electric works and they have had to bring, for the operation of these works, one, two, or three skilled labouring men from the other side. There is no doubt about that, and I do not think it is casting any reflection upon the skilled labourers of this country, when necessary, for the introduction of a new industry, to bring in new men with the operating machinery. However, generally speaking, I think the hon. member for North Norfolk is wrong. I think the labour of this country is just as efficient as that of the other side. I do see how it might be necessary to bring in one, two or three skilled labourers with certain operating machinery who cannot be obtained in this country. I think this amendment to section 8 would meet the case. I propose to add the following clause to this Act :
Provided that this section shall not apply to skilled labour not obtainable in Canada, as provided by section 5 of this Act.
Hon. members will notice that section 5 provides that when this labour cannot be
obtained there is authority to import skilled labour. I propose that this section shall not apply to skilled labour not obtainable in Canada as provided by section 5 of. this Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You mean section 5 of the old Act.


Ralph Smith: Section 8 of the new Act and section 5 of the old Act. It is supposed by some hon. gentlemen that the present section of the old Act covers the matter entirely. If that is so, I have no disposition to amend the law. I am only trying to bring about a modification that may meet the case mentioned by the hon. member for North Norfolk. I want to make it clear that the provision of this section shall not apply to skilled labour not obtainable in Canada, as provided by section 5 of this Act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is to determine that point '! The intimation we have had from the hon. member for North Norfolk was the first intimation, I think, since this Alien Labour law was placed upon the statute-book, that any difficulty existed in the direction which he has indicated. There has been no complaint made in the public press of the harsh operation of the Alien Labour law. The first time we have heard of. it has been from the lips of the hon. member from North Norfolk to-day, and before we adopt the amendment which has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith), we ought to know what steps are to be taken to ascertain whether this skilled labour can be had in the Dominion of Canada or not. Who is to judge as to whether the labour can be obtained ? What precautions are to be taken to ascertain whether this labour can be obtained when advertisements are published in the newspapers of the United States ? Some explanation will be necessary before that amendment should be added.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) is simply a consequence of the amendment which has been made already to this Bill.	.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What amendment is
that ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will come to that presently. Let us see how the law is at the present time. Section 5 of the Act reads as follows :
Nothing in this Act shall be so construed as to prevent any citizen or subject of any foreign country, temporarily residing in Canada, either in private or official capacity, from engaging, under contract or otherwise, persons not residents or citizens of Canada, to act as private secretaries, servants or domestics for such foreigner temporarily residing in Canada; nor shall this Act be so construed as to prevent any person, partnership or corporation from^ engaging, under contract or agreement, skilled workmen in foreign countries to perform labour

in Canada in or upon any new industry not at present established m Canada, provided that skilled labour for that purpose cannot be otherwise obtained.
That is the law and lias been the law from the time the Act was passed in 1897. My bon. friend put a question a moment ago. It was :	Who is to judge whether or not
this skilled labour can be obtained In this country ? Why, the court is. That has been the law since 1897, but, under this Bill that we are introducing to-day, we are going a step further even than the American law. We make it an offence to advertise for labour, and the section reads thus :
Section S of the said Act is repealed, and the following section is substituted therefor :-
It shall be deemed a violation of this Act for any person, partnership, company or corporation to assist or encourage the importation or immigration of any person who resides in, or is a citizen of, any foreign country to which this Act applies, by promise of employment through advertisements printed or published in such foreign country; and any such person coming to this country in consequence of such an advertisement shall be treated as coming under a contract as contemplated by this Act, and the penalties by this Act imposed shall be applicable in such case.
man Empire. The German tariff is a particularly harsh one >n its operation against Canada, and it might be a good idea to enforce the provisions of this law against Germany.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the Germans come here they stay.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think the Germans are very good immigrants, and when they come here they come to settle. The idea is to apply this law only to such countries as have an alien labour law against us. The German Empire have a very high tariff against us I admit, but it has no alien labour law. There is only one country in the world that has an alien labour law against us, and this law at present only applies to that country. If any other country were to adopt a similar law to the American law, our law would apply to that country ipso facto. The object is that this section shall apply, not only to the citizens of the United States, but to Italians, Poles, or others, who hapepn to ue living in the United States, and who are imported into this country.
Progress reported.
After this Bill was introduced, and since it has been before the public, the employers of labour have come to us and said : Under the law' as it stands, we have the power to bring in skilled workmen to perform labour on a new industry not at present established, provided that skilled labour for that purpose cannot otherwise be obtained ; but, under this amendment you prevent us advertising for that labour which we are allowed to import. The question does not arise as to who is to judge whether or not the labour can be obtained in Canada ; at all events, it has not arisen for the three years that the law has been in operation. It is now proposed to move in amendment the following words :
Provided, however, that this section shall not apply to skilled labour not obtainable in Canada, as provided by section 5 of this Act.
We make it an offence for an employer of labour to advertise in the United States for labour suppose he has a strike, but if the employer advertises for skilled mechanics whom he has a right to employ under section 5, then, we give him permission under this amendment to advertise for that labour. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) will agree with me that that is reasonable.


Edward Frederick Clarke: With that explanation, I must say thatd see the matter in a different light.
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 5,


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the government considered the question of applying the provisions of this Act to the citizens of the Ger-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.



SUPPLY-THE CONTRACT WITH THE CANADIAN PACIFC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the House into Committee of Supply.
['', 'Some resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, House adjourned at 12.50 a.m. Wednesday.', '\n\nWednesday, April 3, 1901.']
Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Douglas, the following resolution, of which I gave notice some time ago :
Resolved, That, In the opinion of this House, the government should take such steps that may be open to it under the law to obtain authoritative interpretation from the Supreme Court of Canada of the meaning of the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in relation to the exemption of lands from taxation; and
That the patenting of lands earned by railroad companies should be proceeded with all practicable speed.
He said : This matter has been so thoroughly discussed in the House by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) and others, that the House must be well seized of the question, so that it is not necessary for me to deal with it at any great length. The question has reference to the interpretation of that portion of the contract between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the government with regard to the time when the lands granted to the company shall become taxable. As to this, a difference of opinion exists. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) last year brought in a Bill on which there was a good deal of discussion ; and he took the ground then, as he does this year, that the land was granted to the company at the time the contract was signed. Other members of this House take



[Stage Direction]
a different view, believing, as I do myself, that the land was granted when it was earned. However, in view of the difference of opinion that exists on the question, we would like to have a judicial decision on the subject, so that the people of the west would know exactly where they stand. 1 need not go into an argument on the merits of the case. We know that the settlers have been suffering in this matter for a good many years, and they have been looking forward to the expiration of the twenty years, on the 15th of February of last year, as the time when the exemption would cease and the lands would became taxable.
I want to say that this is not a motion of hostility to the Canadian Pacific Railway. We entertain no feelings of hostility to the Canadian Pacific Railway whatever. We think that if the company were wise, they would consider this matter and acknowledge that the time has expired and that the lands should be taxable. There is no doubt in my mind that that is the spirit of the contract, and I think they would be acting in the interest of the company as well ns in the interest of the people of the Northwest, if they took that view of the matter. The exemption of these lands from taxation has a serious effect on immigration. There are other countries looking for immigration as well as this country; and when the people are coming in to look up locations, no doubt they are told by interested parties, who perhaps meet them at the boundary line, that half the lands in the country are held by railway corporations, and are exempt from taxation and will perhaps continue to be so for thirty years, so that the settlers have to tax themselves to maintain the roads, bridges, and schools, at the same time increasing the value of the lands of the railway corporations, and are not .likely to get any relief.
The resolution I have to move asks the government to have the question submitted to the courts, so that we shall know exactly what position we are in. If the meaning of the contract is that the lands were granted when earned, we should know it; if the meaning is that the lands are not granted until the patents are issued, we should know that. In the second part of the resolution I ask the government to issue patents for all those lands, whether granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway or to other railways. There are something like 60,000,000 acres tied up in the hands of different corporations, and we think it is pretty near time that patents should be issued for all these lands, so that they may become taxable. I believe there are' large blocks of land belonging to railway corporations that have not even been located.
I think the different corporations should be required to locate their lands, and the government should issue the patents for them. With regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway contract, I think the proper place to
get it interpreted is the courts, and not this House. I therefore take much pleasure in moving the resolution.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I desire to say just one or two words with regard to issuing patents for the railway land grants, which is referred to in the last clause of my hon. friend's resolution. There lias been from time to time a good deal of discussion in regard to the issuing of these patents, and on some occasions statements have been made which have not, I think, been warranted by the facts. For instance, I have seen the statement made that there was an understanding between the railway companies and the late government that these patents should not be issued, for the purpose of delaying the time when the lands should become liable for taxation. It has also been said that the railway companies had brought about a similar understanding with the present government. I desire to say that no information has ever come to me from any officer of the department that there was any understanding of* that kind with the late government, and there has certainly not been any understanding of that kind with the present government, nor has any member or officer of any railway company interested in these lands at any time, so fST as I am aware, suggested that the issue of patents should be delayed either for that or any other reason. The reasons why the patents have not been issued have simply been these-that the great growth of the work in connection with the Department of the Interior, and the difficulties of overtaking it have simply caused the work to fall behind. Two sessions ago my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) brought this question before the House, and I then stated that the volume of work in the department had been such that i had not been able to give that particular subject the attention I would have liked-that the question of railway land grants was one of the most difficult questions that had to be dealt with by the department ; and I then promised that I would endeavour to put the department in such a position that the question could be dealt with as soon as possible. But I explained to the House at the time that there was an enormous amount of detail work connected with putting the department in a position to patent an enormous quantity of land such ns we would have to deal with in this case. Members of the House, especially those who have any experience in departmental matters, will recognize the amount of work involved in dealing with questions of land where it has to be dealt with in such enormous quantities, and the danger of difficulty and confusion arising in case of any mistake being made.
Immediately after the session I gave instructions to the officer of the department

most competent to deal with the subject, to take it up and devote his time to it. About the end of last summer he reported that he was in a position to report that the work of patenting might proceed with very little delay. In the early part of the present season, just about the beginning of the year, I was able to take the matter up. A staif of officers was employed and the work of patenting the land grants has been proceeded with as rapidly as possible. We took the most expeditious and satisfactory course of having the land carefully and thoroughly reported upon, the lists carefully checked, so that the work of patenting could be proceeded with rapidly. I expect that before the close of the session all the land in the main line belt of Manitoba will be patented, and inside of six months all the land in the main line belt between the Red river and the Rocky Mountains will be patented, together with probably the lands along the Calgary and Edmonton line and other lands selected.. I am speaking of lands selected with regard to which there is no dispute between the department and the different railway m companies. These patents can certainly, I think, be issued in the next nine months and will cover the great bulk of the railway land grants.
The position taken by the government is precisely what it was when the question was raised by the hon. member for Alberta two sessions ago. We were not a party in any way to unduly or intentionally delaying the issuing of the patents, but our desire was to issue them as rapidly as possible, and it would be satisfactory to my hon. friends, particularly from the North-west, to know that practically all the railway land patents will be issued in the course of the next nine months.
At different times when the subject has been up before the country, I have stated what I have just now said, namely, that it was the intention of the government to issue the patents as rapidly as possible. The motion of my hon. friend embodies that intention and desire. I think I repeated in response to a motion of my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) for the second reading of a Bill which he had before the House a short time ago, what I had said, when the question of the interpretation of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract upon the subject of exemption was discussed at public meetings, that while I was not able to adopt the view which the hon member for Lisgar had advocated, yet I was willing to ask my colleagues to take this position. As soon as a municipality or school district or statute labour district was in a position to levy a tax on any Canadian Pacific Railway land, and thus bring about a test ease before the courts, I was prepared to ask my colleagues to come to the assistance of such municipal body and pay the expense necessary for the purpose of bringing rt test case. The motion of my hon friend con-Mr. SIPTON.
veys accurately the idea of the statement 1 then made, and the government is perfectly willing to adopt that position. So soon as a municipal body is in a position to levy a tax on any lands, we are prepared to come to its financial assistance and bring about the submission of a test case which will give us the opinion of the courts on the meaning of the clause. That is the only way a proper decision can be got on the question at issue. Lawyers will agree that the submission of a question to the court under the Act is not a satisfactory method of getting a final decision on the meaning of the contract, because it might be held that the decision was not of a binding nature, and did not cover the exact question at issue. That has been the experience in similar cases. It is desirable, if a case is to be brought before the court, that it should be brought in such a way that the exact point at issue will be decided. I have no objection to the terms of my hon. friend's motion and am quite willing that a test case should be brought before the courts and to ask parliament to authorize us to spend the necessary money.


William Findlay Maclean: I am not going to discuss the tactics of the hon. gentleman who got the question before the House on the present occasion. But I intend when next the government move to go into supply to bring forward the motion, notice of which I gave before anybody else, in connection with this question. I intend to take quite the contrary view from that expressed by the hon. minister. He is not going the right way to establish the date when the exemption ceases, and I propose to bring forward a motion which will define the rights of the settlers and go directly against the submission of this question to any court of law. The parliament of Canada is the proper tribunal to settle this question, as it has done similar questions in connection with this contract on previous occasions. In 1894 parliament was asked to interpret this contract and did interpret it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: What was the occasion ?


William Findlay Maclean: In 1894 the then government introduced a Bill to construe that contract.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: In regard to what particulars ?


William Findlay Maclean: In regard to the drawback on the iron bridges.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) That was a customs question.


William Findlay Maclean: That makes no difference. It was settled by this House. I could cite twelve occasions when parliament has modified that contract and the legislation concerning it. I will go a great deal further and say that the only place where jus-

tice can be done is in this parliament. But you will only get a bald decision if you refer it to tbe courts. In parliament, on tbe other hand, you have the law as it is, you can discuss the intention of the makers of the laws. 'You can have all the equities of the case before you. If there is a conflict of interests and if injustice has been done, parliament can rectify it and do justice.


Byron Moffatt Britton: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) does not believe, then, that it takes two to make a bargain ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I do. I will argue the question fully, and I think I shall have a number of hon. gentlemen on the other side taking my view and standing up with me when I come to divide the House. When the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) jumped up and addressed the Speaker after I had risen, he did not take the cleverest way, I think, of getting this question before the House, but I can wait, and I will wait for another opportunity on going into Supply. The hon. Minister of the Interior is rushing to get the patents through. This is something new. But there is a steam engine going over his department and patents are being rushed out. Still the question remains as to the date of the patents and when the exemptions cease. I think the term of exemption is up, as I shall prove when the matter comes up again. The only place where you can settle the rights of the settlers of the North-west as against this great corporation the Canadian Pacific Railway is in the parliament of Canada and not in the courts of this country.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the amendment is adopted, I would like to understand what the hon. Minister of the Interior meant by saying that he would have a final decision better this way than by a test case referred to the courts. Is it intended to proceed with a test case between a particular municipality and the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


The MINISTER OF THE. INTERIOR.: What I said upon the subject was that I did not think a satisfactory submission of the question at issue could be got except upon a ease arising between the parties. In the North-west we have had similar cases In which railway companies have been involved, and the method we have followed there was this :	Where the question of
taxation was at issue, the municipality was told to go ahead and levy taxes upon the railway company's land and advertise the land for sale, and put the railway company in the position of either bringing an action to set aside the sale or paying the money under protest, in which case, they would sue to get their money back. In either case, the case would come before the court on the direct question of the liability of tlte 79
land to taxation. The government would tell the municipality that, as soon as they were ready to proceed, the government would appoint counsel to take charge of the case. That is the only way to get the case before the court and to get a decision.


Robert Laird Borden: The plan that the hon. minister suggests may work out in the way he says, or it may not. For example, you get the Canadian Pacific Railway to enter into a stated case, and, if it is carried to the last court of appeal, it will work out as the hon. gentleman says. But, if the last court is not reached the object desired is not attained. Such a case as he suggests may go off on some technicality

The MINISTER OB'1 THE INTERIOR. There is always that possibility.


Robert Laird Borden: It may not be carried beyond the first court. And, of course, a question like this determined between a municipality and the Canadian Pacific Railway would not in any way operate as an estoppel as between the Canadian Pacific Railway and any other municipality. Therefore, its only value would be the decision of the court, which might not be a court of first instance. The case will not necessarily work out as the hon. gentleman suggests.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It generally works out that both parties are willing that there should be a test case, and that the matter should be argued on the ground specified.


Robert Laird Borden: I conceded that if you could accomplish that and carry it to the ultimate court of appeal, there could be no further question about it. But if that is not done it would not settle the question at all.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House do now resolve itself into Committee of Supply.
William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I desire to argue this question, but as it is now six o'clock, I will continue after recess.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.


William Findlay Maclean: A very unusual thing happened in the House to-night in connection with the proposal to go into Committee of Supply. An amendment to that motion was submitted to the House and it carried ; and while I intended myself to offer an amendment to that motion, I failed to catch the eye of the Speaker, and the amendment carrying, the Minister of Finance had to make his motion to go into Committee of Supply. Therefore, I am now in order in moving an amendment, which I intended to do, and which



deals with the question of the exemption of the lands of the Canadian Pacific Railway. To put myself straight before the country, I wish to say that while I claim no privilege, I have been the first to put a notice on the paper of an amendment dealing with this question, but an hon. gentleman from the North-west Territories saw fit, after I had given notice, to put in a similar notice.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I would like to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that I gave a verbal notice before his notice appeared on the Order paper at all.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I filed my notice early in the morning, long before the House met, and it appears on the journals of the House, though he thought it was a clever thing this afternoon to do as he did, and some friends of his in the House thought it was a clever thing. Well, they are welcome to think so. But I am before the House, and I am going to argue this question, which I think will command some attention in this House, and will certainly receive a good deal of attention from the people of the North-west Territories who have a grievance in connection with this matter. I propose to contend that this parliament is the proper place to interpret the time when the exemption of these lands dates from. It has been contended in the House, and a motion not long ago was passed In this House, that the question ought to be submitted to the courts. My argument to-night will be that it ought not to be submitted to the courts, because justice cannot be obtained in the House.


