NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION-PURCHASE OF LANDS AT QUEBEC.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 219) respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec. He said :	This Bill is introduced in consequence of the resolution adopted by the National Battlefields Commission which has been communicated to me as follows :
At a meeting of the National Battlefields Commission, held on the 16th instant, the following resolution was adopted:
Resolved, whereas the great work entailed in the .tercentenary celebration of the founding of Quebec has absorbed all the time of the National Battlefields Commission; whereas it is most expedient that the commission should be empowered to secure without undue delay certain properties belonging to private parties and which will be required for the Battlefield park j whereas section 10 of the Aot constituting the commission requires the authority of parliament before any land or immovable property is purchased or acquired by the commission; whereas delay means the enhancing in value of many of the said properties which might at present be obtained at a much lower figure than would be likely later; the National Battlefields Commission urgently recommends that the Act respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec be amended so as to empower the commission, subject to the previous authority of the Governor in Council, to acquire if necessary, any or all of the properties specified in a memorandum sent to the Governor General in Council on the fifteenth day of July instant such properties as are not mentioned in the said memorandum to remain subject to clause 10 of the said Act.

[Stage Direction]
Chairman, National Battlefields Commission.
Section 10, which is here referred to, reads as follows :
No land or immovable property shall be purchased or acquired by the commission except with the previous authority of parliament.
This law relates not merely to the money voted by parliament bnt to ail other moneys which come into the hands of the commission ; none of these moneys may be used for tlie purchase of lands except with the previous authority of parliament. As the imblic know?, large sums have been subscribed to the Battlefields Commission, and it is expeceted that the Prince of Wales will hand over the money to the commission with some statement made to him of the property which it is intended immediately to acquire for the purpose of creating a Battlefields park. I have a plan, here which * Mr. FIELDING.
I will place in the hands of hon. gentlemen on the other side, showing the property which it is intended to acquire. This property is described in the following statement prepared by Mr. E. G. Meredith, notary public .
1.	A tract of land on the north side of the Ste. Foye road, belonging to the Heirs Touir-angeau and others. (Site of the battle of Ste. Foye,-a part of which surrounds the lot of land upon which is erected a monument to the memory of General Levis and General Murray-' Monument des braves ') and which is bounded as follows, v.iz.:
In front to the south by the -Ste. Foye road, in rear to the north, by the brow of the hill (Cime du Cap)-on one side towards the east by lot number twenty-five,-belonging to I. A. Fortin, .and on the other side towards the west by lot number twenty-eight, belonging to the representatives of the late J. W. Duns-eomb.
Which said tract of land was formerly known and distinguished as lot number twenty-six (26) upon the official cadastral plan for the Banlieue,, parish of Notre Dame de Quebec, but which lot has since been subdivided-and the said tract of land is now known and distinguished by different numbers, all of which are subdivisions of the said original lot number twenty-six-together with and including .all or any part of the said original lot-number twenty-six, as the same is now laid put and shown on the plan of the subdivision of the said lot number twenty-six as streets or avenues, and including all or any dwelling houses or other buildings of any kind erected on the said tract of land.
2.	A strip of . land on the south side of the said Ste. Foye road, to be taken off the front or northerly end of lots numbers sixty-eight <68), seventy-five (75) and seventy-six (76), and seventy-nine (79) on the cadastral plan for the said Banilieue, parish of Notre Dame de Quebec, the said strip of land to be of such a depth as, when the same is added to the present width of the said Ste. Foye road, will make the said road .seventy-five feet wide an that locality.
3.	A strip of land on the east side of the Belvedere road, to be taken off the west side of the said lot number sixty-eight (68) above mentioned, and off the front or west end of lots numbers sixty-nine (69), seventy (70), seventy-one (71), seventy-two (72) and seventy-three (73) on the cadastral plan for the said Banlieue, parish of Notre Dame de Quebec, the said strip of land to .be of such a depth as, when the same is added .to the present width of the said Belvedere road, will make the said .road seventy-five feet .wide from one end of the same to the other.
4.	A strip of land on the north side of the St. Louis road (starting from the junction of the said Belvedere road and the said the St. Louis road and running in a westerly direction) to he taken off the south side cf lot number two hundred and twenty six (226)- the fropt or south end of lot number two hundred and twenty (220)-and about one third of the whole frontage or south end of lot number two hundred and eighteen (218) upon the cadastral plan for the parish of St. Coiomba de Sillery. The said strip of land to be of such a depth as, when the same is added

to the present width of the said St. Louis road, wil-l make the said road seventy-five feet wide in that locality,-with any houses or buildings to be found on the said strip of land.
5.	A strip of land on the west side of ' Gil-mour's Hill' (which leads from the St. Louis road to ' Wolfe's Cove ') starting from the junction of said ' Gilmour's Hill ' with the said St. Louis road and running in a southerly and southeasterly direction as far as the brow of the hill (Cime du Cap)-the said strip of land to be taken off the easterly side of lots numbers two hundred and fourteen (211)-two hundred and seventeen (217) and two hundred and twenty-eight (228) upon the cadastral plan for the said parish of St. Co-lomba de Sillery. The said strip of land to be of such a depth as, when the same is added to the present width of ' Gilmour's Hill,' will make the said hill seventy-five feet wide in that locality, together with any houses or other buildings erected on the said strip of land.
6.	A strip of land seventy-five feet in width by the whole length of the ' Marchmont property ' now the * Merici Convent,' on the west side' of the Plains of Abraham,-which was formerly distinguished as lot number two hundred and twenty-seven (227) _ upon the cadastral plan for the said parish of St. Colomba de Sillery but which is now subdivided into numerous lots,-the said strip of land to be taken as close as may be found to be practicable to the brow of the cliff (Cime du Cap)-and also the whole of the irregular tract of land which will lie between the said strip of land when laid out and the said brow of the hill or Cime du Cap.
7.	A tract of land comprising several lots of land with houses and other buildings erected thereon in the neighbourhood of * Wolfe's Monument,' to the east of the Plains of Abraham, which is bounded as follows:-In front towards the north by St. Louis street or Grande Allee, in rear towards the south by Monument street (on which street Wolfe's monument is erected), on one side towards the east by lot number one hundred and fifty-three and on the other side towards the west by the Plains of Abraham with the streets intersecting or adjoining same namely:- Wolfe street and Monument street, the said tract of land comprising the lots numbers one hundred and fifty-two, one hundred and fifty-four, one hundred and fifty-five, one hundred and fifty-six, one hundred and sixty-one, one hundred and sixty-one A, one hundred and sixty-one B, one hundred and sixty-two, one hundred and sixty-three, one hundred and sixty-three A, one hundred and sixty-three B, undone hundred and sixty-four, (152, 154, 155, 156, 161, 161A, 161B, 162, 163, 163A, 163B and 164) on the cadastral plan for the Banlieue parish of Notre Dame de Quebec.
8.	A piece of land forming the southerly part of lot number four thousand and forty-one (4441) on the cadastral plan for Montcalm ward of the city of Quebec, containing from five thousand to' eight thousand feet in superficies, and a piece of land forming the southerly and southwesterly part of lot number foiir thousand four hundred and forty-two (4442) on the said cadastral plan containing from twelve thousand to fifteen thousand feet in superficies, (said properties belonging to the
Ladies Protestant Home of Quebec and the heirs Lampson respectively).
9.	The lot of land originally hearing the number four thousand four hundred and forty (4440) on the cadastral plan for Montcalm ward of the city of Quebec, which is now subdivided into numerous lots belonging to the Seminary of Quebec and commonly called ' the Seminary farm,' with the house and other buildings thereon erected.
10.	A small piece of land form ing the south east corner of the property of the church of England Female Orphan Asylum (which adjoins the said seminary farm.
The only objection which I can see ter this Bill at the present time is that no maximum purchase price is fixed. I pointed. that out In Quebec, and I asked if it were not possible to fix a maximum price, and I received this telegram from His Excellency :
Description of property battlefields mailed yesterday, terms of sales not yet arranged as owners of scheduled property advancing price daily. Think commission should be empowered to use moneys already subscribed for purchase.
The Bill, therefore, which I introduced is as follows :
An Act Respecting the National Battlefields at Quebec.
Whereas the National Battlefields Commission has requested that it he empowered to purchase, acquire and hold the lands or immovable property hereinafter referred to, and'it is expedient to comply with such request: therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows :-[DOT]
1. The National Battlefields Commission may subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, purchase, acquire and hold the lands and immovable property set forth and described in the schedule to this Act.
Then follows the schedule which I have read.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: When the Act now
proposed to be amended came before parliament this session, objection was taken by several hon. gentlemen to the provisions of section 5 which read :
The commission may purchase, acquire and hold the lands or immovable property in the city of Quebec, or in the vicinity thereof, where the great battles were fought, or which were occupied by the various commands of the respective armies upon the battlefields.
The section is very indefinite as to the extent of lands proposed to be purchased, and it seems to confer upon the commission a very wide power which might commit the people of this country to an enormous expenditure, the extent of which cannot be foretold. There was very little information before the House at the time and by reason of the paucity of information clause 10 to which the Prime Minister has just called attention was inserted, and It reads :



OOMMOXS

[Stage Direction]
No lands or immovable property shall be purchased or acquired by the commission except with the previous authority of parliament, and no expenditure shall be made by the commission until it has been approved by parliament.
It is beyond question that the measure as introduced would have involved a very protracted debate and would have encountered very strong opposition if it had not been for the insertion of a provision of that kind. I think it was I who suggested that provision, but I did not suggest it exactly in that form. The amendment which the Prime Minister inserted in the Bill in accordance with my suggestion went beyond the scope of what I proposed. What I recollect to have proposed on that occasion was that no moneys voted by this parliament should be expended for any such purpose unless with the previous approval of parliament. This parliament voted the sum of $300,000 by section 8 of the Act to be paid over to the commission, and by section 10 it was provided that the whole or a portion of that amount might be devoted to the purposes of the celebration which is to take place during the coming week. But apart from the moneys which were to be derived by the commission from the parliament of Canada there were other moneys, the anticipated origin of which is set forth in section 7. The commission was authorized to receive moneys contributed not only by this parliament but by the different legislatures of the provinces, or by any municipal or other body, or by any private individual for the purposes of the Act. So far as the money voted by this parliament is concerned it might be and no doubt was a very proper thing to insert the provision which is embodied in section 10, but In as much as a very large amount of the moneys now available to the commission have been derived, not from the vote of this parliament but from other sources, I am inclined to think parliament might intrust to the Governor in Council the supervision of the expenditure of these moneys for the purposes mentioned in the Act, now proposed by the Prime Minister. Possibly a word or two in amendment of the Act, as just, now introduced, might be inserted. So far as I am personally concerned I would not insist very much on that.- It may be said of course that information should be given to parliament with regard to the price proposed to be paid, and I would think that the commission would do well n it to be in too great haste if such haste should involve the payment of any exorbitant sum for any portion of this land. It will be remembered by hon. gentlemen that section G of the statute confers upon the commission all the powers of expropriation with which any railway company is invested under the Railway Act for the purposes of its undertaking. In that provision the commission has a very effective safeguard against the payment of any exorbit-
Robert Laird Borden: ant price, and bearing that in mind and also that the proposed purchase is to be subject to the approval and supervision of the Governor in Council, for my part I do not see any objection to the legislation which the Prime Minister proposes.


Mr. FOWLER.: It seems to me that under the legislation which was passed with regard to these national battlefields, the commission entered upon a campaign of money collection, and that there was an agreement or contract entered into between the subscribers to that fund and the commission or this parliament, that the conditions under which the commission was appointed and the duties prescribed for them and the power given them, were to be maintained. It was under these conditions the subscriptions were made. Now these conditions are proposed to be removed, and proposed to be removed at this, the last day of the session when there is no time to consider these matters. But there is a plea of urgency. Urgency is a plea that has been made to do service on many occasions. Where can possibly be the urgency ? The people who own these lands on the Plains of Abraham have known for many months that there was a proposition to acquire them for a national park, and why has it become so suddenly urgent that these lands should be acquired by the commission ? What has caused the price to go up so rapidly just at this juncture? I cannot see anything in that plea at all. I do not see any sufficient reason put forward wThy the tacit contract or agreement between this parliament and the gentlemen and legislatures who have subscribed to this fund, should be violated. Let this national commission take options upon this property. Parliament will meet soon again, a new parliament, it is true, but parliament will meet in the course of a very few months before the new year. Let the commission take four or five months option upon this property, and then parliament will be in a position to deal with it.
I do not see any necessity for this Bill, and I must protest against it.


Mr. FOSTER.: Is it correct to say that the grant that has been made by parliament of $300,000 is none of it available for the purchase of this land ? Has all that land been taken by the commission ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The greater part of the land has already been appropriated by the commission, and I am told the whole of it will be subscribed.


George Eulas Foster: Not for the purchase of land ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not for the purchase of land. If my hon. friend will refer to the discussion which took place in this House at the time of the second reading of the Bill he will see that there was a vigorous insistence that all moneys, both

moneys voted by parliament and moneys coming from other sources, should be subject to the control of parliament. This was particularly in view of the possible purchase of the Ross rifle factory. The Ross rifle factory is not included in the present grant of land.


George Eulas Foster: I understood the Prime Minister to say that none of the Ross rifle property is included.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is correct.


Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM.: Without attempting to debate this question, I merely wish to enter my protest against the passage of this Bill at this late hour of the session.


Mr. BARR.: As one that voted against this enormous grant, I must enter my protest against this proposition in the last hours of the session. I think we might well afford to wait until parliament meets again.


Mr. LENNOX.: As I understand the matter, when we did put this saving clause in the last Act, section 10, I think, people would understand that before we disposed of the money we would thoroughly investigate the circumstances. I think that duty is cast upon us, and I regret that at this time of the session the right hon. gentleman lias brought this matter up. I do not blame the administration for not having brought it up sooner, because I presume they could not bring it up until about this time. In the meantime, I think we are not right in disposing of this money that the people have contributed, without knowing more of the circumstances than we do. The Prime Minister says that we are not by this attempting to purchase the Ross rifle property. That is true, but we are committing ourselves to a scheme which will involve in the end the purchase of that factory. Whilst I realize that we have uo time to discuss the matter now, if I had control of the situation I would not sanction the proposal of this money at the present time. So far as I am concerned. I throw upon the government the entire onus of seeing that what is right is done in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. LANCASTER.: I think the Prime Minister should explain where the urgency for this Bill exists. It may be necessary to do, it at some time, but I do not see any present necessity. Why won't it do just as well four or five months from now ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have stated that the only authority we have is a resolution of the Battlefields Commission, which pleads urgency for this measure.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The right hon. gentleman did not give any reasons, even today, to show necessity. Why cannot a better bargain be made in the fall of the year or next spring when parliament will be in session? Generally speaking, in a hasty bargain the country gets the worst of it and the other fellow gets the best of it. Although I understand the commission as saying that it is necessary, I take that to mean that it is going to be in the near future. But surely it is not absolutely vital that it shall be done next week? The land is not going to run away, the affairs of the country will still be going on and I do. not see any reason for doing it now without the information which we ought to have. It is a matter which might be thoroughly investigated, and unless there is some great urgency I am bound to say that I must protest against the Bill passing.


John Barr: There does not seem to. be any reason why we should accept the ipse dixit of the commission or that this parliament cannot perform its duties without a direction from the commission. We must hold ourselves responsible for the way the money is used, for the trust which is given to us by those who subscribed this money.


George Eulas Foster: As I understand it, this Act is absolutely independent of and makes no change in the National Battlefields Act as we passed it?


Wilfrid Laurier: With this exception only nothing is changed.


George Eulas Foster: It makes no change in any other particular ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


George Eulas Foster: This is an Act which stands entirely by itself for this one purpose and no other?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is right.


George Eulas Foster: The Governor in Council is authorized to approve of the purchase and holding of this land and no other?


Wilfrid Laurier: No other.


George Eulas Foster: Then the Bill remains to apply to all other purchases that are made and none of these purchases can be consummated without coming to parliament and asking the assent of parliament thereto? What is the extent of the land that is being purchased ? There are rings and edges around the other part of the land. I could not tell from that plan which the right hon. gentleman has shown us what already belongs to the government. I take it as a matter of fact that the waste land of the government will become part of the National Battlefields. I cannot tell anything from that plan as to whether, when this purchase is made to go with what the government owns and which is not occupied by the rifle factory, we will have any more

than eight or ten lumps of land scattered here and there, or whether it is to help to fill out or complete a portion of land which lies altogether and becomes a connected part. If we are just to have patches of land here and there throughout the city and call that a park it does not amount to much.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I had the plan I could show my hon. friend what we propose to purchase.


Mr. BLAIN.: I would like to say that there is a feeling abroad that there will be a great deal of extravagance in connection with this undertaking. Now, when the government is proposing to make changes, giving wider and greater power to the commission it is important that the government should point out that this is likely to run into an enormous expenditure. For myself I think it would be better if the government would halt a little until parliament sees how these men will expend the money and the amount of caution they will exercise in the expenditure of it before they are given wider powers. I do not wish to enter any very strong protest, but I do say that it is unfortunate that the government, at this very late hour, should introduce this legislation, and I hope the government will direct the attention of these gentlemen to the fact that they have great powers and that they must exercise great caution or they may call upon parliament to appropriate a larger amount than the people are willing to pay.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it will be doing my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) no injustice to say I do not believe he has any undue confidence in this government; I cannot understand him suggesting that we should make a recommendation to a commission, which, in his opinion, ought to be composed of far better men than we are. One member of the commission is Mr. Gar-neau. Perhaps my hon. friend does not know Mr. Garneau. He is the mayor of Quebec. The next commissioner is Senator Sir George Drummond, in whom my hon. friend must have confidence. The next member of the commission is Colonel Denison, and I think my hon. friend must also have confidence in Colonel Denison.
Mr. FOSTER, He will keep order.


Wilfrid Laurier: The fourth commissioner is Mr. Walker, of the Bank of Commerce.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: He will hold the purse strings.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think he can be trusted. The next commissioner is Mr. Turgeon, and if Mr. Turgeon is inclined to be, as we are supposed to be, extravagant, he will be checked by the other members of the commission; so that I


George Eulas Foster: think my hon. friend's opinions are utterly uncalled for.


Mr. HENDERSON.: While we may have the utmost confidence in these men, I must say that recently they have got into very bad company.


