[Stage Direction]
Mr. GALLIHER moved that Bill (No. 207) respecting certain patents of the Metal Shingle and Siding Company, Limited, be placed on the Order Paper for the second reading this day be a greed to.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. GALLIHER moved that in view of the late period of the session Bill (No. 207) respecting certain patents of the Metal Shingle and Siding Company, Limited, be now read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills. He said :	The reason
for this motion is that Monday will be
the last day of the Private Bills Committee. The Bill has passed the Senate. Its purpose is to allow the company holding the patents to pay now the amount they should have paid some little time prior to this. It was owing to a mistake of the people in their office that the money was not paid when due. The holders of the patent are a Canadian company who have manufacturing establishments at Prescott and Montreal and it was only through inadvertance that the money was not paid in time to the patent office. They have paid all the necessary fees and have been taxed $500 up to the present in fines.
Motion agreed to.

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 210) to amend the Northwest Territories Act. He said : The purpose is to provide means for better trial of causes of action which may arise in the Territories. The proposition is to confer jurisdiction on the courts of the adjoining provinces, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, leaving the choice to the plaintiff, but conferring on the courts in each province the power to refuse to entertain the action unless it appears that it can be more conveniently tried by the courts of that particular province than of any other.


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

[Stage Direction]
COTE, BOIVIN & COMPANY.
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	What are the amounts of money paid by the government for each year from 1897 to Cote, Boivin & Cie, merchants at Chicoutimi?
2.	During that period were there any amounts paid to Elzear Boivin, surveyor and trader, of Chicoutimi ? If so, when, and what amounts ?
['Perhaps so, but I do not think it would quite work out in that way.']
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1897-8 		
1898-9			$ 52 08
1899-1900 .		 199 00
1900-1			 152 26
1901-2			 411 74
1902-8			 2,076 42
1903 4			 2,456 23
1901-5			 10,163 00
1905-6			 6,981 65
1906-7			 6,050 79
1907-8			 1,596 23
	$30,139 40
2. Nothing by this department.

The following: answer has been given me by my hon. colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries :
1. The Department of Marine and Fisheries paid as follows :
1897		
1898		
1899		
1900		
1901-2			 Nil.
1902-3		
1903-1		
1901-5		
1905-6		
1906-7		
1907-8	 63 25	
2. Nothing was paid to Elzear Boivin during the period referred to.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	How much has actually been spent by Canada in defraying the cost of negotiating the proposed French treaty of 1907, including travelling expenses of ministers and all others connected with said negotiation, including all incidental expenses?
2.	Is there still anything unpaid in connection with the expense of negotiating said treaty? If so, what is the amount?
3.	What steps has the government taken to ascertain the cause of the non-ratification of the said treaty up to the present date?
Hou. AV. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 1.	$9,826.51.
2.	No.
3.	The government is aware that non-approval by the French Senate of the convention of 1907 is due to opposition of French interests which have thought that the advantages accorded to Canada under the convention were greater than the benefits to France.
DREDGE'CHALLENGE/
Mr. BOYER-by Mr. Alexander Johnston

asked :
1.	How many yards of material have been taken out last year by the dredge 'Challenge'; and at what place?
2.	How many yards of material have been taken out in front of or in the neighbourhood of the G.T.R. Boating Club, on the St. Lawrence river, during last season and by what dredge ?


Hon. AVM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	38,900 cubic yards at Dorval ; 4,425 cubic yards at Ottawa.
2.	(a) 300 cubic yards, (b) Dredge ' St. Louis.'


William Pugsley: 


INTERCOLONIAL HALLWAY STATION, LAC SAUMON.
[Stage Direction]
Air. MONK-by Air. Blain-asked :
1.	What amount was voted for the Intercolonial Railway station construction in 1901 at Lao Sauimon?
2.	What was the amount actually expended in the construction of the said station?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Amount voted in 1903-4 for construction of station and freight shed at Salmon lake, $2,700.
2.	Amount actually expended in construction of station, $2,755.


COLCHESTER POINT, - ESSEX.
Air. CLEAIENTS asked :: 1.	What amount of money to date has the government spent on the stone pier built or being built at Colchester point, Essex county?
2.	If not yet completed, what is the estimated cost for completion ?


Hon. WAI. PUGSLEY (Alinister of Public Works) :: 1.	$7,150.59.
2.	Resident engineer reported December 14, 1907, that whai'f at Colchester had been completed. Total cost $7,150.59.


FREDERICK FOSTER, KINGSVILLE, ONTARIO.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLEMENTS asked ;
1.	Is one Frederick Foster, recently in charge of the harbour at Kingsville, Ontario, in the employ of the Dominion government?
2.	If so, what are his duties, and his salary and expenses, say for the last twelve months ?
William Pugsley: 1 and 2. Frederick Foster was employed as foreman of men repairing pier at Kingsville, Ont., Alarch 2 to 14, 1908, twelve days at $3, $36.


INTERC OLONIAL RAILWAY-STATION AT RIVIERE TROIS-PISTOLES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GAUVREAU-by Air. Johnston- asked :
Does the government propose constructing a station on the Intercolonial Railway at Riviere Trois-Pistoles during the present fiscal year? If so, when will.tenders be asked for?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Yes, plans and specifications are now being prepared and as soon as they are completed, tenders will be invited.


MAIL CARRIAGE BETWEEN ANNAPOLIS AND DIGBY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LANCTOT-by Mr. Johnston-asked :
1.	Was an arrangement made by the government with Geo. E. Corbett for carrying the mails between Annapolis and Digby, Nova Scotia, between 1884 and 1893? If so, was such an arrangement made yearly by tender and contract, or by private agreement with the Post Office Department?
2.	What amounts, if any, were paid Mr. Corbett for the years ending June, 1885, 1886,' 1887 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893?
3.	When did this arrangement, if such existed, cease?
4.	Was this mail service undertaken by the Digby and Annapolis Railway? If so, at what date?
5.	Is the George E. Corbett, above referred to, the same George E. Corbett who is stated to be the Liberal-Conservative candidate for Annapolis county, Nova Scotia, at the next general federal elections?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1. (a) Geo. E. Corbett performed mail service by steamer between Annapolis and Digby from August 1, 18S3 to July 26, 1891. (b) From August 1, 1884 to December 31, 1886, under temporary agreement. From January 1, 1887 to termination of service under a five years contract.
2. Ye
ir ended June 30, 1885.

	it	1880 ..
	**	1887 ..
	a	1888 ..
	it	1889 ..
	ti	1890 ..
	. a	1891 ..
	*i ((	1892 .. 1CQ9
3,130
3,690
4,270
5,500
6,260
0,260
2,020
3.	July 20, 1891.
4.	Yes. July 27, 1891.
5.	The department has no information in regard to this matter.
years a census is taken of all malls coming to Canada from other countries, and of all mails going to other countries from Canada for a period of twenty-eight days, either in the month of November or of May, alternately.
The figures so obtained are used for all official purposes, and do away with the necessity of taking figures yearly.


LOAN NEGOTIATED IN LONDON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Blain-asked :
I. What was the amount of the loan recently negotiated in London by the Finance Minister ?
2. What were the conditions of issue as to rate of interest, date of redemption, privilege of exchange or extension, or in any other respect?
o.	vv nat amount oi the issue was subscribed by the public and what underwritten, and how much in all was subscribed for?
4 Will the minister lay the prospectus of the loan on the table of the House ?
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance):: 1.	15,000,000.
2.	and 4. All the conditions of the issue are contained in the prospectus, a copy of which will be laid forthwith on the table of the House.
3.	The whole of the loan was underwriten. Forty-four per cent of the amount was taken by the outside public and the balance 56 per cent by the underwriters.


TEMPORARY LOANS OR ADVANCES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOSTER-by Mr. Blain-asked :
What temporary loans or advances, at what bank, and at what interest were outstanding or running on May 31 and June 30, respectively ?

Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	What quantity of mail matter, destined either for Canada or other countries, arrived via Canadian ports from Europe for the year ending March 31 last?
2.	What quantity of mail matter from Europe arrived via New York, Boston, Portland, or other United States ports for the same period, destined for Canada, or to he transmitted over Canadian routes to other countries ?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1. and 2. No yearly record is kept of the weight of the mails received in Canada from Europe or any other country. Under the Postal Union Regulations once every six


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: 
CUSTOMS RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. POSTER-by Mr. Bbjin-asked :
1.	What were the receipts from customs for the months of March, April, May and June, respectively, for the years 1907 and 1908?
2.	What were the expenditures on capital end current account, respectively, for the same months of the same years?
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1. The customs revenues for the months mentioned were as follows :
March..	..$5,744,211	52	$4,830,889	62April..	..	4,468,393	97	3,449,947	24May	
5,333,253	63	3,568,691	56June	5,321,444	83	3,707,229	51ployed in the customs at port of Windsor, Ontario ? If so, when was he appointed, what was his age at time of appointment, and what is his salary per year ?	_2.	Is one Gerald Mooney, of the township of Maidstone, or Sandwich South, in the county of Essex, Ontario, employed in the customs at the port of Windsor, Ontario ? If so, when was he appointed, what are his duties and what is his salary per year ?3.	Is one Ulrich Piclie, of the town of Sandwich, county of Essex, Ontario, employed in the customs at the port of Windsor, Ontario ? If so, when was he appointed, what was his age at the time of appointment, what are his present duties, and what is his salary per year ?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 


William Stevens Fielding: v, July 4, 1908, as a clerk in the customs
	Expenditure Consolidated Fund.		Capital Expenditure, &c.	
1907.	1908.	1907.	1908.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ ctsMarch	
April	4,229,015 42 4,551.377 94 3,288,402 28 4,439,965 78	4,373,021 74 4,290,231 38 7,062,132 18 7,164,606 96	1,033,815 01 1,623,114 48 3,037,819 35 1,693,793 06	2,357,063 92 3,421,888 26 3,779,995 39 2,694,639 62


FRANCO-CANADIAN TREATY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TALBOT-by Mr. Johnston-asked :
In viiew of the reported delay of approval by the French Senate of the new Franco-Canadian commercial treaty, will the government take steps to ask the imperial government to denounce the old treaty respecting trade between France and Canada?
William Stevens Fielding: The non-approval of the convention is very embarrassing to all business interests between France and Canada, as well as in other respects, and creates conditions which, if continued, would probably render the denunciation of "The old convention unavoidable. But we do not feel disposed to take action in that direction immediately. We are aware that the French government are loyally using their best efforts to secure approval of the new convention, and it is due to them that we should await for some time the results of their endeavours.


CUSTOMS OFFICERS, WINDSOR, ONT.
Mr. HERRON asked :: 1. Is one J. A. Francis, formerly of the town of Essex, Essex county, Ontario, em-long room at Windsor, Ont.; age 40, salary, $700 a year.


Mr. FIELDING.: 2.	Gerald Mooney is not employed in the customs at Windsor, Ontario.
3.	Ulrich PichS has been employed as a customs preventive officer at Michigan Central Railway station, Windsor, Ont., since July 4, 1908; age, 36 years; salary, $700 a year.


REGULATIONS RE COAL LANDS, TIMBER, HOMESTEAD AND GRAZING AREAS.
Mr. LAKE asked:: 1.	At what dates were the regulations now in force sanctioned by the Minister of the Interior and put into force in respect of (a) coal lands, (b) timber, (c) homesteads, and (d) grazing areas ?
2.	What were the dates of the several orders in council on which these regulations were based since the 1st of January, 1905 ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1. (a) Coal lands :
General coal regulations came into force on the 15th day of June, 1907. Regulations for the leasing of coal mining lands in th* Rocky Mountains Park of Canada came into force on the 25th day of January, 1908.
Regulations governing the issue of permits to mine coal for domestic purposes

*came into force on the 20th day of March, 1897.
The present regulations for the issue of leases of school lands for coal mining purposes were authorized by order in council of December 20, 1907, and came into force on February 8, 1908.
<b) Timber lands :
February 1^ 1908.
<c) Homesteads :
The regulations were published and became effective on the following dates:
1st edition-June 21, 1907.
2nd edition-'October 1, 1907.
3rd edition-November 15, 1907.
4th edition-June 1, 1908.
<d) Grazing areas :	'
'Saskatchewan and Alberta, October 14, 1905, railway belt, August 25, 1904; grazing regulations for the Yukon Territory came into force on the 2nd day of March, 1901.
2. Coal lands-Date of orders in council :
March 4, 1907.
May 9, 1907.	,
December 10, 1907.
Timber lands:
December 19. 1907.
Homesteads :
Regulations are based on Dominion Lands Act.
Grazing areas :
Saskatchewan and Aberta, July 27, 1905; March 15. 1907.
Railway belt, June 4, 1904; July 5, 1904. School lands :
The issue of grazing leases of school lands in Manitoba was authorized by order in council of July 13, 1895, and the regulations came into force on August 17, 1895. The regulations for grazing leases of school lands in the Northwest Territories were authorized by order in council of March 16, 1894, and came into force on April 28, 1894.
The regulations for the issue of grazing permits on school lands for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were authorized by order in council of February 22, 1908, and came into force on March 28, 1908.


TECUMSEH PARK BREAKWATER.
Mr. CLEMENTS.: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a matter which though small is important.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Is this for the purpose of asking a question ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Yes. The breakwater at Tecumseh park has a face of about two feet in width and thousands of children have been playing there and quite recently drowning accidents were narrowly averted. I would ask the minister to have a railing erected.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member will see that is not a question.


AUDIT AND INSPECTION OF BANKS.
Mr. R. A. PRINGLE (Cornwall).: I ask the Minister of Finance whether there is any possibility of legislation this session towards government Inspection or an independent audit of banks. In view of the failures which have taken place lately in the province of Quebec and the rumours that some others are pending, and in view of the fact that the reports returned to the government have been shown to be absolutely unreliable, has the minister in view any amendment by which at least we can get from our banks such a report as is obtained in other countries, sworn to by an official of the bank so that the public may know these reports are correct, and that they are not as every failure has proven, absolutely incorrect ? It is important that some steps should be taken in that direction.


William Stevens Fielding: With regard to independent audit, there is no need of any legislation respecting that. One of our large banks has now a system of independent audit carried out under the present Banking Act and there is no reason why any other bank may not avail itself of the same privilege if it regards it as important. As to bank inspection, I repeat what I said a few days ago : that it is a question of the utmost importance as to which I am willing to have an cpen mind, although I have rather the impression that it would not accomplish the purposes its advocates have in view. It is a very large and important question which may properly be considered in connection with the general revision of the Bank Act. I do not think there is sufficient information as to the value of bank inspection, as adapted to our Canadian system, to warrant us at this stage of the session introducing special legislation. The conditions in Canada, with its very many branch banks, are so different from the conditions in the United States where bank inspection exists, that even if it were successful in the United States it would not necessarily be successful in Canada, and there is a question as to whether it has been successful in the United States. I do not care to say more than that at present. I realize the importance of the subject and believe it is well worthy of consideration in connection with the general revision of the Bank Act which must be taken up at no distant day.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Even if we had nothing more in Canada than a head office inspection it might be very useful. It would be a task of very great difficulty to effectively and thoroughly inspect the enormous number of branches throughout Canada. The difficulties in the past have arisen in almost every case from the lack of any inspection at the head office of the bank.



Even if we eventually went so far only as inspection of the head office it might be a very great safeguard against the repetition of certain occurrences in the past.


William Stevens Fielding: There is much force in the suggestion and all these things are worthy of consideration. If we had a system of head office inspection, then if there was any crookedness it would not take place at the head office but at some other office.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps so, but I do not think it would quite work out in that way.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-HON.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: Mr. Speaker, in a pamphlet widely circulated throughout the country entitled ' Facts for the People,' I read at page 17 :
Ministers oppose exclusion.
Two remarkable statements were made on this question in the session of 1908 by Mr. Lemieux, Postmaster General, and Minister of Labour, recently government delegate to Japan, and by Mr. Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Lemieux said:
The policy expressed by the leader of the opposition during his campaign in western Canada, last fall, was a policy of complete exclusion. He argued before the British Columbians that if he were in power he would have a white British Columbia, which I understand to mean the exclusion of oriental labour, and which applied to the case in hand, means the exclusion of the Japanese.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hon. minister whether his policy is not for a white British Columbia?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, Sir, (Hansard 1908, page 2145).
It is true I gave this answer but I explained that answer immediately afterwards as the leader of the opposition will see from the following quotation from ' Hansard ' :


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hon. minister whether his policy is not for a white British Columbia?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, sir.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My policy is to respect the treaty to which we have adhered unconditionally and unreservedly, relying, as regards immigration, on the assurances which have been given by the Japanese government. It is very easy for the hon. gentleman to provoke an answer, yea or nay, on the question whether there should be a white British Columbia or a yellow one, but the fact is staring us in the face that not only since this government has been in power but during the time of the previous Conservative government a large influx of yellow labour has gradually settled in that province. The policy of this government is for the restriction of oriental' labour into British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: So you see, Mr. Speaker, my answer was a qualified answer and when quoted only in part as in this pamphlet it does not convey my meaning or give correctly the impression which I sought to leave on the House at the time.



TECHNICAL SCHOOLS.

Robert Laird Borden: I presume it is too late to expect any legislation this session with regard to the subject of technical schools or industrial education. I would like to inquire whether or not the government intend to take any action along that line in 'the near future by inquiry through commission or otherwise.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is not proposed to do anything further this session.



OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I wish to ask the Postmaster General who is chairman of the Old Age Pension Committee, whether there is any possibility of that committee making progress before the session closes? I fully recognize that the business of the House has been very pressing, but I would like to know if there is any possibility at all of further progress being made this session.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We had three sittings of the Old Age Pension Committee when the morning sessions of the House began, and the business became so strenuous that it was found impossible to reconvene the committee. I have arranged with Mr. Blue, Dominion Statistician, Professor Shortt, Mr. Acland and Mr. Mackenzie King (who unfortunately was absent when the committee sat) to prepare some evidence which would be valuable, but I hardly believe that the committee can meet this session. The work of the committee might well be resumed next session of parliament when we might perhaps make favourable progress.



ACCIDENT TO CORNWALL CANAL.

Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I had understood that the Cornwall canal was open to navigation, but I have been informed this morning that some difficulty was being encountered through their not being able to remove some rocks.


George Perry Graham: I have not heard of that. I received a message from the engineer in charge this morning and he did not make any reference to it. I had a message yesterday that the boats had started to lock through, and it was expected that everything would be fully completed last evening at six o'clock.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I heard from Cornwall this morning that there was some difficulty.


George Perry Graham: I have not heard of it.



PURCHASE OP SEED OATS.

Mr. BLAIN.: When may I expect an answer to the question I put yesterday with regard to the purchase of seed oats?


Mr. OLIVER.: On Monday.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-PICTOU BRANCH.

Mr. STANFIELD.: When may I expect an answer to question No. 1 which has been standing on the Order Paper, since June 25?


George Perry Graham: These questions which involve details have to be sent to Moncton to get the information. I asked by wire yesterday for a reply as quickly as possible.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Robert Laird Borden: When will the Minister of Public Works lay on the table the return I moved for early in the session as to the cost of buildings?


William Pugsley: On Monday.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-RIGHT OF WAY IN MADAWASKA.

Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Victoria, N.B.).: I would ask the Minister of Justice if any claims for payment of compensation for right of way in connection with the construction of the Transcontinental Railway through the county of Madawaska, N.B., have been placed in his hands to be settled? If so, how many, and what is the intention of the minister in respect to these claims? There are numbers of these claims in the hands of local solicitors, and my advice to the Minister of Justice would be to settle them as soon as possible.


Hon.   A.@: B, AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice). The matter is in the hands of the Department of Justice for arrangement. Some 30 claims for payment to land owners through whose properties the line of the Transcontinental Railway in the county of Madawaska passes have been sent to the Department of Justice by the commissioners with instructions to arrange for fixing the true amount of the compensation to be paid. Some of these have already been settled by consent arrangement between the department and the land owners Interested, and all that have not been so settled will be placed in the Exchequer Court at ouce for settlement of the amount to be paid in ordinary course.



SUPPLY-COST OF THE NATIONAL


Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


George Perry Graham: A few evenings ago the leader of the opposition made a statement concerning the cost of the great transcontinental highway from Prince Rupert to Moncton which has received wide publicity, and which I am bound to say has been given a publicity that is not fair to the House, to the government, to the leader of the opposition nor to the country. Might I make a very brief personal allusion; I find that some of my friends of the press misstated my own position on the occasion when the leader of the opposition delivered his speech, and intimated that for some dark reason either of ignorance or discourtesy I neglected to reply to my hon. friend. As a matter of fact, at the request of the member for North Toronto, made a short time previously-made across the floor of the House openly-I had agreed that I would not make my statement that evening, and while at that time I had no idea the leader of the opposition was going to make his statement, still I thought it better to take the risk of being placed in an embarrassing position than to break faith with the member for North Toronto. In order that time may be saved when we get into committee I shall give a few facts concerning the present position of the Transcontinental Railway including the Grand Trunk Pacific or western branch and the eastern division from Winnipeg to Moncton owned and being constructed by the government. The following memorandum is prepared by Mr. Schreiber chief engineer of the western division, and is dated May 31, 1908, so that it will contain the information up to a recent date:
Total length of western division:
Miles.
Prairie section	 916
Mountain section	 939
1,755
Contractors for. grading, &c.
Miles. Amount.
Treat & Johnston, Winnipeg to
Portage la Prairie	 53 $ 200,000
McDonald, McMillan & Company, Portage la Prairie for
275 miles	 275	1,672,000
Treat & Johnston, Qu'Appelle valley '(covered by above)	 298,400
Canadian White Company,
275th mile to 2 miles west of South Saskatchewan river ..	144	770,000Foley Brothers, Larson & Company, 2 miles west South Saskatchewan river to North Saskatchewan river	
318	2,500,000
Miles. Amount. Canadian White Company,
North Saskatchewan river to half a imile west thereof.. i $	29,000
Foley, Welch & Stewart, 6 miles east of Edmonton to Wolfe
creek	 125^ 1,200,000
Foley, Welch & Stewart, 100 miles east of Prince Rupert 100	3,200,000
Total miles grading under contract	1,016 $9,869,400
Contractors for steel bridges.. .. $ 1,463,400
Total approximate cost	 11,332,800
From Winnipeg to Battle river the grading and bridging is practically completed, being a distance of 675 miles. From Battle river to Edmonton about 54 miles of grading, &e., is completed.
The work of fencing, tracklaying, ballasting and telegraph line is being done by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway by days labour; there are only 55 miles of fence built; the track is laid from a point about 30 miles west of Winnipeg for a distance of 520 miles; the line is practically ballasted for a distance of 160 miles and 271 miles of telegraph line is erected.
I want to call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that this report rather confirms my statement often made that large companies do not always have their work done by contract; and members who insist on calling for tenders and giving contracts as a panacea for all the evils that may exist in a public or a private work in my opinion are wrong. This great company is doing a large portion of this work by day labour.


Mr. HAGGART.: That is only ballasting and track laying.


George Perry Graham: The work of fencing, track laying, ballasting and building telegraph lines.


John Graham Haggart: Those are always done by day labour.


George Perry Graham: If they are always done by day labour, it must be right; consequently it bears out exactly what I state. Now, the length of the Transcontinental line from Moncton to Winnipeg is 1.803-55 miles, or, if we include the Quebec bridge, 1,804-66 miles. The length of the Quebec bridge is merely added to the distance, as it is not a part of the Transcontinental Railway proper. The estimated cost of the 1,803-55 miles is $63,427 a mile, or a total of $114,393,765.


Robert Laird Borden: In the first return brought down the cost per mile is estimated at $63,427, which I presume is correct. In the second return the cost is sometimes referred to as $63,437. which I presume is a clerical error.


George Perry Graham: My own opinion is that $63,427 was the original figure. In my memorandum ' 2 ' is used in one place and ' 3 ' in another. The estimate of $63,427 a mile does not include any allowance for in-Mr. GRAHAM.
terest ; nor for shops at Moncton ; nor for the branch line at the Quebec bridge to the terminals at Quebec, though it does include the divisional yard at the northerly end of the bridge ; nor for terminals at Winnipeg ; nor for shops east of Winnipeg. For terminals at Moncton the sum of $97,000 is included for a terminal yard. With regard to shop accommodation, it is presumed that an arrangement will be made for the joint use of the new shops of the Intercolonial Railway. If so, the Transcontinental share of the capital expenditure on them is estimated at $750,000, or, at 4 per cent interest, $30,000 a year. The terminals at Quebec will include the cost of the line from the Quebec bridge to Champlain market, Quebec, say six miles, and terminals at the market at an estimated cost of $2,000,000. For the shops east of Winnipeg the estimate is $1,500,000. With regard to terminals at Winnipeg by agreement of the 1st of March, 1907, confirmed by the Act, chapter 52 of that year, between the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government, an arrangement Is made to which I shall refer in a moment. The whole of the lands of the Canadian Northern Railway on the Winnipeg side of the Red river, together with the buildings, fixtures, improvements, tracks and facilities, will be jointly used by the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental Railways, with equal rights for passenger and local freight business. The chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway states that the area of these terminal lands is :	For the yard, 76-46 acres ;
for right of way of transfer railway, 2-72 acres; total 79-18 acres.
As to the question of the probable date for the completion of the railway between Moncton and Winnipeg, the department is advised by the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway that in his opinion, if contracts for the remaining portions of the line are awarded before the middle of September next, and the labour market remains anything like what it is at present, there should he no difficulty in fully completing the line by the 1st of December, 1911.
At the risk of being tedious I want to lay before the House a statement of the contracts which have been let on the eastern division between Winnipeg and Moncton. The number of miles under contract is 1,227-93, made up as follows :
Esti-
*	mated
i	Location	Miles Cost
let. per mile.
Moncton to near	Chipman	
50.00	$	41,995At Chipman	
8.55	83,570Chipman to Intercolonial railway crossing	
39.05	32,573
Intercolonial railway crossing
to mile 164	
66.40	45,341Mile 164 to Grand Falls	
31.80	110,172
Estimated cost per Miles let. mile.
Grand Falls to New Brunswick
boundary	 60.88	51,130
New Brunswick Boundary to 150 miles east of Quebec
bridge	 53.06	65,771
From Quebec bridge 150 miles
eastward	148.89
Quebec bridge link (not included in estimate)	
1.11	65,370Quebec bridge, westerly	
196.33	104,589Near Harricanaw river to junction with Toronto and Northern Ontario	
150.00	46,842
Junction Toronto and Northern Ontario railway for 100 miles
west	
100.00	59,425From 19| miles west of Mud river, easterly 75	miles.. ..	75.00	46,454Lake Superior junction to west bank Red river	
246.86	85,003
The number of miles yet to be contracted for is 570-73, for which the following is the
estimate :
Weymontachene to near Harricanaw river	 221.68	$58,058
From 100 miles west of Junction of Temiskaming and North Ontario Railway to west end of district 'D'..	44.10 63:254
From west end of district
' D ' westerly	
162.50	37,009From 191 miles west of Mud river to west end of district 'EL:	
20.41	33,480From west end of district 'E' to Lake Superior junction	
128.04	55,943Total	
576.73
Average cost per mile, $63,427; for 1,803.55 miles, -total, $114,393,765.
I might add to that the fact that on this eastern section there are 228 bridges, making something over 10 miles, which makes quite an addition to the cost of the railway over a railway that would not have this very expensive construction.


Robert Laird Borden: The cost of bridges is all included?
-Mr. GRAHAM. The cost of bridges is included in the figures I have given, but X am pointing out the large number of bridges which helps to swell the cost. The total amount paid to the different contractors on the eastern division is as follows:
1906- 7	$ 3,160,954 11
1907- 8	 13,190,985 54
1908- 9	 2,591,750 73
Total	$18,943,690 38
In order that hon. gentlemen may understand something that I will have to say a little later on, I will have to trespass upon the good nature of the House while I read a digest of the Winnipeg terminals agreement. It is as follows:
Partial digest of principal government privileges and liabilities under the Winnipeg terminals agreement of March 1, 1907, confirmed by the Act of 1907, chapter 52 (schedule).
Clause 48.-The agreement is valid for 999 years, dating from January 1, 1907.
Clause 3.-The government, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern have the joint use and enjoyment of the ' joint terminals,' which are defined by section 1 as the lands, premises and facilities, including the transfer and industrial tracks and sidings shown on a certain identified plan; also any additional lands, premises and facilities thereafter acquired -as extensions, and including freight sheds, warehouses, engine house, water tanks, turntables, coach tracks, car tracks, telegraph lines and all other buildings, improvements and facilities, furniture, equipment, locomotives and plant supplied in that connection.
Clause 12.-The value of the lands, exclusive of buildings, fixtures, tracks, improve rnents and facilities, is fixed at $2,625,000.
Clause 13.-On this sum the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific, pay, in equal shares, | of 4 per cent, until and whilst the Grand Trunk Pacific operates the eastern division as lessee; hut if ceasing to so operate, then the Grand Trunk Pacific -and the government, each, pay 1 of 4 per cent.
Clauses 5 and 13.-For the buildings, tracks, yards, structures and facilities shown on a certain identified plan, or on other plans, as may be agreed on, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government pay in equal shares J of 4| per cent, of the cost, or, if the Grand Trunk Pacific cease to operate the eastern division, one third each.
Clauses 8 and 13.-For additional buildings, improvements, or facilities, the necessity for which is agreed upon by the parties-or decided on by arbitration under clause 38-the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government pay, in equal -shares, | of 4j per cent, of the cost, or if the Grand Trunk Pacific cease to operate the eastern division, then each pays 1.
Clauses 10 and 13.-For temporary additional tracks and facilities required to be provided, pending the completion of those contemplated in clause 5, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government pay in equal shares i of 4J per cent on the cost; or, if the Grand Trunk Pacific cease to operate the ' eastern division,' one-third each.
Note. Clause 49.-For the first seven years of the lease of the eastern division to the Grand Trunk Pacific the compensation payable is to be borne wholly by the government, and, thereafter, for 43 years, the Grank Trunk Pacific repays, annually, to the government, by way of rental, the amount payable by it to the Canadian Northern.
Clauses 13 and 26.-The government, at its option, may become interested in a station hotel

and the expenditures and receipts in that connection are apportioned.
Clause 3.-The joint terminals will be managed by a board composed-while the Grand Trunk Pacific continues to operate the eastern division-of one representative of the Canadian Northern and one of the Grand Trunk Pacific; but if not so operating, then, if a board is deemed necessary, by representatives of the Canadian Northern, one of the Grand


George Perry Graham: I am coming to that in a few moments as I have the figures. Now, I want to take up the figures of my hon. friend. I am free to admit that I did not get the impression from him that went to the country that the road from Moncton to Winnipeg would cost $250,000,000, but, in some unaccountable way his friends of the press have made my hon. friend say that all over Canada. I just pick up a paper, which is an independent paper published in the city of Ottawa, and I finfi this gross exaggeration :


STAGGERING COST OP THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Moncton-Winnipeg portion estimated by the government at $51,000,000 will cost the country $250,000,000.
That is the Ottawa * Journal's ' heading, and the same thing has appeared in several papers. In discussing these figures, I shall first point out the fallacy of the statement, so that the people may know that certain papers, in endeavouring to criticise the government have actually manufactured something a great deal stronger than even the estimate of the leader of the opposition. These statements, in justice to everybody, ought to be refuted. It will take sometime for the correction to catch up, but I will try to make it strong enough so that it will have force to catch up when once started. Take the figures of my hon. friend to show* what foundation there is for this heading :
Cost of construction from Moncton to Winnipeg, $114,393,765.
With that I have no quarrel. Then he goes on to estimate that, allowing five years for period of construction, the interest on the money paid will amount to $10,009,754.
With that I am not going to quarrel either. That makes a total of $124,403,219. I may say however that in estimating the amount of subsidy to be paid on any railway, the government never allows interest during construction to be added to the cost. We take the construction of the road without the interest, not as a matter of law but as a matter of policy. In the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific, howevei', the interest on the cost of construction is to be added to the cost.
Then I come to the figure of $26,124,676 for the interest during seven years on the line from Moncton to Winnipeg during
[Stage Direction]
which the Grand Trunk Pacific pay no rental. But in this connection I want to point out that the total amount of that interest will not be payable until 1918, and that if we are absolutely to compute it at present at its face value in ten years from now, we are giving the government and the country any disadvantage there might be in that computation. However that is a small matter, and I shall not deduct anything at present on that account, although if we make the computation at the moment, we will find that the amount of $26,124,676, which is to accumulate at simple interest in ten years from now, ought not to be chargeable at its full face value at present.
Robert Laird Borden: I would recognize at once the force of my hon. friend's observation if I had been adding interest annually upon the annual amount of rental which is to remain unpaid, but I have not done that. I have not included one dollar of interest which might be charged and be considered as compound interest. My hon. friend's observation would be a perfectly proper one if I had been charging interest on these annual amounts, but I have not done so.


George Perry Graham: I carefully considered that while my hon. friend was speaking ; and while it is not a large amount he will agree that if you take $26,124,676 to-day and place it at interest, we would have quite a balance left after completing the last payment which holds due 10 years hence. Then my hon. friend added this item to his calculation :
Also interest at 3 per cent for three years additional during which no rent is collectable unless earnings .are sufficient, $11,196,290.
I want to point out that if this be payable, it will not be payable until 1911. But I am going to strike out that item altogether. It must go out unless we are prepared to take the position that the Transcontinental, after the seven years during which no rent is collectable will not be able to pay its way. If we take that position we ought to put in the 3 per cent. Possibly I may be an optimist but 'I believe that optimists within reason are the best class of people for the country. Taking the history of the Dominion during the past few years, taking the rapid development of our western country and the rapid expansion on every hand, I believe that everything is in favour of my contention that at the end of seven years the Grand Trunk Pacific will be able to pay -its way and we will not have to pay that 3 per cent. Discussing that point with an eminent railway man not many hours ago, he said : If at any time during that period or at the end of that period, the Grand Trunk Pacific should not want to go on with that arrangement, you will find no difficulty- in getting one or two other railway companies ready
to take over the contract. Therefore we must strike out the $11,196,290 in all fairness.
My hon. friend put in the cost of the Quebec bridge. Well, the Quebec bridge forms no part and never did, so far as the estimate of cost is concerned, of the Transcontinental Railway. That bridge was a project before there was any question of the Transcontinental Railway. It was decided that that bridge would have to be built for the other railways ; and when it is constructed it will be used, not only by the Transcontinental Railway but by every other railway which wants to do business via Quebec. It will form not merely a link in the Transcontinental but in every other railway running from east to west. While the Transcontinental will use it, it was being built as a different proposition altogether, and would have to be built even if we had never undertaken to construct the Transcontinental. You have therefore to deduct from the cost of the Transcontinental this amount of $14,422,238 put in by my hon. friend as the cost of the Quebec bridge.
Now I come to another point in which I differ with my hon. friend. In his statement he gives this item :
Estimated cost of our share of terminal at Quebec, Winnipeg and Moncton and shops east of Winnipeg, $5,470,000.
He therefore added that, under the terms of the agreement which I have stated ; but under that agreement a certain share of percentage is to be paid each by the government and Grand Trunk Pacific for the terminals in the city of Winnipeg, and I need not add anything further to prove that my hon. friend should not have taken into his calculation any such amount as this.
Let me take the cost of the terminals at Moncton and call attention to this fact. The terminals tracks at Moncton have had an amount of $97,000 placed for them but that is included in the cost per mile and in the larger figure of $114,393,765, so that cannot be again counted.
Then we come to the next point and my hon. friend was not unfair in that respect, but I want to point out that, while not unfair, as far as the country is concerned, his contention is impractical. The Intercolonial Railway is building at present large shops and terminals at Moncton which will cost a large amount of money. The Grand Trunk Pacific expect, and we expect, that the Transcontinental will use these terminals, so that while the amount chargeable direct to the Transcontinental of $750,000 may be considered as capital, every hon. gentleman will see that whatever the Transcontinental pays for the use of these terminals'will be paid to the Intercolonial Railway which is building them, and this money which is going from the Transcontinental or the government will come back to the Intercolonial

Railway or practically to the government in another form. So that the country will not be out of pocket one dollar.


John Graham Haggart: But the hon. gentleman says that the share of the Transcontinental Railway only at Moncton will be $750,060.


George Perry Graham: Yes, and I have just said so. But that share, or the interest on it, will not be paid to any person else than the Intercolonial Railway, that is providing the terminus, and the Intercolonial being a government railway we get back the money paid on that account.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: I>. BORDEN. But the terminals will be at Moncton just the same as if they were not part of the Transcontinental.


George Perry Graham: The terminals and shops at Moncton are being built by the Intercolonial, in other words by the government, with the object of accommodating the Transcontinental at Moncton. Although we have been criticised for spending a large amount of money at Moncton, it has always been the view that we will not have to spend that money with the Transcontinental. Now, we have to take out the amount my hon. friend -would apportion to Moncton. I am putting in $2,000,000 as an estimate for the terminals at Quebec. Now I come to Winnipeg. As I have pointed out, it is improper to put in one farthing for the Winnipeg terminals, as every dollar the government will spend for the Winnipeg terminals has been provided for under the section of an agreement I have read, and this will go into cost of construction, and all that will be chargeable will not be an amount capitalized, as my hon. friend's large figures tended to show, but it will merely be the interest on the interest that the government has paid. That will be during the first seven years.


Mr.  R. L.@: "BORDEN. During the first seven years the government will pay $48,750 per annum?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Will they ever get that back?


George Perry Graham: It all goes into cost of construction, and after .seven years it will be repaid.


Robert Laird Borden: After the first seven years they will get interest on it; is that not the case?


George Perry Graham: No. As I said before, all we ought to be chargeable with is interest on the interest, because the total amount we pay in as interest will go into cost of construction, and for seven years we will pay interest on interest, but after that our payments will cease.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is a misunderstanding. The government is Mr. GRAHAM.
liable for the payment of $48,750 per annum ; the government will pay that during the first seven years. The Grand Trunk Pacific will not be liable in respect of that. My hon. friend says that the government will be reimbursed for those seven payments of $48,750 each, they will receive it back at the end of seven years. He claims that they will receive it back in this way, that it will be then added to the cost of construction.


George Perry Graham: That is correct.


Robert Laird Borden: And therefore, after the expiration of the seven years, they will receive interest on that sum at the rental of 3 per cent per annum. Is not that correct?


George Perry Graham: No, I do not think it is.


Robert Laird Borden: Then what is it?


George Perry Graham: Det me read to my hon. friend the digest from the agreement itself -the last few words :
And for the first seven years of the lease such compensation shall be wholly borne by the government; the Grand Trunk Pacific for the next forty-three years repaying annually to 'the government, .by way of rental, the amount of the said compensation.


Robert Laird Borden: That is exactly what I said. What that means is this-if my hon. friend will pardon me because I want him to understand me-during the first seven years the government pays that annual sum of $48,750. I understood my hon. friend to say that it then is to be added to the cost of construction. But the clause which he read just now does not bear that out; it may he in some other clause. Then for seven years the government continues to pay it; during the remaining forty-three years, in respect to those forty-three annual payments, they are to be reimbursed by the Grand Trunk Pacific. But they do not receive any reimbursement whatever in respect to the first seven payments made by the government, unless, as the hon. gentleman claims, interest thereon as part of the cost of construction. As to that X do not know.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend and I do not see it alike, and we will have to leave it at that. Now, I contend again that it would be a very small amount, if anything, that the country will ever have to pay on the terminals at Winnipeg, consequently I have taken that amount out. Whether my hon. friend is right or wrong, it will not make much difference in my conclusion. But we take the $2,000,000 for Quebec and we take $1,500,000 for the shops east of Winnipeg, and these will make $3,500,000 instead of the $5,470,000. There is another item my hon. friend puts in here and it is that perhaps which led the newspapers astray, the interest to be paid

by the government -without recourse on the Moncton section. As we are not dealing with the Grand Trunk Pacific section at all, we must! strike from my hon. friend's figures, or from the figures the newspapers published, another $11,304,300.


Robert Laird Borden: Why does the hon. gentleman strike that out when he is Sealing with liabilities?


George Perry Graham: Because my hon. friend did not strike it out, the newspapers went away with the idea that from Moncton to Winnipeg the railway was going to cost us $250,000,000. I am stripping the government section from Moncton to Winnipeg of excessive figures and straightening out the difficulties the papers have got into on account of my hon. friend's statement. I want to get the Moncton to Winnipeg portion righted first, as that is the portion being built by the government.
I find these additions make $38,802,828 or $39,000,000 in round numbers. If I add to the amount the guarantee on the Mountain section and the Prairie section. $58,480,000, 1 find my hon. friend's newspapers, for some reason, are out just the small sum of $97,048,000 in their computation. Now, I want to ask if it is fair to spread that through the country, particularly when I was bound in honour not to make any reply to straighten out the figures. I think the press supporting the hon. gentleman owes him an apology. He did not make that statement, but they made it, and, so far as I have been able to find out, no person has attempted to correct that misleading and utterly and absolutely false statement. Now, I want to go a little further w;ith this line from Moncton to Winnipeg.* Take the interest for the first seven years. I want to make this statement now, that, unlike some bargains made with railways, for the money we spend we own the railway ; for the money we spend we will own 1.800 miles of the best transcontinental railway on the continent of America, without one single exception. Barge amounts have been given to railways, and we in this parliament give large amounts to railways. But the country must not be allowed to forget that while we spend a large amount of money on the one side, we have got our full value for the money in the railway on the other side of the account. I am prepared to say this to the country, that the Dominion of Canada, any time it desires, can get rid of that portion of the railway at what it will cost the country. The only burden that lies on this country for this railway from Moncton to Winnipeg is the amount that it will cost the country in the way of interest for the seven years, because after that the Grand Trunk Pacific pays the interest and Canada
is under no burden whatever. Now, Sir, dealing with it from that point of view, I want to call the attention of the House to a very different situation, and to one in which the country will be interested. The burden of the country, as I said, is the amount it will cost the country in interest on the money invested in this railway, being the interest for seven years of the lease, after which the Grand Trunk Pacific carries the burden itself and Canada has no burden to bear. The interest for the first seven years will be $26,124,676. That includes interact during Construction ,as well. The interest on the $3,500,000 I have estimated for the shops east of Winnipeg and for the terminals at Quebec would be $735,000 for the term, or a total of $26,859,676 of interest that -will accumulate during the first seven years of the lease to the Grand Trunk Pacific. I am prepared to make the statement that, making allowance for possible minor inaccuracies in the calculation, broadly speaking, all the burden that is placed on the Dominion of Canada for 1,800 miles of railway is $26,859,676, or if we take the surplus as we had it last year it would -wipe out all this interest in about a year and a half.
I wish to carry my hon. friend's conclusion a little further and do as he suggested, instead of leaving the $26,859,676 suppose we borrow the amount at 3 per cent, which would be a busfness proposition. Then for this 1,800 miles of railway and the benefits to be derived from it Canada would only be burdened $805,770 per year, or less than $1,000,000. Is there anything appalling in those figures ? I say the government of Canada, if it had to do the same thing again would be derelict in their duty if they did not construct the railway at that cost.
I do not want to be unfair and at the suggestion of my hon. friend I am going to take in the Mountain division for a little inspection. So far as the government end is concerned, I have stated the burdens of the country. I propose to go into the Mountain section. I have faith in Canada and I am not going to suggest or admit (and I believe the circumstances will warrant me in my conclusion) that this country will ever be called on to buy one cent on the guarantee of bonds on the Grand Trunk Pacific. The development of Canada to-day is such that the country is warranted in believing and does believe, as every hon. member in this House believes, that we will never be called upon to pay one cent of guarantee on the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific. If Canada is to be a failure, if our great western country has not before it the great future we believe it has, if the industry of the people is not such as we tell the w'orld it is. if our development is not along the lines we all hope it should be, if our great

heritage is not of the abundant wealth we have believed, if the prospects which we hold out to our children about this great Canada of ours are not such as to give us confidence in it, let my hon. friend's figures be taken as correct. But if Canada is the country we believe it is, if the people are the people we think they are, if our development is only on the threshold and if, in the years to come, we expect further development, further progress, there is not the faintest chance or danger that this country will ever be called on to pay one cent on the guarantee of bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific.
I propose to take in the Mountain section and what we have to pay? Take the $26,859,676 interest on the eastern section and the terminals I have mentioned, add $11,304300 interest without recourse that we have to pay during the first seven years of lease on the Mountain section and we have $38,263,976, for the benefits we receive for a through line from the Pacific ocean to Moncton. If I followed out the same line of argument which the hon. gentleman would say I am justified in following, if instead of taking the $38,263,976 out of revenue we borrowed it at 3 per cent, I find that for the great benefit we will receive this country will have to pay the sum of $1.144,919.2S per year.


Mr. LENNOX.: It would be better to borrow again to pay the interest on that and after a while we would have to pay nothing at all.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. member discusses this with railway men he will find they make their calculations just as I do.


Haughton Lennox: The more they borrow the less they will owe?


George Perry Graham: 
Mr. BENNETT.: Was it ever contemplated that the construction of the road would be commenced in 1903, or was it not expected that the surveys would not be completed for two years and that consequently no work of construction could be commenced until about 1905?


George Perry Graham: If we make an estimate to-day we make it on to-day's conditions and if the conditions change the estimate changes. You ask a man to give you an estimate of the cost of building a house and he cannot tell you what it will cost two years from now. The cost may be cheaper or it may be dearer. He will give you an estimate of what it will cost to-day and if you wait for two years you must take the chances. The cost may go up or it may come down.
The rate of wages for ordinary and skilled labour has increased 25 per cent. The cost of lumber, timber and ties has advanced fully 35 'per cent, and the price of steel rails has gone up from $25 'to $35 per gross ton, an advance of 40 pm* cent; there -may be other materials, probably are, which enter into railway construction which have not advanced in the same ratio, but the above constitutes the leading and costly features.
The estimate of 1903 was based on a road with maximum grades and curves, and curves of 1,200 feet radius would be more favourable than some curves on the Intercolonial Railway. In fact, the estimate of cost prepared in 1903 was for a road of an ordinary character such as is being constructed elsewhere in Canada.

Again, the structures upon the eastern section (Moncton to Winnipeg) are being built practically all of steel and concrete, of a costly and permanent character, even in the most inaccessible sections of the road, whereas, it is well known that on iroads constructed elsewhere in Canada, the structures are largely of timber, and such material was in view in the estimate of 1903.


Mr. FOWLER.: Does the minister not know that one of the main reasons put forward for the cost, as given at that time of this work, was that it was to be of such a superior character and, if the minister does not know that, I would refer him to the speech of Mr. Charlton, the then hon. member for North Norfolk, who made the leading speech on the question of the Transcontinental Railway and who put forward, as the leading feature, that it would be a road of lower grades than any other road in Canada.


George Perry Graham: I have just pointed out that the engineer says that, but even if that had been done and that only, it would not nearly have been the road that it is. There is not a road in Canada that runs out in that country that has not a one per cent grade on it.


George William Fowler: If the minister wi!l take Mr. Charlton's speech and take the road as it is to-day, even according to the report of the chief engineer, I will guarantee that the road falls considerably short of what it was stated in Mr. Charlton's speech that it was going to be.


Mr. J. T. SCHELL.: When Mr. Charlton was making that speech he was referring to a road of the kind that the Grand Trunk Pacific is building to-day, but, when the Grand Trunk Pacific entered into the contract with the government, a condition was that the road was to be equal to the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway. You will not require to find the condition that was agreed to, do more than look at the contract which was entered into.


George William Fowler: What has that to do with it?


Jacob Thomas Schell: It has everything to do with it.


George William Fowler: Would the hon. gentleman pardon me a moment?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Jacob Thomas Schell: The road that was agreed upon was a road equal to the main line of the Grand Trunk Railway. But, when Mr. Charlton made his speech he made it upon a road that never was built in the Dominion of Canada. There is only one road in the United States that has one per cent grades.


George William Fowler: Mr. Charlton made his speech before the contract was entered into.


Mr. CONMEE.: Certainly, but what had Mr. Charlton's speech to do with the standard of the road? He was simply advocating the scheme.


George Perry Graham: Now, kindly allow me to come back. This is the conclusion of the memorandum which I have.
The general result is, of course, a much increased initial cost of construction, though m the ultimate, the greatly extended, life of these more stable structures, will compensate for the present expenditure.
If you will allow me to be so bold as to say it, I prefer to pin my faith to what two engineers say rather than to what any person else may say as to the conditions with respect to the extra cost of the road. My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) insists upon my taking some person else's address. Would he want the country to get its impression of the cost of the work by head lines and reports of hon. gentleman's speeches.


George William Fowler: Take ' Hansard.'


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend agrees that a cost of $250,000,000 is


George William Fowler: Take ' Hansard ' report.


George Perry Graham: I was not referring to ' Hansard.' I was talking about the newspapers .


George William Fowler: I have not had as much experience as the minister has had with newspapers, but I have quite as much faith as he has in them.


George Perry Graham: I have great faith in them if they are not led astray.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend has done the newspapers an injustice in what he has said. I find no discrepancy of $97,000,000.


George Perry Graham: Will my hon. friend say that the statement is correct?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman says there is a discrepancy of $97,000,000 and I cannot find it.


George Perry Graham: It is only a difference of a few millions?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not say that.


George Perry Graham: I would ask my hon. friend if that headline is correct according to his statement?


Robert Laird Borden: Is it correct that he has admitted $114,393,765 for the eastern division, $10,009,454 for Interest, $124,403,219 cost of eastern division at completion, $26,124,676, seven years' interest and $11,196,290 three years' additional interest at 3 per cent?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend, I think, is not treating me fairly now.


Robert Laird Borden: I am asking my hon. | friend a question?


George Perry Graham: Tile reporter who wrote, that article did not write anything that would justify that heading.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 am responsible for what I said in the House and not for newspaper head lines.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend was saying that I was unjust to the newspapers.


Robert Laird Borden: I still say so.


George Perry Graham: It is only a question of opinion. The reporter who wrote that article did not write anything which would lead any person to put a headline of that kind over it as the article is fairly accurate and the heading altogether inaccurate. If my hon. friend will look at an authority *which I might quote, but which I will not take the time of the House to read, he will find that one of the greatest difficulties with the railways on this continent and elsewhere is the fact that they were not properly constructed in the first instance and that while some railways were pushed through and rails laid at a comparatively cheap price, inside of ten or twenty years, these roads practically had to be rebuilt. Railroading in Canada has been so revolutionized during the last five or six years that the principal railways have abandoned in some instances mile after mile in order to get easier grades and better curves. One of the leading railways in the United States, and I refer my hon. friend to the Railway ' Gazette,' has abandoned 109 miles and is rebuilding altogether. I need only call the attention of those hon. members who come from the province of Ontario to the fact that between Montreal and Toronto the Grand Trunk Railway Company has abandoned mile after mile and built a new rail-' way on a new right-of-way in order to get rid of some curves and some heavy grades, and I understand that it is now contemplating getting rid of its track east of Scarborough Heights and getting into Toronto around by the lake to avoid the grade. Why ? In order that the cost of transportation may be cheapened, and that longer trains and heavier loads may be carried, by each locomotive.
I am told that the Canadian Pacific itself. during the past few years, has spent in the reconstruction and "the betterment of its grades and curves an amount equal to its entire original capitalization. We find that the Grand Trunk Pacific is now being constructed so that these large amounts of expenditure a few years hence will not have to be made, and as the engineer says, while the initial cost of construction is apparently heavy, the magnificent road bed, the easy grades, the easy curves and the steel structures with concrete foundations will enable this road to start out with a standard of road that some of the leading railroads of America have not yet attained and can only Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
attain after years of running by the expenditure of millions.
I wish to point out just what the increase in the standard of the road means. From Winnipeg to Quebec by this route is 223 miles shorter than by any other, but leaving that out of consideration, suppose we take a standard of five trains each wray each day. With the easy grades of 4-10 of 1 per cent against east bound traffic ten trains can carry as much as on an ordinary road could be carried in 20 trains. The saving in this way in one year's operation has been estimated bv a competent authority at $2,980,802. This saving will more than counterbalance anything that can be said in reference to the extra cost of construction.
But it may be said that the saving will go to the Grand Trunk Pacific in the cost of operation. It will in a measure but, I want to ask the hon. gentleman, what we are building a road for ? Is it not to improve transportation ? Why do we want to improve transportation ? In order that the products of the people may be carried more quickly and more cheaply from the place of origin to the place of consumption. That being the case, every day means money, every extra car and ton that a railway can carry with the same amount of expenditure means a bigger price on the goods that are hauled, for the people who produce them. Arguing it on that line the people of Canada in the decreased cost of operation on this line, to say nothing of anything else, will reap a benefit far outweighing all the-expenditure that Canada can ever be called upon to make on behalf of this country.


Mr. R. B. BORDEN.: Has the minister any calculation of the cost of operation of that road during autumn, winter and spring? It has been represented by some persons that it will be a very expensive road to operate on account of the severity of winter storms and the difficulty of getting in supplies, coal, for example.


George Perry Graham: I have not gone into details of coal supply, &c., but have simply taken the difference in the cost of running a road of very superior standard and a road of ordinary standard.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: The minister said that the cost of running five trains per day would be about half that of running 10 trains per day. That proportion would hardly hold.


George Perry Graham: It would be approximately correct. So far as coal is concerned, the difficulties of procuring a supply would be the same whether the road were of ordinary standard or of superior standard except that perhaps on this road we could haul heavier loads of coal. The same applies to difficulties on account of weather and snowfall.

As to the cost exceeding the estimate, if hon. gentlemen consult the standard 'works on railways they will And that without exception the construction of every railway on this continent has exceeded the first estimate. That is also true of the English railways. If the hon. member goes to build a house he will find that it costs more than he estimated. If he had his plans made four years ago and had the house built last year he would find that it cost double.


Robert Laird Borden: But in those cases we do not have mountains of information.


George Perry Graham: I think I gave my hon. friends some small hills anyway. What Canada is interested in is not the estimated cost of the work or what somebody has said, but : Are the people of Canada going to benefit greatly from the building of the road? I have endeavoured to show that they will, and I have faith in the country. We have one transcontinental line, gome people thought when it was (being constructed that it cost too much money. It has cost a lot, but notwithstanding the fact that it has cost a great deal of money, we do not own any of the road. It is one of the best managed roads on this continent, I am glad to say, and the business of the country has made it a dividend-paying road; that is, when the business of the country was comparatively small. But Canada has reached a new era of development and its business will expand more and more in the years to come. I have faith that the increasing products of the Canadian people and the goods that will be purchased with these products, as well as the traffic flowing from Europe to the Orient and from the Orient to Europe, and the traffic from the United States across the Dominion, will in a few years reach such dimensions that [DOT] Canada (will need to have another transcontinental line built by somebody.
Some people have said that I am too optimistic and take too large a view of this matter. Sir, no country was ever built up by pessimists. If the people who live in a country and have its destiny in their hands, as members of parliament have, have no faith in the country, they ought to get out of the country, at any rate out of parliament. I have faith in the Dominion of Canada. I have faith in its ultimate success ; I have faith that it will yet possibly be a nation by itself on this continent ; I believe in the resources of the country. I believe the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will never call on the Dominion of Canada to pay one cent of the guarantee of the bonds nor one cent of the 3 per cent interest on the cost of the railway, but that on the contrary the traffic will so crowd this great transcontinental line that in a very few years we shall be compelled to see that another transcontinental line is built from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
I would have liked to have gone further
and have said a few words about the waterways, but I feel that I have encroached already too long on the time of the House. But this I want to say in conclusion-Canada has value for the money that she is putting into the Transcontinental Railway and she will own it in her own right from Winnipeg to Moncton, a stretch of more than 1,800 miles. If the interest of the people is what we are looking to. then every dollar we spend in order that the products of the people may reach their market in better condition and at less cost is money well spent and will be returned to the people many fold. I trust that in the discussion of this matter we may deal with it in a broad spirit, and act as Canadians towards a great enterprise which we all believe to be in the interest of the entire people of the Dominion of Canada.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


George Perry Graham: I want to refer for a moment to the question of the Winnipeg terminals. It is a small matter but I wish to be absolutely correct, and perhaps save time. I read my decision on the digest of the agreement. Since that time I have read the agreement itself, I want to be frank with my hon. friend, and I will say that he was right.