Thomas Osborne Davis: This is very hard on the courts.


William Findlay Maclean: It is not hard on the courts, because the courts are not in a position to be seized of all the facts. My argument here to-night will present all the facts and allow the equities in the case to be fully judged. Now, I say that parliament is the proper place to settle this question, first of all, because parliament is in possession of the law on the question, whatever that is. Parliament is also in possession of the intention of the parliament that made this law. Parliament also is in a position to judge of the equities in the case ; and if there are conflicting interests and conflicting claims, parliament is the one place where an adjustment can be effected. If you go to the courts for a settlement of this question you get nothing but a bare interpretation of the law, but in parliament you can get a full consideration. you can bring into play the principle of equity, and you can also, as I said before, get a readjustment of conflicting interests if any should be shown, as between the settler and the company. But in a court of law we can get nothing but a


William Findlay Maclean: bare interpretation of the letter of the law on a question submitted to the courts.
Now, has parliament ever interpreted its own Act ? I have been told here by the Prime Minister and by a number of members, that parliament has never interpreted its own Acts or interfered with any contract it has made; and further, that it should not do so. Now, in connection with this very Canadian Pacific Railway contract, I am prepared to show here to-night that parliament has interpreted that original Act and contract a number of times ; I am prepared to show that the rights conferred upon the company and the obligations placed upon the company under that contract have been interfered with in this House from time tp time. The Canadian Pacific Railway Act was passed in 1881. That very session an Act was introduced here to provide for drawbacks ; and in the next year, that Act dealing with drawbacks, not being clear, a second Act was introduced dealing with the drawbacks and interpreting the contract.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Interpreting the contract in what way ?


William Findlay Maclean: In connection with the drawbacks. In 1882 another Act was introduced authorizing the road to use a pass other than the Yellowhead Pass, which was defined in the contract, and this interference with the contract begins in these terms : * Whereas, it may be in the public interest, therefore parliament resolves so and so.'


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: What was the effect ? What did it do ?


William Findlay Maclean: It allowed them to use the Yellowhead Pass, though not designated in the contract. Parliament had full charge of the contract, and could then have refused this privilege, and said : No, you shall do something else. True, it gave them a privilege, but it interfered with the contract. In 1884 there was an Act passed to amend the Act of 1881, and this Act is described as for the purpose of the earlier completion of the road, and the preamble begins thus: ' Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have represented, &c., &c., therefore Her Majesty enacts.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Therefore, it was at the request of the company.


William Findlay Maclean: I grant it. Now, at the request of the other party to this contract, the people


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It would be much more satisfactory if the hon. gentleman would give us clearly the effect of the different Acts to which he has referred.


William Findlay Maclean: These are only preliminary, I am coming to the substantial one.

In this Act, section 5, are these words :
' Giving security by way of lien on its property and also upon the land grant of the company earned and to be earned hereafter.' That is in 1884. Then in 1885 there was an Act passed relating to the mortgage bonds, and this Act begins as follows:
' Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have represented, &c., &c., therefore it is enacted.' In 1888 was passed the Act to remove the restrictions as to competing lines, and this Act begins with these words :
Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have agreed to relinquish, upon conditions herein, &c.
A readjustment was made upon the terms- I will argue that later on-but there was another amending Act. In 1892 there was a short Act passed, but a very significant Act, and now I am going to quote chapter and verse for the special edification of the Minister of the Interior. 57 and 58 Vie., chap. 34 :
An Act to amend the Act to provide for the allowance of a drawback on certain articles manufactured in Canada for use in the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows :*-
1. The words ' original construction ' in section 1, chapter 7, of the statutes of 1882, intituled : An Act to provide for the allowance of a drawback on certain articles manufactured in Canada, for use in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, shall be construed to extend to and include the first iron or steel bridge erected in a locality, but not to any renewal or repair thereof.
Here is parliament construing the contract, and the very words ' construing ' is used.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Is that not with the consent of the company ?


William Findlay Maclean: I did not say it was not. The company came here and asked to have the Act construed. There are two parties to an Act, I hope, the people and the company. The settlers of the Northwest are coming here to-day for the very same purpose, I am speaking for them, and I ask parliament to construe the meaning of the original charter as to when these exemptions begin.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Has the hon. gentleman any case in which the contract was valid without the consent of the company ? If he has, that will help us.


William Findlay Maclean: I have got so far in my argument, that parliament, in 1894, at the request of the Canadian Pacific Railway, had this Act construed : and there were two parties to the contract, the government representing the people and the company itself. In a word my contention is that if the company can come here and have the Act construed in its interest, the 791
settlers of the North-west Territories, who have a vital interest in the contract, may also come here and have the Act construed. Now, I do not know whether that is bad doctrine, whether it is socialism, whether it is trifling with contracts, or not. I do not think it is, and I think it is all in line with what I said before, that the only place where you can get a full hearing of the case, where you can get the whole Act and the intention and meaning of the Act, and those who were parties to it, where the equities concerned can be taken into consideration, and where, if there are conflicting interests, there may be an adjustment, is here, and we are not far wrong in coming here.	[DOT]


Thomas Osborne Davis: You would not let the company construe the Act for themselves ?


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) is very anxious about the company. I am trying to put in a word for the people of the North-west Territories, and I hope I will have some support from him.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am afraid you are not doing them much good.


William Findlay Maclean: In 1894, hon. gentlemen opposite were very much opposed to the company coming here and asking to have the Act construed. The right hon. leader of the government is on record as opposing it, but he opposed it because he contended, as others contended, that the company were coming here and asking for something additional, something not provided for in the contract. He opposed it in the public interest, as he set out. I state again what I said before, that if the company come here and ask to have the Act construed, why cannot the people come here also and ask to have it construed and have their rights, whatever they may be in the premises, protected ? Now, I want to make my argument clear by reading my amendment which I have here. If any hon. gentleman wishes to know what I am driving at, if he will send over, he may get a copy of my amendment. I have reproduced in my amendment those clauses of the Act which deal with this exemption, and I shall read it to the House.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What page is it to be found on ?


William Findlay Maclean: I have printed it on a special slip.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not the one on the Notice paper ?


William Findlay Maclean: No, the one on the Notice paper does not hold. That proposes a reference to the courts. I have abandoned that.


Mr. SCOTT.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) take the pains to tell us how this argument bears on that proposition ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I am going to deal with that. Now, the contract made by the government contained the following clause -clause 9. I hope I shall have the attention of the House when I read the law on the case:
In consideration of the premises, the government agree to grant to the company a subsidy in money of $25,000,000, and in land of 25,000,000 acres, for which subsidies the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway shall be completed, and the same shall be equipped, maintained and operated, the said subsidies respectively to be paid and granted as the work of construction shall proceed in manner and upon the conditions following, that is to say :-
(a)	The said subsidy in money is hereby divided and appropriated as follows, namely:-
********
And the said subsidy in land is hereby divided and appropriated as follows, subject to the reserve hereinafter provided for :-
**** ****
(b)	Upon the construction of any portion of
the railway hereby contracted for, not less than twenty miles in length, and the completion thereof, so as to admit of the running of regular trains thereon, together with such equipment thereof as shall be required for the traffic thereon, the government shall pay and grant to the company the money and land subsidies applicable thereto. .	.	.
16. The Canadian Pacific Railway and all station grounds, workshops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances required and used for the construction and working thereof, and the capital stock of the company shall be for ever free from taxation by the Dominion or by any province hereafter to be established, or by any municipal corporation therein; and the lands of the company, in the North-west Territories, until they are either sold or occupied, shall also be free.from such taxation for twenty years after the grant thereof from the Crown.
My conclusion is :
This House is of the opinion that the twenty years' exemption provided for the land subsidy in clause 16, begins as of a date even with the payment of the money subsidy provided for in section 9.
Now, there is the agreement, and throughout the agreement the land subsidy and the casli subsidy come always together. If you will notice in clause 9, it says : In consideration of the premises, the government agree to grant to the company a subsidy in money and in land. They are called the same thing ; they are brought under the word * subsidies.' The clause proceeds :
The said subsidies respectively to be paid and granted as the work of construction shall proceed.
Then, in b, it says :
Upon the construction of any portion of the railway .	.	. and the completionthereof .	.	. the government shall
pay and grant to the company the money and land subsidies applicable thereto.
The two things come together ; the payment of the money and the granting of the land subsidy must be performed by this


Thomas Walter Scott: country in the carrying out of its contract with the company. The two things come together, and my contention is, that when the money was earned it was paid, and that as the money was earned, so also was the land earned, and these have been granted. If these were not granted in one patent, it is not the fault of the people, it is not the fault of this parliament, but it is the fault of some one else, and the people should not suffer because of the neglect that occurred, if such did occur. I just cite one legal authority in this matter, and it is a man whose name is respected in this House, the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy. The hon. gentleman who occupies his seat in this House today undertook to lecture me the other evening in reference to this question, but all I have to say to him is, let him turn to his uncle's opinion, as delivered in this House in 1894, when this case was up. The late Mr. Dalton McCarthy said :
I think the House should perfectly understand that this alteration in the contract will mean, before we are done with it, probably up in the millions. I think we had better realize and understand what we are doing. Of course, that ought to make no difference if the railway company were entitled to the change-because change It is-in the contract which is sought to be made now at the instance of the hon. the Minister of Railways. But, for my part, I do not look upon it by any means as a technicality. I look upon it as a substantial change in the contract, and let me tell the committee-why.
That is Dalton McCarthy's opinion of this contract, and when the land grant and the money subsidy were earned.
This company were entitled to get certain grants of money and certain subventions in land only upon the completion of the road, as the road was completed from time to time and certified as being completed under the contract.
Mr. McCarthy held in this House, and it was held also in this House by others at the time, that the company had earned certain money subventions and certain land grants, that the two went together, and that they were payable at a certain time. It is my contention, and it is the contention of the settlers of the North-west, that as soon as the road was completed in its various sections, and when the money grant was due, so also was the land grant, and it should have been taken when the money was taken. If the government did not grant these lands it was not the fault of the settlers of the North-west, and, therefore, the settlers should not be made to suffer.


The PRIME MINISTER.: On what question did Mr. McCarthy speak ?


William Findlay Maclean: On the Act which was introduced in 1894, to construe the contract in connection with the drawback on the bridges.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is another question.


William Findlay Maclean: It is quite clear that these two things go together, the payment of the money and the granting of the land. But hon. gentlemen who raise the company's contention and who take the lawyer's position rely on this thing here : That the twenty year exemption shall date from the grant thereof from the Crown. Sir, I am taking the position of the ordinary man of this country. I am talking to the farmer, to the man in the street, and I ask : What will happen if this exemption is to date from ' the grant thereof' ? We are told to-day that the patents are going through now and that it will he a year before they will be all finished. For some unknown cause they are going through to-day at a threshing machine rate, but according to the contention of the lawyers here, if the matter is referred to the courts all the courts will have to do is to declare that this exemption dates twenty years after the grants are made to-day. Is that justice, is that equity, is that in the interest of the farmers of the North-west ? Because somebody has been negligent in issuing these patents, or because somebody has been negligent in applying for them, these land grants shall be exempt from local taxation for twenty years from this date. Is there any justice in that, is there any equity in it ? We are told that they will get nothing but a cold interpretation of this bargain if we go to the courts. Sir, parliament is higher and greater than the courts. Parliament can do justice. Parliament can be seized of every consideration In connection with the matter, and if there are conflicting interests parliament can make a proper compensation or readjustment. But there is no justice for the settler in the North-west if he goes to the courts and the courts say : When was the patent granted ; when was the grant thereof from the Crown ; and they will send for the Minister of the Interior or one of his officers and find that the grant thereof from the Crown was in the year 1901, sixteen years after the contract was completed. A great deal of this land was grantable in 1883 ; more was grantable when blocks of twenty miles of the road had been completed, and all should have been granted before 1885 ; but because it was not granted the lawyers have come here to tell us that the exemption must date from the time the patents issue. That may be law and that may be cold justice, but I do not think it is equity, and I do not think it is the policy this parliament should pursue, if we ever hope to settle that country.


Thomas Walter Scott: I would like the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) to tell the House how his argument bears upon his proposition. He has made an argument in favour of parliament construing the contract and he has
also argued against allowing the question to go to the courts. If his proposition is unanimously adopted by this House, will that keep it out of the courts ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes. Parliament can pass an Interpretation Act, and it is to furnish the government with an argument for doing so that I have brought down this resolution. They can even do it in the way they did it before when the Canadian Pacific Railway abandoned its right to the monopoly clause in the North-west for a consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose every member in this House agreed that in our opinion the exemption should be terminated on such a date, and the Canadian Pacific Railway refused to abide by it and appealed to the courts ; does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) think that the opinion of this House would influence the courts ?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not ; but I propose to give the government an opinion. of this House upon which they can found a Bill which will settle this question.


The PRIME MINISTER.: How ?


William Findlay Maclean: You can bring in a Declaratory Act, as was done in 1894, which will read thus : The word so and so shall be construed to mean, &c. Then you have settled it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What is your answer to my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) ? If the Canadian Pacific Railway objects, what will you say ?


William Findlay Maclean: They can make their objection and that is all there is to it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) entered into a contract with the government and a dispute arose as to the wording of the contract, would he like the government to interpret that from their own point of view without a reference to the courts ?


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) is raising a side wind.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There is no side wind about it.


William Findlay Maclean: I am talking about things as they are. Suppose I owed the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) a hundred dollars twenty years ago, and I had the hundred dollars in my desk for him, and he never came for it, could he claim interest from me because he never asked for his money ? And if the Canadian Pacific Railway did not get its land grant or didj not apply for it are the settlers to be held responsible for the loss they sustained because of that ? If the previous government for ten years failed to do its duty, and if this government and this Minister of the Interior for five

years have failed to do their duty to issue these patents, are the settlers of the Northwest to suffer therefor ? Now, what is the duty of a parliament; what is the duty of a premier ; what is the duty of a government in connection with the public rights of this country ? That is the most important issue in Canada to-day, and for a few minutes I shall direct the attention of the country and of the House to it. It is the duty of a government; more especially the duty of the Prime Minister and of the Attorney 'General of Canada, and of the Attorneys General of the provinces to pi'otect the rights of the people against the aggression of corporations and against the mistakes of officials whether they be ministers of the Crown or otherwise. That is the fundamental duty of the government in this country and of every country in the world. If the public rights suffer through neglect of the officials, it is the duty of a parliament to rectify the wrong. We have premiers and we have Attorneys General in this parliament and in the different provinces of Canada. and the significant thing is the way public rights are being raided, and the way Attorneys General in Quebec and Toronto, and here, arq neglecting their duty to protect the public. I shall refer in this connection to what happened in the province of Quebec, and I shall read from the Montreal Herald, a leading Liberal paper, of Saturday last, an article dealing with the legislation obtained by the Water, Heat and Power Company, of Montreal, in the Quebec legislature.
The company has obtained possession of property to which it has no title in justice, whatever it may have in law, and it may depend on having__to fight for every step of its corporate progress. The legislature will, no doubt, be asked to revoke the powers conferred on this company, and if the legislators do their duty they will not allow any claim of vested rights to stand in their way. The legislature is practically omnipotent, and if it was within its rights when it voted the property of the citizens of Montreal to the Light, Heat and Power Company, it would be equally within its rights if it undertook to undo the wrong which has been done and withdraw from this company the special privileges of which the people of Montreal complain.
' Only in tbe recent session of the Quebec legislature the city of Montreal was raided of its rights. The Attorney General of that province, who should have been the guardian of the rights of that city and every other municipality, allowed those rights to be Invaded in such a way that the leading organ of the Liberal party of Montreal says that the legislature must undo that wrong. The premier of the province is reported in the same paper three or four days before that as having made a deliverance on this question which is worthy of the attention of the people of Canada. Mr. Parent is reported as follows :


William Findlay Maclean: The premier, in his answer, took the following grounds :
First, that the protests had been too late. If the citizens of Montreal had taken the question in time and done one-half of what they have accomplished since the Bill passed both Houses, it is very doubtful if the privileges asked for would have been granted to the company. Personally, the premier had opposed the Bill, and was not yet in favour of it, but it is a constitutional principle that the government as a government must not act officially in regard to private Bills unless they are ultra vires. It is also a constitutional principle that the lieut.-governor must be advised by his government as to the disallowance of any Bill that has passed both Houses. It is, therefore, beyond the constitutional rights of the government to advise the disallowance of the Bill in question.
Further, he says :
If by this legislation the company infringes on the rights of the people, or goes too far in the exercise of its privileges, the question would then be taken up by the government, and the legislature would then be called upon to repeal these privileges, which were used unwisely and arbitrarily.
This would be a government measure, and of course would command the support of the Liberal party. If that support was not accorded, why there would be nothing left for the government but to resign.
The premier wished it to be thoroughly understood that the actions of the company will be carefully watched, and if the interests either of the municipalities or of the people in general are endangered in any way, the matter will be carefully looked into by the government, and prompt action will be taken to safeguard those rights, even if it were necessary to call a special session to repeal the company's Bill.
Here the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec says that if the public interest has been injured, he will call a special session of his legislature to repeal the Bill. But I charge the Prime Minister of Quebec and his Attorney General with having been negligent of their duties. If they were there for any purpose, it was to guard the municipal rights of the people of Quebec ; but they allowed those rights to be raided. And his leading newspaper supporter in the province calls upon him to do what he says he will do if a wrong has been committed, call a special meeting of the legislature and rectify the wrong.
What is happening in the province of Ontario to-day ? I come from that province, and we are all cognizant of what is going on there. The Attorney General and the premier of that province are every day allowing the municipal rights of the people of Ontario to be raided, and are not fulfilling their duty as guardians of the rights of the people. The city of Toronto was threatened the other day with having its control of its streets taken away from it by the corporation raiders in the Queen's Park.
My doctrine is-and I am applying it to the government here, as I will apply it to my friends on this side if they are ever in power-that parliament is here to do jus-

tice to everybody ; and if a wrong has been committed or a right has been denied, if somebody has been negligent and the public interest suffers, it is the duty of parliament to rectify the wrong. I do not know whether that is a bad doctrine or not, whether it is a Tory doctrine or not ; but I hope it is based on English constitutional practice, and I believe it is the only doctrine by which progress in government can be achieved. It is a well-known dictum that for every grievance, for every wrong, a legal right or a parliamentary right may be found. Now, these people in the North-west have a grievance ; they say that the company have not patented their lands. They should have patented them fifteen years ago ; but having failed to patent them, there is no reason why parliament should * not now say : You should have patented your lands in 1885, and if you claim exemption from taxation, that exemption must date from 1885. It is well within the power of parliament to say that ; and if there is an issue as to whose rights are concerned, as between the poor settler and the rich corporation, which side is parliament going to take '? Is it always going to take the side of the rich corporation, and give it the benefit of the law, and never give the poor settler the benefit of it ? If there are conflicting interests, why not adjust them ? We are told : ' Ob, you are going to do an injustice to the Canadian Pacific Railway.' But the doing of an injustice is not as bad as the continuing of an injustice.