George Eulas Foster: When we began about this national battlefield the idea seemed to be generally approved of, and we thought that this commission would be able to look over the whole matter, arrive at its plans, and submit to parliament a proposal as to what it intended to do, so that we would know just exactly what was meant by the National Battlefields park. We thought we would know how much ground we were going to have and how it was proposed to lay it out and beautify it, and that an estimate of the whole cost would be given. What I object to, and I think it is a valid objection, is that you buy a little piece here and a little piece there and a little in another place, and there is absolutely no general plan at all as to what we are going to have. No general information is given to ns as to what the scheme will be when it is all thought out. I would like to have seen the commissioners propose their plan, and then let that plan be submitted for the information of the House. As I understand it, the whole of the Seminary property is to be bought by them. I cannot see why it is necessary to buy the whole block of Seminary land. What the commissioners seem to be aiming at is to get certain broad driveways that will be good for a park, but broad driveways will also be good for the city of Quebec and the locality. What you are really doing is constituting a system of broadened avenues for the city of Quebec, just as your Improvement Commission in Ottawa has splendid driveways here. Whether it be a necessary part of the National Battlefields plan to improve the driveways of the city of Quebec is a question, unless we knew that the park itself was adjacent to these driveways, and it does not appear that it is. The plan which the Prime Minister has given us to-day does not delimit the ground that we will own, but, as it looks from that plan, here is a block owned by us there, there is a portion that we do not own and there is another little piece that we do own, and so it is cut up in that way. It seems to be the purpose of the commission to have a broad driveway connecting the Plains of Abraham proper with other portions of the city. Is it necessary, in order to have that driveway, to buy the whole of that Seminary land, or cannot a right of way for the driveway lie secured through it? I understand it is the purpose to divide that property up into lots and sell it. As a matter of real finance the Seminary could very well afford to say fo the Battlefields Commission :

Give ns a good driveway through that property, embellish and adorn it, It will make our property many times more valuable than it is ; we are going to sell it for town lots anyway, and we will give you the right of way. Now, you propose to buy the whole of it. and it will cost a great deal of money. Why do we need the whole of it? Why cannot an arrangement be made to have a driveway through it, which would largely appreciate the property, without putting the Battlefields Commission to the cost of the whole of it? Those are the thoughts that occurred to me.


George William Fowler: I was not in the House when this matter was first discussed. Does it apply only to the battlefields on the Plains of Abraham, or is it the intention to purchase every battlefield throughout the country and make parks?


John Barr: Why don't the British buy the field of Waterloo ?	,


Samuel Hughes: At the outset I was in favour of having the commission take over the whole Plains of Abraham, even to a greater extent than is proposed in the present amendment to the Bill. From my viewpoint I do not think it would be becoming to see any private property remaining in the middle of the Plains of Abraham. In my opinion, it would be well to take the whole bank of the river along where the vai'ious stages of the battle of the Plains of Abraham were fought, so that there might be one uninterrupted stretch of land from the citadel clear away to the right hand side of the plains. The visitor to Quebec Ito-day will find only a little 10-acre field available for the great review of troops at the Tercentenary. If the plan were carried out as I have outlined, and if the Ross Rifle Company were given a site for their factory elsewhere, and if the government moved the building from the Plains of Abraham, then with the present amendment the thing would be pretty nearly complete. That jail on the Plains of Abraham is an eyesore ; it is right on the spot where the French forces stood during the engagement. Wolfe's monument is better surrounded now than it was before, but it is within a hundred feet of back yards. To my mind, the best plan would be to make a clean sweep from the citadel off to the right and up to where the grand stand is now being erected for the pageant. That would necessitate the purchase of certain property, but it is not so large as it looks on the map. The Ross rifle' factory bugaboo could be overcome by the minister selecting a site somewhere else and moving the whole factory there. I do not think it would be a very expensive job if it were gone about in a business way to get that whole land clean from the citadel away up to the right, and then, in case of a great
review of troops, -there would be plenty of room to manoeuvre. Even from the point of view of defence it would be well to have that part of the plains free from buildings.


Wilfrid Laurier: In answer to the question of my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Fowler), I may say that section 5 creates the commission and states its objects to be :
The commission may purchase, acquire and hold the lands or immovable property in the city of Quebec, or in the vicinity thereof, where the great battles were fought, or which were occupied by the various commands of the respective armies upon the battlefields.
It does not go beyond the city of Quebec and the vicinity; it is connected simply with the events of 1759 and 1760. In reply to my hon. friend from Toronto I might say that it would have been a good idea had the commission submitted a report of what they intend to do, but the correspondence which I have had shows that the property is rising rapidly in price every day and the longer the purchase is delayed the greater the cost will be. With regard to the property of the Seminary, I may say that the Seminary own a pretty large piece of land there. They have cut it up into town lots. The commission have decided, and very properly in my judgment, to acquire this property. The object of the commission is to make a park which will include all the land where the battle took place, and the visitor to Quebec will be enabled to see the very spot where Wolfe landed and brought up his troops. The second battlefield of 1760 will also be converted into a park.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that item 64 in Public Bills and Orders-second reading of Bill (No. 187) from the Senate, to amend the Canada Temperance Act.-Mr. Black- be now called.
Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection to this item being called, but 1 call attention to the fact that it has been on the Order-Paper since June 17, and one would have supposed that, if the government desired to have the Bill passed, they would not have postponed its consideration until the very last day of the session. Why is it that the consideration of so important a Bill has been left so long ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: We have reached the stage of the session when, in the general cleaning up, we are taking up matters of general importance which are not on the Order Paper. That is the only reason.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the order is concerned, my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) has taken up the last Bill in the list of public Bills and Orders, instead of beginning at the beginning.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not proposing to follow the order in which the Bills appear on the Order Paper. We have some regard for their order in importance.
Motion agreed and Order called.
Bill read the second time.


Mr. WM. S. LOGGIE.: The Bill stands in the name of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) but I understood that the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) would take charge of the Bill.


Richard Blain: I would direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to the fact that this is a piece of temperance legislation, and would ask him whether it will embody a clause for the abolition of the bar in the House of Commons.	-


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Has not that been abolished long ago ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It was in full blast yesterday.


Mr.  S. W. W.@: PICKUP This Bill is for the purpose of amending the Canada Temperance Act. Twelve counties out of the eighteen in Nova Scotia have adopted the Canada Temperance Act, known as the Scott Act, Two counties, for reasons peculiar to those districts, have voted to have the Act repealed so that at present ten counties in the province are under the operation of the Act. The Act has proven very efficient where the sentiments of the people' are in favour of its enforcement. The principal amendment sought by this Bill is to prohibit the carriage of liquor from a license county to a Scott Act county. This legislation only applies to districts where the people by their votes ask that no liquor be sold, and does not apply to any province or district that has not adopted the Act. It is only fair that the wishes of the people be met There are three amendments covered by this Bill, and all are necessary to satisfactorily carry out the Act.
House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1,


David Henderson: As this is an extension of the -Canada Temperance Act, I would ask the hon. member who is in charge of the Bill whether or not, in order to continue this Act in operation in these counties, it will be necessary again to submit it to the electors? I understand that this Canada Temperance Act comes into operation only on approval of the peo pie. Now, if we materially alter it and incorporate in it much larger powei-s, would Mr. FIELDING.
the effect be that the people would have to vote upon it again, and express approval of the new conditions, in order to continue its operations ? We should be very careful that we do not destroy the Act iu attempts to amend it.
Mi-. FOWLER. There is a decision on that point. It does not need to be voted on again.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.,



WATER CARRIAGE OF GOODS.

William Stevens Fielding: Reference was made last night by the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) to item No. 63, Bill (No. 178) from the Senate, relating to the water carriage of goods. If there be no objection and any hon. member interested in the Bill will move the second reading, I should be glad to move that the order be called.


David Henderson: The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) does not come very often ; I do not see why he should have special privileges and I would object.


George William Fowler: I think this Bill relates to too important a matter to be taken up at this time when there is no proper opportunity for due consideration of the Bill. I find there are some very drastic changes proposed and I do not think we should be called upon to legislate in regard to this matter at this time.


George Eulas Foster: I protest in exactly the same way. I do not know what the Bill is, it has never been before this House, it may be a most important Bill and a very salutary Bill but it is not right to ask us, two or three hours before the House prorogues with scarcely more than a quorum present, to undertake its consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a matter of very great regret that the government did not take this up before. It has been on the order paper since May 29, it would have occupied only five minutes to give the Bill its first reading and send it to a special committee where it could have been investigated and progress could have been made without delaying the House for more than a few minutes. Instead of that no action has been taken by the government respecting a subject of great importance not only to the shipping interests but more especially to the shippers and producers and similar other interests as well. The Bill has rested untouched on the order paper since May 29, and now it is proposed, at nearly 1 o'clock on Saturday, the last working day of the session we hope, to have that Bill considered. Such a proposal is really grotesque in its absurdity. Why was the Bill

not sent long ago to a subcommittee of this House for the purpose of making an investigation similar to that which has been made in the Senate ?


William Stevens Fielding: This Bill, although an Important one, possibly, was never a government Bill, it was brought in by a private member of the Senate and sent here in the ordinary course of business. In cleaning up the business of the session, attention was called to it and I mentioned it to the House. It is not a government Bill and it was not the duty of the government to send it to a committee. I brought it up at the request of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean).


Mr. JOHNSTON.: The Bill stands in my name but I am not the promoter. The promoter of the Bill, Senator Campbell, has had several discussions with me within the last few days. He expressed considerable anxiety as to its fate. He represents that very large interests particularly in Ontario desired that this Bill should be pressed to an issue at this session. He represents it as very important, personally I know very little about it. When the Bill was introduced in the Senate objection was taken to it by the shipping interests in Montreal and elsewhere and representatives of those interests appeared before the committee of the Senate. Senator Campbell represented to me that the representative of the shipping interest has consented to the Bill and directed my attention to the observations of Mr. Meredith who appeared before the committee of the Senate. The members have the report of Mr. Meredith's statement and I need not detain them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
Alexander Johnston: The people are pressing for it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The fact that there was a controversy over it in the Senate indicates that the question is so vast, that the changes made by the Bill are so radical, that we should have at least a special committee of this House to take evidence with regard to this matter and report to the House. There is no ground for making an exception in the case of this Bill. The Minister of Railways ten days ago refused to deal with a level crossings Bill which this House passed unanimously, and when it was amended by the Senate and sent back here, the Minister of Railways refused to deal with it because it was too late in the session, and that was ten days ago. Although my Bill was dealing with a very grave matter involving the lives of men, women and children at railway crossings, the Minister of Railways refused to make an exception in its favour. If an exception could not apply to a Bill of that importance, then it ought not to apply to this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: It is evident from the difference of opinion concerning this Bill that it cannot go through. I move therefor for leave to withdraw the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER presented the first report of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the proposed restaurant.
Mr. BERGERON.: Did the committee visit the old restaurant ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: No. I move that the said report be now adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. GALLIHER moved :: That ill accordance with the prayer of the petition of Catherine Ann Cannon this day presented and received by this House, the order of the House do issue to the proper officer to remit to the petitioner the sum of $200 paid under rule 88 S.S. 3 (C), on the Bill (No. 175), letters RR of the Senate, intituled an Act for the relief of Catherine Ann Cannon.
He said : This sum of $200 is practically a fine imposed by reason of the fact that the petition was presented a day or two late. It was sent to Ottawa in time to be presented, and was received by me from the permanent solicitors a day or two late. The grounds upon which the refund is asked are set out in the petition. This woman has practically no means, I think she has three or four children who depend on her for support. The extra fine is imposed for reasons over which she had no control. The inadvertence or omission on the part of some one here, gave rise to her being obliged to borrow the sum of $200 for the purpose of meeting the fine imposed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The merits were not gone into, I suppose, by the Senate.


William Alfred Galliher: Yes, the case was heard and determined in her favour.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	What is the amount of the gross earnings of the Intercolonial railway for June, 1908,
[Stage Direction]
and for the three months, April to June, inclusive ?
2.	What are the working expenses for' the two months of April and May, 1908, respectively ?
3.	What were the earnings and working expenses respectively, for April, May and June, 1907 ?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1. Earnings,	April, 1908, $740,576.43; earnings, May, 1908, $689,736.62 ; earnings, June, 1908, not yet received.
2.	Working expenses, April, 1908, $740,851.01; working expenses, May 1908, $781,086.18; working expenses, June, 1908, not yet received.
3. Earnings, April. 1907, $817,952.34 ; earnings, May 1907, $799,095.95; earnings, June, 1907, $754,141.27.
Working expenses, April, 1907,	$669,-
380.90; working expenses, May 1907, $715,888.88; working expenses, June, 1907, $751,472.47.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-STATION AT NEWCASTLE.
Mr. FOWLER asked :: 1.	Who is the inspector of the work being done at the Intercolonial station at Newcastle?
2.	By whom was he recommended, what is his remuneration, and how much money has been paid to him to date ?
3.	Was a man named Fallon recommended to this position by the federal member for Northumberland county, New Brunswick ? if so, why was this recommendation not acted upon ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	H. A. Vye, of Newcastle.
2.	The department has no information. His remuneration has been arranged at the rate of $3 a day, but nothing has yet been paid him.
3.	No.


INTERCOLONIAL CONFERENCE - EXPENSES OF CANADIAN MINISTERS.
Mr. BERGERON asked:: 1.	What was the amount of money voted by parliament to defray the expenses of Canadian ministers attending the Intercolonial conference at London in 1907 ?
2.	How many ministers from Canada attended that conference officially ?
3.	Was the whole amount so voted expended, and how much did each minister receive ?
4.	Was any other official mission accomplished ? If so, who was the minister, and how much did he or they each receive for such services ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance):: 1.	$24,000.
2.	Three.
3.	No. The Prime Minister, $6,800; each of .the other two, $4,000.


George William Fowler: .
4.	Yes. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, after the conference, proceeded to other duties. He received on account of expenses in connection with the negotiation of the Franco-Canadian convention $3,500, and on account of Investigation respecting icebreakers, $1,730.06.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I intended to ask also for the expenses of the two ministers who went to Paris concerning the Trench Treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: The question only refers to those who attended the conference. If it had included the visit to Paris, I could have given that also.


LAND GRANTS TO RAILWAYS IN THE NORTHWEST.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CRAWFORD-by Mr. Turriff-asked :
1.	The area of land reserved for selection for railway land grant purposes in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories?
2.	The names of the companies participating in land grants?
3.	The date that lands were granted by parliament to the several companies?
4.	The area reserved for each company on July 1, 1896?
5.	The area earned by each company ?
6.	The area granted by parliament previous to July 1, 1896?
7.	The area granted 'since July 1, 1896?
8.	The area patented on July 1, 1896?
9.	The area 'patented ®ince; July 1, 1896?
10.	The area patented to each company?
11.	The area unpatented? 1
12.	The 'reasons why patents are not issued?
13.	The amount paid in survey fees to date?
14.	The amount paid in survey fees since Julv 1, 1896?
15.	The amount paid in survey fees since July 1, 1896?
16.	When can taxation ibe imposed on the lands granted to the several companies?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	No land reserved at present for selection for railway land grant purposes.
2.	Alberta Railway and Irrigation (formerly Northwest Coal and Navigation Company). Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company. Canadian Northern Railway Company (from point on Canadian Pacific Railway to Hudson Bay). Canadian Northern Railway Company (formerly Lake Manitoba Railway and Canal Company). Canadian Pacific Railway Company, main line. Canadian Pacific Railway Company Pipestone extension Sonris branch. Canadian Pacific Railway, Souris branch. Great Northwest Central Railway Company (formerly Northwest Central Railway Company). Manitoba and Northwest Western Railway Company. Manitoba South Western Colonization Railway Company. Manitoba and South Eastern Railway Company. Qu'Appelle Long Lake and Saskatchewan

Railroad and Steamboat Company. Saskatchewan and Western Railway Company.
3.	Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company, 20th July, 1885 and 23rd June, 1887, (formerly Northwest Coal and Navigation Company), 2nd May, 1889, 26th March, 1890, and 16th May, 1890. Alberta and Athabaska Railway Compativ. 23rd June, 1887. Brandon and South Western Railway Company, 16th May, 1890 and 23rd July, 1894. Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company, 16th May, 1890. Canadian Northern Railway Company, 19th April, 1884. (from point on Canadian Pacific Railway to Hudson Bay). Canadian Northern Railway Company, 2nd May, 1889. (formerly Lake Manitoba and Canal Company), 16th May, 1890. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, main line, 15th February, 1S81. Canadian Pacific Railway, Pipestone extension Souris branch, 23rd July, 1894. Canadian Pacific Railway, Souris branch, 16th May, 1890 and 30th September, 1891. Great Northwest Central Railway Company, 2nd June, 1886. (formerly Northwest Central Railway Company). Lac Seul Railway Company, 16th May, 1890. Medicine Hat Railway and Coal Company, 23rd June, 1887. Manitoba and North Western Railway Company, 20th July, 1885 and 2nd June, 1886. Manitoba South Western Colonization Railway Company, 20th July, 1885, and 30th September, 1S91. Manitoba and South Eastern Railway Company, 16th May, 1890. North Western Railway Company of Canada, 2nd May. 1889. Qu'Appelle Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company, 20th July, 1885, and 23rd June, 1887. Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company, 2nd May, 1889 and 3rd September 1891. Rocky Mountain Railway and Coal Company, 23rd July, 1894. Saskatchewan and Western Railway Company, 23rd July, 1894. Wood Mountain and Qu'Appelle Railway Company, 2nd June, 1886.
Acres.
4.	Alberta Ry & Irrigation.
Co. (formerly North West Coal & Navigation Co.).. 1,114,368 Brandon & South Western
Ry Co	 122,880
Calgary & Edmonton By.
Co	 1,800,000
Canadian Northern Ry Co.
(from point on C.P.R. to Hudson Bay), Canadian Northern Ry. Co. (formerly L. Manitoba & Canal
Co	30,000,000
Canadian Pacific Railway
Co. (main line)	26,414,245	10
C.P.R. Tipestone Extension C.P.R. Souris Branch.. ..	500,000
Souris Branch	2,010,870
Great Nortli West Central Ry. Co. (formerly North West Central Ry. Co...	708,827-16
.Manitoba & North Western
Ry- Co	 3,000,000
Acres.
Manitoba South Western Colonization Ry. Co.. . . 2,226,080 Qu'Appelle, Long Lake & Saskatchewan Railroad
& Steamboat Co	 2,822,235 -06
Red Deer Valley Railway
and Coal Co	 322,500
71,042,005-32
5.	Alberta Railw'ay & Irrigation Co. (formerly North West Coal & Navigation
Co	1,114,368
Calgary and Edmonton Ry.
Co	 1,888,448
Canadian Northern Ry. Co.
(from point on C.P.R. to Hudson Bay), Canadian Northern Ry. Co. (formerly L. Manitoba & Canal
Co	 3,321,408	'
Canadian Pacific Railway
Co. (main line)....18,206,986
C.P.R., Pipestone Extension, Souris Branch..	..	200,320	'C.P.R., Souris Branch..	..	1,408,704Great North West Central Ry. Co. (formerly North West Central Ry.	Co.)..	320,000
Manitoba & North Western
Ry. Co	 1,501,376
Manitoba South Western
Colonization Ry.... 1,396,800
5.	Manitoba and Southeastern Ry. Co	 680,320
Qu'Appelle. Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Co.. .. 1,625,344 Saskatchewan and Western Ry. Co	 98,880
6.	Area granted by parliament previous to 1st July,
1896	56,087,072
7.	Area granted by parliament subsequent to 1st July, 1896	
8.	Alberta Railway and Irrigation Co., (formerly Northwest Coal & Navigation Co.)	
Calgary and Edmonton Ry.
Co	
Canadian Northern Ry. Co.
(from point on C.P.R. to Hudson bay), none pa-tended.
Canadian Northern Ry. Co.
(formerly Lake Manitoba and Canal Co.), none patented.
Canadian Pacific Ry. Co.
main line	 1,334,982 -77
C.P.R. Pipestone Extension,
Souris Branch, none patented.
C.P.R., Souris Branch, none patented.
None.
203,046-57 4,535 -24