Robert Laird Borden: The statement made by my hon. friend is very fair indeed, and I am obliged to him for the correction. As a matter of fact, I am inclined to think that perhaps he has admitted too much against himself. I want to be fair, too, and on looking over the agreement as to the Winnipeg terminals, I think I should have made some deductions, but not to the extent he mentions. I want to say to my hon. friend that in not making the deduction, I was entirely misled by the statement he brought down. I will read that statement, and the hon. gentleman will see how easy it was to fall into error. The statement brought down was this :
With regard to terminals at Winnipeg, by the agreement of March 1, 1907, confirmed by the Acit of that year, chapter 52, between the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific iand the government, the value of the Canadian Northern lands is fixed at $2,625,000, upon which sum the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government, under clause 13, are to pay, in equal shares, one half of 4 per cent, or *$26,250 a year each. This includes grading, levelling and filling, as at the date of the agreement; but does not include buildings, fixtures, tracks and other improvements and facilities. For these-which ithe Canadian Northern undertakes to construct and supply-the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government are to pay, in equal shares, one half of per cent. The assumed cost is set down by the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway at $2,000,000, making the amount payable by the government yearly $22,500, or a total for the Winnipeg terminals of $48,750.

Now inasmuch as the information I asked for was expressly asked in order to ascertain the total cost of the road, and as the cost of the road brought down by the minister in the first place was stated subsequently not to include the terminals, it is plain that what I wanted to get at was the cost of the terminals for the purpose of making a computation of the total cost of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton. This statement informed me that 1 must take into consideration an annual charge of $48,750, and my attention was not directed to any qualification. I think the hon. gentleman was right to a certain extent in what he said the other day, and to a certain extent in what he said this morning. In looking over the agreement which I will read, I find this to be the condition of affairs, and if my attention had been directed to it I would have placed it before the House when I made my previous statement
But it is agreed between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government, that in the lease of the eastern division the interest of the government under this agreement in the joint terminals shall be transferred to the Grand Trunk Pacific upon the following terms:
(a) Prior to the execution of the lease of the eastern division to the Grand Trunk Pa-oific, the compensation payable by the government "to the Canadian Northern under clauses 13 (a) and (b) shall he paid by the commissioners and form part of the cost of construction within the meaning and for the purposes of the said agreement of July 21). 1903.
It is apparent then that so far as that annual charge of $48,750 relates to, and is paid in respect of any period up to the dale of, the signing of the lease to the Grand Trunk Pacific, it must be added to the cost of construction. 1 do not know what that will be, we can only estimate it. But tbeu the agreement continues as follows, in paragraph (b) of the same section :
For the first seven years of the lease, the said compensation payable by the government shall not be carried to capital account or cost of construction^ or be otherwise chargeable against the Grand Trunk Pacific, but shall he borne /wholly by the government.
So that for these seven years it is abundantly borne out by the terms of the clause I have just read, that the government must pay $48,750 a year without any recourse whatever, and that would amount to a sum of $341,250. Then paragraph (c) provides that for the remaining forty-three years the Grand Trunk Pacific shall pay' this rent, but if in the three years during which they are not to pay the whole of the rental unless the net earnings of the road are sufficient for that purpose, they may escape this payment either in whole or in part, because they are bound to pay only such proportion of it as their net earnings hear to the total amount of the rental payable during those three years. I will come Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
to my estimate in that respect further on. For the present, it is enough to say that so far as this charge is concerned, the government must in the first place pay without recourse until the lease is signed; for seven years after the lease is signed, it must also pay without recourse and perhaps also during the three succeeding years, that question depending on the earnings of the road. Then after the fifty years have expired, if the government sees fit to operate the road, or to lease it to any one else, this annual charge of $48,750 in respect of the Winnipeg terminals must be taken care of in some way, it is a sum which for all time in the future is payable by the government under the terms of- this agreement, as long as the terminals are used upon the basis set forth in that agreement.
Now my hon. friend was a little warm with regard to the headlines which have appeared in the newspapers, and for which he very fairly did not hold me responsible, and for which of course X could not be held responsible. I do not know whether in his own experience as a journalist he has always maintained the standard with regard to headlines which he lays down for his brother journalists, who, as he thinks, have erred in this case. But if he really would like something that should call for his animadversion and very severe criticism, I would direct his attention to a certain pamphlet which X hold in my hands, and which sets forth in very large and striking headlines, this legend :
A transcontinental railway for $13,000,000.
I would direct his attention to the circumstance that in the same pamphlet a certain alternative proposal which I had put forward as one to be preferred to that of the government, was set forth as costing the country $266,000,000, and in this pamphlet not one of those considerations which the hon. gentleman enlarges on as proper to be taken account of, was given the slightest attention, or allowed to influence the calculation in the slightest degree. I think if my hon. friend would take this pamphlet and sit down and read it-I suppose he is too busy a man to trouble himself with light literature of this kind-but if he could! find time to sit down and read this pamphlet we would hear from him at the beginning of next session an even warmer speech than that which he delivered this morning with regard to headlines and misrepresentations.
My hon. friend referred to the fact that he did not reply to my statement immediately as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) had asked the discussion upon this particular subject to stand over until another day. It was very courteous, indeed, of my hon. friend to give me the opportunity of making my statement, it was convenient for me to do so, the session was approaching an end and I was anxious that the business should be advanced. I under-

stood liim then to say he did not make his statement because he was not prepared to make it.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that to my hon. friend, but he will understand that the arrangement I had made with the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) altogether banished that from my mind. I had put away any papers I had and I would have had to procure them from my office. If I had not made the arrangement with the hon. member for North Toronto I would have been compelled to make the statement immediately.


Robert Laird Borden: I would have waived as far as it was in my power, any arrangement of the kiud because I realized that it would be quite improper for me to make any statement and at the same time hold the minister bound to silence. I did not feel T was making my statement under such conditions and if he had suggested it I would have let the matter stand; in fact I suggested that myself.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: I was not blaming my hon. friend or complaining; he did not t:ike the least advantage of me and I did not mean it in that way.


Frederick William Borden: I have referred to the paucity of information in the report of the commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway. I have been putting the Minister of Railways to more or less trouble during the session by asking for information by motions for returns, questions and inquiries in the House as to various items relating to the cost of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton and also in some cases to the liability of this country in connection with its guarantee of bonds upon the Mountain division. It should be the duty of the commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway, at least so far as the eastern division is concerned, to give us that information in their annual report. What are these gentlemen doing, what are their duties? Is their time so greatly occupied that none of it can be devoted to the important subject of acquainting this country from year to year with the extent of the liability likely to be incurred in the construction of this road? All of the time of this House and of the department that has been occupied in giving out this information should have been saved and the report of these gentlemen should have placed before every member at the commencement of this session or at some time during the session, the information I have been at so much pains to obtain. I trust the Minister of Railways will see to it that in future the report of the commissioners shall be more worthy of what we might expect from an important body of this kind and that it shall not simply consist of three or four reports of engineers and a report of the chief engineer. but that it shall contain these important matters of information to which I
have referred and that it shall be presented at the earliest possible moment.
My hon. friend's statement in criticism of my own was fair in its tone from his standpoint; I have nothing to complain of it. He went over my statement in detail and admitted some of my items and rejected others The items admitted and rejected by him are :
Items admitted by Minister of Railways.
Construction of railway from Moncton to Winnipeg 1,803:55 miles, at estimated cost of $63,427 per mile	 $114,393,765
Allowing five years for period of construction there will be an average of 2J years simple interest at 3i per cent per year during construction, or $4,003,781.67
per year for 2| years	 10,009,454
To this must be added 7 years interest at 3 per cent (not compounded) after completion during which Grand Trunk Pacific
is to pay no rent		26,124,676
Estimated cost of our share of terminals at Quebec, Winnipeg and Moncton, and shops east of Winnipeg	 4,591,250
155,118,745
Interest on bonds on Mountain section without recourse for 7 years at 3J per cent, amounts to. 11,304,250

Items rejected by Minister of Railways.
In respect to Winnipeg terminals.	878,750
Quebec Bridge	 14,422,238
Also interest at 3 per cent for three years additional during which no rent is collectable on Eastern Division unless earnings are sufficient.. .[DOT]	 11,196,290

I might criticise some of his views in respect to the terminals, but the total cost of the road is so great and so startling that any criticism of mine would make so little difference that I pass it by as unworthy of consideration, at this stage of the session at least, and therefore I am willing to accept his view of the situation.
Let me take up the three items in my estimate to which he objects. As to the interest I take simply the $48,750 a year during the first seven years of the lease about which there can be no question. Upon this basis we have $4,591,250 as the cost of the terminals. In making that estimate I am adopting all the views of the Minister of Railways with respect to terminals. .So far as Moncton is concerned no one would pretend for a moment that these huge terminals and shops would be built there if the Grand Trunk Pacific were not to be constructed. Taking the items in mv estimate that are admitted by the minister we have a total of cost of $166,423,045.


George Perry Graham: Might I asa a question ? That last amount includes the Mountain section, and is not the cost really from Winnipeg to Moncton ?


Robert Laird Borden: I will repeat it in order that there may be no misapprehension about it. The estimates which the Minister of Railways admits in respect of of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton amount to $155,118,745. The hon. gentleman says, and says correctly, that in estimating the cost of that portion of the road, one should not take into consideration the interest on the Mountain division because that portion is not to be owned by the government and is under a different stipulation to the contract. But what 1 am endeavouring to do just now is to set forth the total cash outlay to the country, not only in respect of the government portion of the road-the eastern division so called-extending from Winnipeg to Moncton, but the cash outlay which, under the terms of the contract, must be borne by the government in respect of the whole road from the Pacific coast to Moncton, and that properly includes the $11,304,250 interest on bonds on tile Mountain section and amounts to $166,423,045 as admitted by the minister.
Let me now come to the three items in respect of which he attempted to seriously criticise my statement. The items rejected by the Minister of Railways consist in the first place of the sum of $878,750 for the Winnipeg terminals. With respect to that, I was misled by the return brought down by the minister an reply to my request for information ns to the cost of terminals. I am willing to make this deduction which is relatively insignificant. The deduction would be much less if I took into consideration the payments during construction and the payments after the Grand Trunk Pacific lease shall have expired.
Then I come to the Quebec bridge. My hon. friend eliminates that item altogether. Well, if we could get rid of the expenditures of the country by striking out items of this kind that would be a very delightful and satisfactory process. But I do not understand that the country is going to get rid of its liabilities merely by a statement of the Minister of Railways. We are already guarantors on the bonds of the Quebec Bridge Company for upwards of $6,000,000, and we have in return nothing but the wreck of that bridge after its partial construction. Does any one suppose that the Minister of Railways, by a very plausible wave of his hand, can rid us of his guaranty on these bonds ? If a process of that kind were possible, if the Minister of Railways could extend that to our total debt in how splendid a position we would be! I might say to him that I am inclined to think some process of that kind will be very necessary if the government keeps on in the road it has been Mr. GRAHAM.
travelling the last five or six years. Look at the situation of the country with regard to the Quebec bridge. It is perfectly true that that bridge, the construction of that bridge, was not initiated as a portion of the Transcontinental. But it is equally true that over and over again it has been admitted and acknowledged that some portion at least of the cost of that bridge must be taken into consideration in estimating the total cost to the country of the Transcontinental Railway. I have not the references here, but that position was acknowledged and taken by hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches during the lengthy debates we had in 1903-4 on this Transcontinental Railway project. The construction of a bridge across the St. Lawrence is just as essential to the effective operation of -that road as a Transcontinental Railway as any one or five or ten miles between Winnipeg and Moncton. How are you to operate your trains if you have not a bridge across the St. [DOT] Lawrence joining the two portions of the eastern division? We have the Quebec bridge a wreck-everything lying under the St. Lawrence except the piers and a portion of the superstructure. \ve are guarantors on the bonds of the Quebec Bridge Company to the extent of $6,000,000, we are face to face with the necessity of bringing the construction of that bridge to a conclusion at the earliest possible moment. I asked the government across the floor for some information or data on which I could base an estimate of the amount required to complete the construction of that bridge and the return brought down states that there is no information in the possession of the government on that very important subject. My hon. friend has not criticised my estimate of $9,000,000 as the cost of completing the Quebec bridge and I take it he has none to offer. 1 have said that adding to the amount already expended on the bridge the sum of $9,000,000 required to complete it you have a total of $ 14,422,2.38. I am not very much concerned with the argument as to whether or not the whole or a part of this, or what part must toe charged against the Transcontinental. The particularly important point to face is that the amount must toe provided by the country out of public revenues. Therefore inasmuch as this bridge is an essential to the operation of the Transcontinental, we must take it into consideration in computing the liabilities imposed upon the country by the construction of the Transcontinental Railway. Do I make myself plain ? Is there any one who can say that is noit a fair and plain statement of the situation which must be faced by the government?
Now there is only one other item in respect of which my hon. friend made any comment or criticism, and that is the item

of 111,196,290. That item represents the interest at 3 per cent for the three years during which no rent is collectable from the Grand Trunk Pacific unless the earnings of that road are sufficient for the payment of the rent. My hon. friend strikes that out because, as he says, he is an optimist. Well, in suggesting the possibility, and indeed I think the extreme probability, that we will have no return in respect of that sum, I trust I am not convicting myself in the judgment of my hon. friend of being a pessimist. I have taken some opinions on that subject from gentlemen who I think are as well qualified to offer an opinion as any hon. gentleman in this House and much more qualified. I would regard it from the information that 1 have been able to obtain, as extremely improbable that the net earnings of the Grand Trunk Pacific will be sufficient for any such purpose during those three years. Let us not put out of sight the very great difficulties that will arise in the operation of the road during the winter season. Let us not dismiss from our minds the circumstance that even during those three years there will be a very limited amount of local traffic upon that road and there are rumours,
I do not know how well founded, that certain gentlemen connected with the Grand Trunk Railway have been making some investigations into the possibilities of local traffic and into the character of the country which will be opened up by that road between Moncton and Winnipeg, and they have arrived at a much more pessimistic (if I may use the term) conclusion with respect to the operation of that road during the first ten or twenty years than any I have seen fit to express to the House to-day. It is all very well to be optimistic, but let us remember .that the optimism of to-day will not pay the debt of to-morrow. You must remember that by a mere statement in this House and an airy wave of the hand we cannot get rid of natural conditions and we cannot get rid of the difficulties that certainly will confront the operation of the road during the first seven or .ten years. I trust that these difficulties may, in the end, be found to be much less than they are anticipated at the present time by some persons who have made a study of the situation and I would be only too delighted if the optimistic outlook of my hon. friend to-day should be justified by the events of the future. I realize to the full that my hon. friend is entitled to his opinion on this subject. It is a question of the future depending upon conditions which no one in this House has either the experience or the knowledge to estimate in a very confident manner. Therefore, my hon. friend, very sincerely, no doubt, sees fit to strike this out. I have ventured to include it as a probable amount which this country will have to meet and it is only the future that will be able to determine whether he 403
is nearer the mark than I am in this particular instance. I think that is about all the criticism that my hon. friend made. Let me add that in the estimate I have made I have not taken into consideration .the construction of telegraph lines. I do not remember at the moment whether they were embraced in the estimate which the hon. gentleman presented to us. Could he give me that information?


George Perry Graham: My recollection is that they are included in it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not remember seeing them mentioned, but my hon. friend is under the impression that they are included. I have not taken into consideration any interest on the cost of terminals, and I have not taken into consideration any of the necessary expenditures that must always be looked for in the early operation of a new road some of which at least would, under the terms of the agreement, fall upon the government, if my interpretation of the agreement is correct. My hon. friend did not state, and I would like to have that information if I could get it, whether or not any j>art of the computation upon which the sum of $63,427, as the cost per mile of this road, is based upon the original estimates which were before the government in 1903-4 or whether all these estimates were made recently and upon such information as is in the possession of the engineers at the present time.


George Perry Graham: As far as contracts have been let, these figures are taken from the contracts and the balance, which is not very large, is taken from the present estimate of the engineers as to the cost of construction.


Robert Laird Borden: At all events they are recent estimates ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The old estimates are not relied upon. My hon. friend alluded to some $97,000 for terminals which I did not include in the cost of construction for the reason that he has given.
The hon. gentleman spoke of the very greatly increased cost of this road as being due to the character of its construction. The hon. gentleman will remember that the contract, if I recall its terms correctly, provides that it should be built up to the standard of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Toronto. That is correct, is it not?


George Perry Graham: That is the contract.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the contract. I would like to direct the attention of the House, in connection with the argument of my hon. friend, to the opinion of the expert of the government in 1903, a gentleman who was put up for the purpose of answering the Hon. A. G. Blair, a gentleman who evidently had been in consultation



with the government, whose opinions were put forward as those of the government, although he was not a member of the administration and who made the principal argument as far as the cost of the road is concerned, in support of the government's proposition. Mr. Charlton, to whom I allude, at page 8484 of ' Hansard,' 1903, used this language :
Now, Sir, if we build a line from Winnipeg to Quebec, say 1,400 miles long, and if we can secure four-tenths per cent grades; if we lay that road with 90 pound rails, if we put bridges upon it that will carry the heaviest locomotives and trains of cars, each car carrying a load of 50 tons, we can carry, in my opinion, grain from Winnipeg to Quebec for 12 cents a bushel and perhaps even less.
I do not understand from the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals that the character of the road to-day is superior to that which was set forth in the remarks which I have just quoted from the speech of Mr. Charlton delivered in this House on the 11th August, 1903. Proceeding farther and dealing with the cost of this road, he said, at page 8486 :
I do not believe that this road will cost over $30,000 a mile from Moncton to Chau-diere Junction, and I doubt very much that it will cost more than $30,000 per mile, or even that, from Quebec to Winnipeg.
The hon. gentleman was very far away from the mark in making that statement. Then again, at page 8496, he uses this language :
As I said last night, this road from Winnipeg to Quebec, if it is to serve the purpose which it is intended to serve, must be a first-class road. It must have not more than half per cent grades, and should have four-tenths per cent grades, coming cast, or twenty-one feet to the mile. It should be laid with 90-pound rails, should have bridges that would carry the heaviest rolling stock in use, with a margin to allow for an increase in the weight of rolling stock; it should have engines of 100 tons weight without the tender and cars of 50 tons capacity of cargo. The road must be built with bridges capable of sustaining the weight of cars with a carrying capacity 50 per cent greater than is now required and with corresponding increase in weight of engines.
At page 8497 he impresses upon the government the absolute necessity of securing the construction of a road of this kind, and at page 8512 he says :
Then, we have a provision in the public interest that the standard of the road, west of Winnipeg shall be equal to the standard of the Grand Trunk between Toronto and Montreal. That is a much higher standard than that of any road that the wrest nowf possesses. The Mackenzie and Mann road is laid with 60 pound rails. The Grand Trunk between Toronto and Montreal is laid with 80 pound rails, and in some sections 90 pound rails. It is a first-class road, with the best bridges and with low grades. And, if this provision in the contract is complied with and the Grand Trunk builds at Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
road in the west that shall not be inferior to' the Grand Trunk between Montreal and Toronto, it will build a road 30 or 40 per cent better than any road now in that western country.
It would appear to me perfectly clear that Mr. Charlton, speaking for the government, considered that the standard of the Grand Trunk Railway -between Montreal and Toronto was practically equal if not quite equal to the standard of the road he described in the quotation I first read to the House. It is impossible to come to the conclusion put forward by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that the difference between the $52,000,000 or $53,000,000 estimated by the Minister of Finance and by Mr. Charlton for the construction of this 1,800 miles of road, and the sum of $114,500,000 now acknowledged by the government as the cost, is due to the fact that the character of the road has been so greatly improved. Does the Minister of Railways or does any member of the government pretend for one minute that the standard of the road between Winnipeg and Moncton is so vastly superior to the standard of the Grand Trunk between Toronto and Montreal that it will account for this excess of $61,000,000, which brings the cost of the road to much more than double the original estimated cost ? The statement has only to be made to carry its own confutation. There might perhaps be a few million dollars involved, but when it is seriously proposed to the House that the superior excellence of the Transcontinental as compared with the Grand Trunk between Toronto and Montreal accounts for $61,000,000, you place a strain upon our credulity that it will not stand. I do not think the Grand Trunk Railway will make an admission of that kind.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman will agree that I did not say anything of the kind.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman did not say so then we absolutely agree that it would be absurd to put forward any such reason as accounting for the increased cost of the road by $61,000,000, and, therefore, the $61,000,000 excess cost must be accounted for in some other way. The people of the country will be deeply concerned to know what the cause of it is. Some of the causes may have already been disclosed in a recent debate, and we may hear more about that matter in the time to come.
The Minister of Railways closed with a very eloquent peroration in the course of which he described himself as an optimist and deplored pessimism. Well, I do not think there are any pessimists in this country to-day. There were pessimists in Canada 20 years ago. Perhaps the Minister of Railways was not amongst them ; perhaps he dissented from his party in these

days. But surely lie lias not forgotten the doleful wailings that went up from gentlemen with whom he is now associated in the cabinet when it was proposed to build the first transcontinental railway across Canada. Why, the rumblings of these -wailings have been heard even in recent years, although they possibly have ceased now.


George Perry Graham: We may both have been converted since then.


Robert Laird Borden: It was refreshing in this heated season to hear the Minister of Railways deplore pessimism, and no doubt he feared some recrudescence of the Liberal pessimism of 20 years and more ago might appear, and so he thought by his eloquence to stifle it. We on this side of the House have an abiding faith and unalterable confidence in the resources of Canada and in its future material prosperity. But that is not necessarily inconsistent with the safeguarding of the public interests and with the principle that we should have a comprehensive appreciation of the ultimate cost of a great undertaking before we plunge heedlessly into it. That is true statesmanship ; it is not pessimism. We trust that tangible benefits may be derived by our country from the construction of the Transcontinental Railway. When the Prime Minister laid his scheme before the House we were told we had mountains of information about it, but even at this date the mountain of information with regard to the ultimate cost of the road is a veritable molehill. To-day we are confronted with the situation that even on the admission of the government the road will cost more than double that which they estimated at the start. 1 do not know what course the government would have taken had they been compelled to admit to parliament in 1903 that the road from Moncton to Winnipeg would cost $114,500,000 at the very lowest, without terminals without computing interest, and without including those other items which I have included in my estimate of cost. They presented the Transcontinental Railway to the people of Canada as a project which would be paid for by the investment of $13,000,000, which would represent every possible charge against the public exchequer in connection with it. It was interesting to notice to-day that the Minister of Railways in his estimate of cost exactly doubled the original estimate of the government. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Customs, the Minister of Finance, all laid stress in 1903 on $13,000,000 as sufficient if invested to discharge every possible obligation of the country in connection with the road. They put it in their campaign literature, they flaunted it through their press in glaring headlines so that all might see, and to-day the Minister of Railways. not by way of Boast, but by way 4034
of apology, ventures the statement that if $13,000,000 would not be sufficient, $26,000.000 for $27,000,000 would accomplish the purpose. I should think that considerations of this kind would give pause to the government and would induce greater care and greater prudence on their part before they embark in these huge undertakings. I have done nothing more than my duty in placing the present possibilities of the cost of this road before parliament and before the country. I am very glad indeed that after my estimate has been made and submitted to the House, and has been under the consideration of the Minister of Railways for several days, the only criticism he can make of it is in respect to a sum of about $800,000 as to which I was led into error by a statement which he himself had brought down to the House. I admit of course the reasonable character of the minister's observations with respect to the item of $11,000,000 for the three years' rental. I frankly admit that that is a matter of opinion, and that my kon. friend was perfectly justified in putting forward his view of the situation. Apart from that I cannot see that we differ in the slightest, except as to the item of $800,000 to which I have alluded. As to the Quebec bridge, the only difference between us is as to whether it should be charged to the Transcontinental Railway or not. I am not concerned with any matter of bookkeeping. I am concerned with the fact that before this railway is completed that bridge will have to be reconstructed and the country will have to pay for it.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, the National Transcontinental Railway is the greatest undertaking of this government, a work of the greatest importance to us at present, and, as we believe, of vast importance in the future development of the country ; and therefore any hon. gentleman who approaches the question with an intelligent consideration of the cost of the road and its value to the country, is only doing what is rightly expected of a gentleman in the position of the hon. leader of the opposition. If my hon. friend had approached the question in what I regard as a fair spirit, we would certainly have no reason to complain ; but I must say that if my hon. friend did approach the question with a desire to be fair, he strayed sadly away, with the consequence that he has presented to the House and the country a statement of the cost of this road to the people of Canada which I am obliged to say is not only inexact, but is absolutely and monstrously misleading. No statement which could be presented to an intelligent body under such conditions could be more misleading than that of my hon. friend. I am afraid that his desire to make a little political capital, for which I suppose allowance

must be made, has rather blinded his judgment, for I cannot conceive how otherwise he could have presented this extraordinary statement. It is not that the figures of my hon. friend in many instances are incorrect. In many instances I assume that they are correct. My. quarrel is not so much with his figures in detail as with their grouping and the conclusions he draws from them. It is as if a man having a volume of papers containing accounts for and against him should hand them to an accountant with instructions to collect them and present him with a proper statement afterwards, and the accountant should charge both the debts and the credits to the debit side of the account, and leave the other side blank. That is what my hon. friend has done. He has charged to the government and the people of Canada expenses which the contract does not contemplate shall be paid by the people of Canada, and which there is no reasonable probability that the people of Canada will ever be obliged to pay. Perhaps nothing indicates more clearly the manner in which my hon. friend has approached the question than the fact that at the beginning of his remarks he again revived that exploded fallacy that the right hon. the Prime Minister had told the people of Canada that this road could be constructed from ocean to ocean for thirteen million dollars. We have had that question threshed out over and over again in this House. Hon. gentlemen opposite have only been able to establish a colour of excuse for that statement by quoting a sentence from the speech of the Prime Minister separate and apart from its context, and utterly at variance with the spirit of the whole speech. Can any one imagine that the Prime Minister, whatever, hon. gentlemen opposite may think of him, would be so absolutely mad as to ask the people of Canada to believe that a railway 3,558 miles in length, from Moncton to the Pacific, could be constructed for $3,600 per mile? If the people of Canada believed the statement which hon. gentlemen opposite attribute to the Prime Minister, they must have understood it to mean that.


Haughton Lennox: Are we to pay for the whole of it ?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Haughton Lennox: The Prime Minister was talking of the cost of construction to the public-not the cost of the entire road.


William Stevens Fielding: Hon. gentlemen opposite have again and again in this House- and it has been carried into their press- represented the Prime Minister as saying that this road could be constructed from ocean to ocean for twelve or thirteen million dollars.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Never.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: Why, in the speech of the hon. leader of the opposition which I have now under review, lie quoted a sentence from the speech of the Prime Minister for the purpose of saying that very thing. Let me read :
The right lion, the Prime Minister at page 7691 of ' Hansard ' used these words:
The sum total of the money to be paid by the government for the construction of the line from Moncton to the Pacific will be in the neighbourhood of twelve or thirteen million dollars.
Hon. gentlemen opposite seek to convey the impression that thereby the Prime Minister meant-and they have again and again referred to it in this House-that the cost of construction from ocean to ocean was to be $3,500 or $3,600 per mile.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Never.


William Stevens Fielding: They quote a sentence from the Prime Minister's speech, separate from its context and entirely at variance with the whole spirit of the speech, and spread it abroad.


Mr. BOYCE.: Why did you put it in your own campaign literature and circulate it throughout the country ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it was ever put in that form. Hon. gentlemen opposite have persistently confused two things -the cost of constructing the road and the cost ultimately to the government, having regard to what the government will be called upon to pay and what the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will be called upon to pay. And so when our hon. friend the leader of the opposition began his remarks the other night by reviving that exploded fallacy, it rather indicated that he was not approaching the question in quite the fair spirit that he would have us believe he was bringing to the discussion of the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: What could this sentence mean, in the hon. gentleman's campaign literature ?	,


William Stevens Fielding: Is my hon. friend prepared to explain every sentence in his campaign literature ?


Robert Laird Borden: I will deal with that when it comes before the House. I am talking about this matter at the moment, and I would like to ask what was the meaning of it:
A transcontinental railway for $13,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a correct statement of what the right hon. the Prime Minister said. He was not dealing with the cost of constructing the road ; he was dealing with what he then believed would be the cost to the government of Canada, taking into account that which they would have to pay and that which the Grand Trunk Pacific Company would have to pay.
12697 JULY 11, 1908 12698	
and upon the statements and estimates before the House, which it is now found were too low and which I will deal with in a moment. Some hon. MEMBERS. Oh, oh. Mr. FIELDING. Yes. We will probably find that some other estimates were incorrect too. The Prime Minister held that having regard to what the Grand Trunk Pacific Company would pay. and what the government of Canada would pay under the contract, if you had taken twelve or thirteen million dollars and invested the money at that time in the hands of a bank or a trust company and asked them to make provision for all the obligations arising to the government under that contract, that amount of money would be sufficient ; and, according to the estimate of the work then made, the right hon. the Prime Minister was absolutely correct. No other view was ever expressed by the Prime Minister ; and when again and again my hon. friends opposite refer to that statement as conveying the impression that the cost of the construction of the road was to be thirteen million dollars, they are not treating the matter fairly. The cost of construction is one thing, the cost which the people will have to bear ultimately for the purpose of constructing this road-having regard to what the company and the government have to pay-is an entirely different thing. I desire to take up the statement which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition submitted the other night. It has been dealt with in part by my hon. colleague the Minister of Railways, but I should like to have the privilege of reviewing some features of it also. I want to call attention to the nature of the tabular statement my hon. friend gave the House and which is now being paraded throughout the country. It will be found on page 12596 of ' Hansard.' I regard that statement as of importance as showing what it was my hon. friend tried to convey to the country. The heading is this : ' Statement of cost to Canada of National Transcontinental Railway.' Observe the words ' Statement of cost to Canada of National Transcontinental Railway.' That is the beginning. And the end is. after the various items are set forth. ' Total, $249,335,823.' My hon. friend explained afterwards that there was one item which he had under-estimated, and he increased the amount to $250,968,723. So we have the statement that the cost to Canada of the National Transcontinental is $250,968,723. My hon. colleague the Minister of Railways referred to the heading in the press, which conveyed the impression that this $250,000,000 was the cost to Canada of the road from Moncton to Winnipeg. That is the portion which is being constructed by the government and is called the eastern division, and he pointed out that in that	respect the newspapers had gone beyond the limits even of the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. That remark was certainly correct. The leader of the opposition did not represent that the cost of the road from Moncton to Winnipeg was $250,000,000, but he did represent that the cost to Canada from Moncton to the Pacific-the \vhole road, what we call the National Transcontinental, including eastern and western division-he did represent that the cost to Canada of the National Transcontinental was $250,968,723, and I am obliged to criticise that as a monstrous statement. Let us take it up item by item. I have already said that I am not calling in question the accuracy of the hon. gentleman's figures in detail. Some of-them are based on information furnished the House by the National Transcontinental Commission, and presumably they are correct. Some of them are in the form of calculations with respect to interest made by the leader of the opposition, and I presume they are correct. In any event, there could not be any difference that would amount to anything. He puts in a statement showing the cost to Canada of the National Transcontinental Railway. His first item is : Construction of railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, 1,80.3-55 miles, at estimated cost of $63,427 per mile,' $114,393,765. I say at once that it is a monstrous statement to say that that represents the cost of that road to Canada. In this case the hon. gentleman has simply set forth the one side of the account. What actually might be said would be that the cost to the government of that section of the road, which he puts in at $114,000,000 and in- , creased by the addition of certain interest to $124,000,000-the cost to Canada of that road is not that amount, but seven years' interest on that amount, because, after the expiration of that seven years, the interest on that amount is paid by the Grand Trunk Pacific and ceases to be a payment for the people of Canada at all. As' my hon. friend has taken account of that interest in a later item it is not necessary to take account of it here, and therefore you must strike it out entirely. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Hear, hear. Mr. FIELDING. That $114,393,765 must be struck out, because, although the government advance the money, the Grand Trunk Pacific, after a period of seven years shall have passed, pay the interest on every dollar of that expenditure. And as that interest is included in another item to which I shall come it cannot be allowed in this case, and therefore, in absolute fairness. the whole item of $114,000,000 must be struck out. Air R L BORDEN. If my hon. friend 1 should build a house costing $10,000 and

lease it for ten years at $1,000 a year, would lie claim that the house cost him nothing?


William Stevens Fielding: Suppose a man engaged in real estate were to put up a house costing $10,000 and then made a contract with a good, reputable tenant to lease it for fifty years at a price which would cover the interest, would my hon. friend say that he would be ruined? It seems to me he would reply that he had a reputable tenant for the next fifty years and was perfectly content with his bargain.


Frederick William Borden: Would my hon. friend say that in that case the house cost nothing?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not say that the house cost nothing, but I say that to put down the house as costing $10,000, and leave out of the calculation the rental during fifty years, would be a grossly misleading statement.


George William Fowler: What would the house cost him?


William Stevens Fielding: It might cost him nothing. It might absolutely be a profit to him, and if my hon. friend were to say to him, you are ruining yourself, he might well reply : I am putting it up under terms and conditions which make it a source of great profit, and it is no burden at all.


James Conmee: Bring up another house.


William Stevens Fielding: The next item in my hon. friend's item is this :
Allowing -five years for period of construction, there 'will be an average of 21 years simple interest at 31 per cent iper year during construction, or $1,003,781.67 per year for 21-years, $10,009,454. I
I do not dispute the accuracy of these figures, f am assuming that they are correct, but again I say you must strike this out. Why? Because, under the Railway Act, as well as under the contract, the interest during construction is a proper charge to capital. The interest, therefore, that is paid during the construction of the National Transcontinental becomes a part of the cost of construction, becomes a part of the principal sum, and all that the government will have to pay will be seven 7ears' interest on that principal sum. And after the seven years every dollar of interest for the remaining forty-three years is a charge, not upon the government of Canada, but upon the Grand Trunk Pacific, and therefore the representation of my hon. friend that this is a burden on the country to that extent is entirely unwarranted, and that item must be struck out. The interest has to toe paid during construction, but it is added to the capital sum. and on that capital sum we grant freedom from rental, which is the same as interest, for a period


Robert Laird Borden: of seven years. We are properly chargeable as a cost to the government, for seven years' interest, or rental, on that item, but we are not properly chargeable with the capital sum itself.


Robert Laird Borden: Then it would not make any difference what rate of interest we pay ; we might just as well pay ten per cent as three and a half per cent, because it will all have to be struck out.


William Stevens Fielding: Having regard to the manner in which my hon. friend has made up his statement, I am not surprised at that observation.


Robert Laird Borden: It was the observation of the minister, not mine.


William Stevens Fielding: It is about as easy to understand it as the statement itself.


Robert Laird Borden: Seriously, does the hon. gentleman make no difference in his computation what rate of interest we pay during construction ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see the point that is raised by my hon. friend's question. We should get the interest back after seven years at three per cent, and if we paid a higher rate for our money then to that extent there is a difference. But we get back three per cent on our money. If we have to pay a somewhat higher rate, to that extent we lose after the seven years, and to that extent only. Then I take the next item :
To this must be added seven years interest at 3 per cent (not compounded), after completion during which the Grand Trunk Pacific is to pay in rent, $26,124,656.
I assume my hon. friend's calculation is correct, I am taking his figures, and I assume that this is a proper item to charge against the government. The interest which the government will have to pay for seven years during which they will receive no interest or rental from the company, is a proper charge, and that is the true measure of what the country will have to pay for the eastern division of the Transcontinental. For every dollar beyond that, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is obligated to pay, and we have no reason to doubt that they will be able and willing to pay. So that item I do not strike out, that item properly remains. Then we come to another item :
Also interest at 3 per cent for three years additional during which no rent is collectable unless earnings are sufficient, $11,166,290.
I observed the other night that my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), in a passing remark, indicated that he realized the hopelessness of this item being kept in the computation, because he alluded to it as something which at all events was very debatable. Now there has been some dis-
12701	JULY 11, 1908	12702
cussion between my hon. friend and the Minister of Railways concerning that, and my hon. friend has admitted that perhaps the company will be able to pay it during those three years, but he is very dubious. Still, for the purpose of my argument it makes no difference whether the company pay it during those three years or not. In either case this item must go out. If they pay it during the three years, then of course the item goes out ; if they don't pay it during the three years, it becomes an addition to the capital sum, which is secured to the government by the terms of the lease and upon which the government will receive interest for every dollar. So1 whether they pay interest as my hon. friend the Minister of Railways thinks they might, and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition thinks they won't, it makes no difference with regard to the ultimate responsibility of the government. If they pay interest, that settles it, and the item is out; if they do not pay interest, then it is simply a deferred payment which is secured to the government by the terms of the lease; it is added to the capital sum, and if the capital sum includes this $11,000,000 the government will receive interest on it for every year after the expiration of the seven years.
There is an item which follows close upon that, in relation to terminals. I do not wish to enter into that further than to say that the same method of reasoning applies to it. I am assuming that my hon. friend's statement is correct as to the cost of terminals. But whatever these terminals may cost, that cost becomes a part of the cost of the eastern division of the Transcontinental, and on that cost of the eastern division, whatever it may be, we grant them freedom from rent or interest for seven years. But after the expiration of the seven years they are obliged to pay interest on the whole cost, including terminals. Therefore my hon. friend, in charging up this principal sum as something which has to be paid by the government, and by the government only, is entirely wrong. You must strike out that sum, because the government will pay interest on that for seven years, after which the company are obliged to pay interest on it, that being a part of the construction of the eastern division.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Who pays the principal?


William Stevens Fielding: For the purpose of this discussion we are dealing with the question of the burden that is to be placed on the people of Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is no principal, for the purpose of this discussion.


William Stevens Fielding: For the purpose of this discussion I say if the government of Canada advance moneys for the eastern
division of the Transcontinental, and if they lease that to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for seven years without any rental, then that seven years interest is a charge upon the treasury of Canada, and from the eighth year down to the fiftieth year the Grand Trunk Pacific pay interest. Then I say there is no charge and no burden upon the treasury of Canada.
Now, I come to the Quebec bridge. I say there is not a shadow of a reason for carrying into this account the cost of the Quebec bridge. My hon. friend made a statement upon that, which I have not at hand, but this is the substance :
It is acknowledged by everybody that the construction of the Quebec bridge is an essential part of the Transcontinental.
I think my hon. friend will find I have quoted him with substantial accuracy. Now I take exception to that. If my hon. friend will say that it is agreed all round that the Quebec bridge must be constructed, I can agree with him heartily. But when he says, for the purpose of this argument, for the purpose of charging up this item against the government, and of swelling the total of this amount, that it is universally agreed that the construction of the Quebec bridge is an essential part of the Transcontinental Railway, I am obliged to take exception to that statement, because the construction of the Quebec bridge was recognized as an essential feature of the policy of Canada before a spade was ever put into the ground with regard to the Transcontinental Railway. We can prove that by the hon. gentleman himself. I find that he is charging up this whole item, making now $14,000,000-I am accepting his own figures-he charges this whole item as something which has become necessary by reason of the Transcontinental scheme and something which without the Transcontinental would not have been a charge upon the country at all. I am doing my hon. friend no injustice when I say that is the effect of the statement he put before the country in saying it is an essential feature of the Transcontinental Railway. Now do we not all know that a good many years ago, long before the Transcontinental was commenced or even dreamed of, the people of Canada had practically recognized the necessity for the construction of the Quebec bridge? It is a well known fact, I state it on Conservative authority, that the Conservative government years ago, practically promised to construct that bridge. The promise has been made in the province of Quebec by their own political leaders. Not very long ago, at a banquet given in the city of Quebec to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, shortly, if I remember aright, before the Transcontinental contract was approved by this House, I find that the chairman of the meeting, the Hon. Mr. Pelletier,


Robert Laird Borden: What was the date? Mr FIELDING. October, 1903, at the bme J, l.11 ld; that tbe legislation respecting the National Transcontinental was eitht just about completed or was still before tb House. Mr. Borden says :
In advocating the extension of the Intern ionial Railway to Georgian bay, I believ tnat we can hereby secure for Canadian port a large proportion of the trade from the west traffic carried over a railway owned bv th people of this country must come to our owi ports and the amount of that traffic will de velop an the future to a remarkable extent Moreover, the extension of the Intercolonia Railway coupled with the completion of th. Quebec bridge to which both political partic
ture ^f" Quebec.	& ft
There is not a word about the Transcon tlnental Railway in that. The hon. gentle man asserted that it would be useful to th. Intercolonial Railway, it would help trad, generally, it would develop Quebec. I fin. no fault with that, but we know that th. Quebec bridge was promised many year* ago by Conservatives, if the testimony of th. hon. gentleman who presided at that gath Mr. FIELDING.


Samuel Hughes: How much has been paid or will be paid by any other party than the government of Canada for the construe-tion of the Quebec bridge?
. FOLDING. If I thought it had any bearing on the question at issue, I would be happy to get the information, but whether it costs $1,000,000 or $10,000,000 or $14,000 -
000 or $20,000,000, it is not merely a part of the Transcontinental road, for every dollar of that money would have been necessary as an expenditure if we had never heard of the Transcontinental Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister take the ground that absolutely no portion of the cost of that bridge is chargeable to the Transcontinental ?


William Stevens Fielding: I say that when the bridge is completed the Grand Trunk would have the right to use it, and if they used if they should pay for that, but whether the Transcontinental Railway was built or not we would have to construct the bridge.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman said in this House in 1903:
But some part of the cost of that bridge is properly chargeable to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. . . . What proportion of that would be fairly chargeable to this enterprise? I am going to assume that out of what it .may cost we may fairly charge the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, "$2,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, surely, I charged two millions and my hon. friend fourteen.


Robert Laird Borden: That is hardly fair, because the hon. gentleman at that time was estimating the cost of the bridge at four and a half million dollars.


William Stevens Fielding: At that time I was complaining of the very thing my hon. friend is doing now, that he is not distinguishing between the part properly chargeable to the Transcontinental Railway and the part properly chargeable to other railways. Then

as now he charged up the whole thing to the Transcontinental Railway for the purpose of swelling the amount and alarming the country.


George William Fowler: Now you are charging one-half.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I am not charging anything. I say it becomes a matter of debate. I made a rough estimate and for my purposes charged two millions. I say that the Grand Trunk Pacific if they use the bridge must pay for it to the extent of their user. That is a matter of detail, that has not been adjusted, but I take it that a portion of that expenditure would be properly chargeable to the Grand Trunk Pacific.


George William Fowler: At the time you made the statement in 1903 the estimated cost of the Quebec bridge was four and a half millions.


William Stevens Fielding: No, at that time we were guaranteeing bonds to the extent of nearly seven million dollars.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has entirely forgotten. Here is his own statement:
I understand that the bridge proper, the crossings and the approaches, will cost about $4,500,000. . . . What proportion of that would be fairly chargeable to this enterprise? I am going to assume that out of what it mav cost we may fairly charge the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway $2,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: There would have to be the bridge proper, the approaches, &e. But that makes no difference. The point Is that the Grand Trunk Pacific is properly chargeable with some portion of that work, having regard to the business which it would do over it.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister said not just now.


William Stevens Fielding: No, my hon. friend is mistaken. I say, on the contrary, that if that work is to be built by the government of Canada or by a company, the Grand Trunk Pacific cannot be permitted to use it for nothing. They might claim, and I do not wish to say anything that may be used as an argument by the Grand Trunk in future discussions, that we have a right to give them seven years freedom from interest on that portion of the bridge cost which would be their share. That is a matter of detail, but I say they are only to be charged with what is their proper share. If two millions is the proper sum, well and good, if that is to he the charge or a smaller sum, whatever may be found to be proper, the Grand Trunk Pacific should pay as sharing in the use of the bridge in proportion to the amount of business they may do. That is a proper charge against the Transcontinental scheme and I suppose the company might elaim that as respects that charge they would be entitled to seven years' freedom from interest.


George William Fowler: The minister says that in the computation of $2,000,000 he tools only the bridge proper and not the approaches, hut the Grand Trunk would find it necessary to use the approaches as well as the bridge and therefore should they not pay a fair proportion of the cost of the approaches ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think so. That is a matter that has not been determined. The moment the bridge is completed of course that question will have to be determined, perhaps before it is completed. Before the Grand Trunk Pacific can he permitted to use the bridge there must be a determination of what proportion of the cost is a proper charge against the Transcontinental Railway and if the leader of the opposition had treated It in that way and charged some part of it against the National Transcontinental Railway, I could find no fault whatever with his statement. When he charges the whole sum as something which is necessary to the creation of the Transcontinental Railway scheme he must see that that is not a fair presentation of the case.


George William Fowler: I would like, right here, to read from * Hansard ' of August 12, 1903, page 8587. what the hon. gentleman said then:
I understand that the bridge proper, the crossings and approaches, will cost about $4,500,000.
He says also a few lines down :
That is to say, that we will he obliged to give to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, if they demand it, a crossing on that bridge, and that in connection with the genera] arrangement to provide a crossing $2,000 000 will he the outside obligation which we should charge to this scheme. Our $2,000,000 will stand as part of the cost of the railway upon which the Grand Trunk Pacific company will ultimately pay interest in the same manner as on any other portion of the railway.
That is including it certainly as a part of the Transcontinental Railway.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will look further I think he will find that during that same session we guaranteed the bridge company's bonds to the amount of $6,000,000 odd; so that it is quite evident that the estimate of the cost must have been revised. However, it is of no consequence.


George William Fowler: You are constantly revising your estimate.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes; my hon. friends opposite are not likely to revise estimates. That is a responsibility that only comes to ministers. I do not dispute charging a portion of the bridge to the Transcontinental Railway. What is a proper proportion is a fair matter of debate, but I do not want to make any estimate which would he used -against the government in years to come. If we could charge half of $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 to the road it might not follow that

we could charge half of $14,000,000, hut what I do say is that we will he disposed to charge the amount that is right and proper. What I contend is that this bridge was rendered necessary by the condition of the country long before the Transcontinental Railway was dreamed of and when my hon. friend charges the whole cost, which he places at $14,000,000, against the Transcontinental Railway it is not a fair charge at all, because all he could properly charge would be a proportion, whatever may be thought to be proper, in proportion to the user of the bridge as compared with the user by other companies. Now then with regard to the Mountain and Prairie sections-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before the hon. gentleman proceeds to deal with the Mountain and Prairie sections, would he say what, in his opinion, is the cost of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, I am going to assume that the statements which have been presented by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals and which have been accepted by the hon. leader of the opposition, are correct. I have not given any attention to it. I presume they are correct and I am quite willing to accept them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I thought you said that it wTas nothing. That was the logical conclusion of your speech.


William Stevens Fielding: Logic is a thing as to which different people have different views. An hon. gentleman near me has called my attention to a remark made by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in the debate which occurred in 1903. He was making some references to the Quebec bridge and he said :
I mention this because I have always been favourable to that project and the Conservative party, as members of this House are well aware, was committed to assisting the construction of the bridge before 1896.
So we have, in addition to the statement I have already quoted, the acknowledgement of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that the Conservative party was committed to the construction of the bridge before the year 1896, long years before the Transcontinental Railway scheme was undertaken.
Now, in regard to the Mountain and Prai rie sections, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I am sorry to say, carries into this also the same erroneous conclusions. He charges up practically everything. He charges up the guarantee of bonds to the cost to the people of Canada of that road. A more monstrous contention could hardly be conceived. I have read his statement, but that there should be no mistake let me read it again :


William Stevens Fielding: Statement of cost to Canada of National Transcontinental railway.
He sets out all the items and at the bottom gives the total $250,968,723.
What can be more preposterous than that? Take the cost of the Prairie section. The government of Canada guarantees the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, to the extent of three-quarters of the cost, up to a limit of $13,000 per mile. We have guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but it never cost the people of Canada one dollar; we have guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway, but it never cost the people of Canada one dollar; we are guaranteeing the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific for the Prairie section on the condition that they must pay interest on the money from the moment the road is open. Who says that they will never pay that interest ? Surely my hon. friend will see the fallacy of that argument. It may be that on the eastern division and on the Mountain section you will not have interest paying traffic immediately and we have made allowance for that. We recognize that, as respects the eastern division and the Mountain portion, at the beginning of operations the traffic will be very moderate and that they may not be able to pay interest and therefore wTe grant them seven years freedom on the eastern and Mountain divisions from the obligation to pay interest. But, when it comes to the Prairie section, with the teeming business which is there waiting to be done, with the crop which is standing today in the Northwest enough to furnish a traffic for the Transcontinental Railway, in the face of the enthusiasm of the people of the west, in the face of the demand for railways in all directions, in the face of the cry that the need of the country is not traffic but railways to carry it, the hon. gentleman carries in, as the cost to the people of Canada, the amounts that we are guaranteeing on these bonds and assumes that not one cent will ever be received on the other side of the account.
Then you turn to the Mountain section. There we guarantee three-quarters of the cost whatever it may be. We cannot expect that the Mountain section will pay at once, and so we allow them seven years without interest on the amount which we shall guarantee. But, there will come a time surely-and seven years is not too long perhaps to allow them-when, on that Mountain section, as well as on the eastern division, the traffic will pay. My hon. friend is only at>le to sustain his position on the assumption that the whole scheme is worthless, that the country is going to the dogs and that there is no traffic anywhere to give business to the railway. Upon that assumption my hon. friend's figures may be justified, but if that is not the fact, if

the business of that country needs more railways, Lf the great crops of which we have heard so much and of which we are so proud in that western country will give business to this Transcontinental Railway, or as much of it as will be ready this year, why should my hon. friend assume that for the moment or after the lapse of seven years we will not be able to get enough traffic even for the Mountain section to pay the interest on three-quarters of its bonded debt ?


Robert Laird Borden: The bon. gentleman is mis-stating altogether my position. I said not one word about any cash outlay by the government upon the Mountain section except in the seven years when we have to pay interest on the bond guarantee without recourse. The bon. gentleman has over and over again distinct portions of my statement without including what was right before his eyes and he knew it; he knew it perfectly well ; I said at the end of my statement :
Cash expenditure	$192,920,723
Bond guarantee	 58,048,000


William Stevens Fielding: What else?


Robert Laird Borden: And the total cost of these two, that is, the total of cash expenditure and bond guarantee, $250,968,723. The hon. gentleman has repeatedly during his speech endeavoured to convey an absolutely different impression from that which an examination of the document would convey to any fair-minded person.


William Stevens Fielding: I differ from the hon. gentleman. Any man who examines the document as it stands on ' Hansard ' and as it has been published throughout the country by the organs of the hon. gentleman can see nothing else in it but that which I have read, and I will read it again:
Statement of cost to Canada of National Transcontinental Railway.
Total, $250,968,000.
If the hon. gentleman did not mean to represent that that was the cost to Canada why did he put it in that statement as such?


Robert Laird Borden: I neither meant to state it nor did I represent it, and the hon. gentleman when he made his misleading statement to the House was (perfectly aware of it.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, this statement as it was given by the hon. gentleman and as it is printed with his approval in ' Hansard,' and as it has been distributed throughout the country, will go on record, and my statement will go alongside of it and I will let the country judge who misled the people.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: He says now his statement is all wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston) has stated what is not correct and what he knows is not correct.


Mr. CROCKET.: I wish to ask the Finance Minister if that statement does not clearly separate the cash outlay from the bond guarantee?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, but it places them both as part of the cost to Canada, and it is going the round of every Conservative paper in Canada to-day, and the only point of difference is that some of them wishing to see the leader of the opposition and go him one better represent that as the cost of the construction of the road from Moncton to Winnipeg. The leader of the opposition makes the statement that the cost to Canada-I am quoting his words so that there may be no mistake, ' Cost to Canada '-let it be printed in large letters :
' Cost to Canada,' total $250,969,723.
The figures in the first statement were slightly different and the hon. gentleman corrected them, and I am giving him the benefit of the correction.
Now, what is the actual cost to Canada? The actual cost to Canada for the eastern division is seven years' interest on the cost of construction.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much is that?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know. I am taking the figures of the leader of the opposition, which I assume to be correct, and my argument is based on the assumption that they are correct. For the eastern division the cost to Canada is not the cost of construction; it represents seven years' interest on the cost of construction, and after that for every dollar we get interest from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The cost of the Prairie section is nothing to the people of Canada, because we guarantee three-fourths of the cost of construction and we are to get interest on that from the moment the road is open. Not one dollar does that Prairie section of the road cost the people of Canada in the proper sense of the word.
Coming now to the Mountain section, the cost to Canada is not the cost of construction, but it is seven years' interest on three quarters of the cost of construction, because for every year beyond that seven years the Grand Trunk Pacific is obliged to pay tlie Interest.
So then we have this summing up :
Mr. Borden's statement of the
total cost to Canada	$250,969,723
Actual cost to Canada :
Seven years interest on the eastern division (I take my
hon. friend's figures!	 26,124,676

Seven years' interest on the guaranteed bonds for the Mountain seetion (again I take
my hon. friend's figures)	$ 11,304,300
X insert seven years' interest upon his own estimate of the terminals-if they are not covered by his general statement of cost the item will be necessary-seven years' interest on the cost of the terminals (estimated on Mr. Borden's
figures)	 1,340,150
So we have the net result that the actual fair cost to the people of Canada of this enterprise, the cost the people of Canada will have to pay according to the figures of my hon. friend himself, in reality
should be	'	 38,769,126
The hon. gentleman has overstated the cost of that work to the people of Canada to the extent of not less than.. .. 212,200,000 I am making this statement of the interest on the basis of my hon. friend's figures, but of course that interest has not to be paid immediately. It will be paid' during a series of years and by an actuarial calculation you could establish its present value. I have not gone into that fully, but no doubt it would make the figure considerably less than the $38,000*000 to which I have referred.
Now, as I have stated, the difference in the statements is the point of view from which they are approached. There is only one possible excuse-if one may dare .call it an excuse-for my hon. friend opposite his only possible defense for his statement would be that the whole undertaking is worthless, that the road will never earn anything and that the country has gone to the dogs. On no other grounds whatever can he justify a statement which ignores the obligation of the Grand Trunk Pacific to pay this government 3 per cent interest on the cost of the eastern section of the road after the first seven years ; which ignores the obligation of the Grand Trunk to pay us interest from the very beginning on the Prairie section and which ignores the obligation to pay nterest on the Mountain section also after seven years. If it be true that the country has gone to the dogs my hon. friend is right, but our statement is made upon the belief and the faith that great has as has been the progress of Canada in the past it is going to be greater in the early future, and so we refuse to believe, and we are sure the country will refuse to believe, in the basis upon which the leader of the opposition makes up his statement.
Much has been said from time to time concerning certain estimates which I made in the debate of 1903 on the Transcontinental Railway scheme. It is easv to be wise Mr. FIELDING.	'
after the event, but those of us who deal with the actualities of life must present every question in the best light we can bring to bear at the time; then if we are honest in our endeavours to get light from the most intelligent sources and present it to parliament, we need not be ashamed if it turns out afterwards we were mistaken, so long as we have brought it forth in good faith and with the best possible intent. My hon. friend quoted me as having estimated the cost of the New Brunswick section of the eastern division at $25,000 a mile. There is a sense in which that is correct, but it is hardly as fair and as full a statement as we ought to expect from the hon. gentleman. My hon. friend should have said that I made no estimate at all of the cost of that section in the sense in which he quotes it. The estimates which I presented to the House I did not presume to make myself. They were made upon the authority of a capable and experienced engineer whose integrity and ability will be unquestioned. I received the report from Mr. Schreiber, who was at that time the chief engineer of Railways and Canals, a man of the highest character, a man whose intelligence and capacity no one can doubt. Mr. Schreiber estimated that you could build a road of the character of the Intercolonial-not inferior to that-for $25,000 a mile east of Quebec and for $28,000 a mile from Quebec to Winnipeg. It is to that which my hon. friend refers when he quotes me as estimating the cost in New Brunswick at $25,000 a mile. I would remind my hon. friend that while I presented these figures and gave Mr. Schreiber as my authority for them, I stated that that would not be sufficient for the higher standard of road which we required. Therefore, I added-it was but a rough estimate-25 per cent for the better grade that we desired to have, and so the estimate I gave for the New Brunswick section was not $25,000 per mile, as my hon. friend states, but $31,200 per mile. It is not a very important thing, because the actual cost is very much above either of these sums. But I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that any estimates I gave were not estimates which I presumed to give of my own knowledge, because I had no such knowledge, but were based on the report of an intelligent and capable engineer. The hon. leader of the opposition gave us some estimates too, and he quoted them the other evening. He said :
I estimated the road from Winnipeg to Moncton at $40,000 per mile for 1.875 miles, or a total of $75,000,000.
If the hon. gentleman had engineering advice for that estimate, he never gave it to the House, so that we have to hold him responsible for it. I had the estimate of an engineer to fall back on, but he had not.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He was more correct than your engineer.