Thomas Walter Scott: Is the hon. gentleman not proposing to do an injustice to the people ?


William Findlay Maclean: In what way ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Did he not express the opinion a few nights ago that the exemption period should have commenced on the 15th February, 1881 ?


William Findlay Maclean: No, I did not express that opinion.


Thomas Walter Scott: Did he not vote for a Bill which expressed that ?


William Findlay Maclean: I voted for the Bill, certainly. I came into this House that night, and heard this question under discussion for the first time. After it had been threshed 'out-and I think I contributed a little to 'the merits of the discussion by taking a hand in it-I went away with the idea that the question could probably be settled in the courts. From that day to this I have been reading it up and studying it.


Thomas Walter Scott: What is the hon. gentleman's real opinion as to the date of the exemption period ?


William Findlay Maclean: The period of exemption Is twenty years from the day that the land grants were grantable.


Thomas Walter Scott: Then he does not stand by the opinion he expressed when he voted for the Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: Grant that I do not stand by that opinion, where will you stand tonight on this question ? I will take full responsibility for where I stand, and whether I am consistent or not.


Thomas Walter Scott: We would like to have that clear-whether the hon. gentleman does stand by it or not.


Thomas Osborne Davis: He has a license ; he lias a privilege.


William Findlay Maclean: These hon. gentlemen from the North-west do not like what happened this afternoon. I would have liked to have taken no partisan view of this question, but to have helped them to secure the rights of the people of the North-west. But, because I happen to be a Conservative, they want to repudiate me as talking buncombe in this House. I wish now to devote a little attention to the right hon. the First Minister. The right hon. gentleman has laid down the doctrine of vested rights, and proclaims himself a Liberal, and a great admirer of the late Mr. Gladstone. But, when he raised the question of vested rights and the sanctity of contracts, he must have forgotten that the whole record of British constitutional progress is, in a great measure, made up of the abrogation of vested rights and the denial of the sanctity of certain contracts. There is no British constitutional progress that is not based on the opposite of the doctrine laid down by the right hon. gentleman. One after the other, vested rights have had to disappear in favour of the public interest. When the right hon. gentleman says he is such an admirer of William Ewart Gladstone, does he forget the land laws which that hon. gentleman had caused to be passed through the House of Commons ? They were nothing else but confiscation of vested rights.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the Irish land laws ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, introduced by Mr. Gladstone.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. How did they do away with vested rights ?


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the hon. gentleman is not going to argue that they did not. These land laws practically wiped out the Irish landlords.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. In what respect ?


William Findlay Maclean: The landlords were compelled to sell whether they wished or not.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. By what law ? Surely the hon. gentleman has not posted himself ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I have. The whole principle at the bottom or Mr. Gladstone's land law was the interfering with vested rights. All the reforms in the land laws were based on confiscation in one shape or another. Then, there was the Irish Church question. Was there not confiscation in that case ? Take in this country the settlement of the seigniorial tenure in Lower Canada. Was there no confiscation there ? Did not a Canadian parliament secularize the church lands in the interest of the people ? But, these things were nearly all done in this country by the Tories, and we have the Prime Minister telling us that lie stands up for vested rights and the sanctity of contracts, no matter how injuriously they may affect the public interest. But, when he takes that stand, he is not a true Liberal, or a student of history, but simply an advocate of the most reactionary proposition ever set before any civilized community.
Should we not do something for the settler ? The settler is the other party to this contract. Is it fair that he should* have to pay municipal taxes for roads and school and other improvements, and that this great corporation, the Canadian Pacific Railway, should, through the negligence of the government, go scot free for twenty years to come ? Will such a policy as that build up our country ? I am in favour of giving the settler his right share in the unearned increment, his fair proportion of the increased value which comes to unoccupied lands through the settlement and cultivation of the country, and of not allowing a great corporation like the Canadian Pacific Railway to reap all the advantage. These alternate sections of the' Canadian PacificRailway, which are not paying any taxes, are increasing yearly in value through the labour of the poor settler, who builds the roads and pays for the schools and these lands, which originally were worth a dollar an acre, are to-day worth from five to ten dollars per acre. Where is the equity, where is the justice of making the settler do all the work and giving the Canadian Pacific Railway all the profit ? I maintain that this parliament is bound in duty to come to the rescue of the people and settle this question, and would be derelict in its duty if it were to send the poor settler to the courts, where he will only get cold justice and not the equitable treatment to which he is entitled. This question can only be settled on principles of equity, and uot by a cold interpretation of the letter of the contract.
My resolution will enable the government to negotiate with the Canadian Pacific Railway. Hon. gentlemen opposite are on record as having laid down the doctrine that when there is a public grievance in connection with any contract, some effort ought to be made to secure its removal. They admitted that there was a great grievance in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract with regard to freights, and some years ago


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: they gave that company a charter and a large subsidy to build the Crow's Nest Pass line, but upon condition that the company made certain concessions to the people. My resolution is in a line with that precedent, because it will give the government something on which they can negotiate with the Canadian Pacific Railway, just as Sir John A. Macdonald did when he found the monopoly clause would have to be abandoned.
I lay down the doctrine that parliament is supreme and the only competent body to protect the rights of the people and do justice in this matter. Am I saying anything not in accord with English precedent when I declare that it is the duty of the government and of parliament to protect the people's rights, whenever these rights are impeached upon ? That, I do not think is bad doctrine. I do not think it is good doctrine to send the settler to the courts. He will not get justice there, but will simply get an interpretation of the exemption clause. The decision will turn on the wording of the grant from the Crown, and everybody knows that the grant of land from the Crown dates this year, when the machine is at work making out the patents. But the land should have been patented when the money was paid, and if the grant was not then made, that was not the fault of the settler, and the settler should not suffer.
I was reading an item the other day in the Montreal Witness about a remarkable exodus of people from the state of Kansas. People leave countries when they find the conditions are not satisfactory, and county after county, municipal organization after municipal organization has disappeared from the map of Kansas because the people have had to leave.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: On account of dry weather.


William Findlay Maclean: Partly on account of dry weather and partly on account of the treatment of the railways. But those people are looking for a country to settle in, and some of them are coming to Canada. But if they find out that this is a country where a huge land corporation is exempt from municipal taxation and the poor settler has to bear the whole burden, they are not likely to think it a very desirable place in which to cast their lines.
There has been a good deal of disappointment in this country that our North-west has not been settled so rapidly or so extensively as it ought to have been ; and there is a good class of settlers who are said to be avoiding the North-west who would really like to go there. Now, our Canadian Northwest, at its best, is not a Garden of Eden. It is rather a hard place to live in. And it is the duty of this parliament to make life in the North-west as endurable as possible. It is far away, there are long distances, it has a severe climate. And, if to that you add this curse of municipal exemption from

taxation-whicli is a curse in other places as well-if you add that to the hardships of the settlers, you are not going to get the best class of settlers in there, and you are not going to get the country rapidly settled. But if these people see that they are coming to a country where there is a government that will protect them in their rights, a government that does justice to every man of the community, you will get that country settled much more rapidly. You are not going to get the settlers to go there if it is given out that all that this parliament will do is to give them mere cold justice, a hare interpretation of the law, hut will not- give them their rights nor treat them fairly and equitably. If we wish to settle that country, we have no way to gain the public confidence but by this parliament settling the question of these exemptions. And it can be settled, as I said, by negotiation. That is the only way. I am ready to go the whole length of saying that there ought to be no .negotiation but the declaration by this parliament that the period for these exemptions dated from the time the land grant was earned. But I am willing that the government should take advantage of my resolution to found negotiation upon it. But I am not going further than I have to go. If hon. gentlemen opposite like to open negotiations they may. But, if they are going to do nothing but refer it to a court, as the hon. member from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) wishes, they will do very little for the settler. What does the settler of the North-west want ? Above all, he wants neighbours.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: Who is the hon. member who is laughing ? How would he like to live out on the prairie and have every alternate block a vacant space growing in value to his own detriment and to the advantage of the Canadian Pacific Railway corporation ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: It is the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Maclean's) own political friends who did that.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman's (Mr. Davis') friends have delayed for five years issuing these patents, and have not issued them yet. My political friends are responsible for ten years' neglect of their duty, and I hold them responsible for that. I hope the hon. gentleman will hold his friends responsible for their neglect. But that does not mend the wrong. The wrong has to be mended by legislation in this House, and that is to be gained by men from the North-west standing up in this House and fighting for the rights of the settlers, not by interfering with those who are doing something for the rights of the settlers. I know that my voice is a feeble voice, but it is at the service of the settler. I have never tried to interfere with hon. gentlemen opposite when they have tried here or in committee to uphold the rights of the settler. But they think it a proper thing to sneer at one who is upholding the settlers' rights. And the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) laughed at the clever little ruse by which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, when I tried to speak. There was nothing clever about it ; there was nothing in the interest of the public about it-I hope the settler in the North-west will remember it. I am going to see that settler in the North-west-I have said that before-and I am going to tell him who were the men who had something to say when his interests were up before the House for discussion. I am glad that I have the attention of the farmers of Ontario-and there are a lot of them here. The farmers of Ontario had a little lesson read to them the other day, and all the new members had a little lesson read to them by a newspaper called the Weekly Sun. I believe that it is an honest newspaper and that it is trying in its own way to do what it can for the benefit of the farming community of this country. This is the lesson it read to the new members of this House :
They will find, however, that there are all kinds of influences at work at Ottawa to turn them aside from the path of duty and to enlist their support on behalf of corporate interests and of the raiders of the treasury. Let them be true to their constituents and to their constituents' interests. If they are they will find that the great obstacles which are represented to them as being in the way of just legislation will soon disappear. The voters are watching the course of their members this year, as they have not done for some time, and will soon find out who have been serving them and who have been betraying them.
Now, there is a feeling in Ontario that the corporations have had too much, that they have had everything in the way of legislation in the Ontario legislature and that they are having too much in this parliament. As this paper says, the farmers of Ontario are watching as they never watched before, the conduct of their representatives in relation to these questions where great corporations are concerned, and they will hold those representatives responsible. I hope I have some support from the Liberals of the province of Ontario who are farmers and who take the view that these settlers, these farmers of the North-west must not be left out of consideration because either the past government or the present government have been negligent of their duty or have failed to issue these patents as they should have done.
Now, my contention is-and I am finishing my remarks-that the only place where jus- 1 tiee can be done in this matter is in this House ; because, this House is seized of the law and the whole law ; this House is seiz-

ed of the intention of the men who framed the law ; this House is possessed of jurisdiction that will secure equity as well as law ; this House, if there is a conflict of interests, can secure a readjustment. You cannot get that in a court of law. Hon. gentlemen opposite propose to send the settlers to a court of law for the righting of their grievances. There is only one way to settle these grievances, and it is for that reason I move this amendment to the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply :
In the contract made between the company and the government for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, are the following clauses :-
Chap. 1, 44 Vic.
9. In consideration of the premises, the government agree to grant to the company a subsidy in money of $25,000,000, and in land of 25,000,000 acres, for which subsidies the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway shall be completed, and the same shall be equipped, maintained and operated, the said subsidies respectively to be paid and granted as the work of construction shall proceed, in manner and upon the conditions following, that is to say :-
(a)	The said subsidy in money is hereby divided and appropriated as follows, namely :-
Central Section.
Assumed at 1,350 miles-
1st. 900 miles at $10,000 per	[DOT]
mile	 $9,000,000
2nd. 450 miles at $13,333
per mile	 6,000,000

Eastern Section.
Assumed at 650 miles, subsidy equal to $15,384.61 per mile	 10,000,000

 18,750,000
Eastern Section.
Assumed at 650 miles, subsidy equal to 9,615'35 acres per mile	 6,250,000
25,000,000
(b)	Upon the construction of any portion of
the railway hereby contracted for, not less than twenty miles in length, and the completion thereof, so as to admit of the running of regular trains thereon, together with such equipment thereof as shall be required for the traffic thereon, the government shall pay and grant to the company the money and land subsidies applicable thereto	
16. The Canadian Pacific Railway and all station grounds, workshops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances required and used for the construction and working thereof, and the capital stock of the company shall be for ever free from taxaUon by the Dominion or by any province hereafter to be established, or by any municipal corpora- | Mr. MACLEAN.
tion therein ; and the lands of the company in, the North-west Territories, unti. they are either sold or occupied, shall also be free from such taxation for twenty years after the grant thereof from the Crown.
This House is of the opinion that the twenty years' exemption provided for the land subsidy in clause 16, begins as of a date even with the1 payment of the money subsidy provided for in section 9.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: When I learned that my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) was going to make the motion which he has just made, I took particular pains to he back at eight o'clock for the purpose of hearing all that he had to say in support of his proposition. Now, I have followed my hon. friend as closely as I am capable of following anybody, and I have endeavoured to understand and give due weight to the arguments which he has advanced. And I must admit that, considering my hon. friend's ability and the vigour with which he applies himself to questions which he deems worthy of discussion, I am somewhat disappointed with the arguments he has addressed to the House. In almost every case in which he has attempted to make a point he has totally failed, I think, to connect his argument with the proposition upon which he has asked us to vote. We will all admit that my hon. friend displays considerable ability and considerable energy in the discussion of any question he takes up. I think if my hon. friend had been able to find a coherent and valid argument in favour of his proposition he would have put it before the House in such a way that we could have understood it. But when we refer to various points which he attempted to make for the purpose of proving his proposition, it will be-seen at once that his arguments utterly failed to prove the conclusion which he is asking the House to draw.
Before touching upon his argument let me refer briefly to the general situation in regard to this important subject. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not And my hon. friend's speech a novel speech, because I think I remember making a speech myself very much to the same effect although not addressed exactly to the same point about twelve or fifteen years ago ; and most of us who have been in the North-west have had occasion to draw attention in public utterances to the disadvantages under which the settlers of Manitoba and the North-west Territories labour as the result of the contract which was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. My hon. friend will readily admit that when he devotes his attention so vigorously to the representatives of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, he is hardly fair in assigning any portion of blame for this state of affairs to those gentlemen who now represent the western portion of the country, whether they be Liberals or Conservatives. Par-