Great Northwest Central Ry. Co. (formerly Northwest Central Ry. Co.), none patented.
Manitoba and Northwestern Ry. Co	
Manitoba Southwestern
Col. Ry. Co	
Manitoba and Southeastern Ry. Co., none patented.
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Co.. .. Saskatchewan and Western Ry. Co., none patented.
1,827,087 -28
9. Alberta Railway and Irrigation Co., patents now
all issued	 911,321 -43
Calgary and Edmonton Ry.
Co	 1,408,234-78
Canadian Northern Ry. Co. 2,523,949-03
C.P.R. main line	16,776,741-07
C.P.R. Pipestone Extension	,
Souris Br	 121,131-17
C.P.R. Souris Branch .... 1,393,070-37 Great Northwest Central Ry. Co. (Patents now all
Issued	 320,000
Manitoba & Northwestern
Ry. Co	 1,257,625-98
Manitoba southwestern
Col. Co	 909,687-01
Manitoba Southwestern
Co	 678,358-24
Qu'Appelle Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad &
Steamboat Co	 1,130,436	22
Saskatchewan and Western Ry. Co. (Patents now all issued)	 98,880
27,529,435 88
(10) Alberta Railway and Irrigation Co	1,114.36S '
Calgary and Edmonton Ry.
Co	1,412,770
Canadian Northern Ry. Co. 2,523,949-03
C.P.R. Main Line	18,111,724-44
C.P.R. Pipestone Extension
Souris Br	 121,131-17
C.P.R. Souris Branch.. .. 1,393,070-37 Great Northwest Central
Ry. Co	 320,000
Manitoba and Northwestern Ry. Co	 1,499,559-92
Manitoba Southwestern


Colonization Ry.   C@: 950,637 33
Manitoba & Southeastern
Ry. Co	 678,358-24
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad &
Steamboat Co	 1,132,074-66
Saskatchewan and Western
Ry. Co	 98,880
29,356,523 -16
11.	Alberta Railway & Irri Acres, gation Co. (all patented) .
Calgary and Edmonton Ry.
Co		475,678
Canadian Northern Ry. Co. 797,458-97 Canadian Pacific Ry. Co.
Main Lille	 95,261-56
C.P.R. Pipestone Extension
Souris Br	 79,188-83
C.P.R. Souris Branch.. ..	15,633-63
Great Northwest Central Ry. Co. (all patented).
Manitoba and Northwestern Ry. Co	 1,816-08
Manitoba Southwestern


Colonization Ry.   C@: 446,162-67
Manitoba & Southeastern
Ry. Co	 1,961-76
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake & Saskatchewan Railroad &
Steamboat Co	   493,269-34
Saskatchewan & Western Ry. Co. (all patented).
2,400,430-84
12.	Calgary and Edmonton Ry Co.-407,402 acres held as security for repayment of money advanced the company on account of transportation contract dated June 21, 1890. 67,762-92 acres bought back by this government at the rate of $2 per acre, and the amount so derived from the purchase of these lands by the government applied as payment of the survey fees on account of this company's land grant. The balance 513-08 acres being selected by the company and directly upon such selection being made patent will issue forthwith.
Canadian Northern Ry. Co.-532,800 acres held as security for repayment of money advanced on account of transportation contracts dated February 5, 1896, and May 12, 1896.	236,863-61 acres held for approval by
council of construction of the last section south of Pas Mission. Patents for the balance, 27,795-36 acres, except where unsurveyed, are in course.
Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., Main Line.- 45,316 acres in course of being patented. 4,928-5 acres awaiting release from timber berths before patents may issue to the company. The balance 45,017-06 acres not yet surveyed.
Canadian Pacific Railway Pipestone Extension, Souris Br.-Balance of 79,188 -83 acres not surveyed.
Canadian Pacific Railway Souris branch -Balance of 15,633-63 acres not surveyed.
Manitoba & Northwestern Railway Company-The balance, 1,816-08 acres patents held pending adjustment of figures with the railway company.
Manitoba Southwestern Colonization Railway Company-Patents in course for 443,311-51 acres but held awaiting receipt of survey fees. The balance 2,851-16 acres being selected by the company.
Manitoba & Southeastern Railway Company-800 acres held pending adjustment
Acres.
241,933.94 40,950 -32
1,638-44


Mr. OLIVER.: of squatters' claims. The balance 1,161-76 acres unsurveyed.
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake & Saskatchewan Railroad & Steamboat Company-Held as security for repayment of money advanced to the company on account of transportation contract dated 5th of August, 1889.
13.	The amount paid in survey fees to date is $724,479.39.
14.	Total survey fees paid in connection with railway land grants from commencement to 30th of June, 1896-$56,537.18.
15.	Total survey fees paid in connection with railway land grants from the 1st of July, 1896, to 3rd of July, 1908-$667,942.21.
16.	Upon the issue of the patent except in the case of the main line land subsidy of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In the case of this subsidy an exemption for twenty years is provided for in the original charter.


EXPENSES OF TRANSCONTINENTAL COMMISSION.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What have been the totals for each year of the expenses of the Transcontinental Commission for salaries, rents, travel and contingencies, including everything not going into construction ?
2.	Are these expenses charged up to construction account against the Grand Trunk Pacifio Eastern Division?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	The total expenditures for all salaries, rents, travel and contingencies for each year at headquarters, and on the lines are as follows :
1904- 1905	$ 778,363 63
1905-	1906	
1,755,668	341906-	1907	
948,007	861907-	1908	
1,009,846	29-	$4,491,886 12
2 Yes. All expenditures of the Transcontinental Railway Commission are under clause 15 of the agreement, being the schedule to the National Transcontinental Railway Act, chargeable to ' Cost of Construction.'


QUEBEC BRIDGE-SALARIES TO OFFICIALS.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What amounts have been paid yearly to the directors and officials of the Quebec Bridge Company?
2.	What is now being paid, and the sum per year to each?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	$500 to directors ; $2,400 to secretary ; $6,000 to chief engineer.
2.	Since collapse of bridge the directors receive nothing. Secretary and chief engi- I
neer same salary as above, as their time does not expire until 1st of September next.



NET SALMON FISHING PRIVILEGES.

George William Fowler: By what right does the federal government grant or refuse to grant net salmon fishing privileges in the Restigouche river?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1. By right of power to legislate in respect of sea coast and inland fisheries, under section 91, paragraph 12 of the British North America Act.
AVhatever question may exist as to the proprietary interests is in abeyance by reason of tacit arrangement with the New Brunswick government by which the Dominion is administering licenses pending adjustment of relative rights and jurisdiction.



MR. CONGDON'S ACCOUNTS-SEED GRAIN-WOOLLEN INDUSTRY AND THE TARIFF.

George Eulas Foster: Before government orders are called I would like to call the attention of the bon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to a question that was asked him yesterday with reference to two matters and also to ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he has the petition of the woollen industry which he was to bring down.


Rt.   H@: I beg to lay on the table the correspondence with the woollen manufacturers with respect to the woollen duties.


Frank Oliver: In reply to the inquiry of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), I beg to say that a telegram was sent to the Yukon some time ago and the following answer has been received from Mr. Henderson, the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory :
Congdon's books and accounts as public administrator audited by controller's staff under direction of Commissioner Ross; handed over to Newlands, hia successor, on Newlands' resignation; audited to satisfaction of Senkler who succeeded him; audited last summer by Beddoe, Department of the Interior; now being audited to date by Stockton, Auditor General's Department.
In regard to the inquiry as to seed grain distribution, I beg to say that the papers I had hoped to be able to place on the table in printed form are in the printer's hands and I expect to be able to place them on the table to-day before the House rises.


George Eulas Foster: I understood that there was a memorandum from the Manufacturers' Association setting forth the grounds upon which they make their request.


Wilfrid Laurier: I received the following message from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association :
Toronto, July 16, 1906.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
House of Commons, Ottawa. ^
The executive council of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association now in session, knowing that under existing tariff conditions a number of our largest Canadian woollen industries must suffer annihilation before another year, appeal to you for immediate relief. What two hundred woollen manufacturers have asked of you in the memorandum submitted is the least that will save them from ruin. They, together with the thousands of working people dependent upon them for their daily bread, and the farmers who have hitherto found profitable employment in wool growing, join us in the firm stand that this important question must be disposed of before the closing of parliament. The association awaits your answer.
(Sgd.) Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
I replied on the same day as follows :
Telegram.
Ottawa, July 16, 1908. Canadian Manufacturers' Association,
Toronto, Ont.
Government regret that with present information they are unable to agree to the proposals respecting increased duties on wool goods. In a country with the climate of Canada the cost of woollen clothing te:omes a question of very great importance. A proposal to increase the taxes on what might almost be called a necessary^ of life naturally arouses much opposition among the consumers and their representatives. The government have on more than one occasion given evidence of their appreciation of the importance, of the woollen interests and their desire to give reasonable encouragement to it. They hope that to some extent the difficulties which the manufacturers are meeting are due not to tariff conditions but to a depression in trade which they believe is but temporary. This view is supported by the fact that in the neighbouring republic where a very high wool tariff is in operation there has been trade depression. The government, with due regard to the people of all 'sections of the country, feel that this is not the moment at which they should adopt a policy of increased taxation, especially on articles of a necessary character. The complaints that have been made by the woollen trade as to evasions of the Customs laws are being carefully looked into and if it be ascertained tbat they he well founded, the proper remedy will be applied. The questions of tariff revision as respects the woollen industries cannot possibly be dealt with in the few hours of this session that remain. We can assure the manufacturers' that we are fully appeciative of the industry and that if we cannot at thi9 stage meet their wishes it is because we are obliged to consider the wishes of all classes throughout the country.
(Sgd.) WILFRID LAURIER.


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: I understood that there was a memorial accompanying the request. Would the right hon. gentleman be good enough to lay that on the table ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, on Monday morning ; perhaps this afternoon.^



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 1S9) to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Fisher.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have some explanation of these amendments.


Mr. FISHER.: The only change of importance is the addition of a section bringing the Act into force on the 1st September. The other amendments are simply verbal alterations tbat, in the opinion of the Senate make the Act clearer, but do not change the meaning.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not be inclined to agree with the view of the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the Senate amendment to section 45. I observe that at the end of the section the Senate has added the following words :
Or if such action is required during the recess of parliament, by the Governor m Council, subject to ratification by the two Houses at the next ensuing session.
I do not appreciate the necessity of that amendment.


Mr FISHER.: This amendment has been urged by the chief officers of the two Houses and especially by the librarians of parliament. During the recess there is absolutely no authority in the Act to enable anything to be done.


George William Fowler: Enable what to be done? 1 have not a copy of these amendments.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would be glad to go over the amendments seriatim. The first amendment is one to paragraph 2 and is in the following words :
The word ' now ' when used in this Act shall mean the date of its coming into force.
That is necessary by reason of the fact that the Act will come into force on the 1st September. The next amendment is to clause 8. Clause 8 reads as follows :
As soon as practicable after the conning into force of the Act. the head of each department shall oause the organization of his department to be determined and defined by order in council.
The Senate have added the following words :
Due regard being lnad to the present status of each officer or clerk, as the case may be.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN What do they mean by that ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I understand that they mean simply to safeguard the present position of the clerks. I did not think it necessary but the Senate wished these words in.


George William Fowler: If they have an effect at all they prevent the object that the clause seems to call for. By saying ' due regard being had to the present status of each officer or clerk as the ease may be ' the minister's action is restricted ; how can he reorganize his department ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think the words have the effect my hon. friend fears. I thought the clause without them meant that and I did not consider these words altered the sense of the clause. The next amendment is in clause 38 which would now read :
Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act or any words to the like effect shall be deemed sufficient to authorize the payment of any such salary or remuneration.
1 think that makes it clearer.
The next amendment is in clause 45 in the 25th line where they have inserted ' or under the Civil Service Act.' That to a certain extent extends the application of the clause not only to the sections herein indicated, but to any section under the Civil Service Act where the Governor in Council takes any action in regard to the employees of the House of Commons or the Senate. Then they add at the end of the clause the words :
Or if such action is required during the recess of parliament, by the Governor in Council, subject to ratification by the two Houses at the next ensuing session.
That was put in at the request of the chief officers of the Senate, the House of Commons and the library. The librarians pointed out that during recess when it would be absolutely impossible to get a joint resolution they would be absolutely tied and could do nothing, they could not work out the classification of their employees or the organization.


George William Fowler: They would have the disciplinary rights of deputy ministers and could surely get along without this amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: I can see no necessity for the amendment. The matter of classification can be dealt with somewhat similarly and what pressing need can there be for any action between the two sessions of parliament ? I presume it is because I do not understand the matter thoroughly, but certainly no explanation that has been given to the House seems to afford any justification for the intevention of the Governor in Council.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that no circumstances could arise to require such legislation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The amendment says : ' If any such action is required during the recess.' That means only in case of emergency. If no action was required there would be no interference.


George William Fowler: Can the minister suggest any possible situation requiring this ? Even a mutiny could be dealt with by the officers.
Amendments read the first and second time, and agreed to.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consideration of proposed amendment by the Senate to Bill (No. 181) to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting the public lands of the Dominion.
Frank Oliver: There is one amendment to section 15, adding a subsection under the heading ' cancellation of entry.' The new paragraph reads :
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who buys, trades or sells or professes to buy, trade or sell land or any interest in or control of land open to homestead entry or for which homestead entry has been granted before patent therefor has been issued.
When this Bill was being put through the Commons it was supposed that this particular offence which is undoubtedly very prevalent was covered by the provisions of the Criminal Code, but on further examination it did not appear to be so covered and therefore the Senate inserted this provision.


Mr. LAKE.: Will the minister make any special provision on the first September for the rush of people who are likely to besiege the land offices to make entries.


Frank Oliver: We will do the best we can, but of course there are some conditions that cannot possibly be met.


Richard Stuart Lake: I think proclamation should be issued and a general notice sent to the post offices as to what the conditions will be.


Frank Oliver: We will give the fullest information possible.


George Eulas Foster: No applications are valid until the first of September ?
Mr. OijJsVER. No.


George Eulas Foster: Then suppose there are parties looking around now and there is a kind of an Oklahoma rush on the first of September, in what order will the applications be received 1


Frank Oliver: First at the counter.


George Eulas Foster: After the proclamation
opens ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.



'Mr. FOSTER. The big chap will have the advantage, won't he ?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and amendments concurred in.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX moved that the amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 205) to prohibit, the importation, manufacture and sale of opium for other than medicinal purposes, be now read the second time and agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: What is the effect of the amendment?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: The effect of the amendment is to give to opium merchants a period of six months within which to dispose of the opium which they have imported. During those six months the opium will be in bond, and will have to be exported from the country.
Mr. FOSTER, The Bill allowed three months? -


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, no delay at all.


Richard Blain: I cannot quite understand why the merchants of opium require six months to dispose of their stock. Surely it will not take that length of time. It seems to me that if this is such an evil as to call for drastic legislation-legislation which I approve of, I may say-a great deal of injury might be done during those six months.


Rodolphe Lemieux: During the six months for which the delay is given, the merchants will not have the right to sell opium within the country for other than medicinal purposes. It will be held in bond, and they will have to give surety to that effect, under regulations to be established by the Minister of Customs. I may say that they asked for a delay of eight years, claiming that the quantity of opium which they have on hand warranted them in so doing. They say that the process of manufacturing or curing the opium is such that they cannot sell it for several years. We could not see our way to granting that request, but we have thought it right to give them a reasonable time within which to export their stock from the country.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think that would be reasonable, otherwise the Act would amount to confiscation. I understand from the minister and would gather from the words of the amendment, that it does not authorize any sale within Canada prohibited by the Bill. The prohibition as to sale still continues as it was when the Bill passed this House, but a period of Mr. OLIVER.
six months is allowed during which it is lawful for opium merchants to have the opium in their possession for sale, but not for sale in Canada?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is correct.


Richard Blain: I may say that the hon. minister's explanation is entirely satisfactory.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER moved that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 109) to authorize a bounty to volunteers who served the Crown in South Africa be now read the second time and agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: What will be the effect of the change from the expression. ' officer, non-commissioned officer or man ' to the word ' volunteer ? '


Frank Oliver: It is not anticipated that there will be any change. In the first draft of the Bill the word ' volunteers ' was used. Then on suggestion it was changed to the expression ' officer, non-commissioned officer and man.' In the third draft it was changed to ' volunteer ' in the second section, and should have been changed in the third section to make it conform to the second. The Senate noticed the difference and made the third clause conform to the second. The word ' volunteer ' will include ' officer.' The Senate also changes the expression ' nursing sisters ' in the second subsection to ' female nurses.' The expression ' nursing sisters ' is the technical description of these nurses, but it does not seem necessary to refuse concurrence in that change, though the expression used by the Senate is not the proper one.