William Stevens Fielding: Neither of them was correct. My hon. friend's estimate of the cost of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton was $75,000,000 ; and yet he is now putting forward the statement that it will cost $124,000,000. And so it would seem that neither my hon. friend nor I was very near the proper estimate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who was the nearest ?


William Stevens Fielding: Well, there is not much to choose between us. My estimate of the cost of the road from Quebec to Winnipeg was $35,000 per mile, and my hon. friend's estimate was $40,000 per mile, so that there was not a wide difference between us.


Mr. LAKE.: He did not take into account the Quebec classification.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friends have not made much of the Quebec classification. What will be clearly understood by the public as to the Quebec classification will be this, that an engineer, who doubtless meant well, hut was mistaken, made some accusations against the National Transcontinental Commissioners implying that they acted improperly and perhaps corruptly with regard to the classification of the road ; that when the matter was investigated and that engineer was brought face to face with the committee and with the gentlemen concerned, he frankly said that he had made a mistake and withdrew his charges.


Haughton Lennox: We do not and the country does not have to depend on Major Hod-gins at all in the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: But as Major Hodgins, the gentleman who made the accusation, came before the committee and frankly acknowledged that he was mistaken and had no longer any charge to make, the country will understand that.


Haughton Lennox: Major Hodgins was not the only person who made accusations. Vastly more important accusations were made by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and they stand on record yet.


Samuel Hughes: Might I ask, for information, what did Major Hodgins withdraw ?


William Stevens Fielding: I was not present at the meeting. I read it in the public press, and I am stating it as the public know it, that the gentleman who made these accusations came before the committee after the inquiry and frankly acknowledged that he was wrong, stating that the points of difference were points of difference between engineers, upon which men might honestly exercise difference of opinion. The three salient facts were : first, that Major Hodgins made his accusations ; second, that Major Hodgins withdrew his accusations; and
third, that even if they wanted to do so, the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners could not change the classification, because that is the work of the chief engineer, and there is not a man on either side of the House who will dare to asperse the integrity of Hugh Lumsden.
Now, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in presenting this deplorable picture of the future, this picture of a time when the roads would not earn anything and the revenues go to the bow-wows, gave a statement of the enormous addition that would have to be made to the net debt of the country in consequence of this arrangement. My hon. friend said :
The public debt of Canada at present is, I suppose, from $265,000,000 to $268,000,000.
He is there alluding to the net debt, which is usually the basis of our calculations. Then he goes on to say :
The public debt of Canada at present is, I suppose, from $265,000,000 to $268,000,000. The cost of this road, will amount to at least $190,000,000 before we are through with it; and unless some considerable portion of that amount oan be paid out of revenue-which does not seem very probable under present conditions-the total debt of this country, by the time this road is completed, without our spending a dollar for the development of our ports and inland waterways and on subsidies to railways or for any ether of the enormous calls that will be made on the treasury within the early future-without taking into consideration a single one of these demands on the public treasury, the public debt of Canada is likely to reach $150,000,000 before we pay for the building of this National Transcontinental Railway.
I say again that my hon. friend indulges in pessimism of the worst kind. He can see no hope of anything but ruin coming out of this thing. He cannot think it possible that any portion of the payments made on this work will be paid out of revenue. He is of opinion that every dollar of the cost of the road, which at one place he puts at $190,000,000 and at another place at $250,000,000, must be added to the net debt of the country. I hope my hon. friend is not always going to be in such a gloomy frame of mind. Things are not so bad as that, I can assure him. As a considerable portion of that money has already been expended, we are able to put his theory to the test. Up to the 30th June, as near as I can get to it, we have paid out on Transcontinental Railway account $30,000,000. According to my hon. friend's idea, we must have added that $30,000,000 to the net debt of Canada ; but I am glad to be able to tell him that we have not added one-half of that to the net debt of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: What was it ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not the exact figures, but I think it would not be more than $14,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I mean what is the amount of the debt ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not the exact figures. The net debt is a little more than my hon. friend stated ; it is about $270,000,000. I am taking the expenditures on the Transcontinental Railway since the contract was made and the increase of the net debt during that time, and from that I deduce that if during that time we have been able to pay $30,000,000 on account of the Transcontinental Railway and have added less than one-half-of it to the net debt of the country, we can go oh with the assurance that we can finish this road without making such a large increase to the net debt of the country as my hop. friend seems to think.


Robert Laird Borden: Can the hon. minister tell me what he estimates the net debt will be at the end of the present fiscal year?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not like to make an estimate of that. But suppose we were going to add that enormous sum of $190,000,000, as my hon. friend said in one place, or $250,000,000, as he said in another place -suppose we were to add either of these sums to the public debt of Canada, the net debt, would that be so very alarming ? Would a charge upon the treasury of the Dominion for that work, amounting to either the $190,000,000 or the $250,000,000, be an enormous and alarming sum for the people to have to bear for this railway extension ?


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend say I mentioned the amount of $250,000,000 in connection with the net debt ?


William Stevens Fielding: In that case my hon. friend used $190,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I never used the expression $250,000,000 in connection with the net debt. My hon. friend is not giving my statement fairly. He is omitting altogether any reference to this. I ended my statement with this expression. Total cash expenditure $191,305,823 ; bond guarantee, $58,048.000. In addition to the above cash expenditure the government incurs the following obligation on its guarantee of bonds :
Guarantee on bonds issued on Mountain section as above.. .. $46,140,000 Guarantee of bonds issue on Prairie section, 916 miles, at $13,000 per mile	 11,908,600
Total	 $58,048,000


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is repeating his statement and therefore I must repeat my reply. Again I call attention to his tabular statement in ' Hansard,' page 12595, headed ' Statement of cost to Canada of the National Transcontinental Railway.' The various items are there set forth Mr. FIELDING.
in tabular form. And at the foot of the tabular statement appear these figures- Total, $249,253,823.


Robert Laird Borden: AVhat are the words immediately above ?


William Stevens Fielding: As I have said my hon. friend carries into his statement interest that we do pay, interest that we do not pay, cash expenditure and bond guarantee. He clubs them all together and makes up a total cost to Canada of $249,353,823, which he afterwards corrected to $250,968,723. But suppose wTe had to add this very large sum to the debt of Canada for railway purposes, would that be so alarming -as my hon. friend seems to suggest ? Would it create a paralysis in the credit of Canada ? I might remind my hon. friend that one great corporation in Canada, the Canadian Pacific Railway, is paying to-day interest and dividends on stocks, bonds and debentures which amount in all to $311,000,000. If that corporation-and a great one it is- is able to carry that amount, if it is ah 1/3 to bear the burden, and instead of doing evil be of great benefit in the development of the country, do you suppose that any one in Canada is going to be alarmed if we have to add either the $190,000,000 or the $250,000,000 to the public debt of Canada ? But while there will be a nominal addition for the time to the debt of Canada, the true measure of the cost of this enterprise to the people is not the cost of construction but the seven years rental on the eastern division and the seven years interest on the Mountain section.
That the road has cost more than we expected, I admit, and I have no apology to offer. I gave the best information I could get. What better could I have done than go to the eminent engineer whose integrity and ability are beyond question ? I gave the House the information he gave me. The road has cost more than we anticipated and there is not a man in the Dominion who voted for that Transcontinental scheme in 1904 who would not have voted for it just as readily if he had known it was going to cost the actual figures it has. But take the figures as they are presented today and contrast them with the cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway was a great enterprise. It was liberally endowed, and I am not saying it was too liberally subsidized. We are all, to-day, whatever may have been our difference in the past, proud of it; but we know that in order to secure that road, the country had to make great sacrifices, and by comparison we are getting the Transcon-tiental Railway on very favourable terms. That road, it is true, is costing us more than we estimated, but the reasons are not far to seek. Every railway company knows why it is costing more because it has had the same experience. Every engineer knows why the road is costing more because he has

had the same experience. Every manufacturer of Canada, whose wares enter into the construction of the Transcontinental, knows why it is costing more, because he is getting higher prices than he did in 1903. Every workman in the factories knows why, because he is getting higher wages for the work on the Transcontinental than he did in 1903. Every rail maker knows, because he is selling his rails at a higher price than he did in 1903. Every coal miner knows because he is getting more from the coal he produces which is used in making the rail. Every lumberman who supplies the ties, every shantyman who goes into the woods to cut the timber for the ties, knows why this road is costing more, because he knows he is getting more wages to-day than he did in 1903. Every labourer on the road knows that the higher wages he is getting must increase the cost of the road. But so long as this road is well constructed, so long as we have the proud satisfaction of knowing that we are getting the best Transcontinental railway ever built on the continent of America, so long as that railway is well constructed and equipped, so long as we are moving forward rapidly to the fulfilment of our expectations, the country will not quarrel with the increased expenditure but will say :	We
wanted the road in 1904, we want it now and if it becomes necessary to send the government back to power io give us that road, that will be one of the many reasons why they must be returned.


John Graham Haggart: We have had a very exciting debate over a very simple question. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition asked information from the government as to what the cost of our Transcontinental Railway would be. We got that information from the Minister of Railways, My hon. friend made a calculation upon it and presented it to the House and the country. It was a calculation on which two parties might differ, but the experts at the head of the Railway Department differ very little from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. Why then all this wind ? Simply because the figures now given do not correspond with those which the government furnished again and again to this House, and because these figures are so enormous that they have startled the country.
In their campaign literature which hon. gentlemen opposite circulated from one end of the country to the other, they stated that the cost of this road was only going to be $8,700,000. The statement of the Finance Minister, which he sticks to yet, is that it was only to be $13,000,000 plus the interest.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not say that now.


John Graham Haggart: The leader of the government sticks to the same statement, I suppose, of $13,000,000. Now the Minister
of Railways sums the amount up to $20,000,000. A word with regard to this so-called extravagant statement of the leader of the opposition. The Finance Minister tries to make the most out of it he can. That statement is headed ' Statement of the cost to Canada of the National Transcontinental Railway,' and the Minister of Finance tries to lead the House to believe that the leader of the opposition argued that the total cost of this road to the government would be $250,000,000. My hon. friend never intended anything of the kind.


Robert Laird Borden: And never said anything of the kind.


John Graham Haggart: Railways, considering the country which that railway passes through from Winnipeg to Moncton, think that if we were obliged to take it over and work it, it would be a good security for the money invested in it? Does it pass through the fine grazing and agricultural country, or the good mining country, that the Intercolonial passes through in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia ?' It passes through a country from Winnipeg to Quebec which is now a virtual wilderness. Taking the history of the Canadian Pacific Railway, of the Canadian Northern and other railways, we learn that In order to procure a traffic upon that road you require a long time. Some portions of the Canadian Northern have been built for eighteen years, other portions for twelve, eight and six years, and the Canadian Northern, although passing through choice farming lands in the Northwest Territories, is onl'y now beginning to reach a good financial basis, but barely so. Possibly the Grand Trunk Pacific, from the Pacific to Lake Superior, may, in four or five years' time, reach a good financial basis with the traffic of that splendid country it passes through. But as for the section between Winnipeg and Moncton, you may have possession of it from twenty-five to fifty years, and at the end of fifty years you would be poorer than you were at the beginning. We are justified in coming, to that conclusion from observing the manner in which the Intercolonial Railway is managed, with a deficit of $4,500,000 per year, and upon a road passing through a country not nearly as good as the Intercolonial passes through you would have a deficit of $6,000,000 or $7,000,000, and, instead of having an asset for the money expended on this road, you would have on your hands an elephant which would cost the country millions every year.
But we are told we have a guarantee from the Grand Trunk Pacific that after seven years or ten years they will pay interest on the amount. What is the guarantee of the Grand Trunk Pacific? It is a guarantee on the value of the undertaking, it does not bind the bondholders of the Grand Trunk Pacific. If they build a road from the Pacific to Lake Superior they are free from any such liability at all. It is only the actual stockholders of the Grand Trunk Pacific .that make that promise to the government. Suppose they say : We find that we cannot work that road, the receipts do not enable us to meet the expenditure ; they can force the government of this country to take over that road. They can say : We won't work it; and what remedy have you against it? No remedy at all. You are obliged to take over the road. You will have on your hands a road on which you have expended $191,000,000, and under the circumstances it would have been better if that $191,000,-Mr. HAGGART.
000 had been thrown into Lake Superior, because you have a liability of $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 a year to work this railway afterwards. We had a calculation made by the Finance Minister that the eastern section of that road would cost from $25,000 to $28,000 per mile, plus 25 per cent, to bring it up to the standard that Mr. Charlton advocated. The Minister of Finance has forgotten that in the estimate he was providing for the whole cost of tjhe Quebec bridge up to that moment. Does he forget that ? If he does, perhaps I had better read to him from the 'Hansard' a statement that he made at the time :
Adding all the various sums together-the present value of seven years' interest on the eastern section, first, on the basis of $25,000 and $28,000 per mile, which is the way the figures are made up; seven years' interest on the Quebec bridge represented by its present value.


William Stevens Fielding: That probably will be on the $2,000,000 which I estimated as the proportion chargeable to the National Transcontinental Railway.


John Graham Haggart: You were including the Quebec bridge.


William Stevens Fielding: To the extent of $2,000,000.


John Graham Haggart: 
George Perry Graham: It certainly is. That is where it is being charged.


John Graham Haggart: You make an expenditure of $750,000 more than is needed on the Intercolonial Railway owing to the possibility of the Grand Trunk Pacific reaching Moncton and the National Transcontinental is not to pay for it. It does not matter two pins who has to pay for it, the country has to pay the $750,000' and if it was not for the Grand Trunk Pacific reaching Moncton we would not have to spend the money.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is wrong. He will see that enlarging certain buildings is not nearly as costly as building them from the beginning and we did need shops at Moncton. The only difference is that we might not have built them so large.


John Graham Haggart: I was taking the hon. gentleman's own estimate. But in answer to my hon. friend's question the minister sends down information that the government are spending $750,000 more at Moncton on account of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


George Perry Graham: I did not say that. I said it was fair to charge the Grand Trunk Pacific $750,000 for their share, but we are not spending that much more on their account.


Haughton Lennox: Then it is not fair to charge them that much.


George Perry Graham: Yes, it is.


John Graham Haggart: Here is the statement from the memorandum.
For the terminals at Moncton the sum of
$97,000 was included in the -bulk for a terminal yard.
Then it is added to the cost of construction of the road.
With regard to shop accommodation, it is
assumed -that an arrangement will be made for the joint use of the shops of the Intercolonial Railway. If so, the National Transcontinental Railway's share of the capital expenditure on them -is estimated at $750,000 or, at 4 per cent interest, $50,000 a year.
The government estimated the cost of this road at from $25,000 to $28,000 a mile, but they subsequently found that it was going to cost $63,000 a mile. I venture to say that with the terminals and all the other things to be added it cannot be built for much less than $70,000 per mile. The Minister of Railways and Canals says that the excessive cost was caused by the adoption of modern gradients and curvatures and he makes the bold statement that large expenditures are being made on the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian Northern Railway and Grand Trunk Railway for the purpose of bringing them up-to-date. That is perfectly true, but he also says that roads being built in the same section of the country which is being traversed by the Grand Trunk Pacific are being built upon that principle, that it is better and cheaper, to build the road with four-tenths per cent grades one way and six-tenths per cent grades the other way. The experience of railway men is to the contrary. Every railway man in the country, especially those connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Canadian Northern, laughs at the absurdity of building a first class road from Winnipeg to Quebec in the first instance with the gradients and curvatures mentioned by the Minister of



Railways and Canals. The principle they adopt on other roads is to get their road through the country first with moderate grades and curvatures and then, when they have developed the traffic, bring the road up to a higher standard. That is what was contemplated by the original Grand Trunk Pacific agreement. There is no necessity for building a road with gradients of four-tenths of one per cent and a maximum curvature of four degrees under the contract made with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The road between Montreal and Toronto cannot be compared with that standard as to grades and curvatures. All we were bound to do at best was to build a road equal to the road between Montreal aud Toronto. The Minister of Railways and Canals says that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, in view of the difficulties of operating the road with the gradients and curvatures between Montreal and Toronto, are at present contemplating abandoning the road over Scarborough Heights and going along the lake shore. The contract allows the Grand Trunk Pacific to have gradients of at least 90 feet to the mile. At the time that the proposition was made for the building of the road X stated my opinion of the country through which it will pass from Winnipeg to Quebec, I stated that the cost of the road would, at the minimum, be $50,000 per mile, and I stated also that the expenditure on the Quebec bridge would be in excess of the amount that the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) stated it would cost the country. I hardly believed, and I can hardly believe up to the present time, that the government will abandon the building of the road from Quebec to Moncton. I pointed to surveys made by Sir Sandford Fleming and I pointed out that it was impossible to get a better road than they have at the present time to Moncton taking into consideration distance, gradients and expenditure. I was told by the premier that there would be a saving in distance between Lfivis and Moncton of from 100 to 130 miles. They have let contracts, but is the proposed route one mile shorter between Lfivis and Moncton than that which they have at the present time?


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) whether the policy of the opposition to-day is that this Grand Trunk Pacific Railway should not be built, or, if not built in its entirety, whether some portion of it should not be built ?


John Graham Haggart: I have no authority to speak for the opposition or to state what their policy is.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What do you say?


John Graham Haggart: I was a supporter of the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to Lake Superior and to the Pa-Mr. HAGGART.
cific. I stated that the proposed expenditure from Winnipeg to Quebec was a useless one. I stated also, that of all the monstrous, extravagant, useless expenditures that were ever made by the government of this country, the building of a road from Quebec to Moncton must be given the first place-paralleling your own Intercolonial Railway, making worse an asset which is useless to the people and to be supplemented, as the Minister of Railways and Canals states, by the double Hacking of the line from Moncton to Halifax, or, if that is not practicable on account of the gradients, the construction of a shorter cut across to Halifax.


Alexander Johnston: Perfectly satisfactory.


John Graham Haggart: Of all the extravagant statements made by the Minister of Railways and Canals that is the most extravagant one. Surely he does not contemplate anything of the kind.


James Conmee: Does the hon. gentleman approve of the section from Winnipeg to Quebec? I understand him to say that he does not approve of the section from Quebec to Moncton, and I want to know if he includes the section from Winnipeg to Quebec?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, he says so.


John Graham Haggart: I do not think that the road will be in a financial position to pay in the next fifty years from Winnipeg to Quebec.


James Conmee: I am asking if the hon. gentleman approves of the building of it.


John Graham Haggart: Last year I spoke on the subject for nearly an hour, and I had the honour of being supported by the government party; they took my speech as the pattern for theirs in explaining the building of the Transcontinental Railway.


William Stevens Fielding: That accounts for the mistakes.


John Graham Haggart: And they paid me the compliment of giving me the credit of saying that I was the first to initiate or suggest it. But, when we come to such a road as the government are at present building between Winnipeg and Quebec with the prospect of extending it to Halifax or St. John and when we come to consider the claim that it can be industrially used for the purpose of conveying the grain from the Northwest to the sea-board, I do not think there is a sane man, let alone a railway man, in the country who will say that the project is feasible. It is supported by some politicians who are anxious to get votes in their particular provinces by promising all sorts of imaginary things to the people. The statement made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition as to the financial position of this road is strictly correct. There Is nothing in the argument of my hon. friend

the Minister of Finance that because the Grand Trunk Pacific promises to pay at the end of seven years it is not a liability to the country. The liability of the country begins the moment the amount is paid. We do not know whether it will ever be returned.
We may not treat that as a liability, but though our creditors will treat our endor-sation of the bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific on the Mountain and Prairie sections as a liability, I believe that we may never be called upon to pay the interest with respect to the section from the Pacific ocean to Lake Superior. The line passes through a fertile country there, and it brings the grain to the quickest ports from which to reach the markets of the world. The development of the immense resources of British Columbia and of the prairies will require the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Conservative party was never opposed to any proposition to build the Grand Trunk Railway in the west, and, Sir, we could have had that road running to Lake Superior for a nominal sum without loading upon the country the immense liabilities which this scheme of the government proposes. I was sorry to see the plight of the Minister of Finance -when he tried to answer the statement of the leader of the opposition. He is generally clear in his argument but he floundered through in a manner which excited not my hostility but my pity. I trust that the next time the Finance Minister has a financial statement to make he will have a* better subject, for to-day he showed that he knew it was desperate to attempt to refute the figures given by the leader of the opposition. The statement of the leader of the opposition stands without contradiction as to the liability of the country for this railway. The expenditure will be enormous and it is better that the Minister of Finance should acknowledge it now. It may be too late for him to halt, but he should seriously consider the curtailment of what may not be absolutely necessary in the undertaking.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford).: There are three questions that presented themselves to my mind in considering this matter. First, was an honest effort made by the government to get at the real cost of this railway when the project was launched; second, what was to be the character of the work; and third, is an honest effort being made to fulfil the promises given to the country. The leader of the opposition made it clear to every fair minded man that misrepresentations were made to the parliament of Canada when this project was first commenced. I was surprised to hear the Finance Minister today endeavour to perpetuate the fallacies which were announced by the government
404J
in 1903. He seems to have got this $15,000,000 in his head yet. Just look at the Public Accounts of Canada and under date of October 31, 1907, under the signature of the Hon. W. S. Fielding, you will find this entry :
Expenditure chargeable to capital.
Intercolonial Railway	 $1,473,907
Prince Edward Railway	 91,210
National Transcontinental Ry..	5,537,867
This shows that the expenditure on National Transcontinental Railway is put in the same category as the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway, and yet the Minister of Finance sticks to his proposition that all the National Transcontinental will cost the country is the interest upon the capital while the road is being constructed. Would the Minister of Finance dare to go to his bankers and borrow money on the statement that the road will only cost $13,000,000, when even according to the Minister of Railways himself, it will cost anywhere from $125,000,000 to $200,000,000? The hon. A. G. Blair left the cabinet because he refused to become a party to the argument the Minister of Finance set up to-day, and as a fair and honest estimate of what he considered would be the real cost of the National Transcontinental Railway to the country he put it at $120,000,000. All the rest of the ministers apparently disagreed with that and gave an estimate of $13,000,000, basing it on - the interest alone, but Mr. Blair, astute and clever as he was, left the cabinet because he would not accept any such argument. Such a statement from the Finance Minister is not calculated to reassure the people of Canada that the management of our finances is at present in safe hands. I doubt if the Minister of Finance in his heart believe his own statement. He cited the instance of a real estate man investing $10,000 in a house and immediately renting it for 50 years so that it would be a paying proposition. That is quite so but he forgot that the man's $10,000 had gone into the house just as the money borrowed on the credit of Canada has gone into the Transcontinental Railway. The Minister of Finance told us that we guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Pacific Railway and had lost nothing and that we had guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Northern Railway and had lost nothing up to the present. True, but he did not tell us we had guaranteed the bonds of the Quebec bridge. Will he say we will lose nothing on that? He gives two instances. I give him a third; let him take his chances on that. Two investments out of three may be good, and the third may be bad. There are many men in this country who think that the whole eastern section of this road is 1 likely to be a gigantic failure.


William Stevens Fielding: Is my hon. friend ojj-posing the Quebec bridge ?


William Foster Cockshutt: I will come to that shortly, and I will endeavour to show that it is a part, and a consistent part, of the Transcontinental project. But I say that whether or not the eastern section is a paying proposition, it becomes a liability of this country. Perhaps the hon. leader of the opposition was technically wrong when he said that the debt was increased by close upon $200,000,000. but he was absolutely right if he said the gross debt instead of the net debt. The $191,000,000 was what the leader of the opposition contended would be the cash expenditure of this country on this project. He did not for one moment say that the bond guarantee was a part of the cash expenditure of this country. Would any one who heard the proposition of hon, gentlemen opposite in the year 1903, that this road would be built for $13,000,000, expect that in this year of grace we would be discussing in this House a vote of $30,000,000 for this 1'oad for one year ? The Finance Minister has told us that $30,000.000 has already been spent on it and now the government ask us for another vote of $30,000,000. Therefore the scheme was wrongly presented to the country. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to try to escape from the representations they made when the scheme was launched, but they cannot do it. They are there in ' Hansard,' in the public press and in their campaign literature; and everybody knows that in the last campaign the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and what it was going to cost the country, were the principal subjects of discussion.
Now, as the campaign literature has been referred to. I am going to read a few lines from a pamphlet which was sent broadcast all over the country from this House by some one who I suppose spoke for the party. The Minister of Railways complains of headlines; let him read this headline in the campaign literature of his own party : ' A Transcontinental Railway for Thirteen Million Dollars.' Then it goes on to say :
The feature of the bargain in regard to which most of this is done is the financial* arrangement. It is an actual fact, an indisputable fact, that $13,000,000 will cover every cent of the country's expenditure in connection with the railway and that if $3,853,502 cash were invested to-day with an insurance or investment company it would have grown large enough by the time the railway is completed to actually pay all the expenditures that the country will have to make. This sum seems only a trifle when it is compared with the 25,000,000 acres of land and the $63,000,000 in cash and completed railway lines that Canada gave to the Canadian Pacific railway, but it represents Canada's tot-al liability nevertheless.
What do they say of the hon. leader of tbe opposition's counter proposition ? Were I Mr. COCKSHUTT.
any of tbe allowances or deductions asked for by the Finance Minister made in the case of the hon. leader of the opposition? Not one. This is what they said on the Conservative proposal :
The presentation of the Borden alternative scheme to parliament constituted an admission of the necessity of a new transcontinental railway. According to the calculation of Sir William Mulock this scheme, however, wonld cost $266,000,000.
These are the only figures that were given. No deductions were made on account of the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway, running from Montreal to Parry Sound, which was a part of the proposition; no deductions were made on account of capital expenditure. Yet these hon. gentlemen come down to-day and make all the deductions in favour of their own estimates and figure that this country is only golpg to have to pay the Interest on this debt. Surely the Minister of Finance will not let it go abroad that he -claims that the Transcontinental Railway should be put ou any other basis than that of tbe Intercolonial; and all the money invested in that railway was shown in tbe public accounts. Tbe only point wherein he showed any difference between himself and the leader of tbe opposition, was in regard to the net debt being given by the leader of the opposition instead of the gross debt.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
National Transcontinental Railway - surveys and construction, $30,000,000.
Mi-. HENDERSON. What does the minister want $30,000,000 for when he says the road is only to cost $26,000,000?
['That is all I ask, that it be sent to the committee.']
William Stevens Fielding: You will have to give notice of that question.
Ocean and mail service between Great Britain and Canada, $550,000.


William Stevens Fielding: This Is a contract which the Allan Line holds and what they have in part sublet to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


George William Fowler: To what extent have they sublet It?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand the arrangement is that the Allans put on the ' Virginian ' and ' Victorian ' and the Canadian Pacific Railway contribute the two ' Empresses,' so that associated they furnish a very good service. Payments are made on the basis of so much to each steamer according to her class; and as we get the services of a better class of steamers we

have to pay a little more, and in that way there is an occasional increase.
Indians-Ontario and Quebec, $150,155.


Mr. STAPLES.: What progress has been made with the sale of the Indian reservation out at Swan Lake?


Frank Oliver: We were only able to secure the surrender of part of the reserve, and we intend selling it this fall about the time the crops are in, so that the surrounding settlers will have a better opportunity to bid on the land.


William D. Staples: The last time I inquired, the minister told me that the sale would likely take place during the summer. No doubt he will carry out what he is now saying and call it in the coming fall which would be an advantage for the surrounding settlers. I hope he will stick to that promise and see that the land Is sold and that he will not cease in his efforts to get the balance of the reserve in order that it may be opened up. Is it the intention to continue negotiations?


Frank Oliver: Yes, but we find it difficult to get the Indians to sell out altogether, because they would then have to moye to another place. We found them not unwilling to part with a portion of the reserve near Battlcford, but the Swan reserve is their home, and they object to parting with all their interest in it. However, if the sale turns out well, they may part with the balance.


William D. Staples: Will it be sold by auction ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, in quarter-section lots.


William D. Staples: To what extent does the minister purpose advertising it?


Frank Oliver: We generally give very ample notice, about a month or two advertising in the leading papers of the capital and the local papers in the vicinity. There will be no lack of advertising.


Richard Stuart Lake: I think the minister will have fo issue some new regulations with regard! to advertising if he is going to carry out that promise. I have been looking into a number of cases of sales of portions of different reserves which have been thrown open by the Indians relinquishing them. The minister is aware that the Indian lands are in the shape of a trust, and we should do the best we can with them for the Indians. It seems to me that the advertisements are a matter of patronage. I have noticed in the past that advertisements for the sale of Indian lands are only given to those who are on the patronage list. This is a mistake, because it does not give the amount of local advertising which is necessary. Take for instance the sale of the Pasqua reserve, which produced pretty fair prices, but I think it would have produced better prices if it had been better advertised. The advertisement appeared in one or two papers, but it did not appear in all the papers which were circulated through that district! and consequently many people did not know that the sale was going to take place. In the report of Mr. Graham, the inspector of the Indian agency and who conducted the sale, he states that there was insufficient advertising, that many people had not seen the advertisement at all. For the sake of exemplifying this there are two papers published in the town of Indian Head, the nearest large town to this reserve, one is a Liberal and the other a Conservative paper, and the advertisement only appeared in the Liberal paper, so those who only took a Conservative paper did not know anything about the sale. I myself wanted to find out when the sale took place, and I was not able to do so. The words that Mr. Graham used were :
I regret that the sale was not advertised in the local papers. People living in Regina, Indian Head and other local points did not know anything of it.
The advertisement did appear in some of those papers, but not in all of them. That was not the only sale in which I noticed that there was insufficient advertisement. In the sale of the Moose Mountain reserve of land surrendered by the Indians, the same complaint was made. A gentleman who is now an officer of the government, an Indian agent, complained that he had not seen the advertisement. In that case the advertisement was authorized from Ottawa on the 8th October, the sale was to be held on the 15th of November. The first advertisement appeared on the 25th aud 28th of October in the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' and in the Calgary ' Albertan.' There was an advertisement in one of the French papers of Manitoba and in the Moosomin ' Spectator.' On the 7th of November the first advertisement appeared in the 'Moosomin ' Spectator.' That is the point nearest to the location of these lands, and so it happened that when the sale took place there was practically no competition at all. The arrangements for the sale were such that a man who wanted to tender had to send his tender down to Ottawa accompanied by a portion of the first payment, and therefore the advertisement which appeared on the 7th of November for the sale to take place on the 15th, made it impossible for any of those people who then saw the advertisement for the first time to put in their tender, consequently there was very little competition for the land.


Frank Oliver: In what year was that sale held?


Richard Stuart Lake: In 1901. The prices realized for the land were below its value. Most of the land was bought by three gentlemen who tendered through a legal firm in the city of Toronto. I think all but ten of the quarter-sections which were put up for sale were brought by them. There were 30S quarter-sections put up, and these three gentlemen from Toronto were able to secure all but ten of them. The prices they paid ranged all the-way from 50 cents, 75 cents, 80 cents, 90 cents, $1 and up to $2.50 per acre. In one case I think a section was sold for $3 per acre. These are very low prices for a lot of land which was considered to have a good deal of value. There was no local competition, and consequently the land was practically given away. The ment was considerably more than the land by the officials of the Indian Department was considerably mor ethan the land brought. I think at that time land was being sold right alongside these sections by the railway company for $3 an acre. The report of the agent in charge was that the land was worth about $3 an acre all through, yet it only fetched from 50 cents upwards. A great part of the land did not bring more than $1. There were 47,000 acres sold at that time. There had been some good offers for the land previously from people who wanted to come In and make a bargain with the government for the whole area. Another similar case took place with regard to the reserve near Battle-ford. The gentleman who was to conduct the sales only had notice at 10 o'clock in the morning of the sale. The sale had to open at 12; he only knew of it at 10 and although (he hurried around and put up all the posters he could very few people knew of the sale, the attendance was small, the prices realized not high and it was his opinion that the small prices realized were on account of the sale not having been sufficiently advertised. The minister has said that the sale of the Crooked Lakes reserve will take place this fall. I would impress on him the necessity of fully advertising it all through that district where the people know its value. I doubt if the newspaper published at Broadview, the nearest point, would be on the patronage list and if the advertising is restricted in the usual way it would be a mistake.


Frank Oliver: Whatever may have been the mistakes in the past we propose in the [DOT]future to give ample advertising with plenty of time. I may not be altogether unprejudiced in the view that newspaper advertising should be freely employed, but I believe it is economy and I am glad to have my hon. friend's endorsation.


William D. Staples: What about the section of land near Indian Ford on the south side of Assiniboine river, have there been negotiations ?	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: (Mr. OLIVER. Yes, but I understand there are several bands, some of them not resident there, who have claims on the land and as the proceeds of the sale would be a small amount to distribute among so many, they do not care to make a sale.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Is it the intention of the government to secure a surrender of the Indian reserve adjoining Fort Pelly ?


Frank Oliver: There are two reserves there, one at Kamsack and one at Fort Pelly. We have no surrender in regard to the Keys reserve but we have a surrender in regard to the Cote reserve.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did Mr. Peter Ryan receive the ordinary fee of one-quarter of one per cent of the proceeds of the sale of the Dolds Indian reserve the other day ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: That would be about $2,000 that would be paid to Mr. Peter Ryan for selling the timber on the Dokis reserve ?


Frank Oliver: About that.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does not the minister think that is a pretty large amount of the money of the Indians to pay for bringing that gentleman out of the registry office In Toronto down here and giving him a job for a day? Does he not think that Mr. Ryan could have been induced to ascend the rostrum for an hour for less than $2,000? It is putting a slight appreciation on members of parliament, who are compelled to sit here for seven months for $2,500. I do not think that there is any reason why the Indians' money should be spent in that way.


Frank Oliver: I am credibly informed that the percentage that has been paid by private persons for selling timber limits in the Ottawa valley and also by the Ontario-government


William Humphrey Bennett: But that was in the old times of the Ontario government. That does not happen now.
Mr. OLIVER, I am informed that private owners having valuable limits to sell have paid, not only one-quarter of one per cent, but two and a half per cent, on whatever was realized over the upset price. In our case we paid one-quarter of one per cent right through. I made careful inquiry into the matter, and I took the action that I did on the results of this inquiry. It is not fair to make a comparison between the wages that an auctioneer receives for the short time that he is employed and the wages that another person receives when his employment is by the year or for a longer term.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister must have known about what the fee would be when
12733 '

lie made the arrangement, because he made an estimate of the property, and knowing that lit would realize about $800,000 the minister must have known that the auctioneer would get about $2,000.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William D. Staples: I do not think the government are justified in paying $2,000 for the sale of these limits. You can hire the best auctioneer in Canada for $100 a day.


William Humphrey Bennett: I know a case of a large sale of timber limits on the board of trade in Toronto not many months ago for a private concern in which a gentleman was paid $200 for his day, and he thought he had got rather a good thing.


Richard Stuart Lake: I notice that in the instructions for the sale of these Indian reserves in the Northwest the minister gives a percentage not to exceed $200. I sLould have thought that this was a case in which some reservation of that sort might certainly have been made.


Frank Oliver: The eight limits ran from $50,000 up to, I think, $150,000. It seems to me that in handling that amount of money we were just as much justified in paying the auctioneer a good price as we would be in expending a large amount of money in advertising the sale, as my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle has said that we should.


Richard Blain: I would like to ask the minister if the terms of sale were carried out in every case. Did the buyers pay the first instalment that was due?


Frank Oliver: I understand so. It certainly requires to be paid.


Richard Blain: My information is that it was not. However, leaving that; I want to say a word or two on what my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle has brought up. I was Interested in the answer that the hon. gentleman gave, that in future he proposed to advertise more widely the sale of lands of this kind. I am sure the committee will appreciate that. Will he confine these advertisements to newspapers that support the government, or, where he finds a Conservative paper With a much larger circulation

	* | if I


Frederick William Borden: Hot air.


Richard Blain: I know it is hot air to my hon. friend, but we had to listen for three hours the other night to the Minister of Militia, and perhaps he can stand it now. It was hot air that he gave us, and every man in the House had to listen to him repeat himself in condemnation of the report of the Civil Service Commission that he had himself helped to appoint.


Frederick William Borden: Consider me squelched after that.


Richard Blain: No, I shall not consider the hon. gentleman squelched. It takes more than that to squelch him. I was proposing to say a few words when I was interrupted by the hon. gentleman saying it was hot air. The last man in this House who should talk about hot air, or anything else that Is hot, is 'the Minister of Militia and Defence.


Frederick William Borden: I was not referring to the hon. gentleman.


Richard Blain: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior If he proposes to broaden out the advertisements in the newspapers in future, and whether, If he finds that a Conservative newspaper has the largest circulation in a district, he will refuse to insert the advertisement in that newspaper?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will have to be satisfied with the statement that each case will have to rest upon its merits. There are cases in which it would be desirable to advertise in every newspaper and there are other cases in which it would not be. While it is our desire to give every reasonable publicity, we cannot bind ourselves to advertise in every newspaper my hon. friend may desire to have accorded the government patronage.


Richard Blain: That is not an answer to my question. I did not suggest that the hon. gentleman would put the advertisement in every newspaper that I might favour. I am not objecting to the minister inserting the advertisement in newspapers supporting the government, but what I do say is that in districts where he finds a Conservative newspaper having a very much larger circulation why should he not insert the advertisement in that newspaper in addition to the Reform paper which has a smaller circulation?


Frank Oliver: I do not propose to admit that I would not insert it in a Conservative paper.


Richard Blain: That is all right.


Frank Oliver: Where there is only one paper and it is a Conservative paper we have no hesitation in advertising in it. Where there are two papers, naturally we give the preference to our own friends. But if it is a question of circulation as between the two papers, my hon. friend knows how reliable the statements of newspapers are in regard to their respective circulations. I do not think we can be guided by the statements made as to their circulations.


Richard Blain: The Minister of the Interior ought to know more than I do about statements that are made with reference to the newspapers.


Frank Oliver: The newspaper man who does not claim the largest circulation is not a true newspaper man.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Public works was about to erect a small post office
000-MaryS Wllich 0nly cost about 530,-


William Pugsley: Your ideas are growing; you now seem to think that a $30,000 post office is a small one.


Richard Blain: For the construction of this post office the Minister of Public Works inserted advertisements in thirty newspapers at a cost of $658, but he did not advertise in the London ' Free Press ' which has more than double the circulation of any newspaper published in that district. In the future we will look to the Minister of the Interior for wider circulation of advertisements about the sale of lands.
ALCORN. Is 10 per cent deducted In addition to the expenses ?


Frank Oliver: Ten per cent is deducted and out of the 10 per cent the costs are paid.


Richard Stuart Lake: Quite recently I saw that two sales were postponed evidentiy on account of the notice of them being insufficient to enable the people to examine the lands and put in tenders. I am glad to hear what the minister says about more extended advertising in future. The Indians in whose interests the lands are sold have no politics and Jhe advertisements should be inserted in newspapers irrespective of their political complexion.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT.: Is the 10 per cent sufficient for the expense account or has it to be supplemented by a grant out of the consolidated revenue ?


Frank Oliver: Except on very rare occasions the 10 per cent is sufficient. The vote of $10,000 to Indian management fund is to recoup the fund for money taken out of it a number of years ago for purposes alien to the fund. The fund was, so to speak, robbed and we are from year to year recouping it.	J


Mr W WRIGHT.: Is it not forbidden by the Indian Act to use the money for other purpose?


Frank Oliver: The money was taken out of the management fund for other Indian purposes. It was contemplated by the Indian Act but the rights of the Indians aire being preserved by restoring it to the fund from time to time.


Richard Stuart Lake: Can the minister say definitely when the Crooked Lake reserve is to be sold ?


Frank Oliver: We have not advertised the sale yet, but my intention is to have it Mr. BLAIN.
in the fall when the crop has been sufficiently assured to place those in the surrounding country in a fair position to take advantage of it.


Richard Stuart Lake: Are there any other agencies where land has been surrendered and which will be sold during this fall?


Frank Oliver: I think the Swan Lake, the \vhite Bear, and a small piece of Enoch's reserve near Edmonton are all we will be in a position to dispose of the coming fall. We have other surrenders in prospect but they are not concluded yet.
Indians-New Brunswick, salaries, $1,408.


Mr CROCKET.: Who is the Indian agent for the northeastern district of New Bruns-
V\ lClv t


Frank Oliver: Robert A. Irving. He was appointed in May, his salary is $500,
cWumbentS had.^ Salary the previous


George William Fowler: What Indian schools are there in New Brunswick, how many teachers, where are the schools situated, what do they cost and what is the average attendance of pupils?
M.r- OLIVER. Six day schools, number of pupils, 137; average attendance, 77; salary of the teachers, $500. The schools are situated at Burnt Church, Eel Ground Kmgsclear, St. Marys, Tobique, Big Cove oarnp. There is an appropriation for a new school building at Eel Ground.


George William Fowler: Mow many doctors are there for the Indians ; I refer particularly to Kings county ?


Frank Oliver: The medical attendance vote is $4,000 the same as last year. The expenditure in the nine months ending March 30, 1907, was $2,653. The physicians are; J. D. Rose, Moncton, Westmoreland County, $200; J. A. Leger, Shediac, Westmoreland County, $200; P. F. Sprague, Upper and Lower Woodstock, $100; D. H. McAllister, Sussex, Kings County, $200; R, H. McGrath, St. Mary's, York County, $150; W.
.T. Weaver, King's Clear, York County, $150; R. W. Earle, Tobique Reserve, $300; A. C.' Ferguson, Eel River, Restigouche, $50; W G. King, Buctouche Reserve, Kent County $40; F. J. Desmond, Eel Ground and Red Bank, $200; J. L. McWilliams, Big Cove and Indian Island, $175; J. B. Mackenzie, Burnt Church Reserve, Northumberland County, $150; G. M. Duncan, Gloucester County, $100'
J. M. Peake, Oromocto, $125. The salary includes medicine as well as professional attendance.


George William Fowler: Was there any resignation of the Kings county doctor during March or April or of the doctor in Sunbury about that time?


Frank Oliver: Does the hon. gentleman refer to Dr. D. H. McAllister of Sussex?


George William Fowler: Yes.


William Pugsley: He resigned before the 3rd of March. I may say that I recommended his reappointment, as he is a good officer, and I was sorry to lose his services.


Frank Oliver: Dr. Peake, of Sunbury, resigned, and is not now in the service of the government. Dr. McAllister, who resigned, has been re-appointed.


George William Fowler: Who has Dr. Peake's place?


Frank Oliver: I cannot give my hon. friend the information at the moment, but if he will allow the question to stand until we deal with the Supplementary Estimates, I shall be sure to give it to him then.


George William Fowler: In case I should not be in the chamber at the moment, will the minister state it so that it will be on ' Hansard'?


Frank Oliver: I will attend to it.


George William Fowler: There is a vote here for seed grain. Where is seed grain supplied to the Indians in New Brunswick?


Frank Oliver: The seed grain is supplied to the Indians of different bands on representations made by the agents that it is required. It is purchased and sent forward to the agents to be distributed to the Indians. The plots of ground cultivated by the Indians are very small, and the Indians, not being very provident, are apt to use up the whole of their crop, and to leave themselves without seed.


George William Fowler: Have you any particulars of the amount of seed grain supplied during the last fiscal year?


Frank Oliver: The amount distributed last year was about $500 worth.


Richard Stuart Lake: I received a letter the other day from a gentleman at Qu'Appelle with regard to some trouble in the Pasqua Indian reserve north of that place. Some Indians have interviewed him time and again about some trouble they are having with the instructor. Although my correspondent does not like taking up this matter, yet he thinks something ought to be done to try and settle the difficulties. I do not know what the root of the trouble is and my informant is not able to tell me. but the gist of the thing is that the Indians are not satisfied with a certain Indian instructor, whose name I do not think it necessary to mention. It is a matter the minister might inquire into. These Indians are trying to do some very extensive farming, but they are easily discouraged, and if they are having trouble with their instructor, that is likely to stand in the way of good work being done. If the minister has any
information on the subject I should be very glad if he would let me know.


Frank Oliver: We have no information of any difficulty existing on that particular reserve. I might say further that, in my experience, it is not to the advantage of the service that the Indians should be too well satisfied with their instructor. If the Indians and the instructor arrive at a basis of too much amity, that may mean that there is not very much work going on.


Richard Stuart Lake: When, as in this particular case, men who are putting in a large amount of crop are making these complaints, one after another, about the same man, I do not think the minister should go on that general rule. The best results . I have seen have been accomplished by men who, while exercising a very strong hand over the Indians, still have their respect and confidence. Mr. Graham has been able to get remarkably good results, yet we do not find the complaints about his management that I do in this particular case. He is a strong man, who holds a strong hand over them and is doing excellent work. I have letters inclosed to me by my correspondent from the Indian Department in which the department say this matter was brought to Mr. Graham's attention. Mr. Graham was out of Ottawa at the time, and the matter should be looked into further. I trust the minister will take it up with Mr. Graham and see if something cannot be done. It is not a good thing to have the Indian thoroughly dissatisfied, as the Indian nature will not stand too much and bloodshed might result when personal violence is used against them as is charged in this case.


Frank Oliver: My deputy has not any information on the subject. The disputes may very well be left to Mr. Graham, whose duty it is to deal with such matters.


William Wright: There is a very large amount under the head of general expenses, some $204,000. I would like to ask whether the Indians are self-sustaining, whether all the money spent on the Indians is recouped out of the Indian fund, or how the matter stands.


Frank Oliver: The whole Indian expenditure is about $1,250,000. Of that amount $300,000 is for expenses of management, of which $200,000 is for the expenses of management of the Manitoba and Northwest Indians. The Indian expenses are not self-sustaining at all except in the case of one or two bands. The amount of $1,250,000 is what has to be provided each year out of the general treasury of the Dominion to go to the advantage of the Indians in the different ways provided in the Indian Act.


William Wright: I understood that a large amount of land was held by the Indians and was sold from time to time and the proceeds go into the Indian fund

and are used for the management of Indian affairs, and there might be sufficient to pay the amount of expenses generally, or are we short this $1,250,000 annually?


Frank Oliver: That is correct.


Richard Stuart Lake: With reference to the letter about the Pasqua reserve, I have a long statement here of the different complaints of the Indians, and among other minor complaints Is one that the instructor gets the loan of the fields of the Indians to put in crop, and when the Indians have broken the land he puts in a crop on his own account and so on. Perhaps the best thing I can do is to send the letter to the minister and ask him if he will inquire into it. The gentleman who writes me is not a man who takes notice of things which he thinks are of small account. He is a gentleman of judgment, and I will send his letter over to the minister.


Frank Oliver: I shall be very glad to take the information and have an inquiry made.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the Blood Indian reserve under lease, and to whom and for how long?


Frank Oliver: The grazing rights have been leased for five years to the McEwan Cattle Company and the lease will expire in 1913.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that an incorporated company?


Frank Oliver: I am not aware whether it is or not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it one McEwan alone?


Frank Oliver: In the books of the department the lease of the grazing privileges stands in the name of the McEwan Cattle Company, and the person who represented the company to the department is D. McEwan. We have no further knowledge of the matter. In the Toronto ' News ' of the 27th of November last appeared the fol lowing item :
Want forty per cent share-Suit of Peter Ryan, Charles Beck and others regarding a ranch.
Peter Ryan, of Toronto, and Charles Beck, of Penetanguishene, have issued a writ against James T. Gordon, William H. Fares and Gordon Ironsides & Fares, Limited, of Winnipeg; Donald McBwen, of Brandon; Robert Ironsides, of Montreal; and Charles Millar and Walter McKeown, of Toronto. The claim is for a declaration that the plaintiffs and the defendants Millar and McKeown are entitled to a forty per cent interest in the net profits of a certain ranching enterprise on the Blood Indian reserve, leased by the Dominion government >to McEwen.
An accounting of the ranching moneys is also sought.
There was considerable discussion on the question in the House, and I think this item Mr. W. WRIGHT.
throws a little light on some facts that did not come to the surface at that time.


Richard Stuart Lake: This seems to be a case in which the department has not been considerate of the rights of the Indians. The lease consists of about 219,000 acres, one of the most valuable grazing leases in the whole country. There were a number of applications for the lease of this reserve. One man after another applied for the lease, some of them being local ranchers in the neighbourhood. They offered considerable sums for the right to lease this land. I have before a number of offers which were made, and some of which were certainly as good as the offer which was finally taken by the minister. I have a list of eight or nine different applicants, all offering within a very short time, and all offering sums of money for the property. Under the circumstances, one would think that the proper tiling for the government to do was to put the lease up at auction and try to get the best results for the Indians. But instead of that, we find that the contract was made with this D. MeEwen and Company without the others knowing anything of what was taking place. The last application before that was dated April 30, offering a good sum of money for the reserve, and on the 16th of the following month the government made an agreement with Donald McEwen, of Brandon, who had only recently appeared as one of the applicants for the lease. The agreement was drawn up and signed with the Indians, acting through their agent, for the sum of $5,000 rent for ten years, and the agreement was ratified on the 6th of June. It was quick work, considering that at that time there were a large number of applicants, good strong men, for the land. I saw in the papers laid before the Public Accounts Committee that the assistant Indian commissioner at Winnipeg, a few days later on the 20th June, stated that he had accident-tally learned when he was at Macleod that this lease had been entered into, showing that the commissioner's office at Winnipeg was not the first to know of this arrangement, as it ought to have been. A month later there was some trouble going on in the party camp, for we find that the Hon. Clifford Sifton takes a hand in, and asks that the whole lease should be cancelled because it had not been entered into with his authority. So the matter stood. The Department of Justice was consulted, and they decided that the agreement was valid and would have to stand. We find that there were other people than the applicants who had been unable to get their tenders in, and who were dissatisfied with this lease. But the people who were most dissatisfied were the Indians themselves. Still, the lease has to stand. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) just now brought attention to the fact than an action at law had been taken to ascertain who had

a claim upon this leasing privilege. Two or three different sets of people were at that time sending money up to the department and insisting that the money should be received from them on behalf of the D. Mc-Evven Company. That is evident from the extract my hon. friend has just read from the Toronto ' News.' Altogether, it seems to me a very curious deal from beginning to end.


Mr. HERRON.: There was a great deal of dissatisfaction when this lease went through among owners and men who were looking for grazing privileges. I know of many strange transactions in regard to it, but I will not take up the time of the House to mention them to-night. But there is another side of the question which is even more serious than the discrimination among the white applicants for grazing privileges, and that is the Indian side of the question. I have not been requested to bring this matter to the attention of the House, but I have heard complaints in the community that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the Indians about the way the conditions of the present lease are being carried out. There were certain .representations made to the Indians at the time this lease was granted, that they should perform certain duties on the reserve, some of which were to build reservoirs, to dig wells, and make several other improvements that had to be made on the reserve. But they have not been carried out, and it was generally understood that a misrepresentation was made to the Indians by a former government official who stood in very well with them, and was looked upon as a reliable man by the Indians. He went there on behalf of the lease holders and represented to the Indians that the whole transaction was going to be in their favour. The Indians were not aware of the fact that he was not working in their interest. That is the way it was represented to me, and I am told it was on this representation that the Indians consented to this agreement. Now the lease holders are not carrying out this agreement, and the Indians have been much dissatisfied with the transaction.


Frank Oliver: My information is that the Indians have made no representations to the department or to any officer of the department with regard to any breach of contract with them, or any failure to carry out the agreements that were made with them. If my hon. friend knows of any breach of agreement it would be a favour to the Indian Department for him to state the particulars in which that agreement was not being carried out. We pride ourselves on carrying out our agreements with the Indians, all the more because the Indian is not in a position to enforce his rights.


Richard Stuart Lake: In the papers I find that on May. 31, McKenna writes of dissatisfaction
with the Indians on account of the lease. In December, 1904, the department seems to have taken this matter into consideration and consents to a visit of the Blood chiefs to the east at the expense of the D. McEwen Company in order to have the matter explained to them so that the papers themselves show that there was dissatisfaction and that it was brought to the attention of the department. As to what further dissatisfaction there may be at present, of course the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) will be in a better position to speak of that.


Frank Oliver: Has the member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) anything definite to
say?


John Herron: No, as I said in the beginning, I am not supplied with official information in regard to this, but I know it from rumour in the country and from people who are well posted as to what is going on. I do not shirk getting the information.


Frank Oliver: This reserve has been made. a political and partisan issue of the lowest kind in the House, and we may as well deal with it now on that basis. My hon. friend has intimated that there were breaches of the agreement as between the Indians and the lessees but he has not been able to tell us what they were. We will be glad to hear it at any time because we want to be informed of these matters. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) undertakes to represent that there were breaches of the agreement.


Richard Stuart Lake: I represented what is in the document, that his own commissioner said there was dissatisfaction.


Frank Oliver: He said he had evidence in his hand that there were breaches of the agreement and he read from the paper; but there were no evidences of breach of agreement in the paper.