liament as it was constituted in the year 1881, is responsible for the state of affairs as it now exists. There is no particular object in discussing at the present time the good features or the bad features of that contract. We have enough to do in dealing with the present conditon of affairs without indulging in useless recriminations with regard to the responsibility of this or that political party for this state or that state of affairs. We have before us at the present time a certain position of affairs. Everybody will admit that it is an unfortunte thing that the condition of affairs is such that there is a possibility of the period of exemption being extended to twenty years from the time when the patents are actually issued. Every person will admit everything the hon. gentleman has said in that respect; and therefore, the one-half of his speech which was devoted to lamentations over the position of affairs in the Northwest adds nothing to the discussion, because it is devoted to elucidating or emphasizing that which every one of us will admit without any discussion whatever.
Now, I am not prepared to say that the last word has been said, 1 do not desire that the House should understand me as holding that the last word has been said with regard to this subject ; nor even when, as I expect will be the case, having regard to the position which the House took upon the Bill that was before us a short time ago, this resolution meets with a negative voice from the House. I do not think that the last word has been said upon the subject. I think that these subjects, difficult as they are, if we look at the history of legislation, generally find a solution of one kind or another. But I think I will be within the judgment of the House when I say that the solutions of these difficulties that arise from time to time in regard to public affairs, which are sound solutions, and which bear the test of experience and prove to be satisfactory, are not the solutions which are made by taking a short cut through contracts and through national obligations. We may have to deal with such matters in such a manner as to place us under imputations which we feel to be unfair. When my hon. friend suggested the idea that because members of this House may take a certain view in regard to an important matter of this kind, that, therefore, they are taking a mere lawyer's view and are leaning in favour of the interests of corporations as against the interests of the people, I, for my part, think that he is placing an unfair imputation upon members of the House upon one side as well as the other. Now, we hear a good deal in this discussion, particularly in a certain class of newspapers, of which my hon. friend's paper is sometimes a pretty strong example, we hear very broad statements made about the lack of good faith of legislators, members of legislative assemblies and members of parliament, in dealing with the rights of corporations and with the rights of the people as against corporations. Well, I am not a very old man, but I have
been some ten or twelve years engaged more or less in drawing and assisting to draw and pass Acts of parliament, and I am bound to say that upon both sides of politics X have generally found that legislators were desirous of doing the fair and right thing by all parties. That has been my experience, and X have not been led to the conclusion that there was any just ground for broad general charges of lack of good faith in dealing with matters of this kind.
Now, so far as the people of the Northwest are concerned, no person could be more anxious than I am, no person could be more anxious than the members of this House on both sides who come from the North-west 'and from Manitoba, to find a solution of this difficulty that would enable this burden to be taken from the people of that section of the country. It would be contrary to all reason that we should not feel in that way. We sympathize with the position of our constituents, we are much more fully and completely aware of all the facts and circurn-istances of the case than my hon. friend can possibly be. Therefore, feeling as we do upon this subject, surely it is reasonable to suppose that we should be just as anxious, in reality much more anxious, than my hon. friend, to find some solution of this difficulty. I do not say that a solution of it will not be found, I trust that a solution will be found, and I desire, therefore, to make myself clear as by no means saying that there is to be no further consideration of this subject because I find myself unable to support the hon. gentleman's proposition at this .particular time.
Now, the hon. gentleman's motion is declaratory, it is declaratory in regard to the effect of a contract that has been entered . into by this parliament with a corporation. My lion. frie"d might perhaps say: It is not an Act of parliament, it does not interpret the contract, and therefore when the contract comes before the court, inasmuch as this is not an Act of parliament and therefore does not modify the contract, but is only the opinion of one branch of parliament, therefore, it may be passed as our opinion in order that the court should have the benefit of our opinion upon the subject. He might present that argument. I think, however, that would not be an argument that would commend itself to the responsible members of this House, because I fancy that we would all feel that if we passed this resolution, and if to-morrow any one of the members of this House brought in an Act of parliament for the purpose of giving effect to the terms of this resolution, every man supporting the resolution would feel 'bound to vote for the Act of parliament. We are not here for the purpose of merely i passing academic resolutions ; and when

we assert a principle In a resolution, and we commit ourselves to it, we bind ourselves in so far as we can to follow it out with consistency, to support it when it comes in the shape of legislation before us. Therefore, what my hon. friend argues for to-day, in effect and reality, is to interpret a contract.
Now, my hon. friend said a number of things that seem to me to be inconsequent and if I may presume to criticise his remarks, I would say that his description of what he was going to prove was not generally borne out by what he actually did prove in the course of his remarks. For instance, my hon. friend strayed off just at the last, by departing altogether from the principle of the resolution, if I understood him correctly, which he had placed before us ; and he suggested that at the time when disallowance was an active question, and immediately after that when the policy of disallowance respecting western railway charters was abandoned by the Federal government, Sir John A. Macdonald had found a solution for that difficulty. True, Mr. Speaker, Sir John A. Macdonald and parliament did find a solution for that, but how ? They went to the company and made a contract with the company


William Findlay Maclean: But they did not go to the courts.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Whereby they bought for a valuable consideration a privilege which was in that contract. If my hon. friend has a suggestion to make in that respect, if he places before parliament some proposition whereby parliament would suggest to the government that an amendment of this kind should be made, then, we would be prepared to discuss that on its merits. I do not say that we would be prepared to support it, because I would not consider it wise to support a proposition to buy a privilege before the court had decided that such a privilege existed. But, what he wants is a solution by way of compensation. He is working in favour of something that Is directly opposite to the principle of the resolution which is placed before the House.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not argue that. I said it was open to the government to do that. I said that I took the contrary position myself, but let them pass this resolution or let them negotiate with the company as Sir John Macdonald did.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Well then, I misunderstood what the hon. gentleman said. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I understood the hon. gentleman to say so, and the hon. gentleman did not correct me at the time. I took what I understood him to say, but of course, I accept what the hon. gentleman says as to his intended meaning.


Mr. SIFTON.: The hon. gentleman spoke of the progress of the British constitution, which he says, is simply walking from one attack on vested rights to another. He was well corrected by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Sir Louis Davies), who pointed out, that when an attack is made by the British parliament upon vested rights, it is provided that by due form of law there shall be compensation. That is a principle which, I fancy, is invariably followed in all British legislatures. It is true that British legislatures have the power, the bare legal power to override contracts, to violate contracts and destroy vested rights without compensation. We have that power, but we have not that right and we cannot rightfully exercise that power. Before I pass from that point, I desire to quote an authority which seems to be absolutely clear in regard to it, and to show in exactly what position we stand in relation to a contract of this kind. Under our constitution as I said, we have the power to violate a contract. We have the power to override vested rights. I say that we have not the right to do that, and we cannot rightfully exercise that power which is vested in us. We strive carefully not to override contracts and vested rights. In the neighbouring states, they have a different kind of constitution, and I think without exception in the constitution of every state in the American union, there is a clause which provides that vested rights, or rights under a contract, cannot without compensation be interfered with by any legislation passed by the state. Therefore, inasmuch as that provision of their constitution which the courts have the power to construe, exists, there are constantly cases arising in which it is clearly and distinctly laid down as to what is a contract which the legislature cannot override. Therefore, when we have in our minds any difficulty as to any legislative Act of the parliament of Canada, or as to a contract which ought not to be interfered with, except in the sense and upon the understanding that it is a private contract and must be dealt with in that way, we can look usefully to the decisions which are given in the courts of the United States, because they have a long line of decisions there upon that very point. Let me quote to the House a short statement founded upon the decisions which have been given upon this point, and which my hon. friend will find in Cooley's ' Constitutional Limitations,' page 147. There I find this statement, which the House will see, and which my hon. friends who are members of the bar especially will see, is directly applicable to the discussion which is taking place at the present time. Speaking of irrepealable laws, the author goes on to say :
There is a modification of the principle, however, by an important provision of the constitution of the United States, forbidding the states

passing any laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Legislative Acts are sometimes, in substance, contracts between the state and the party who is to derive some rights under them.
Exactly what we have In this case.


William Findlay Maclean: But not under the same constitution.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (reading).: And they are not the less under the protection of the clause quoted

That is to say that the constitution which prevents the state from deviating from the obligation of a contract is none the less effective because the contract may have assumed the form of a legislative act.
And they are not the less under the protection of the clause quoted because of having assumed this form. Charters of incorporation, except those of a municipal character-and which, as we have already seen, create mere agencies of government-are held to be contracts between the state and the corporators, and not subject to modification or change by the act of the state alone, except as may be authorized by the terms of the charters themselves. And it now seems to be settled, by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, that a state, by a contract to that effect, based upon a consideration, may exempt the property of an individual or corporation from taxation for any specified period, or even permanently. And it is also settled by the same decisions, that where a charter containing an exemption from taxes or an agreement that the taxes shall be to a specified amount only, is accepted by the corporators, the exemption is presumed to be upon sufficient consideration, and consequently binding upon the state.
That deals with a question upon which there is an abundance of legal decisions, and I should perhaps apologize to the lawyers of the House for quoting an authority upon a matter which is elementary to every lawyer. But, the short reference which I have given from this work shows that the decisions have gone in the United States clearly and distinctly upon this very point. It is not a new point by any means that where a state has made a contract there is a clause in the constitution which provides that the state shall not interfere with that contract even by its own acts, and which prevents it from violating any of the provisions of the contract. My hon. friend was unfortunate in some of the precedents which he quoted. He said that parliament had already assumed the right to deal with, to modify and to interpret this contract, and he quoted the opinion of the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy. He said that Mr. Dalton McCarthy adhered to that view, and he rather undertook to lecture the present bearer of that honoured name, for having expressed an opinion contrary to his own opinion a short time ago. But, Mr. Speaker, the statement of Mr. Dalton
McCarthy bears no such construction. Mr. McCarthy never expressed any such opinion ; at least not here. If he did so anywhere else, my hon. friend ought to quote it, as it is not here. What was said was this : Sir John Thompson was speaking in this House on behalf of the Bill introduced by the government which was for the purpose of extending a privilege to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


William Findlay Maclean: To construe the contract.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not fancy that anybody In this House contends that if we wanted to extend the time of the exemption there would be any violation of the contract in that. They might accept the extension or not, if they saw fit. The government in enacting a provision relating to the Introduction of material for the construction of Canadian Pacific Railway bridges had some difficulty in regard to the construction, and Mr. McCarthy raised the point that the legislation was giving a privilege to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Sir John Thompson to some extent argued against the view of Mr. McCarthy in respect to that, but only by endeavouring to show that in interpreting the contract they were not giving the Canadian Pacific Railway an undue extension of the contract. There was no suggestion that they were taking away anything that had been given to the Canadian Pacific Railway before. If they did, I can imagine how Mr. Dalton McCarthy and Sir John Thompson would have joined in condemning the proposition as one that could not have been entertained for a moment. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) was not fortunate in that reference. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) referred to the Act itself, 57 and 58 Victoria, chapter 34, in which parliament enacts the interpretation of the words ' original construction.' It interprets the words ' original construction ' not in the Canadian Pacific Railway charter, but in another Act.


William Findlay Maclean: But, another Act which is interpreting the contract. Follow it back and you will see.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It says :
The words ' original construction ' in section 1 of chapter 7 of the statutes of 1S82-


William Findlay Maclean: And 1882 is interpreting 1881.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (reading) :: -intituled an Act to provide for the allowance of drawbacks on certain articles manufactured in Canada for use in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, shall be construed to extend to and include the first iron or steel bridge erected in a locality, but not to any renewal or repair thereof.

That is not an amendment to the Canadian Pacific Railway charter at all.


William Findlay Maclean: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ; it is an amendment to the contract.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) listen to *what I say. I say that is not an amendment to the Canadian Pacific Railway charter at all. It is an amendment to chap. 7 of 45 Vic., the statutes of 1882. It is a public Act, not a private Act; not a charter of incorporation, but a public Act, introduced to parliament for the purpose of defining what the duties of the government should be in respect to certain things, and which parliament has the right to change every hour in the day, if it thinks fit. There is nothing of the nature of a contract in it at all, and no lawyer would suggest for a minute that there is. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) produced the Act passed in 1885, and upon being questioned he had to admit that it was for the purpose of extending a privilege to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Another, the Act of 1894, was also for the purpose of extending a privilege to the Canadian Pacific Railway. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has quoted a number of enactments which in no single case would bear the inference of being unfavourable interpretations of the charter of incorporation of the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is not the slightest shadow of a precedent in anything to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I was surprised and somewhat disappointed at the hon. gentleman's argument. He said he had a number of precedents, and I expected he would have something that would at least bear the appearance of being a precedent. I do not know, Sir, that I need to extend my observations very much further. All I intended to do was to answer to some extent what was suggested by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), and in doing so, I desire to say that I sympathize with his idea and his anxiety to do something for the people of the west, who are labouring under a serious disadvantage in that respect. But, I submit with all confidence, that a great majority of members on both sides of the House will find themselves wholly and entirely unable to follow him in his reasoning, and wholly and entirely unable to assent to the proposition that this House should interpret a contract which it has made with a private individual or with a company.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before the minister resumes his seat, I would like to ask him a question upon a matter which I expected he would touch in the course of his remarks. I refer to the issuing of patents. In these two resolutions there is abundant reference to the necessity of issuing the patents. The land grant has been earned a long time ago, and Mr. SIFTON.
I have heard very often in this House reference to the delay in issuing the patents. That is a point upon which I would like some information from the minister, because it is, perhaps, there that legislation would be of use.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I spoke with reference to that matter for fifteen or twenty minutes this afternoon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will read what the minister said.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend will see my remarks in ' Hansard ' just before six o'clock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to offer a reason for the vote which I intend to give upon this question. While I agree with the aim of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), and with some of his arguments, as well as some of the precedents which he quoted to justify interference by parliament in the direction which he sugegsts, still there are many points of his contention with which I cannot agree. This resolution simply says :
That the twenty years' exemption provided for the land subsidy in clause 16 begins as of a date even with the payment of the money subsidy provided for in section 9.	.
The law does not say that it begins when the payment of the money subsidy was made, but, when the payment of the money subsidy was made and the land granted and handed over. It was contingent on the two things. The fulfilment of the one was not a complete fulfilment of the contract, which required the fulfilment of the two. Then, the contract goes on to say :
The government shall pay and shall grant.
That was the provision of the contract Act, but although the government did pay they did not grant, and until they did both, I cannot see how we could interpret the law as being fulfilled so far as the contract went, because while the government paid the money they did not grant the land by giving a patent for it. If this motion were carried, it seems to me that it could in no way settle the question as to the date from which we should commence to count the twenty years. If we pass the motion it would only at best be the individual opinion of every member of this House who voted for it. I put the question to the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) : that even suppose we did pass the resolution and the Canadian Pacific Railway refused to be bound by it, and went to the courts to secure their rights, even then we would have to be guided by the interpretation put upon the law by the courts. The individual opinion of members of parliament might or might not count for anything in the estimation of the judges. They are charged with the re-

sponsibility, according to tbeir own judgment and wisdom and legal acumen, of properly interpreting- the law, and when they come to interpret that law they might differ entirely from what the majority of the members of this House think. While we might express ourselves here as individually being of a certain opinion, it would make no difference to the parties who were claiming their rights under the contract. It might be that the majority of members of this House honestly believe that the correct interpretation of the law is that set out by the hon. member (Mr. Maclean), but that would make no difference in the view which might be entertained by the courts. The contract sets out that when each twenty miles of the road has been built, the company is entitled to land and money, but, although the law says the money shall be paid and the land shall be granted, I am told that the money was not paid in every case, and whether it was or not, the patents of the land were not handed to the company. I take it that one of three things had to be done before the twenty years would commence. The land must be passed over by patent, or it must be sold ; or it must be occupied. It could only be occupied by a sale from the company, or occupied by the company itself. If it was neither patented to the company, nor sold or occupied by the company, I cannot see how we can come to the conclusion that the twenty years can commence to count.
For my part I hold that the twenty years' period could not begin to count until some one of these conditions was fulfilled-either that the land was granted by deed to the company or sold by the company, or occupied by the company. For this reason I shall be obliged to vote against the motion. While saying that, I must confess that I admire the conduct of the hon. member for East York in his desire to relieve the settlers of the North-west of a very onerous burden. I know from experience in my own part of the county what the pioneer settlers had to endure on account of the operations of the Canada Company. There was a great deal of land owned by the Canada Company in the county of Grey, and the pioneer settlers were obliged to' make roads, clear up the land, build schools, and tax themselves heavily, while the land owned by the Canada Company went on increasing in value all the time ; and when the company came to sell any of their land, they sold it at a little above the cost of the land around. In other words, they benefited by the labour of the pioneer settlers, who had no redress. It is just the same with the settler in the North-west; and I thought that while the hon. member for East York was advocating the interest of the settlers, it came with very bad grace from the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), and other North-west members to
jeer at him when he was honestly trying to find some way of relieving the settlers of the very onerous burden that rested upon them, in consequence, it may be, of negligence of parliament or the negligence of the government-I, mean the Conservative government as well as the Reform government. In the same Way, in the past, when the exmember for Western Assiniboia was working honestly and earnestly as any one could on behalf of the settlers, other members from the North-west tried to thwart and decry and turn into ridicule his efforts, and did everything they could to make it appear that he was not acting honestly. I think the hon. member for East York is entitled to every credit for his efforts to relieve the settler of that burden, even though we cannot agree with what he proposes as a remedy. For the reasons I have stated, I cannot vote for the motion. I think the twenty years should commence to count either when the land is sold by the company, or when it is patented, or when it is occupied by the company itself.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote for the motion of the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), who has certainly shown a most energetic interest in the cause of the western settlers. It seems to be the difficulty of the western settlers that this House is full of sympathy for them, but is very scarce of actions in their favour ; and when a member comes forward with a practical proposition favouring those settlers, it certainly is my place to vote for it. My difficulty, however, is that having voted a few days ago that the date of exemption ended on the 14th of February last, I am not able to-night to vote that it does not end till five years from to-night. Therefore, while the hon. member has my fullest sympathy in his efforts, I am in the unfortunate position that I cannot support his motion.
The question I would like to discuss for a moment is as to the right of this House to deal with this question in any way. I will not discuss the date of the termination of the exemption. Other members who voted against the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), and who, I presume, are going to vote against this resolution to-night, have not discussed the date of termination. They have taken what they are pleased to call the broad ground of the sanctity of contracts. I will take that broad ground too. I claim that if a clear contract is shown, that contract must be submitted to. We are not asking to break a contract; I refuse to be put in that position. I object to the stand taken by the hon. member for East York, that the settlers of the west are afraid of cold justice at the hands of the courts. All we want is justice at the hands of the courts, and at the hands of parliament. Give us a straight contract,

252S
and we abide by that contract. We do not want any interpretation of a contract if the contract does not require any interpretation. But our claim is this: That a contract was made at a certain time, under certain then existing conditions, and in view of certain expected conditions, and that the conditions which were in view at the time that contract was made have not eventuated. It was expected when that contract was made that those lands would have been patented as soon) as they were earned. It was not contemplated by parliament when it passed that Act that the patents would not be issued for twenty years. I say, therefore, that because the conditions have changed, a duty is laid on this parliament to interpret that Act before it goes to the courts. This parliament has no right to ask the courts to render a decision on the mere wording of the Act, when the conditions have changed from what they were when the Act was passed, and from what they were expected to be. Those who hold to the sanctity of contracts must show us what that contract means. They have no right to ask us to support the sanctity of a contract if they do not know what the contract means. We know what parliament meant when it passed the Act. We know that that Act is not in a proper condition to be referred to the courts at the present time, and it is the duty of parliament to fit it to the conditions as they now exist before referring it to the courts.
As to the decision which was read to this House by way of precedent, I will only say this, that we live under a certain constitution providing for legislation under certain responsibilities ; and if under that constitution no precedent can be found which would prevent us from taking this action, then I say our case stands good and is not to be shaken by a precedent taken from the rulings upon the legislation of another country under a radically different constitution. If that precedent is good, then our constitution is bad. It is because we do not approve of that system of government that we have the government which we have in this country.
As to the precedents cited under our constitution by the hon. member for East York, I am not sufficiently learned in the law to know whether these were precedents in the proper sense of the word or not; but I gather from the discussion that the rule works this way : If a certain interpretation of a contract is in favour of a railway company, this parliament has the power to make it; but if it is an interpretation that is to give justice to the people of the country, then parliament has not the power to make it. Parliament is to be the servitor of the companies, and not the servant of the people. I say that parliament is or ought to be the master of the companies and the servant of the people ; and it is the right as it is the Mr. OLIVER.
duty of parliament to see that substantial justice, is done in this case, irrespective of any legal quibble. It is an outrageous proposition that an exemption from taxation to the extent of $100,000 a year should be continued to a single corporation in the Northwest for a period of twenty years beyond the time intended by parliament-to the extent of sixteen years, at any rate. I say it is a monstrous proposition that the company should be allowed to benefit to the extent of $1,600,000, at the lowest calculation, on a quibble as to the meaning of a single word ; which is the contention that is put before the House.
My hon. friend from East. Grey (Mr. Sproule) said that in his view the exemption must commence at the timej the land was either sold or occupied or patented. If the word ' patent' is to hold, if we are to stick to the legal, technical meaning of the word ' patent,' how comes it that that exemption ends, without a patent having been issued at all, by the mere fact of that land becoming occupied ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One of the other conditions under which it would commence to count, have been fulfilled.