Richard Stuart Lake: The effect of the Bill as it left this House is not altered?


Frank Oliver: No.
Amendments read the first time, and agreed to.



SUPPLY-DUTY ON MATERIALS FOR INTERNATIONAL TUNNELS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["I do not remember mentioning any individual officer's at all in the debate on the Civil Service Bill. I could not, without examining the salaries of these gentlemen and seeing where they would fit into the new subdivisions, answer the hon. gentleman's question. That depends entirely upon the facts. I do not know the facts, and, therefore, I could not say in detail how the increases that will probably occur under this Bill will affect individuals."]
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Mr. Speaker, as the items for the Customs Department were concurred in some time ago, I shall not have an opportunity of bringing a matter before the House which I would like to explain. A question arose and was agitated through the country, being taken up by the Manu-

facturers' Association and the press, as to whether the ruling of our department with reference to the admission of materials for the construction of the Detroit tunnel was more liberal than that of the United States department. The department thought that we had sufficient assurance in the instructions of the United States government to warrant us in what we were doing and that we were perfectly safe. However, the hon. member for West Kent (Mr. Clements) and the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshiitt) took that view, and subsequently, I think, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) thought that there might be a possible doubt. We did not so think, but in deference to their remarks, and with a view to putting the matter beyond question, I asked the commissioner to again inquire of the Treasury Department, although I did not like to do so as it seemed to imply that their other letter was not sufficiently plain. The following correspondence has been exchanged between the two departments :
Division of Customs.
Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, Washington, June 24, 1908. Hon. John McDougald,
Canadian Commissioner of Customs, Ottawa, Canada,
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of-the 18th instant, relative to the free entry of materials for use in the construction of the tunnel between Canada and the United: States at Detroit, Michigan.
The department's letter of March 13 last to the collector of customs at Detroit, a correct copy of which is set forth in your letter, is correctly interpreted by you as authorizing the free entry of all materials to be used in the tunnel whether under water or on the American shore, except materials used above ground on the open approach to the tunnel.
Respectfully,
(Sgd.) J. B. REYNOLDS, Assistant Secretary.
No inclosure.
Department of Customs, Ottawa, June 18, 1908. The Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D.C.
Sir,-I have the honour to state that the customs tariff of Canada (1907) contains the following provision for free entry of materials for international bridge and tunnels, viz.:-
590. Materials to be used in Canada for the construction of bridges and tunnels crossing the boundary between the United States and Canada, when similar materials are admitted free under similar circumstances into the United States, under regulations prescribed by the Minister of Customs. Free.
Under this provision the contractors for the ' Detroit River Tunnel' between Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, are now making free entries of their materials for the whole covered portion of the tunnel on the Canadian side, not including the open approaches.
429i
This department has received a copy of instructions from the Treasury Department on this subject as follows:-	.
Division of Customs.
Treasury Department,
Office of the Secretary, Washington.
41072 C.A.H.
March 13, 1908.

The Collector of Customs,
Detroit, Michigan.
Sir,-The department is in receipt of your letter of the 6th instant, relative to the entry free of duty of tools and materials to be used in the construction of the tunnel between Canada and the United States under the Detroit river.
The matter of the free entry of materials used in the construction of a tunnel between Canada and the United States was considered by the department in connection with the construction of the tunnel between Port Huron, Michigan, and Sarnia, Ontario, and it was decided that all materials brought into the United States for convenience and taken back into the tunnel and used therein should not be regarded as dutiable importations, without regard to the part of the tunnel in which the same were used. Materials used above ground in the approaches to the tunnel on the American shore were held to be subject to the payment of duty. You will be governed accordingly.
Respectfully,
(Sgd.) BEEKMAN WINTHROP, Assistant Secretary.
The Department of Customs understands by jour letter to the collector at Detroit that it covers materials for the entire length of the tunnel on the American side whether under water or on the shore, the open approach to the end of the tunnel alone being excluded. However, a question has been raised and statements made in the House of Commons that under your ruling above quoted, possibly Canadian materials may be only admitted free of United States duty when to be used in that portion of the tunnel which is under the waters of the Detroit river, and not for that portion of the tunnel which is on the mainland beyond the river on the American side.
As the item in our tariff is based and made contingent upon reciprocal action on the part of your government, will you please state if the view this department has taken of your ruling as above mentioned is correct.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Commissioner of Customs.


George Eulas Foster: The reply from the United States seems to be entirely satisfactory as establishing their understanding of the ruling. It is a pity that the same explicitness was not had months or maybe years ago, as in that way a great deal of unnecessary discussion would have been saved. This meaning of the regulations being established, can the department in any way use its influence with the contractors to see that Canadian manufacturers and Canadian labour get a really fair show in the purchase of supplies? Is it possible for the department to use any influence in that
33S27

way, as the tunnel seems to be about equally divided between the two countries in point of distance?


William Paterson: If I may refer to a previous debate, the contractors pointed out In letters which were submitted to the House that $160,000 or $170,000 worth of material had been purchased in Canada. I also read letters from them in which they said they had asked Canadian cement manufacturers to tender, but these manufacturers, for some reason or other, appeared not to have been anxious, as they declined in some cases and in no case had they taken the trouble to personally interview the contractors. It cannot be expected that the interests of a merchant will be looked after if he will not take some trouble himself ; and certainly, where there are to be such large purchases to be made, they seem to have been lacking in that respect. I have no doubt that under the provisions of the tariff we will get an amount of revenue on goods imported from the United States for use in the open approaches on the Canadian side, and I have no doubt either that our manufacturers are in a position, this being reciprocal, to secure a portion of the business of supplying materials for the tunnel on the American side ; as they have an equal opportunity to compete with the Americans on the American side, as the provision is reciprocal. Therefore, I have no doubt, if our cement manufacturers are now in such a position that they have a surplus, they will be able to do business. Of course, we are not in a position to force anything to be done.


Mr.   POSTER@: No, the contract is already made.


William Paterson: But I have no doubt, if our manufacturers, especially of cement, desire to secure a portion of this trade, they will be able to do so. The material for the open approaches on both sides is dutiable; our cement manufacturers would not, I think, stand a chance for anything beyond. Our producers being protected with a very large duty on cement, I think that all the cement used in the open approaches on our side will go to our own people. Another point that was raised was that American workmen were being employed and that Canadian workmen were not getting an opportunity. I have been told that employment has been given to all Canadians who make application, and that many thousands of dollars have been paid to Canadian workmen. I can imagine that to be the case. A work such as that is not one in which a great many men may desire to engage, because it is considered somewhat hazardous-at any rate, as a heavy work. I mention this because it was thought that there had been some discrimin-Mr. FOSTER.
ation against our workmen, and I am sure that has not been the case.



Richard Blain: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question with respect to the Civil Service Bill. During the discussion I noticed that certain officers of the House of Commons were mentioned as having increases under the Bill, whereas I did not see any reference made to certain others. For example, there are the accountant and assistant accountant, the sergeant-at-arms and the deputy sergeant-at-arms. I have these four in my mind at the moment, all being very faithful and old officers. They are giving, I think, entire satisfaction to the members of this House by their courteous manner and their willingness to assist the members. May I ask the minister whether these gentlemen will have an increase in salary under the Bill, and any others that I may not have mentioned?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not remember mentioning any individual officer's at all in the debate on the Civil Service Bill. I could not, without examining the salaries of these gentlemen and seeing where they would fit into the new subdivisions, answer the hon. gentleman's question. That depends entirely upon the facts. I do not know the facts, and, therefore, I could not say in detail how the increases that will probably occur under this Bill will affect individuals.



SALE OF INDIAN LANDS-QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. A. C. BOYCE (West Algoma).: I desire to refer to a statement read in this House yesterday by the right hon. Prime Minister, on page 13804 of the ' Hansard.' I was not in the House at the time the right hon. gentleman read the statement, and I regret that he is absent just now. As this is the last opportunity there will be of referring to the matter, I must refer to it now, trusting that the right hon. gentleman may be here before I have finished. The letter is as follows :


Wilfrid Laurier: statement of the hon. member for Brandon, and I submit with all deference and respect that the right hon. gentleman should have had more regard and respect for parliamentary procedure than to have read that statement. I say again, and the hon. gentleman knows it very well, that the telegram bears on its face an absolute contradiction as between the statement with which it concludes, and the statement with which it commences. The gentleman who signed that telegram assumes to state that he emphatically denies certain statements. In the body of the telegram it is stated that he has no knowledge of the facts, that as far as he knows the sale was made under the ordinary rules and that no privilege whatever was given to the purchasers except what was open to any applicant. Then comes the concluding statement that he unqualifiedly denies the existence of any improprieties or irregularity whatever. I submit first that if the right hon. Prime Minister had read this statement carefully before bringing it into the House he never would have read it to the House at all, and, secondly, that if he had considered the question as to the propriety of introducing that telegram he would never have introduced it aud he would never have read it. I resent it very much indeed. I resent it as much as I would resent it if the hon. gentleman had been in his place. The right hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the hon. member for Brandon would not have been allowed to have made the statements contained in the telegram if he had been in his place in the House. I would just again remind the House that there was not a statement made in the speech referred to which was made on my responsibility. On the contrary the statements which I made were entirely upon the authority of documents which were produced and read, and the principal document which was read was carefully compared with the original before it was read. Again I would say to the right hon. gentleman that he will find, at pages 13495 and 13500, the statement made by me that I am not responsible for any one of these statements but that every one is contained in a written document obtained from the Department of the Interior. Further, the statement denied by the hon. member for Brandon is a statement based upon a document which I took care, to carefully compare with the original in order that there should be no mistake. I therefore take the position, and I ask your ruling upon it, Mr. Speaker, first that the right hon. gentleman had no right whatever to read that statement to this House, and, secondly, that as to portions of that statement they should be retracted, that the reading of it' was improper for the reasons given aud that it should be expunged from the records of this House. In order to make myself clear with regard to the statement made by the right hon.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: gentleman and to contrast it with what I did say I will just read the letter itself to which I have alluded and which will be found at page 13495 of ' Hansard.'
Brandon, Manitoba, April 20, 1900.
J. A. Smart, Esq., Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Be my application for timber land in Batchawana bay.
In my previous letter inclosing a letter from Mr. McAuley, I mentioned that the petition referred to in McAuley's letter meant a statement that the lands referred to were in most part unfit for settlement.
I find, however, by looking over my correspondence that he refers to a petition which he can get signed by all the settlers in the district asking the government that we be allowed to purchase -the land. We can also furnish a statement sworn to by all the settlers in the district that the land in most part is unfit for settlement.
I wish you would give this matter your earnest attention as no time is to he lost in preparing for the season's operation as I will necessarily lose considerable time preparing to get away from my business here to attend to the erection of a sawmill, &c.	[DOT]
You will notice an application was put in by A. H. Gale dated July 25, 1899, covering all the lands in the district. This, however, will not interfere with my application as Mr. Gale is with me in the matter and we can work under either application. Mr. Sifton wished the application put in Mr. Gale's name at the time.	_
-Please hear in mind that the license of the St. Maurice Lumber Company expires on the 30th of this month and will doubtless he called on to consider a renewal of same even though all pulpwood has been removed, and I trust you will consider its bearing on my application before doing so.
Yours truly,



W. E. WILSON.

[Stage Direction]
That is the letter and that does not justify the statement made by tbe hon. member for Brandou through the Prime Minister from a distance of 1,500 miles. Any statement that was made in connection with that matter that the application was put in at his suggestion was made ou the authority of that letter aud I desire that this statement be withdrawn.
Wilfrid Laurier: I just want to say a word in answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Boyce). I am sure that nobody will deny that if my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr* Sifton) had been present when the charges were made against him he would have been at liberty to affirm, deny or qualify the statements which were made by the hon. gentleman. Not being here the hon. gentleman sent this telegram to me and I read it to the House just as it was.
I place myself in the judgment of the House and in your judgment, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I do not know whether this matter is now properly the subject of a ruling on the part of the Speaker, but I would
say. that, as a matter of fact, I think any

exception to the reading of the telegram should have been taken at the time and that it is too late now to take any exception to it. As to the question if exception could be taken to it I do not express any opinion at the moment, but I quite agree and was about to rule, in the terms suggested by the Prime Minister, that if the bon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) had been present, as this is a matter within his personal knowledge and refers personally to himself, he would have had a perfect right to have arisen in his place and to have made an absolute and unqualified denial of the statements. This would raise a question that is always a difficult one to decide as to one member averring something and another denying the allegations of that member, the member denyng however having a personal knowledge of the facts. I would rule as between two members under these circumstances that no doubt the member who made his denial ought to have his denial protected as it was something within his personal knowledge, and the statement o? the other member who had asserted something which he had gathered from correspondence and read would have to be withdrawn. I consequently cannot make any such ruling as that which is requested by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce).



THIRTEENTH HUSSARS.

George Eulas Foster: Before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I want to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) to a matter that was brought to my attention some time ago and which I have been trying to get an opportunity of presenting to the minister in the House. It is in reference to the 13th Hussars of whom the minister has probably heard before, who saw service in 1S66 and 1867 at the time of the Fenian Raid in the field, I think, largely in the matter of protecting some of the lines of railway, the Grand Trunk Railway being the chief one. What they have been asking for is to have the general service medal and it seems that up to the present time, for what reason I do not know, they have not been given that medal. I believe that a good deal depends upon the possession of the Canadian service medal as to the action which might be taken in Great Britain. I would like to press this strongly upon the attention of the minister so that if possible this general service medal should be given to these men.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: What is the name of the regiment ?


George Eulas Foster: The 13th Hussars.


Frederick William Borden: That will be an English regiment ?


George Eulas Foster: I don't really know.


Frederick William Borden: The only 13th we have is the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons.


George William Fowler: That is the regiment of the Minister of Agriculture.


George Eulas Foster: I have a letter from one of the former members of that regiment, and he has written me several times. I press it upon the attention of the minister. Has he had the matter already before him.


Frederick William Borden: I had before me the case of some English regiments one of which was a cavalry regiment but that is some time ago. If my hon. friend will be good enough to send me the papers I will take it up at once and after inquiring into it let him know what the ruling is.


George Eulas Foster: I will prepare the papers and send them to the minister and ask him to look into the matter, and to send me a reply that I can forward to this gentleman.


Frederick William Borden: I shall do so at once.



FRANCO-CANADIAN TREATY.

Robert Laird Borden: I wish to direct the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to the following despatch from Paris which appeared in the newspapers on the 16th inst:
A despatch from Paris says the following explanation is being made of the delay m the approval of the Franco-Canadian convention: When the Canadian parliament passed the new tariff law in 1906 it 'omitted to mention in the schedule of the most favoured^ nations and used as a basis in the negotiations the name of Switzerland, which enjoys such treatment under the treaty with Great Britain of 1865. The slip was not discovered until the convention had passed the chamber, when Switzerland brought her claim to the notice of England. The French deputies, being too late to do anything in tbeir own house, worked upon the senators for the departments of Centre Jura, where the silk and watch-rn aking interests are strong, and thus the opposition began. It is argued that these trades wore among those for which concession had been most 'boasted of and how that 'Switzerland was to share the benefits the value of the concessions fell to the ground. Thereupon the powerful agricultural protectionist party arose in turn ito reproach the' government, saying if they had been silent against the large favours given to Canadian agriculture it was because other French industries were said to 'be ben-fited in return, but if there was to be no just equivalent elsewhere they also objected to the concessions.
The government is as anxious as ever to conclude the treaty with Canada, but it will hesitate to commit itself to condition's framed under a misconception, for which France is not responsible.
The ' Times' ' Paris correspondent believes it is possible to overcome the opposition of

the protectionists and that the Franco-Cana-dian treaty will be ratified in October.
I do not understand some of the details set forth in this despatch, but it seems to imply some default on the part of this government in presenting the measure to parliament, or in the tariff of 1906. I would ask whether there is anything in the despatch, and especially whether there is anything in the suggestion that the delay in the ratification of the treaty is due to any default on the part of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not aware that the delay is in any respect due to any default on the part of Canada, nor am I aware that anybody claims such is the case. There is no doubt that the opposition which has been raised in the French legislative bodies to the treaty, is to some extent due to the special interests referred to which no doubt find that as other favoured nations have to receive the benefits of that treaty they do not get as much advantage from it as they would like to. But beyond that I do not quite see the meaning of the despatch. There is no doubt that the silk trade and possibly the watch trade would receive a greater concession if we could exclude other nations from the benefit of this treaty and give it to France alone. It is not in our power to do that and I have no doubt there is some foundation for the statement that the representations of these interests have had a good deal to do with the delay. I am not aware of anybody alleging that anything has been done on the part of Canada that has caused delay.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has no doubt seen the despatch ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes I suppose it is the same despatch I have seen.


Robert Laird Borden: What I do not understand is that it refers to some omission on the part of Canada :
When the Canadian parliament passed the new tariff law in 1906 it omitted to mention in the schedule of the most favoured nations and used as a basis in the negotiations the name of Switzerland.
The language is not quite clear.


William Stevens Fielding: Our tariff Act does not profess to give a list of favoured nation countries. It has been more or less a matter of debate as respects some countries and we have not felt at liberty to give any list of them in the tariff Act. We have from time to time given the best list we could and sometimes the lists have not been absolutely in harmony. For some years there was some doubt about the position of Switzerland and I think it will be found that Switzerland did not in former years claim the favoured nation treatment. No case arose as to which she felt called up-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
on to assert that position and it was difficult to determine foir the time just exactly what was the correct list. When the treaty was being presented to this House we deemed it proper to ask from the imperial authorities-inasmuch as this obligation arose under old treaties they had made, and not under modern treaties in which Canada was consulted-we deemed it proper to ask from the imperial authorities a list of the favoured nation countries as they were determined on by the foreign office, and in that list Switzerland appeared, although in some of the previous lists I think Switzerland did not appear. The matter was not a subject of any special consideration and the tariff Act did not in itself purport to give any list of favoured nations.


Mr.  R. L.@: (BORDEN. Has there been any discussion in the French chambers which would throw any light upon the question ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think there was an impression that Switzerland would not be entitled to favoured nation treatment. We were at one time under the impression ourselves-the point not having been directly raised-that Switzerland was not included. No doubt the fact that Switzerland was one of the favoured nations has something to do with the antagonism which has been raised in the French senate, but I am not aware that anybody alleges that it was due to any default on the part of the Canadian government.