Richard Stuart Lake: I did not say I had evidence of breaches of agreement.


Frank Oliver: Then he had no evidences of breaches of agreement because he certainly had not in the paper he had.


Richard Stuart Lake: I want the minister to take that back, I did not state I had evidences of breaches of agreement.


Frank Oliver: I will take it back if my hon. friend said he has no evidence. The paper he read did not show any breaches of agreement, it indicated that the Indians were dissatisfied.


Richard Stuart Lake: That is all I said.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend' will not find in the west any band of Indians who are not more or less dissatisfied now or at any time. In his district he will find very few white men who are not dissatisfied in

regard to some mutter of business, politics or something else.
My hon. friend suggested that an official of the government had acted as the agent of the ranching company while representing himself as the agent of the government.


Frank Oliver: Gordon and Ironsides are the occupants of the lease. I do not know how they got into possession but they are.


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the minister say seriously that Beck, Peter Ryan and Charlie Miller are Conservatives?


John Herron: I said that a gentleman who was formerly an employee of the government represented to the Indians that he was still an employee of the government when on the other hand he w-as working on behalf of this grazing company.
Mr. OLIVER, If my hon. friend is alluding to James Wilson who was Indian agent would he be good enough to say so?


John Herron: No, it was not Wilson.


Frank Oliver: Was it Wadsworth, inspector of agencies?


John Herron: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Hon. gentlemen opposite have harped on this grazing lease on the Blood reserve and have suggested it was a case of party graft. The agent of the Indians at the time, James Wilson, who afterwards became an employee of this ranching company was an appointee of the Conservative government and, so far as I am aware, never cast a Liberal vote in his life. Wadsworth, the inspector, who is said by hon. gentlemen opposite to have played double between the Indians and the company, was also an appointee of the hon. gentlemen. The company who occupy the territory today on that grazing lease are, one and all, so far as I am aware, not only strong supporters of the party of my hon. friend, but are prominent in the ranks ; Messrs Gordon and Ironsides.
Mi-. BENNETT. Peter Ryan and Beck are not.


Frank Oliver: So if there is anything wrong about it I want it to be understood it was a Conservative transaction from first to last.


William Humphrey Bennett: Tell that to the marines, rot.


Frank Oliver: So far as this party is concerned, it is a straight business transaction in the interest of the Indians, with which the Indians, so far as our information goes, are perfectly satisfied and the agreement made with them is being carried out. They gave their consent to that agreement in due form.


Richard Stuart Lake: When did Gordon and Ironsides become holders of the lease?


Frank Oliver: I do not know.


Richard Stuart Lake: I call attention to the fact that on September 19, 1906, the McEwen Company wrote that Gordon and Ironsides should not pay the rent, that it should be accepted from no one but Miller.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: No. I notice that these gentlemen are entering suit to establish some claim.


William Humphrey Bennett: That kind of a crowd when they get into a business arrangement always end in litigation.


Richard Stuart Lake: Gordon and Ironsides offered the rent, but the department would not accept it. The minister says they are the people who occupy it and makes the point that they are Conseravtives.


Frank Oliver: Which they are.


Richard Stuart Lake: And he excuses everything on the ground that some party concerned in the transaction appeared to have been appointed by a previous government.


Frank Oliver: I excuse nothing.


Richard Stuart Lake: These are the grounds which the minister usually takes with regard to these transactions. If there is any question about a transaction, the minister gets very angry and keeps on insisting that there can be nothing wrong with the whole thing. When he begins to get angry I generally begin to look into the papers more closely and think that there is something wrong about it when he thinks it necessary to abuse hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. I have made no insinuations with regard to this matter. I did not know about the matter being brought up before. I simply got the papers and looked into them.


Frank Oliver: And found nothing.


Richard Stuart Lake: I found a good deal. The transaction seemed to be a very peculiar one. I found amonst other things that we had a number of applications, one following the other.


Frank Oliver: What is remarkable about that?


Richard Stuart Lake: There is nothing very remarkable about that, but there is something remarkable when we find that a large number of these applications are made all offering considerable sums of money for this privilege.


Frank Oliver: Did they offer more than the man who got it?


Richard Stuart Lake: Yes, I think in one case.


Frank Oliver: Let us have the case.


Richard Stuart Lake: The man who got it offered a minimum of 7,000 head at 50 cents per ' head making $3,500. Another gentleman

had applied for the lower half of the reserve at $2,500 straight.


Frank Oliver: Is that more?


Richard Stuart Lake: I could not state, because I do not know the circumstances of the land. Another gentleman offered $5,000, Mr. J. F. McLaughlin. I see that he was to place 10,000 head upon the reserve and, pay 50 cents per head.


Frank Oliver: Is that a better offer than the other ?


Richard Stuart Lake: Yes, that is a better offer than that of Mr. McEwen, because he only offered to place 7,000 head at 50 cents a head which would be $3,500. It is a simple matter of arithmetic.


Frank Oliver: When the hon. gentleman is through I will show him that it is not a better offer.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister had a number of applications, one following the other, and he apparently gave no opportunity insofar as the papers show, to the other applicants to compete for this l-eserve which in my opinion he was bound to do if he had the interests of the Indians at heart as their trustees. He apparently, in a hole and corner way, had the lease drawn up between the Indians and this applicant, the Indians acting through their agent and the lease was given without the knowledge apparently of the Indian office at Winnipeg which should have been informed upon this subject. The papers show that the department did not act in the way it should have acted if it had had the best interests of the Indians at heart.


Frank Oliver: It is rather a pity to take up time at this hour on a hot night in threshing over straw that is five years old.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister started it.


Frank Oliver: No, the minister did not start it. The hon. gentleman undertook to revive an alleged scandal of five years ago, which has been threshed out in this House by a very much more able man than himself and which never brought any result. In regard to the respective values of these different applications, there is a very serious difference between an offer of $3,500 for 7,000 head and an offer of $5,000 for 10,000 head. My hon. friend does not understand it. That is the great difficulty with him. There are so many things about this matter that he does not understand, and he is ready to jump at the conclusion that he has found a scandal when he does not understand the question. The Blood Indians themselves occupy this reserve. They have a large amount of stock, both cattle and horses. They must use this reserve for the pasturage of their own stock and it must be elementary to any person
who understands the situation that they could not afford to allow the reserve to be leased for such an amount of stock as would prejudice the pasturage of their own stock. They preferred to accept an offer of $5,000 for 7,000 head rather than of $5,000 for 10,000 head because It would leave sufficient pasturage on the reserve for their own stock. My hon. friend is only absurd when he suggests the auctioning off of the privilege of grazing under these circumstances. The object is to get a lease at a fair rental for as many head of cattle as the reserve will carry. To let the grazing privilege for a smaller number would not be advantageous because the grazing right would not be occupied and to let it for a larger number would not be advantageous because the Indians would lose the pasturage of their own stock.


Richard Stuart Lake: The minister himself was at one time of the opinion apparently thar the leasing of this tract to outsiders was not quite the correct thing because amongst these papers I find a letter of his dated April 30, 1903, in which he says :
I shall insist that the interests of the several hundred Mormons who live adjoining the reserve of this part shall be considered in preference to these outsiders.


Frank Oliver: I want to say that that is exactly my position, that as a question of policy I did not approve of the leasing of the reserve. I did not consider that it was good policy in the interest of the surrounding settlers. But there is quite a difference between the suggestion that the leasing was the subject of a scandal and objecting to the leasing on the ground of public policy and guarding the interests of the surrounding settlers who were my constituents.	*


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the minister who is cutting the timber on the Christian Islands? How is it being cut, and to what extent?


Frank Oliver: I do not know of any timber cut on Christian Islands last winter, unless it was cut under permit by the Indians or under trespass.


William Humphrey Bennett: To what extent was timber cut last year?


Frank Oliver: I am not able at the mo ment to give the exact amount but the Indians get a permit year by year to cut a moderate quantity, ranging from 500 to 1,000 cords.


William Humphrey Bennett: I will tell the minister something of the real conditions and perhaps he will have the evil remedied. A number of lumbermen in that country wish to obtain in open competition the valuable timber on that island and it is grossly unfair that they should be treated as they

have been. One firm, Liberals of course, and represented by the son of a defeated Liberal candidate has apparently the entree on this island and they are cutting the timber there not in chords but the most valuable timber in sawlog lengths. There is no use denying this because I know it myself and have seen the timber brought into Midland on a large barge. If you are going to give a tip that only one man can go on the island, well and good, but if you are acting in the interests of the Indians, let there be open competition for the timber and make it a condition of sale that the Indians shall be employed. If the minister will make inquiry he will find that my statement is correct. It is a matter of complaint among the other lumbermen that they cannot get a look in.


Frank Oliver: I will make inquiries.


William Humphrey Bennett: And let me know what quantities were cut last winter when you go into Supply again.


John Herron: Let me assure the minister that I had not the slightest intention of making political capital out of my remarks about the grazing land. There is no question about it but that there are Conservatives mixed up, in the matter, and if I wanted to make political capital I probably would not mention it. I simply stated the fact that there was dissatisfaction on the reserve and that fact has been represented to me by men on whose word I can rely. If the minister investigates he will find that my statement is perfectly true. There were a great many transactions with reference to McEwan & Co., or whatever their name is obtaining that lease.


Frank Oliver: Name the transactions.


John Herron: There are persons living on the lower part of the Blood reserve who offered almost as high a rental for half the reserve as was given for the whole reserve.


Richard Stuart Lake: They offered more.


John Herron: There are two or three ranching companies who spent a great deal of time and money there and who were promised they would get leases of that land but they were ignored. I stated in this House last year that a certain man in Ottawa obtained a contract for supplying 600 head of cattle for the Blood reserve at $28 a head, when far better cattle could be bought on the ground for $19 a head and were offered to the government at that price. The minister will see that there are many things in connection with this business that political capital could be made out of much stronger than anything I have mentioned.


Frank Oliver: I am not suggesting that my hon. hon. friend (Mr. Herron) is talking politics ; I refer to the member for Qu'Ap-pelle who butted into something he did not understand. If my hon. friend (Mr. Her-Mr. BENNETT.
ron) has knowledge of any breach of the contract by the lessees I want to know it. If he knows there is anything wrong he should inform the House or the department of it.


Richard Stuart Lake: I am ready to admit that I know more about the question now since the hon. member (Mr. Herron) has spoken. The Son. member (Mr. Herron) knows that country thoroughly and is conversant with all its conditions and he states that the upper half of that reserve is better than the lower half, so that the offer of $3,000 per annum made for the lower half is a better offer on the face of it, the number of cattle not being stated, then the offer of $5,000 for the whole reserve.


Frank Oliver: You cannot arrive at a conclusion as to which was the better offer unless the terms of the offer are known.


Richard Stuart Lake: So far as I can see from the correspondence the department was putting these people off with the answer that they were not in a position to deal with the matter while they at the same time were making an agreement with outsiders to the exclusion of the settlers living in the neighbourhood. (The minister professes to be in sympathy with the people living in the neighbourhood, but here were people living in the neighbourhood


Frank Oliver: Some of these people in the neighbourhood were trying to exclude their neighbours.


Richard Stuart Lake: I have proven everything I started out to prove and the minister has plainly demonstrated by his answers that he is not conversant with every thing that has taken place in the matter.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Does the minister propose to handle the lands in the same manner as for the last ten years, namely, to sell them at an upset price fixed by the department or at private sale ?


Frank Oliver: The minister intends to handle the lands as they are being handled to-day.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister must know -that out of 650,000 acres he has disposed of 500.000 acres at an upset price fixed by the department or at private sale. Some days ago I showed that the Indian lands have been disposed of at ridiculously low prices ranging from ten cents an acre up. I showed -that about 650,000 acres had been disposed of for about $15,000.


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend suggest that the land was worth more than the department got for it ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I say that the lands should be put up at public auction.


Frank Oliver: I understand that my hon. friend is a man of means. If these lands

are worth more than we are selling them for, and we are selling them to the first comer at an upset price, why does he not put some money into them ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. minister want to disqualify the hon. member V


Frank Oliver: Does my hon. friend, as a lawyer say that that would disqualify him as a member of parliament ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Certainly it would.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Members on this side of the House do not get a look into any of these sales. I can only say that in disposing of these lands by private sale at upset prices fixed by the department, the minister is acting most unfairly towards the Indians of this country. iSince I made the remarks I did a few days ago, I have received letters from prominent men in different parts of the country, urging me to press on the minister the necessity of putting these lands up at public auction. It is time that the minister took an active interest in the Indian Department and investigated every part of it, because not only are the Indian lands being squandered, but the Indian schools are not being conducted as they ought to be. Instead of these people being elevated and enlightened, so as to be fitted to be citizens of the country, they are being left practically in darkness.


Mr. MILLER.: When the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) spoke on this matter some days ago, I told him, and I will now say to the House, that in the northern part of the county of Bruce lands of the character he speaks of have been put up for sale at public auction at tax sales, and after being advertised for months in the newspapers have been sold at less than ten cents an acre. If the hon. gentleman desires to speculate in these lands, and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) thinks there would be any danger of him being disqualified if he purchased from the government, I think I could take him to a neighbourhood where he could get Indian lands from private parties at less than ten cents an acre and where, in purchasing them he would not run any risk of being disqualified.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) has entirely misstated the position. What we have done in selling Indian lands is this : In the northern parts of Ontario, where land is sold at a fixed price to the first applicant, it is sold on settlement conditions ; and ;I think it is sound public policy to have that land brought under occupation whether the price be great or small.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How will that benefit the Indian ?


Frank Oliver: The Indian gets the price and the country gets whatever development
the land may be capable of. It is not the fault of either the Indian or the purchaser if the land is not worth more or is not capable of development. There are small islands in the Georgian bay, which, having been valued carefully, and being valued at less than $100 each, are sold to the first applicant at the valuation, because we have not considered it worth while to hold an auction sale for lauds of such small value. Islands valued at more than $100 are sold either by auction sale or by tender. Lands in the western country, which are valuable for agricultural purposes, are invariably sold by public auction ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why should the minister dispose of any of the lands of the Indians without putting them up at public sale ? The minister knows that he has disposed of scores of islands at a dollar apiece. What sort of valuation is that ? The men who pay a dollar apiece would no doubt gladly pay five or ten dollars apiece. A number of the islands might be put up at the same time at public auction. I think the minister is doing a very unfair thing towards the Indians in disposing of their lands in the way he does.


Henry Horton Miller: I would suggest that the hon. member name some single instance and have it investigated.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am satisfied that the hon. member for South Grey knows full well that a great deal of this Indian land is worth more than ten cents an acre. What is the need of disposing of it if that is all that can be got for it ? When you find the department disposing of over 500,000 acres of Indian lands at private sale at upset prices fixed by the department, and disposing of quantities of islands in the same manner, you cannot help feeling that they have not been conducting the affairs of the Indians in a business-like manner.


Right Hon.   S@: iMcCARTHY. I observe that a part of this vote is for clothing. I suppose that would include clothing for the Indians on the Sarcee reserve. How7 many Indians are on that reserve at the present time ?


Frank Oliver: About 200.


Right Hon.   S@: McCarthy. What is the area of the reserve ?


Frank Oliver: About three townships.


Right Hon.   S@: McCarthy. When I brought this matter up in the House last session,
I was told by the minister that the Rev. John McDougall had been negotiating with these Indians with a view to getting from them a surrender of their lands. Will the hon. minister tell me what success he met with, and whether or not the negotiations are being still carried on ?


Frank Oliver: We absolutely failed to get a surrender from the Indians. We have not yet been able to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion.	,


Right Hon.   S@: McCarthy. No effort should be spared on the part of the department to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion. It is rather singular that the Reverend John McDougall has succeeded in obtaining surrenders in a great many other parts of the country but not in this. This reserve consists of some 7,000 acres, only three or four miles from the town of Calgary, and is very valuable land. It is far away beyond what these Indians require. They are practically making no use of the land and are keeping it closed against settlement.


Frank Oliver: I entirely sympathize with the view of the bon. gentleman, and the department is well aware of the facts. We have made two attempts to secure a surrender from those Indians and have failed. The lands are absolutely the property of the Indians, so that we cannot take them except with their consent. We have made every offer in reason, but this particular tribe has been known from time immemorial as the. most intractable on the plains. We are not relaxing our efforts, but my hon. friend will perhaps agree that with Indians, as in the case of white people, If they have something you want, the more they know you want it the more they are likely not to let you have it. In negotiating with them, it is not good policy to keep continually urging them to make the surrender? It is better to make a liberal offer, and if it be not accepted cease all efforts for the time. If you keep continually urging on them to surrender their lands after -they have made a refusal they will get an entirely exaggerated idea of their value, and It may become absolutely impossible to negotiate with them.


Right Hon.   S@: McCarthy. Some time ago the minister promised to let me have a detailed statement of the allowances made Mr. McDougall, amounting -to $4,600.


Frank Oliver: I have that statement fully prepared, but cannot lay my hand on It at the moment. I will produce it before the end of the session.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know exactly wbat all these supplies for destitute Indians amount to-$149,000 this year and $140,000 last year. Could the minister give the details?


Frank Oliver: I can give the amount to each agency and also the actual items, but the items in one agency are pretty much what they are in another, and it would take a long time to give them all. They consist of provisions and medicines and other necessaries, which we have to provide those Indians who are destitute or infirm and who are not cared for by their relatives. These supplies are all purchased by tender for distribution to the different Mr. OLIVER.
agencies, and they are rationed out according as the circumstances seem to require.


Samuel Hughes: What is the last item for?


Frank Oliver: That, generally speaking, includes salaries for the department, for those who are in the field. It includes, for instance, the survey staff whose headquarters are in Ottawa.


John Herron: I want to call the attention of the minister to another transaction with reference to leasing. It has been represented to me that there are applications at the present time for a portion of the Blackwood reserve for grazing privileges by some large stock companies in that country, and also by some of the smaller stockholders who reside in the immediate vicinity of the reserve. These latter have been asking me to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that these small cattle owners will be very glad to pay as much rent for the use of the Blackwood reserve as any big company owning large herds of cattle. After what the minister has stated with reference to the Blood reserve, I take It he is in sympathy with the smaller owners. I think if the owners of small herds are willing to pay as much rent as the large ranching companies, they should have the first privilege.


Frank Oliver: Some years ago there were a number of applications made for grazing rights of the Blackfoot reserve. We believed that the Indians had a right to be consulted in the matter, and these people were informed that if the Indians were willing to make a bargain with them for grazing rights, and if the bargain was on fair terms, the government would assent to it. But the Indians declined to enter into any arrangement, so none was made. In regard to the grazing rights to be acquired by settlers in the surrounding country, that is a policy that certainly appeals to me. It is somewhat difficult to carry out. Of course, as my hon. friend knows, nothing can be done in that matter except with the consent of the Indians. But my preference would be to give such advantages in grazing rights upon the Indian reserve to ordinary settlers who are living in the vicinity, if it can be done on fair terms to the Indians and with their consent.
Indians-British Columbia, $194,730.


George William Fowler: Is there any intention to dispose of any of the Indian reserves in this province?


Frank Oliver: I think I have had the honour to make a statement to the House of the position in which the reserves stands in British Columbia. A question of title has to be settled before we can do any-

thing in the way of securing alienation of the rights of the Indians to the reserve in British Columbia.


George William Fowler: At that time I think the minister stated that steps were being taken to have a friendly ease argued.


Frank Oliver: This government has forwarded to the government of British Columbia a memorandum suggesting the submission of a case for adjustment, but so far that proposal has not been replied to. So we are in the unfortunate position that wo cannot take any steps to secure the surrender while the title stands in its present condition. I am not sure, however, but that in one or two cases of a special nature the British Columbia government has expressed a willingness to waive its rights in that particular instance, and in such cases we have been able to go on and deal with the Indians. But the British Columbia government will not make any general waiver of their rights.


George William Fowler: What reserves are these to which they have waived their rights?


Frank Oliver: There are two instances in which the provincial government has quit claimed to parties acquiring rights from the Indians ; one was a small piece of land on the reserve at Kamloops, called Dead-man's creek, and the other was some place in southern British Columbia.


George William Fowler: What was the amount of land at the Kamloops reserve?


Frank Oliver: About 4,000 acres. The lease from the Indians was for 50 years, that is for irrigation rights. But the quitclaim by the provincial governments is practically perpetual.


John Herron: Are there any negotiations going on in regard to the land on the south side of the Blood reserve adjoining the town of Cardston ?


Frank Oliver: Negotiations are going on, but they have not produced any result.


William Wright: I wish to ask a question of the minister with regard to the Northwest Coast Agency, B.C. The former agent there, Mr. Morrow, it is claimed, neglected the agency and engaged in the superintendence of a sawmill. I believe that he was transferred to the Customs Department at Port Simpson, and the Indians claim that a bartender was appointed in his stead and put over them. Is that true and is he being continued in office?


Frank Oliver: Morrow retired four or five months ago and was replaced by a man named Laurenz. About the time Laurenz was appointed we received a communication from some of the Indians complaining in a general way, but the objections were not of so definite a character as to 405
seem to warrant the department In acting upon it.


Mr. A. MARTIN (Queens, P.E.I.).: An Item was left open for discussion of steamship subventions and subsidies. The vote for a subsidy to a line between Prince Edward Island and Great Britain was struck out. It has been reduced from year to year. Some years ago it was $20,000, last year it was reduced to $7,000 and now it has been struck out. The minister is aware of the great disadvantage under which the province of Prince Edward Island lies in shipping its butter, cheese, eggs and other produce to Great Britain ; it has to send these products to Montreal to be loaded on the steamers, which is a very round-about and unnecessarily expensive method. I suggested to the minister, I think last year, that if they could not succeed in getting a steamer to undertake this service they could have a tender built at a comparatively small expense, that goods could be shipped from the island on that tender, that the tender could intercept a subsidized steamer going from Montreal to Great Britain, and transfer the freight to her. These tenders are now built so that they can attach to a vessel running at full speed, and transfer their cargo to the steamer without her stopping. Telegraphic communication is now easy and inexpensive and the connection between the steamer and the tender could be easily arranged. In the same way a vessel from Great Britain for Montreal could be intercepted in the Gulf by the tender and goods for the island transhipped without loss of time or detention of passengers. I make the suggestion in all honesty to the minister, and I think when we are spending so much for steamship subsidies in all other parts of Canada, and I think this is a proper expenditure, a practical suggestion such as I have made should be favourably considered by the minister and his colleagues.


William Stevens Fielding: Any suggestion my hon. friend may offer in the good spirit he displays to-night is deserving of the most serious consideration. I would be inclined to think there would be some difficulty in inducing any established steamship company to undertake a service of the kind he suggests. It would seem to require co-operation of some of the steamship lines, and if any of them would indicate a willingness to take part the matter should be seriously considered. It is most desirable that the island should have every opportunity of shipping goods to Great Britain. We have had an offer on the statute-book for years, but unfortunately no company has been willing to take it up. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce, under whose department this would fall, would cordially sympathize with my hon. friend's object and if there was any indication of a desire to do this by a company the matter would have his sym-

1275S
pathy and support. I would like to have an expression from some practical steamship man engaged in the Atlantic trade of his willingness to take up an enterprise of that character. I shall mention it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him to give it his serious consideration.


Alexander Martin: I am very much obliged to the minister. He has mef me pretty nearly half way, but I would suggest to him that it would be the duty of the government to have that tender built. At the present time steamers running at full speed are loaded from a tender. I do not see any difficulty that would arise. It would place the province in a better position.	Before these steamship subsidies were adopted the province had a steamer of its own which traded between Prince Edward Island and the old country but when you adopted the policy of subsidizing steamers from Montreal, Halifax and St. John, our steamer could not compete with them. We are under the disadvantage that our goods have to be shipped to Montreal and then reshipped to Great Britain. I do not think there is an instance anywhere In Canada where there is such a round about way of doing business as that which has been forced upon Prince Edward Island. It It not creditable to the government that that should be the case. When the minister struck out this item of $7,000, he said he would apply It in some other direction and I would like to know how he is going to apply it.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend will find in the Supplementary Estimates, page 30, that we are providing an additional amount for steam communication between Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton and Newfoundland. I do not give that as a reason why we should not have this service across the ocean if the opportunity should come, but I hardly think it would be wise for the government to build a tender for that purpose without endeavouring to ascertain what steamship lines would co-operate with us in that business. Any measure which will enable the people of Prince Edward Island to share in the advantages of cheap and prompt transportation will have our heartiest and fullest support.
Department of Railways and Canals-to increase the salary of M. J. Butler, deputy minister and chief engineer, to $8,000 per annum from April 1, 1908, $500.


George William Fowler: Explain.


George Perry Graham: The item explains itself. This increase to Mr. Butler is not as large as it looks. The sum is $500. Under the new Civil Service Act the salary of a deputy minister is $5,000, and for anything over that we have to take special vote. Mr. Butler has been receiving $7,500 and it was understood that he was to have $8,000.


George William Fowler: When and where was it understood he was to have $8,000? There Mr. FIELDING.
has been no statement in the House to that effect.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Butler has been receiving $7,500 and that has been voted in the main estimates.


George William Fowler: This proposition will make his salary $8,000.


Mr. W. WRIGHT.: That will be $1,000 more than the salary of a minister.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Butler is a professional man of high standing and there is no doubt that in the case of professional men engaged in the higher ranks of the public service, the temptation is very strong to leave the service, and we must expect to pay them something like the figures they would be paid in private employment. Mr. Butler, I am quite sure, would get $8,000 readily from any of the big railways or contractors by whom he might be employed.


Aaron Abel Wright: It seems to be an anomaly that you should pay a deputy minister $1,000 more than the minister gets. The salary is high enough without any addition being granted.


George Perry Graham: He performs a double duty; he is chief engineer as well.
Railways and Canals, chargeable to capital -Railways-Intercolonial Railway-diversion of public road to eliminate a crossing at rail level between St. Cyrille and Drumrnondville, $1,300.


George William Fowler: I would like some explanation in regard to that.


George Perry Graham: The amount is asked to-divert the public highway between St. Cyrille and Drummondville in order to get over a level crossing. The part of the highway touching the railway is going to be deeded to the government by the municipality. We are getting rid of the level crossing and they are deeding the property.


George William Fowler: Why should you make an exception in this particular case? [DOT]


Mr. LAYERGNE.: This railway was built after the highway. It was built along the roadway for nearly a mile. There are two level crossings, about 350 feet long, they are very dangerous and there have been many accidents. The government proposes to divert the roadway to another place and this diversion will involve a small expenditure. If the railway had been built a little farther away from the highway these accidents would not have occurred.


George William Fowler: In the province of New Brunswick there are places where the railway has been built since the highway, where the highway and the railway parallel each other for a long distance and where there are many crossings. In my town there are level crossings and yet no step like this has been taken by the railway. I would like to know why this particular place was singled:

out and whether it is the intention of the department to pursue this policy in other places as well as at this favoured place.


Mr. EMMERSGN.: It has been done in New Brunswick.


George William Fowler: It certainly has not been done in my county.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not done for the convenience of the highway, hut for the convenience of the railway. If a crossing is dangerous to life and property, and if, by a small expenditure, you can divert the highway and remove the danger, it would be the part of wisdom to do so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: At Campbellton, N.B., there was a diversion of the highway, which the railway paid for.


George William Fowler: I know a very dangerous crossing in my own constituency, and the minister might apply the same rule there that he has applied in this case.


William Stevens Fielding: If there is any case on the line of the Intercolonial where, for a small expenditure, you can divert the highway and do away with a dangerous crossing, it would be wise to do so in the interest of the protection of life, as well as in the interest of the protection of the government from claims for damages.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Finance seems to labour under the misapprehension that I am opposing a policy of this kind. 1 am not. I merely wanted to know why this particular place was singled out while other places equally needing this protection have not been attended to. Is it the policy of the minister to do this wherever it is needed?


Mr. ALOORN.: And if it is the policy of the minister, I would point out to him that the crossing at the Grand Trunk station in his own constituency is extremely dangerous.	_


George Perry Graham: Unfortunately, the Intercolonial Railway does not run in my constituency, and I cannot apply the policy to it.
Diversion of line at Chatham and branch to wharfs, $40,000.


George Perry Graham: Some months ago I visited Chatham, and this diversion of the line was strongly urged on me by the leading citizens. It is part of the old Canada Eastern and is on a heavy grade, and the station is two miles away from the town. By the diversion of the road for six miles we will save a considerable haul, get rid of a heavy grade, get down to the town and to deep water, reach one mill that turns out 4,000 carloads of lumber annually and another mill at deep water. I can recommend it to the House as a business proposition.
405J


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will $40,000 complete?


George Perry Graham: Oh, no. I want to make it clear that it will cost about $400,000, but this is all we can expend this year.
Improvements at Fredericton, $10,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I presume this is the initial vote for a new station at Fredericton?


George Perry Graham: I visited the pretty little city of Fredericton, and I found there a very nasty little station which was not suited to the requirements of the capital of the flourishing province of New Brunswick. There was talk of our being able to join in a union station with the Canadian Pacific Railway, but that seems to be out of the question, and it is my opinion that we should have a proper station at Fredericton. We propose to spend $60,000 for a new station there. I ask for $10,000 now to get a start at it next fall, and we will go on with the work.


George William Fowler: I draw the attention of the minister to another flourishing and beautiful town in New Brunswick which requires a new station. When the Minister of Finance was acting Minister of Railways he promised we should have a new station at Sussex, but we have not got it yet. Sussex is one of the principal towns in New Brunswick, and is a town in which a great deal of business is done on the Intercolonial. The present station is a disgrace to the town and a disgrace to the road. New stations have been built to replace old stations that are far better than the station at Sussex. It is a ramshackle wooden building, erected when the road was first built, and it should be replaced. I ask the minister if he will now put in the estimates an item to build a new station at Sussex?


George Perry Graham: The matter will be considered. Although I would like to do so, I regret that I canDot make any more promises at present. We ought to have decent stations at places where we do business.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Can the minister say how much of the $60,000 is to be applied to the Fredericton station building itself?


George Perry Graham: I cannot say at present. I went into this question with my deputy the day before he was taken ill, and I told him we wanted to have a decent station at Fredericton with surroundings that would conform to it. He said it would cost $60,000 as an approximate estimate. My own opinion is that before we complete the work and get the yards as we would like to have them it will cost more. We intend to put up a decent station at Fredericton.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has it been decided yet whether it will be of brick or stone?


George Perry Graham: No.

Diversion of line, Sydney Mines to River George, $25,000.


George Perry Graham: This is somewhat like the Chatham proposition. On this piece of track there is a grade both ways. There Is a very large traffic on that section, and to continue to do business hauling up grade both ways is out of the question. The diversion of this line, which would cost, I think, anywhere from $375,000 to $425,000, would put North Sydney and Sydney Mines on the main line, would do away with the operation of quite a length of branch, and would give us a comparatively level grade. After looking into the matter, I considered it a business proposition and decided to submit it to the House.


Samuel Hughes: Are the highly paid engineers of the department satisfied with It ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Petit Rocher-spur track to wharf, $15,000.


George Perry Graham: The Public Works Department have constructed a wharf at this point, and we want to get access to it by rail.


George William Fowler: What will that cost ?


George Perry Graham: The approximate cost will be about $30,000.


George William Fowler: Is there any business done at Petit Rocher, or is it something like the wharf at Caraquet, where business is expected in the dim and distant future ? The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Tur-geon) gave us an explanation of that at one time. He said that at Caraquet there was no business yet, but he hoped that at some time there would be business. In the meantime that part of the wharf which did not drift out to sea was rotting away. Tlje hon. member for Gloucester seems to have a great capacity for drawing grants from this government ; but the unfortunate thing is that in most cases the money is spent for useless works which can only serve the purpose of strengthing the hon.' gentleman in his constituency, while the rest of the province suffers on account of the great pull which the hon. member seems to have with this government.


Mr. TURGEON.: Surely	my	hon.
friend knows the resources of Petit Rocher as well as I do. So far as Caraquet is concerned, he knows what I meant when I said that the harbour there could not be yet used by ocean steamers, as we could not get the railway company to build a spur to the wharf to afford the same kind of accommodation that this proposed spur will afford at Petit Rocher. It is true that the Petit Rocher wharf is not used by anybody yet, because it is not yet completed. But it will be completed and handed over to the government within the next two Mr. GRAHAM.
months, and there is an immense possibility of business there, especially in the shipping of lumber. The only way to make that district productive is to afford transportation facilities, and this spur will give accommodation to that splendid location that I have heard praised so much by our friends opposite.


Samuel Hughes: How long is the spur ?


Onésiphore Turgeon: About three-quarters of a mile.
To provide for survey to ascertain the best route for an additional line from Moncton, New Brunswick, or Amherst, Nova Scotia, to a point at or near Truro, Nova Scotia, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: A few weeks ago a very important deputation waited on the government and urged strongly the wisdom of looking into the matter of having a link constructed from Moncton to Truro or from Amherst to Truro to shorten the line to Halifax and to get better grades. One idea was to have an eye to the increased traffic that will pass in the future over that portion of the Intercolonial Railway. This line would also serve a new country that is not now served. In order to find out exactly what the request meant, what benefits would be derived, and most of all what the proposed line would cost, I decided to put an amount in the estimates to survey the line.


Samuel Hughes: Is it intended to run north or south of the present line ?


William Stevens Fielding: South, by Parrsborough on the Bay of Fundy.


George William Fowler: I read in the papers the other day that there was to be double-tracking from St. John to Hampton. Has the minister any information about that proposition ?


George Perry Graham: I really have no information on that point. I did say the other day in a speech which I thought was a good speech that if we carried all the traffic to Moncton that we hoped to carry, there would be an ultimate necessity of doubletracking the line from Moncton to St. John as well as from Moncton to Halifax.


George William Fowler: Was the minister only indulging in prophecy, or has he any present intention of doing that ?


George Perry Graham: Not until it is needed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I hope that the minister, before deciding on the direction of any new line of railway, will take into consideration the very much greater advantages that would be afforded by building a line from Moncton along the northern portions of the counties of Westmoreland and Cumberland to Pugwash. By so doing he will secure a line running through a country where much better grades can be

had than those of the present line, and he could utilize what is known as the shortline portion of the Intercolonial and obtain very much better advantages than could be obtained by building any new line along the Bay of Fundy. I have already called the minister's attention to this matter. I do not wish to elaborate the proposition 1 make at the time, but it is one that the minister will be bound to take into consideration before deciding on any such policy.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: Before this item passes I wish to, draw the attention of the minister to the fact that there is a better way of reaching the Atlantic sea- board than either by double tracking the Intercolonial or building a new line around by Parrsboro. Every one who is acquainted with the geography of Nova Scotia is aware that the Cobequid range of mountains have to be crossed between Amherst and Truro. On this part of the Intercolonial there are several very steep grades that lower the character of the whole line as a traffic road. It would be poor policy to build a line of railway across the continent at vast expense and with grades of one-half or one per cent and continue those steep grades between Moncton and Halifax. These can be altogether avoided by running the line north of Amherst and along the north shore to Pug-wash, then to New Glasgow and Country Harbour. This would give us a splendid outlet on the Atlantic for the traffic of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I need not speak of the advantages of Country Harbour. This harbour is well known to be one of the great harbours of the world. If you 'made a list of say twelve of the greatest harbours of the world I will venture to say that you would be compelled to include Country Harbour in the list. I have not time at this late hour to speak of all the advantages of this route. By adopting my proposal you will get a level route and pass through the coal deposits of Pictou and open up a good country and reach the sea at a harbour that is 100 miles nearer Europe than Halifax. I hope that no action will be taken until my proposal is carefully considered.


Mr. MCLENNAN.: I would like to ask the minister whether he has given any attention to the very modest request I made the other evening. I observe a duplication of the Intercolonial Railway in the county of Cape Breton, a proposed duplication in Cumberland and Pictou and Colchester and a subway in the county of Pictou in the country district. I do not object to these, but I claim that the very modest requirements of the county of Inverness should receive a little more consideration. I noticed in the city yesterday Mr. Mann one of the Inverness Railway and Coal Company, and I hoped that the minister would call his attention to the matter of the joint user of the terminals at Port Tupper. I would like to know from the minister whether he has
given attention to the advisability of either coming to an arrangement with that company or making some provision or other out of tiiis item for increased accommodation by furnishing a modest shelter in the way of a station at Hawkesbury junction on the Intercolonial Railway.


George Perry Graham: In reply to my hon. friend, that is one of the questions which will have to be considered. My department is looking into the question to see if we cannot obviate the difficulty to which he refers.


George William Fowler: Where are you getting your water supply for the Intercolonial Railway buildings at Moncton ?	,


George Perry Graham: I have not the information here and there is no Intercolonial Railway official present who knows anything about that special work.


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister-know nothing about the Moncton waterworks ?


George Perry Graham: When the item comes up I shall be able to give the information, but regret that I have not got it at hand just now.
Prince Edward Island Railway-to pay M. J. Haney on his contract, amount of award in
connection with Hillsboro bridge, $164,633.33.


George Perry Graham: The amount of the claim was $390,000. Under the contract all work had to be certified to by the chief engineer but I was under this difficulty that the chief engineer was Mr. Butler, who is now chief engineer of my department. Consequently it would not do for him to certify to the work and I decided to appoint Mr. Colling-wood Schreiber as engineer and arbitrator, as he was the chief engineer of the department at the time the work was done. He made an award of $194,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What does that make the total cost of the Hillsborough bridge ?


George Perry Graham: $1,365,376.18 to June 30, last.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the department's estimate of the cost ?


George Perry Graham: I had a long memo, about that. There was an estimate made but the work was absolutely changed. It was found in one place that it would not do to use the crib-work on account of its decayed condition and a new arrangement was made under which an embankment was used.


George William Fowler: What was the contract price?


George Perry Graham: It was on schedule price, the whole thing. It was found impossible to make it in any other way. This claim was to settle up the whole work. The contract was changed, the steel work was changed, and an arrangement was made

with the Hon. Mr. Blair and the contract was signed by the Hon. Mr. Sutherland. I think the offer for the work was 50 cents a yard, and the late minister gave a schedule price at 30 cents a yard. Some of this work was done in a greater depth of water than any work he had ever known to be constructed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was the bridge completed and accepted by the department?


George Perry Graham: Nearly two years ago.


George William Fowler: I fail to understand why, if this work was done under schedule prices, there should be a dispute. Why would this man claim $390,000 more than the department was willing to give him?


George Perry Graham: The quickest way to answer that perhaps would be to give the claims made by the contractor, but it would take a long time to read them.


George William Fowler: State their general character.


George Perry Graham: For instance, he claims for additional work, materials on hand, interest account. Then he gives a list of claims for extra work, such as pneumatic caissons. His claim for interest was $82,907.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: Why did he make a charge for interest?


George Perry Graham: The account has never been settled up, and he made a claim for interest. If I had time to read the award the hon. gentleman would see that the claim was not allowed.


Angus Alexander McLean: I would ask the minister to read the award.


George Perry Graham: I will give a copy of the award to my hon. friend any time he wants it.


Angus Alexander McLean: I think a copy of the award ought to be put on the ' Hansard.'


George Perry Graham: The award was made by Mr. Collingwood Schreiber and is in the following terms :
Now know ye that I, the said Collingwood Sohreiber having taken upon myself the burthen of the said reference, and having heard, examined and considered the witnesses and evidence on behalf of both the said parties concerning the said claims so referred to me as aforesaid, do make and publish this my award, of and concerning the same, that is to _ say, I award and determine that the said Michael J. Haney pursuant to the said contract and lease and the said agreement, has a just and valid claim and demand against His Majesty the King to the amount or sum of $164,633.33.
And I award that the said sum of $164,633.33 shall be paid by His Majesty to the said Michael J. Haney and shall be accepted and Mr. GRAHAM.
taken by the said Michael J. Haney as and for full satisfaction and discharge, and as a final end and determination in respect of the said claims so referred and the matters in dispute as aforesaid, and all demands upon and in respect of the same.
And as an accompaniment to this my award I do pursuant to the said agreement hereto annex my certificate, in duplicate, in the form of a chief engineer's certificate for payment covering the said amount or sum total to be paid to the said Michael J. Haney by virtue of the said agreement.
And I further award that each party shall bear and pay bis own costs of and attending the said arbitration and the said Michael J. Haney shall pay the costs of this my award, that is to say, the sum of $223.75 being the amount due for stenographer's fees.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of February, 1908



[Stage Direction]
Sole Arbitrator.
Surveys of branch lines, $10,000.
George William Fowler: Is there any intention to take over branch lines in the province of New Brunswick?


George Perry Graham: That is a very large question. If I were the manager or president of a company owning the Intercolonial, I would at once proceed to see what branch lines would be of benefit to my main line, and try to get hold of them. Another announcement will be made before the close of the session on the question of branch lines.
To provide for survey and location of a line of railway from the Saskatchewan river to Hudson bay, $100,000.


Richard Stuart Lake: I see it is stated that the line is to be from the Saskatchewan river to Fort Churchill. I presume the railway has been completed to The Pas, on the Saskatchewan river, so the Minister of the Interior said the other day. I asked him for some information as to the condition of that line and he told me he would have to ask the Minister of Railways for that information. Would the minister give me some information in that respect.


George Perry Graham: I have no positive information. I have been greatly rushed with business. I intended to-day to ask Mr. Mann about it. I am going to tell the proprietors of the road what condition it is in, and if it is not improved it ought to be referred to the Railway Commission.


Richard Stuart Lake: I understood that the Department of Railways sent out an engineer last fall to go over that line. He would have a report. I think he returned in the fall.


George Perry Graham: I will look into it to see if there is a report.


Richard Stuart Lake: And would the minister bring it down the next time he goes into the estimates? The Minister of the Inte-

rior stated that the land grant for this railway had all been patented.


Samuel Hughes: This last spring has been very wet in the Northwest, and any one who is familiar with the lower Saskatchewan knows that for many a mile on either side the country is flat and boggy. It will require a great deal of work to get any road in good condition, more especially in a very wet spring such as we have had in the Northwest. No new railway in the Northwest was in a good condition this year.


John Herron: Has the government arrived at any policy yet with regard to the buildiug of this road? Are they going to build It themselves, or let it out to a corporation?


George Perry Graham: The one definite policy the government have arrived at is that this -road will be built, and built immediately, by somebody. To ascertain what the probable cost of the road would be is the first necessary step, whether we shall build it ourselves or let it to somebody else. For that purpose I am having a party organized to start out very shortly to make a survey from the Saskatchewan river to the Hudson bay, to Fort Churchill probably, possibly, to some other point on Hudson bay. But before I take any steps in that direction w'e will have to have a survey made to see what it is going to cost, whether we build it ourselves or whether we get it done by somebody else.


Richard Stuart Lake: When will the parties start out, and how long will it take them.?


George Perry Graham: A survey party will be organized instantly. They will be away from here shortly after we are. This road is going to be built by somebody and built immediately.


Richard Stuart Lake: Would the minister let this item stand until he can give us the information in regard to the condition of the railway to which I referred just now, and in regard to which I asked for information? Unless that bank is completed, and I understand the whole country has to be drained, it will not be possible to get to the Pas.


Mr. KNOWLES.: I object to allowing the item to stand. Whether the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) is of that opinion or not, in my opinion the people of the west want the preliminary survey and the location of the route effected at the earliest possible moment. I extremely regret that as a representative of the people the hon. member would be a party to the delaying of the matter by having the item stand. More than that, I think it is not fair to say the vote is only for the making of a preliminary survey, because it is not only
for acquiring the information which is essential, but likewise to locate the line which is to be built. As the Minister of Railways has said, the first step to be taken in the construction of the road by the government or by a company is to make the survey and locate the line, and the Minister of Railways says that is being done this year. I trust the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) will withdraw his objection and will not insist on allowing the item to stand, causing further delay. I also wish to respectfully correct the impression in the minds of the House that the banks of the lower Saskatchewan or the country in the vicinity of the banks is of a marshy nature.
I have given some little study to this, and I might say there are 70 miles which are of limestone formation to the north of the river, which is the best formation on which to construct a railway.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member does not know that the railway approaches the river from the south.


Richard Stuart Lake: The hon. gentleman's remarks about holding this item up are absolutely unfair. He knows that perfectly well and knows that, he is trying to make a little paltry political capital out of it.


William Erskine Knowles: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member should not say that I am trying to make cheap political capital.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I do not think that is out of order.


Richard Stuart Lake: The hon. gentleman is perfectly aware, no one more so, that to ask tills item to stand for another day will not affect the date on which the item is passed by the House, as all these items must be collected into a Supply Bill.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend surely does not mean to hold this item as a hostage until I bring down the information ? This has nothing to do with the Canadian Northern Railway Pas line.


Samuel Hughes: The greater part of the Pas line is fit for any sort of traffic, but there is no railway in that part of the west which has not been softened up by the heavy rains in this wet spring.


Richard Stuart Lake: If the minister will give the information I will ask him for it on going into Supply.


Haughton Lennox: I do not wish to, delay the item, and I hope the hon. member for West Assiniboia will not think I am doiug so. I think it is utterly contemptible the tactics some hon. gentlemen seem to adopt at times for the purpose of making cheap political capital. There should be a sense of honour among gentlemen that will not, for the mere petty advantage they can make in that way), utterly misrepresent what another member says.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the hon. member say whom he means?


Haughton Lennox: I mean the hon. gentleman who has just risen.


Charles Marcil: I do not think the expression ' cheap political capital' is out of order.


William Erskine Knowles: He said * contemptible.'


Charles Marcil: It is a matter of taste whether it should be used.


William Erskine Knowles: I submit the hon. gentleman is out of order in saying my tactics are contemptible.


Haughton Lennox: I repeat the remarks very deliberately.


Charles Marcil: I do not think the hon. member is justified in using the word * contemptible.'


Haughton Lennox: I am pleased that I used it and will withdraw it in deference to your remark, because I think it necessary-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Haughton Lennox: I withdraw the remark in difference to the chairman. I have not changed my opinion one iota. I shall ask the minister for more definite information as to the policy of the government in this matter. The minister has not said whether the government will construct it as a national work or have it constructed by an independent company.


George Perry Graham: I thought I made myself clear. The government have not come to a decision as to whether they will undertake the work as a government work or let it by contract to some great company. They have come to the conclusion that they will immediately ascertain by practical means what the work is likely to cost. Later they will decide the best means to secure its construction.


George William Fowler: How long are the straits open?


George Perry Graham: I should say from the information I have gleaned that navigation might be assured for four months in the year. Of course the bay is open longer.


George William Fowler: The Ottawa 'Free Press' announced the other day in flaming headlines that the straits are open for navigation only about two months. Was that an inspired article?


George Perry Graham: Oh, no.


Mr. S. J. JACKSON.: I do not think it is wise to confine this survey to the Pas route.
I am of opinion that we can find a more satisfactory route from the main line of the Canadian Northern Railway, and that the survey should be commenced 100 or 150 miles south of the Saskatchewan river in Mr. LENNOX.
the hope of finding a better line. I am told there is a high ridge 30 or 40 miles east that would give a better line than the Canadian Northern line from Erwood.
Trent oanal-to pay damages to properties by flooding, $100,000.


George William Fowler: What is that for ?


George Perry Graham: Owing to the building of the Trent canal and the construction of various dams certain lands have been flooded. We have had a man going through there and trying to value the damages. He reports that it will be necessary to put $100,000 in the estimates to provide for the damage that has been done to the property of various farmers along the line of the canal.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. Why is there not more in for the construction of the canal and less for the buying up of this land ?


George Perry Graham: There is $1,000,000 in the main estimates for the Trent canal.


Samuel Hughes: That is only a trifle you should put the whole thing in.


George William Fowler: I would suggest that if you had acquired the right to flood these properties before you commenced it would have cost infinitely less than what it will cost now that the damage has been done.
Cornwall canal-repairs to break in bank west of look 18, $150,000.


Samuel Hughes: Is it true that the department was notified upwards of a year ago by Capt. Donnelly that this bank was likely to give way ? I have seen that statement made on the authority of Mr. Hiram Calvin.


George Perry Graham: I never heard of it.
(Mr. SAM. HUGHES. Would the minister look up and see ?


George Perry Graham: I will look into it.


George William Fowler: I would like to ask the minister if he proposes to do this work by day labour or by contract ?


George Perry Graham: A portion has been rushed by days' work; for the balance we will advertise for tenders and award the contract to the lowest tenderer.
Carillon dam-dam across slides, $40,000.


Richard Blain: I suppose the minister will allow one item to stand so that any one who is not here to-night may have an opportunity of discussing any of these items.


George Perry Graham: We will allow item 457-Carillon dam-to stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Miscellaneous.
Railway Commission-maintenance
and operation of the Board of
Railway Commissioners for Canada (exclusive of an amount of
$25,000 authorized by statute). .$13,000 00

To provide for the expenses of preparing plans for the reconstruction of the Quebec bridge	$25,000 00
Attendance, repairs and alterations
Governor General's cars	 2,500 00
Railways statistics including clerical assistance notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. 1,200 00 Expenses of Quebec Bridge Commission	 53,500 00
To pay a gratuity equal to two months' salary to the widow of the late Judge Kill am, chairman of the Railway Commission.. .. 1,666 66


Haughton Lennox: There is an item of $25,000 to prepare plans for the reconstruction of the Quebec bridge. Will that pay for the plans ?
iMr. GRAHAM. It is expected that It will. It may take more than that. I think it is a small estimate.


Samuel Hughes: You had better get the plans of the Forth bridge and use them for the reconstruction of the Quebec bridge.
Mr. FOW'LER. Have you in mind any engineer whom you propose to employ to draw these plans ?


George Perry Graham: No, we have not chosen an engineer. That is something that will have to be done with very great care so that we will be absolutely sure of our ground.


George William Fowler: I quite agree with the minister that it is a matter that should be done with very great care, and the principal reason is that the government has already had a warning on account of the disaster that has occurred. I do not think that this estimate of $25,000 will be at all sufficient for the purpose. It will be necessary to ask for a subsequent vote, because if the government does its full duty in the premises, as it is building a bridge greater than has been, it will procure the services of the most eminent engineer that can be found in the world, and in order to get that man it strikes me that it will be necessary to go across the water. We have had an experience of American engineers and it has been a very unfortunate experience. To say nothing of the loss of money it has entailed great loss of life that is more deplorable than the loss of money. I hope the government will spare no pains to get the best engineering service that is available and I think it would be a wise economy to pay a price sufficient to get that service.


Samuel Hughes: Comparing the frame work of the Quebec bridge with the framework of the Forth bridge, the one looks like a toy as compared with the other. The girders on the Forth bridge are 12 feet in diameter and I do not think there is one on the Quebec bridge in which there is more
than an inch and a half of steel at any point. The part that is down and the part that is still standing are very flimsy looking. The chief engiueer on the Forth bridge is no longer living, but other engineers who were engaged in the construction of that bridge are available and I think it would be wise to procure for this work the best engineering ability.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have a Canadian engineer with them.


William Stevens Fielding: There will be no difference of opinion on that. The view of the government is that no matter what it costs it must get the best and most capable engineer that can be found. I am glad to hear the views expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite; so that, if a larger appropriation is needed we have only to ask for it.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to ask whether it is the intention of the government to erect the bridge in the same place again or whether a new site is to be selected?
Mr. GftAHAM. That is one of the questions that will have to be considered. There will be a difference of opinion as to that. Some people think that it should be higher up the river. These are questions which will be decided by the engineer or engineers whom we engage.


Haughton Lennox: I think there is a good deal in that and the sooner the government get to work to procure that engineer the better. I would like to ask the minister if this amount of $53,500 for the expenses of the Quebec Bridge Commission covers the total cost?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: And the matter is completed in every respect?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Mr. HENDERSON.: What business will be taken up on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: The resolution respecting the provincial boundaries, some minor Bills and afterwards Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.47 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 13, 1908. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Eleven o'clock.

Right Hon.   S@: On Thursday last I laid on

the table of the House a memorandum prepared by General Lake with reference to certain matters pertaining to the militia. I supposed then that the memorandum would become one of the parliamentary papers, but I understand now that it is necessary to make a motion for the paper. Therefore, with the consent of the House, 1 would move :
That an order of the House do issue to the proper officer for a copy of a memorandum by Major General P. H. N. Lake, C.B., C.M.G., Inspector General, upon that portion of the report of the Civil Service Commissioners, 1908, which deals with the military administration of the militia, and that rule 72 be suspended and the said memorandum be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Pugsley: I desire to lay on the table the return to an order dated 13th January, 1908, moved by the leader of the opposition <Mr. It. L. Borden) :
For a return showing the population of each town, village or other place in Canada in which any public building has been erected at the expense of Canada since January 1, 1897, or for a public building in which any public money has been voted, expended or appropriated since that date, together with a statement of the amount voted, expended or appropriated in each case, the total cost of each such building, the estimated total cost of any such building not yet completed, the purpose of each such building in each instance, the cost of the annual maintenance and upkeep thereof ; and so that the said statement shall show the information aforesaid by division of the said towns, villages or other places in the following classes: Those having a population not exceeding 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, 7,000, 8,000, 9,000, 10,000 ; also giving the names of all other towns and villages in Canada of each of the said classes in which no such public buildings have been erected up to the present time.
I may say that the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce), and possibly other members made motions somewhat similar to the one in return to which this information is brought down. I think that this return will embrace all the information called for by these different motions.


RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called, I would ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when the railway subsidies will be brought down. I would inquire also whether he is aware that seven months and sixteen days of the session have elapsed and that we are presumably within five or six days of prorogation, and to ask respectfully whether, under these circumstances, these should have


Frederick William Borden: been brought down long ago ?-seven months and sixteen days.


Right Hon.   S@: I am aware that we have been in session for seven months and sixteen days. I am glad to hear that we are within five or six days of prorogation. I am not aware that these railway subsidies could have been brought down one hour earlier.


Robert Laird Borden: But the main point is, when are we to have them ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that they are in to-day, are they not ?


George Perry Graham: I expect they will be down to-morrow. I expected they would be down to-day, but they are not printed.


THE WOOLLEN INDUSTRY.
Richard Blain: I desire to Inquire if it is the intention of the government to introduce this session any legislation for the relief of the woollen industry ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have just been told by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) that we may hope to close the session within five days ; and I do not think in those five days we can do more work than we have on the Order Paper.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inquire from the proper minister-I suppose the Minister of Marine and Fisheries- when we may expect a return to the motion of the 10th of February last with respect to the lobster fishery in the county of Pictou ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I will make inquiries about it. I thought everything asked for has been brought down.


Robert Laird Borden: Possibly it has been
brought down. Perhaps the minister will be good enough to inquire and let me know to-morrow.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


DOMINION GUARANTEE COMPANY.
Robert Abercrombie Pringle: That this House do not insist on their amendments to the Bill (No. 127) respecting the Dominion Guarantee Company, Limited, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.
He said :	I may explain that I find it
will become necessary, in order to get over a little difficulty in connection with this Bill, to introduce a short amending Bill, and I shall ask leave of the House to that end. Perhaps this would be the time for me to state the reasons. When the Bill

was before the committee, the general borrowing powers were struck out. The Dominion Guarantee Company have erected a building in the city of Montreal, and so it has become necessary for them to borrow the sum of $55,000. The Bill legalizes and declares valid that mortgage, but does not give the company power to borrow the money that may be necessary in the event of their being called upon to pay off the mortgage. I shall ask leave to introduce the Bill and would request the House to give it its first and second readings that it may be referred to committee. I have the enacting clause of the Bill here, though I have not it in the form of a Bill.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I now move for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 127) respecting the Dominion Guarantee Company, Limited.