Frank Oliver: But our hon. friends are contending that there is only one condition, and that is the issue of the patent. Whereas the hon. member himself has said-and the words here bear me out-that the exemption ends when the land is occupied or sold, and it is a notorious fact that the company has sold a million acres of that land without ever a patent being issued. If you admit, on the one hand, that the exemption expires by reason of occupation or sale, you cannot, in the next breath, hold that the exemption can only expire twenty years after the land has been patented.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I certainly did not make myself clear, if my hon. friend understood me to say that I made any contention whatever with regard to the meaning of this clause. I made no argument with respect to its meaning. I took the position taken by the right hon. gentleman the leader of the House, that the interpretation of the contract was a matter for the courts to decide. As to the last point of my hon. friend, he perhaps may not have been familiar with a case in which this contract has been in' a way before the courts. The courts have held that there are two conditions which give rise to the power of taxation, one is "the issuing of the patent, and the other the sale or occupation of the land. It has been held distinctly that the sale or occupation gives the right to taxation.


Frank Oliver: I was not alluding to the position of the hon. minister, but to the position of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). The contention that the

exemption expired oil the 15th February-last, is the one I desire to maintain before this House and country. I maintain it on the ground that the word ' grant ' in the Act was not intended to mean patent, but does mean, and was intended to mean, gift -that the land was given when the Act was passed, and the exemption began at that date, and ceases twenty years from that date. I claim that it is competent for this House to give that interpretation to the contract and thereby do substantial justice to the people.
I will go this far. I will admit that there is enough in what the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) has embodied in his motion to make it arguable whether the exemption expired on the 15th February last, or will expire twenty years from the actual completion of the road. That would be a fair matter for reference to the court, I admit, and I would not ask for legislation from this House to prevent that question from going to the courts ; but I do ask for legislation to prevent it from going to the courts in such shape as that it may grant an exemption ot' forty years to the railway company, when only twenty years were intended ; and, under circumstances which might-but which I do not think will-exist, to grant to them an interminable exemption on the basis of a quibble as to the meaning of a single word, by Importing an improper meaning into that word.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say a word with respect to the argument of the hon. the Minister of the Interior. It does not require any reference to Cooley or any one else to make us aware in this House that it is not a proper thing, except in very extraordinary circumstances, for parliament to interfere with contracts or vested rights. And in reply to what has been just urged by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), it is, as the Minister of the Interior has pointed out, very much more improper to interfere with such contracts when the country. which parliament represents, is one of the parties to the contract. Therefore, in so far as this resolution of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) purports to declare that this particular contract has a meaning which might not be the meaning assigned to it by the courts, I cannot agree that that is a motion which it was proper for this House to pass. At the same time I entirely concur iu what has been said by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) with respect to the credit due our hon. friend for the zeal with which he has advocated the cause of the railway and the settlers in this matter.
I think that the hon. Minister of the Interior was not fair to the hon. member for East York in dealing with the precedent which that hon. gentleman cited. The minister held up this Act, and said it is a 80
public Act, and therefore cannot form any part of the contract of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not think that a more illogical conclusion was ever put forward by any hon. gentleman. A part of the contract between this country and the Canadian Pacific Railway might be contained in a public Act, and it might be absolutely unjustifiable for this country to modify the terms of that Act until the purpose had been accomplished.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I did not intend by the use of the word ' public ' to imply that because an Act was a public Act it was necessarily one that parliament might properly change, but I said that this was a public Act and such an Act as could be changed without violating the contract.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman. I think that the second part of his argument was perfectly correct, namely, that it was an Act of which both parties to the contract assented. That was a perfectly good answer to the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), but the first part of the suggestion as to this not being a precedent was not an answer at all, because this particular Act deals especially with the Canadian Pacific Railway and with the rates of duty which shall be charged upon machinery and other articles imported for the use of that company. Now, we have heard a great deal about the difficulty that has arisen in the North-west with respect to this taxation. I think that the remedy is entirely in the hands of the government, who, I suppose, have all the necessary information in their hands to enable them to deal with the matter. This difficulty has arisen for one or other, or partly from both of two causes. Possibly it has arisen from the looseness of the language in which the contract was originally couched. It is impossible to construe that language by the speeches of the hon. gentlemen who were in the House at the time. The greatest corporation or the poorest man has a right to have his contract construed in the court according to the words in which it is couched. Whether that question comes up as between this country and the greatest corporation in it, or as between this country and the poorest man in it, we should all stand by that-that the contract must be dealt with according to the words and not according to the intention one or other of the parties has in his mind in so far as it differs from these words. I say, the difficulty may have arisen from the looseness of the language in this respect-the words did not express the idea in the minds of the gentlemen who dealt with the question in this House. Or that it may have arisen from faults of administration. I do not say that that is the case, but it has been suggested that it has arisen in that way-through the administration not seeing



that the grants were made at the proper time. If the difficulty has arisen from one or other of these causes, it may be that there is a grievance in the North-west. Hon. gentlemen in that portion of the country tell us that there is, because of this, a burden resting upon the people there with which they should not be saddled. If that is so, it is perfectly simple for the government to deal with it, if they think it a matter worthy of redress-and that is a question upon which the government, having the information as to its importance in their possession, should have a policy. It is competent for this parliament to declare by an Act that the period of exemption from taxation accorded to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company shall cease at a particular time-say twenty years from the completion of the road. I would not concur in the passing of that Act if it went no further than that. But it would be competent for this parliament, in the same Act, to say that the government should indemnify the Canadian Pacific Railway Company against any additional taxation which should be imposed upon them by reason of the passing of such an Act.


William Forsythe McCreary: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) please explain that a little more fully.


Robert Laird Borden: It is very simple. X do not know at present what it would involve, and I do not say I would advocate it; but I say that I would give it fair consideration. It is a matter upon which the government should have a policy. Let the government, if the circumstances justify it, bring In a statute and pass it in this parliament, declaring that the exemption from taxation accorded to the Canadian Pacific Railway *Company by the contract referred to shall cease at a particular day-let us say, twenty years from the completion of the road or at some other convenient day-and by the same Act let the government undertake to indemnify the Canadian Pacific Railway Company against any increased taxation which shall be imposed upon them by reason of the passing of such an Act. My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver), speaking on this subject the other evening, said it would amount to some $50,000 a year. I do not know whether or not the circumstances are such as to justify the government in undertaking to pay that sum for a certain number of years for the future. If we are to believe representations of hon. gentlemen from the North-west, the circumstances would seem to justify it. I do certainly claim that it would be infinitely better for the government to pay $50,000 or $100,000, or any other sum of money, than to violate a contract entered into by parliament, and, in that way, to violate what I would regard as the national faith and honour.


Frank Oliver: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax), what are the terms of the contract ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: The terms of the contract which are referred to are that the lands of the company shall be exempt from taxation for twenty years after the grant thereof from the Crown.


Frank Oliver: From when ?


Robert Laird Borden: From the time of the grant of the lands from the Crown. My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) evidently does not understand me. I am not giving an opinion as to the legal effect of the contract in that respect. But I say that it would be competent for the government to make it perfectly plain that the exemption from taxation should cease in twenty years from a certain date, and, at the same time to indemnify the company for any increased taxation put upon them by the passing of that Act. Then, in so far as the meaning of this clause is in doubt, they can do as they proposed to do this afternoon, leave it to be determined by the court. When it is once determined by the court, it would be a matter of little difficulty to ascertain what the amount of taxation is that would be imposed on the company in consequence of the Act. The government of this country, if the circumstances justify such an Act, would, by such an Act, undertake to indemnify the company against the consequences of such legislation, and so preserve inviolate the contract we made with the company and so preserve inviolate the national honour.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Would it not be as well, in the first instance, to submit it to the courts as to go at it in this roundabout way ?


Robert Laird Borden: I thought my hon. friend (Mr. Davis) was very anxious about this matter, but, apparently he is not anxious. I suggest that we can do this thing at once, if the circumstances and the information in possession of the government justify it, and then let the court determine it afterwards. If the court determines that the clause means what some hon. gentlemen in this House think it means, there will be no burden upon the country at all. If the court determines that it means something, which, under the legislation, would impose a burden upon the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, this country would assume the burden. I am suggesting something in the interest of my hon. friend's constituents-that is, immediate relief. But he desires, apparently, to have it postponed and dealt with in the courts for a couple of years before it is dealt with by the government and by this parliament. I do not suppose that the right hon. leader of the House (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would be pepared to say ' Yes ' or ' No ' to this to-night. I am not making a suggestion with a view to embarrassing him, but because I think the suggestion is one that he might well take into consideration. It is possible that he has not the in-

formation in his possession and is not sufficiently aware of the circumstances to be able to give a decided opinion on the matter. I throw it out as a suggestion which I think fairly deserves consideration by the government, and which, if it is brought down to this House by the government, will certainly receive fair and careful consideration on my part.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I am sure that a moment of reflection will convince the House, and will certainly convince the bon. gentleman himself (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that the proposition which he makes at this moment is altogether unacceptable, because it assumes the whole point at issue. My hon. friend proceeds upon the assumption that the exemptions exist at this moment, which is really the point to determine. The hon. gentieman who has brought this matter to the attention of the House on more than one occasion, and again this afternoon, and those who have brought the question up before him, all contended that the settlers of the North-west were labouring under a great grievance. There are no two ways of looking at that fact. We are all agreed that the settlers of the North-west are, at this moment, and have been for many years past, labouring under a great grievance by reason of the lands whibh were granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company having been exempted from taxation for a period of twenty years. Without going into recrimination, my hon. friend knows that if this burden has been, and is still, lying upon the settlers of the North-west, it is not the fault of those who sit on this side of the House. When the Canadian Pacific Railway contract was introduced into this parliament, most serious exception was taken by us to that feature of the contract. Our views did not prevail at that time, and the consequence has been this grievance from which the people are now suffering. But. the contract was passed by a majority of the representatives of the people, and it is now binding upon the whole country. The grievance exists in the fact that all the lands granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway, the 25,000,000 acres, were exempted from taxation during a period of twenty years; but the question has ever since been, at what period was this exemption to date from ? What is the limit of it ? Twenty years was the limit, but the question to be determined is, when did this period of twenty years begin to run ? Some parties in this House hold that it began upon the 15th of February, 1881, the date upon which the contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway was ratified ; and my hon. friend some time ago supported and voted in favour of a resolution which asserted that it ran from the 15th of February, when the contract was ratified. He has changed his views since that time, he has changed his views S0i
in the space of three weeks. Three weeks ago he was of opinion that the period from which the exemption should run was the 15th of February, 1S81 ; now he comes to the conclusion that he was all wrong then.


William Findlay Maclean: Not necessarily.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Then, why did he vote for it ? If he did not believe in the proposition that the exemption should run from the loth of February, why did he vote for it, and thereby do a great injustice to those whose cause he chamxflons '? Now, however, he wants us to affirm that the date of the exemption should run, not from the 15th of February, 1881, but from the date of the payment of the money subsidy as provided in section 9, that is to say, when the road was completed. As a certain section of the road was completed, the money was paid thereon, when another section was completed another payment was made, and so on ; and his argumnt to-day is, that the period of exemption shall proceed from time to time as the land subsidy was earned. That may be the case, I do not say it is not the case, but that was his view. Well, here is one construction. My hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), who is not here, and my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) who is here, contended that the period should run from the 15th of February, 1881. This may be the correct view, I do not offer an opinion, but, if it be correct, the leader of the opposition will admit at once that nothing could be more detrimental to the interests of the people at large than to pay compensation to the Canadian Pacific Railway for an exemption that no longer exists.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend surely does not desire to misrepresent me. What I said distinctly was that we should declare that this exemption ceased at a certain period, leaving the meaning of the contract to the courts, and that we should pay to the company any taxation which was increased by reason of the interpretation which we put upon the statute.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Why pay them anything if there is no exemption existing ? As I understand the proposition of my hon. friend, he wants us to say that the exemption shall date from the time the patents are issued, and then the exemption shall run twenty years.


Robert Laird Borden: We would not pay them anything if no exemption exists, because the courts would so decide.
The PRIME MINISTER, That only shows the need of referring the matter to the courts before we legislate at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I admit it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: When the courts have decided that point, then we shall be

able to decide what to do. If the courts decide that the contention of the hon. member for Lisgar and the hon. member for Alberta is correct, that the exemption should date from the 15th of February, 1881, then the exemption is already at an end, and there is no indemnity to be paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway, but, if on the contrary, the courts decide that the exemption should run from the date the patents are issued, and patents were issued in 1901, then the exemption would run to that extent to the year 1921. In that case parliament would have to determine whether an indemnity is to be given to the settlers, or whether an indemnity is to be given to the Canadian Pacific Railway. But, all this shows how absolutely essential it is that the question should be referred to the courts, that we should have an authoritative decision as to the meaning of the law before we can take any public action in the way of giving relief to the settlers of the Northwest. The matter is so plain, so obvious, that I am surprised there is any difference of opinion with regard to it. For my part, I am rather pleased with the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition. He sees himself that if legislation is to be passed by the parliament of Canada to relieve the settlers of the North-west, the only basis upon which we can act is a judicial determination as to what rights of the Canadian Pacific Railway now exist under this section of the law.
My hon. friend from Bast York (Mr. Maclean) rather taunted me a moment ago about precedents, both in this parliament and in the British parliament. I had to speak upon this question some time ago, and I took occasion to remonstrate against any attempt in this parliament to invade vested rights. My hon. friend pooh-poohed the idea of vested rights. He is prepared to deal with vested rights, not in the manner in which they are dealt with by the British parliament, but in the manner with which they are dealt with in France, simply to wipe them away without regard to whom the legislation may injure. That is not the policy we have followed in this parliament. I might refer to Mr. Gladstone, the great Liberal of whom I claim to be a follower. My hon. friend will remember that Mr. Gladstone was always very careful of vested rights. He was reminded a moment ago by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that Mr. Gladstone never introduced any legislation of any kind which interfered with vested rights, unless at the same time he provided ample compensation for those who were deprived of their rights. My hon. friend shakes his head, he is a sceptic ou this matter. Well, I have here the legislation of Mr. Gladstone with regard to the Irish Church, and if my hon. friend will examine it he will find that in every case where his legislation interfered with a Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
clergyman whose living was taken away from him, Mr. Gladstone took good care that every incumbent so affected should have ample compensation to the extent that he was injured. That is the policy which has been followed in every British parliament ; and I am shocked and horrified that an historical truth so notorious should be controverted by anybody in this House, and especially by my hon. friend from East York, whose origin should have taught him better ; I am surprised that it should have fallen to my lot to teach him a lesson upon this question. I adhere to the principle that if we have vested the Canadian Pacific Railway with any rights which we are compelled to interfere with or take away, the Canadian Pacific Railway must receive compensation. But, we must know previously exactly what those rights are, let us know at what period they began and at what period they terminate, let us know if they are terminated now, and when we know this from a competent judicial authority, then we will have a basis upon which to take action.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think the right hon. gentleman has clearly understood the proposition of the leader of the opposition, and I would appeal to any laywer in this House to maintain that he has represented it correctly. As I .understand the proposition of my hon. friend here, that proposition was one, that, if adopted, would immediately put a stop to the state of affairs, of which have been told year in and year out since we have come into this parliament as existing in the North-west Territories. It puts that interpretation upon the contract, which I submit respectfully it surely bears, that the exemption ceased when the road was completed, and having done that, the grievance, so ably set forth by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) this evening, stops at once, because, taxation begins upon these lands. I was surprised to hear that hon. gentleman state to-night that these lands had been actually occupied by the Canadian Pacific Railway for a time, that they were afterwards sold and that upon the lands which the company occupied they never paid a cent in taxes. The remedy is in the proposition of my hon. friend here-pass an Act declaring that the exemption ceased at a certain time say twenty years, or say when the road was completed. When we propose that we are met by the argument of the hon. Minister of the Interior who says that we are interfering with vested rights. That is not the case, because my hon. friend added a proviso safeguarding the vested rights of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. In one clause he puts an end to the grievance. He puts the people of the Northwest Territories upon a footing which I think every hon. member of this House

believes the people of that country should occupy. In one clause he puts them on a proper footing, and in another clause he safeguards the rights of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The right hon. leader of the government says this is a matter that can only be determined by a court of law. That is exactly the proposition of my hon. friend in the indemnity clause which is inserted, decreeing-and my hon. friend is very right, because he has had experience, as other hon. gentlemen have, that it will take a long time for that point to be decided and in the meantime the people will suffer from that grievance-that when the courts have decided at what period the payment of taxation should have begun under the terms of the contract, it will be the duty of the government to indemnify the company. Where is the contradiction in that ? The Prime Minister says that the proposition of my hon. friend interferes with vested rights and it is evident from what he stated here to-night, that it is only by submission to the courts that we can obtain a solution of this difficulty. But, the solution, as was contended by my hon. friend from Bast York (Mr. Maclean), and by the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis), is in our own hands, and it is our duty to the people of the North-west Territories to give them relief from the grievances under which they suffer. It seems to me with this proposition which was so clearly put before the House, and which is not approved of by the government, we should know what they intend to do to relieve the grievances of these people. I do not pretend to know the circumstances under which they suffer, but I have been in this House since 1896, and I have heard this question brought up year after year. I have heard from members representing the North-west Territories a full statement of the inequality and injustice which prevail in the North-west Territories, and I have not yet heard in all these five years any statement from the government beyond a general statement that it would be good to know what the courts think about it. What have they done to find out what the courts think about it ? Nothing at all.