George Eulas Foster: What seems to be underlying it is that during the negotiation of the treaty the French negotiators had the idea that Switzerland was not on the most favoured nation list, and so would not participate. When it passed the chamber of deputies in France the same impression prevailed. But, when afterwards it came out, (probably when the application was made by Switzerland to Great Britain) that feature was imported anew into the ratification and because of that the treaty has not been ratified in the French senate.


William Stevens Fielding: That is quite possible. Of course, we ourselves had some doubts in regard to Switzerland, but the occasion had not arisen for us to come to a deter-' mination on the question. But I think it is safe to assume that the able members of the diplomatic staff in Paris were not dependent on any information they might receive from us in respect to the treaties. A moment's thought will suggest to my hon. friend that the very able men who look after these matters in the foreign offices in the courts of Europe are well furnished with copies of all treaties and with able persons to understand and interpret them. Although some persons may have had the impression that Switzerland was not in-

eluded, I cannot imagine that the diplomatic officers in Paris were in the dark on the subject. At any rate, they had access to every paper and document on the subject to which we had access.



UNITED STATES SHEEP QUARANTINE.

Mr. CHRISTIE.: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture in reference to a statement made in the House the other day that the quarantine regulations in reference to sheep going to the United States applies only to breeding sheep. There is a large trade in Ontario with sheep and lambs which are sent to Buffalo, and I would like to know whether the regulation applies to them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The information which we have received from the United States authorities distinctly states that the regulation applies to breeding sheep.


Peter Christie: Only?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It does not use the word only, but as it reads it does not seem to apply to any others. However, we are in communication with the United States authorities on the subject.



DEBATES OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. J. B. KENNEDY (New Westminster).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a matter which should be of a good deal of interest to every hon member, as I know it is to the general public; that is, the amount of wind wasted here in long speeches. In the first session that I was in this House, I was struck by the fact that there was a great deal said that might better be left unsaid, as far as educating the general public or influencing the House was concerned, and I have been strengthened in that belief every session since, and more than ever this session. A short time ago, after the discussion on the Elections Act, I ran over ' Hansard ' and calculated the number of columns which each member had spoken in the House, and gave the results to the House. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) said that the government side had been responsible for far more of the contents of ' Hansard ' than the opposition side, and claimed that if we took the session from the beginning we would find that to be the case. Since then I have taken the trouble to go through the ' Unrevised Hansard ' and figure out as carefully as I could the amount of space which each man has occupied from the beginning of the session to last Wednesday night. If I had continued the calculation for the days since that date, the result would look very much worse for the gentlemen on the other side of the House. I
may say that I have not included any of the little questions asked across the House, which would not occupy more than an inch or so of * Hansard,' but have only taken what might be termed set speeches. Where a speech occupied a number of columns with a little piece over, I dropped the little piece. Any one who looks through ' Hansard ' will find that I have been as fair as 1 could possibly be. From my examination I find that since the beginning of the session to Wednesday night last the government are responsible for 4,004 columns of ' Hansard ' and the opposition for 4,636, a difference of 632 columns against the opposition ; and considering that there are only half as many men on the opposition side as on the government side, we shall have to give them credit for a great deal more long-windedness, versatility and loquaciousness than we on this side possess. I would not wish to hurt any one's feelings, but I am sorry to say that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is by far the worst sinner of all. He is responsible for 624 columns. His leader comes next with 434 The five who contribute the most largely are the hon. member for North Toronto, with 624 columns, the hon. leader of the opposition with 434 columns, the Minister of the Interior with 3S8 columns, the Prime Minister with 269 columns, and the Minister of Finance with 266 columns. When we consider that the twelve cabinet ministers in the House have a great deal to answer-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Buckham Kennedy: I did not say to answer for ; I said a great many questions to answer. It is true they have a great deal to answer for, and so have we all. But considering that they have all the government business to introduce and explain, and questions both wise and unwise to answer, I think it is rather strange that the twelve cabinet ministers have not occupied as much space as eight of the gentlemen on the other side of the House. I do not know that it would be of interest to the House that I should read this whole list, though I would like to see it go on ' Hansard.' As I went along I took note of those who had made the longest speeches of this session, with the following result: Dr. Roche (Marquette), 63 columns ; Colonel Worthington (Sherbrooke), 50 ; Sir Frederick Borden, (Kings, N.S.), 41 ; Mr. Alcorn (Prince Edward), 41 ; Dr. Schaffner, (Souris), 41 ; Mr. Oliver (Edmonton), 40 ; Mr. Aylesworth (North York), 39 ; Mr. Miller (South Grey) 37 ; Mr. Crawford (Portage la Prairie), 36; Mr. Guthrie (South Wellington), 34; Mr. fibster (North Toronto), 35 twice ; Mr. Monk, (Jacques Cartier), 34 ; Mr. Lewis, (West Huron), 33 ; Mr. Boyce (West Al-goma), 33 ; Mr. Armstrong (East Lambton), 29 ; Mr. McCool (Nipissing), 29 ; Hon. R.

L. Borden (Carleton, Out.), 28 ; Mr. S. J. Jackson (Selkirk), 28 ; Mr. Macdonald (Pic-tou), 27 ; Hon. Mr. Lemieux (Gaspe), 27 ; Hon. Mr. Fisher (Brome), 26 ; Hon. Mr. Graham (Brockville), 26; Mr. Northrup (East Hastings), 26 ; Sir Wilfrid Laurier (East Quebec), 25 ; Hon. Mr. Fielding (Shelburne and Queens) 25 ; Mr. Bristol (Centre Toronto), 25; Mr. Pringle (Stormont), 25 ; Mr. Galliher (Kootenay), 24; Sam. Hughes (Victoria and Haliburton), 24; Hon. Mr. Brodeur (Rouville), 23.
I did not go any further down on the list. Now, I hope we will all take this into our serious consideration and see if we cannot adopt some means by which every hon. member can place his ideas before the House in fewer words, throwing out a great deal of what is useless. For there is no doubt that, as every member of the House knows, a great deal that is said in this House might well be left unsaid. It does not convince anybody here, and it does not interest anybody outside. It would be greatly to the advantage of hon. members who have to sit here and listen and to the great, long-suffering public outside if speeches here were shorter.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kennedy), I think, has given the best justification of the opposition that could possibly be given. What is the occasion of the hon. gentleman's speech this afternoon? The misdeeds of the opposition. And what is the occasion of the long speeches of the opposition? The misdeeds of the government. Well, as the misdeeds of the government exceed the misdeeds of the opposition a thousandfold, the opposition might well have extended their speeches to a much greater average than the hon. gentleman has given without laying themselves open to criticism.


John Barr: I presume that this is the last dying speech and confession of the patriarch from British Columbia who has just addressed us. I think it would have been much more fitting if he had delivered this spech in a caucus of his friends and had endeavoured to persuade them to bring in the Bills which they foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne without waiting until the dying hours of the session. It would be more fitting if he were to warn them of the effects of bringing in such an obnoxious Bill as the Election Act amendment which we found necessary to fight at every stage, even to the extent of stopping the voting of Supply. This was the only power we could oppose to the overwhelming majority of the government and prevent the outrage upon the country that they were attempting.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I suppose the hon. gentleman does not intend to discuss that Bill again ?


James Buckham Kennedy: 


John Barr: I am replying to my hon. friend (Mr. Kennedy). I think I have a right to give reasons why we acted on the defensive in fighting these questions. The hon. member knows that we were obliged to fight that Bill from ditch to ditch until the last ditch was crossed. We compelled them to do justice to all except the province of Ontario. Though unsuccessful iD preventing discrimination against Ontario, yet we accomplished good work. When the hon. member feels like lecturing the House I Ihink he will find plenty of subjects on his own side. We were justified in taking every hour that we have taken in exposing and opposing the misdeeds of this government.


George William Fowler: At the end of a parliament we always are confronted by the statistician who comes forward with his tables of figures as the hon. member (Mr. Kennedy) has done. But that is the last of the statistician. He never appears in another parliament. I think that the hon. gentleman will share the fate of his predecessors.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Militia and Defence-Chargeable to income -Annual drill-further amount required including Quebec review, $200,000.
George Eulas Foster: I had intended, in company with two or three other hon. members, to take up a little more at length than I shall be able to do certain matters in connection with the Department of Militia and Defence. But at this time of the session, with almost everybody away, when my friends who were to have taken part in this discussion have been obliged to leave, I must content myself with saying much less than I should have done. In fact, I think all I can do now is to ask some questions. In the first place, I do not know whether the minister has explained to the House the transaction in lands at Niagara. If I am not misinformed, a considerable tract of land has been bought at Niagara for the purposes of a permanent camp. If the minister has already explained that transaction I am not aware of that explanation.


Frederick William Borden: I do not know that any reference has been made to this transaction. As every one knows, there is an old fort at Niagara which is one of the landmarks of Canadian history. Some years ago the question arose as to whether we should be able to continue to hold camp there, as we have been doing for years, because the camp ground was reported to be too small. The rifle rauge there is not sufficient for the modern rifle. Before constructing a rifle range it was thought desirable to look about and see whether we could not find a more suitable camp somewhere else. Several places were

examined, one in Simcoe was favourably reported upon. But when we tried to acquire the land the price was put up, and it was thought undesirable to go on with the purchase. Later on, the military staff of my department suggested the desirability of acquiring more land at Niagara adjacent to the lands already owned by us. I thought this a good idea. There is a very strong feeling in Ontario against abandoning the old historic grounds. General Lake kindly offered to take the matter in hand and had some correspondence, I believe with the authorities of the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. If I remember correctly, the result of the correspondence was that the mayor of the town was able to procure an option on some 200 acres of land-I have forgottefn the exact arfea : had I known that this matter was coming up I would have brought the papers with me. The price at which the land was offered was very low. A recommendation was made to council and the offer was accepted, and to-day we are the owners of that land. I have no doubt that it was secured at most favourable rates. It was done through the authorities of the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, which town was naturally very much opposed to the withdrawal of the camp from the old ground and took every means possible to assist the department in procuring the necessary-land at a favourable figure. I cannot tell my hon. friend what the price was, but I know it was a very fair price indeed.


George Eulas Foster: I think the minister must be in a position to tell us what the price is. How long ago was this land bought?


Frederick William Borden: I suppose three months ago, perhaps more.


George Eulas Foster: Has it been paid for?


Frederick William Borden: I think so.


George Eulas Foster: Out of what vote?


Frederick William Borden: The vote of $1,300,000 for ordnance, rifles, lands, etc., capital account.	.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister know what the price was?


Frederick William Borden: I do not remember.


George Eulas Foster: It seems extraordinary the minister would buy 200 acres of land and not remember approximately the price of the land.


Frederick William Borden: I did not buy the land, it was bought by the officers of my department, or rather it was bought for us by the authorities of the town. I cannot carry those things in my mind, but it seems to me it was somewhere about $80 an acre, but I am speaking from memory.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: R If the'minister knew the names of the vendors I could give some idea of the value of the land.


Frederick William Borden: My estimates have gone through, and I have not the papers here ; it was largely peach orchards. I am absolutely certain it was a great bargain.


George Eulas Foster: I am not taking any exception to the buying of lands for military purposes if it is necessary and if it is properly conducted, but it seems to me a transaction of that extent-buying 200 acres at the rate of $80-is a pretty large transaction without parliament knowing anything of it. The vote is for the purchase of ordnance, arms, lands for military purposes, stores, clothing, etc. I have the same objection to this as I have expressed to other votes, that under this resolution the minister could spend a million dollars for lands without parliament knowing anything of it.


Frederick William Borden: I shall get the information in ten minutes ; I am anxious to give it.


George Eulas Foster: I understand the minister has made a contract for the manufacture of bayonets in the country, for some 52,000, and that the contract has been made with the Ross Rifle Company. Has that contract ever been laid before parliament?


Frederick William Borden: I think, so.


Samuel Hughes: It was before the Public Accounts Committee.


George Eulas Foster: It is the right of this parliament to have information with reference to such contracts. By what authority did the minister enter into a contract for a quarter of a million dollars without having brought it before parliament? All the information I have gained has been by means of questions In the House. But as it appears, without any discussion in parliament or any approval of the plan by parliament, the minister has entered into a contract with the Ross Rifle Company for the manufacture of 52,000 bayonets at $5.25 per bayonet complete. That amounts to over a quarter of a million dollars, and had it not been for some questions asked in the House parliament would have had no knowledge of what had been done. Does not the minister think that in entering into a contract for $250,000 he should have been specially authorized by parliament upon information detailed to the House? It is not a small transaction, it is a large transaction, and in this case has to do with the effectiveness of a force. If we look at current prices, I think I am entirely within the mark in saying that $5.25 is an extremely high price for bayonets. I find that the price of the bayonet and scabbard

complete at the War Office for use with the rifle of the British force cost 9s. 8id., that is just $2.32.


Frederick William Borden: At what time?


George Eulas Foster: In 1897.
Sir FREDERICK? BORDEN. Yes.


George Eulas Foster: And at the present time I fail to find that the price of the bayonet is appreciably higher. I find the United States bayonet used by the United States troops and attached to their rifle costs even less than that.


Samuel Hughes: How does the hon. member arrive at the cost of the United States bayonet?


George Eulas Foster: A statement by one of its military officers.


Samuel Hughes: Manufactured by the United States itself?


George Eulas Foster: Exactly, as this is manufactured at a factory for which we have provided every dollar of the working capital.


Frederick William Borden: Not at all.


George Eulas Foster: And in advance of making-


Frederick William Borden: We do nothing of the kind.


George Eulas Foster: And in reference to this very contract, in which we advance 75 per cent of the total value of it before we get the bayonet. The very same article, if I am informed correctly, is in this contract as in the rifle contract, that we advance 75 per cent of the cost, which is three-quarters of $5.25.


Frederick William Borden: We do not advance a dollar.


George Eulas Foster: The minister need not say


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman need not misstate.


George Eulas Foster: I am not misstating.


Frederick William Borden: He is absolutely misstating it, and he knows it. You know it perfectly well; you know you are stating what is not a fact. You are doing it deliberately.


George Eulas Foster: I am stating what is absolutely the fact.


Frederick William Borden: You are not.


George Eulas Foster: He has no right to speak to me in that way.


Frederick William Borden: The bon. gentleman must not think he can talk to Mr. FOSTER.
people and insinuate and make improper and unfair statements, without getting his answer back.


George Eulas Foster: Every time this year that any person ihas attempted to criticise this hon. gentleman he has been blackguarded by him for doing so, across the floor of the House. He does not stop criticism that way. Let him bring his contract and place it on the table of the House, and I think I will be able to show him out of the contract that he does exactly in this case what he did in the Ross rifle case, that he advances 75 per cent before the articles furnished to the department.


Frederick William Borden: We do not advance in the case of the Ross Rifle contract, and that is what I say, and the hon. gentleman knows it. We give 75 per cent after 75 per cent of the work is done.
(Mr. FOSTER. What I said, and the minister cannot crawl out of it in that way, is that before a single rifle was furnished to this government they had advanced 75 per cent of the contract price of the rifle, and he knows that is absolutely true.


Frederick William Borden: No, what the hon. gentleman said was that we supplied the working capital for the company, which is not correct; and he said that every dollar of the money was paid before any work was done.


George Eulas Foster: I did not.


Frederick William Borden: Then how can the hon. gentleman say that we advanced the capital ?


George Eulas Foster: I did not say before it was done. I said before the rifles were delivered. That is what I said, and the ' Hansard ' will show it. and if the minister thinks it is not so we can refer to the ' Hansard ' report.


Frederick William Borden: Then there is nothing in your statement.


George Eulas Foster: There is something in the statement, as I think, though my hon. friend may think there |is nothing.


Frederick William Borden: Nothing at all.


George Eulas Foster: So I think it will be found that this is the condition, that the government is to advance the money expended on all bayonets, scabbards, parts thereof and materials therefor, to be delivered in any year up to 75 per cent of the price. That is exactly the wording of the contract in the case of the Ross rifle. Now in reference to the Ross rifle, what took place ? This state of things, that although an order was given at a certain time, the advances were thousands of dollars and hundreds of thousands of dollars over aud against these rifles, before a single one, or at least before the sale of rifles called for in

any one contract, was delivered. I have the figures here, they have been so often placed before the House that it does not seem necessary for me to do it again, but if the minister makes it necessary, I shall read the record out of his own mouth.
I find that the first contract for the Boss rifles was given March 27, 1902, for delivery in the calendar year of 1903.
And the contract with the Ross Rifle Company only allows him to make an advance for the space of one year during which they are to be delivered. Here then is the date of the contract, March 27, 1902, for 12,000 rifles. Well, Sir, there was not a rifle delivered until August, 1905. Then 1,000; and in October 1905, 3,000; and in December, 2,000. And yet if you will take the companion statement given by himself you will find that on August 6, 1905, $506,000 had been paid out by this government to the Ross Rifle Company, and at that time he had not more than 1,000 rifles delivered.


Frederick William Borden: We have got them now.


George Eulas Foster: You have got them now, and that is the way the minister thinks a contract is kept. Now I say that the same reading is in the articles of the contract for bayonets as was in the article of the Ross rifle contract, the very same terms; therefore, we may look for the very same noncarrying out. Now does the minister want me to read any more of these figures as to the immense sums of money that were paid, first, before a single rifle was delivered, and afterwards, before one-tenth of the number practically called for by that contract, had been delivered. Now it appears that in this matter the minister has given the extravagant price of $5.25 for bayonets, that he hag added to that the same condition that was in the Ross rifle contract, namely, that he can advance up to 75 per cent of the material and labour involved, before a single rifle bayonet is delivered.


Frederick William Borden: But after the work is done, and after the materials are there.


George Eulas Foster: -Not after the work is done, necessarily; after certain material is bought and after certain work is done, or before any work is done, if the material is there.	.


Frederick William Borden: It is only on material.
Mr. FOSTER And that may be advanced to hundreds of thousands of dollars before he has a single finished rifle. These are the facts ; That the minister gave orders, under the Ross rifle contract, for delivery of a certain number of rifles at various times; that the contract was not lived up to; that the minister advanced, for instance, in this case $506,000 before he had more than 1,000 rifles; that this contract is completed upon
exactly the same plan; it takes power to advance in exactly the same way. Therefore what will take place in what took place in the other case, that you actually give into these gentlemen's hands a working capital for the contract you give them, and for which you pay them. Now I was going on to say that the price of the United States bayonet is $1.43, that is what it costs. When the minister says that it is manufactured in government works, what are these down here at Quebec? What did you give to the Ross Rifle Company ? You gave them in perpetuity almost nineteen and a half acres of government land on the Plains of Abraham. That is what he gave them, for $1 a year. That is, he gave them their site. What next did he give them? He gave them outside of what they get in the city of Quebec-that is their own matter, an exemption from taxation-he gave them this contract on which he advances 75 per cent, as I have stated.