Wilfrid Laurier: I suppose this Bill is introduced by my hon. friend in consequence of the amendment which was made in the Senate to the Bill which he has just brought under consideration.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Yes. I was under the impression that we could have made the amendment which was inserted here. The Senate refused to make it, considering they had not power to do so. So they sent the Bill back here, and in having the matter looked up by the officials, they advised me that the proper course was to introduce a short amending Bill instead of asking for this amendment.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is aware that such a Bill at this stage is very irregular. At all events no harm will be done if we read it a second time and send it to the committee, where it can be considered. We can go no further than that to-day.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: That is all I ask, that it be sent to the committee.


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


Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	When the Pictou branch portion of the Intercolonial Railway was transferred from the Halifax and St. John district to the Sydney and Oxford district, were instructions given that the employees on the Halifax portion of the line would not be affected by its transfer?
2.	Have any changes been made that have affected the employees on said portion of the road? If so, at whose solicitation, and why were not the instructions carried out, if any were issued?
3.	If these changes were made, what advantage have they been to the line?
i.	How much more has it cost the railway
monthly since the change, such as paying employees who are taken off their trains before their trip is ended, and also paying them passenger time between Truro and Stellarton?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	The late Hon. Mr. Blair, then minister
gave instructions February 28, 1898, as follows :	' The Truro and Stellarton section
is to be transferred to the Sydney and Oxford district, on the 1st March, but the same trainmen and enginemen, who have been working that road, are to continue to do so, if they so desire.' The above arrangement, was not satisfactory to the trainmen and enginemen at Stellarton, who requested that the matter be referred to the Brotherhood, which was done, and in March, last, the minister instructed the general manager, as follows :
2.	That the Truro men who are at present manning trains on the Stellarton-Oxford district be transferred to that district, and in the event of any of these men not wishing to do so, an equivalent number of men should be transferred from the Truro district with equal rank ; and that trains Nos. 17 and 18, from New Glasgow to Halifax, shall belong entirely to the Truro crew. In case of vacancies occurring, these trains shall be manned by Truro men, and that for all future purposes of promotion, the Halifax, Truro district and the Stellarton, Sydney and Oxford district be separated as distinct promotion districts; choice of men affected to be made at the next change of time or within thiry days from date. Crews of trains Nos. 17 and 18, are to be given train home and return at week's end, if business warrants as in the past. These instructions were carried into effect in April last.
3.	The department was of the opinion that the changes would be in the interests of the railway.
4.	There is nothing to show that it increases the cost of operating the railway.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-AMQUI STATION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HONK-by Mr. Blain-asked ;
1.	What was the amount voted to defray the cost of construction of the Intercolonial Railway station built at Amqui in 1901?
2.	What amount was actually expended in the construction of the said station?
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	There was an appropriation of $12,550 for increased accommodation at Amqui, voted in 1904-5 ; but this appropriation provided for other work in addition to building a station.
2.	The amount expended in building the station at Amqui, was $6,460.50.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR COUNTY OF NICOLET.
Mr. TURCOTTE asked:: 1.	What is the total amount of the grants of public moneys for the county of Nicolet from 1878 to 1896?
2.	What is the total amount of the grants of public moneys for the county of Nicolet from 1896 to this day?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	$141,667.07.
2.	$230,083.72.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-CONTRACT FOR STEEL RAILS.
Mr. BOYCE asked :: 1.	What quantities of steel rails have been contracted for by the National Transcontinental Railway Commission for use in the construction of any part of the railway between Winnipeg and Moncton, during the year ending June 30, 1908?
2.	With what firms or corporations, respectively, have such orders been placed, and at what rates, respectively?
3.	What quantity of rails imported from foreign countries for use in the construction of such railway were admitted into Canada free of duty?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 
FLYING RED ENSIGN ON MERCHANT VESSELS.
Mr. SINCLAIR asked :: 1.	What, is the authority for flying the red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms on the flag on board merchant vessels registered in Canada?
2.	Does section 73 of the Merchants' Shipping Act call for the national colours without defacement or modification on all merchant vessels ?
3.	Is there any official warrant or order varying this rule? If so, when was the same issued?


George Perry Graham: 


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Admiralty warrant, February 2, 1892.
2.	Yes, with the exception of ships registered in the Dominions of Canada and New Zealand and the Commonwealth of Australia.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved the following resolution :
Whereas petitions have been presented to the government and to this House from the legislative assembly of Manitoba, praying for an extension of the boundaries of the said province northward and eastward, and for an additional subsidy to the said province in lieu of the ownership of public lands in the territory to be so added,
lie it resolved,
That it is expedient that the prayer of the said petition should be acceded to, and that upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislative assembly^ and by parliament, the boundaries of Manitoba be extended as follows:
The northern boundary to be the sixtieth parallel of latitude; the western boundary to be the present eastern boundary line of the provine of Saskachewan to the said sixtieth parallel; the eastern boundary to be the present eastern boundary as far north as the northeast corner of the province, thence on a straight line to the most eastern point of Island lake, and thence on a straight line to the point where the eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the shore line of Hudson bay.
And be it further resolved:
That whereas notwithstanding the extension of territory above described, the ungranted lands of the Crown in the territory so to be added to the said province will still continue to be administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of the Dominion; and the said province will not have the public land as a source of revenue.
It is just and equitable to recognize the increased cost of civil government which such extension of territory will occasion to the province, and in view of the premises, to make to the said province an increased allowance by money payment, the amount of which should be the subject of negotiation between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba.
And be it further resolved:
That, upon the legislature of the province of Ontario consenting thereto, it is expedient to extend the boundaries of the said province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature and by parliament, so as to include all the territory to the north of the said province lying between the extended boundaries of Manitoba above described and the waters of James bay and Hudson bay.
And be it further resolved:
That, upon the legislature of the province of Quebec consenting thereto, it is expedient to extend the boundaries of the said province,

upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature and by parliament so as to include all the territory to the north of the said province now known as Ungava, and extending to the waters of James bay and Hudson bay, and the entrance thereto.
He said : The resolutions to which I now call the attention of the House provide for the extension, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the respective legislatures therein mentioned and by parliament, of the boundaries of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, out of that portion of the north ern territories which lies north of the same. This extension has been asked for by the legislature and executive of the province of Manitoba, and by the executives of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Here the question may be asked, whether it is desirable, or even possible, to create a new province or provinces out of the territory which lies north of the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. Simply to state the question is to suggest the answer. It has never occurred to any one, that out of that territory which extends north from the present frontiers of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, it were possible to form anything like a provincial organization. The conditions both of climate and soil preculde the possibility that there can ever be in that section of our country a population of such density as to suggest the desirability of forming a new province. Ungava, which is the largest of these territories, is known to be absolutely barren for agriculture; the same may be said, I think, of the section of country which extends north of the boundary of Ontario. With regard to the section which extends north of the province of Manitoba above Lake Winnipegosis and Lake Manitoba, there - is a portion which is known to be reasonably fertile and reasonably fit for agriculture, in the valley of the Saskatchewan but immediately beyond that, it is pretty generally admitted that the country is not fit for agriculture. In every one of these territories there is some possibility of timber and forest production. The resources in minerals are very promising, but like all things of this kind, until they ljave been actually tested and developed, they are uncertain. Under such circumstances therefore there is only one of two courses to follow. One is to continue to adminster this territory as we are doing at present; and the administration at the present time is practically nil, it simply provides for the administration of justice in case of crime committed, and some cases of a similar character, because there is practically no population in that territory. The other recommendation is to hand over this territory to the provinces which now claim it, and whose geographical form is such that it may be brought within the purview of their provincial and municipal organizations. Of these two courses before the government, the more reasonable, the
more practical and the more expedient in the interest of all parties appeared to be that these respective territories should be annexed to the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, so that there might be the usual provincial and municipal administration as their development takes place. This course was contemplated, I may say by the fathers of confederation, because in the British North America Act of 1871, suggested by this parliament and the government of that day and passed by the British parliament, provision was made not only for the creation of new provinces out of the general Dominion territory but also for the extension of the provinces now existing. I call the attention of the House to section 3 of that Act which reads as follows :
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature.
We are therefore to-day just carrying out the intention which was embodied* in the Act. The case of Manitoba seems to be particularly pressing. Manitoba bas the smallest territory of all the western provinces and it Is a matter of public notoriety that there is in Manitoba a sentiment of disappointment, almost akin to Irritation, that the province has not been as liberally endowed as the adjacent provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan which were carved out of territory out of which the boundaries of the province of Manitoba could have been increased. We all sympathize with this sentiment and there is no reason that I can see why this desire for increased territory should not be gratified. There is a more important consideration and that is that at the present time we are taking measures and asking parliament to vote an appropriation for the construction of the Hudson's Bay Bailway ; that is to say, of a railway which is destined to connect the existing systems of railways on the prairies with Hudson bay. This railway Is not so much intended to develop local traffic as to provide an outlet to the sea-board for the ever increasing products of our western provinces. It bas therefore been thought advisable, not only advisable but I should say necessary, that immediate steps should be taken to provide for this new territory, municipal and provincial organization since it is provable that following the construction of this railway population must set into that territory and, therefore, the requirements of civilized man should be provided for in the way of administration and otherwise. These are the main reasons which have prompted us to ask parliament to assent to this resolution which I have placed on the table.
In 1905 the province of Manitoba made a strong appeal to this parliament to have its boundaries extended but it seemed to the
[Stage Direction]
government at that time wise and prudent, before acceding to the request, that the adjacent provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan, which, perhaps, might have also a claim to the territory which was sought by Manitoba, should have an opportunity of being heard. We therefore extended an invitation to the several provinces to meet us and discuss this question. A conference took place in November, 1906, at which all the respective governments that I have just named were represented. The Dominion government was represented by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of the Interior ; the Ontario government by Mr. Whitney, the premier, Mr. Poy, the Attorney General, and Mr. Mathe-son, the Provincial Treasurer ; the government of Manitoba by Mr. Roblin, the Premier, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Campbell, the Attorney General, and Saskatchewan by Mr. Walter Scott, the Premier, and Mr. Lamont, the Attorney General. . The province of Saskatchewan, at that conference, through its representatives, asked to be allotted the territory which extends north-eastward of the provincial boundary to the shores of Hudson bay. After giving due consideration to this claim on the part of the province of Saskatchewan, it seemed to us, that, as between the claim of the province of Saskatchewan and of the province of Manitoba to have the territory which lies north of Manitoba and west of Saskatchewan allotted either one way or the other, the weight of argument was certainly in favour of Manitoba and we could not grant the prayer of Saskatchewan. We therefore had to ignore it. We are prepared to admit the claim of Manitoba to have its boundary extended northward up to the 60th parallel of latitude. But a difficulty arose as between the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario as to the extension of the boundary eastward. The claim of Manitoba was that its territory should be extended eastward, north of the Albany river, that is to say, between the Albany river and Hudson bay, to a meridian line drawn from the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. Perhaps some hon. member may ask : Why bring the line of the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers into this question ? The older members of the House will remember that this line was exhumed out of old documents at the time of the controversy between Sir John Macdonald and Sir Oliver Mowatt as to the boundary line between Ontario and Manitoba. It is not necessary to go into that old controversy to-day but let me say at once that if the prayer of Manitoba had been granted and if its boundary had been extended over the northern boundary of Ontario between the. Albany river and the waters of Hudson bay as prayed for, the eastern boundary of Manitoba and the western boundary of Ontario in this new territory which is to be allotted would have been brought into the vicinity of the longitude of Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
Fort William, Port Arthur and Lake Nepi-gon. The government did not think it would be advisable to agree to such a claim as that.
On the other hand, the province of Ontario, represented on that occasion by Mr. Whitney, Colonel Matheson and Mr. Foy, urged that the boundary of Ontario should be the Churchill river, that the boundary of Manitoba should be a continuation of the present boundary of that province northward until it reached the Churchill river and then that the Churchill river should be the boundary between the two provinces. As the two provinces could not agree upon their respective claims it became the duty of the government to give to the matter its very best consideration and to endeavour to arrive at a conclusion which would commend itself to the judgment, not perhaps of both parties, but of all fair minded men. We could not agree to the claim of the province of Ontario that the Churchill river should be made the boundary for one very obvious reason which will, I think, commend itself to all those who do me the honour of listening to me. It is expected that the new railway to Hudson bay will have its terminus at Churchillin fact, it cannot have its terminus anywhere else. Churchill is known to be the best of the harbours on Hudson bay and perhaps the only harbour. The only rival harbour possibly is the harbour at the mouth of the Nelson river but I understand, although I speak subject to correction, that, as between the two harbours, Churchill is by far the preferable one. At all events, I think it is admitted that the mouth of the Churchill river should be the terminus of the railway. If the terminus of the railway is to be at the mouth of the Churchi'il river it is reasonable to expect that a town of some proportions must eventually grow up at the mouth of that river, and if you have the two provinces separated by the Churchill river, Manitoba on the one side and Ontario on the other, and a town growing up upon both sides of the river, it is manifest that complications would arise and that the progress of the city might be materially retarded for the necessity of having legislation either from one province or the other. Therefore, it is far preferable, far more convenient and far more suitable in every possible way that the city be either in one province or the other.
Taking all these things into consideration we believed we could not grant the prayer of the province of Ontario to extend its boundary to the Churchill river. After giving the matter the best consideration we could we came to what we think is a fair conclusion and one which will be acceptable to all reasonable men, namely, to fix the boundary of Manitoba from the northeast corner of the province of Manitoba extending It over the height of land between

the water system of the Hayes river and the Nelson river on one side and the water system of the Severn river on the other side. That was the idea which actuated us when we came to approach the subject and to decide upon it. Our first intention was to make the height of land between the Hayes river on the one side and the Severn river on the other, the boundary. But when we came to put this line upon the map we found that serious complications might arise if we were to say ipsissima verba that this height of land should be the boundary because we found that the height of land between the Hayes river and the Severn river did not extend all the way to the shore of Hudson bay but that it was met some distance from the shore by another height of land. The height of land between the Hayes river and the Severn river runs north and south, but at some distance from Hudson bay that height of land is met by another height of land which runs east and west. Therefore, while adhering to the same idea we had to express it otherwise and we determined that the boundary should be a straight line from the northeast comer of the present boundary of Manitoba to the east end of Island lake and thence to a straight line to the point where the eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the shore line of Hudson bay. This practically adheres to the height of land as the boundary so far as it can be done, but we do not put it in so many words for the reason wherein I have stated.
I am aware that the boundary we have laid down has been disappointing perhaps to both parties. Judging by what I have seen of statements made by the premier of Manitoba he expresses disappointment although I do not believe it would be possible for the government or for parliament to concede in full the claims of Manitoba. I have seen some flaming articles in some newspapers stating that the rights of Ontario have been sacrificed in as much as the two harbours of Churchill and Nelson have been given to Manitoba. Well, Sir, I think the province of Ontario has enough of wealth and of territory and of glory to enable her to willingly concede to the sister province what little advantages there may be in that. Moreover, the traditions of history would seem to indicate that the Churchill and Nelson rivers should belong to Manitoba. They were the avenue of the fur trade in the olden times when the fur trade was all the trade there was, and if we were to take away from Manitoba what advantage there may be in this, I think Manitoba would be entitled to complain on sentimental grounds if not on other grounds. At all events I submit these reasons to the fair consideration of the House and I think they will impress themselves on all those who will give this matter impartial consideration.
Robert Laird Borden: What will be the respective areas of the provinces ?


Sid WILFRID LAURIER.: The new territory which is to be added to Manitoba will be about 180,000 square miles in round numbers. I had a precise calculation made on the basis of the height of land, but it is sufficient to observe the boundary now adopted will give to Manitoba added territory of about 180,000 square miles. The present area of Manitoba is 73,732 square miles and with the area to be added, her total area will be about 253,000 square miles. The territory of Ungava which is added to the province of Quebec is 180,000 square miles (water) and 266,000 square miles (land), or a total of 456,000 square miles. I have not the figures with regard to the province of Ontario, but I believe the added territory is in the neighbourhood of 140,000 square miles.
I have the figures as to the population which may be in the territory now being added to Manitoba. I made no inquiries as to the population of the territory to be added to Ontario or Quebec because I believe it is admitted that in this territory there is no white population. The population of the territory to be added to Manitoba, according to the last census, is as follows :
Memorandum re population of the parts of Northwest territory added to the Province of Manitoba under the resolution of 1908, as shown by the census of 1901.
Indian
and White Total.
Halfbreed.
Parts of the District of
Keewatin containing Black River	:-	2	2Cross Lake	55	2	57Gods Lake	368	368Island Lake	525	525Nelson House	280	7	287Norway House.. ..	230	18	218Oxford House.. ..	339	6	315Fort Churchill.. ..	89	6	95Split Lake	
Warren's Landing..	263	3	26618	ti	21Yankee Point	12	1	13York Factory	212	5	217Totals from Keewatin..	2,121	56	2,177Parts detached from	Saskat	chewan district by the Act	of 1905, containing Cedar Lake	118	118Grand Rapids	133	ii	111Moose Lake	171	171Mossy Portage	5	5The Pas	793	20	813Totals from Saskatche-	wan	1,223	31	1,251Making a total for the	new	area added to Manitoba	of	3,641	87	3,731There is another	consideration	which
must engage the consideration of the government and of the House. We had always understood that the province of Manitoba in making this claim for the extension of her territory was asking for the ungranted

Crown lands, and in fact I remember that at the opening of the session my hon. friend from (Marquette (Mr. Roche) reminded me that the province of Manitoba wanted to have, as he pointedly remarked, her lands. But in the petition which has been sent by the legislature of Manitoba to the House during the present session the province has taken an altogether different attitude. In that petition the province asks, not for all the ungranted Crown lands, but for a money allowance in lieu of lands. It must be remembered that in this matter the Dominion is not a free agent. The constitution of the province of Manitoba gives the lands, not to the province, but to the Dominion. The terms under which the province of Manitoba has been admitted into the union are exactly the same in that respect as these under which the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have been admitted. The province of Manitoba therefore asks that it should be given the same treatment as has been given to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The claims of Manitoba in this respect are in my estimation somewhat exaggerated. These claims follow :
That supplementary and in addition to the prevailing provisions as to the annual allowance of the (province by the Dominion for cost of government, a per capita allowance of 80 cents a head of the population, there be inserted in any Act of the parliament of Canada extending the boundaries of the province as above set forth, the following provisions respecting capital account and in lieu of lands, such provisions in every respect being similar to and identical with those respecting said matters as are contained in certain Acts of the parliament of Canada, passed in the year 1905, creating the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Albeirta.
The memorial then goes on to say :
Inasmuch as the province of Manitoba is not in debt, it shall be entitled to be paid and to receive from the government of Canada, by half-yearly payments in advance, an annual sum of four hundred and five thousand three hundred and seventy-five dollars, being tin-equivalent of interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of eight million one hundred and seven thousand five hundred dollars.
I may say at once that this claim of the province of Manitoba to be given a certain allowance in lieu of public debt will not strike this House as at all tenable. Manitoba is not a new province. It has been a province now for more than forty years. It has received an allowance on account of public debt, as all the other provinces did when they came into confederation. The House does not perhaps remember at the moment the reason for the allowances on account of debt made to the provinces when they came into confederation. At the time of confederation the debt of the united provinces of Upper and Bower Canada amount-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
ed to $67,000,000, and of this amount the Dominion assumed $62,100,000; that of Nova Scotia was $8,000,000 and that of New Brunswick $7,000,000. The Dominion assumed the debts of these two provinces. It was found that the debt per head of the population was larger .in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada than in the provinces of Nova -Scotia and New Brunswick; and there was a provision introduced in the British North America Act to this effect:
In case the public debts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick do not at the union amount to $8,000,000 and $7,000,000 respectively, -they shall respectively receive, by -half-yearly payments in advance from -the government of Canada, interest at -five per centum per annum on the difference between the actual amounts of their respected debts and such stipulated amounts.
That is to say, the government of the Dominion having assumed the debts of these four provinces at the amounts stated, it wras provided that if they idid not correspond to an equal standard, the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should receive compensation from the treasury of Canada to bring them to a parity with the other provinces. In 1884 or 1S85 another arrangement was made whereby the government of the Dominion assumed the debts of Ontario and Quebec to the amount of $5,000,000 and gave equal treatment to all the other provinces of the Dominion, giving them a special allowance to bring them up to the standard with regard to the allotment of the debt. When the province of* Manitoba was taken into the Dominion, that province was given compensation for debt

because it had no debt at that time-similar to wrhat wras given to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. When British Columbia was taken into confederation, the same thing was done with respect to that province. In fact, when any other province was taken into confederation it was given a special allowance in lieu of debt. But I do not think that the province of Manitoba has any claim whatever at the present time in that regard. It is true the public debt is much larger today than it was when Manitoba was admitted to the Dominion, but Manitoba has had the benefit of its share of that debt, which has gone into the construction of public works. So that there is no reason to depart from the arrangement that was made when Manitoba entered confederation. Then the province of Manitoba puts forward another claim in these words :
As an -additional -allowance -in lieu of public lands, there shall be paid by Canada to the province, annually by -half-yearly payments in advance, -for five years from the -time this Act comes into force, to provide -for the construction of necessary -public buildings, the sum of ninety-three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars.

In view of the fact that grants were made to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta for public buildings at the time they were taken into confederation, Manitoba asks that it should also be given a special grant for public buildings. I have only to say in answer that Manitoba has received more than once from the Dominion treasury grants for public buildings. But it seems to us that it is not unfair or unreasonable, since we are retaining the control of the Crown lands, that we should do for Manitoba what we have done for Saskatchewan and Alberta-indeed, what we have done for Manitoba herself, because on more than one occasion, as I can show, the Dominion has granted to Manitoba a special allowance in lieu of public lands, because it did not have them as a source of revenue. Therefore we are disposed to think-and we submit and commend it to the House-that Manitoba should receive compensation in lieu of the public lands, but what is to be the amount of this compensation, whether or not we should adopt the basis which was adopted for Saskatchewan and Alberta, is a question which at this time I do not think it would be fitting to discuss. The government simply ask that that matter should be left for negotiation between the Dominion government and the Manitoba government.
I have looked at the claims of Manitoba at the present time. I have my own opinion of them, but I do not think it would be advisable to-day to express this opinion. I think it is preferable to leave the matter at large, so that the negotiations which are to take place between Manitoba and the Dominion should not be prejudiced in any way by any opinion I might express at this moment. We simply declare that we are prepared to meet the province in a fair spirit.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Will the right hon. gentleman say whether the Hudson Bay Company comes into the calculation in any case?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Hudson Bay Company does not come into consideration in this matter ; it has nothing whatever to do with it. With regard to the claims of the province of Ontario, they will be found in a sessional paper brought down last year, No. 64a, which gives a full account of the conference that took place here in November, 1906. The province of Ontario asked to have its territory extended to the Churchill river. To this extent we cannot recognize its claim, but we have suggested both to Ontario and Manitoba what seems to us a reasonable settlement for their respective claims. In proposing this resolution, it will be observed that we are not asking for any concrete legislation, we are not asking parliament to be bound fast and hard to any proposition.
We simply propose this as a reasonable settlement and basis upon which parliament ought to proceed in increasing the boundaries and territories of the provinces therein mentioned. If the boundary which we have suggested to Manitoba is not acceptable to that province, nothing can come out of it. We are confident, however, that on mature consideration it will be found difficult for either Ontario or Manitoba to suggest a fairer or more reasonable boundary than the one proposed in each
case.
Barring this exception, we are prepared to grant the claim of Ontario. We think it is legitimate and perfectly reasonable _ to that extent, and that it will be conducive to the best administration of that part of the territory we are prepared to give to Ontario, that it should be included at once in that province. One has only to look at the geographical condition, one has only to take a glance at the map, to realize that the territory we are asking parliament to grant resepectively to Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, geographically forms part of
each of these provinces.
With regard to the province of Quebec, the claim is a new one. It has not been brought to the attention of the House before. It has been brought to the attention of the government by a memorial from the executive council of thmt province, 'which 1 shall lay on the table. This is dated 9th Vnvomhpv 1007 ;
In submitting to the House of Commons the Act to establish the provinces of AlWta and Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister of Canada declared as follows:
'Manitoba has asked to have her territory extended to the shores of Hudson hay; and this is a prayer which seems to me to be entitled to a fair hearing. The province of Manitoba is not, however the only one whose territory could be extended towards Hudson bav. The province of Ontario would have the same right; the province of Quebec would also have that right; and the new province of Saskatchewan also.'	.
The governments of the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are pressing on the Dominion government their respective claims for a share of the territory of ICee-watin and of the shore of Hudson bay, and tne government of this province submits that it has no desire to share in such partition, and will agree to what may be decided on this matter by the government of Canada.
On the other band the government of the province of Quebec is entitled to a portion of the shore of Hudson bay, and supports its claim thereto by the fallowing facts:
The country lying beyond the northern boundary of Quebec forms geographically part of the territory of this province. The country in question is wholly isolated from all other parts of Canada, being separated from them by a wide expanse of sea, and offering to other provinces than Quebec neither advantage nor interest.
For the province of Quebec the annexation


William Findlay Maclean: Does that include the islands which the province of Quebec ask for in that memorial?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, it does not. If the territory of Ungava, which includes 456,000 square miles, were of the same character as to soil and climate as the valley of the St. Lawrence, we would not ask to have it added to the province of Quebec, but would -make it another province. The conditions, however, are such that it is not possible to expect any large influx of population into that country. In fact, we cannot expect any influx of popu-Sir WILFRID LAURIER
la-tion there at all unless there should be tne discovery of very large mineral deposits. Ungava has been known to civilized man for more than three hundred years. The French explorers knew it and explored it ; French missionaries visited it, but no settlement has taken place, and there are no white people there except a few traders and hunters and trappers connected with the Hudson Bay Company and with a new rival to that company-the Revillion Company. Outside the traders, hunters and trappers, I am not aware that there are any civilized men in Ungava. No development of any kind has taken place in that territory. Recent explorers assert that its climate and conditions are such as not to invite civilized settlement unless there should be discoveries of minerals. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that the prayer of the people of the province of Quebec, that this territory should he added to that province, is not unreasonable. I am aware that some nervousness has been expressed more than once on the floor of this House regarding any extension of territory to the province of Quebec, because that province is the pivot on which representation must take place. In 1896, by one of the last Acts of the late government, one, however, that we fully endorsed and carried out, the boundaries of the province of Quebec northwards were readjusted, and by this readjustment it is asserted that an addition was made to that province of 118,000 square miles.
I have heard this referred to more than once oh the floor of this House as being an invasion of the rights of the other provinces on the ground that probably it might have an effect on the distribution of the right of representation of the provinces. The point would have been taken with some degree of reasonableness if there had been any possibility at that moment-as there was not- of there being a population in that territory. But I am free to say, and everybody knows 

it is a matter of general notoriety-that in the 118,000 square miles which are said to have been added in 1896 to the territory of Quebec, there is not one single voter, indeed not one single white man. And, in the new territory to he added to Quebec, under these resolutions, there is nothing of that kind to he expected. I-f the territory were of such a nature that it was reasonable to expect that there would be an influx of population there, the doubts which have been expressed more than once on the floor of this House as to the effect of this annexation would have to be considered. However, such as they are, I do not suggest that they should be minimized or ignored. I think it is a fair consideration to be brought to the attention of the Quebec legislature this nervousness expressed in some quarters, especially in the maritime provinces, that, possibly, the change

of conditions may have an effect upon representation.


Mr. FOSTER.: In making his calculation of 456,000 square miles territory of Ungava to be added to Quebec, has the right hon. Prime Minister taken into consideration the Newfoundland strip? If so, how has he got at the calculation of area ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have taken the calculations as I understand them to be made by the statistician. The strip of Newfoundland is not taken into consideration. No human being can say to-day where the boundary line is between Newfoundland and Canada. The matter is very much involved. It is now to be referred to arbitration, an agreement with the government of Newfoundland having been reached to that effect. If I remember well, it is to be left to the arbitration of the Privy Council. But I have read the memorial of the province of Newfoundland upon that and also the views presented by the province of Quebec; and their views are so much at variance that I would not presume to give an opinion. At all events, I do not know whether this includes the strip of laud of the Labrador coast. I cannot say as to that.
(Mr. FOSTER. Is there not a danger of complicating the matter if you give a definite territory out of Ungava to the province of Quebec and do not know the amount of territory that Newfoundland may ultimately be adjudged to own?


Wilfrid Laurier: That difficulty will no more arise now than a similar difficulty arose in 1881, when the boundaries of Manitoba were extended to the frontier of Ontario. This is a matter that is to be settled by judicial authority. But whether tne territory continues to belong to Canada or is given to Quebec, at the present moment it does belong to Canada. We have taken the precaution to ask the province of Quebec to be a party to that arbitration, because it is interested in the boundary wherever it may ultimately be decided to be. In 1881, when the Act was passed extending the boundary of Manitoba to the frontier of Ontario, the contest was removed from Canada to Ontario and Manitoba-they were the parties who fought the issue. In the same way, if we allow this territory to go to Quebec, Quebec will become interested in the question. Then, though we retain our sovereignty, I think they should have a say and become a party to the question.


Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: In arranging all these matters, are precautions being taken to safeguard the immense forests there and, to that end, to establish forest reserves such as will be necessary 4064
for the future of the country, following the lead of the United States where immense sums of public money are now being spent in forest reserves?


Wilfrid Laurier: One of the reasons why Quebec has asked for this territory is because that province is in a better position to take care of the forests than we are. They can follow trespassers and otherwise enforce regulations. This extension is advocated as one of the methods of preserving the forest, and that is one of the arguments put forward by Quebec.


Edward Norman Lewis: Why not federal forest reserves?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is another consideration. But it is not germane to the cjjse I have now in hand. As I have said, this preservation of the forests is one of the points made by Quebec in favour of placing this territory within its jurisdiction.
I think that it is admitted that at the present time the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario are taking reasonable precautions for the protection of their forest -not as much as they should do, I believe, but they are advancing in this respect and constantly improving their methods. Returning to the point with which I was dealing, the effect of this annexation of territory upon representation, I must say that I sympathize with that view of the question; it is a view that must not be forgotten. But, for my part, I cannot see that any immediate, or even future, danger is threatened. It has never been contemplated, and cannot be seriously contemplated, that there will be any great influx of population into that territory. But, even should there be an influx of population, it will be time to consider the question and see what safeguards should be adopted in order to preserve the balance of representation. More than that, I intend, for my part, when the matter is referred to the government of Quebec to draw the attention of that government to the objections which have been advanced more than once on the floor of this House against the increase of the territory of Quebec on this ground. I have reason to believe that these objections will be given a fair hearing and full consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: ' I have very little to say on this occasion. The difficult part of the question which has been presented to the House is left entirely open by the remarks of the Prime Minister this morning. I do not understand that the resolution which has been proposed is to be the basis of any Act to be passed this session; it is merely a resolution which defines the boundaries and leaves everything else absolutely open. I observe that that is the view taken of it-apparently an inspired

view-by representatives of the government press, as the following will show:
With regard to the request of Manitoba for an additional federal subsidy in lieu of the ownership of public lands in the territory to be added, as in the cases of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the resolution provides that this question should be dealt with later, on terms to be mutually agreed upon by the provincial legislature and the federal parliament. The question of the provision for separate schools in the new territory is also left over, and the contentious details in this respect will be one of the big problems of the next session of parliament. The actual extension of the boundaries is thus postponed till next year, but the resolution paves the way, in so far as it determines the actual territory to be added to each province.
I thought it worth while to place before the House this expression of opinion which I find in the Manitoba ' Free Press ' and the Toronto ' Globe ' as to the motives which have influenced the government in merely bringing down the suggestion of boundaries and leaving the terms and conditions absolutely open for negotiations between the federal and provincial governments. We were promised in the speech from the Throne that legislation would be passed this session on the subject. That legislation, apparently, is not to be passed. That is due to one of two causes, either the government has not come to a conclusion as to the terms and conditions upon which it is willing to make the extension of the boundaries of the provinces, or it has come to a conclusion which it does not think expedient now to announce to the House.
So far as the lands and forests in the northern country are concerned, the Prime Minister appears to consider that the province of Quebec, or the province of Ontario, would be better able to deal with them than the federal government. I do not understand why a principle of that kind, applied to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, would not be equally applicable to the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.	.
With respect to the strip adjoining Newfoundland, there is very little information before the House to enable us to form any opinion. One would suppose that when it is necessary to have the assent of the Governor General and precise information upon going into Committee of the Whole upon a matter dealing with half a million acres of land, it would be equally necessary, and certainly quite as desirable in this case, to have laid uopn the table of the House some map so that we could intelligently comnrehend exactly the extension of the areas which is being proposed. The mere enumeration of those boundaries in the resolution of the Prime Minister gives us very little information indeed. Nevertheless, the House is asked to go into Committee of the Whole *without having any map placed upon the table and without Mr. R. L. BQRDEN.
anything more than the very general statement made by the Prime Minister as to the disposition of a territory amounting in all, I suppose, to a million square miles. It may be that this matter will be open at another session. Properly speaking, I suppose the House will be bound by the terms of the resolution which we are asked to pass to-day. If that is the intention, I desire to say, in the first place that we have not enough information before the House to enable us to consider it intelligently; and in the next place, I think it would be proper that we should have gone into Committee of the Whole for the purpose of that debate, which cannot be obtained in a discussion on such as is proposed to-day.
With respect to the Newfoundland strip, it would have been wise to consider the possible entrance of the colony of Newfoundland into this confederation, and it might have been well to consider whether some portion of the territory which is proposed to be added to the province of Quebec should not be reserved for that eventuality, and whether some part of that territory at least could not be better administered by the colony of Newfoundland as a province of this confederation than it could be administered by the province of Quebec. In saying that, of course, I would have regard simply to the convenience and efficiency of administration. If it can be better administered by the province of Quebec, then it is eminently proper that it should be added to the province of Quebec; if, on the other hand, it could be more effectively and conveniently administered by the island of Newfoundland as a province of this confederation, it would be better to have it administered in that way. The Prime Minister has given us no information on that subject, nor has he apparently taken into consideration the possibility, and indeed the hope, that the island of Newfoundland may at no very distant day become one of the provinces of this confederation, and in that way round out into one great Dominion all the British possessions in the northern part of this continent. I have nothing further to say with regard to the resolution to-day, except again to express the regret that it has not been brought down earlier, that the government was not in a position to deal with the whole matter at the present moment, and that all the questions which have been alluded to in the comments of the government press are not brought before the House for its information and for determination at this session, as was proposed in the speech from the Throne.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE (Norfolk).: I wish to say just a word in expression of my own views on this resolution. I do not think there is any present necessity for the disposition of the 400,000 square miles as proposed in this resolution, especially in view of my very strong desire to see the colony of Newfoundland enter this confed-

eration. I cannot concur in the view that this Dominion is not capable, and is not prepared to incur the expense, of looking after the timber and other natural resources in that vast territory, at least until we know something more about it than what is before the House.


George William Fowler: X cannot allow this resolution to pass without raising my voice in protest, as representing a constituency in the maritime provinces, against this very large addition of territory to the province of Quebec. Quebec, as we know, forms the unit of representation, and if an addition is made to the territory of the province of Quebec it will no doubt have an effect upon the representation from the other provinces. In the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island we have suffered with respect to this matter already. It is impossible for us, owing to our geographical position, to have any territory added to our provinces, while the other provinces, these large western provinces, are getting additional accessions of territory. Of course this view of the question is not so Important to the other provinces as it is to the lower provinces. If a provision were made that the maritime provinces should have restored to them the same representation that they had at the time they entered confederation, I would be satisfied to see an addition of territory made to these other provinces. But as it is, I must protest as a member from the maritime provinces, against any addition to the territory of Quebec unless provision is made to restore to the maritime provinces the representation which they had when they entered confederation.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it would not be well to assume that this addition to the territory of the province of Quebec will necessarily place the maritime provinces at any disadvantage. There is a question in regard to that matter which I take it for granted is still at large. When the moment comes for dealing with this matter more definitely, and in a legislative form, that question should certainly be considered. We in the maritime provinces, cannot get any addition to our territory, as my hon. friend has well said. The difficulty then that occurs to the people of the maritime provinces is this : The population of Quebec establishes the unit of representation for the whole Dominion. Now if there should be a large increase of population in the new territory of Ungava, and that population were included in the population of the province of Quebec in establishing the unit of representation, that unit would necessarily become much larger, and that unit, applied to the small provinces, miight lead to a further diminution of their representation that would be regarded as a very serious matter. That is a difficult
point to deal with. I do not wish to do more to-day than to say that I regard that as an open question. One way in which I hope it might be dealt with would be that the unit should be established upon the basis of' the population of Quebec as it now exists, and that for any additional population that might come from this territory of Ungava, Quebec should receive additional representation, in other words, it would lead to some enlargement of the total representation. But even though the maritime provinces would still have their proportion, if the effect of that enlarged territory of Quebec would be that they suffered a further dimunition in their representation, even though mathematically you might say they still retained their proportion, I think it would undoubtedly lead to much dissatisfaction and discontent.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not exactly understand the hon. gentleman's proposal. How would you deal in that case with the additional population within the present area of the province of Quebec, because you could not allow that to go unrepresented?


William Stevens Fielding: Whatever the population is within the present area of Quebec, would of course be the basis establishing the unit for the whole Dominion. It was contended by the representatives from the maritime paovinces, when this question came up at an earlier period, that the province of Quebec had already received an enlargement of its territory. The answer to that was that there was no enlargement, but merely a definition of a territory previously established.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. He said the present population of the province of Quebec. He meant, I presume, the population within the present area of the province of Quebec.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so. If I said that I did not correctly express what was in my mind. I mean the population of Quebec as it might be from time to time within the territorial limits of the province as now established, and that would necessarily involve that for the population coming into that new territory Quebec would have to have additional representation ; so that she would never lose the proportion as it now stands. Hon. gentlemen will see that if the population of Quebec were to increase very largely throughout this augmentation of territory, and if the unit of representation were thus made larger, and if the population of the maritime provinces increased but little, the effect would be that while mathematically we would still have that proportion which the constitution establishes, it might be that the maritime provinces would suffer some further diminution of representation. Take the case of Prince Ed-

ward Island, formerly Its representation was six, now it is four and if you should have to reduce it to three or two it would l>e small comfort for the good people of Prince Edward Island to be told that by the law of mathematics they still had their same proportion. I think that it would be the more obvious and reasonable course for the government to defer action in order that all parties may be consulted to see if they would consent to such an arrangement. I throw this out, as my own idea, as a possible means of a solution of what might otherwise be a rather embarrassing question.


Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John City).: I think it would be better, rather than to wait until a difficulty like that referred to arises, to make provision so that it will not arise. This matter is a very important one, especially, as has been stated, to the people of the maritime provinces. We have already lost representatives for the reason that the original charter of confederation has been broken by subsequent Acts of the imperial parliament at the request of this parliament. Now, we are told that we should wait to see if we are to lose any more. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says that there will be no population in Ungava and those portions of the territory that it is proposed to add to the province of Quebec. The Prime Minister is hardly in a position to make that statement. It has been stated by some, in regard to the last addition made to the province of Quebec, that the population would not be affected, that it was a sterile country. We have had others say that this was by no means a sterile country, that it was a country capable of maintaining a large population. If the country that was last added to Quebec is not of that character, what possible excuse is there for this country going to the expense of building the new Transcontinental Railway through it ? We are building an immense railway, an expensive railway through this country which is stated to be sterile and not capable of maintaining a large population. One or the other must be wrong ; either the statement that it is incapable of maintaining a large population must be wrong, or else it is extremely wrong and criminal indeed to build a railway which has nothing more before it than that. I have already, on one or two occasions, spoken on this subject and I do not wfish to go into it again. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) stated, in his speech just now, that the boundaries of Quebec were not enlarged, that they were simply adjusted. I call his attention to the fact that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), in his speech last session, allowed that when the Confederation Act was passed the boundaries of Quebec were understood to be those


William Stevens Fielding: that the maps of the period and the departmental publications of this government such as the census, gave. The census gave the area and the maps gave the delimitation of the boundaries of Quebec at that time. I do not think the Minister of Finance or anyone else is justified in making the statement that the province of Quebec was not enlarged at the time the boundaries were changed in 1898. As a representative from the maritime provinces I certainly protest against any addition to the area of the province of Quebec unless satisfactory arrangements are made to qualify the effect on the provinces that are affected thereby and more particularly the maritime provinces. I do that as a duty and also because the Minister of Justice at the last session stated that the maritime provinces must have been quite satisfied with what went on when the subsequent changes were made in the British North America Act or they would have protested against them. New Brunswick protested at the time Saskatchewan and Alberta were brought in. No heed was paid to its protest and I take this opportunity of protesting again. Whether heed will be paid to our protest I do not know, but it is our duty to make it. I do not think it is right, equitable, or just that the maritime provinces should be robbed of their representation by changes in the charter to which they gave their consent and by changes which have been made without their consent and without their having been consulted.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Speaker, I did. not think that after all the discussion that has taken place in this House on the question of the representation of the maritime provinces the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would have ventured to propose a further extension of the boundaries of the province of Quebec without so much as suggesting that the wrong which was entailed upon the maritime provinces by the last extension should be first righted. It is not necessary for me, in view of what has been said by my hon. friend for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) and my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) and at any rate there is no time at this stage of the session to speak at length upon the subject. It is well understood by all hon. members of this House that Quebec is the pivotal province by which the representation of the maritime and all other provinces of Canada is fixed and that if the population of the province of Quebec is increased by the addition of any territory the representation of the maritime provinces is correspondingly reduced. I do not think that I can put the case very much more stronger than it was put in the words of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) when he was discussing in the New Brunswick legislature, in the session of 1905, the injustice

which was done to New Brunswick by the extension of the boundaries of Quebec in 1898. At page 33 of the Debates of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick in 1905 we have these words as spoken by the Minister of Public Works who was then the attorney general of New Brunswick :
The boundary line of Quebec was well recognized, and is laid down in Arrowsmith's map, published in 1815. It is referred to in the work of Bouchette, the surveyor general of Lower Canada, which was published in 1832. This is a book of the very highest authority, and it shows that the northern boundary of Quebec was long recognized to be the height of land which divided the waters flowing into the St. Lawrence from those into Hudson bay. Now, it must have made a very great difference in the willingness of the people of New Brunswick to join the confederation if Quebec had then been as large as it is now. I submit that when our people entered into the union, they agreed to go into the confederation with Quebec as it was, and that the boundaries of that province ought not to have been altered without our being consulted and our interests safeguarded.
As already stated by the Premier the Imperial Act of 1871 provided that when the area of a province was extended the rights of the other provinces should be properly guarded. Yet, in 1896, without this legislature being consulted, the late Dominion government agreed with Quebec to extend that province to Hudson bay thus adding to it a territory which will soon be traversed by the Grand Trunk Pacific and which in time will become populous. The Bill to carry out this agreement was introduced on the 2nd of June, 1898, by Mr. Sifton. It was introduced in blank and treated as a mere formal matter. On the 8th of June, it was read a second time and passed. So far as the records of parliament show, there was no debate whatever on the subject, and this large area was added to Quebec without the maritime provinces being consulted. It does seem to me that in view of the legislation, which has already taken place so seriously affecting our interests, and in view of what is now being done in connection with the legislation for the Northwest Territories, this government is but doing its duty in asking the legislature to express its views and to endeavour to undo this great wrong.
At the conclusion of that debate a resolution was passed by the legislature of New Brunswick unanimously affirming that a great injustice had been committed against the province of New Brunswick by reducing its representation. As the representative of one of the constituencies in that province I cordially join in the protest already made against any further extension of the territory of the province of Quebec unless there be a distinct understanding that the rights of the maritime provinces with respect to their representation in this House shall first be safeguarded. It would only be upon such an understanding that I as one member of this House would assent to the terms of the resolution now before us.


Alexander Martin: As a representative of the province of Prince Edward Island I also desire to raise my voice against this legislation. I agree most heartily with what has been said by the members from New Brunswick. The province of Quebec at present is the size of a pretty large kingdom. Some years ago more than half its original area was added to that province, and by this proposal another kingdom in extent is to be given it. To whom do these lands belong that we so cheerfully give away? What right has this government or any government to alienate the property of Canada and give it to any province without a consideration in return? This is part of the Hudson Bay Company's territory ; it was bought and paid for by the people of Canada generally ; paid for by New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as well as the other provinces. What right has this parliament to hand over this territory unless we get something in return for it to recoup the public treasury the amount which these lands cost the people of Canada? Years ago two millions of money was borrowed to acquire these lands and adding interest they stand to-day as costing us $10,000,000 if not more. This is the land you are giving to these provinces for nothing. Ontario some years ago got a very large increase in its territory. I do not know that I would raise my voice against adding to the territory of Manitoba, because her area as compared with the other provinces in the west is so small that she has been dubbed the postage stamp province. I do not know that the maritime provinces would raise any objection to increasing the area of Manitoba, but I protest strongly against the public domain being given away to the other provinces without some quid pro quo to the maritime provinces which cannot have their areas extended. Look at the preponderating influence over the smaller provinces which this extension of area will give to the larger provinces in this parliament. We saw how that resulted about a year ago when the subsidy question was brought before the House. So much did the large provinces receive under that Subsidy Act that although Quebec came here saying she was in debt and she wanted money to tide her over her difficulties, she has now a million dollars surplus. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island got a mere trifle under that Subsidy Act, and now you come to parliament and you propose to give those larger provinces the public domain without any compensation. The Prime Minister told us that this territory would not be settled for years to come, but we do not know the value of these lands. There may be millions and millions of acres of mineral lands worth incalculable wealth there. Before the House proceeds in this we should know exactly what we are giving away and how much

of the wealth of the country we are divesting ourselves of. The question of representation in the maritime provinces as bearing on the increased territory is also a great hardship to us. I tell the government that if they want to adhere to the terms of confederation and to maintain Quebec as the pivotal province on which representation is based the proper thing to do in arriving at the basis of representation is to take the province of Quebec as it stood at confederation. I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that that would be a fair proposition. We came into confederation on the understanding that the basis of representation would be on Quebec as it then stood and not on the population you would give to Quebec by adding thousands of square miles of territory. After what has been said here to-day the government should hold their hand ; find out what these lands are worth and find out what we should get in return for these lands for which the whole Dominion of Canada paid. Is it right that this territory should be thrown away without our knowing what its value is?


Mr.   POSTER@: Can the Prime Minister now state the area that will be added to the province of Ontario?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot find it in my notes, but I am pretty sure it is about 140,000 square miles.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to make a few remarks to the House <in consequence of my hon. friend the member for York, N.B. (Mr. Crocket) having quoted some remarks which I made while I was a member of the legislature and of the government of New Brunswick. I stated at that time, that in my opinion the boundaries of the province of Quebec had been enlarged pursuant to the provisions of the statute of 1871. I think there can be no doubt whatever that the northern boundary of the province of Quebec at the time of confederation was the height of land separating the waters which flowed into the St. Lawrence from the waters which flowed into Hudson bay. That is very clear from the treaty which was made between Great Britain and France. Under that treaty the land which was watered by the rivers flowing into Hudson bay remained under the jurisdiction of the Hudson Bay Company, while the land which was watered by the rivers flowing towards the St. Lawrence was given over to France. There can be no doubt whatever that the boundary line was the height of land. If I am correct in that, as I think I clearly established before the New Brunswick legislature, there is, to my mind, no question but that the territory which was defined as belonging to the province of Quebec in 1896 was new territory, and that therefore the boundaries of Quebec were


Alexander Martin: enlarged beyond what they were at the time of confederation. I argued then, and I maintain now-as, of course, my own individual opinion-that in fixing the number of representatives at 65 from the province of Quebec, the province was taken as it existed at the time of the union. I had to do with the carrying of the question of representation to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; but I may say that New Brunswick did not lose its representation by reason of any question which arose with regard to the added territory. There was no such population in the added territory as would alter the representation, but we lost by reason of the addition to-Canada of the new territory which is now the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was the rapidly increasing population of those sections of the Dominion which prevented the province of New Brunswick from retaining the representation which it find at the then last preceding census.
Having made these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that, as I understand it, there is nothing in the resolution now before the House which in any way commits the House upon the question of representation. The terms upon which the boundaries of Quebec shall be enlarged are left open, to be taken up between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has stated that this government will feel it to be its duty to make a representation to the government of the province of Quebec on the subject of representation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Might I ask the hon. minister a question? Are not the terms stated to be such terms as may be agreed upon by this parliament and the legislature of Quebec ?


William Pugsley: Quite so.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There is no provision for safeguarding the interests of other provinces affected. I would like also to call the minister's attention to and get his opinion upon section 3 of the Act of 1871, which says :
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
It seems to me that there should be some provision made in this resolution with respect to that ; because, if this resolution passes, it will be declared as the opinion of this parliament that it is expedient to ex-

tend the boundaries of the province of Quebec upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the legislature of Quebec -without reference to the other provinces.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must see that it is upon terms and conditions to be agreed upon by the legislature and by this parliament. Therefore, it will be quite open to this parliament to say to the legislature of Quebec : We will agree to extend the boundaries, but upon the condition that the old province of Quebec shall be the pivot of representation, and that, with regard to the added territory, it shall stand exactly in the same position as the other provinces.


Haughton Lennox: But New Brunswick would have no say except as represented by this parliament.


William Pugsley: And if I understood for a moment that this parliament was committing itself in any way on the question of representation, I would hesitate before being a party to the measure before the House. But I understand that lit is entirely open to this parliament to safeguard the interests of the other provinces with respect to representation. My own opinion is that it would be a proper and generous thing on the part of parliament and the larger provinces to agree that the representation of the smaller provinces should be restored-


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would the minister allow me a question? He said that there was nothing in this measure to affect the representation. I would like Mm to say whether, in his opinion, it is possible to increase the area of the province of Quebec without affecting the representation of every province in the Dominion?


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend see that all this resolution does is simply to commit parliament to an expression of an opinion as to what would be the proper boundaries of the different provinces? It does not in any way determine the terms and conditions upon which the boundaries are to be enlarged. It expressly provides :
That, upon the legislature of the province of Quebec consenting thereto, it is expedient to extend the boundaries of the said province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature and by parliament.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And without any stipulation with respect to its effect upon the representation of the other provinces.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that my hon. friend does not wish to understand the meaning of this clause. It expressly reserves to parliament the right to stipulate as to the terms and conditions upon which
the boundaries shall be enlarged. I was going to say, speaking for myself individually, and as a representative of the maritime provinces, that I would hope that when these boundaries are extended, and when this proposition is crystallized by an Act of parliament, the larger provinces, including the province of Quebec, would be generous enough to agree that the representation of the smaller provinces shall be restored to what it was at the time of confederation.


John Graham Haggart: Would you have power to do that without an alteration of the Imperial Act?


William Pugsley: It is very clear that the British North America Act will have to be altered; but I presume that an expression of opinion from the various provinces through their legislatures, and the consent thereto by this parliament, would be all that would be necessary in order to have the imperial parliament make such an alteration. But of course that is only my individual view, which I put forward as a representative of one of the maritime provinces. But failing that, I would feel, while not pretending to any great knowledge of constitutional law, even if there were no provision made with regard to representation, that when we come to interpret the law- and that would arise when the next census was taken and the question of representation would again come up

Quebec, for the purposes of representation, would mean Quebec as it existed at the time of confederation. If Newfoundland were to come into the confederation as a part of the province of Quebec, how absurd it would be to contend that Quebec would then mean the added territory of Newfoundland.


Haughton Lennox: Has it not been so decided?