Mr. LEIGHTON G. MCCARTHY (North Simcoe).: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt it will be pleasing for us to hear the way in which the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Monk) and his leader (Mr. Borden, Halifax) have spoken on behalf of the western country, but, as one to whom his suggestion appealed as a way out of this difficulty, I was very much disappointed to find that the hon. leader of the opposition said that he would not be prepared to advocate it. What position, therefore, does he take ? Is it a suggestion merely which is to be thrown out to catch those whom it may appeal to and
not hurt the feelings of those whom it would otherwise hurt 1 If it was a suggestion which was to be brought into effect it could easily have been moved on a previous occasion, or it could be advanced upon an occasion upon which we could give the matter full and complete consideration. This is a discussion of a resolution which the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) has moved and with which the hon. leader of the opposition is not in sympathy.. He says that the trouble may have been caused by either of two things, or partly by one, or party by both, first, by the looseness of the language in which the contract is couched, secondly by reason of the careless way in which the government have administered its affairs in connection with the contract. Which it is he is not prepared to say ; nor is he prepared to express an opinion as to when the period of exemption ceased, or as to when it began to run. If that is all the light we have thrown upon it by the hon. gentleman, I do not think that the hon. member for East York should complain on account of my not being prepared to express an opinion upon this subject because his leader is not prepared to express an opinion as to when this exemption started or when it ceased. If his honoured leader takes that position, I think my humble position is not so difficult. I rose more to reply to the hon. member for East York than for any other purpose, because I believe he said, while I was not in the House, that I was not following an example which I should follow in this House. He made that statement before, and I think he knows that he treads on the tail of my coat. I am an Irishman. If Dalton McCarthy ever expressed an opinion whereby he was prepared to construe a contract made between two parties in the absence of one, I entirely repudiate it as being beyond the conception of any one who ever knew him as a lawyer. We are asked to say in the absence of one party what a contract means. It is not as the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) says construing, or altering, or varying a statute, because the statute is merely a confirmatory statute, one which ratifies an agreement, and if it does it refers to the agreement. The agreement is one which was entered into between two parties and no lawyer, or layman, can come to the conclusion that in the absence of one party we would be justified in altering that contract. I entirely agree with what the hon. leader of the opposition said upon that point. If the proposition were feasible, and if he would advocate the suggestion which he has so gratuitously thrown out, which appeals to me and other hon. members on this side of the House, that the government or parliament should say to the people: We will stand between the two

parties to the contract and ask the courts to say that the company should have paid or they should not have paid, we would be in a different position. Unless some such enactment is provided whereby the party who is not present upon this discussion is afforded protection, I cannot see how one can consent to the resolution of the hon. member for East York.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that whenever the hon. member for North Siincoe (Mr. McCarthy) ris'es in his place in this House he cannot refrain from giving us a little of what was called by the former hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Poweli) ' graveyard politics.' I think it is about time that was stopped. As to the merits of the question I have been waiting to hear from the members from the Northwest Territories. It is true that we had a speech from the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). It is left to the member for East York (Mr. Maclean) and to the leader of the opposition and to other members on this side to advocate the claims of the settlers who are undergoing the hardships of pioneer life in the North-west, while those members who are supposed to represent the settlers neglect the interests of their people. I have the greatest sympathy with the settler in the North-west who finds himself suffering under this burden.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Why did you fasten the burden upon the settler ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: We did not fasten any burden upon the settler. My interpretation is that the lands are taxable to-day and that the government should so declare. But the government have done nothing. They have made promises but they have neglected to carry their promises out as in a hundred other eases. This government has been in power for six sessions of parliament and although they have often been warned about this matter they folded their arms. In hundreds of other cases they have referred matters to the Department of Justice to get an opinion, but why have they not got an opinion from their law officers in this case ? Why did they not ask their Minister of Justice to give an interpretation and stand by it, and if the Canadian Pacific Railway or anybody else was dissatisfied with it let them go to the courts. The government knew that the twenty years expired on the 15th of February last, but nothing was done by them. Do not we remember the case of the colonization companies. About the same time the Canadian Pacific Railway was undertaken the government asked the citizens of Canada to assist them in colonizing the- Northwest, and they gave them grants of land on payment of money and services rendered. The lands were granted to the colonization companies in proportion to what they had Mr. McCarthy.
earned under the government regulations, and immediately the bargain was concluded the government handed the patents to the colonization companies, and those who occupied the lands have been paying municipal taxes ever since. And, if the colonization companies held the lands they have been liable for municipal taxes ever since, and the same rule should have applied to the Canadian Pacific Railway, because in that regard they stand on all fours with the colonization companies. To-day the leader of the oposition has made a proposal wnich I think is an admirable one.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Yes, hear, hear. I say it is an admirable proposition.


The PRIME MINISTER.: But you have just told us that the exemption is at an end.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not inconsistent.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: That is not inconsistent with the statement made by the leader of the opposition, and the leader of the government has either not understood the proposal of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) or he has deliberately misrepresented it. However, I do not believe he would intentionally or deliberately misrepresent it. My own opinion is that the Canadian Pacific Railway lands were probably amenable to taxation years ago, but at all events they are amenable to taxation to-day.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: From what date would the first payment be made under the suggestion of the leader of the opposition.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I do not think the member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) is quite clear as to what he is talking about. The proposal of the leader of the opposition is, that if the courts should decide that the Canadian Pacific Railway was liable for taxes, then the government should step in and free the Canadian Pacific Railway from any liability in that regard. I do not propose to say when the date commences, but I do say that in my opinion the date of the exemption has expired now. I again appeal to the government to do something in the matter and to get a move on. They are getting the name in the country of being a slip-shod government. They fail to recognize that they are the servants and not the masters of the people. They seem to think that because times have been good by reason of circumstances over which they have no control, that the good times excused them from doing their duty. They have neglected the interests of Canada from the day they came to power until the present and it is time for them to wake up to a sense of their duties to the people.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am pleased to know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) takes such an Interest In the North-west members and that he proposes to take the whole of the North-west Territories under his wing.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I am pleased to know that I have brought two western members to their feet already.


Thomas Osborne Davis: There are occasions when the members for the North-west are fighting the battles of the people, and when the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) is to be found on the other side advocating the interests of corporations and of the Canadian Pacific Railway particularly.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: When ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: In the Railway Committee every day.
seat on the other side of the House. I want to inform the hon. gentleman that the members representing the North-west Territories are looking after the interests of the people in this matter. We differ as to what should be done, but there is a light way and a wrong way. I am not prepared to say that hon. gentlemen opposite, when they drafted the contract, did not draft it in such a way, and with their eyes open, as to leave a loophole for the Canadian Pacific Railway to crawl out of. I do not suppose this House is prepared to interpret that contract. The right place to have it interpreted is in the courts. I myself am of opinion that the lands were granted when they were earned. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has another opinion ; the leader of the opposition has another ; and the hon. member for East York has another.


William Findlay Maclean: No, I agree with you.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: When ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: Go upstairs to the Railway Committee.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) cannot mention one instance of such a thing. I have always been on the side of the people, as against the corporations.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) cannot refer to what takes place in the Railway Committee unless, a report is made to the House.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Then I go further and say that I have heard the hon. gentleman advocate the cause of monopolies and corporations in this House day in and day out during the four years that I have been here.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I challenge the hon. member to cite one instance.


Thomas Osborne Davis: When the hon. gentleman advocates high protection, he is advocating the interests of the trusts and combines.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He supported this very contract.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Yes, the hon. gentleman supported this contract, whereas if he had been looking after the interests of the people of the North-west at the time, as he appears to be since he got into opposition, this state of affairs would never have been brought about, and this discussion would not have been necessary. But the hon. gentleman at that time was quite willing that all the public lands of the country should be given away. The hon. gentleman was a member of a government which gave away millions of acres of land, and tied them up and left them exempt from taxation ; and I never knew him to raise his voice then against this iniquity that he talked of to-night. But it makes a great deal of difference whose ox is being gored. The hon. gentleman has changed his mind since he took a


Thomas Osborne Davis: It all goes to prove that the only wray out of the difficulty is to submit the matter to the courts for a decision. We did something this afternoon in passing the motion which I proposed, and which I think will meet the views of the people of the North-west Territories. The lands are there ; any assessor can assess them ; but the difficulty has been that no school district or municipality has felt itself wealthy enough to start a lawsuit against a great corporation like the Canadian Pacific Railway. They feared that the case would be carried from court to court until they would not be able to meet the expenses and the school district or municipality would be ruined. But the government have announced, this afternoon that they are prepared to assist any municialiiy which will institute proceedings on this line, and they will carry the case along and find out the rights of this matter. I do not think the government could do anything more than that; but there are gentlemen in this House posing as champions of the people of the North-west Territories, and trying to make a little cheap political capital for themselves. The hon. member for East York says he is going to the North-west Territories. I hope he is. He is not the first of the gentlemen on the other side who have gone there. We have met them and sent them back ; and if the gentleman comes, we will treat him exactly as we treated his leaders-one who was the apostle of free trade in the Territories, while the other leaders were preaching the gospel of protection in the east. These gentlemen have four or five policies, or if they have any policy at all. it is like the Yankee's suit of clothes-big enough for any man or small enough for any boy. The leader of the opposition has a policy in regard to this matter, but we never heard a word of it until the resolution was passed this afternoon, which, to my mind, definitely settles the question. The leader of the opposition might have enlightened us on this question

when the discussion was going on this afternoon, or on other occasions when we had before us the Bill of the hon. member for Lisgar, who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place to-night. He was a bold champion of the people of the North-west Territories, too ; and yet his seat is vacant to-day. I have heard it rumoured that he has arrived at some kind of understanding with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and on this occasion has taken to the woods. I am sorry he has left his desk-mate, the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), alone to-night. They have been hunting the library together. and have had pages running for them, but very little has come of it. The hon. member for East York has fired his cannon to-night, and what does it amount to ? He got up and said he had two propositions. He said the government could buy the Canadian Pacific Railway off, and in the next breath lie said there was nothing at all to buy. His resolution is nothing but an expression of the opinion of this House. I would rather have the question submitted to the courts, so that we shall have an interpretation from them and know exactly what position we are in. I believe the exemption is practically up now, but I only give that as my own personal opinion.


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Speaker, after the very warm invitation given to members from the North-west Territories by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Wallace), I wish to take a minute or two for further reference to this subject. I may say that I agree with that hon. gentleman entirely in the inference to be drawn from the remark lie directed against the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), that it is well for gentlemen In this House to have some knowledge of the subject which they attempt to discuss, and I am pleased to have to-night gained a little more knowledge of this subject. I have lived in the North-west for a considerable time, and I have heard a good deal of discussion on this subject; but to-night from the lips of the hon. member for West York I heard a new phase of the matter suggested ; namely, that this period of exemption may have terminated some years ago. Up to the present time I have been limited to the thought that it was not possible that the period could have terminated before the 15th of February last. That is the contention which was put forward in this House two or three weeks ago in the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson). That was put forward as one extreme interpretation. But the hon. gentleman from West York (Mr. Wallace) suggests that the period may have terminated years ago, and I am pleased to have been here to gain further light on the subject.
Some aspersions were thrown by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), and some other hon. gentlemen opposite, on members from the North-west in connection with Mr. DAVIS.
this discussion, which were entirely uncalled for. People in the country, who might read alone the speech of the hon. gentleman, would conclude that members from the Territories considered this discussion a laughing matter, and were endeavouring to thwart the hon. gentleman in his efforts on behalf of the people. I entirely resent that imputation. I did put some questions to the hon. member for East York, but solely with the idea of obtaining information and leading to a better discussion of the subject, and not at all with the idea of thwarting any effort anybody might make on behalf of our western people. But, I may tell the hon. gentleman that the people of the Northwest are not going to be hoodwinked by buncombe resolutions, such as the one before the House. This resolution, even if adopted unanimously, would have no practical effect whatever. If the House were to unanimously express its opinion as to the interpretation to be placed on the contract, that would not have any more effect than the individual opinion of any hon. member. The proposition of the hon. member for East York, and his elaborate argument, were that this question should not be referred to the courts. This proposal if adopted unanimously would not keep It out of the courts, and would have very little effect, even if adopted, on the decision of the court.
The hon. gentleman himself who proposed this resolution has exhibited several changes of attitude. Three weeks ago he voted for a Bill providing that the period of exemption should be held to have commenced on the 15tli of February, 1881.


William Findlay Maclean: Are the two positions contradictory ? Do they not both move along the same line ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Well, if the interpretation which he wishes the House to express by his resolution should be adopted, and it should then turn out that the other intrepre-tation, expressed in the Bill of the hon. meinber for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), to which I have referred, were the proper one, he would be, by this resolution, submitting the people of the North-west Territories to the injustice of labouring under this exemption some four or five years longer than they should. The other night he expressed his opinion, in the most practical manner in which an lion, member can express it, that the period of exemption should be held to have commenced on the 15th of. February, 1881. To-night, however, he seeks to impress on the House the opinion that the period of exemption did not commence then but at some later day-anywhere from five to six years later-and then again, in his argument he seemed prepared to accept another opinion, namely, that perhaps the contention of the Canadian Pacific Railway was the right one after all, and that parliament should start and negotiate with the

Canadian Pacific Railway in order to buy out tiie rights of that company, whatever they might be.
For my part, I have long held the opinion that the period of exemption began from the date the company had completed its line, by twenty mile sections, and earned its subsidy in money and lands. And that is, I believe, the opinion which will prevail in the courts. I have not very much fear that the people of the North-west Territories will not be given justice in the courts, and if the common sense view be taken, there can be no two opinions but that the contention which ought to prevail is, that the Canadian Pacific Railway were entitled to twenty years exemption on their lands, and no more. If that view should prevail, it will be impossible for the courts to decide that the period of exemption only dates from the issue of the patents.
If it be not presumptious, I would like to offer a word of advice to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I was struck by a remark made some days ago by the Minister of Railways, who said that he did not very much fear that in a conflict betweeii a railway corporation and the people, the corporation was going to get the best of'it. In his opinion, the corporations should be the last people to desire to bring about such a conflict. I am of that opinion. I think that in a conflict between the corporations and the people, the people are very certain to get the best of it, but I am not so very sure whether some of our railway corporations have been careful to abstain from bringing about such a conflict, or from creating in the public mind a certain amount of hostility that might lead to one. The recent occurences in Manitoba ought to bring the Canadian Pacific Railway to a recognition of the fact that out in the country west of Lake Superior there is a certain amount of feeling against the policy pursued up to the present by that corporation. In the very question before the House, there is proof that the people are not entirely unjustified in entertaining certain feelings against the policy pursued by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Any man can see that the contention put forward that the Canadian Pacific Railway should only be allowed twenty years exemption, and not forty years, is an entirely proper contention, but we are given to understand that the Canadian Pacific Railway are going to claim the full pound of flesh, and take advantage of any technicality in the language of the Act, in order to obtain forty years exemption if they can. That may be pointed to as one of the reasons why. in the country west of Lake Superior, there is a certain amount of feeling against this great corporation, which feeling is pretty well justified by conduct of which this claim on behalf of the company is a very striking example.
If I thought this resolution would do the slightest good, I would vote for it.


William Findlay Maclean: It will not do any harm if you vote for it.