Frederick William Borden: I say we do not.


George Eulas Foster: Before the minister had a single rifle made and delivered, this government had paid out nearly $500,000; and before he had more than 1,000, they had paid in actual cash $506,000. The very same thing went on. This means that you are giving them your working capital. Suppose the minister's contract was that he paid them for their rifles when they delivered them; then, for every dollar's worth of material they bought they would have to furnish their own capital, for every hour of labour they would have to pay for it out of their own capital and they would get no money from the government until they had delivered the goods. But, in this case they get $506,000 out of the government before they deliver one single rifle. Is that not furnishing the working capital ? Take that out of the contract and they would have to furnish all the capital, find all the material and pay all the labour.


Frederick William Borden: They did furnish it.


George Eulas Foster: The minister furnished $506,000.


Frederick William Borden: No, paid it on account of work done.


George Eulas Foster: That is shown by his own answer.


Frederick William Borden: That is not so.


George Eulas Foster: And it is shown as well by the accounts. The minister knows the position that was taken by the Auditor General. In the course of time the Auditor General had to sit down on the minister and refuse to pay. He refused to pay because there was a constant advance of government funds before there was delivery of
.13547

the goods that were to be paid for, and he objected to it. The minister knows that and the minister knows that he had to go to council and get it to extend the time of the contract and so get payment in the end from the Auditor General. To sum up, first, a contract was made for $250,000 and this parliament does not know about it until to-day. In the second place the minister pays $5.25 for each bayonet when the bayonet supplied by the government of Great Britain is purchased for $2.92 and when the United States bayonet, made in the government works, it is said, costs $1.43.


Frederick William Borden: I would need some better evidence than the hon. gentleman's statement as to that fact.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister say that the United States bayonet does not cost that ?


Frederick William Borden: I do not believe it.


George Eulas Foster: The minister does not ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


George Eulas Foster: Well, if the minister will ask his own officers lie will find out that what I tell him is the fact.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman has been around my officers ?


George Eulas Foster: Around your offices ? Are they your offices ?	.


Frederick William Borden: Officers, I said.


George Eulas Foster: Are they your offices or are they your officers ?


Frederick William Borden: They are more mine than they are your's.


George Eulas Foster: At present. I know you think you own the whole thing but I do not think you do. I have a perfect right to go to your offices.


Frederick William Borden: Certainly and I have no doubt the hon. gentleman has been there just as he was in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Marine and Fisheries running around after the accountants to try to find out what is going on.


George Eulas Foster: I absolutely deny such and both of these assertions and demand a retraction of them. .


Frederick William Borden: I will not retract them.


George Eulas Foster: They must be retracted.


Frederick William Borden: They will not be retracted.


George Eulas Foster: I have personal knowledge of the matter, I say that both statements are untrue and I demand a retraction.


George Eulas Foster: .	i


Frederick William Borden: I will not retract.


George Eulas Foster: I appeal to the Speaker. I will have this matter settled.


Charles Marcil: It is customary to accept an hon. member's statement.


Frederick William Borden: Certainly. I was informed and believed until this minute that the hon. gentleman had been doing what I have stated. I am bound, as I did on a former occasion, to accept the hon. gentleman's statement that he did not.


George Eulas Foster: Then the hon. gentleman, having on a former occasion had to take back such assertions, ought to have learned something from his experience.


Frederick William Borden: I may have something to say about the former occasion.


George Eulas Foster: If the hon. gentleman wants to say something more let him say it now. Let him come right out with it.


Frederick William Borden: Go on.


George Eulas Foster: I have not done myself the honour of being in the minister's department. I do not know that I have been in it for four years, but if I wanted to go I would have a perfect right to go. The hon. gentleman has called them his offices. I do not think they are his.


Frederick William Borden: They are in occupation by me at the present time.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, unfortunately for this country they are.


Frederick William Borden: In your opinion.


George Eulas Foster: That is my opinion. Now I was going on to say when I was thus rudely interrupted by the minister, for which interruption he has had to make a retraction, that if he did not know he should have known and that if he will ask his own officers I think he will-


Frederick William Borden: My officers.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.	.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, a few minutes ago they were not my officers.


George Eulas Foster: They are your officers in occupation.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman found fault with me for calling them my officers.


George Eulas Foster: I will declare that they are his in occupation and humour him in that respect. However, if he will ask his officers-his by virtue of occupation for a short time only-he will find the records in his own department as to the price of the United States bayonet. I find here in
1354SJ

my notes, that, according to a letter from F. C. Ainsworth, Military secretary, acting secretary of war, August 25, 1906, and over his signature, the cost of the magazine rifle is given in the report of the Ordnance Department of the United States as $14.90, cleaning rod 24 cents and bayonet $1.42, the whole cost being $16.57. I base my statement as to the cost of the United States rifle on that authority. The minister says it is not true.


Frederick William Borden: I do not know what the hon. gentleman is reading from.


George Eulas Foster: X am reading from my notes.


Frederick William Borden: I thought so.


Wilfrid Laurier: A letter from *Mr. Ainsworth ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, this is taken from a letter of Mr. Ainsworth.


Frederick William Borden: To whom?


George Eulas Foster: To the department.


Frederick William Borden: To my department ?


George Eulas Foster: By courtesy-your department.


Frederick William Borden: Thank you.


George Eulas Foster: There is an immense difference between that and. a contract of this kind.


Frederick William Borden: In the first place the hon. gentleman finds fault with the fact that a contract has been entered into of $250,000 or thereabouts without the special authority of parliament. I may say at once in answer to the hon. gentleman that it has not been customary to lay contracts of this kind on the table or to ask the special permission of parliament for ithean^ Th.e hofci. gentleman, himself, in 1896, bought $1,000,000 worth of rifles and bayonets in England. He did not submit any contract, although I suppose they were bought on contract, to this House. He asked this House to vote $1,000,000 to enable him to buy rifles and bayonets.


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Frederick William Borden: I asked this House last year to vote $1,300,000 for the purpose of buying rifles and bayonets and various other things. In 1903 or 1904, I came to this House and stated the policy of the government with reference to the building up of the reserve of arms, ordnance, clothing, and all the various things required for the militia and I stated that that vote would be repeated probably for five years in succession. That vote has been repeated and out of that vote the materials, arms and
other things have been bought exactly as stated to parliament at the time, and in each year, in the Auditor General's Report and in the militia report, a full account has been given of what has been done. In regard to. this contract there was no secret. Information was asked in this House months ago and was given. The contract was entered into on May 4, and a statement was made in the House. I thought a copy of the contract had been laid on the table, but if not I am sorry as I intended it should be. The authority of parliament had been given quite as much in this case as in the case in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) purchased a million dollars worth of rifles and bayonets. The hon. gentleman states the price is altogether too high, and as authority he quotes a letter from somebody to the department stating that the price of the United States bayonet is $1.43. I doubt that. He says it is made in the ordnance factory in the United States, and if so, that represents the bare cost and not the cost as it would be if manufactured in a business establishment by a business concern. That is well known both in the United States and in England. I find that the hon. gentleman himself purchased bayonets in England in 1896 and a portion of the rifles and bayonets he bought were bought from the War Office direct and another portion through the War Office from the trade. The portion purchased from the trade in England in 1896 cost 15 shillings and 5 pence halfpenny, including all expenses, or $3.71. Applying the duty which is now imposed on bayonets to that price the cost would be $4.46. I find that at the time the hon. gentleman made his purchases he happened to go into the market at a very favourable moment, and that he got a reduction of about 124 per cent below the regular prices. When a factory begins the manufacture of armament of any kind there is always added to the estimated cost an estimate to cover initial expenses at the outset of manufacturing. It so happens that at the time General Lake made these purchases for the hon. gentleman in England the time had passed during which that 121 per cent was maintained, and he got a reduction upon his rifles and bayonets of about 124 per cent. Therefore if you add that 124 per cent to the $4.46 paid you will see that the price will be considerably higher than the $5.25 upon which this contrast is based. That is called the initial expense which is reckoned for in all contracts of this kind. $5.25 being the contract price, $4.46 being the cost which the hon. gentleman paid for the bayonet; it would give 79 ceDts to cover the initial cost of expenditure to provide for manufacture. I think the hon. gentleman is misinformed as to the cost of the bayonet at the War Office to-day, because I have here the latest quotation of the price of bayonet and scabbard in England and the cost of 25,844 bayonets accordng to ord-

nance factories account-that is at the ordnance not the trade outside-is $2.02, and the cost of 688 scabbards, 3 shillings and 3 pence halfpenny or 80 cents, making $2.82; the departmental expenses, 154, freight 14, making a total of S3.ll! cents, and applying duty to this you will get about $4. The ordnance factories, prices for bayonets and scabbards given above do not include initial expense. The average difference between ordnance factories price and the price to the trade paid by the British government is approximately 35 per cent. This does not include any charge for initial expenditure. If you add that on it will bring it to $5,024 cents which leaves 224 cents per bayonet and scabbard for the initial expense on a contract for 52,000, equal to $11,700, which I think is not an extravagant allowance for the Initial expense in a matter of this kind. In the case of rifles it is different, but in the case of bayonets the government is absolutely the only customer the contractor has so that when this contract is finished that is the end of it and unless some provision is made to the contractor for initial expense he would be very likely to make a loss, a thing which I do not think anybody desires. But the department took the precaution to ask somebody else. They asked the only other people in Canada who could do work of this kind. They asked the Ottawa Car Company to tender on this contract and the Ottawa Car Company did tender and if I remember correctly their tender was $5.45 so that the contract was given to the lowest tenderer. I believe that from all points of view the contract was a fair one. As to the quantity ordered-52,000 rifles are under order from the Ross Rifle Company, and it was therefore necessary to have 52,000 bayonets and a contract was entered into for the delivery of that number within threie' years.
The hon. gentleman will see that it is not $260,000, or whatever the amount of the contract may be, in one year ; but it is spread over three years. So that it is not such an alarming thing ; and of course it is absolutely necessary that we should have the bayonets in order that the rifles may be distributed to the troops as early as possible. The hon. gentleman has taken exception to this contract on the ground that it is similar to the Ross rifle contract, in authorizing advances up to 75 per cent.
We had that matter very fully threshed out in this House when the Ross rifle was under discussion. I stated then, and I repeat now, that in a contract of this kind, encouraging a new industry in this .country, it was absolutely necessary that reasonable encouragement should be given to the contractor. He had to put up an expensive building and put in expensive machinery, and it was only fair that reasonable advances should be made to him as the work progressed. In England payments are always made in advance. The war office itself, if we gave Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
them an order, would require the whole or nearly the whole of it to be paid for in advance. It does not seem to me to be unreasonable that this company should be paid, not in advance-I do not know that the hon. gentleman wished to misstate the fact, and if I gave the impression that I thought he did, I apologize ; but I understood him to say that we paid this money in advance and supplied the company with its working capital. That is not true. What is done is this. After materials have been bought, after work has been done, a reliable man, a chartered accountant approved of by the Auditor General, goes and takes stock and examines all the vouchers and all the bills for all the material, and ithe books showing the labour expended, and upon that data furnishes the department with a statement on which 75 per cent of the value of the rifles is paid. The hon. gentleman makes a great point of the fact that considerable money at one time was advanced before any rifles were received. That is quite true. There were difficulties in the matter of the construction of the rifle and the delay was quite as much due to the officers of the department as to the company itself. The company was anxious to deliver a satisfactory rifle. The inspector was anxious that a satisfactory rifle should be delivered, and the inspector representing the department on the one hand and the officers of the company on the other hand worked together with a view to making certain changes in the mechanism to bring about the desirable result of delivering to the department and the country a first-i'ate rifle. This caused a certain amount of delay. I think for nearly a year there were no deliveries, but the w'ork was going on. Four or five hundred men were working. We had the evidence of the chartered accountant before the Public Accounts Committee that out of $1,100,000 expended, $900,000 or about that sum was upon labour employed in the factory. So, in view of the fact that this was a new industry employing 500 men, and that it was in accordance with the policy laid down by the War Office that we should be as independent as possible in matters of this kind, it seems to me that there should be no serious complaint made against the department for extending reasonable leniency. The hon. gentleman says that we violated the contract. The hon. gentleman ought to know better. We did not violate the contract. My late deputy was a lawyer of good, standing, and he passed these different demands for advances as they came in, and it never occurred to him, nor to anybody else but the Auditor General, that these payments should be limited to a given year. The Auditor General took a different view. It was quite proper for him to do so if he chose ; he did it conscientiously. At my suggestion the matter was submitted to the Department of Justice, who ruled that the action of my department 1 was in accordance with the contract. Then

it was that the Auditor General said : Then X must ask council to approve of the extension of time ; and that was done. It was perfectly proper. It ought to have been done before, and I do not see that the department is liable to any very great censure for that.


George Eulas Foster: When was the contract entered into ?


Frederick William Borden: On the 4th of May, 1908.


George Eulas Foster: When are the first bayonets to be delivered ?


Frederick William Borden: 
George Eulas Foster: Is there any provision for importation of parts ?


Frederick William Borden: No, these are to be all made in Canada. Of course the steel must be imported.


George Eulas Foster: Has the factory yet been started? If so, what progress has been made?


Frederick William Borden: Some progress is being made, and I think the work is to be carried out in connection with the rifle factory, some addition being made.


George Eulas Foster: When does the minister expect the first delivery?


Frederick William Borden: I understand they are actually at work, so that it is hoped early delivery will be made.


George Eulas Foster: Has any advance been made?


Frederick William Borden: I cannot speak with certainty-so far as I know, none, and if there has been any I think it would have been brought to my notice.


George Eulas Foster: The manufacture of
52,000	practically exhausts the manufacture of bayonets.	[DOT]


Frederick William Borden: That number covers the number of rifles under order. About 44,000 rifles have been delivered out of 52,000. But, in future, when additional orders are given for rifles, additional orders will be given for bayonets of course. But it will be open to the government to terminate this contract and make a new one, or readjust the terms when this contract for 52,000 terminates. It might be also that the next lot of rifles would be of a somewhat different pattern, and so the bayonet pattern would have to be changed. The 52,000 rifles are of the same pattern. These are the considerations upon which the number was fixed at 52,000.


George Eulas Foster: Has the pattern been adopted ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. Twenty bayonets were manufactured more than a year ago and submitted to the military members of my department and sent to the Petewawa camp to be tested there during the exercises of last year. They were thoroughly tested, I believe, and found to be entirely satisfactory.
Mr. FOSTER, And have the drawings and specifications been prepared ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Are they in the hands of the contractors yet?


Frederick William Borden: I think so.


George Eulas Foster: The minister will remember the delay that occurred with reference to the Ross rifle-


Frederick William Borden: We have learned by experience.
Mr. FOSTER-And a very costly teaching it happened to be in that case.


Frederick William Borden: Not so.


George Eulas Foster: I understand the minister to say that in this case the pattern has been adopted and the specifications made and placed in the hands of the contractors ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I do not see any force at all in the minister's calculation as to the matter of duty


Frederick William Borden: Why would not the hon. gentleman give the same privilege to a manufacturer who is making material for the government that he would to a manufacturer who is making material Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
for the public? Why should not the manufacturer of bayonets, for instance, have the benefit of this provision as to duty as well as the woollen manufacturer, the cotton manufacturer or the sewing machine manufacturer?


George Eulas Foster: In the first place, the minister will see there is a great difference. The government treats no woollen manufacturer as it treats this manufacturer of rifles and bayonets. It does not give them a free site in perpetuity-


Frederick William Borden: But towns do.
Mr. FOSTER-and it does not give them an advance on the price of goods, which advance, in this case, amounted to a very large sum before a single rifle was delivered. Let us reason that out for a moment. The general manufacturer has to select his material and buy it, to select his labour and pay it. He has to go through the whole process from the raw material up to the finished article. He then ihas to have that pass inspection, he ships it and the delivery is made. Then he gets his payment and not before. By this bayonet contract the man who manufactures buys the material and hires his men, but he pays for that material and for that labour out of the advance of 75 per cent and that is actually, to that extent, working capital which is provided for him by the government. He buys his material for a certain consignment of rifles or of bayonets and he puts his labour on it. He buys his material for two or three months, whatever are the terms, he puts his labour on that and he works it up and all the time his labour is working on it and bringing it towards the perfected instrument whatever it is, the bayonet or the rifle, he is receiving 75 per cent of the contract price which is, I think we will all admit, very close to the actual cost of the finished article, leaving the other 25 per cent for profit to the manufacturer. Therefore it is plain enough that whatever you may call it the man is really getting by his advance the working capital that is necessary for him to buy his material and employ his labour. You can always buy from the war office. The war office would be very willing to accommodate themselves to and work in co-operation with the government of Canada or any other colony. When we bought war material it was made what we call a rush order as sometimes has to be done. We wanted that $1,000,000 worth or more as quickly as possible. The war office provided us with one-half of those rifles and the small arms factory at Birmingham supplied the remaining half. Arrangements could have been made just as well, to-day as then with the British government by which the rifles and bayonets as well could have been provided, in whole or in part, by the ordnance department and perhaps in part by the dif-

1355S
ferent factories of small arms in Birmingham and other places. It is true that the outside manufacturer charges more man the imperial government does. It is also true that when the imperial government requires the installation of additional machinery for making ordnances for itself it allows. for a certain period of time, a little larger price. I think the allowance was about 10 shillings in the ease of the small arms company at Birmingham.


Frederick William Borden: No, it is about 20 shillings.


George Eulas Foster: 
Frederick William Borden: 
George Eulas Foster: 
Frederick William Borden: 
George Eulas Foster: It is still less then as 1 have added 54 per cent to make the total.


Frederick William Borden: That is added here too.


George Eulas Foster: The difference between us is not great. The average then according to the minister's paper would be less than my average, $20,774 for the 40,000. There is no doubt the minister could have made very much the same kind of an arrangement with the British war office and with the manufacturer's of arms, and I do not think you will find there has been a very large appreciation in the price. What does the minister's Ross rifle cost him ? It costs him without the bayonet, about $28 to $29 per rifle.