William Pugsley: No, it has not been so decided. All that was decided in the representation case to which I have just referred was that under the terms of the British North America Act it was contemplated that Rupert's Land should be brought into the confederation, and that the word Canada, whenever we came to interpret its meaning, would be Canada as it might exist from time to time. But that is a very different question from the question of what would be the province of Quebec for the purposes of representation. Apart altogether from the legal view, I would hope that if the representation of the smaller provinces might not be restored when we come to consider definitely the terms of the extension of boundaries, it would be provided, so that there would be no doubt about it, that for the purposes of representation the province' of Quebec should mean that province, as it existed at the time of confederation, and that the added portion of the province should have its

additional representation based upon population just the same as in the case of the other provinces.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: At this late stage of the session I do not propose to claim the attention of the House, even on so important a resolution as this, for more than a few minutes. I think the government are certainly deserving of serious condemnation for their procrastination in bringing down even this resolution-to say nothing of the Bill that was promised-not only in the dying days of the session but in its very dying hours. When we look at the speech from the Throne delivered last November and see that amongst the Bills promised to be brought down this session is one for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, and yet we And that far on in the eighth month of the season, the Bill is not introduced but we have only a resolution declaring that certain boundaries shall be carried into effect. I think I put it mildly when I say that such procrastination on the part of the government in so important a matter is certainly deserving of censure. X do not think that the excuse given, or the reason assigned by the government, that the legislature of Manitoba, had, at its last session, varied its demands to a certain extent in regard to these boundaries is one that will appeal to the members of this House, or to the country, as being sufficient to justify this procrastination. We must take into consideration the fact that the latest memorial of the legislature of Manitoba I had the honour to present four or five months ago. And surely in that time, on a matter which, no doubt, has engaged the serious attention of the government in the past, there was no reason to postpone action until the very fast week of the session. I desire to give briefly the historical facts of this boundary question : Successive legislatures of Manitoba have dealt with this matter, and always in a non-partisan and nonpolitical way, so that resolutions passed relating to the boundaries of the province of Manitoba have been, almost without exception, passed unanimously. Manitoba entered confederation in 1870, with an estimated population .of 17.000 and having at that time an area of 13,500 square miles. It is true that we had some addition to our western boundaries which increased our territory to 73,700 square miles, a large proportion of which is water. That area was afterwards enlarged in the manner that I shall advert to in a few' moments. The first resolution passed in the legislature of Manitoba, subsequent to confederation asking for an extension of boundaries was passed in 1873, and an Act received the assent of the Lieutenant Governor in 1873 praying for the further extension of our boundaries. So far Mr. PUGSLEY.
as relates to the eastern territory, it asks practically the same amount of territory as in the recent resolution passed by the legislature and presented in the form of a memorial to this parliament. This request of 1873, had it been carried into effect, would have given us a port on Hudson bay and also a port on Lake Superior. So far as I can judge, the people west of the great lakes are, territorially in sympathy with and are united in interest with, the west. I believe that the people, in their ideas, are decidedly western. I had the honour to address a meeting in the city of Port Arthur four years ago and nothing that I said seemed to meet more the approbation of the electors than the declaration of my opinion that that part of the country, now in Ontario, was essentially western country and should have been left to the province of Manitoba. And I believe the feeling of the people thus indicated has not changed to the present day. The request of the legislature of Manitoba, if granted, would have given the province of Manitoba an area of 279,000 square miles. The second resolution passed by the legislature asking for an extension of boundaries was passed on April 26, 1875, and practically endorsed the resolution of two years previous. Then, on February 13, 1880, Mr. Greenway, leader of the opposition in the legislature, moved that a memorial be presented to the Dominion parliament asking for the extension of Manitoba's boundaries and that a deputation should proceed to Ottawa to lay the case of Manitoba before the members of the Dominion government. This resolution was passed unanimously and a deputation was sent east to interview the government. As a result, a Bill was introduced into Canada called the Campbell Bill. Sir Alexander Campbell was a minister in Sir John Macdonald's government. He introduced in the Senate a Bill providing for the extension of Manitoba's eastern boundary to harmonize with a line drawn due north from the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi river, which would run in the neighbourhood of Port Arthur and up to Hudson bay. This, had it passed, would have given Manitoba an additional 154,411 square miles. But this measure was taken exception to by the then Ontario government. Sir Oliver Mowat claimed that a portion of the territory- only a portion, however-was wrongly handed over to Manitoba and in reality belonged to Ontario. As a result, there was an appeal to the Privy Council of Great Britain. That was not decided till the year 1884. The result of that appeal was that there were some 39,000 square miles handed over to the province of Ontario. This was a part of the 154,411 square miles which was, by the Campbell Act, handed over to Manitoba. There was also 40,000 square miles in Keewatin recognized as undisputed territory, and lying north of what was then considered the northern boundary of On-

tario. The Ontario legislature agreed unanimously that it should go to the province of Manitoba. Now, I would point out that the Privy Council not only decided the western boundary of Ontario, but its northern boundary as well. I think that anybody who will read the resolution and the despatches that passed between the government of Ontario and the Secretary of State of the Dominion, and the Bill passed by the imperial government, will see that the northern boundary of Ontario was Lac Senl, Lake Joseph and the Albany river-all south of that line was to be in the province of Ontario. In 1901 a resolution was passed unanimously by the Manitoba legislature, moved by the present Judge Myers, then a representative of the constituency in which X reside, and seconded by the member for Dauphin. In 1902, the present leader of the Manitoba government moved a resolution seconded by the then member for Dauphin, the present member for Dauphin in this House (Mr. Burrows) that the boundaries of Manitoba shall be extended northward to Hudson bay and also to include a portion of Assiniboia. Polowing that there was action taken in the sessions of 1905, 1900 and 1907, all asking for much the same thing, at any rate asking for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. And up to this time, not one Inkling had the people of Manitoba or of Canada that the province of Ontario laid any claim to territory in Kee-watin not given them by the decision of the Privy Council in 1884. Up to the time of the introduction of the Autonomy Bills introduced in 1895, no claim was made by any public man or by the legislature of Ontario by any resolution upon one acre of land in what was known as the undisputed territory. On the contrary a resolution had been passed as I have said, by the legislature of Ontario, declaring that they welcomed the addition of this area In what was known as the undisputed territory to the province of Manitoba. It was only this 39.000 square miles adjudicated upon by the Privy Council and handed over to the province of ^Ontario that Ontario claimed, aud that province appeared to be perfectly satisfied. and stated in so many words that that boundary was established now and forever. I do not blame the premier of Ontario for the action he has taken. No public man occupying the position of premier of so important a province as Ontario could ignore the invitation practically extended to him by the Prime Minister of Canada to claim a portion of this territory which formerly the legislature of Ontario had declared to belong to the province of Manitoba.
Now the Prime Minister, when he was introducing his Automony Bill, stated that this territory was a very important portion of the Dominion of Canada, that Ontario had something to say, that Manitoba had [DOT] something to say, that even Saskatchewan should be consulted, nay, he even went further, and said that the province of Quebec was entitled to take part in the disposition of the territory of Iveewatin. Now what on earth has Quebec got to do with Keewatin? The hon. gentleman himself recognized the absurdity of calling in the province of Quebec as to the disposition of this portion of Keewatin, and he afterwards withdrew from that ground, properly taking into consideration that in the year 1898, not 1896 as stated by the Prime Minister, a Bill passed this parliament, agreed to by the province of Quebec, interfered with by no other province, giving a portion of Ungava to the province of Quebec. Manitoba was not asked to a conference with regard to the division of Ungava and an addition to Quebec, Ontario was not invited, and by an arrangement made between this parliament and the parliament of Quebec, an Act was passed by this government in the year 1898, giving Ungava to Quebec. The Prime Minister does not seem to agree with that.


Wilfrid Laurier: The resolution was passed on July 6, 1896.


William James Roche: But it was in 1898 that the Bill was passed introduced by the then Minister of the Interior. But the point I desired to make was that no person was invited to the conference, no other province at that time. Why should Quebec be asked as to the disposition of Keewatin, as the Prime Minister suggested in 1905? However, he retraced his steps so far as that province is concerned, aud he did call a conference of the premiers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Of the result of that conference and of the policy of the government, we have been left in entire ignorance up to this moment, up to the time the Prime Minister made his speech to-day, and he divulged but very little, even of the proceedings of that conference, in his speech to-day. I think it would have been an act of courtesy to the premiers of those provinces who came here and sat in solemn conclave with the Prime Minister and his colleagues, that the Prime Minister and his colleagues should have notified them what decision the government had come to as a result of that conference. The Prime Minister of Saskatchewan, I believe, has been interviewed, and has stated that he knew nothing of the result of that conference, that he had received no intimation. Certainly the Prime Minister of Manitoba has publicly stated the same, aud so has the Prime Minister of Ontario. But that conference was held, and as a result the Prime Minister comes down to-day with a resolution, not a Bill. We do not know when a Bill will be produced before this House. But in my opinion the government, seeing some embarrassment in store had a Bill been presented to parliament, desire to place themselves , in a position that they may make a double-faced appeal to the country! This resolution provides for no speci-

fic thing. A Bill would have had to provide for the granting of certain powers and privileges in regard to the people resident in the portion of the territory that will be added either to one province or the other. So the Prime Minister, in the dying days of the session, has introduced a resolution merely, and with the object no doubt of allowing his followers to go before the people and to explain what they are going to do after the elections-because this is a sure precursor, in my opinion, of an election between now and another session; and true to their old time policy, they will make one appeal to a certain class of people, for instance, as to educational matters, and another and entirely different appeal to another class of people of different views. This has been /an embarrassing question in the [DOT] way of bringing down a Bill, and therefore a resolution is substituted.
Now the Ontario government passed, in 1882, as I say, a resolution approving of the undisputed territory being added to the province of Manitoba. This resolution was passed on March 9, 1882:
That the extension of Manitoba by the federal Act of last session receives, so far as the territory added is undisputed, the hearty approbation of the inhabitants of Ontario.
The disputed part is that part that was won by Ontario in an appeal to the Privy Council; the undisputed part was that lying north of the Albany river, and the legislature of Ontario gave their hearty approval to that being given to the province of Manitoba. But on the invitation of the Prime Minister of Canada they have now put in a claim for this very same territory that the legislature of Ontario claimed should properly belong to Manitoba. It is true that the province of Manitoba, through their legislature, has made a somewhat different appeal in their latest memorial, to that submitted to this parliament in days gone by. But there has been a reason. The Prime Minister has quoted myself as saying that in giving any additional territory to Manitoba there should be a provision for handing over the public lands to that province, and that is very true. Our claim has always been that the public lands shall be handed over to the province. But we recognized, taking into consideration that the two new provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan. were refused the power, there was no possibility of Manitoba getting that power at the present time and it would be somewhat of an anomaly if the province of Manitoba had not jurisdiction over all the public lands, having a divided authority, one portion of the land being administered from Ottawa and the other portion from Winnipeg. We recognized that anomalous position. and we therefore asked for the same terms and conditions that were accorded to the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. In that I am in accord with the Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
legislature of Manitoba, and it is my desire, as a representative of that province, to back up her policy on the floor of parliament.
Now Ontario has been increased in area since confederation from 109,480 square miles to 260,862 square miles, not taking into consideration what is proposed to be added at the present time, which, as the Prime Minister says, is in the neighbourhood of 140,000 square miles, which would make Ontario in the neighbourhood of 400,000 square miles. The province of Quebec has been increased since confederation from 193,355 square miles to 351,873 square miles, the second largest* in area at the present time in the Dominion of Canada.' By this resolution there will be added to it, in round numbers, 466,000 square miles which will make the province of Quebec of the enormous area of 817,873 square miles. It is an enormous area, out of all proportion to the other provinces, and I think that some greater respect should have been shown to approximate uniformity in the area of the provinces. But as a result of this proposition, while Ontario and Quebec have these large additions, Manitoba has 80,679 square miles less than she had in 1891. Now that is a very serious condition for the province of Manitoba to be in. She has that much less than in 1881 was acorded her by the Campbell Act. The two new provinces have in the neighbourhood of 250,000 square miles, with a population less than the province of Manitoba to-day. In 1881, when this addition of territory by the Campbell Act was given to Manitoba, and which was taken away afterwards by the decision of the Privy Council, Manitoba's area was 62,260 square miles. But Manitoba has increased since confederation from 13,500 square miles to its present area of 73,732, an increase of only 60,232 square miles, while her population has increased from 17,000 to close on 400,000. So I think she has been very unfairly treated, and deserves better consideration at the hands of this parliament.
I am not going to discuss the financial question at all. Apparently, however,' the government have made up their mind not to accede to the request of the memorial presented to this parliament by the legislature this session, otherwise they would have brought down a Bill giving the same terms as had been accorded by the Autonomy Bill to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. But, inasmuch as it is to be left to negotiations to be carried on between representatives of the Dominion government and representatives of the provincial government and as I have every confidence that our provincial interests will be safeguarded in that respect by those in authority at the present time in the province of Manitoba, I am not going to enter into a discussion of the financial aspects of the matter farther than to enter my protest that the province-has not been fairly dealt with in not hav-

ing the memorial acceded to and in not being given the same terms as those that are accorded to the sister provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
As far as the lands are concerned, I have already referred to that feature of the case. The new provinces were refused their lands, Ontario getting this additional territory, will get the land and everything else. On the other hand, Manitoba, not being handed over the land, the financial aspect of the case will have to be taken into account to compensate the province for the retention of this land by the Dominion government, and I trust that when the representatives of the provinces and the Dominion meet once more the Dominion government will see its way clear to do justice to the province of Manitoba on the question of finance.
I desire to say a word with reference to the fact that no Bill has been presented. There is absolutely no excuse, no justification why we should not have had a Bill presented to this House so as to submit It to the next legislature of Manitoba for consideration.


Mr. TALBOT.: Why did you waste so much time on the Manitoba Election Act?


William James Roche: * If the hon. gentleman will consult his leader he will know that the time'was not wasted. The time was utilized to very good purpose, because we succeeded in convincing the Prime Minister, the hon. gentleman's leader, if we did not convince the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot), that he was on the wrong tack and he had the wisdom to accede to the request made by members of the opposition from the province of Manitoba. When the new Northwest Territories Bill was being passed in 1905 a strange thing happened that I have referred to before in this parliament, and it was this: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, then Minister of Justice, in forming the new Northwest Territories, specially omitted the district of Keewatin from the new territories, and he gave us his reason for so doing. It had been under the jurisdiction of the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba for upwards of twenty-five years and it was known that there was no necessity for adding that to the territories which he was forming by the Act then before the House. They were allowed still to remain under the jurisdiction of Manitoba. That Bill passed parliament in the session of 1905, but a strange thing happened. Within four days after the closing of parliament, by a proclamation, Keewatin was added to the new Northwest Territories. What for? No satisfactory explanation has been given to the people of the country up to the present time why this was done. But, the people of Manitoba know why it was done, and that
is tue reason why there has been no Bill introduced to extend the boundaries of Manitoba at this session. The Prime Minister pointed out that the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan must have their educational systems continued as they existed in the Northwest Territories under the old Northwest Territories Act. He made his whole plea on constitutional grounds. In order to have the same educational powers conferred upon the district of Keewatin, after parliament closed in 1905, by proclamation of the Governor in Council, he added the Keewatin district which had been especially exempted in the Northwest Territories Act so as to fasten that same system of education upon that added territory. He is now face to face with another school question that he has not the courage to grapple with prior to an election, and he is going to allow his supporters to go out amongst the people and tell those who are in favour of separate schools: It is all right; Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in a very embarrassing position, it was immediately prior to an election, but after the election he is going to give separate schools to the people of the Territories; whilst his other supporters who are not in accord with that view, such as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Jackson), will tell a different story. The hon. member for Selkirk for the last four or five years has been telling the people of Manitoba that the boundaries were to be extended. On two different occasions he gave public expression, if reported correctly in the Winnipeg Liberal paper, to the idea that the boundary' of Manitoba was to be extended northward and eastward. It is because of that very same action of this government in issuing that proclamation and bringing into effect the old Northwest educational clauses in connection with the school difficulty that the government have been procrastinating, dilly-dallying with this question and postponing it. They are going to the country with every pledge of their party unfulfilled, face to face with this question that they dare not grapple with, and they are going to try to hoodwink the people by telling two different stories according to the views of the people with whom they are dealing. That is in my opinion an objection that I wish to give expression to on the floor of parliament. I am not going to occupy any more of the time of the House. This is a very important resolution, and I would have liked more time to go into the details, but I recognize that in the dying days of the session it is not wise to monopolize too much time with any one question. But, as a final appeal I may say that my province, even under the present resolution, is not receiving the justice that it should receive, that the Prime Minister has not dealt fairly with

the province, that he has not dealt coin1- [DOT] ageously with this whole question, that it should not be treated in the double-faced manner in which it has been treated, that, sooner or later, he, or some one following him, will have to face the difficulty, and if it has to be faced it might as well be faced and fought out-in the first place as in the last, and that the people of Manitoba will not be satisfied before they can see the provisions of a Bill submitted to parliament and passed upon by the representatives of the people in this House.


William D. Staples: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House will join with me in extending their heartiest congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) upon the rapid strides that he has made towards extending the boundaries of Manitoba. Just think of it; he has led the government for twelve years and in the twelfth year and in the eighth month of a long and tedious session, he has had the courage to introduce a harmless resolution for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. During these twelve years the right hon. gentleman has been besieged by delegations, resolutions and memorials from the province of Manitoba urging him to take some action. Here are we to-day with a resolution which practically provides for nothing in my opinion. There was a time when the boundaries of Manitoba should have been dealt with, should have been extended and that time was on the 21st February, 1905, when the right hon. gentleman introduced the Bill for the creation of the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. That was the time when action should have been taken for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba. The same reason prevails to-day for action not being taken as that which prevailed in 1905. Where did you find the Liberal contingent from Manitoba on that day? If the hon. gentlemen who sit behind the right hon. Prime Minister had done their duty in 1905 when the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were being created, the boundaries of Manitoba would have been extended, not only eastward and northward, but westward as well. If the hon. members for LIsgar (Mr. Greenway), Dauphin (Mr. Burrows), Selkirk (Mr. Jackson), and Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford), all supporters of the old Greenway government, gentlemen who sat in the local legislature for years and were parties to the petitions and resolutions that were sent down here asking for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba, had taken action at that time, had stood out for the rights of Manitoba, we would have had our boundaries extended and have had all the consideration that the province of Manitoba is entitled to.


William James Roche: It is true that at that time the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) thumped his uesk and flurried around for a while, but he soon came back to the Liberal fold quite satisfied that things should go on as they were. I trust the Liberal members fi'om the province of Manitoba will now rise in their seats in this House and protest against the procrastination displayed by the government towards the province of Manitoba. It is their duty to insist on the Prime Minister, even at this late hour, bringing down a Bill. It is true that we have been here for eight months, and it has been a long and tedious session, but as one of the representatives of Manitoba, I am prepared to stay here in the interests of the people until we crystalize into legislation that which the people of Manitoba are entitled to. I say to the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister : Bring on your Bill. If that Bill proposes to give us our lands, well and good ; if it proposes to give us a monetary consideration in lieu of lands, let us know it.


Mr. BURROWS.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) want the government to submit to parliament an arbitrary measure and force it on the governments of the different provinces without consulting them?


William D. Staples: The Prime Minister knows right well what the people of Manitoba want, for he has it before him by memorial and resolution. I can tell this House that nothing will be gained by delay, because neither the present government of Manitoba, nor any Liberal government that may succeed it, wall be satisfied unless justice is done the province, and delay will not remove the points of contention. We might just as well deal with the question now as in the future. But what the right hon. gentleman wants is to have this resolution dangled before the eyes of the people as a subterfuge until after the next election, and I presume his followers from Manitoba are satisfied with that. The right hon. gentleman has told us that the province of Manitoba has changed its point of view, and that while formerly they insisted on having their lands now they do not so insist. The right hon. gentleman knows very well that the province of Manitoba has taken this action because he has time after time announced that he could not give the lands to the province, and so they ask, for the present, at all events, that they shall be treated as the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have been treated. As to what may be the attitude of Manitoba when there is a government in power at Ottawa disposed to do justice to that province I am not prepared to say now. For the present we ask that we shall be treated at least as favourably as Alberta and Saskatchewan. And, even though the Prime Minister has announced

that we are within five days of the end of the session, surely he has courage enough to bring in a Bill which will deal with this question from the viewpoint of a statesman. I see the Prime Minister shakes his head. I protest against the delay ; I say this resolution is nothing more than a fake intended to stand off the people until after the election. I want to tell the right hon. gentleman and those who sit behind him that the people of Manitoba will not stand for any such treatment as that, and he will find at the next election they will enter their protest at the polls as I have entered my protest in this House. The right hon. gentleman has tne British North America Act before him ; he knows the wishes of the people of Manitoba, and all they ask is that they be dealt "with under the terms of the constitution. I repeat, in conclusion, that this resolution is merely intended to give the Manitoba liberals something to go on the stump with, and in that light it is a subterfuge and nothing more.


John Stanfield: In view of the fact that this proposal of the government is to give additional territory to the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, I think it is a fitting time for the people of the maritime provinces to ask that some safeguards be provided against the ruthless cutting down of their representation in this House of Commons. I am strongly of opinion that no justice can be done the people of the maritime provinces until their representation in this House is restored to tiiat which it was before 1896. I do not think any member of this parliament will deny that the people of the maritime provinces are entitled to the representation which they understood they would have when they entered confederation, and with that end in view I move :
That the proposed resolution be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:
Be it further resolved that the extension of the boundaries provided for by this resolution should be accompanied by such conditions as will prevent such extensions prejudicially affecting the representation of any province in parliament.


Angus Alexander McLean: I have great pleasure in seconding the resolution moved by the hon. member for Colchester. The House will observe that the resolution proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister opens with this paragraph :
That it is expedient that the prayer of the said petitions should be acceded to, and that upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislative assembly and by parliament, the boundaries of Manitoba be extended as follows:
The northern boundary to be the sixtieth parallel of latitude; the western boundary to be the present eastern boundary line of the province of Saskatchewan to the said sixtieth parallel; the eastern boundary to be the present eastern boundary as far north as the northeast corner of the province, thence on a straight line to the most eastern point of Island lake, and thence on a straight line to the point where the eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the shore line of Hudson bay.
And then with reference to the terms
And be it further resolved:
That, upon the legislature of the province of Quebec consenting thereto, it is expedient to extend the boundaries of the said province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature and by parliament, so as to include all the territory to the north of the said province now known as Ungava, and extending to the waters of James bay and Hudson bay and the entrance thereto from the sea.
The provisions of the resolution respecting Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are practically the same, with the exception that the lands to be granted to Ontario and Quebec are to be given absolutely to these provinces without condition, whereas the lands added to Manitoba are to be retained in the possession of the Dominion government and disposed of by them as may be thought proper, while the province has simply the power to administer the civil government in the territory. However, in lieu of the lands Manitoba is' to receive a monetary consideration. The wording of these resolutions is copied in effect from the first lines of section 3 of the amendment of the British North America Act of 1871, which reads as follows:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature.
These are the exact words of the resolution as introduced by the Prime Minister. There is another clause in this section of the Act which has been omitted from the resolution, and I call the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that this clause is permissive. It is permissible to this government to extend the limits of any province ; it is not imperative. Neither is the second part of this section imperative ; it is simply permissive ; and if this resolution should pass without the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) I believe that the condition which is incorporated in it could not be considered by this parliament or by the legislatures of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec in the final settlement of this matter. That condition reads as follows :
And may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.

Wliy did not tlie Prime Minister, in drafting this resolution, include that portion of section 3 of the Act of 1871 ? There is no doubt that such a clause should be incorporated in this resolution, if the increase of territory does affect in any way the status of the other provinces of this Dominion. Here we have an addition of territory given to the province of Manitoba of 180,000 square miles, to the province of Ontario of 140,000 square miles, and to the province of Quebec of 406,000 square miles. Whose property is this ? Has it amy value ? Where is it ? As has been stated by the leader of the opposition, we have had. no maps placed on the table of this House to show the members where this land Is. We know in a general way that there Is a lot of land lying to the north of the province of Quebec, but we have no evidence of the value of that land. We have no evidence of the value of the land to be conceded to the province of Ontario. Before this resolution passes, I think the Prime Minister or some member of his government should inform the members of this House, in order that they may vote Intelligently on this matter, what the value of this property is. Is it worth $1,000,000? Some years ago the United States of America bought some territory in Alaska from the Russian government, paying a very [DOT] small sum of money for It; it was not considered of very great value. Since then that territory has developed rich mines, worth, it is stated, a billion dollars of money. What may be the effect of the exploration of this great country to the north ? I understand that Ungava and ICeewatin have never been explored; and it may be that when these lands have been explored within the next twenty or twenty-five years, they may become of incalculable value to the provinces to which they are granted by this parliament. These lands are owned by the whole Dominion of Canada ; and if they have a value at the present time, the government which is introducing this measure should be able to tell parliament what their value is and to some extent what their prospective value is. Without that information this resolution should not pass. If the other provinces are affected by this resolution, they are affected not only in a monetary way, but also in their representation in this parliament. Quebec, the pivotal province on which the representation is based, will receive this large addition of 466,000 square miles to its territory. This land may within the next few years be teeming with population. You know that years ago it was stated that Manitoba and the Northwest would never be inhabited ; yet I believe that within a very few years the greater part of the population of this country will be living in those western provinces. It may be that a million will be added to the population of Ungava and Mr. A. A. HcLEAH.
ICeewatin within the next twenty or twenty-five years. The effect of that will be that the representation in this House of the maritime provinces, whose territories cajmot be increased, will be greatly diminished. As was stated by the Minister of Finance, the possibility is that within twenty or twenty-five years, as a result of the increase of population in these new territories, the representation of the province of Pyince Edward Island will be diminished to only one. In view of these considerations, we should have conceded to us the representation which we had when we joined the union. I would say further that if these lands, which are to be added to the territories of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, are of any value, all the other provinces which are in any way interested in them, or which are in any way affected by these additions, should receive a proportionate share of the money value of the lands. That should be conceded to them in the final settlement of this matter, when the Bill comes up in parliament at the next or some future session, in accordance with the resolution and the amendment which are before the House.


George William Fowler: Mr. Speaker, while I am in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield), I think that it does not go quite far enough in the direction of meting out justice to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, better known as the maritime provinces. These provinces had a certain representation at the time of confederation. The fathers of confederation in their wisdom thought that there was no danger of our population not keeping pace with the population of Quebec, or falling so far below it that a portion of our federal representation would be lost. Unfortunately that has not proved to be the case ; and but for the fathers of confederation resting upon that idea, some such provision would have been inserted in the British North America Act with reference to those provinces as was afterwards inserted with reference to British Columbia when that province came into confederation, namely, that the representation of British Columbia in the federal House was not to fall below what it was at the time the union was consummated. A similar provision should have been inserted with regard to the maritime provinces; but unfortunately it was not. The principle reason why in the last census the maritime provinces did not show an increase proportionate to that of the province of Quebec is that many people from the maritime provinces, perhaps more largely in proportion than from any other part of Canada, have gone to the Northwest and are helping to build up that country..
When we contribute to the west, as we are

doing, the bone and sinew of our country, our best and most enterprising young men- " because it is the enterprising who leave home to seek their fortunes in the west-and when we thereby find our representation diminished in this parliament, it seems unfair that we should suffer both the loss of these young men and the consequent decrease in our representation, and be given nothing in return. I would have been in favour of a resolution which would provide that when the boundaries of these provinces -I am not confining my remarks to the province of Quebec-but when the boundaries of any province are enlarged, provision should be made that to the maritime provinces should be restored the same federal representation which they had at the time of confederation. That would put us on a fair basis. I want the House to distinctly understand that I have no desire to discriminate against the province of Quebec in any shape or form; my sole desire is that the equilibrium established at confederation should be maintained. That is an important question which is bound to be agitated in tlie future. It is important to the eastern provinces that the present representation of the east at least should not be disturbed.
I understand from what the right lion, gentleman has said that while Manitoba Is to have its territory extended it shall not receive the new lands in fee. They are not to be Crown lands of the province but are to remain subject to the control of the Dominion parliament, whereas in the case of Quebec and Ontario the lands given them are to become Crown lands of the province and be administered by these provinces. And in order to make up to the province of Manitoba for the loss of authority over these new lands, and put it on an equal footing with Ontario and Quebec, it is to receive a money grant. Evidently the First Minister regards these lands as belonging, in the first instance, not to the Dominion but to the several provinces which they adjoin. But surely they belong to the Dominion as a whole. They were purchased by the Dominion. They form part of the purchase by the Dominion at the same time We bought out the Hudson Bay Company. If that be recognized, how is it that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia are to receive no compensation ? Suppose the government were to bring down a resolution to incretise the money subsidies now given Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec, and that the province of British Columbia and the maritime provinces were to be left entirely out of the reckoning, would that be considered just and equitable to these other provinces ? Well, what is the difference between a money and a land subsidy ? Surely these lands are worth something. Surely this territory of Ungava, some 460,000 miles in extent, is of some value. As was pointed out by my hon. friend from Queens, P.E.I.. (Mr. McLean), the territory purchased by 407
the United States from Russia, known as Alaska, was not considered of much value at the time of its purchase. The United States paid only $5,000,000 for it, but it would take a great many times that amount to purchase it back from the United States to-day-not on account of the desire of the Americans not to lose any territory but because of the very great money value of Alaska itself. What reason have we to expect that Ungava shall be less rich in mineral wealth? If it should turn out to be as rich in this respect you are by one stroke of the pen adding to the province of Quebec a tremendous extent of valuable territory and leaving the poor little provinces down by the sea without any compensation at all for the loss they suffer as part of the Dominion. I am surprised that the members of the government from the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia did not oppose this thing in council. Perhaps they did; but if they did, I am still more surprised that they did not carry their opposition into effect and refuse to accept such a proposition at all and resign from the government rather than see the provinces they7 represent suffer such an injustice. We form a part of confederation, we are assisting in bearing the burdens of Canada-why then should we be singled out? The two leading povinces of Canada, Quebec and Ontario, are to be given this additional territory. Manitoba has been spoken of as the postage stamp of confederation. But let me remind you that that province is considerably larger than the three maritime provinces taken together. It is larger by one-fourth at least. It comprises 47,000,000 acres as against 32,000,000 acres for the maritime provinces. Yet those three provinces, each much greater in extent and resources than the maritime provinces, are to have all this given them and we are to get nothing. Nothing for the maritime provinces; nothing for British Columbia- though this is not so hard on British Col umbia because that province is very large in extent, and until this addition was made to Quebec, it was the largest in Canada. But the three little provinces down by the sea are to get nothing. Yet they have always cheerfully borne the burdens of confederation, they have always stood for the policy that would build up Canada, they have not been narrow or provincial or ' little Englanders ' in any respect. And it does seem to me, in view of what they have done in the past, that their claims should in justice and equity be considered. If you are going to take from the Dominion territory whicn belongs to the Dominion and give it to these other provinces, you ought to give us compensation. And as there is no way in which you can enlarge our territory, that compensation must take the form of a money grant. I am surprised that the representatives in the government from the province of British Columbia, and more



particularly from the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have not stood up and demanded that their provinces should be given equal justice at the hands of this government.
In point of fact, I do not see the particular necessity of a step of this kind. I do not see why there is any particular need, in the first place, for the Dominion of Canada divesting itself of this territory. I do not see any particular need for adding this territory 'to the already overgrown provinces of Quebec and Ontario ; but since the government have determined to do so, then let the other provinces have fair play and equal justice. Do not do something which will affect the representation from these provinces as it must be affected by the addition of this additional territory to the province of Quebec. That our representation must be affected is a proposition which needs only to be stated to be admitted. This territory of Ungava will no doubt in the near future become inhabited. There is, 1 believe, vast mineral wealth lying undiscovered in that territory.
I believe there is a vast mineral wealth lying still undiscovered in that great territory. There are great fisheries on the coast to be developed. Taking all these thiugs into consideration you are adding very largely to the province of Quebec territory which will be inhabited and so will affect the unit of representation as applied to the small provinces. As I said, I have no wish to discriminate in any way against the province of Quebec. It is unfortunate that when members from other provinces speak on behalf of their provinces some supersensitive members from Quebec think that their province is affected. It will be seen that I am looking at this matter from the eastern standpoint. I am looking forward to the time when, by reason of the great growth of the west the representation from that section will have largely increased ; and. in order to preserve the equilibrium between east and west, it will be important that the representation of the maritime provinces should not fall below the figure of to-day. To recapitulate ; I am in favour of this resolution for the reasons I have stated ; but I say to the government that they are not acting justly by the maritime provinces in not giving to them some compensation to weigh against the large increase in material wealth which they are adding to the three great provinces I have named.


Wilfrid Laurier: With regard to the suggestion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) that it would have been preferable to leave this matter open, I must say that my observation leads me to an entirely different conclusion. Nothing is so likely to create bad blood between neighbours as these boundary questions. At the present time, I am sorry to say, our relations with New-Mr. FOWLER.
foundland in regard to boundaries are not as satisfactory as they ought to be. I stated this forenoon that we have provided for an arbitration to determine the boundaries between Newfoundland and Canada, Canada in this matter being interested for herself and for Quebec. This step was rendered necesary because Newfoundland has given concessions in a part of the disputed territory alleged to be encroaching upon the rights of Quebec. A lawsuit was entered in the province of Quebec to test the legality of the concessions given by Newfoundland. Rather than have this private litigation going on, parties holding rights from either one government and from the other going before the courts! with their claims, we appealed to the government of Newfoundland to have an arbitration to determine where the boundary is. It is particularly desirable that we should eliminate this question in view of the possibility, which we hope some day will be realized, that the question of Newfoundland entering confederation may be brought forward for practical decision. I am sure I simply voice the feeling of every Canadian when I say that if the time comes when the Newfoundland people are willing to enter confederation we will extend to them a very cordial welcome. When that time comes as I hope it may, there will be a multitude of questions to be determined- questions of finance, questions of education and many others. And it will be all the better if, at that time, the question of boundary shall have been removed by the decision of arbitration. Therefore, I cannot agree with the leader of the opposition-


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman has certainly misunderstood me. I did not make the slightest objection to the settlement of the boundary. It was an entirely different matter to which I was referring.


Wilfrid Laurier: What was it, then ? I failed to comprehend.


Robert Laird Borden: I said that it might be an inducement to Newfoundland to enter confederation if some part of that territory were left to the administration of that province.


Wilfrid Laurier: But what would be an inducement to one member of confederation might be the reverse of au inducement to the other. The province of Quebec micht have something to say to that. As far as that goes, it is preferable in every way that the claims of Quebec and the claims of Newfoundland should be settled so that neither party may have any doubt as to the matter.


George Eulas Foster: Is it in respect of the present boundaries or possessions of the province of Quebec that the dispute is to be settled ? Or is the delimitation of the

whole boundary between Newfoundland and Canada ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is In respect of the whole boundary.


George Eulas Foster: Not simply Quebec ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No. But my hon. friend remembers that the lower part of the territory belongs to Quebec and the upper part to Canada, so that Quebec and the Dominion are both interested. In a matter of this kind, Canada would have the right of eminent domain and might dispense with the consent of Quebec. But, as Quebec would be brought into the dispute, she should be given the opportunity to do the best possible for her own interest. My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) says that we should have brought in a concrete Bill. But, even though we had brought in a Bill and it had been passed by King, Lords and Commons, or, as we would say, by the Governor General, the Seiiate and the House of Commons, nobody would be more bound than by this resolution. A Bill passed by this parliament upon this matter would not be binding upon Mani; toba. We must have the consent of Manitoba to anything we do here in order to make it effective. We propose here certain boundaries for the province of Manitoba. These may be, or may be not, satisfactory to that province ; if that province does not accept the Bill, the Bill is null and void.


William D. Staples: Then, why did not the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) open negotiations four months ago with the government of Manitoba in order that we might arrive at a conclusion *


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, we have done a good many things in the last four months. And I must say I was taken by surprise when I saw the last memorial of the province of Manitoba, altogether going back on what was understood to be her contention. They were understood to claim that they should be given land instead of money, but now they propose a money consideration. We had to look into that and it involved a good deal of work. We had to go into the whole history of the financial transactions of this government with the government of Manitoba, and they are pretty voluminous. I think that no less than seven or eight times during the time that Manitoba has been in confederation, the financial terms of the province have been altered. So, we have some anxious work to do in order to reach a conclusion. I find that in 1870, in 1873, in 1876, in 1879, in 1882, in 1884 and 1885, the financial arrangements of Manitoba were altered and that on every occasion Manitoba was given better terms. We had to look into all these things so that we could see whether the present proposition of Manitoba could be 4074
entertained. At last we concluded that if would be safer to negotiate with Manitoba. We could have got nothing by a Bill, and therefore we have taken the best course by thus calling attention to their claim and asking what should be given. We have to deal with the province on its claims and satisfy those claims, as we hope we shall be able to do. When this is done the subject will be ready for legislation. But now tlie discussion has taken another turn in the position which has been taken by hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces. My hon. friend from Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) has taken the position that the policy we have adopted is unfair to the maritime provinces, and that they are entitled to some compensation, because the territories which were acquired in 1869 in the Hudson Bay district were paid for by the Dominion of Canada, and that if we dispose of them, we should give some compensation to the maritime provinces. Well, the question is not new, it has been raised before, and it has received no solution such as the hon. gentleman now desires. Those territories were acquired in 1869, and in the year following, the parliament of Canada carved out of them a certain domain for the province of Manitoba. But no compensation was asked by the maritime provinces. Later on when we appropriated a certain portion of that domain for the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, we made the same disposition.


George William Fowler: Would not the right hon. gentleman see a distinction between the carving out of this territory a new province and adding out of this territory to the provinces forming part of confederation when Nova Scotia and New Brunswick came in?


Wilfrid Laurier: Does the hon. gentleman believe it makes any difference? The basis of our national life is a federative system. This country is covered by provinces, that is the idea which we have always had before us. That has been the case in the United States. The United States purchased territory from France, Louisiana and from other countries. Since that time her policy has been to turn those territories into states, forming now the American Union. This is the object we aim at. For my part, I regret that the climatic conditions are such in this new territory that it cannot be created into new provinces. I wish we could form a new province on the Hudson bay, I wish we could form a new province out of the Mackenzie river territory, I wish we could form a new province of Ungava. But while it is a wish I devoutly entertain, every man must see that such a thing is impossible. No man, I am sure, from the maritime provinces pretends that we could form new provinces out of that territory. If, then, that terri-
12.323

tory cannot be turned into new provinces, does it not seem to my bon. friend that the best way to deal with it is to annex it to the existing provinces? We must come to that conclusion. We cannot desire that at one end of this Dominion we should have provinces and at the other end a large unorganized territory. Is not that the goal to which we should aspire, that every inch of Canadian territory should ultimately be under provincial organization? That has been the policy of the United States, until to-day I think all their territory has been turned into states.


Mr. POWDER.: ^ The Prime Minister refers to the United States. Is it not a fact that no portion of their territory was cut up into states until it had a population sufficient to warrant its erection into a state? The territory was not added to states already existing, but when it had a sufficient population it was created into a state.


Wilfrid Laurier: The conditions in the United States were such as permitted that policy to be adopted. If we had the same conditions we would create more provinces. Oklahoma was the last state which has been introduced into the union. I believe they have no more territory to be turned into states. If our conditions were the same we would follow the same policy.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: They have Alaska yet.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, and we have the Yukon, but I do not know that I would turn the Yukon into a province ; I think I would rather annex it to the province of British Columbia. Moreover, I do not think that the climate and soil in the Yukon are such that we could make it Into a province. At all events, that is my opinion. You cannot hope, with the territory you now have in your hands, to make it into new provinces; and if that is so, the policy should be to bring this territory under the supervision and jurisdiction of the provinces to which geograrmically it belongs. That is the view we take and the policy we are pursuing at the present time. Can anything be more reasonable than that the territory which to-day lies north of the province of Ontario should belong to Ontario? Is It not in the best interests of the country that Ontario should have the administration of that territory? And if that be so, the hon. gentleman will have no objection to this resolution going into effect. Now, with regard to representation


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Before the hon. gentleman leaves that part of his subject, I would like him to say a word as to compensation to the provinces.


Wilfrid Laurier: I must say that, so far as I am concerned, I can see Sir WIDFRID LAURIER.
no force in that plea. The fathers of confederation, and those who sat here in 1870, when Manitoba was organized, saw no force in it. I do not believe, moreover, that this territory was added to our domain in order that it should be parcelled out among the other provinces which, at that time, formed the Canadian confederation. We must deal with the conditions as they exist. At the time of the federation of the older provinces, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick retained their own provincial domain and control of their own public lands. That has been the policy ever since. When we came to form the prairie provinces the question of Immigration became very important, and from 1870 to 1895 we followed the policy that this parliament should retain in its own hands the jiublic lands in those provinces in order the better to pursue the policy of immigration. In respect to the older provinces, we had turned over to them control of the public lands which were added to their territory. The territory which is now wild and unsettled wras annexed to the provinces from time to time ; we annexed certain portions to Quebec, certain portions to Ontario and certain portions to Manitoba. But if that same policy were to prevail, and the northern portions of that country were to be annexed to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, then I would unhesitatingly give them all that land, because the policy of immigration which we have In hand would not be prejudiced by such a course. Therefore, I cannot see the force of the objection of my hon. friend. But a more important question, a more practical question, is that of representation. However, I do not see any immediate danger in it. My hon. friend stated a moment ago that the maritime provinces had lost some of their representation in this House. But if that is so, and we all deplore it, it is not in consequence of anything that has been done by this parliament, it is not in consequence of any accretions to the territory of Quebec. If the maritime provinces have lost a portion of their representation it is in consequence of the development of the Northwest. If the Northwest had not been developed, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would probably have the same representation here to-day that they had years ago. But although the maritime province men have good reason to deplore the changing conditions, their objection should not lie to this resolution, but they should consider the broader question whether, in view of the great development which is taking place in the Northwest, it would not be advisable to revise the basis upon which representation is established. [DOT]


Frederick William Borden: Allow me to ask the right hon. gentleman a question? Does he contend that the development of the . Northwest reduces the actual representation of the maritime provinces?


Hr. PUGS LEY.: In the last census it prevented New Brunswick and Nova Scotia from preserving their previous representation.


Wilfrid Laurier: I put this to my hon. friends from North Toronto and from Kings and Albert :	If, at the last
census, we had eliminated the wnole of the population of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, would not the diminution of the representation of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have been less than it is today? I have not the figures under my hand, but I remember that the subject was closely considered by the Hon. Mr. Blair at that time, and he came to the conclusion that if the population of the Northwest had been eliminated altogether the representation of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would nave been larger than at is to-day. But I have simply to say this, as one of the representatives from Quebec : At the time of confederation Quebec was made the pivotal province, around which the representation of the whole' Dominion revolved. But that gives no advantage to the province of Quebec, it is a matter of entire indifference to the province of Quebec. But, if it is to us a matter of total indifference and it is a matter not of indifference but of great interest to the maritime provinces, for my part, I would not be averse to selecting another mode of representation. On this matter I feel very strongly that we should not have any province harbouring the feeling that there had been an injustice done to it. The basis of representation adopted at the time of confederation was believed to be just and equitable and nothing could be more detrimental to confederation itself than the existence of such a belief, and if we are in a position to remedy that belief there is no reason why the question should not be tackled at the proper time. But, I would observe to the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) that he has attached undue importance to the addition which is said to have been made in 1S96 to the area of the province of Quebec and that he has attached undue importance to the extension which it is proposed to make to the province of Quebec to-day. My hon. friend knows that at the present time, in the added territory, there is not one voter. It may be that there will be some voters at the time of the next census. If it he true that the boundary of Quebec was the height of land, which is the opinion of the Minister of Justice, then probably it is quite certain that the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific will bring a population into that part of Quebec which will, to some extent, although not materially, affect the unit of representation. I do not think it will affect the next census. I do not think it is possible that it will do so, but in the future
it may have some effect. But, in so far as Ungava is concerned, it will be many generations, I am afraid, before the population of Ungava will have to be taken into consideration when we have to determine what shall be the unit of representation in this House. I wish it were otherwise. I wish I could say to the House that I believe that there would be a large population in Ungava, and if there were to be a large population in Ungava I would have no hesitation in saying to my compatriots in Quebec: Do not hesitate to disarrange the basis of representation so as to give satisfaction to the other provinces. I do not think the amendment which has been moved is at all justified by the circumstances of the case. The contingency is too remote. I would say more; it is not advisable at this moment to burden this resolution with conditions. The conditions should be left altogether open. I call the attention of hon. gentlemen to these pregnant words in the resolution:
That, upon the legislature of the province of Quebec consenting thereto, it is expedient to extend the boundaries of the said province-upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature and by parliament.	.	1
These words cover everything. They cover the very subject in hand. At the next session of parliament, if the government see fit to present a concrete resolution from the legislature of Quebec offering to take advantage of this resolution, and hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House say it is not sufficient, that they have the right to insist that some provision should be made for another basis of representation, then we can refuse our assent to the resolution of the Quebec legislature. As far as I can see it there is no necessity for inserting such an amendment as has been moved by the hon. member for Colchester.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, this is an important question, no doubt, and one to which the government has given some attention. Parliament has not had the opportunity of giving it the same amount of consideration and for my part, as a member of parliament from the maritime provinces, I would feel reluctant to vote for the resolution as it stands were it not for the fact that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), and other members of the government have declared that when this matter comes again before parliament at a subsequent session we will be just as free to consider all the details as we are to-day, that we will be free to amend, accept or reject the whole of it, and details will be the question of the represen-1 tation of the smaller provinces. The

suggestion was made by a member of the government, I think the Minister of Finance, that possibly an equitable arrangement, in so far as the representation of the smaller provinces is concerned, would be that-the population of Quebec, for the purposes of representation, would be counted in accordance with the dimensions of the province at the time of confederation. That would be one way of preserving a reasonable representation for the maritime provinces, because there is an apprehension that in consequence of the enlargement of the area of the province of Quebec there is danger that our representation will be materially reduced. A provision of that kind might perhaps save it. I personally think that a provision of that kind would be somewhat complicated, and I would very much prefer that when this matter is under consideration we should take steps to have placed in our constitution a provision somewhat similar to that which is in the constitution of the Australian Commonwealth that there shall be a minimum representation from every province; either that or that a condition should be inserted that the representation from the maritime provinces would not fall below what it was at the time of confederation. I do not think that a provision of that kind in the constitution could possibly do any harm to any province or any individual in any province. I do not think that the larger provinces of the Dominion could object, and it would certainly satisfy the maritime provinces. The representation even under these circumstances would never be unduly large. I am satisfied that confederation would not have been possible if the men who arranged the basis of confederation had ever looked forward to the time when the representation of the smaller provinces would be so reduced that we would practically have no voice in the great council of the nation. But, as the statement has been made by my right hon. friend the leader of the government that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) and seconded by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLean) is at the present stage unnecessary, and that we will be just as free in a subsequent session when this matter comes up for final consideration to consider all the details of the question and particularly the detail of representation as we are to-day, I do not see the necessity of inserting this amendment, and for these reasons I shall vote against it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a word or two if the House will pardon me. Without going into a discussion at great length of the whole argument of the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) I would like to say that 1 listened to him with a Mr. J. J. HUGHES.
great deal of attention, but I fail to appreciate wherein he has given the House any logical or reasonable argument from a legal or constitutional standpoint that would convince any hon. gentleman that because the boundaries of any particular province may be increased therefore any right of compensation flows to any other members of confederation. It seems to me that the proposition of creating a new province is one which would give just the same rights to the older members of confederation as would an accretion to the boundaries of any of the existing provinces, and no one has ever asserted that in the former case any such right has arisen. I rise not so much for the purpose of discussing that point as to refer to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfiqld). I desire to say in reference to that point that the hon. member's amendment is entirely outside of any question that is involved in the resolution before the House. It is absolutely nugatory and can have no effect of any kind whatever. No amendment such as that which he proposes to be introduced into this resolution can be held either by the Dominion government or any of the provincial governments to be of any value or to limit their powers or to give to any of the provinces increased rights in regard to the matter of representation. The question of what the representation of the maritime provinces in this parliament shall be, cannot depend on any conference that may take place between the federal government and the provincial governments of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec; it must depend upon legislation that may be subsequently passed by the imperial parliament. If as it is anticipated the result of this resolution will be to increase the area of Manitobe, Ontario and Quebec, then a condition will arise in the smaller provinces which this parliament would be bound to recognize and to ask the imperial parliament in view of the changed conditions to create increased representation for them.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. gentleman contends that the representation of the provinces would depend altogether upon legislation of the imperial parliament, and that being so how does he justify the statement of the Prime Minister that when this legislation comes before the House it is to be passed upon terms and conditions agreed to by the provinces and by this parliament, and that these terms and conditions will cover representation as well as other matters, and hence there was no need of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Colchester.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not understand the Prime Minister to make any statement with regard to that. Of course the result of this conference may produce conditions under which this parliament may

be called upon to ask the imperial parliament to deal with the question of representation. But the hon. gentleman knows full well that any conference between these provinces and the Dominion cannot increase or lessen our representation in any degree.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I agree with the hon. gentleman, but he is in contradiction with the position taken by the Prime Minister who said that when this parliament dealt with the matter it could and would adjust the representation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not so understand the right hon. gentleman and I am quite sure my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) did not so understand him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I certainly did so understand him.


Haughton Lennox: So did we.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am sorry my hon. friend takes that view, because I did not understand the right hon. gentlemen to make any such statement. There can be no doubt at all about the constitutional principle that the imperial parliament alone can increase the representation of any province in this Dominion, and no doubt the imperial parliament would act upon the request of the Dominion parliament.


Mr.   POSTER@: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But that is an entirely different matter from what we are now discussing, and every hon. gentleman must see that the amendment is entirely outside the point.


Haughton Lennox: Not quite.
, Mr. E. M. MACDONALD. My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) knows very well that the representation of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island cannot be affected in the slightest degree by anything that the provincial governments of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec may say, and that this parliament alone by address to the imperial parliament subsequently can deal with that question. Now as to the point that the representation of the maritime provinces has been affected prejudically by the increase of the electoral unit of the province of Quebec, I think hon. gentlemen will find that the decreased representation which came to the maritime provinces in 1901 did not come as a result of the increased unit of representation in Quebec, but as a result of the tremendous increase in population of western Canada. As a result of the readjustment which had to be made under section 51, subsection 4, a reduction of the representation of the maritime provinces was brought about chiefly because of the increased population of the west.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it not a fact that the increased unit of representation caused by the increase of population in Quebec was
also a large factor in the loss of our representation?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As a matter of construction of the statute both these condb tions must concur before representation can be decreased.


John Waterhouse Daniel: But you only referred to the increase of population in the west.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was endeavouring to point out that the suggestion that the increase of the electoral unit' in Quebec must necessarily decrease the population of other provinces, is not absolutely correct, because in addition to that you must have an abnormal increase in the population of western Canada so as to bring about a proportionate diminution of the population of the other provinces.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As a matter of fact the increased papulation of Quebec has taken place within the old boundaries of that province and not within the area of any territory which has been added to Quebec since confederation. My hon. friend from Beau-harnois will corroborate that.


John Graham Haggart: Every one knows that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statement of the Postmaster General is absolutely correct. The population of the province of Quebec has increased and the electoral unit has increased but that is not due to increased territory; it is entirely due to natural causes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We must approach this question from the standpoint that the diminution of representation which took place in 1901 was not alone due to the increased population in the province of Quebec, but that there must also be considered in it the abnormal increase of the population of the west, which was a very potent factor. Now, if I correctly apprehend the decision given by the courts with reference to the proper interpretation of section 51 of the British North America Act it was, that the population of Canada for the purpose of the computation to be made under section 51 subsection 4 was to be deemed to be made up not merely of the population of the four original provinces, but also of the provinces which now constitute confederation, and in that computation there was not to be considered the population of the territories. The consequence is that by the addition of territory to the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario, in the next computation which takes place in 1911, the population of Canada, for the purposes of this computation, will be increased by the additional number of people who may be -within the territory thus added to these provinces.
To that extent the representation of the smaller provinces will ultimately be affected. I think this House will be bound, in

all fairness, at that time to take into consideration this question and to ask that the imperial parliament should review the question of representation all over the country. But that is not a question which this conference can deal with. This parliament alone, when the Act founded on the deliberations of this conference is introduced, will have to deal with the question of representation, in the light of the changed conditions that wiil result from the increase of the territories of these three provinces. It does nc*t appear to me that this amendment is at all appropriate when It asks ' that the extensions of boundaries provided for by this resolution should be accompanied by such conditions as would prevent such extensions prejudicially affecting the representation of any province in parliament.' I do not think that parliament at this time should be asked to come to any such conclusion, because nothing that can be done by that conference will affect the representation directly. It seems to me that all the rights of any province in this regard will be well protected by the resolution which I propose, because it deals with the conditions as they are, and parliament should keep itself in line with constitutional and legal principles. I therefore move in amendment to the amendment:
That under any legislation to be introduced to give effect to the foregoing resolution, nothing shall be done or provided to impair the representation of any province in this House.
I move that resolution because I submit that this House should give notice to the parliament that is afterwards to deal with the result of this conference, where we stand with regard to this question of diminution of representation; and we treat this question as it should be treated by recognizing the right of this parliament alone eventually to deal with this question. It seems to me also that we who come from the smaller provinces of the Dominion can fairly expect that when parliament comes to deal with this question and to legislate definitely and certainly upon it, parliament will recognize the changed condition resulting from the tremendous development of the Northwest, which was never foreseen by the fathers of confederation, and which necessarily affects this whole question of representation. and that the time will have arrived, in 1911, when we may fairly expect a complete review of this whole question of representation, with the result that after the next census justice in this respect will be given to the smaller provinces of the Dominion.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, as one coming from the province of Ontario, I wish to say that while that province does not get, by the proposition before the House, all the territory which it thinks it ought to get, it will accept that territory and the responsibilities that go with it. The


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: province of Ontario does not believe that we have to-day reached the ultimate bound of civilization towards the north. The province of Ontario has accepted the view that there is a great and rich country to the north, and. while other people are talking about it, the province of Ontario is to-day building a railway to Hudson bay, and we hope to see an Ontario port on Hudson bay. The province of Ontario accepts all these responsibilities, and hopes to build up a great new northern Ontario in the added territory. I would like to see the other provinces take the same view. I believe that the province of Manitoba now receives the advantage of the extension of its boundaries to Hudson bay, and that it will go ahead and develop the country that is oc-corded to it. As to the question of representation, I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say to-day, what I have long contended for in this House, that while the British North America Act is a solemn document, it is not so sanctified that it cannot be reviewed by this parliament; and if it can be shown that the smaller provinces have not the representation which they think they ought to have, I believe that parliament Is big enough, I believe that my own province and all the other provinces are big enough, to revise the constitution of the country and give a fair representation to the smaller provinces. I agree with what has been said here to-day, that it would be proper and fair, and in the line of harmony, to provide that the representation of the maritime provinces in this House should not be less than it was originally at confederation. We are all surely big enough to take that view. As to the amendments before the House, I would like to see the amendment moved by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stans-field) accepted. It is simply an amplification of the proposal made by the government. If that view of it is taken, we shall have an expression that will represent the opinion of the whole House. The last amendment is on almost the same line; and if you can find a way to have a resolution that would meet all the interests in the House it would go a long way towards the settlement of this question. With regard to that northern country of ours, we do not know what is there; but the province of Ontario, in so far as it will exercise jurisdiction over it, will do whatever it can to develop it. Hudson bay, as has been said, is going to have much to do with the future development of this country. I hope that in a short time we shall have not only a railway from Ontario to Hudson bay, but one from the Northwest, and that the country lying south of Hudson bay will be developed and settled and the possibilities of mining, fishing and other industries in that country will be worked out and that these industries will be proved to be sources of wealth to the whole country. Again I would appeal to the House to see if there is not a way in

which the resolution can be made unanimous, and in that way meet the views of ail sections of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the amendment in its present form does not seem to be very relevant, as it is not prefaced by the necessary words to make it an amendment to the original resolution. However, that is a matter for the hon. gentleman who has moved it and His Honour, the Speaker. Might I ask if the government propose to accept the last amendment ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say, in the first place, that I do not see the difference in meaning between the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Colchester and the one proposed just now. The right hon. leader of the government told us distinctly in the course of his remarks that he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Colchester, because the resolution as it stands leaves the terms and conditions for future consideration and that it was not necessary or desirable to confine the terms of that resolution in any way.
Now when a similar resolution of exactly the same purport and meaning-so similar that it will be a question for the speaker whether it can be put as an amendment to the amendment-when the same thing, having exactly the same effect is proposed, my rignt hon. frind forgets his declaration and is quite ready to accept it. No doubt the only real reason is that the first amendment was moved by my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) and the second has been moved by the hon. member for Pictou (nr, Macdonaid). If there is any other reason X would like to hear what it is. Let us look for a moment at the two amendments. The first is as follows:
That the proposed resolution be amended by adding thereto the following paragraph: Be it further resolved that the extension of the boundaries provided for by this resolution be accompanied by such conditions as will prevent such extension prejudicially affecting the representation of any province in parliament.
That amendment is harmful and cannot be accepted by the government. It confines the terms of the resolution, and the terms of the resolution should be left wide open for the future expression of parliament at any other session. Let us look at the other amendment which is acceptable:
That all the words in the said amendment be struck out and the following substituted: And under any legislation to be introduced to give effect to the foregoing, nothing shall be done or provided to impai r the representation of any province in this House.
The difference between those two amendments is exactly the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. The right hon. gentleman cannot accept tweedledum but he is perfectly willing to accept tweedledee.
As regards the observations of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) touching the reduction of the representation of the province upon ascertaining the population in each province by a decennial census, it does not seem to me that he expresses the situation with absolute accuracy. What happens is this. In the first place the unit of population is ascertained by dividing the population of the province of Quebec by the number of its representatives, 65. In that way you obtain the unit of population. Then you proceed as follows. You apply that unit of representation to the population of every other province as ascertained by the same census. You may find that the representation of some province will be reduced by the application of the unit of representation. You do something more, not by way of reduction but by way of preventing the reduction of the representation of any such province. You take subsection 4:
On any such readjustment, the number of members for a province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the number of the population of the province bore to the number of the aggregate papulation of Canada at the then last preceding readjustment of the number of members for the province is ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by one-twentieth part or upwards.
So that subsection 4 is not a provision for the reduction of the representation of any province but a safeguard against such reduction. If it were not for that purpose, you would apply simply subsection 1 and there would be no need for subsection 4. But the proviso I have pointed out is a safeguard in certain cases against the reduction which would be brought about by the application of the unit of representation. It is idle to say that the reduction of representation in any province of Canada is brought about in the way that has been suggested. It must be brought about by the application of the unit of representation as ascertained in the province of Quebec; and this subsection 4 does not operate to further reduce but operates in certain cases to prevent any such reduction. That is my appreciation of its meaning and I think it is the correct one.
My right lion, friend the First Minister, in replying to some very brief observation which fell from me this morning, said that to leave unsettled the boundary question between Newfoundland and the province of Quebec or any part of Canada might lead to bad blood. I quite agree that it is proper to have that boundary line ascertained

12S36
by some tribunal with the approval of both parties. But he seems to think that that affected my suggestion of this morning. It does not affect it in any way. What I suggested was that inasmuch as we hope and believe that Newfoundland will at some future time be brought within the limits of confederation, it might be advisable, both from an administrative point of view and as an inducement to Newfoundland to enter confederation, that we should leave certain portions of that territory to become part of Newfoundland as a province of confederation and to be administered by the province of Newfoundland. My right lion, friend thought that would not be practicable because it might lead to dissatisfaction in Quebec. I do not see why it should. He has already suggested that if this area were habitable, if it were likely to sustain a large population, he would have been prepared to -create it into a new province. Well, if the province of Quebec would be willing, as we may presume from his remarks, to have this territory created into a new province, is there any objection to have a portion only of that territory kept as an inducement to Newfoundland to enter confederation. If there be no dissatisfaction in the one case, I do not see why we should assume that there would be in the other. I looked at it merely from the standpoint of convenience and efficient administration and also from the other very desirable standpoint of our bringing Newfoundland some time within the bounds of confederation.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald).