Thomas Walter Scott: It might not directly, but indirectly it would be an encouragement to lion, gentlemen to come forward with demagogic and buncombe resolutions, and I do not propose to encourage anything of the kind. I do not think there will be any practical value in the House declaring for this resolution, and shall, therefore, vote against it.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Maclean) :
YEiS :
Messieurs
Blain,	Maclean,
Boyd,	McGowan, and
Broder,	Wallace.-7.
Cargill,
NAYS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Laurier (L'Assomption),
Angers,	Lavergne,
Archambault,	Legris,
Barker,	Lemieux,
Bazinet,	Lennox,
Bell (Addington),	Logan,
Bickerdike,	Loy,
Borden (Halifax),	Mackie,
Borden (King's, N.S.),	Maclaren (Huntingdon),
Britton.	McCarthy,
Brown,	McColl,
Bruce,	McCormick,
Bruneau,	McCreary,
Bureau,	McEwen,
Carroll,	Mclsaac,
Clancy,	McLennan,
Copp,	Madore,
Cowan,	Malouin,
Davies (Sir LouisL	Marcil (Bagot),
Davis,	Maxwell,
DSchene,	Meigs,
Delisle,	Mignault,
Demers (Levis),	Monk,
Demers (St. John),	Morin,
Dugas,	Oliver.
Earle,	Paterson,
Edwards,	Pringle,
Emmerson,	Prior,
Erb	Proulx,
Ethier,	Puttee,
Fielding,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fisher,	Richardson (Grey),
Fitzpatrick,	Ross (Ontario),
Flint,	Ross (Victoria),
Fortier,	Rousseau,
Fortin,	Russell,
Fowler,	Scott,
Galliher,	Sifton,
Geoffrion,	Simmons,
GibsoD,	Smith (Vancouver),
Gilmour,	Sproule,
Girard,	Stephens,
Gould,	Sutherland (Essex),
Gourley,	Talbot,
Guthrie,	Tarte,
Hackett,	Taylor,
Henderson,	Thompson,
Holmes,	Tolton,
Hughes (Victoria),	Tucker,
Hyman,	Turcot, Turgeon,
Johnston (Lambton),	
Kaulbach,	Wade,
Lancaster,	Wilson, and
Lang, Laurier (Sir Wilfrid).	Wright.-109.

Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Honse went into committee.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Before we go on with the next Public: Works estimates, I would ask the House to take up item 152, one subitem of which was reserved, as some hon. gentleman asked that it should not be finally disposed of at the time.
Public Works, chargeable to income-Quebec- Victoriaville public building, $4,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What will be the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: This amount will complete the work.
Public Works, chargeable to income-Ontario- Deseronto public building, site donated by city corporation, $20,000.


Mr. WILSON.: How much has been spent on this public building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Work has been done to the value of about $2,000, but this has not yet been paid. Tenders were asked for the foundation only, and the contract was awarded, but the contractor died before completing his work.


Uriah Wilson: Will the amount here asked for finish the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: The site was given by the corporation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Public Works, chargeable to Income-Ontario- Kingston Royal Military College, additional buildings, gymnasium and hospital, $5,000.


Byron Moffatt Britton: I notice that there Is a decrease in this item, as compared with last year, of $3,000. Is that because the original plan of the building calls for less expenditure, or is there to be a further expenditure this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid we will have to ask for an additional sum of money to complete the work.
London drill hall and armoury, $15,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much has been spent on this already ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work of construction has not yet been commenced. We have only purchased a part of the site.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the property to cost when It is purchased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand we have bought land to the extent of $5,000 so far.


Thomas Walter Scott: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much will the site itself cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is difficult to say, because negotiations for the purchase are still going on. My deputy tells me that he hopes we will not be obliged to spend more than $11,000 for the site. But I will not pledge myself to any figures now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that is a very loose way of proposing a vote to this House. We have spent $5,000 already, and we expect to spend a considerable larger sum, and we are going it blind. I think the minister ought to be able to give the committee some definite information to justify us voting upon it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It depends upon whether the Department of Militia will ask for additional ground around the building. If there is no additional ground asked for by the military authorities than is necessary for the building itself, we expect the site will not cost more than $11,000. But my hon, friend knows that London is a very important place, it is the centre of a military district, and perhaps it may be found good policy to buy more ground and to have a larger area.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government are not able to tell us whether they are going to buy a certain definite extent of ground or not. It appears the hon. gentleman has been buying it piecemeal. I understand the minister to say they had already paid out $5,000. but he does not tell us how much ground they have purchased for that sum.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We had to buy by piecemeal because all the properties were small and belonged to different parties. I remember we had to conduct a good many negotiations. The properties belonged to small owners of land, and we had to buy by piecemeal. We do not yet know whether the Militia Department will find it necessary to buy more. If it is found necessary to buy more it will cost more than $5,000 or $0,000. But the site which is contemplated to-day will cost about $11,000 more, and we have already paid $5,000 so far.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has not told us whether the ground they intend to purchase is half an acre, or one acre, or twenty acres, or fifty acres, on one thousand acres. We ought to have some information as to the size of the ground.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What we have purchased already is 66 feet wide by 165 feet long, for which we have paid $5,000. We are negotiating for the purchase of a piece 72 feet wide and of the same length, from two>
different

owners, with one of whom we have nearly concluded a bargain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much will the building cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The plans are not yet completed, and I am not yet in a position to say how much it will cost. But I am given to understand it will probably cost between $SO,000 and $100,000. London is the centre of military activity, and it will be found good policy to erect a fine building and a fine armoury.
Mr, SPROULE. Then I understand the hon. minister to say they have nothing but guess-work of what it is going to cost. $100,000 is a large sum of money, but the minister does not seem to have any idea of how it is going to be spent. It seems to me that is very imperfect information to submit to the House upon which to ask us to vote money and to begin a work that will cost $100,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is difficult to follow any other policy than the one that has always been followed by the Department of Public Works under ail ministers. No minister can bind himself to exact figures. I say that the plans so far as they are made contemplate a work costing between $80,000 and $100,000. I give these figures because of the information I am receiving from my officers. I am not an engineer myself, and I cannot give" detailed information except what is conveyed to me by my officers.
a total of 327 feet long by 138 feet wide and I am going to have a little more. I will have plenty of ground upon which to put the building.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: Does not the hon. minister think that $100,000 is a very large sum for a building of that sort ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I do not think it is.


Edward Gawler Prior: Well, I do, comparing it with other buildings which I know have been built. The building at Victoria, 160 feet by 75 feet, only cost $43,000. It is a stone and brick building with armouries and everything that you want.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am spending a large sum of money in Vancouver.


Edward Gawler Prior: That is very different.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Still I am spending a very large sum of money there for a similar armoury. The contract is $06,000 at Vancouver.


Edward Gawler Prior: I do not wonder that the armoury is costing a great deal because it is being built by the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this building to be of brick or stone 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Brick and stone,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has no estimate of the cost ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the hon. gentleman tell us what the size of the building is to be and whether it is to be of brick, stone or mud ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The plans are not altogether completed and I would not bind myself as to the exact size.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Approximately, what size ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that the armoury is going to be about 200 feet long by 75 feet wide.


Mr SPROULE.: The hon. gentleman says that the building is to be 200 feet long when he has told us that the lot is only 105 feet by 138 feet. How is he going to put up such a building on that lot ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have not completed the purchase of the site yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman told us that his ground was 66 feet by 105 feet and that he proposed to purclmse 72 feet, more so that the lot would be 105 x 138 feet, on which he is going to erect a building 200 feet long.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have two pieces of land which would make


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Public tenders will be asked and certainly the lowest tender will be accepted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But that is not the feature that interests us. We are asked to commence an expenditure that means ultimately a large sum of money. Suppose we were asked to justify that expenditure and we could give no more information than the hon. gentleman gives, I do not think we could justify it before the country. If the hon. gentleman's friends were on this side of this House they would be most unlikely to allow an item of that nature to go through without very much more information than the hon. gentleman has given us regarding it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, I verily believe that I have given all the information that the hon. gentleman should be entitled to have. We have bought the land, paid so much for it, we are going to erect a very fine building. There is a strong military spirit in that district and we want to give that military spirit a new impetus by giving the district a new drill hall.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do think that towns and cities in which large buildings of this

character are erected, should do something towards furnishing a portion of the land. 1 know that in several districts that has been done and in some instances the Minister of Public Works has insisted that they shall give a portion of the land. If one town or city does it, why not apply the same principle all round ? It is unfair to those towns and cities that have given either a free site or supplied a. portion of the cost to exempt others and ask parliament to put up all the money.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. minister say that no plans have been completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No plans are completed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And no estimates ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Except the office estimates.


Mr. HENDERSON.: As we are practically just beginning the estimates of the hon. Minister of Public Works, I think that in matters of this kind it would be just as well if the minister could tell us how he arrives at the amount of money he is going to expend on a particular building. I understood him to say that he knew nothing about this one except what he got from the officers of the department. It seems to me it is not the minister who runs the department but his officers. I wonder who is responsible. We generally think that the minister is responsible but he absolves himself from all responsibility for'a proposed expenditure of $100,000 and places it upon the officers of his department. The minister should have some definite, fixed principle in his mind as to what he is going to do at London. If he is going to put up a building costing $100,000, let him instruct his officers to draw specifications which will not exceed $100,000, including the land, and confine it to that. Then, we would know that the minister has some definite policy, but as far as I can see he has no policy at all in this matter. I do not know whether he intends to be guided by the political exigencies of the case or by what circumstances he intends to be guided. He does not know what the building is to cost. When he asks for a certain amount of money he says : It will cost somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000. That is very indefinite. If the minister has decided to spend $100,000 he should inform the committee that that is all he wants for this building, that it will be completed for that amount, that nothing more will be asked, and that he will assume the responsibility himself and not leave it for the officers of the department. Let him instruct his officers to put up a building that will not exceed that sum, including the land. I think the minister should give us some definite information as to the system ; he is pursuing. We are moving in the dark | because we know nothing about what the


Thomas Simpson Sproule: cost of this building will be when it is completed. Probably it will cost $150,000. The minister knows nothing about it and any information he has, he gets from his officers. If one of his officers thinks it would be a nice thing to put up a building costing $150,000 the minister will come down and ask for another estimate to supply the necessary funds. If we are to have responsible government the minister must assume the responsibility of telling this committee just exactly what money he is going to spend, and he must be held responsible for the expenditure that he instructs his officers to incur.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have instructed my officers in the way which has been suggested to me by my experienced friend. I thought I had made myself clearly understood. I told the committee that the probable cost would be between $80,000 and $100,000. My hopes are, that we will spend not more than $80,000, but at any rate we will not spend more than $100,000. I cannot say that I am an expert architect, but like every other Minister of Public Works, I must trust my officers. Of course I am fully responsible for what I say here.


Edward Gawler Prior: This is a sample of the ridiculous arrangement there is between the Militia Department and the Public Works Department with regal'd to militia buildings.
I do not blame the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) because the system is the same now as it was years ago. Time and again I have seen the folly of it. As it is now, the Minister of Militia makes up his mind to erect a military building and his architect gives a rough idea of what is wanted, then the Minister of Public Works proceeds to draw his plans and before they are half finished the Minister of Militia wants something else done. There is constant conflict between the two departments. To my mind the militia buildings should be built by the Militia Department, and then they would know exactly what they wanted. I suppose the Minister of Public Works wants to have all the buildings under his own control, but it would be far better and cheaper that each department should look after its own buildings. It is a perfect farce as it is now.


Mr. GILMOUR.: I hope nothing said here will deter the minister from carrying out his plans with regard to London. He may not have his plans fully formulated now, but I do not doubt but that in time he will.
1 would remind the House that since I have been a member there has not been a dollar voted to London except for this armoury, and I would point out that for militia purposes there is no better centre than is that city. There has not only not been a dollar expended in London during the time I have been a member of the House, but there has not been a dollar of government money

expended within twenty milts of London. I have no doubt that the minister will be able to formulate his plans and to know exactly what he is going to do, and I hope the House will not deter him from making the expenditure.


David Henderson: I want to know exactly what this building is going to cost. It is a simple matter for the minister to instruct his officers to draw plans of a building that will cost with the purchase of the land not more than $100,000, and then parliament will know what we are expected to vote in the future. It is a bad plan to allow this matter to remain open, to be dangled before the electors year after year so that if the political exigencies demand a further $30,000 or $40,000, the minister will have a free hand. Let the minister tell us exactly what the expenditure will be and then let him cut his gown according to the cloth.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tenders will be asked and I will be very much surprised if there is not a difference of perhaps $10,000 or $15,000 between them. How can I say what the exact cost will be. All I can say is that we will not spend more than $100,000.


David Henderson: 
Robert Laird Borden: There was some discussion in the early part of the session as to the accommodation for members of the House, and there was complaint of rooms having been taken from members of the opposition. The minister then said he thought he would be able to provide additional rooms in this building. Has that idea been abandoned, or is it intended to proceed with it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only room available is that occupied by the Committee on Agriculture in the tower, and that room will be arranged so that gentlemen on the other side will have the exclusive use of it when the committee does not sit. Next year I hope we will be in a position to have better accommodation. I know that members on both sides of the House have a large amount of work to do, and they have not the accommodation they should have. The chief architect has been instructed to prepare a plan which I will submit to hon. gentlemen opposite so that they may give their views on it. I think my hon. friend will find when the supplementary estimates come down, that I have not forgotten this matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do these improvements refer to the tower room only ?
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. That is only for this session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The session is getting pretty well over now. There was a suggestion to build on the vacant space outside the Chamber here, because we not only require additional rooms for the members but larger committee rooms.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The plan of the chief architect will give six additional rooms and a large room for committee meetings.


Edward Gawler Prior: The minister should ask for a vote for renovating the interior of the eastern and western blocks, because these buildings are in a disgraceful condition at the present time. Any man who compares the legislative buildings at Quebec, Toronto and Victoria with the buildings here, will say that the Ottawa buildings are no credit to Canada. The oilcloth is worn out and the passages are dirty, and want painting and plastering. I think the government should take the matter in hand at once.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Prior) is quite right. Every time I pass through the corridors I am ashamed of the condition they are in. But it is very hard at times to get money from parliament, and in making their estimates, the ministers have been afraid to ask parliament for the necessary amount. These buildings cost a vast amount of money to keep up. There is no man who will not be obliged, however careful he may be. to spend a large amount of money for that purpose. Up to 1893 or 1894 parliament used to vote larger sums of money ; but the late Minister of Finance cut down the expenditure, and the appropriation was starved out. When I took office I raised it a little, but w'as scarified a good deal for doing so ; and now, after having given my careful attention to this point, I say that the money placed at my disposal is not sufficient.
Pictou Public Building, $7,000.


Mr. ALCORN.: Will this complete the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this will complete it.


George Oscar Alcorn: I understand that it is for a post office and custom-house ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


George Oscar Alcorn: Are there any vaults in the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. In these buildings of small size, instead of building vaults, which cost a large amount of money, the policy of the department is to buy safes.


Uriah Wilson: Was the whole $13,000 spent last year, and will the $8,000 now voted complete the building ? I understand the $21,000 is for the building without the site ?

255C


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total cost of the building and the site Will be $25,000. The amount paid for the site was $4,600, which was voted three or four years ago. This vote will complete the building.
St. Thomas drill hall and armoury, $24,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the work ou this been commenced yet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract has been awarded about a month ago. I do not think the work has yet begun.


William Humphrey Bennett: From whom was the site purchased V
The- MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. I cannot really say. The site was purchased by the Militia Department for $S,00U. My department had nothing to do with the purchase of the site. It was placed at our disposal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much is the building to cost V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $45,000, including the site.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. minister know what the size of the site is V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The site is known as the Wilson property, being the south part of lot No. 3, concession 8, in the township of Yarmouth, at the corner of Wilson street and Chester street. The size of the lot is 660 feet on Wilson street and 198 feet on Chester street. It comprises thirty-two lots, including the street called East Avenue, and covers 8} acres.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the Wilson referred to Dr. Wilson, the defeated Liberal candidate in the Liberal interest there 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Upon my honour, I do not know.


Uriah Wilson: You do not know officially.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AYORKS.: I do not know officially or unofficially.
Sarnia public building, $30,000.


David Henderson: I would like to ask how this building is progressing, and how much money has been expended out of the vote of last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AYORKS.: I understand that the foundations are ready, and that the work is progressing favourably. The contract was awarded on September 17, 1900, at $62,000, to the lowest tenderer.


David Henderson: Could the minister tell ns the name of the contractor 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS G.   A.@: Proctor.


Uriah Wilson: 


David Henderson: Last year the hon. Postmaster General, who was then acting for the Minister of Public Works, informed the committee that the intention was to erect a lighthouse on the top of this building, the site being most favourable for that purpose, as the light would be seen for a long distance up Lake Huron, and also down the river. I would ask the minister if he has in contemplation the erection of that light ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that this is the first time I have heard of that lighthouse. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries will have to give me some more light on the question. If my hon. friend asks me for permission to erect a light on the roof of the building, I shall be glad to give it.


David Henderson: I hope the hon. minister is not going back on the good town of Sarnia after it has sent him so respectable a representative, and after promising $62,00 ) for the purpose of beautifying the town by putting up a handsome building opposite the city of Port Huron. He also promised that on the top of this very fine post office, an additional structure was to be erected which would attract attention to Sarnia, up the lake and down the river. I hope the hon. gentleman is not going back on his promises now. I thought the idea a most excellent one, and have no hesitation in saying that the hon. minister would be wise to give effect to it, even though the promise was made by another gentleman who was acting in his place.


William Humphrey Bennett: Three years ago the hon. gentleman removed the caretaker from the public building at Orillia, although there was no complaint against him. He assured the House that he had decided on a new line of conduct, and that was to dispense with the expense of caretakers in public buildings, and give the postmasters charge of the work of looking after the building for a nominal consideration. I presume the hon. gentleman will see that no caretaker is appointed for the building at Picton or Woodstock or Sarnia.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think I declared myself to the policy my hon. friend alludes to. I may have said that in as many cases as possible, our policy would be to give lodgings to the postmaster, and we are doing that at Picton now. But it would be out of the question to try and do that everywhere. We will have to be guided by the circumstance. The difficulty is that these public buildings are used for customs ns well as post offices, and the postmaster would not always like to live in a couple of small rooms which might be sufficient for the caretaker.