Frederick William Borden: 


George Eulas Foster: No, he has to take in everything in connection with the cost. There is the amount he has paid for changes and other improvements, that is he has undertaken to experiment upon a rifle which it has taken himi from 1902 to 1908 to get into what he thinks just now is a 4304
pretty complete condition and he has had to pay for that experimentation.


Frederick William Borden: It is not fair to charge that to the rifle.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly.


Frederick William Borden: There may be 100,000 more rifles.


George Eulas Foster: There may be but that is what these rifles have cost up to the present time, and that need not have been added to I the cost if the minister had bought in Great Britain. He has had to pay $30,967 for changes and improvements, $76,580 for inspection, rentals, &c., and $26,237 for gauges so that the total payment for the 40,000 rifles, according to his own answer, is $1,138,784 which brings the cost up to $28.47. Then he has no bayonet. If he adds the price of the bayonet $5.25 and there will bp inspection and other charges for this, he will have $33.72 which his rifle and bayonet-will cost him, whereas from the war office, the whole'thing complete cost us $20,774 each for 40,000 rifles. The difference between $20,774 and $33.72 represents just about the difference in the price that we have to pay. The same arrangement could, I think, have been made and the same relative saving.


Samuel Hughes: By buying in England?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Then why not buy woollens and cottons there?


George Eulas Foster: I do not think you can ever go on the same system and rule with reference to the manufacture of arms by a government as you can in respect of the general trade and manufactures of the country ; you may force that argument in, but I do not think it is altogether a fair way of putting it.
With reference to the bayonets, the same thing takes place. The minister could go to the British War Office and buy his bayonets for 9s. 8|d., adding some cost which would bring it up a little, or he could buy them from the small arms factories for about 13s. 2}d. There may be some little cost added to that. Suppose he got the orders about equally placed for that 52,000, it would make an average in the vicinity of $3 per bayonet. - Now he is paying $5.25 per bayonet. It seems to me it would have been a far better policy in the manufacture of both bayonets and rifles to have kept ourselves in exact unison with Great Britain. They have certainly had the greater experience in the manufacture of arms; they have the knowledge and the expert skill ; they are as interested in getting the very best arm for the British service, more interested than probably any other country in the world-certainly they are as much

Interested as we are. We would have had the benefit of uniformity in arms and of the experience and skill and the cost of experimenting by the British government itself. The main argument that has been advanced in favour of the present system is that you wanted to be independent. But the fact is you are not independent now, in the manufacture of the Ross rifle you bring into this country from the United States manufactured parts. In the manufacture of the Ross rifle you bring in from the United States certain manufactured parts. I think we would have been just as independent if we had kept up the connection with the British War Office. Great Britain has command of the sea, and will keep it as long as she is a strong and permanent empire. I do not think there is much doubt as to our being always in a position to get our supplies of arms in that way from Great Britain. We would then keep side by side with the British government in all its improvements, and we would have a uniform arm. Instead of that, the minister went to work and undertook to manufacture a rifle, and it took him years to know what kind of a rifle he wanted. It may have been that the Ross rifle, as Ross brought it here, was a better rifle than it is to-day after it has gone through these experimentations.


Samuel Hughes: It is rather late in the session to go over that question.


Frederick William Borden: I think the hon. gentleman will see that it is hardly fair to repeat this whole debate over again. I have discussed the question-here for an hour or more. It is hardly fair to me ; it is hardly fair to the House at this hour, within a few hours of prorogation, to precipitate the debate anew. All that he has said has been said two or three .times already during this session. Every one of these statements he is making has been answered. I appeal to the hon. gentleman as to whether this is the sort of thing we would expect from an old parliamentarian on the eve of the prorogation of parliament.


George Eulas Foster: I am making my statement with reference primarily to the bayonet contract, and I am arguing from the Ross rifle contract to the bayonet contract.


Samuel Hughes: There is just one point. Reference was made to the primary rifle being better than the present rifle. I may tell him that the rifle that is now in the hands of the soldiers, and which has been condemned, has come through the severest test any rifle has ever passed through, and has proven itself equal to any rifle in the world. It is a question of test.


George Eulas Foster: After all, you are dependent upon the rifle factory here, which is not manufacturing bayonets, and you are Mr. FOSTER.
paying $5.25, when I am certain you could have got those bayonets made by the War Office and by the other companies in Great Britain at a figure somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 to $3.50 each. As to independence in the matter, why, if war came to-morrow, or any time within two years, or even three years, if it came of a sudden, the factory here could not supply you, it is not able to do it. You would have then to go to the British government and get your supplies in the old country.


Frederick William Borden: For the third or fourth time I must repeat, as briefly as possible, what I have said before as a justification for undertaking to encourage the manufacture of arms in this country. Let me preface that by asking the hon. gentleman :	Why did the government to which he belonged encourage the manufacture of ammunition? It could have been procured more cheaply in England. Why did he do that ? When I came into the office the factory established by the hon. gentleman was manufacturing some
600.000	or 700,000 rounds of ammunition a year. I am happy to say that quantity has been increased from 600,000 to about 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 rounds. The hon. gentleman says we can always get what rifles we want in England. Well, we could not. In the year 1900 I tried to get 10,000 and we could not get 2,000. We did not know what was going to happen in 1900. We had sent 7,000 troops to South Africa armed with 7,000 of our own rifles and had reduced our stock. We wanted more ; we
.tried to get 10,000, and we could not get
2.000	the very moment we wanted them. The hon. gentleman's argument would apply to any manufacture in Canada. I am surprised that an old national policy advocate should stand up here at this day and recommend that we should go on in this manner, being absolutely dependent upon the supply to come from the mother country. The same argument that applies to any manufacture in this country applies with greater force in this case, because this is a question of defence ; it is a vital question, both to this country and to the empire at large. I read the other night-the hon. gentleman was here and heard me- from the blue-books laid before the imperial authorities a year ago, and what did it say ?
No review of the strategical conditions of the British empire, even when suoh a review is limited to the ipurely military aspects of the question, can be undertaken without admitting as a first and fundamental -principle that the maintenance of the empire rests primarily upon supremacy at sea.
Suppose that supremacy was interrupted, as it might be, even temporarily, and communication were cut off between this country and the mother country. It might

happen, it would be very likely to happen, it is possible, it is probable, if a union of any two great powers took place against Great Britain. I do not believe it would be permanent, but it might continue long enough to place us in the greatest peril, and absolutely imperil the connection between this countrj and the mother country. What did this blue-book say further ?
It is most desirable that the area of supply of the warlike store under reference should be _ as wide as possible, and therefore the colonial governments should be urged to arrange for local 'manufacture and provisions, rather than to rely on the resources of the United Kingdom.
There is the answer to the hon. gentleman. If we are to carry out our policy, do our part in defence of this empire, we must be prepared to manufacture, not only the rifles, but the ordnance and ammunition of all kinds, in our own country. That is the best way, no matter what it may cost. The cost must be kept within a reasonable amount. But it cannot be done yet as cheaply as it can in England. The department will carry out that policy so far as the manufacture of ammunition is concerned. We are already manufacturing ammunition in this country as cheaply, after twenty years of experience, as it can be done in England. The time will come when we may be able to manufacture rifles and ordnance as cheaply, but it will be many years. Wre must pay higher prices In the meantime ; labour is dearer. The hon. gentleman says : Oh, but it is not manufactured in Canada after all, you have to get the material outside. That argument would be just as sound and just as strong against almost any factory in Canada. Why, even agricultural implements are manufactured to a considerable extent from materials imported, and have to be. Carriages manufactured in this country are manufactured from imported material. We must creep before we walk. On the policy which the hon. gentleman lays down we would be content to remain in the condition we were in under his administration, and never be able to manufacture for ourselves. I do not believe that is a policy which the people of this country will endorse. I am quite content to leave this contract and to leave the policy in the judgment of the people to say whether It has been wise or whether it has been unwise.
With reference to the Niagara property about which the hon. gentleman asked, I have a memorandum which says : the total amount of money involved in the purchase was $31,000 or $120 an acre. The payment was made through the Department of Justice after negotiation by General Bake with the mayor of Niagara-on-the-Lake. The valuations obtained from an independent valuator were the same as the purchase
price. The memorandum says that the registry is closed and full particulars cannot
obtained.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose we will have the report on Monday.


Frederick William Borden: I will bring down all the papers.


George Eulas Foster: Is this our last item of Supply ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the Speaker of the House, If there have been any additions made to salaries of officers of the House within a late period ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Yes. The salary of Mr. McCord, law clerk of the House of Commons, has been increased from $3,500 to $4,000. This increase has been under consideration for some time. In fact, the former Minister of Justice, about the time he was leaving office recommended that as Mr. McCord was doing what was called parliamentary counsel work his salary should be increased by $500. We had the matter up for consideration last year and again this year and we thought the increase was warranted. I may say that ail these increases have been recommended by the clerk of the House.


Mr. SPROULE.: What does Mr. Speaker mean by parliamentary counsel ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I suppose it is in connection with advice on Bills. I do, not know what the extra duties are but it has been maintained by Mr. McCord for some years that he was doing this work and was entitled to be paid for it, and the former Minister of Justice recommended it. Then, Mr. Laplante, the clerk assistant of the House, has been increased from $2,800 to $3,500. The assistant clerk has been for one or two years pointing out that as compared with the former assistant clerks and as compared with those occupying similar positions in other legislative assemblies his remuneration was not at all adequate.


George Eulas Foster: When was Mr. Laplante appointed ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 22nd March, 1897.


George Eulas Foster: At what salary.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It was formerly $2,800 but it was reduced to $2,000 when he took office.


George Eulas Foster: When did it go to $2,800?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: In 1903 or 1904. Having regard to the very onerous work Mr. Laplante has to do at all hours during the session, we thought this was only a proper recognition of his services. The salaries of the ' Hansard ' staff have been dealt with by a resolution, and they have been in-

*creased to $2,500. Mr. Boyce, the assistant to the chief reporter, has been increased from $1,200 to $1,600. The salary of the translators of debates has been fixed at $2,100 as compared with $2,000.


George Eulas Foster: How many of them are there ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I cannot say exactly but I will get the Information.


George Eulas Foster: What comes next?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The two official stenographers of the committee of the House are getting $1,500 each and they made representations to us that when they accepted a salary of $1,500 they had no conception that the session would be anything like eight months in length. They claimed an advance in salary and a special allowance for this year. We decided on the whole to recommend that $100 be allowed as compensation for the present session and that they be given a permanent advance of $100 making their salaries $1,600. Mr. Howe, a second-class clerk, clerk of the Public Accounts Committee, has been promoted to a first-class clerkship. I need not point out how much work is being done, session after session, in the Public Accounts Committee. He is given a first-class clerkship at a salary of $1,600 a year.


George Eulas Foster: What is he getting now ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: $1,400 and he gets an advance of $200.


George William Fowler: What did the translators formerly get?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: $2,000. They are getting an advance of $100. Then, Messrs. Clapin, Tessier, Paradis and Briand, of the translators' branch of the House, are promoted from second-class clerkships at the following salaries:	Clapin and Tessier, $1,700;
Paradis and Briand, $1,500, the two former having been longer in the service and having had more experience than the two latter.


George Eulas Foster: What were they getting before?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Clapin and Tessier were getting $1,500.	*


George Eulas Foster: And Paradis and Briand ? Mr. SPEAKER. $1,350.


George Eulas Foster: Will the Speaker tell us what their duties are?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They are permanent
translators. I think Briand does some proof-reading work also.


George Eulas Foster: Are they sessional clerks?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They are permanent clerks.


George Eulas Foster: Will the Speaker be kind enough to tell us what they do?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They translate blue-books and all that class of work. Some of it is very technical and requires careful work. They translate all the sessional papers practically.


George Eulas Foster: How long are they at work?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: All the year around with the exception of a reasonable vacation. Then there is Mi-. Tremblay and Mr. Qufiry. Mr. Query has been here since 1874, and he is increased from $1,700 to $1,900. Mr. Tremblay came in 1882 and he is increased from $1,700 to $1,900.


George Eulas Foster: What do Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Query do?
Mr. SPEAKER, They are also permanent translators.
Mr. FOSTER, Doing the same work as those above?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Practically the same work. Then there is Mr. Naubert, who is increased from $1,000 to $1,100. He is an assistant in the stationery office. Mr. Chap-leau, the chief clerk of the French Votes and Proceedings, has found that his work is becoming very onerous. He is a very old and efficient officer of the House and he has found it absolutely necessary to have assistance. In fact he has been utilizing the services of an assistant to some extent to keep up with his work and he made an application for a permanent assistant in his office as translator and assistant clerk. The board decided, on the recommendation of the clerk and myself, to take power to appoint an additional man who has not yet been selected. They also decided to recommend that he be appointed a second-class clerk to start at a salary of $1,200. It will require an experienced, careful and competent man and it will hardly be possible to get any one who is fitted to do that work at a less salary than that. Lionel Dansereau is increased from a second to a first-class clerkship and the salary is fixed at the minimum of that class, $1,500.


George Eulas Foster: What is he getting now? Mr. SPEAKER. $1,400.


George Eulas Foster: What does he do?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: French journal clerk. Then Mr. Deacon, second-class clerk who is curator of the reading room, is promoted from a junior second class to a second. I have had a conversation with the accountant, who has some supervision over his work in connection with the newspapers, and he recommends him as a very competent careful officer who is very closely occupied and who thinks that this increase is justifiable.


George Eulas Foster: What salary was he formerly getting?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 
George Eulas Foster: Wlmt are they getting now ?	.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: $700 each. This puts them at the maximum of that '('lass-(reading) :
That the salaries of Messrs. Charles R. Stewart, Thomas Ebbs, Louis P. Moreau and A. Boutet be increased to $700 each; that Mr. St. Louis, barber, have the 'Same rate of pay as if he were a sessional messenger, and that the pay of sessional 'bookkeepers, H. C. Vaughan and G. Turner in the messenger staff be increased 50 cents per diem from the beginning of the present session. That Sessional Doorkeeper Williams have an increase of 25 cents per diem.
11. That as soon as possible a suitable room be set apart for the receipt, care, issue and distribution to the members of the House of Commons of the blue-books and other public documents formerly stored and distributed from the post office of the House, and that a permanent clerk to be a junior second class clerk 'at the minimum salary of that grade be appointed to assist Mr. Hollingsworth, of the post office, at present in charge of the work.


George Eulas Foster: Will that be a new appointment ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That will be a new appointment. We are promoting one of the messengers to that position. The question of the distribution of blue-books to the members has been a source of annoyance to my
knowledge for the last four years. It bas never been satisfactory. It formerly encumbered the post office. This year a change was made, and. the distribution was made from a small room off one of the corridors. As the blue-books are very large in number, we contemplate using one of the rooms in the new extension for this purpose, and assigning to some one the constant supervision of the matter, which I think will work out satisfactorily. This is the recommendation of die clerk and I think also of Mr. Mills, the postmaster. (Reading) :
15. That the appointment of Mr. Speaker of W. A. Lalonde, promoted from ia permanent messenger ship, as a junior second class clerk' be confirmed, lit being understood that he is to be assigned to the above duty.
All these increases, except those of the Debates staff, are to take effect from the beginning of the present fiscal year. The increases of the Debates staff take effect from the beginning of the session.


George Eulas Foster: Will the Speaker tell us out of what moneys he is paying for these Increases ?	.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: They will have to be voted.	.


George Eulas Foster: Is the Speaker making these appointments and these increases, commencing with the beginning of this fiscal year, and waiting till next session for a vote to authorize them ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That is the intention.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the usual way ? It seems to me that we have been usually

getting the vote first and making the appointments afterwards. May be under the new deputy we are going to adopt a different system.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: We think there will be enough money for the purpose.


George Eulas Foster: But the money'was not appropriated for this.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It was appropriated for the general salaries of the House. In the meantime we put this on the minutes of the Board of Internal Economy as our recommendation to the government. Of course, the matter will have to be dealt with in. the ordinary way.


George Eulas Foster: Have you included in these increases all the officials in connection with the House ?	-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would not like to say that we have included all. We have included quite a number, but not all. Some of these cases have been standing for a year or two, and others have come up this session. In other cases, the officials have not applied for an increase this year.


George William Fowler: That makes a difficulty, where some have been selected for an advance and others have not, and I do not think that a man should suffer for his modesty. If a man is too modest to request an increase of salary, that ought to be counted to him as an advantage. I would give the modest man a larger amount than the fellow who is always pressing for an advance.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The clerk has gone over these matters very carefully, and has' recommended them.
Some resolutions reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Grant towards the erection of a monument at ^Brantford, to commemorate invention of telephone, one-fourth of cost not exceeding $7,500.
['Yes.']
William Stevens Fielding: I -wish to move an amendment to that item. The total appropriation for this purpose, of course, was $10,000, one-quarter of this vote having been concurred in with the others. It has been brought to my notice that the vote in its present form will hardly cover the purposes of the promoters of this movement. It makes provision only with regard to a ' monument.' The committee having the matter in charge may wish to purchase the old Bell homestead which may be made a part of the memorial. Mr. FOSTER.
I propose to amend the resolution to make it read ;
Grant 'towards a 'memorial at or near Brantford to commemorate the invention of the telephone.
That will allow the committee to use the money, if they wish to do so, partly for a monument and partly for a memorial in some other form. Both will be covered by the word ' memorial.'
Motion agreed to and item amended, and, as amended, concurred in.
Public Works, chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-South lake, Laltevale-opening channel from lake to St. George's bay, inclusive of protection work, $5,625.


Mr.  S. W. W.@: S, FIELDING (Minister of Finance). That estimate was made some time ago and progress has been made, so that so large an amount is not required. I propose to reduce the item to $700, and move that it be amended accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to. Item as amended concurred in.
['S, FIELDING (Minister of Finance). That estimate was made some time ago and progress has been made, so that so large an amount is not required. I propose to reduce the item to $700, and move that it be amended accordingly.']
Richard Blain: Is the Minister of Public Works making any special provision for more rapid progress on the work in connection with the Geological Survey building? I understand that some of the minor contractors for heating, lighting, &c., are rather slow at their work and that the general work of the building is being interfered with.