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN1. I would like to have your decision, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not there is any material difference between the two amendments-that of the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) and that of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald)-which makes the last amendment in order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The amendment itself, proposed in the first instance, does not seem to stipulate in what manner the preventing of any reduction in the representation of any province, consequent upon the enlargement of the boundaries of any other province, should be arranged for. It is a little indefinite in that respect. Whereas the amendment specifically states that this shall be provided against in the legislation introduced to extend the boundaries. It is a rather fine point but I am not prepared to rule that the amendment to the amendment is out of order.


Robert Laird Borden: You will find that the resolution itself calling for an extension of the boundaries is the foundation for legislation, and consequently the amend-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
ment of the hon. member for Colchester, which provides that such extension be accompanied by such conditions as would prevent it prejudicially affecting the representation of any province in parliament, is about as definite as anyone could possibly desire.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R.@: I desire to suggest a verbal amendment-in the third paragraph of the resolution, to insert the words ' of Manitoba ' between * boundary ' and * as,' making it read ' the eastern boundary to be the present eastern boundary of Manitoba,' and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.

Robert Abercrombie Pringle: That that part of rule 102 relative to the posting of private Bills and also rule 88 relative to fees be suspended in connection with Bill (No. 211) to amend the Act of the present session intituled an Act respecting the Dominion Guarantee Company, Limited.
He said : This new Bill is, in effect, an amendment of the Bill passed this session, but under the circumstances, it is necessary to follow in the form of having a new Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois).: Before the government orders are proceeded with, may I ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) if we could have! printed copies of the Georgian Bay ship canal report. I understand that the report is in manuscript. If it could be printed it would be very useful. I need not tell the hon. minister that not merely members of parliament but many people outside desire to see this report.


William Pugsley: As the report contains quite a large number of maps, it is desirable to print these with the report, and it will take from six weeks to two months before these can be completed. I have an additional typewritten copy of the report which I shall be glad to lay on the table so that hon. members desiring to see it may have an opportunity to do so before the House rises.


William Findlay Maclean: But the minister does intend to print the report ?


William Pugsley: Yes. But it will take six weeks to print the maps.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Could not the report be sent out first and the maps afterwards ?


William Pugsley: I think it would be better to keep them together.



190S

Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will they he sent to members during the recess ?


William Pugsley: Yes, I will give instructions to that effect.



CANADIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS.

Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 201) to assist in maintaining an independent and efficient service of telegraphic news from Great Britain for publication in the Canadian press. He said : The object of this Bill is to extend for a period of two years the subsidy granted to the Cana dian Associated Press. Perhaps that is, technically, not exactly the situation. The subsidy was allowed on a sliding scale for five years, aggregating 860,000, and thus averaging $12,000 a year. The promoters of the enterprise applied for a renewal of the subsidy on the basis of $12,000 a year for five years, an equal sum to that given before, but under a different arrangement. After consideration we thought that all would be done that was necessary for the moment if we assured the promoters of the enterprise of the continuance of the subsidy of $12,000 a year for two years. During that time, it may be that some other arrangement will be made, which, perhaps, will give more general satisfaction. I think that, on the whole, the service rendered has been regarded as satisfactory, though it has not been above criticism. However, after considering it, we have asked parliament to grant this for jwo years.


George Eulas Foster: What has been done ?


William Stevens Fielding: I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) what has been paid, but that Is about all I can tell him. The results of the expenditure are seen in the press day by day.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister no report on the subject ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have a communication from the president of the Canadian Associated Press, Mr. J. Ross Robertson, which, if my hon. friend wishes, I will read. When the deputation came to me and asked a renewal of the subsidy, I asked them to put in writing a statement of their views. I received, in response, this letter. It was marked ' Personal,' but I do not think it was intended to be other than n public letter :
Toronto February 18, 1908. Hon. W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-In accordance with your request made at the conclusion of the interview on Friday last with the deputation from the Canadian Associated Press, I beg to transmit to you in writing, the facts and figures then presented. In placing the matter before you I said :-
This deputation as you are aware is here with the object of discussing the future of the Canadian Associated Press and its relation with the government under the agreement entered into five years ago-which agreement expires at the end of next June.
The agreement was in brief that the government pay towards the expenditure of the Canadian Associated Press, for the years 1901-5-6, a sum not exceeding $15,000 a year ; for 1907 a sum not exceeding $10,000 a year and for year ending June, 1908, a sum not exceeding $5,000.
At the outset, I just want to refer for a moment to the past work of the Canadian Associated Press.
The work that the association has done dur-mg the four and a half years of its operation, has been most satisfactory to the membership, and I believe, meets with the approval of the government.
When the association was formed, it was settled at its first meeting that its purpose was to handle all Canadian news originating in Great Britain or the continent of Europe- and this class of news only. But, when the London office of the association had been in running operation for some months, on special occasions, other news of interest to Canadians was made part of the service with results that met with not only the entire approval and satisfaction of the members of the association, but elicited from newspapers not m the association, most favourable comment.
Among this class of news referred to, was news from Australia and New Zealand, that affected Canada-especially in matters concerning tariffs, which was particularly of value to Canadian manufacturers.
then the British parliamentary election results were collected by our agents and cabled to the association. These were the only detailed returns of the elections sent to this continent by cable, for the American associated press only handled results in prominent constituencies, and generally only gave a meagre 'service.	[DOT]
It will also be remembered that the proceedings of the Colonial Conference in 1907 were very fully reported, for the Canadian Associated Press was favoured with exceptional advantages which enabled it to cover this event better than any other news service that uses the cables.
It is worth noting that the fulness of the British election reports and the Colonial Conference service by the association, was most favourably commented on by some of the leading British newspapers, and by Canadian correspondents of British newspapers resident in Canada.
The way that the Canadian Associated Press covered the British elections was a recognition of the fact that this country has national and imperial news interests that are not served by the American Associated Press.
It is a pleasure to know that members of the government at Ottawa also expressed their satisfaction with the manner in which both of these events were handled by the London office of the association.
It was particularly gratifying to hear citizens of Montreal and Quebec, speak in commendatory terms of the interesting cables con-

cerning the sad death of the late Hon. Raymond Prefontaine in Paris-an event which was followed with a closeness commensurate with its interest to a large section of the Canadian people.
The proceedings of the Alaska Commission were also fully reported by our service. It was a satisfaction to note that our reports on all these three events were wired from Toronto to leading American journals that had not been favoured by the American service, with such full reports. I think that the Alaskan Boundary report showed the enormous national value of having the views of Canada's representatives in London fairly and adequately reported to their constituents at home.
The immense sporting constituency of the Canadian press has also been well served, for every sporting event of importance, including results of every principal race run in Great Britain and of leading athletic sports, especially football games, are cabled as they occur. In fact, every sporting event of moment in Great Britain is promptly covered. Not only were there events in Great Britain covered, but also reports of sporting events in Australia in which Canadians were interested by reason of Canadian competitors taking part.
The satisfactory manner in which the London manager of the Canadian Associated Press handled the mission of the hon. Rodolph' Lemieux to Japan deserves special mention. It was thought by some members of the press that this event should have been covered direct from Tokio, but to do so would have involved an expenditure of not less than $2,000. It would have involved the expense of a special agent and cables would have cost at the press rate, forty-seven cents a wQrd-we covered the assignment from London by careful selection and compilation of the ample cable reports of the London daily press, at the cost of Atlantic cabling which did not amount to over three cents a word delivered in Canada to each paper of the association. These reports were very satisfactory.
Then our cattle and market reports are a new and important feature added to our service. We had great difficulty iat first in getting satisfactory reports. Our London manager, however, personally interviewed the leading cattle firms in Great Britain and Ireland, with the result that the association receives reports from two of the leading cattle firms free of all cost for the information, and at a cost only of the cabling to Canada.
The cattle dealers of Canada have expressed their great satisfaction with the accurate and ample reports that are so forwarded. These reports also permit the farmers to know exactly where they are at in relation to the old country quotations that are the basis of the export price for cattle.
Our cable service also supplies the cheese quotations which are of vital interest to the Quebec and eastern Ontarip cheese producers.
Our service is now confined to twelve papers in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. Two papers in Winnipeg that were members had to withdraw some months ago owing to increased rates imposed for general news service by the Canadian Pacific Railway. These papers were perfectly satisfied with our service, but the large increase in the price of their general telegraph service compelled them to withdraw. This withdrawal is, I understand, only Mr FIELDING.
temporary and in the near future, the service will be renewed under an arrangement that will give all the daily papers west of Winnipeg to the coast the opportunity of receiving through the Western Associated Press the service at a much lower rate than the Canadian Associated Press could forward it direct.
I understand they have now come in.
I desire to also call your special attention to the fact that all the cables received by the Canadian Associated Press after publication in the papers of the association are either, wired to daily papers not in the Canadian Associated Press or are sent as plate matter to hundreds of daily and weekly papers published in Canada, so that the Canadian Associated Press reaches all the people of Canada by indirectly serving tens of thousands of readers who do not see copies of the papers that belong to the Canadian Associated Press. This feature has been impressed on me by the reading of our cables in soores of provincial weeklies and in the dailies of the smaller towns that are not of our membership.
Now, Sir. I have tried to cover in summarized form all the points which I think clearly show that the Canadian Associated Press has made good in its efforts to carry out the purpose for which it was organized.
Under the present agreement, the limit of the amount to be paid by the government was $60,000. But the amount earned by the service only involves the sum of about $50,000.
The association suggests that the same amount be granted, but that instead of $15,000 for three years and $10,000 and $5,000 respectively for two years, the limit be $60,000 for five years, payable at the rate of $12,000 a year-or whatever portion of that amount is earned by the association. It is, of course, to be borne in mind that the members of the association have expended an amount equal to that paid by the government.
Permit me to state that the work of the association has been carried on with a close regard to thorough business principles and that our expenditure has been most carefully guarded. We have endeavoured to get the be9t possible value for the money we expend and we have tried to serve the country in our association so as to give a comprehensive, prompt and efficient service.
You will, as an old newspaper man, recognize the difficulties that have to be faced by any man who undertakes to manage such a service as ours. It is a difficult matter sometimes to please everybody, and it is a pleasure to know that some who were inclined to criticise us in the beginnings of our work have now nothing but good words for the efficient manner in which our news service has been conducted.
It is for the government to decide whether the public end it tried to promote by the original terms of the agreement with the Canadian Associated Press has been served.
If so, the Canadian Associated Press is willing to continue and extend its work somewhat on the lines of the present agreement. If not the Canadian Associated Press will have to continue its work on other lines. I do not doubt that the minister is as familiar with

the good points of the Canadian Associated Press service as I am.
We have now come to a point where we mnsl oe goveined by your decision as to the lines on which we are to work in the future. If you favour the principle of co-operation between the government and the press of the country in the supply of old country news concerning Canada, the association is prepared to do its utmost to extend its membership and if possible add to the service which will make it even more acceptable and useful than it is at the present time to the people of the Dominion.
I think the foregoing covers all the points that I spoke of at the interview.
Yours truly,
J. ROSS ROBERTSON, President.
This contains as full and comprehensive a statement of the work of the association, and the manner in which it is performed, ns we could hope to have. I am aware there has been some criticism. I have been disposed to be lenient in my judgment of the service, because I know from my own experience that it is not always easy for a journalist to get Information which seems to some persons to be important. It takes all sorts of people to make up the newspaper world, and many of the items which are cabled by the Associated Press will perhaps be regarded by some as of not great importance, and what one reader would regard as of particular importance is regarded [DOT]of much less value by another reader. Making allowance for that, I think the service on the whole has been useful, and for the present at all events we are disposed to give them a helping hand to the extent of * this appropriation for the two years.


George Eulas Foster: I wish to ask the minister two questions. What newspapers constitute the association? I believe the number is twelve, but which are the newspapers ? In the second place, as this has now been going on for five years, has the membership been decreasing or increasing ? Another question is, What Is meant by the expenditure of dollar for dollar, and what do the government take in as items of dollar for dollar, and how do they get at those items?


William Stevens Fielding: With regard to the first question as to the names of the papers, I think they are chiefly papers of Montreal and Toronto. I find the memorandum furnished me does not give me the names, but probably it is only those papers in large communities which can afford to become jiartners in the enterprise, and the less important papers have to take the news from them. I think I may say that it is the papers of Montreal and Toronto chiefly, although I believe at one time some other papers were included. As to the other question, it was understood, and we accepted the statements of the president of the association in the matter-I do not think we require anything but their own certificatethat they must satisfy us that the cable service they are receiving costs them twice the amount, that is to say that we divide the dollar equally in helping them to pay the cost of the cable, on the principle of helping the man who helps himself. If they pay a dollar, and they must show us that they have done so, we give them another dollar for their news.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the object of helping the association?


William Stevens Fielding: We will discuss that in committee.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is on the principle that I ask the question. I have great respect for Mr. Robertson, who is a very prominent newspaper man. It looks as if we were financially helping a few gentlemen to the detriment of a great many other newspapers. I understand there are some newspapers which do not belong to the association and they are prepared to get their despatches in a different way. We are voting money to the detriment of those gentlemen who do not belong to tne association. I have heard a great many criticisms of the reports which have been sent to Canada since we have been paying this money. There are despatches that may interest some people but other things are looked for and a great many people are dissatisfied. I will mention an instance which comes to my mind and which occurred last July. It was about three days before we could procure any news about the Bisley team and the report with regard to the shooting for the Kolapore cup was sent in such a mixed up way that nobody could -make anything out of it. It seems to me that the government should have nothing to do with this matter. I do not see why we should pay money out for this purpose. Another consideration is that this system may be unfair to the opposition in the House. These newspapers may he prompted to publish despatches in such a way as to favour the government. I do not understand why a government which is so much opposed to protection should go out of its way to spend money to help gentlemen who can perfectly well take care of themselves. The principle is bad.


Angus Alexander McLean: I understand that there are twelve subscribers and that there is only one subscriber west of Ontario-that is in Winnipeg-and none east of Quebec. I think that if this $12,000 is to be paid the government might make some effort to bring other newspapers into this association.
(Mr. FIELDING. How?


Angus Alexander McLean: They should devise some scheme. Twelve newspapers receive this bounty of $12,000. Every one of these papers is rich, and I think that the government should see that the eastern and

western papers should get some benefit from the voting of this large sum of money.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to ask the minister if he can give the House any information as to how this is operated in London. Have they correspondents all over the world, or all through the empire, and do these correspondents give their news direct or is there one man in London who culls the papers and gives what he thinks Is best for Canada? I would like to ask also whether there has been any offer from other agencies, or from any agency, which has correspondents all over the empire looking to the giving of further correspondence, telegraphic and otherwise, from the seat of each event, gathering it, and putting it into the news columns of this association?. I have heal'd some very strong criticisms iD reference to this service. The service does not appear to have met with public approval. I do not know what the reason is. Is it that they have one or two persons in London and that we are dependent entirely upon that sort of culling of the general news of the world?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think that the Canadian Associated Press pretend to keep correspondents all over the world. They have one or two correspondents in London who have, I believe, access to the sources of news there. As to just what those sources are I am not clear; at all events, they are able to send very correctly all the news which they believe it is suitable to send, some of which, I admit, has been the subject of criticism. My hon. friend asks whether any proposition has been made by any other body. I have not had presented to me any proposition in the form of a written document, but I have had communications with representatives of the famous Reuter agency whose service is world-wide, suggesting that perhaps they could give a service which would be as good as or beter than that which is being given. My answer was that that was a matter which the government could not undertake to control and that we did not propose to organize such a service.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We pay.


William Stevens Fielding: We pay but we do not want to have anything to do with the management of it. My hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) suggests that the service might probably be too favourable to the government. I have taken the position that the government should have nothing to do with the management of it. When people have written to me complaining of the nature of the telegrams which have been sent and suggesting that the government should do this, that or the other thing, my answer has been that the government did not undertake to dictate to this service. All we do Mr. A. A. McLEAN.
is to help the Canadian press to get this service. We have been given to understand that they desire this service, but if they do not want it we do not desire to dictate to them or to interfere with its management. We do not desire to say what shall be the nature of this service, and least of all would we say how it should deal with any matter affecting the government.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Last April, when the bond issue of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway was being put on the money market, that same association telegraphed over here that the whole issue had been subscribed, when as a matter of fact only eighty percent had been taken up.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Angus Alexander McLean: The association is absolutely non-political and non-partisan, and the j>apers connected with it are of both political parties. They have two men in London who have access to the sources of news, who get early copies of all the London papers and have access to the despatches of some of the news bureaus, so that a good and early service is obtained at a comparatively small cost. The news that has been sent here has been of a Canadian character. It was a matter of regret that previous to the establishment of this association the Canadian papers got most of their news through the American association. That news was often antiBritish and anti-Canadian and especially
intended for consumption in the American market. An arrangement was made the other day by which a new association in the west becomes connected with this association, and it will get the news. It is true that newspapers who desire to take the news must pay a portion of the cost, but they have to pay for other news, and why not pay for this?


George Eulas Foster: Do they get a decreased rate?


William Findlay Maclean: There has been a rate made so that most of the western papers can come in. It is hoped that arrangements will be made to take eastern papers in if they cannot stand the present tolls.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 
William Findlay Maclean: Ten cents per word for the cables, and each paper must pay a portion of the land tolls on this side. The market reports supplied by this service are of great interest and importance to those interested in different lines of commerce. There have been mistakes in the service, but that same remark would be true of all such services. The service is a good service; it is a Canadian service; it will be improved. The funds are very carefully administered, the collections are made every month and the newspapers pay dollar for dollar with the government. There is no politics in the association. We hope soon to have it on such a basis that it will be able to take care of itself. If we wish to improve our connection with the old country, if we wish to be more in touch with the mother land, nothing can so much conduce to that end as the establishment of cable lines owned by the governments of Great Britain and Canada, and I throw out this as a hint to the government. One of the postal reformers in England stated the other day that he sees a penny-a-word cable service in sight. I trust that may come, but it can only come by co-operation between the governments. The greatest monopoly in the world to-day is the cable monopoly, which has its headquarters in London, and they have been able to maintain exorbitant cable tolls.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What about the Marconi system?


William Findlay Maclean: I had hoped that by this time the Marconi system would have made good, and I believe that some of our news despatches have come by Marconi. It is true that some of the news bureaus in London, which are also great monopolies, have tried to break down the Canadian Press Association by offering to take charge of the collection and distribution of Canadian news. But no matter how well conducted a news bureau in London may be, our contention is that it is better

1284S
that the Canadian press should make its own selection of the news to be cabled here. I may point out that in connection with the recent elections in England and in connection with the great sporting events we have had a first-class service. The rifle contests at Bisley are also well reported, and if we pay money out of the national treasury to send our volunteers to Bisley we might certainly pay a little to obtain the news of their achievements. The Olympic games are now going on in London and we have made arrangements to get early news of the results. 1 trust that the cable will be able to announce the success of the Canadian competitors.
Mr. BERGERuN. Who are the gentlemen who represent the Canadian press in London?


William Findlay Maclean: There are two of them, but their names I do not remember, altnough I saw them the other day. I believe they are Canadian newspaper men who have gone to England for that purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: X agree with the Minister of Finance that it would be impossible for the government to attempt any censorship of the news which is seat by the association to this country. X suppose the only reasonable way to look at it would be to consider what the mews was which came to the Canadian press before this service was instituted and what it would be mt present without that service. I am not familiar enough with the subject to venture any opinion as to whether the changes In that respect are so marked as to make it worth while for parliament to [DOT]continue the grant. I have no doubt the government has considered the subject, and if they believe it to be of sufficient importance X would not be disposed to oppose the grant. I agree entirely as to the vex-y great importance of our having news from the motherland of a distinctive character and not coloured with anything that would be more appropriate for another nation than ours. There has been a good deal of complaint of that in the past, and I think it was that very complaint that led the government to propose to parliament a vote for this service in the first instance. Some complaints have been addressed to me with regard to the character of the news very much along the line mentioned by the Minister of Finance. It was urgad that the news was sometimes of an exceedingly trivial character and of little interest to the country generally. I do not think the government can deal very well with that except by submitting the whole subject to the consideration of parliament. It would be vei'y desirable if the area over which this news were spread by the press of the country could be broadened ; at the present time it seems to be very much restricted. As my hon. friend from South York suggests, if Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
more newspapers could be induced to take the news the average cost to the newspapers of the country would be very much reduced, and the project would commend itself more to parliament than it otherwise can. I realize, of course, that that is not within the control of the government; but the government might at least urge upon the members of the association that steps should be taken in that direction. In fact, if it were necessary to alter the conditions of the grant a little in order to widen the area, I think that would be a wise coui-se.


Haughton Lennox: I have nothing to say in the way of fault-finding in connection with this matter. It is a little difficult to control the character of the news. It is exceedingly important however, that we should have early advice of certain matters transpiring not only in Great Britain but in other parts of the world-financial, . industrial and commercial news. One suggestion I would like to impress upon the minister as to which he can probably do something. He has said that the news sometimes appears to be trivial. It is undoubtedly so at times, and what 1 think should be impressed on those furnishing the news is this, that Canada can only afford to pay for news that is industrially, commercially or nationally .important For instance, we could not very well justify paying very much money for social news, but we can justify paying money for anything that will advance the interests of the great producing classes in Canada, such as the manufacturers and the agriculturists.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has my hon. friend ever received any remarks from the French newspapers of Canada in reference to this service ? I know that some of the large French newspapers have complained very much about this service because the news all comes in English, even the news from France, and not only have they the trouble of translating it, but the news is so much changed that it is inaccurate. The hon. minister says that since this service was inaugurated we have had no anti-British news. That may be true ; I hope it is ; but we have a great deal of news, from England, from Rome, and particularly from France, that is anti-Catholic and completely erroneous, as we afterwards learn from the European papers. For these reasons, I think this is a venture that we should not have entered into.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no recollection of having received any protest from the French press on the subject, and certainly I have never received any protest from any source on the ground that the news was
12S49

offensive to the religion of our Roman Catholic brethern. I once received a personal letter from a gentleman connected with the French press to the effect that such a service was not any good to them ; but for the reason that it was a private letter, I did not feel at liberty to send it to any person in charge of the service. This service is in the hands of the press irrespective of politics, and any criticisms of its character should be communicated to the gentlemen who have charge of it. If it commends itself to the press generally, and I think it does, we are only too happy to subsidise it. But we have nothing to do with the character of the despatches.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not mean to say that there was anything injurious in the news ; but we got news which was not true, and it was only by reading the newspapers that we received eight or ten days afterwards that we found that it was not true. This showed that the service was not properly controlled. How did the newspapers get the news before we subsidised this service ?


William Stevens Fielding: They got it through the American Associated Press. The rich American papers controlled the whole business, appointed the correspondents and fixed the tolls, and our papers were furnished at low rates, with so much of the news as they chose to take. The news was very often coloured with anti-British feeling, to put it mildly. There were only two papers in Canada, the Toronto ' Globe ' and the Montreal ' Star, which had their own cable news from England.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would like to call the attention of my hon. friend to the statement he made a moment ago concerning the character of certain news which is to be found in our French newspapers. Does he say that that news comes from the associated press?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I have been told so.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sure it does_not. It does not come from London at all but comes direct or through the American associated press.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I was told the contrary, and was told that by these gentlemen that they were not only paying their share for this press service but paying it for news which was contrary to the truth.


William Findlay Maclean: If there is any religious news of interest to the Canadian people, such as news from Rome regarding the appointments of bishops and other ecclesiastical matters of interest, and if any one in Rome will give that news to the Canadian press, our newspapers would be only too glad to disseminate it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As a reader of the press and as having been a member of the Press 408
Association, I am somewhat interested in newspaper affairs and follow very closely the despatches sent by the correspondent in London, Mr. Robertson, the brother of Mr. John Ross Robertson, of Toronto. From my personal knowledge. I can assure my hon. friend that he never, to my recollection sent anything which could be found objectionable by any race or creed. As regards news which appears sometimes in our press and to which objection may be taken, my attention was called by one of the highest dignitaries of the church in the province of Quebec to some items which appeared in a newspaper with which I am somewhat connected.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The ' Nationaliste ' ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, nor 1 L'Action So-ciaie.' I refer to ' Le Canada ' of which I am vice-president. This dignitary pointed out that the item in question had not been taken from the British press nor had it come through any service we have in England, but was taken from newspapers published on the continent, which are opposed to the Catholic church. My hon. friend has never been on the staff of a newspaper or he would know that the scissors play a large part in" the editorial room.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But we do not pay for that news.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But the public do. I am sure my hon. friend has no intention of injuring Mr. Robertson or making any insinuations against him. Mr. Robertson we know to be a fair minded man who would not lower himself by publishing anything disparaging to any religion.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I did not know who was responsible and I do not know Mr. Robertson, and am not making any charge or implying anything against him. All I say is that a lot of trash is sent across and published in our papers, which our papers would not publish if they had to pay the full rates and were not aided by this government subsidy.


George Eulas Foster: I am told that the Reuters Press Agency is the most complete in the world, and that they made a proposition to put the whole of their world news at the disposal of the Canadian Press Association and allow that association to select their own editor so as to insure the sending of news that would be of use to Canada. In that way we would get a broader and a better service than we get now. Has the Finance Minister had any such proposition made to him?


William Stevens Fielding: A gentleman connected with the Reuters discussed the subject with me, but I do not think any proposal was ever made in writing. My suggestion was that he should consult the representatives of the press here and see whether they were



prepared to make any arrangement with him to replace the present one. I did not feel that I was in a position to make any arrangement with Reuters.


Mr.   POSTER@: I did not suggest that, but when the government is paying out $60,000 in five years, is it not interested in finding out whether we could not have an improved service ? The service is not satisfactory at present although it is better than the" old United States associated service. But it is not as good as we ought to have now.


William Stevens Fielding: In these things, it seems .to me, the interests of the newspapers are much greater than those of the government. Of course, as representing the public, we are interested, to the extent of the subsidy, in having a good service. But the newspapers have even a deeper interest; and besides they know the best kind of news and they know the best way to get it. If Reuters was the best source of supply, we could trust the newspapers, in their desire to get the best service, to make whatever arrangement might be most advisable. I thought I was doing right in' saying to the representative of Reuter's : See these newspaper gentlemen ; we are anxious only to subsidize the best service, and the newspapers are the best judges of what is the best service. That is why it seems to me I was right in referring the matter to them.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
At six oclock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PROHIBITION OF OPIUM.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 205) to prohibit the importation, manufacture and sale of opium for other than medical purposes, read the second time, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 183) to amend the Canada Shipping Act read the second time, and House went Into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This section is to take the place of section 4 of the Canadian Shipping Act. By section 4 it was provided that nothing in that section concerning the registration of ships should apply to ships belonging to His Majesty. In 1906 the imperial parliament passed an Act by which ships belonging to His Majesty should be registered. It did not make provision with regard to ships belonging to His Majesty Mr. FIELDING.
in the colonies, but it reserved that power for the colonies themselves to exercise.
On section 2,


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The object of this amendment is to prevent the multiplication of the same name for ships. There was no provision in the law to the effect that when a ship was registered the name should be submitted to the department to find out whether it should be used. The result has been that a good many ships are bearing the same name. We find now, especially in sailing vessels, .that there are not less than fifteen or twenty ships in one case bearing the same name. The imperial parliament passed a law last year by which the duplication of names should be avoided, by compelling people seeking for registration to send the name of their ship to the government. We are adopting absolutely the same legislation as was adopted by the English parliament.
On section 3,


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Sections 74 and 75 of the 'Shipping Act provide that in order to be admitted to examination a man must be a British subject, or domiciled in Canada for three years. It amounts to about the same thing, because when a man has been previously domiciled in Canada it is supposed that he takes out his naturalization papers. But it has been found that no such provision exists in the United States, and they simply confine the application to pass an examination to persons who are American citizens. This Bill is for the purpose of giving to the Governor in Council or to parliament the right to prohibit any citizen of a country which does not give us the same privilege as we are giving to it, the right to refuse such citizen to be admitted to pass the examination. My hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) wanted to make some remarks on this clause and we might therefore let it stand.
Section allowed to stand.
On section decertified officers.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What does that mean ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The sections which are mentioned before section 98 have reference to British ships which, not being registered in Canada, were not obliged to take certificated officers when they left our ports. A Bill was introduced by my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean) some time ago dealing with the same question. The matter was dealt with by a special committee and as a result of the work of that committee a report has been made at variance with the section which is now proposed. In view of that I do not want to press this section, but I am willing to accept the report of the committee which has given the matter full consideration. We will strike out this section, and propose later

on the amendments which have been accepted by the committee.
Section withdrawn.
On section 5-certified oflicers.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The object of this section, I think, will commend itself to all the members of this House. It is to provide that gasolene launches and gasolene boats of a small tonnage will not be obliged to take on certificated officers. This is done to meet a situation which exists on the St. Lawrence. It will be well known by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) and also by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) that American launches are carrying passengers and doing work on the St. Lawrence without being obliged to employ certificated officers, while our laws provide that Canadian launches are obliged to employ certificated officers. It was found that this legislation was affecting our citizens and it was thought advisable to provide that small gasolene launches of less than five tons gross tonnage should not be obliged to employ certificated officers.


Mr. J. D. REID.: How does our Canadian law now compare with the American law as far as gasolene launches are concerned? I was around the Thousand Islands a short time ago and I was told our Canadian laws are much stricter than the American laws.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Precisely; this clause is proposed to meet the situation which my hon. ffiend has just mentioned.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to see the same' laws in force in both American and Canadian waters. There is so much traffic between the different points on the St. Lawrence that if you have different laws you will have trouble arising all the time. On the other side, as far as lights and signals are concerned, the laws are very good. I do not know what the laws are here, but I believe they should be practically the same on both sides of the river.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is the nature of the proposition.


John Dowsley Reid: That is all I want.
On section 6-going to sea without certificate.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to correct an error which has occurred in the revised statutes. It is to restore practically what was in existence before the revision of the statutes and which perhaps is the law today, but in order to avoid any misunderstanding we thought it better to have this special clause put in the Act.
On section 7-offences.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to be struck out also, because it deals with the offences 408i
which were mentioned in section 4, which section was struck out. When we come to incorporate in the Bill the Bill which has been submitted to this House by the special committee appointed for that purpose this section will be of no use.	,
'Section withdrawn.
On section 8-nfees on engagement or discharge of seamen.
Mr. j. D. REID. Do these shipping masters receive a salary from the government ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, they are paid by fees. Some years ago there was a great deal of agitation in British Columbia concerning this matter. A law was passed by which it was provided that a shipping master should have the right to make a formal agreement with vessel owners enabling him to charge $10 for the hiring of men. They framed the statute in such a way that when there is no agreement, if a seaman comes and hires himself before the shipping master, the shipping master is not entitled to anything. The law was so framed that the shipping master would be deprived of his fees if there were no formal agreement.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are these fees taken out of the wages of the sailors ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No ; they are paid by the vessel owner.


John Howard Sinclair: The fee provided for in British Columbia is a very large one indeed and might be rather a serious thing for the vessel owner. There would be a crew of 25 men on an ordinary tramp steamer and the shipping master would get $250 for an hour's work. I would like an explanation of why you allow $10 in British Columbia and only 50 cents in the other provinces ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some years ago it was found absolutely impossible to find seamen in British Columbia, and with the consent of the vessel owners I believe, it was arranged that a fee might be agreed upon between the owners and the shipping masters. This law does not compel the vessel owner to pay $10 ; it simply says that he may make an agreement with the shipping master to pay that sum, but if he can get men for 50 cents so much the better for him.
Mr. ,T. D. REID. Could a man be inspector of hulls and shipping master at the same time ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I know of no such case.


John Dowsley Reid: It would be a very dangerous thing if that were allowed because there are some vessels which If they were better inspected it would be all the I better for those who sail on them.


Robert Laird Borden: There was a good deal of discussion when this amendment in the law which you are now retaining was passed about two years ago. Does the minister knows how it has worked out in practice ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It has worked out satisfactorily. We had a complaint about one shipping master which was investigated and held not to be well founded.


James Conmee: Would tbe provisions in clause 5 exempt vessels propelled by electricity or gasoline from carrying a certified officer ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. This provision was inserted to meet the representations from the St. Lawrence and the Lake of the Woods districts, that these vessels should not be obliged to carry a certified engineer or master. It is proposed that all vessels less than five tons shall not be obliged to have a certified officer.


James Conmee: It would seem to me that the language of subsection (c) of section 13 might conflict with section 5 in this lespect, but if the minister is satisfied I suppose it will be all right.
On section 9-tonnage duty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The object of this provision is to reduce the dues which are levied upon vessels for the Sick Mariners' fund from 2 cents per ton to H cents per ton. It has been found that we have been collecting more than has been expended, and we hope that this reduction will make the receipts and expenditures about equal.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am glad that the minister is making that change. At present there is a large surplus in this fund, because the tax is bringing much more than is required for the benefit of sick seamen.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is a surplus, but not a large surplus, and It has been considered advisable not to impose on the vessels a larger tax than is required for the maintenance of the sick seamen. With this reduction there may not be sufficient to cover the expenditure ; but we hope to make it sufficient by a wise administration of the money entrusted to us.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I may say that the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Mr. Pre-fontaine, expressed himself In this House as being of the opinion that the wffiole tax ought to be abandoned, and expressed his intention of making that change.
Mr. BRODEUR, We must of course provide for the sick seamen. If the vessel owners were willing to undertake the matter themselves, that would perhaps be sufficient ; but it is feared that in some cases the vessel owners would not look properly after their sick seamen, and therefore it is


John Dowsley Reid: perhaps better to maintain the situation as it is.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I quite agree that the government would have to look after the sick seamen, but I thought there might be some other method of doing it.
On section 10-pilotage dues.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This section is proposed for the purpose of repealing the legislation passed some years ago providing that vessels plying between the Great Lakes and Montreal and Quebec should not be required to take on any pilots. Some accidents have occurred as a result of this, because I was surprised to hear some time ago, some pilots whom we had dismissed had been taken on by some of these vessel owners. The Shipping Federation is urging strongly this legislation, because, as everybody is aware, the channel between Montreal and Quebec is not a very wide one, and the vessels plying there have to be put into the hands of persons of experience ; but it is feared that they are sometimes put into the hands of persons who are not experienced, and that accidents have occurred in consequence. I may quote the cases of the ' Cassandra,' the ' Turret Bell,' and the 'John Lambert.' When we learned that the vessels were taking on apprentice pilots whom we had dismissed for misconduct, we thought the time had arrived when we should impose this restriction.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The section referred to in this clause refers to ships that are exempted from compulsory pilotage. I would like to call the minister's attention to the next succeeding section in the Act, namely, section 478, where he will see that the pilotage authorities of certain pilotage districts are. notwithstanding anything contained in this last section, authorized to make regulations as to what ships shall be exempted from compulsory pilotage. The ports mentioned are Halifax, Sydney, Miramichi, and Pictou. I wish to call the ministers attention to the fact that the pilotage authorities in the port of St. John are the pilot commissioners, who have as full control over pilotage matters in that, port as any pilot commissioners have in any of the ports of Canada. I inquired at the department to ascertain why it was that the pilotage authorities of the port of St. John were not given the same power and authority as the pilot commissioners in those ports that I have named, and the department was unable to furnish any reason. I do not know whether the minister has since acquired the information, but when I spoke to him he could not give any reason why the pilot commissioners at St. John were not included in section 478.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend drew my attention some time ago privately to this matter and I asked the officers of my

department to find out the reason of the omission and they have not been able to do so. I surmise, however, that the reason was perhaps, due to the fact that St. John, is treated differently from the other harbours. There was special legislation passed in the 80's concerning it.
Mr. DANIEL,. That has nothing to do with the pilotage authorities.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I know. It was with regard to the administration of the harbour itself, but it is probably due to that fact that St. John has not been treated in the same way as the other ports mentioned in section 478. I intend looking into the matter, and if there be no reason found why St. John should not be on the same footing as the other ports, we shall have to amend the law. I am under the impression, however, but speak subject to correction, that there has been some protest on the part of the Board of Trade on the ground that if St. John were put on the same footing as the other harbours, the result would probably be an increase in the rates for tolls which the vessel owners would have to pay.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Not necessarily. It all depends upon the action of the pilotage commissioners. I do not know whether they ai'e all appointed by the common council or a portion by the common council and a portion by the government, but the effect of placing the authority in the hands of the pilot commissioners would not necessarily result in any increase of the pilotage dues.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, it might, because the harbour of St. John would then be included in clause 477, under which all vessels plying between Nova Scotia or any part of the Bay of Fundy and St. John would not be obliged to pay any pilotage dues, whereas under section 478 the pilot authorities would have the right to impose such dues. I think that was the objection made by the board of trade.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This would give the commissioners probably the authority to impose pilotage dues on some vessels that are not now affected, but the point is whether it would not be fair and right to do so under the circumstances.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is considered that St. John is too big a port for that. Mr. Fin-layson moved to add the following subsection to section 10 :
Subsection 1 of section 477 is amended by adding the following paragraph:
Ships making or entering the harbour for refuge shall not pay pilotage dues.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no objection to incorporate this amendment which has met the approval of the subcommittee to which the Bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act was referred.
On subsection 11,
11. Paragraphs (i) and (j) of section 565 of the said Act are repealed and the following are substituted therefor:
(i)	' passenger ' means any person carried on a steamboat other than the master and crew, the owner, his family and the servants connected with his household, and other than the guests of the owner of any steamboat used exclusively for pleasure, if such guests are carried on such steamboat without remuneration or any object of profit; and
(j)	f passenger steamer ' means any steamboat carrying passengers.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The object is to make clear what constitutes a passenger. Application was made the department to allow freight vessel owners to bring guests in their boats. It was feared that if such permission were given, it would perhaps cause those freight vessels to have a passenger service and so we thought it advisable to make it very clear that this would not be allowed.
On section 14-to amend section 591.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The old section 591 provided simply that the report should be made to the inspector. We want it made very clear that it shall be made to the inspector who issued the certificate.


Robert Laird Borden: The expression is a *little unusual-' shall report such occurrence to the office of the inspector.' Why 'the office ' ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is what we proposed. But the Senate thought that, as the inspector might be dead, or might have disappeared or been replaced, it would be better that the report be made to the office. I think this was suggested by the leader of the opposition in the Senate. It was accepted by us, as we wish to have the provision verey definite.


Robert Laird Borden: The form of words is unusual. I should have supposed that some such expression as ' to the inspector who issued the certificate or his successor in office ' would be better.


John Dowsley Reid: The inspector is often away from his office. Go to the office of the inspector in Kingston while he is off inspecting, and you will find his office locked up.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is Mways somebody to attend to this work. It is supposed that they will have somebody to attend to it.


John Dowsley Reid: They have no clerks.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They do some other work generally, and they have somebody to attend to these matters.


John Dowsley Reid: I have gone many times to the inspector's office in Kingston.

and found him away on duty and his office closed up.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think that this clause could be improved. What would the leader of the opposition think of using the expression ' make a report of such occurrence to the office of the inspector ' ?


Robert Laird Borden: The minister's suggestion would still leave the matter open to the objection on the ground I have mentioned. But it may work out; I am not very critical of the language.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the inspector of hulls also the inspector of machinery?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There Is the Inspector of hulls and also the inspector of boilers and machinery. The report is to be made to this inspector who gave the certificate.


Robert Laird Borden: I might suggest what I think will meet the point, and that is to provide that the report shall be in writing. If the party making the report found the office locked he might fulfil the letter of the law as here proposed by standing there and making the report to the office.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no objection in accepting the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 15-changes in certificated officers to be reported.
John Howard Sinclair: I think subsection 2 of this section is objectionable. It imposes a new duty on the captain and owner of the ship of reporting to the inspector whenever he changes an officer. It is customary for steamboats crossing the Atlantic to change their officers every trip, and it would be a good deal of trouble to the captain to report every change of officers to the inspector, who I suppose, is some officer in Ottawa, who would simply file it away in a pigeon-hole, so that, while a good deal of trouble for the captain, it would be of no advantage to anybody. We now require the custom-house officer to see that the captain and mate have certificates as required under the law. If you choose to impose the same duty upon the customs officer with regard to engineers, I have no objection. I think subsection 2 should be cut out.


Mr. PARDEE.: I endorse the remarks of my hon. friend from Nova Scotia (Mr. Sinclair). So far as the inland waters are concerned, if ibis duty is imposed upon masters I feel sure it is a law which will not to be adhered to to any great degree. For on inland waters officers are changed very often in the season. Besides, this seems rather impracticable. I cannot see what is to be safeguarded by having this seotion passed, as. under the law, these Mr. J. D. REID.
men must have certificates in order to be employed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the spring, for example, on the inland waters, the inspector is obliged to see that all the requirements of tue law has been complied with before he gives his certificate. It was supposed that this legislation would be a very wise move, because it would ensure that those in charge of the vessel are certificated officers. When a change takes place we have nothing before us to show whether this vessel is properly manned afterwards; no report has been made showing whether she has on board an officer possessing a proper certificate. If we find that it is necessary, when a vessel is inspected in the spring, to have the names of the certificated officers on that vessel, and that the certificate shown to the inspector bears those names, I think it is a wise suggestion that when a change takes place it should be at least communicated to the department. Then we will know whether the new appointment on the vessel is a certificated officer or not. We have not in the service a sufficient number of men to inspect every vessel plying on the ocean or inland waters; that is why I think we should require that when a change takes place in the officers of a vessel that change should be communicated to the department.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If the statement of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) is correct that the vessel cannot clear unless she has the proper certificated officers, what is the necessity for this?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are places where we are not obliged to clear, places in the inland waters.


John Howard Sinclair: The inspector has the duty imposed upon him in the spring, or at the time of inspection, to' see that the men have a proper certificate. It is the duty of the engineer to hang the certificate up in the cabin, and the engineer is fined $20 if that certificate is not found hanging there. I do not believe, however, that a case has ever occurred where a ship has been sailed in Canadian waters requiring a certificate by an engineer that did not have a certificate. The owner of the vessel is under a heavy penalty if he employs a man without a certificate. Then there is this other safeguard, that he can be called upon at any moment to produce his certificate. I think those provisions are sufficient, and we are imposing another duty upon the ship owner and the shipping master that, to my mind, is altogether unnecessary. If we keep on piling new duties on these people we will drive away ships from our waters altogether. I do not believe there hag been a single Act passed in the Canadian parliament during the last ten years that has

really had the effect of encouraging the shipping industry of this country. Every one of those Acts imposes some new burden on the man who is endeavouring to prosper in his business. This Act is a sample of a good many others that have been passed. We have to have certificated engineers for every tug boat in Canada that has an engine over a certain size. Tug boats were allowed to run without any certificated officers in Canada and in England, and there are twenty tug boats in British waters for one in Canadian waters, and there are no certificated officers required. But for the purpose of pleasing some labour people somewhere, we are imposing a new duty on the ship owner to employ certificated men on tug boats. I understand there are about 700 of those tug boats in Canadian waters, many of them engaged in hauling logs, in the Ottawa river, and isolated places in the northern parts of this province. The tug boat is owned by the engineer; or his son is perhaps the engineer, and the owner is the captain. These men are the only people on the tug boat. Mr. Adams who is in charge of this department, says that he scarcely ever knew of an accident happening through these men being uncertificated. If you read the evidence taken before a commission of this House two years ago, evidence given by the shipping men in Ottawa, you will see that thev point out what a serious thing it is for them that they should be compelled to employ certificated men on their tug boats in the upper waters. But that, discussion will come on better when this clause now suspended is taken up. I would like hon. members who take an interest in this matter to look into this question before it does come up.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This clause will be considered to-morrow.
On section 17-temporary certificates to act as engineer.


James Conmee: I think the machinery of the old law was preferable. A large number of boats are now being operated on the inland waters that cannot be operated after this law comes into force. I understand that it makes a further restriction. What is the use of talking about a tug boat of only four nominal horse power, of what service is that kind of a boat?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The object of this amendment is simply to provide for a situation which occurs in New Brunswick. The old section provided that the minister could issue temporary certificates on a steamboat authorizing the engineer to operate within certain specified limits in the waters of Canada. The result was that in New Brunswick, in the district of Passamo-quoddy Bay, temporary certificates were given to persons plying between Grand
Manan to the mainland, but if they wanted to go outside to Eastport, those temporary certificates could not be used. The change which is proposed is that the minister may specify the limit within which he shall act.


Mr DANIEL.: It merely cuts out ' within specified limits in the waters of Canada.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes and the limit shall be specified as designated in the certificate. This is to give to a person the advantage of acting not only in Canada but also on the other side of the line.


James Conmee: Unfortunately the minister, or the draughtsman who drew this clause, has in his mind a particular situation in one of the provinces, but the law applies to the whole Dominion of Canada. We have plying on the Lake of the Woods, Wabigoon lake and a dozen other lakes, boats of 30 or 40 horse-power. This Act would cut them out. They are already suffering great hardship. Section 26 of the Act, 45 Victoria, provides that :
The minister, upon a report of a duly appointed and qualified examiner of masters and mates, may grant a temporary certificate as master to an applicant sufficiently qualified by hia knowledge and experience to take charge of a steamboat of not more than ten tons gross tonnage.
A few years ago that tonnage was changed to 20 tons but the number of passengers were not increased. The Act now provides that he may take charge of a boat 20 tons gross tonnage carrying not more than ten passengers and plying within the minor inland waters of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER.: That refers to masters and this deals with engineers.


James Conmee: The same thing applies to engineers. On the minor inland waters the law is not respected and it cannot be. The people have the right to carry on their-business, they will carry it on and if the law is not made to suit conditions they will take the risk of violating it. That is what they are doing to-day. Along the line of construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific boats are plying on the inland waters of from 80 to 100 tons and of from 25 to SO horse-power. This also cuts it out because it is of more than 20 tons gross tonnage. The law states that they must have a certificated officer handling a boat of more than that tonnage unless permitted under the rules of the department, which I understand, they are sometimes in the discretion of the inspector. Yet, the boat upon which that master is placed is confined to ten passengers. That is entirely unreasonable, there is no good purpose served by it and it is only imposing a hardship and impossible conditions upon the owners and those who operate these boats. It may be said that you can get a certificated engineer and

captain to run these boats. But, you cannot <lo it.


John Dowsley Reid: Why ?


James Conmee: Take the best certificated officer you have on the Great lakes, put him on the lake of the Woods and he cannot run a boat of 20 tons because there are no charts of that lake. No man can run a boat on one of these small inland lakes except the man who has grown up in the district and knows the local waters.


John Dowsley Reid: Why does he not get the certificate of a master or engineer ?


James Conmee: He ought to do it but the law will not give it to him. The way to remedy this is not to impose more onerous conditions but to give the inspector jurisdiction. The inspectors are either competent or they are not competent. Why not allow the inspector to say what boat an officer is capable of sailing ? If a boat is capable of carrying twenty passengers say so ; if it is competent to carry more than 20 passengers why should it not be allowed to do it? If a contractor wants to remove his staff of 50 or 100 men from one point to another is he going to make ten trips with a tug when he might do it all at once ? The boat is perfectly safe and large enough. What purpose is served by imposing such a condition as this ? It must be apparent to the minister that the risk will be taken, that the boat will carry a larger number of passengers and take the chance of the penalties being imposed. I submit that there should be a change, that instead of it being limited to 4 nominal horse-power it should be 30 or 40 horse-power when a law is being made which is going to apply to the whole of Canada. We had my hon. friend from Strathcona (Mr. McIntyre) making the same statement with regard to certain waters in his constituency. He said that no man could sail a vessel on these rivers unless he had knowledge of the river or unless he had been engaged there for a year or so before he became the master of a boat. You can employ no one to ran these boats except the men who have had practical local knowledge and experience of the particular water in which the boat is operating. Therefore, these hampering conditions which serve no good purpose and which do not protect the public should be removed from the Act instead of further onerous conditions being imposed.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I must take exception to the last remark of my hon. friend from Rainy River (Mr. Conmee). We are not increasing the difficulty which he is mentioning; it is quite the reverse. The statute which is now in force provides that a temporary certificate may be issued to engineers of vessels of 4 nominal horse-power of the single cylinder type and 9 horse-power


Mr CONMEE.: if of the compound type. We are increasing it to 14. Instead of increasing the difficulty which my hon. friend has mentioned we are moving in the direction which he suggests. In regard to the suggestion of my hon. friend that we should leave entirely to the discretion of the inspector the question as to whether certificates should be given or not, I do not quite agree with him. I think that in this case it should not be left entirely in the discretion of the inspector. Of course, if there are special circumstances we do not want to take any action that would prove a hardship to any person, but is it not dangerous that passenger vessels should be operated by persons who are not absolutely qualified? Why should not these men pass their examinations and take certificates? We are willing to grant them certificates in the cases of small vessels. But, to go farther than that, as my hon. friend suggests, and issue temporary certificates to officers of vessels of 40 horse-power is a very serious step and a step in the wrong direction. We must ensure the safety of the people. Passengers are going on these boats and we must see that these boats are in charge of persons who are properly qualified. In exceptional circumstances we issue temporary certificates and if there were cases which would prove a very serious hardship we would consider the circumstances. I remember a case which came to my knowledge a few years ago where, on Lake Te-miskaming, the engineer of a boat left and they could not get anybody to take charge of the vessel. Of course, we would not take procedings where it was impossible to get men. To provide that these vessels should be obliged to take officers who pass an examination would be a serious step.


James Conmee: The argument of the minister is against himself, because if this is an improvement and not a restriction then it shows how bad the former law was. I had the honour of accompanying a deputation, some of whom came 1,000 miles, to see the minister, and it was pointed out to him that if they were obliged to engage certificated officers, these men could only stand round and draw their pay wnne the local men who had knowledge of the waters operated the vessels. What good purpose can be accomplished by such legislation as this. I would ask him to let clause IT stand until he considers it further.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: I will be very glad to consult Mr. Adams who has a great deal of experience in this matter.


James Conmee: I want to enter my protest here. Is there no regard to be paid to the thousands of people who have their money invested and who do busines with these vesels. I do not think it is a sufficient answer to the representations made to say
12S65

that some officers of the department will be consulted. I protest against that.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Conmee). Here is one of the most important Bills of the session submitted to us within two or three days of prorogation, when it should have been introduced long ago and referred to a committee so as to allow the vessel owners and others interested to be heard. There is a good deal in this Bill that should be criticised but we are told that it must slide through now. We have had navigation laws for a great many years and they could easily be allowed to exist for the three or four months intervening between this and next session when a well considered Bill could be introduced and the people interested heard in regard to it. The government will have to take the responsibility of this Bill because the House is not treated fairly by submitting it to us at this late hour of the session.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Bill has been before the House since June 2 and previous to that it was fully discussed in the Senate and the interested parties had the advantage of being heard. I sent it to the Senate in order to give the interested parties an opportunity of being heard.
(Mr. R. L. BORDEN. Were they heard before the Senate ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know if the Bill was referred to a special committee; I am informed now it was not.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the very point 1 raised.
iMr. BRODEUR. It has been before the Senate for three months.


James Conmee: Who knew anything about that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: For several sessions past there have been Bills brought before the House by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Leighton McCarthy) and the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. McLean) and they have been discussed in the House and referred to committees. The change proposed in this section is a mere verbal change and it removes some of the disabilities which have been mentioned.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister tells us to-night that he does not know anything about the Bill and that he will have to consult his officer who is not present. The Bill is prepared by his officer who no doubt does his best, and while it may be all right in theory it may be all wrong in practice. I want the very best Bill that can be produced and one which will protect the public while at the same time it will not be a hardship on those interested in the business.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under the present law these temporary Certificates are issued only
to engineers in charge of 9 horse-power compound engines and now we are extending it to 14 horse-power so that it lessens the restrictions formerly placed on vessel owners.
Mx-. EMMERSON. I have been informed that application has been made on behalf of certain ship owners in the maritime provinces to so widen the Act as to enable Canadian vessels up to 500 tons to sail as far as the River La Platte without certified masters and mates. Is that provided for in this Bill?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say that such a question was brought up in connection with a Bill which has been introduced by my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. McLean). This Bill was referred to a committee, which heard evidence and unanimously reported in favour of some changes being made in that direction. I think the committee recommended the adoption, not of the River La Platte, but of British Guiana, as the limit. That provision will be incorporated as a section in this Bill.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would oppose the enlargement of the powers in that direction, and I speak on behalf of ship owners as well as of ship masters and mates. I have under my hand a long communication, which I do not propose to inflict on the House at this moment, but I would like to know when that amendment will be under discussion.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As soon as we are through with the Bill as it is, I understand that a motion will be made to incorporate iu this Bill the provision which has been reported by that committee.


Mr. PERLEY.: This section 17 refers to the granting of temporary certificates to engineers on small passenger steamers. I think the minister might increase the horsepower, on which he would grant temporary certificates, to fifteen or twenty horse-power, I want to point out that there is nothing here providing for the granting of temporary certificates to engineers on tug boats. For instance, on the Ottawa river there are a great many tug boats engaged in towing logs, none of which have certificated engineers, although many of the engineers on them are able to take the machinery to pieces and put it together again, and have been at their work for many years. Provision ought to be made for granting temporary certificates to these men.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is nothing in any existing legislation requiring tug boats to have certificated engineers. This Bill will provide that engineers on tug boats of a certain size shall be obliged to have certificates. If the House agrees with that, we shall have to provide for issuing temporary certificates to engineers on tug boats.
Sections 17,18, 19 and 21 allowed to stand.