William Humphrey Bennett: But the postmaster did not live in the building at all at Orillia,

from which the hon. gentleman removed the caretaker.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That Is an old case. Let us not reopen old sores.


David Henderson: I think this is a very opportune time to consider the whole question of the erection of public buildings throughout the country. For several years I have brought to the attention of the committee a system under which the country could be provided with suitable buildings for post offices in the smaller towns. I have the honour of representing a county which does not possess a large town ; and in which, not having an incorporated tiown or village of more than fifteen hundred or eighteen hundred population, the Minister of Public Works is not likely to give a public building of any kind. But what I would suggest to the minister is that instead of expending some $30,000 in the construction of public buildings in a county town, that money should be divided so as to allow $6,000 for a building in each town or village of from 1.500 to 1,800 inhabitants. It is well known that you can purchase a site for about $1,000 and have $5,000 left with which to erect a substantial brick building, that will give all the accommodation necessary for a post office in a village or town from 1,500 to 2,000 population. The department will then be able to supply room sufficiently large for the post office so as to prevent the overcrowding which now takes place every morning and evening at the distribution of the mails.
Last year I drew the attention of the Postmaster General, who was representing the Minister of Fublic Works then in Paris, to this plan, and he seemed to treat it with a great deal of favour. Not only was it received with favour by him. but also by the then hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Landerkin), the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), and other hon. members.
These buildings will be a great improvement on the improvised post offices now in use. both as regards the security of the mails and the accommodation to the public.
The minister told us that lie did not construct vaults in public buildings because it was cheaper to purchase safes. I do not know whether he got that advice from his officers, but I feel confident that a vault can be constructed cheaper than a safe can be purchased. A safe would be of very little value, which cost less than $400 or $500, and a good vault can be constructed at less than that. Apart from that, there would be in these buildings abundance of room for a residence for a postmaster.
I know something of the character of a building that can be put up for $5,000.
You can erect for that amount a substantial brick building large enough for the accommodation of any postmaster, and also for those having business with the post office. The postmaster will be the caretaker of the building, or if he did not choose to reside in it, he could place it in the hands of his deputy or rent it to some other responsible person who could take care of it. And the government would be saved entirely the expense of a caretaker. More than that, the government would save the rent which they now pay. When money can be got at 2J per cent, a saving would be effected every year, even if we did increase the national debt a certain extent.
I think this is an opportune time to draw attention to this matter, and I hope that my statement will not be made in vain. Last year, the acting minister assured me that the matter was worthy of consideration, and promised to look into it. I would like the minister to take a note of this matter and see if he cannot come to the rescue of such counties as Halton and others that have no public buildings and that cannot hope, under present circumstances, to have a building for twenty-five years, because they have no towns sufficiently large to justify an expenditure of from $25,000 to $40,000. It would only be dividing the moneys of the country fairly and distributing them through the different counties. I am sure the scheme is one that would commend itself to the minister. I fail to see any other plan by which the counties to which I have referred can receive an expenditure except that which I have marked out. Therefore, I trust that the hon. minister will bear it in mind, ana that when he comes down with his estimates next year he will have, if not the county of Halton-though I hope it will be Halton-some county in whose case he will undertake an expenditure of this kind, to show how the money can be spent so as to give additional accommodation to people and save the money of the Dominion.


Mr. HOLMES.: I had the pleasure of endorsing the plan of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson! last year, and I am glad to see that he is consistent in advocating it now. It seems to me that this is a sound and feasible plan for establishing post offices in .the smaller towns. I hope that the ideas that he has advanced will lie taken up by the other hon. gentlemen opposite, because I am going to ti'y to prevail upon the Minister of Public Works to locate a post office in the town of Clinton. The plan of the hon. gentleman from Halton seems to me a good one, and one that might be followed with profit to the Dominion, because the construction of a public building stimulates a spirit of emulation that, perhaps, could not he stimulated in any other way. I do not wish to take up

time at this hour of the night, but I am sure that the Minister of Public Works will give this plan the consideration to which it is entitled. There are small towns of from 2,500 to 4,000 inhabitants that would be well satisfied with a jmblic building costing not more than $5,000, which would accommodate not only the post-office, but also the customhouse, if one is located in the town.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: If the Minister of Public Works is going to inaugurate a plan of this kind, of course, he is not going to forget West Elgin. There are four towns in that constituency similarly situated to those that have been spoken of, and that are deserving ,of his consideration. There is the town of Ridge-town, with about three or four thousand inhabitants. I do not know if there is a public building there or not, but I am satisfied that if a public building were put up there it would be greatly appreciated. West Lome, Rodney, Highgate, Shedden and Dutton are other prosperous villages on the Michigan Central Railway. These buildings could not only contain the post office, but an excellent reading-room could be established in each, where the young people could meet and


An hon. MEMBER.: Dance.


Jabel Robinson: A building of that kind would make the people feel an interest in the government. A reading-room, above all things, should be established, and the postmaster could see that it was properly kept, and the right kind of literature was there. The young people could spend their evenings there. The great trouble of the young people in our villages is that, excejn the store, to say nothing of the tavern, they have no place to spend their evening. This want would be supplied if a building of this kind were erected. If you are going to establish a building of that kind, I hope you will not forget West Elgin.


William Ross: I wish to support the proposition of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), and endorse what has been said by the hon. member for West Huron (Mr. Holmes). I think the plan is a good one, and oue that could be made feasible. Towns of from fifteen hundred to two thousand inhabitants would greatly appreciate a public building such as one that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Halton, even if it did not cost $6,000, even , if it cost only $3,000. It would enable our post offices to be kept in proper order. As it is now, in many towns, the post office is a disgrace to the country. I am quite in sympathy with the proposal, and ask the Minister of Public Works to take note of it. Perhaps some day I shall appeal to him privately on this particular line. While speaking of this matter, I would like to say that I agree with the hon. member for


Robert Holmes: Halton that vaults are better for these buildings than safes. The idea is to keep the public records safe from fire rather than from burglars, and vaults are safer and can be built more cheaply. In buildings costing from $3,000 to $5,000, you can get a verv good vault for $300. You can buy the vault doors for $150, and the mason work will not cost more than $150-built solid from the bottom, with an arched top. I have one in my own building, which serves the purpose very well. We know that it is fireproof and we feel safe.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hear a great deal about public buildings. There are few members of parliament who do not give me the pleasure of informing me of the need of public buildings in their constituencies. The great difficulty is that when we come to the House to ask for money, there are pretty large sums


An hon. MEMBER.: Increase the public debt.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Speaking for myself, I sympathize with the idea that has been expressed. I think we should have a good many public buildings- not too expensive, but decent small public buildings. There is this difficulty, however -that when you have erected a public building you have not done everything. It costs money to keep it up, repairs, lighting, heating-all these cost money. Something has been said as to vaults and safes. AA'e pay for a safe, if I remember aright, about $250, and we cannot possibly build a good vault for less than $500 or $600. The door alone will cost about $250. I grant that a vault, in some ways, is better, but it takes more room. If you have to take for a small public building the space necessary for a vault, it takes off a considerable portion of the space that might be used for ordinary purposes. The reason why we have bought the safes is because they will take less room. I was asked the question by my hon. friend as to the total cost of the public works at Sarnia. The figures that have been placed before me are $83,375.19.


George Oscar Alcorn: Do I correctly understand the minister to say that the postmaster was to reside in the building at Picton, and also the collector of customs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not both of them, the postmaster will reside there.


George Oscar Alcorn: Is the postmaster the defeated candidate in the last election ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. I think all will admit that he was a capable man when he was on this side of the House, and that he will be a very good postmaster.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think in this connection the House should emphasize its con-

demnation of the Minister of Public Works. I will mention again a ease that I have already referred to. In the town of Orillia a man was caretaker of that public building, and although there was no charge against him, and no investigation, the Minister of Public Works threw him out by the crop of the neck, and assured me and assured the House solemnly that the caretaker should be in the future the postmaster. Now, the minister has never kept his word in that respect, because he has installed a new caretaker. Here the minister finds that a political hack is going to be postmaster in that place-because that is what the late independent member was, a political hack-but instead of being the caretaker of that building, I am bound to say that we will see this gentleman will have a comfortable residence. It is well for the people to know that the Minister of Public Works is always ready to yield to party exigencies.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not very well remember the facts that took place two years ago.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the minister has laid down a principle in his own mind, surely he should have respect for it. But I can recall this fact to his mind. I have forgotten exactly where the town was, but it was somewhere in Ontario, where the minister did exactly the same thing. Without investigation and without charge, without the common decency of inquiring into the case, he put a man out of his position, and within a few mouths after installed a new man. If my recollection serves me right it was in Napanee.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no use in employing strong words in discussing this question, 1 will not get mad at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: I should not either. But I wanted to show that in the town of Orillia the minister was a party to the disgraceful act of turning out a man without giving him an investigation, when there was no charge against him, and then solemnly pledging his word, when he was acting on the principle of saving public expense, and almost before he had time to turn round he had installed another man in the position. Let it be understood by the country, because in that part of the country it is well understood, that the Minister of Public Works is obedient to every political exigency. I admire the Minister of Public Works in that he is not hypocritical about it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not believe I have ever broken my word willingly. I have a good many failings, but I do not believe any man in parliament can tell me that I have broken my word. I do not remember the circumstances clearly, but I think I dispensed with SI
the services of a gentleman in Orillia who was caretaker. The caretaker of a public building is a temporary employee that any minister can dispense with without any inquiry. I believe his salary was $15 a month. I replaced him by the postmaster. Something happened, I do not rememher what, the postmaster's services were dispensed with, and then a caretaker was appointed. As to my having erected to the dignity of a principle the policy that a caretaker should always be postmaster. I never was guilty of that, though I have said, and still say, that it would be better as often as possible that the postmaster should act as caretaker.


David Henderson: I am grateful to the minister for the kind manner in which he listened to the appeal which I made to him, also to the other hon. gentlemen who spoke in support of the plan I suggested. Now, I had hoped that the minister would give us some assurance that he would at any rate try an experiment along the line I indicated. The minister told us that nearly every county had put in applications for public buildings, but he seemed to drift away from the subject, and did not touch the salient point. What we want to know is whether he is going to give this scheme his consideration, whether we may expect that the counties which have not large towns are to receive the same favour as the counties which have large towns.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is trying to draw me out on dangerous ground. The Minister of Finance is by my side, and if I were to make promises to-night, I would have a hard time to-morrow. Much has been said about my bossing the whole thing, unfortunately it is not the case. .1 would not dare to make any promises when the Minister of Finance is so near me.


David Henderson: I think the Minister of Finance had last year a surplus of $8,000,000. I think there would be no difficulty at all in drawing upon him for a small portion of that surplus.
The MINISTER ofr FINANCE. I did think we had a very satisfactory surplus last year, but after listening to my hon. friend opposite, it seemed the whole thing was a delusion, and there was no surplus at all.


David Henderson: That seems to be the opinion of the Minister of Public Works also.
Toronto Dominion Buildings-Improvements, renewals, repairs, &c., $4,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister, I hope, is not going to turn a deaf ear to the appeals that have been made to him again and again to complete the drill hall.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is not the time to discuss this ques-



tion. The time will be when the supplementary estimates come up.
Mr. CLARIvE. If the minister will undertake to say that there will be an item for the completion of the drill hall in the supplementary estimates, we will not discuss it now. We have made no objections at all to the improvements at London and St. Thomas. I would like to remind the committee that the city of Toronto provided a site for the new drill hall, which cost about $150,000, and it is not unreasonable after eight or ten years, to ask the government to complete that drill hall. Accommodation is lacking there for the artillery and cavalry branches of the service. Representations have been made to the hon. Minister of Militia (Hon. Mr. Borden, King's), and to the Minister of Public Works as to the necessity of completing that building. I am sure it is not unreasonable to draw his attention to the fact that this accommodation is urgently required and should be provided,. He says that in the supplementary estimates a sum will be provided to complete the drill hall. We will take his word for it. I believe that if the minister gives his word he will carry it out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Matters of this kind belong io the Department of Militia and Defence. I am only a builder. If the Department of Militia and Defence asks me to erect an armoury in Toronto, I shall do so with the greatest of pleasure.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We have a site and the armoury is almost completed. What we have asked the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence to do is to complete the building that was contemplated in the first place. Representations have been made time and again by deputations from the military authorities asking to have this building completed and to provide necessary accommodation for the cavalry and artillery branches. The Department of Militia are quite anxious to have this building completed and I think we have a special claim, in view of the fact that we provided the site for the armoury at a cost of between $140,000 and $150,000. I think it is not unreasonable to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works to give us some assurance that when the supplementary estimates come down there will be an item in those estimates to complete that building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Unfortunately, I am not in, a position to give that assurance.


Byron Moffatt Britton: We are all wondering if the hon. gentleman, who is making this piteous appeal


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not piteous at all.


Byron Moffatt Britton: -Certainly a strong appeal, is the same gentleman who is so often ob-Mr. TARTE.
jectiug to the lavish expenditure of this government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have never objected to my knowledge to any expenditure that is guaranteed by the government to any municipality, if that municipality carried out its part of the bargain by supplying a site. In this case the municipality provided a site approved of by the military authorities, a site costing between $140,000 and $150,000. The building contemplated provided quarters for the military and cavalry. What we are asking the government to do is to complete the building. Surely, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Britton), who represents a military city, will not say that it is an unreasonable request. We are not making a piteous appeal at all. We are asking the government to fulfil its part of the contract.


Mr. THOMPSON.: It seems to me that the remarks of the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) are quite in order. Toronto is the finest garrison city we have in Canada, it should have sufficient accommodation supplied for its needs, and I hope it will be supplied.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We are waiting to hear from the hon. Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not in a position to give any assurance. The matter does not properly belong to me, but my hon. friend may rest assured that if the Department of Militia and Defence makes up its mind that it is necessary to erect a building there and if parliament gives me the money, I will erect the building all right.


Robert Laird Borden: In ether words, if the government decide to erect the building it will be built.
Windsor drill hall, $50,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Would the hon. Minister of Public Works tell me from whom the site was purchased for the Windsor drill hall, and what was the amount paid for it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The site has been given free by the municipality.


Uriah Wilson: What will the building cost, completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will cost, completed, $66,609.78.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is another illustration of what I spoke of early in the evening. The hon. minister tells us that Windsor has given this site free. When we come to St. Thomas, a place of about a similar size, we pay $8,000 for a site, and at London we purchase a very small site for $11,000. I think the minister should adopt some principle that would be fair to all. If one

city or town gives a site another city should be expected to do the same, or to give a portion of it. I do not think it is right to compel the city of Toronto, or Windsor, to give a site when you go to London and spend every dollar that is necessary to provide a site.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think what is liapjjening now has happened for the last fifty years. There are towns and cities that have given sites, and there are other places whieh have not given sites. It is quite impossible to have a definite policy. In other words, the government cannot say that if sites are not given we will not erect public buildings, because there are towns and cities where a site would cost too much. There are other localities where sites can be bought more cheaply and they are given free. There are localities that are so anxious to have public buildings that they give sites. 1 need not say that we are always glad when these sites are given free, but I cannot pledge myself never to buy any sites. No minister would do it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can tell the hon. minister that his predecessor, Sir Hector Lange-vin, made it a rule generally, to insist upon the town, or city, in which the building was to be erected, giving a site, or a portion of the cost of it. I do not think it would be proper in all cases to compel them to do so, because there are some cases where it would cost a great deal. But, I still hold that it is not fair to one town or city to make it pay every dollar that goes into the site while in other places the government pays for both site and building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is mistaken as to what was done in Sir Hector Langevin's time. The very same policy was pursued then that is followed now. In some cases sites were given free, but not usually.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have been a member of this House a great deal longer than the hon. Minister of Public Works and I think my memory is quite as good as his is. I stand by what I have said. When we would apply to Sir Hector Langevin for money for a public building almost his first question would be : How much is the place going to give ? That was the general rule which he followed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do the same thing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In regard to public buildings it was the same. The hon. gentleman has spoken from memory, and I think my memory is quite as good as his on this subject.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sure that if the policy of the government is to buy sites in some 81J
places and erect buildings when municipalities are sufficiently liberal to vote sums to provide a site, the least the government can be expected to do is to complete the building that is contemplated to be erected on that site.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) has been on that side for such a length of time that he should have used the strong, able arguments he is using to-night. In former days these arguments did not carry weight. Perhaps they will carry more weight with me. All the same during the last twelve or fifteen years my hon. friend and his friends from Toronto have been vainly insisting upon having that armoury completed. Perhaps it may be better now. We may have better times in Toronto now.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This is not the first site that the city of Toronto has provided the Militia Department for militia purposes. When the original drill shed was found to be inconvenient the city provided a site in the rear of the city hall. That became too small. The armoury did not provide sufficient accommodation. They bought this new site at the suggestion of the militia authorities, and the plans were prepared for the construction of the building. In view of the fact that the municipality went to that large expense, we are not asking anything unreasonable from the Minister of Public Works when we ask to have provided the additional accommodation required for the garrison.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will the full cost of this building be ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $66,000 in round figures. This vote is to complete.
Woodstock public building, $6,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What stage is this building in ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not finished, but it is very well advanced. The total cost will be $54,000, including site.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the contract price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contract price for the bare building was $31,790. The government bought the site.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What did it cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 

Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, House adjourned at 12.50 a.m. Wednesday.



Wednesday, April 3, 1901.