William Pugsley: That is not the case. The contractor for the building, Mr. Goodwin, is pushing it very rapidly, but the contract for the heating, lighting, fittings, &c., has not yet been let. I stated in the House that I would ask for tenders for the heating, lighting and fittings, but since then representations have been made urging me to push the work forward and I have a proposal from the contractor with reference to the heating, lighting and fittings. The matter is now under consideration. Everything will be done to push forward the building and the progress so far has been as rapid as it possibly eould.


John Barr: How long before the building will be completed ?


William Pugsley: If arrangements can be made so that the subsidiary work of heating, lighting, fittings, &c., can go on concurrently with the main work of the building, I am informed it may be possible to provide for a large number of the specimens in the present museum even during the coming winter. I expect the whole building will be completed next year.


Mr. STEWART.: Apart from ,the necessity of protecting the specimens at the geological museum, any one who enters the present museum must see that if a fire

should break out there is great danger of loss of life. A considerable portion of the present museum is made up of buildings attached to the stone building. This shows the necessity of pushing the completion of the geological museum as rapidly as possible.
Mines Branch-investigation of ore deposits and economic minerals; of fuel values of coals and peat of Canada; examination and delimitation of peat hogs, $35,250.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the Minister of Mines (Mr. Templeman) what provision, if any, he has made for Dr. Bell, who, after the death of Dr. Dawson, took on the work for a number of years which Dr. Dawson had done, on the salary that he was getting at the time that Dr. Dawson died. I think that Dr. Bell received no addition at all for the extra work he did from the time of Dr. Dawson's death until the appointment of Mr. Low. It seems .to me that Dr. Bell's service, the length of time in which he has been employed by the department, his world-wide reputation, and the very fact that most of tile work which has been done since in the way of publication and, I am not sure, but most of the work of exploration, has been based upon the work of Dr. Bell previous to that. Anyway, it seems .to me that a man who was neither appointed as director nor definitely told that he would be appointed as director, but who, for a number of years, did the work, and it is somewhat onerous work, ought to have had some recognition. X am not sure whether anything has been done in the way of an increase of salary or by an appropriation for the difference in the salaries, or provision in any other respect. .1 would like to ask the minister if he would inform the House in reference to that ?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: He was acting Director of the Geological Survey for some years.


George Eulas Foster: How many?


William Templeman: Probably four or five years. At the time of the death of Dr. Dawson his salary as geologist was $2,400. Dr. Bell was never made director of the survey for reasons that I am not aware of. I would suppose that the minister of that day did not think Dr. Bell possessed the strength and abilities which would fit him to be the permanent director of the survey. At all events, he was not appointed. He was acting director and he received, during that time, the salary of his position as geologist of the survey, $2,400. While he was acting director he declined, I understand, to accept the annual increase of salary appertaining to the position of geologist, claiming, I am advised, that during that time he should receive the
salary of director-. The minister did not see fit to accede to that claim. Mr. Low was appointed director, probably three years ago, Dr. Bell being at that time advanced to the position of chief geologist, a name created especially for the purpose of giving him a distinctive position in the .survey.


George Eulas Foster: Did that carry an in-ei'ease of salary?


William Templeman: That carried an increase of salary up to $3,000. Dr. Bell has received $3,000 practically for three years, and on the 1st of June last he accepted superannuation, being given six months' leave of absence. He receives a superannuation allowance of a little over $2,000 a year. I am aware of the fact that Dr. Bell does claim the difference between the $2,400 per annum that he received as acting director and the present salary of director.


George Eulas Foster: Which is?


William Templeman: $3,000. Mr. Low, who occupies the position of director*, is also the head of the department, and his salary has been going up since by annual increases of, I think, $100. Dr. Bell, in my opinion, has been very fairly dealt with. He is receiving a superannuation allowance of over $2,000. He was not, in the opinion of the ministers who have administered the department for the last ten years, just the person that -they would cate to put into the position of director tor reasons I do not need to go into. He is an old official of the department ; I believe he has been over fifty years in the service. I do not believe it is accurate for the hon. gentleman to say that the whole or any portion of the work in the way of the publication of reports or surveys since Dr. Bell has retired from the service is due to the work of Dr. Bell further than that, of course, the surveys made by the Geological Survey during his administration annually have been published as the reports of the department. The principal part of the work done by the Mines Department during the last few years has been conceived and carried out by Dr. Low, the Director of the Geological Survey, and by Dr. Haanel, Director of the Mines branch. I understand that Dr. Bell does make some claim for compensation for the five years during which he has been acting director. That matter was presented to me a few weeks ago, and it has not been disposed of.


George Eulas Foster: I was taking Jhe statement that the minister has made last. A geologist is a technical officer, and Dr. Bell has gvien some fifty years' service to Canada. When that fifty years was pretty well up to its limit, he was getting only $2,400 a year. Dr. Bell is a geologist of note, and it

does seem to me that there is every ground for treating him as an old scientific man, and one who has been, so long in the service, a little better than to keep him down to $2,100 when he was doing the work of director as well as it would have been done if he had been appointed director. The fact that he did not receive any annual increment for five or six years is also a consideration that weighs. Then you made him chief geologist at the very modest salary of $3,000. Within the last two weeks you have made salaries of $4,000 and $5,000 for gentlemen who have not spent fifty years in the service of the country, and are not scientific men or technical in any sense. It does seem to me that the minister has a very good reason for giving to Dr. Bell the difference between his salary and what would have been the salary of the director if there had been one during the period referred to. The minister says Dr. Bell gets a superannuation of $2,000 ; but why does he get it ? Because lie has given fifty years of service, not because of the very large salary on which he was retired. If a man has given fifty years of service, it is hardly right to cast into his teeth the fact that he gets $2,000 now, when lie has earned that superannuation on a very modest salary. I cannot help saying that other cases, and many of them, men without his abilities have been treated much more liberally. I think the minister would be doing a wise thing if he would make the proper readjustment in this case.


Frederick William Borden: I would not be inclined to take the view which seems to have impressed Itself on the Minister of Mines with regard to Dr. Bell. If Dr. Bell was not competent to discharge the duties of director, those duties should not have been imposed upon him for a period of five years. I do not understand from the statement of the minister that there is any difference between the duties of a director and the duties of an acting director. For five years those duties were imposed on Dr. Bell, and during that time he did not receive the salary which ordinarily pertains to that office. Tlie Minister of the Interior was unfair either to the country or to Dr. Bell. If Dr. Bell was not competent to fill that position he should not have been invested with the duties of that office for five years, or for five months. On the other hand, if Dr. Bell was competent to discharge the duties of the office for five years, I see no reason why he should have been asked to do that without the salary he would have received if he had been formally appointed director. I was not impressed with the argument of the minister.


William Templeman: I made no argument. I simply stated facts.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman stated that Dr. Bell had been very Mr. FOSTER.
fairly treated, giving as a reason that his salary had been increased for the last three years of his service. Suppose his salary had been increased for ten years to $3,000, that argument would fall to the ground, and Dr. Bell would have been in a much better position. I have the impression, from a debate which took place in the committee of supply two or three years ago, that on a previous occasion a gentleman had been allowed the salary of director during the period in which he fulfilled as acting director the duties of the office. That is a precedent which it seems to me should not be departed from without very good reason. I do trust that the minister will take this matter into consideration, and give to Dr. Bell, who is a scientist of great repute, the treatment which I think the country can well afford to him after fifty years of faithful service.


Robert Stewart: I hold in my hand a computation of the amount of difference between the salary which Dr. Bell drew as acting director and the salary that would have been paid to a director for the five years from the 1st of March, 1901, when he was appointed acting director. The difference amounts to $4,591. I agree with what has been said as to the advisability of doing something for Dr. Bell, who has been in the service for so lo-ng a time. It appears to me that the minister has a precedent for remunerating Dr. Bell for the services rendered by him, in the case of Dr. Dawson, who was paid an extra $1,000 as acting director for one year in 1896, when Dr. Sel-wyn was absent in Europe. 1 hope the minister will see his way to consider favourably the suggestion to remunerate Dr. Bell for the time he acted as director.


William Templeman: With regard to Dr. Dawson, he was one of the most eminent scientists Canada ever produced and one of the most successful directors of our geological survey. I do not understand that it is customary, where an official acts for another \ in a superior position, as, for instance, where a chief clerk acts for a deputy minister, to pay him the salary of the superior officer.
My knowledge of the salaries of acting deputy ministers is very limited, and I speak subject to correction. I agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for North Toronto in regard to the inadequacy of the salaries not only of the acting director of that day and of the acting director of this day, but of the officers of the Geologicai Survey generally. We have men in the survey who have been twenty or twenty-five years in the service and who are receiving now less than $2,000. I do not think that is creditable. I hope that, under the reorganization of the department, the technical men will get a certain standing and advance more rapidly than in the past and the whole department be put on a better footing in this respect. With regard to Dr.

Bell, I have very little to say. While he was acting director he received his old salary. He refused to accept the annual increment of $50 or $100 whichever it was,.because as he then claimed, and has since claimed, he should receive the salary applicable to the position. No doubt he is fairly entitled to the annual increment. Whether he should or should not receive the salary belonging to the office at the time I am not prepared to say. We have had an acting director, Mr. Brook, for the last year who is receiving only $2,300.


George Eulas Foster: He has not been fifty years in the service.


William Templeman: No, but he has been ten or fifteen years in the service. But that does not effect the principle. He has been receiving for the last year, not the salary of the director, but the salary he was receiving before as geologist of the department, $2,300. I put a sum in the estimate to bring his salary up to $2,800 because he is a capable acting director. I am sorry to say that Mr. Low is not in a position to return to the department. He is director and deputy head and is receiving the salary of the position. But he is now away on sick leave. He is not entitled to superannuation; he is a very superior man and most efficient director, and we hope he will return to his duties soon. But Mr. Brock is not receiving $3,000 but is being treated the same as Dr. Bell. As long as Mr. Low is away Mr. Brock will receive simply the salary paid him as geologist of the department, which this year, will be $2,800. In making the change from Dr. Bell to another, who is permanent director, I believe that the interest of the public service has been promoted.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wish to be understood as suggesting that when a chief clerk, in the case of the temporary absence or license of the deputy head, performs the duty of that office for a short time, he necessarily should be paid the salary of the office for that period. But the case to which I have alluded was not a case of that kind. The office had become vacant and for a period of five years an official of the department was charged with the duties of the office. It seems to me that a case of that kind stands upon an entirely different plane and that some consideration at least should be given to the fact that for so long a time and under such circumstances he did perform the duties of the office to the best of his ability, and the country received the benefit of his services in that capacity.
Dominion of Canada assay office-maintenance of assay office, Vancouver, British Colombia, $13,500.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to have some information from the minister as to what is being done in the assay office in Vancouver -as to the results, say, for the past year.


William Templeman: I regret to say that I have not read the report of last year. But I was advised by the Director of Mines branch, Dr. Haanel, that the receipts of gold at Vancouver assay office during the last two months had been far in excess of any previous term of similar length. The receipts for the six months were about $4,000,-OOO. Extra help was required for the handling of the gold. I am glad to say that the utility of the assay office has been demonstrated more clearly than ever.
Geological Survey branch-explorations and surveys; printing and publishing reports, maps, &c.; wages of assistant explorers, draughtsmen, clerks and others; purchase of specimens, (books, instruments, stationery, mapping materials, maintenance of offices and museum, laboratory apparatus, chemicals, miscellaneous expenses, &c., $45,000.


George Eulas Foster: I desire to say just a word as to what appears to me to be the questionable plan of having the officers of the Geological Survey branch, sometimes in the department and sometimes out of it. From information we have bad, it seems that these officers, when out of the department, take part in what might be called private explorations, that is, exploration work for private parties or corporations, being used in such a way that it is quite possible the private parties or corporations may avail themselves of the special knowledge the officer has gained while under pay of the Dominion and be greatly profited thereby- I do not mean by his generak'knowledge as geologist or expert of any kind, hut by his knowledge of the richness of localities. Does the minister think it good policy to have these officers for a time in the department, then working for private corporations, then back again doing exploration work for the Dominion ? I understand that one of the officers of the department is going across the water, we paying his salary and expenses, though the work he will do is absolutely in the interest of a speculative company. I think that refers to a company in New Brunswick, in which Mr. Lodge of whom we have heard in the House, is interested. I think this is making a very different use of the officers of the department from what one would think correct. I understand that quite a number of officers in the hon. gentleman's department are like the revolving lights, at one time flashing in the department, then obscured to the department and flashing somewhere else, then returning to light up the department again.


William Templeman: The point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) is a very important one. There is a good deal to he said on both sides of that question. The hon. member speaks as though many of the officials were appearing in and disappearing from the survey to do work for private parties. I think there are very few instances of that kind on record alto-

gether. This year there have been only two so far as my recollection serves. With reference to sending Dr. Ells to Glasgow to watch the process of the extraction of oil from the shales of New Brunswick, that is wholly in the interest of the public. It is not in the interest of the company or the individual, it is entirely in the interest of the Geological Survey. He has knowledge of the existence of shales and their extent and knows something of the probability of oil extraction therefrom, but he will acquire information as to the extraction by watching the operation, will make a report to the Geological Survey and that report will be published in the interest of the people of the country. It is not in the interest of the New Brunswick company, except iu a general way, through the information that will be made public. I think in that respect it was perfectly proper and fair to pay his expenses which I was informed would not be more than $500.


George Eulas Foster: This shale is being cruushed in the old country, and the object is to find out how much oil it will produce and if it is economical and commercially valuable in that way. You send Dr. Ells, as a member of the Geological Survey, to watch the operation and make up his mind as to what value there is in those shales. Does that seem to be the object of the formation of the Geological Survey ? Would their duty not be more to locate generally the existence and extent of these shales ? This would seem to be rather a malversation.
Mr. ' TEMPLEMAN. There are two branches of the Department of Mines, the Geological Survey, which is technical and scientific, and the Mines branch, which is practical and economic. Dr. Ells is an economic geologist, but he was sent to Scotland by Dr. Haanel, of the Mines Branch, to obtain information of importance in respect to these shales. This is absolutely along the lines of our action in regard to the peat deposits of Ontario. We sent a member of the Mines Branch to Europe last year and he has published a very valuable and useful report on the peat deposits and the manufacture of peat into fuel in Europe. At the time of the discovery of the nickel deposits at Sudbury the department pursued the same policy, and the report of the official then sent there was of great value in the inauguration of the mining industry at Sudbury. It must be remembered that one of the great difficulties we have in connection with the work of the Geological Survey is the scarcity in Canada of men qualified for the work of the department.


Mr. EMMERSON.: 
Mr.   POSTER@: I want to emphasize what I said this afternoon, that I do not see anything in the past practice of this parliament which authorizes increases in special salaries out of a general vote or what may be left over from a general vote. No department, because it has a general vote which it has not used up, can out of that vote go behind parliament and raise the salaries of a dozen or twenty clerks. The universal practice has been that before you can raise the salary of a clerk whose salary (has been voted by this parliament, you must come to parliament and get the money for doing that; and I do not see how it is possible, in the case of the House of Commons any more than in the case of a department, to raise the salaries of a number of clerks without parliamentary authority,
and to raise them from a period which antedates the time of the action. I am not saying this because I want to bar the increases to the officers of the House, but I am expressing a principle which I think is absolutely clear and definite, and I would be very sorry to see the House of Commons itself break one of the fundamental rules of parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: There seems to be some question as to the proper procedure in the matter. I am not sure that this is without precedent, though I am not sure that it is a wise practice to pay such increases out of general votes. I have not had the point brought before me before, and I will look into it. There is no desire to depart from sound rules in the matter.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think there is, and I mention it in the same spirit in which the Finance Minister refers to it. I would be very sorry, if there were.
Department of Finance and Treasury Board- To provide for the appointment of .T. G. Artz as second-class clerk at a salary of $1,350 per annum, $900.	,


George Eulas Foster: Might I be allowed to call the attention of the Finance Minister to this ?


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Artz is a gentleman whose services we could not obtain without this vote. He is a chartered accountant, a gentleman of considerable experience, the sort of man likely to be useful in the department, and we have had to take this special vote to give him an adequate salary. He has passed the civil service examination.


George Eulas Foster: Is this gentleman to be the actuary?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I contemplate making Mr. Grant the actuary. As a chartered accountant and a man of considerable experience, Mr. Artz could not be expected to enter the service at the ordinary salary, and we have had to fix his salary at this rate, which is a very moderate rate, to secure his services.
Resolutions concurred in.



Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That as it appears by their printed proceedings of Tuesday, June 23, 1908, that ithe special committee appointed to investigate the charges made by Major A. E. Hodgins, unanimously passed a resolution to the effect that proper and reasonable fees should be paid to the counsel employed before the committee, the clerk of this House and the law clerk are hereby authorized to tax the fees and expenses of such counsel, and bo pay the amounts when so taxed, out of any moneys voted by parliament for expenses of committees.

He said :	This resolution was prepared
by Mr. Todd, the secretary of the committee, who advises me that this is the proper method of carrying out the terms of the report of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
William Stevens Fielding: According to the usual practice, the officers of the House having collected these various items, and the House having concurred in them, I now beg to move :
Resolved, that towards .making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 81, 1909, the sum of $57,976,870.41 ibe granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, resolution reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 220) for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st of March, 1909.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: Is the Bill in precisely the ordinary form ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill has been prepared by the clerks in the usual form.


Robert Laird Borden: I see a marginal note with regard to some special time.


William Stevens Fielding: That is the usual clause with regard to the Northwest whereby they are allowed more time for closing up their accounts. Such clauses are in all the Supply Bills.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT.
Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate sending certain amendments to Bill (No. 115) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, to which they ask the concurrence of this House.
Amendments read the first time.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the amendments ?


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: The only amendment made to this Bill appeal's to be in the Mr. MACDONALD.
provision as to the date when the county judges in Manitoba shall be called together to appoint committees of their number. The provision in the Bill as it left this House was that the several judges of the county court should constitute a board, and that that board should during the month of July in each year meet in the city of Winnipeg on a day to be named. The amendment consists in substituting for the words 'during the month of July' the words 'between the 1st of July and the 15th day of August ' ; that is extending for two weeks the period during which the judges may meet. It does not occur to me that there is anything in the amendment to which objection should he taken, and I beg to move concurrence.
Amendments read the second time and agreed to.


William Stevens Fielding: I thought we might have completed our business and arranged to meet on Monday at 11.45 with a view to have prorogation at noon. As there are several Bills to come from the Senate, we had better meet at the usual hour. I beg to move that ithe House do now adjourn.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it arranged that prorogation shall take place at noon on Monday ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 20, 1908.