On section 22-deck loads.
iMr. BRODEUR. This provision is for the purpose of making the phraseology the same as in the British Bill.
On section 25,
Section 732 of the Canada Shipping Act is amended by adding thereto the fallowing paragraph :
' Certificate ' includes license and branch license.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In our law there are cases in which rve issue not only licenses but certificates. This is for the purpose of declaring that certificates include licenses and branch licenses.
On section 28,
The said Act is amended by inserting the following section immediately after section 782:
782a. It shall not be necessary to hold a preliminary investigation before a formal investigation is held.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is to meet some cases, in which the negligence is so apparent that it becomes necessary to hold immediately a formal investigation.
I intend to move the following amendment:
That after paragraph (d) the following be inserted:
Where the minister has reason to believe that a master, mate, pilot or engineer is unfit or unable to discharge the duties.
This is to meet the case of an officer who may be blind or have some defect which renders him absolutely incapable. There is no provision at present to give the minister the right to hold an investigation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 29,
29. Section 784 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
784. A court holding a formal investigation into a shipping casualty shall hold it with [DOT]two or more assessors to be selected for that purpose by the minister. Such assessors shall have nautical, engineering, or special skill in the matter to be inquired into, and the court shall be the sole judge as to whether any assessor possesses the requisite skill.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Section 784 provides that the assessors must be men having experience in the merchant service. We may not, however, have any such officer at our disposal, but we may have an officer who has a certificate of the Royal Navy, for example, and we therefore think it advisable that we should dispense with the words ' having experience in the merchant service.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Can the hon. minister tell me how often this Canada Shipping Act has been amended since its first enactment ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It has been changed very often like all laws that have been long on the statute-book. Generally speaking, the principles we follow in the Canada Shipping Act are those adopted in England. In England they pass laws affecting even Canada in relation to shipping in some cases, and it is found in these cases that it is wise to have similar laws here.


Mr. MONK.: Do any of the provisions of this Bill apply to stationary engineers ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Because representations have been made to me from Montreal that it is very desirable that legislation on these lines should be passed for stationary engineers.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is a matter for the provinces. Boilers are inspected by the provincial authorities-I know that as far as my own province is concerned that is the case. The Bill does not make provision in relation to any engines and boilers except those on vessels.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But this Bill applies not only to the inspection of boilers and engines but also requires the certification of engineers.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: So far as stationary engineers are concerned, the matter is dealt with by the provincial authorities.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It may be so.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I move that the following clause be added to the Bill, and I would call the especial attention of my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Em-merson) to this :
1. Paragraph (f) of section 72 of the Canada Shipping A.ct is repealed and the following paragraph is substituted therefor :-
(f) ' coasting voyage ' means between any port or place on the eastern coast of Canada and other port or place on such coast, or in Newfoundland, Labrador or St. Pierre or Miquelon or a port or place on the eastern coast of the United States of America, or Mexico or Central America, or in the West Indies or on the eastern coast of South America, not further south than five degrees north latitude, and also means a voyage between any port or place on such coast or on the western coast of the United States of America, not further south than the harbour of Portland in the state of Oregon, and not further north than Cape Spencer in the territory of Alaska, or any inlet or bay having its entrance on the eastern side of the said cape.
My bon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) introduced this year a Bill defining the coasting voyage. It was referred to a Select Committee of this House to bear evidence. That committee made a unanimous report. They proposed to define the coasting voyage as meaning a voyage between a place in Canada and a place north of Cape Hatteras. But Cape Hatteras is in

North Carolina, and most of the coasting trade of the maritime provinces is not with that section but more especially with the West Indies. It was found advisable, that the limitation of the coasting voyage should be extended to the limits I have mentioned in this section.


Henry Robert Emmerson: How far does that take them ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: To British Guiana.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would like to bring to the notice of the committee, and particularly of the minister, the contents of a letter I have received from a retired sea captain, a gentleman of large experience who has sailed practically every water in the world. I can best do so by reading extracts from his letter :
I notice that there have been witnesses called from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island who are anxious to allow Canadian vessels as large as 500 tons to start upon voyages as far as the River La Platte without having a mate on board with a certificate of competency.
This agitation no doubt arises with owners of coasting vessels who are anxious to man their ships with cheap men as officers. This, sir, is certainly a retrograde step, and is not in the real interest of the shipping of the country and no doubt has arisen with those owners who insure their vessels with the great insurance companies and carry very little or no insurance themselves.
The writer never knew a ship owner who carried his own risk that did not prefer competent men as masters and mates. I passed my examinations in England before there were any certificates issued in Canada. At that time we were not obliged to have certificates in England, they allowed us to enter and clear our ships if the ship was owned in the provinces, but we could not sail as master or mate in a ship owned in the United Kingdom except we held certificate of servitude, showing we had been master before the year 1851 when they first issued certificates of competency in England. The examinations in Britain are a little more difficult than in Canada, but they have excellent preparatory schools where the candidates attain a prescribed way of doing the work necessary for examination, and it is in my opinion a correct and necessary way and the man who has not sufficient intelligence nor energy to attain it, should not be placed in a position of such responsibility as attaches to the master or mate of a ship with cargo of great value and the lives of many other men depending upon him.
It is just as necessary for a mate to have a certificate of competency as it is for the master, for a master may die or be disabled as well as another, and why should the lives of the ship's company and a valuable ship and cargo be imperilled or placed in jeopardy because the owner of the vessel can save a few dollars a month in a mate's wages ?
I am sorry to trouble you with such a lengthy document as this letter, but I know whereof I write. I know by myself I was a good mate and a good ship master before I held any certificate of competency, but was a better and more competent one thereafter. I
could give you many instances of the benefit of these examinations, but do not wish to inflict upon you unnecessary writing. But do not let us go backwards, for surely if it be necessary for those who practise law, medicine, engineering, dentistry or selling drugs, to pass examinations and obtain certificates of competency, it must be necessary for officers of ships to be competent, for a small ship unskillfully handled might easily sink one of the great steamships with a thousand people on board.
I cannot help resisting an argument in favour of retaining the examinations and issuance of certificaes of competency, which is very strongly supported by the fact that the holder of a certificate is to a very marked extent responsible for any dereliction of duty or neglect of duty, that he is held responsible and must be accountable by the Marine Department of the Board of Trade in the United Kingdom, or by the Marine Court of this country, or by a consular court of British subjects in a foreign country, who may upon sufficient evidence either cancel his certificate entirely or suspend it for almost any period, which means degradation and prevents him from attaining such position again in a British ship until the court that degraded him, or a court with equal authority reinstated him by again granting Jus certificate. This I assure you, sir, is a strong incentive to more particular attention r il8 dutv- and a constant study of the rules of the road, meaning the rules adopted by every nation that govern the conduct of ships
,?.n. aPProaching each other, the avoiding of collisions at sea, as well as the rules specified by the authority under which he holds his certificate.
'Mr. A. K. MACLEAN. I call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that, whatever be the merits of that letter, it lias no relation whatever to the section now before the committee, but it might have some relation to the next section.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the letter is germane to this section because there is the same principle. It is a retrograde movement, as I understand it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A proposition has been published to increase the tonnage of vessels. I propose to move two amendments.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But they all incorporate the same idea. In the first place, you define what coasting voyage is, but you have extended the mileage so to speak of a coasting voyage.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Masters of vessels and engineers will object to that.
.'Mr. A. K. MAOLEAN. The object of this section is to define and fix the limits of the coasting trade on the Atlantic and the Pacific. Up to 1903 the southern limits of the coasting trade extended to Cape Horn, on the western side, and consequently the coasting voyage permitted vessels to sail around the entire coast of both north and South America. Now it is proposed to

fix the southern limit at British Guiana. It is not necessary to have a certificated master or mate when engaged in the home trade in Great Britain. It is as difficult to navigate a ship along the Irish, Scottish or English coasts as it would be from the maritime provinces to the British West Indies. There is no restriction whatever there. In the United States the coasting trade law permits American vessels to engage with trade in Cuba and the Philippines, which virtually means there is no restriction whatever. If it is proposed to fix the southern limit of our coasting trade at British Guiana


Henry Robert Emmerson: Until very recently* the United States did not have certificates at all.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: We have a great deal of trade with the British West India Islands. A great number of our smaller vessels desire to engage in that trade and there is no objection to it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that to make it easier ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, it does for ships of a certain size. It will remove some restrictions. Shipping men in the maritime provinces say that it is necessary in the interests of our trade, that our shipping is at present hampered by the law as now existing.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Have you a case in view ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think that what I have said applies to the maritime provinces generally. We had a great deal of evidence taken before the committee. Vessel owners and sailing masters were here and they seemed to be of the opinion that it would be desirable to extend the limits of the coasting trade. There is some objection to increasing the tonnage of vessels which uncertified masters and mates are permitted to navigate.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think that these measures are brought down very late in the session. We have no time to go through the old Act and compare it with the amendments.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This Bill was introduced in December last and was sent to a committee for the purpose of being examined and of hearing evidence.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did this come from the Senate ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is an amendment which has been brought down from that committee. This was not in the Bill at all. The Bill introduced in the Senate was a government Bill and it has come over to us after having been a couple of months in the Senate.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What becomes of the other Bill ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The other Bill is on the Order Paper ; that is Bill (No. 12). It was presented at the opening of the session.


Robert Laird Borden: According to the ruling of the Speaker earlier in the session this could not be touched at all.


Mr. FINLAYSON.: This was reported by the committee over a month ago.


Robert Laird Borden: But, if there is a similar provision on a Bill on the Order Paper, according to a ruling of the Speaker, it cannot be dealt with now.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It cannot be passed except by the unanimous consent of the House.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It was not asked; it should have been done before.


Henry Robert Emmerson: A reference to the Act of 1903 will show that the term* coasting law ' was defined there and on the eastern const of the United States coasting vessels could go as far south as Cape Hatteras in the state of North Carolina. They could go to Newfoundland, Labrador and St. Pierre Miquelon, but they could not go down below Cuba or the Florida coast. Under the amendment that is now proposed a coasting vessel-


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Can go around the world.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Can go practically anywhere in South America.


John Waterhouse Daniel: She cannot cross the equator.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It might as well be so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: No, it rnignt not, because crossing the equator is much more difficult navigation that getting down to the equator or within a few degrees of it. In the evidence that we had before this committee that matter was fully brought out. An effort was made by some members of the committee to extend coasting voyages as far as the River Platte, but in the professional evidence that we had, objection was made to giving a coasting voyage certificate that would allow a coasting voyage to extend beyond the equator on account of the difficult navigation that is encountered in that region. That is really the reason why the coasting voyage was not extended.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of course, my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) having been a member of that committee, and having heard all that evidence, would be in a much better position than I am to speak of that, but I certainly would submit this fact that there must be much more difficult navigation south of Cape Hatteras than there is north of it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: One of the most difficult sections of the east coast of the United States is south of Hatteras. Vessels coming from the West Indies or from South America find the very greatest difficulty in approaching Hatteras. I do not, of course, assume to have any technical knowledge, but I have always understood from sen captains that their greatest difficulties in coming from southern ports to Canadian ports, especially in the winter season, were in approaching Hatteras. At any rate the idea involved in this amendment is that you are loosening the ropes as it were and permitting vessels to be in charge of non-certificated officers


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have what are called coastwise certificates but you are permitting them to go on voyages that are practically not coastwise, A coastwise vessel in going from any of the maritime ports in Canada will strike for Cape Cod and then go down. If going to New' York it will go through the Sound. If it is going to Philadelphia it will strike out but sometimes even then it will follow' down the Sound when going on that voyage. But, it seems to me that we are taking a retrograde step in doing aw'ay w'ith the necessity of having certificated officers on these larger voyages. Vessels of a cetrain size are enabled to engage in this coastwise traffic without being manned by certificated officers. You are going to raise that limit and therefore you are lessening or doing away with the restrictions. My hon. friend has stated, very fairly that the owners of vessels have asked for this, that tile ow'ners of vessels in Nova Scotia have deemed it to be in their interests that this should be done. Most reforms in the law respecting the safety of ships wrere carried against the protest of the ship owners.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the hon. gentleman opposing this Bill ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the Bill cannot be considered because it requires the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not raising any technical objection. I am opposing it on principle.


John Dowsley Reid: It does not make any difference w'hether it is principle or not so long as you are opposing it. I would like the ruling of the chair on that point.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That technical objection should be taken before we went into committee.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The House has given its unanimous consent to take this clause into consideration, and w'hen the clause is
being considered any hon. gentleman can express his views pro or con.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The point is that we are taking a clause from-a certain Bill on the Order Paper introduced by a private member and adding it to this government measure. The private Bill being on the Order Paper this cannot be done without the unanimous consent of the House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The unanimous consent of the House has been given.


John Howard Sinclair: This government Bill is before the House and the hon. member for Lunenburg is perfectly in order in moving his amendment.


Haughton Lennox: The amendment moved is taken from a Bill which is already on the Order Paper, and Mr. Speaker has decided quite recently that that cannot be done except by the unanimous consent of the House. The member for Westmorland does not give his consent and therefore the consideration of this Bill is not in order.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The other day the hon. member for York (Mr. Maclean) moved to add to a government Bill, a clause taken from a Bill which stood in his name, and Mr. Speaker ruled that he could not do so without the unanimous consent of the House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The unanimous consent of the House was given when I moved to consider this question, and the leader of the opposition mentioned the point but he did not press it.


Haughton Lennox: A member of this House can take an objection under the rules at any time he sees fit, and when he does so his objection disturbs the unanimous consent of the committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is your authority for that ?


Haughton Lennox: My authority is a well recognized rule of the House which was acted upon quite recently.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have submitted certain objections with respect to this legislation. In 1903 parliament decided that a coasting voyage should not extend south of Cape Hatteras and that it w'as not in the interest of safe navigation that Canadian vessels sailing from a Canadian port to an American port should be allow'ed to to go beyond Cape Hatteras unless they were in charge of officers certificated under the laws of Canada. By this amendment we propose to say that it is not necessary to restrict. Are there any reasons why we should not go back to the old law that existed previous to 1903, and indeed, previous to confederation ?


Mr. PICKUP.: In 189G, the coasting voyage extended all around the coast of South
12875 -

America. It was in 1903 that the change was made.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If in 1896 we felt that the time had not-come when we should compel every man who navigated a vessel as far south as Cape Hatteras to have a certificate, the reasoning is so much the stronger.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: You did not insist on their having certificates until 1903. Previous to 1903 certificates which were granted for coasting voyages enabled a master to sail a vessel to South America. It seems unfair to the man who gets a certificate now that he does not have the same privilege as the man who got a certificate previous to 1903.


Henry Robert Emmerson: For what reason did we limit it in 1903? I cannot conceive that this parliament would take such a step without some good and sufficient reason. I can only assume that the reason was that it was considered in the public interest that these vessels, when going on voyages south of Cape Hatteras, should be manned by officers who had certificates which were more than coastwise certificates.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to know why my hon. friend wants to stop a coasting vessel at Cape Hatteras when its business is largely south of Cape Hatteras-in the West Indies. Why does he not want the vessel to go to some place where it can get some business, where our vessels have been going for generations? I venture to say that the hon. gentleman cannot find a single accident that has happened from the fact that coasting captains have been allowed to go south of Cape Hatteras. Everybody who has studied the question has felt that a mistake was made in 1903, when the limit was fixed at Cape Hatteras. I could understand a man saying that a vessel should not go around the Horn; but to say that we should stop at Cape Hatteras when a large amount of the business is done south of that point strikes me as absurd.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We do not stop the business. We simply require that vessels engaging in that trade shall be manned by officers who have the necessary certificates.


John Howard Sinclair: You are defining the limits of a coasting voyage. Even whether a man has his certificate or not, he must stop when he reaches Cape Hatteras.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But he can have a certificate otherwise than a coastwise certificate.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend knows that most of the mariners of the maritime provinces are coast-voyage mariners, and if you force them to take seaboard certificates, you will render matters more difficult for most of them.


John Dowsley Reid: I would ask the chairman for n ruling on the point I raised.


Samuel Walter Willet Pickup: 


Charles Marcil: My ruling is that the motion is out of order unless the House unanimously consents to take it up.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Without speaking on the point of order, I would like to see the proposed legislation pass the House in one form or other, either as added sections to the government Bill or as it was introduced. It will take just as much time to-get it through later in the week as it will to-night. The minister could put himself in order bv changing a single word in the section which he asks to be added to the Bill. So I do not think my hon. friend should press his objection.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I wish it to be understood that I do not object to this amendment on the ground that it forms part of another Bill that stands on the Order Paper.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would ask my hon. friend to state his objection, so that we may know what it is, and then we can reply to it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not object to the consideration of this clause, but I do object to changing the definition of the expression ' coasting trade ' so as to allow vessels manned by those having coastwise certificates going beyond the limitations set forth in the Act of 1903.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I would propose that section 3A be added to amend section 96 by striking out 100 and substituting 150. The Act provides that a sailing ship registered in Canada of 100 tons register may go to any port in Canada on a coasting voyage. I am now proposing to make the limit 150 tons.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I shall oppose this for the reasons set forth in the letter which I read to the House.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.-
Mr. BRODEUR moved that section 97 be amended by striking out the words * two hundred ' and substituting ' four hundred.'
Henry Robert Emmerson: I object to this increase.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is with regard to the mates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The mate very often lias to take the place of the master. Frequently in voyages to the West Indies, the masters are lost at sea or die and the vessels have to be taken charge of by the mates. If there is any reason for requiring a certificated master, you should certainly require a certificated mate.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As far as Great Britain is concerned, there is no restriction.

Every vessel engaged in such voyages may be without certificated officers. In the United States the restriction is 700 tons. Before the committee it was established by evidence that it was very difficult to find mates, and in some cases vessels had to be detained a long time because they could not get proper officers. We did not think it advisable to increase the limit to 700, but the committee thought we should Increase it to four hundred. With some reluctance, the department agreed to embody this clause In the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. KEMP.: Before the Bill leaves the committee, 1 would like to ask the minister a question. With respect to section 477 of the Bill-' compulsory payment of pilotage dues '-there are certain exemptions, as, for instance, certain vessels employed in voyages between ports on the great lakes and ports on the St. Lawrence. Were the representations made by the Dominion Marine Association considered, and what was done about them?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some representations were made by the Marine Association with regard to this. They asked that the Bill should be amended in tlie opposite direction from that we have taken. But I found on examining the records that it was impossible to comply with their request. I might quote several accidents that were due to the fact that the vessels had not proper pilots. There was one case that occurred this spring. My hon. friend understands the necessity there is of having vessels in charge of the right men on the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec, the channel being somewhat narrow. Representations were made to me by the Shipping Federation that, in order to prevent accidents, we should always have pilots on these boats. The Shipping Federation represented to me the case of the ' John Lambert.' The master held a United States certificate and did not understand that toe rules for the harbour of . Montreal were different from those for the great lakes. The result of the captain not knowing this was a serious accident. Another instance was that of a young man who had been dismissed by the department as apprentice pilot because his habits were not regular, and who was taken to pilot some of these vessels. We have been taking all the precautions possible in order to ensure the safety of navigation of the St. Lawrence, and it would not do to allow a man who had been dismissed from the service because his habits were faulty to be taken on these boats and become the cause of accident.	'[DOT]


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not object to that, nor do I wish to take up time in discussing the general question. I want to know whether these exemptions were done away with ?
For instance, ships ' employed in trading between any one or more of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island and any other or others of them.' Are these cancelled?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


Albert Edward Kemp: Why discriminate? Why legislate against the captains and masters of vessels which originate in Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is a privilege not being taken advantage of by these people to whom it is allowed.


Albert Edward Kemp: But it is a very serious matter for the captains of vessels on the great lakes who are trying to build up trade between the upper lakes and the lower ports. I will not take up time discussing the matter ; I simply enter my protest against it.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Civil government-Department of Agriculture-to pay G. F. O'Halloran, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, a salary of $1,000 per annum as deputy commissioner of patents from April 1, 1908, $1,000.
John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the minister will explain why he is only spending $500,000 in the interests of the farmers and nearly six and a half millions on


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: This is the last week; it is time to be serious.


George William Fowler: Would the minister please explain this vote?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: A short time ago, when this question was up in connection with the Civil Service Bill, I explained the situation. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) was here then.


George William Fowler: I would like to ask If it is the intention of the government to give what we may call the rank and file of the civil service any additional pay?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are no special items in the supplementary estimates of a general character for the civil service. I do not know just what the hon. gentleman means by rank and file. But the estimates give, so far as I know, all that the government intend to bring down.


George William Fowler: I mean the first, second and third class clerks. I understand the deputy ministers are to have an increase, and I wanted to know if the others were to have. There was some talk some time ago of a ten per cent advance by way of

bonus. I understand the minister to say that the government has abandoned its intention with regard to that, if it ever had one.
Census and statistics-further amount required, $5,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I thought the census was finished.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The census of 1901 was finished long ago, but we have now a permanent census office. Last year we took an agricultural census of Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces.
Fumigation stations-further amount required, $500.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These fumigating stations are a protection against the introduction of the San Jose scale into Canada. The nursery stock that comes in from the United States has to be fumigated.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have been waiting for an opportunity to comment on the humiliating manner in which the Minister of Agriculture has treated the Agricultural Committee and the members of this House. It is not reasonable to make any prolonged discussion in regard to agricultural matters at this stage of the session. But I want to call the attention of the minister to the way he has treated the Agricultural Committee, and the way in which he has dealt with the resolution that committee passed on the 20th June, 1905. That resolution read as follows :
That this committee realize an injustice is being done to the people of Canada through their British embargo on our cattle being maintained, and believe that it would be in the best interests of the farming industry of the Dominion to have a deputation consisting of the Minister of Agriculture of each province of the Dominion to act in conjunction with the Dominion Minister of Agriculture to wait upon the chairman of the Board of Agriculture of England, giving as much publicity to their proceedings as possible, and laying before the said department the justice of our requests, to have the Act authorising the said embargo repealed.
That resolution went through committee into this House, and the House passed it unanimously. It was the wish of both sides of the House that the minister should coil-duct that matter in the manner expressed in the resolution. Now he has not raised a finger towards carrying out the wishes of this House. In his reply to this resolution he makes use of the following words :
The Minister of Agriculture has made no effort to bring together such a deputation for the purpose set forth in the above resolution, for the reason that, in view of the repeated representations made by the Canadian government and the persistent refusals of the British government (as shown by the documents attached hereto and those previously Mr. FOWLER.
brought down) and the persistent action of the British parliament in refusing to amend the existing law so as to admit of the importation of live Canadian oattle into the United Kingdom, such action would, in his opinion, be futile and undignified.
Why does the minister take the position that it would be both futile and undignified to obey a resolution of this House ? He takes the position that the Agricultural Committee and the members of this House did not know what they were doing when they passed that resolution. I could go through the whole of this correspondence relating to the cattle embargo, and show that the minister has not raised a finger towards trying to remove that cattle embargo. I have letters under my hand addressed to Lord Strathcona wherein he states distinctly that so far as this government is concerned they do not want to get mixed up with the cattle embargo in Great Britain. When he received letters from the meat association of Great Britain, and when he knew that an agitation was going on in that country from year to year, and he was urged to give some encouragement to those who were endeavouring to remove the cattle embargo, the minister, instead of giving that encouragement, did the very opposite, and would not give a particle of encouragement to these men. The minister knows that when the vote was taken in the British House of Commons his attention was called to it ; he knows that when representations were made to him from different sections of the country urging him to lend some assistance to the men who were fighting for the removal of the cattle embargo in Great Britain, he refused to raise a finger, he practically told Lord Strathcona that this government did not wish any action to be taken.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not wish to continue the controversy. The hon. gentleman says I know all about it. I think I do, and I am quite willing to say now that I have not taken the steps there suggested. My reason for not doing so was that almost immediately after that resolution was passed, the Minister of Agriculture of England declared emphatically and publicly that so long as he continued in office the embargo would not be removed. He was followed by another Minister of Agriculture, who declared the same thing, and he has been followed by a third minister of the oposite political party who has declared exactly the same thing. As this is a matter which has to be dealt with by statute in the British parliament, and as the government has declared over and over against the removal of the embargo by Act of parliament, I think it would be both futile and undignified on the part of Canada to bother any more about it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister knows full well, that, while it did not carry, a

measure providing for the abolition of the embargo was before the British House of Commons.
'Mr. FISHER. With what result?-it was overwhelmingly defeated over and over again.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes, but if the minister had been able to show to the British House of Commons that the Ministers of Agriculture of the Dominion and of the various provinces were anxious to have this embargo removed does the minister not believe that would have had a great effect on that body? lie knows full well that instead of him taking up the resolution of the committee and dealing with it in the proper method he has failed in his duty in this respect, and we cannot censure him too strongly for the manner in which he has acted.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They have the official despatches from this government making representations and giving reasons why the cattle embargo should be removed, they were before the British government and the British parliament, and members of the British House of Commons, in ail these debates, quoted them, but they have had no effect.


William D. Staples: I do not think the Minister of Agriculture is justified in sitting quietly down and making no effort to remove the embargo on our cattle. Surely the minister should make an effort to have the resolution adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and endorsed on the floor of this House forwarded to the British government and .to the British parliament. He should make every effort to secure the abrogation of that embargo. It is essential to the best interests of the agriculturists of this country that it should be removed, and under these circumstances is the minister going to sit down quietly and say that they have discussed it oil the floor of the imperial parliament and that there is nothing more for him to do but to accept whatever finding they may have arrived at? That is a pretty weak argument, and I believe the farmers will not accept it in the way the minister expects them to.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: And he has instructed Lord Stratheona not do do anything in this matter.
Mr. STAPLE'S. Has the minister forwarded the resolution of this parliament asking that tile embargo should be removed, or has he called the attention of the imperial parliament to the resolution adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and endorsed on the floor of this House? Has the minister even gone that far?


William Stevens Fielding: Would my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) help us by pointing out just 409
what can be done with the British government that has not already been done to get them to remove the embargo? What would my hon. friend do?


William D. Staples: I would not sit down and say there is nothing further to be done. I would make a further effort. That is the time I would get busy.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend would get busy, but my hon. friend has not answered the question. Would he be good enough to tell me what he should do? The British government has announced its policy on the question, it has a large majority and, having announced its policy, what is my hon. friend going to do to change it? Do not tell me that he will get busy. We are all busy.


William D. Staples: If I were the Minister of Agriculture I would certainly consult my colleagues and try and formulate a policy for the removal of the embargo.


William Stevens Fielding: That will not do. What would my hon. friend do to make this, wicked British government change its policy?
Mr. STAPLE'S. I would lay every argument that is possible to lay before them.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has only waked up. That has been done. Tell us something else.


William D. Staples: The Minister of Agriculture said not more than a moment ago that he had not even laid before the imperial authorities the resolution that was passed by this House. Has he done all he might do?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, and more.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Could not this government withdraw our preference if they will not do that?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, we could, but we think it would not be wise to do so.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why should the farmers of Canada suffer for the sake of giving England a preference of about 33 per cent?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Would my hon. friend do that?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yres, I would. I do uot thiuk that the preference is worth anything at all.


William Stevens Fielding: To whom?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: To Canada.


Haughton Lennox: Are we right in saying that the Minister of Agriculture did not take any action upon the resolution of this House?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: The Minister of Finance asks what we would do. I think the farmers of Canada ought to be represented in this House in a peculiar and especial way. They are the backbone of the institutions of this country, and the Committee on Agriculture ought to be a peculiarly important committee. If there is any committee of this House which is entitled to great respect it is the Committee on Agriculture. . I understand that that committee passed a unanimous resolution upon this point. They represented as thoroughly and completely as they can be represented the farmers of Canada. I have great respect for the Minister of Agriculture, but I think he is assuming a great deal when he


Mr. D. ROSS.: I rise to a point of order. Is this discussion pertinent to a vote of $500 for immigration?


Haughton Lennox: I think the Minister of Agriculture is taking on himself a great deal when he assumes that he can veto


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr. LENNOX-a resolution of the Committee on Agriculture and the action of this House. When the Minister of Finance asks what could have been done it is clear that the Minister of Agriculture could have laid those two resolutions before the House of Commons in England.


Mr. McKENZIE.: I would like to say a word in regard to this matter as I was responsible for bringing the matter before the Committee on Agriculture. It is generally known that the farmers are anxious to have the embargo removed. We know the attitude of the British government, and we are very sorry that they have taken that attitude, but I may say that I have found the government always willing to take every step in their power to bring the matter before the British government. I would call the attention of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), who is criticising the Minister of Agriculture so severely, to the fact that one of the latest attempts on the part of the government to impress this matter upon the British government was when the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) called the attention of the imperial conference and of the British government especially to the fact that the embargo was maintained as against Canadian cattle, and Intimated to the British government that it would be regarded by the people of Canada as a very gracious act on their part if that embargo were removed. Still I hope that the matter will work its own remedy and that we will soon have the British people in greater numbers demanding that the embargo be removed in order that they may get relief from the exorbitant prices that are being demanded for meat in that country at present.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Mr. BARR.: It seems to me that the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture who brought that resolution before the House urging that the Minister of Agriculture should take action is very easily pleased. We find the chairman of the committee, after being snubbed by the Minister of Agriculture and after being treated not with the courtesy, that he should be treated with, coming here and defending the minister who has told us that he would not even forward that resolution to England. I submit that if England is going to treat us in the way she has done over this embargo it is time that we should look after our own interests. If we cannot get justice done then we can look after ourselves, and probably we will find that the preferential duty is not to the advantage of Canada. If England is not going to give full consideration to her colonies then the time may come when Canada may have to take action. The least the Minister of Agriculture could have done would have been to forward that resolution to England. We all know the time was when we were told that if there was a reform government in power in England they would have so much consideration for the reform government in Canada that they would remove the embargo. But now that the reformers are in power in England this government is afraid to embarrass them, and so the Minister of Agriculture would not forward the resolution which expressed the wishes of all the farmers of the Dominion of Canada. I am surprised that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee who was so bold when he was in the committee, should be found to-day defending the course of the minister. I can tell him and I can tell the minister that the farmers of this country will not stand being humbugged and treated discourteously.


Mr. CHRISTIE.: It would appear to me from the standpoint of the farmer, that the Minister of Agriculture has treated this matter very lightly. There is nothing so detrimental to the interests of the farmers of Ontario, and of the Dominion generally, as this embargo on our cattle an the English market. There is an agitation in Great Britain among the live stock people demanding the removal of that embargo, and I think the Canadian government should extend some assistance to the men in England who are trying to benefit us in this respect. The day is past for growing wheat profitably in Ontario, and so we have to direct our attention to the raising of cattle and sheep. Our cattle are under embargo in England and recently there has been an embargo of 30 days put on Canadian sheep going into the United States. 'All this simply means that the Canadian farmers cannot any longer profitably raise sheep, with wool at 7 or 8 cents a pound and an

embargo of 30 days on these animals entering the United States which was our only market for sheep. Consequently, the Ontario farmers have only the dairy industry left to them. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what we may expect in the future with reference to those matters I have mentioned ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member (Mr. Christie) is not more anxious then I am to have the embargo on Canadian cattle entering the English market removed. There is no excuse whatever for that embargo. I have made the strongest possible representations to the British government, they have several times replied that they cannot entertain the proposal, that they would not entertain the proposal. That reply has not only been given to me as Minister of Agriculture for Canada, but it has been reiterated over and over again to the different bodies in Great Britain who have demanded the repeal of the embargo. I trust the agitation in England will succeed. Nobody would be more glad than I if it did, but I am sorry to say that all the indications are that for a number of years yet it will not succeed. We have placed our arguments forcibly and vigorously and completely before the British government and I do not believe that reiterating and reiterating them will accomplish any good purpose. If hon. gentlemen opposite can tell me anything that will accomplish our object I will be glad to consider it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That being the case why did the minister ignore the resolution of the agriculture committee and of the House and refuse to send it to England.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said I was ready to do anything that I thought would accomplish any good result.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It does not depend on what you think.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not see any use in beating the air with idle threats. I know that the people in England who are agitating there have had great hopes but that time and again these hopes have been dashed to the ground.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: They had no help from Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They had every help from Canada. They have the papers and the documents which have been placed before the British government and these documents have been used in argument by their representatives in parliament. Is it likely that we will accomplish what they, in England, cannot accomplish ? Is there any use for us to beat the air with mere reiteration of the arguments we have advanced time and again. I am quite ready at any time to aid the agitation in England 409J
but I think action on our part in the present juncture would be futile. Suppose the English people were to represent to the parliament of Canada that we must do something which we think to be detrimental to Canada but which they would think would be advantageous to England, do you think they would be likely to succeed ? I think it would be looked upon by us as an impertinent interference in matters of domestic concern ; and I do not want to put myself or the Dominion of Canada in a position to be snubbed. We have come pretty near being snubbed in regard to it already. I do not want to get entirely to the point of being snubbed.


Peter Christie: The majority of the farmers in the province of Ontario are breeders of live stock, and there is a splendid market in Great Britain for pure bred live stock. Could not the hon. minister make an effort to have our live stock tested and allowed to be sold over there without being killed at the port of entry ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend surely knows that the diseases against which the embargo exists are pleuro-pneumonia and foot and mouth disease, and there is no test against these diseases.


George William Fowler: This seems to be an awful indictment against the Minister of Agriculture on the part of a number of distinguished agriculturists such as the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) and the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Barr), and an awful confession of impotence on the part of the minister. He says that it is impossible for him to do anything in this matter. I supposed, from the experience we have had of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, that nothing was impossible to him. He seems to be unfortunate in his own department; but when he took charge of the Department of Militia in the absence of the minister of that department, he was able to do wonderful things-he dismissed summarily one of the best officers that ever came to this country from Great Britain. But he does not seem to have influence enough with the British government, though his friends are in power there, to get this little embargo removed. I do not think he does himself justice. When he became Minister of Agriculture, we thought we had at last an ideal minister for that department, a horny handed son of toil who knew what it was to plough and sow and reap, and we thought our agricultural interests would be well attended to ; the only thing he has done to advance agriculture has been to teach the farmers' wives how to fatten chickens and how to kill them. Of course, I admit that the Prime Minister has to some extent tied his hands, because he told the people of England that the trade preference was given to them without any expectation of re-
128S7

ward, and therefore it is that the suggestion of the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) can scarcely be acted on by the Minister of Agriculture. I am sorry that the minister is not able to do more for the farming class than he has done; I am sorry that he is only able to get a paltry half million for the farmer, while the Minister of Militia, with the strong influence which he has over this government, is able to get six and a half millions for the soldiers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am trying to make up for it by getting more now.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture why he allowed the report of the Committee on Agriculture to be adopted. That committee met and formulated and passed this resolution, which was reported to this House and adopted by this House. The Minister of Agriculture says that the Committee on Agriculture know nothing about it, and that the members of this House who adopted that report know nothing about it. Why did the hon. minister place the committee and this House in that position ? Why did he not rise and say that the report could not be adopted? If the chairman of the committee had the interests of the agriculturists at heart, lie would tender his resignation or else call the committee together and pass a vote of censure on the minister for turning down its report.	.


Peter Christie: I want to ask the minister to give us the new regulations in reference to the importation of thoroughbred stock from the United States into Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot give my hon. friend that information off-hand ; but I will get it and send it to him. Regarding the quarantine placed upon Canadian sheep going into the United States we received notice of that two or three weeks ago, and we immediately entered into communication with the department at Washington, the conclusion of which has not yet been reached, so that I cannot give any detailed information with regard to it. I can only say that our understanding is that that quarantine was put on in consequence of some scabby sheep having been found in the United States, which were believed to have been brought in from Canada. We have been investigating the matter to see just what the facts are in regard to it. 1 have not yet seen a report on that incident; but I hope shortly to be able to ferret out the whole thing and to give the information. We are also in communication with the authorities at Washington to see in what way we can get this quarantine removed.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: After the statement of the minister, I think I should put on Mr. FOWLER.
* Hansard ' a couple of letters. This letter is from the High Commissioner, dated 11th October, 1005 :
I beg ito send you copy of letter dated August 7 (with an enclosure) which I have received from the National Association of Meat Trad- * ers on the subject of the Canadian cattle embargo. The general secretary of the federation also came to see me recently on the same subject, when I explained to him the attitude of the Canadian government in relation to the question, as outlined in the correspondence which I have had the pleasure of having with you. I understand also that there will be a general conference of the various interests concerned in the removal of the embargo on November 24 next at the Westminster Palace Hotel, when the question will again be considered, and if you wish me to take any action in regard to it, I shall be much obliged if you will kindly favour me with your views.
Mr. Fisher wrote as follows:
My Dear Lord Strathcona,-Yours of October 11 has just come before me. I have been away for several weeks in the west arid only private letters were forwarded to me. I note what you say in regard to the cattle embargo discussion. It seems to me in line with our opinion that we ought not to take any part in this, which has now reached the stage of a political discussion in England. I would not suggest your having anything to do with the conference. Of course, if matters there develop so as to make you decide it worth your while to do anything about it, I shall be quite satisfied to leave that to your judgment.
And so on. il have here a memorial from the National Federation of the Meat Trader's Association which I might read for the benefit of the Canadian people who take an interest in this question, but the time is too limited. I would like however to just call attention of the minister to another letter which he wrote Lord Strathcona on the 10th May, 1905. I shall only read a part of it because it is very lengthy.
I do not know Mr. M. Donald Munro, but it is well understood that the men who handle Canadian fat cattle, shipping them to England are not particular about the embargo being removed. The farmers of this country, however, are, and there is a general feeling in the country on the 'part of everybody that the embargo is unjust and reflects upon the health of our cattle. . . .
I feel that we Canadians ought not to enter at all into the controversy at present going on in England, and therefore I have made no reference to any of the articles which appeared in the press there or the statements which were made by public men, with the single exception of what appeared to be in the official utterances of the minister.
I might go on reading letter after letter to show that the minister, instead of coming out boldly on the question and taking an active interest in it, instead of putting forth his best efforts to have the cattle embargo removed, was devoting his attention to minor matters. I only wish I had time to go

on and show the futile part the minister has taken in this whole matter. If I had the time I could go on and show what little interest he has taken in a subject which is so vital to agricultural interests. Take his whole career during the past eleven years and you will find that instead of his paying attention to the development of that great cattle industry, he has been paying his attention to some of the other departments to the neglect of the greatest industry we have. When we look over the paltry bits of legislation he has brought in for the advantage as he deems it, of our agricultural industry, we cannot but be convinced that the time cannot come too soon when a different government will have control of the country and promote different legislation for the advancement of that great interest.


Mr. OWEN.: I would like to ask if the
cattle from any other country aire allowed to enter England on more favourable terms than the cattle from Canada?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Canadian cattle have the greatest privileges except the cattle of the United States, which are treated on the same footing.
Exhibitions-further amount required, $175,000. [DOT]


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does this Include the grant for the Dominion exhibition?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, that is a special grant of $50,000 each year and that is in the main estimates.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When may we expect a decision regarding the Dominion exhibition grant for 1909 ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Soon after the close of the session.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I trust the minister will bear in mind the claims of Fredericton. The people of Fredericton will be much disappointed if that grant is not given the capital of New Brunswick which is now making preparations for the provincial exhibition of 1909. If the grant be given to any other place, that will kill the provincial exhibition to be held at Fredericton.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are several applications on which the government will have to
decide.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Rut there is no doubt that grant goes to New Brunswick.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: New Brunswick and Saskatchewan are the only two provinces which have not received the grant. Saskatchewan is asking for it for 1910 and New Brunswick wants it for 1909.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How much money is expended altogether on exhibitions?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is an amount of $200,000 in the main estimates and there
will be about $375,000 altogether for the two exhibitions this year. This is the first opportunity we have had during many years of exhibiting at the general exhibition at London, and I wish to make a special effort in view of the fact that this is an Anglo-French exhibition. We are very anxious to show what our French Canadians can do under the British flag as compared with the colonies of France under the French flag.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: These exhibitions may be a good thing but there is something lacking somewhere. After the exhibition we had at Milan, there seemed to be no good result. I have seen some business men from Italy who were in Ottawa and they told me that when anybody in Italy wanted to know anything about Canada, they did not know where to apply, as there were no Canadian agencies there. Some Company in Italy wanted a lot of railway ties and probably would have bought a very large quantity in Canada if they had known where to apply for them. As I said when this question first came before parliament, if, after each exhibition is over, a Canadian agent should remain with a small exhibit of some of the Canadian staples, it would do more good. We have been perambulating our goods all over the world at exhibitions, but the time has come when agencies should be established. The former government established agencies in Australia, and these have been continued by the present government. This shows that the system is an advantageous one.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no doubt that there is great force in the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron). It is true that the impression made by these exhibitions is a strong one, but, naturally, if there is no continuance of work that impression fades. I do not know that I would bo justified, in connection with my department, in asking for a vote of money for a continuance of the work. I think that should be in the Department of Trade and Commerce.


William D. Staples: When will the minister have these regulations printed regarding the importation of thoroughbred stock from the United States? I believe these are the outcome of the Dominion Livestock Convention held last winter, and so there has been time to have these regulations printed and circulated. I know that the minister (Mr. Fisher) is a busy man. He has been for some time attending to the Civil Service Bill ; then he was down in Stan-stead trying to convince the people there that there was no bar In the House of Commons. And so on. I think he should come back to his department and try to attend to affairs for the farmers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not seem to have appreciated my own capacity. The hon.

gentleman (Mr. Staples) pays me a compliment, which I accept for what it is worth, and thank him accordingly. He has reproached me unfairly on this matter, because these regulations were passed by the Customs Department three or four weeks ago and were immediately made public.
Further amount required to encourage the production and use of superior seeds of farm crops and for the enforcement of the Seed Control Act, $18,000.


William D. Staples: How is this money to be expended? There is nothing more important in the interests of agriculture than the production and distribution of good seed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am glad to have the hon. gentleman's opinion of the work we are doing. We are increasing considerably the amount of money to the Seed Growers' Association, which is working well in the province of Manitoba, from which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) comes. Last year we got out a book generally known as ' Farm Weeds,' for which there has been a most unprecedented demand all over the country. I am proposing to get out a second edition, for which a considerable part of this vote is to be spent.


George William Fowler: Do you issue them free?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. But I am seriously considering whether a limited number, at any rate, ought not to be sold. We have been trying to get them into the hands of those generally interested and in a position to justify their being given this book.


David Henderson: Has the minister any of these books on hand?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


David Henderson: I will be glad to get one, for I have a requisition for it from a correspondent. May I call upon the minister to-morrow?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


George William Fowler: Does this vote cover the amount spent in sending out samples of seed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, that is provided for out of the experimental farm vote.
Mr. FOWLisR. I think the size of those samples ought to be increased. *


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are larger now than they used to be.


George William Fowler: Better make them larger still. The farmers in my district are pleased with these seed samples; there is only one fault that they find with them, and that is that the samples are not large enough. It takes a farmer so long to grow from these small samples a sufficient quantity of seed to use on his farm that the seed becomes run out before he gets enough.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He can do it in two years, if he does it right.


George William Fowler: In oats you ought to have at least a bushel.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George William Fowler: Why not ?	These
lawyers, doctors and others about me here express surprise.	But gentlemen who
know about farming, as the Minister of Agriculture and I do, know that what I say is sound. There is no better way in which you could spend money than this- it is far better than giving it to the Minister of Militia to buy Ross rifles with. If the Minister of Agriculture does not feel that he can go the whole bushel that I suggest, he should send eight pounds instead of four.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We send ten now.


George William Fowler: Make it twenty.


William D. Staples: The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) has brought up this question before now. Every year we pn this side have tried to impress the minister with the necessity of increasing the quantity of grain sent as a sample. We carry on farming differently in Manitoba from the way it is carried on in the eastern provinces. When only a small quantity of seed 'is sent to a farmer it is almost impossible for him to keep it separate.
If a farmer has a bushel, or sufficient to sow an acre, then he is in a position to harvest that and keep it by itself, and when he comes to thresh it, It will not be mixed up with other kinds of grain. It would be better if the minister would send out this seed to fewer persons and send it in larger quantities. A farmer in a particular district would get sufficient to seed an acre or two, and then after a year he is in a position to supply his neighbours with that kind of seed. I am glad to hear that the minister is going to be more liberal in sending out the synopsis that he has published. Some time ago I called his attention to the necessity of placing these books in the hands of the various municipal councils throughout the country. Since then I have had a great many letters from the clerks of municipal councils in the province of Manitoba, and from reeves, asking that this book might be placed in the municipal offices, the same as the minister has been distributing them among the various school districts. I would ask him now if it is his intention to carry out that idea?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We are trying to do that, or something similar, and that is the reason I am asking for this money.
Air. CLEA1ENTS. I want to endorse the sentiments of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Staples). We are spending a good deal of money in sending out

small samples, and I venture to say that from ninety per cent of all the small parcels the farmers of this country get no result. I know from personal experience, and the experience of farmers in my district, that the sample is too small, it becomes mixed in with other seed. If you sent out at least half a bushel of seed to fewer individuals, you would get some benefit.


John Barr: This is one of the items that I think is very much too small. We have an item of $18,000 for the production and use of superior seeds, and for the enforcement of the Seeds Control Act. We might cut that item in two, and I would like to know what could be accomplished by $9,000 in encouraging the production and use of superior seeds of farm crops. The government should send out fewer seeds in sufficient quantity to enable the farmers to bring forth good seed. We know that even when good seed is sown on a farm for a number of years it deteriorates. If the government were to spend $100,000 in sending out larger quantities of seed, they would be doing the greatest possible benefit to the farmers. In my experience I have had great trouble in supplying the farmers who wrote to me asking for samples of seed. I received a number of letters asking for this seed, and I got two or three samples and could not get any more. The farmers are the most important class in this country, and this item should not be less than $100,000.


Peter Christie: I want to endorse what has been said by the previous speakers. Some of our farmers have put together the four or five pounds each one of them received and got one farmer to sow it, so that they could get some result from it. If you sow only four pounds of seed you lose track of it, and It is of very little use. If it was sent out in larger quantities and to fewer people, it would produce far better results.
Further amount required for the administration and enforcement of the Meat and Canned Foods Act, $20,000.


Mr. MARSHALL.: How many inspectors has the minister appointed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not yet appointed any for the canned fruits and vegetables. I expect to appoint two or three more just as soon as the season opens.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I would like to know how many inspectors the minister has under salary in carrying out the Meat Act, also what amount of money it is costing the country, and if that Act is being enforced in every constituency of this Dominion as it is in my own riding.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not say the exact number of inspectors. There are somewhere between forty and fifty veterinary inspectors, and a number of them have assistants who are not deputies, who are men chosen as much as possible from the butcher
class, to aid them in inspecting the actual slaughter. It is being enforced all over the country.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Would not local veterinarians look after this Act better than some of the inspectors the minister has appointed? We have some very efficient veterinarians in my district.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We laid down the rule last year that men required to pass a special examination, and good veterinarians do not wish to leave their practice. We require a man to go into the work the year round. We give him a salary of $1,200 a year. Most of them are put into the factories and do not travel.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Are the inspectors required to be single men ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. We do not like to keep an inspector too long in one factory. He is apt to get slack and become too friendly with the people who own the factory. He must be ready to pick up and go whenever required. The chief veterinary inspector says that when a man is married it is not easy for him to remove at a moment's notice.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: There is an efficient veterinary surgeon in my city who would like to have been appointed an inspector but he was practically told there was no use of trying the examination because he was a married man.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: A large canner informed me the other day that he wished to dispose of five cars of waste and chop apples. The bulk of this product goes to Germany where there is 7-10 of a cent surtax. The price he can get on these refuse apples is 11-5 cents and if you take 7-10 off 11-5 you will see what the surtax is doing for the apple man.


David Marshall: Is it the intention of the minister to appoint sufficient inspectors to inspect the canned goods factories this season ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We did not undertake to inspect the fruit and vegetable factories in the same way we do the meat factories. I do not think'we will be able to undertake the inspection of all the factories this year.


David Marshall: It would be worth while to do it this season because the pack will soon be half over.
Further amount required for the development of the live stock industry, $20,000.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I was at the Experimental Farm recently and I want to compliment the department ns far as the new building is concerned. But, the swine pens at the Experimental Farm are a disgrace to tliis country. If the minister would take some of this'vote and build a proper pig-

gory out there he would be doing justice to his department and to the country.


Peter Christie: I had the pleasure of visiting the farm and I must compliment the minister upon the fact that they had there some litters of pigs that are as fine as any I ever saw. But, I think that the Experimental Farm ought to have an ideal animal of ail breeds. I think they should have an ideal pair of horses out there.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are some pretty good ones.


Peter Christie: They should have ideal cows, both short horn and dairy cows. One of the largest farmers in North Ontario, a very prominent Liberal, was here and asked me to tsike him over to the farm. When I took him there he was very much disappointed with the stock that he saw. He said that he expected to see ideal animals He said :	I have better animals in my
own stables.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What kind ?


Peter Christie: Short horns.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Beef short horns.


Peter Christie: Yes. I think that at the Experimental Farm where there is so much money spent there should be ideal animals of all classes so that when farmers went there they could see what they should try to breed up to. I hope the minister will carry out that Idea because I am satisfied that it is for that purpose that we keep the farm there. We are not keeping that farm for the purpose of raising common stock that every farmer can raise.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I just take exception to this extent: My hon. friend is quite right in saying that we have no typical or ideal beef short horns there. The short horns we have are dairy short horns and I think my hon friend will acknowledge that they are very fine specimens of the breed. The other breeds of dairy cows I think are ideal, each one of its kind. I have been about among the dairy herds of Canada and I venture to say there is not in existence such a herd of French Canadian dairy cows as there is at the farm. There is no better herd of Ayrshire and the Guernseys are a very fine lot. The dairy short horns would not come up to my hon. friend's ideal of beef short horns although they are very creditable as dairy animals. As far as horses are concerned I am surprised at my hon. friend's strictures. We have five or six teams of first-class horses, not. show Clydesdales, not the Clydesdales that go into the ring and take prizes, but first class working Clydesdales that will go through a large amount of work in a day. I do not think my hon. friend will find in his own county a barn full of working horses, not show horses, not stallions and mares kept for showing, but a barn full of working


Herbert Sylvester Clements: horses that will compare with our farm horses. I have been down through his county and I have seen finer show horses but not many teams of finer working horses. I would like to say to my hon. friend from West Kent (Mr. Clements) in regard to the piggeries that I have not been on the farm lately, but when I was there last I saw, without exception, the best lot of litters of young pigs that I ever saw in my life. At one time there were five sows -with 72 or 78 pigs and they raised them all. My hon. friend is right in saying that the first part of the piggery that you see as you go in is not an ideal one. but I never saw a better place for wintering sows and keeping them in good order than that shed at the back of the piggery, and if I were going to build a piggery on my own farm I would build just such a place as that. I want to try to Put up an inexpensive building there which will he a model for any ordinary farmer to build by. We find that pigs do better in comparatively cool and inexpensive buildings.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I mentioned in the House last year that I purchased some thoroughbreds at the experimental farm and they were a failure from the start to the finish. I would not like any other farmer to be led into the same trap as I was, because I lost one thousand dollars by the transaction if I lost a dollar.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This is an appropriate time to direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a matter of considerable importance to breeders of horses in the province of Quebec. There is a provincial association which grants pedigrees for horses and there is also a federal association of the same kind. As the Minister of Agriculture knows the breed of French Canadian horses has pretty well disappeared, and the object of the provincial association is to improve and perpetuate it. A number of the farmers in the province complain that horses which have been granted a pedigree by the provincial association have been refused a pedigree by the Dominion association, and on this account great disappointment has been caused. The people who have made complaints to me were under the impression that some of our English friends wished to discriminate against the French Canadian breed of horses.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think I can explain the whole thing to my hon. friend. For a number of years in different parts of Canada there were local stud books and herd books kept for registering the pedigree of animals, but this system was found to be detrimental to the breeders of live stock, because a pedigree issued in Quebec would not be recognized in Ontario or the other provinces, and a pedigree issued in Ontario

would, In the same way, not be recognized outside of that province. Representatives of the breeders and live stock throughout the Dominion held a convention in Ottawa and they asked the Department of Agriculture to establish national stud books and herd books. After a great deal of discussion and consideration, I agreed to allow the National Live Stock Association to establish records and books at Ottawa, and I gave them office room in the department. It was agreed that the department should affix the Dominion stamp to the certificates they issued declaring that these records were accepted by the Department of Agriculture. At first all the breeders did not fall in with the arrangement, but one after another they have asked to be included in these national records, and among others the French Canadian Horse Breeders' Association. I discussed the matter with the breeders of French Canadian horses and we found that a great many animals had been recorded which were not French Canadian at all, and had no affinity with the French Canadian breed. In the province of Quebec the French Canadian breed of horses used to be well known, but unfortunately it has almost disappeared and there are very few pure bred animals left. In their anxiety to get a pedigree for their horses a number of French Canadian farmers had them registered in the Quebec book. Some of them were no more French Canadian horses than would be an English thoroughbred. Some of them were actually registered in other stud books as being standard bred trotters, some of them even as Clydesdales or English thoroughbreds. When the breeders of French Canadian horses asked to have the seal of the department attached to the pedigrees in this book, of course, we could not do it under these circumstances.


An hon. MEMBER.: Carried.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend must have a little patience. This is a matter in which the farmers of Quebec are greatly interested, and which is of the utmost importance to them.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The minister is answering a question which I put to him, and I am anxious to get the information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am answering the question in all courtesy, and I hope hon. gentlemen will have patience.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is a very important matter.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is very important to the breeders in the province of Quebec. I met the representatives of the French Canadian Horse Breeders' Association and I told them that if they would appoint two officers of their association I would appoint
two officers to represent the department, and these gentlemen would examine the French Canadian registered horses and decide whether the animals were typical of the breed and deserving of being registered.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What if they did not agree?


Mr FISHER.: Then they had to call in a fifth man who is generally the chief veterinary officer of the department, and who is well up in the work. As a matter of fact there has been no disagreement at all. In every case the representatives of the French Canadian horse breeders have endorsed the decision of the committee. The result is that to-day we are establishing at Ottawa a really representative national record of the French Canadian breed of horses. The animals which are registered in the national herd book will be very much more valuable and creditable to the French Canadian breed of horses than the animals registered in the old way could possibly be. The French Canadian Horse Breeders' Association at their annual meeting asked us to do that, we agreed to do it they appointed their own representatives' and their representatives are doing the work.


Mr BERGERON.: Then some of these farmers must have been fooled by the provincial association, and have been paying for information which is not correct Iheie is certainly something wrong about it.


Mr FISHER.: There is nothing wrong, but as a matter of fact they are not keeping up the book at Quebec, and it cannot be accepted as a national book.


Peter Christie: I am glad to hear that they are not keeping up the local book in the province of Quebec, because it was against the interest of the breeders. Any horse registered in the national herd book at Ottawa can be shipped to any point m Canada for half fare. That regulation has been obtained by the live-stock people. All these local associations have died out, and I am surprised to hear that an attempt is being made to keep up one in the province f Quebec, because the whole object of the reeders is to raise the standard of all ,reeds of animals, anil that cannot be done nless they are recorded in the national erd book.


Mr. R. N. WALSH.: How long does the ninister intend to continue this system of egistration. because you cannot improve he breed unless you record the ancestor, fou will have to draw the line at some ioint, or a horse will not be regarded as of he French Canadian breed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We shall have to close he book at some point. That is a matter hat will have to be arranged with the

breeders. I could not undertake to do it myself.


George William Fowler: Does the same remark apply to the French Canadian cow as to pedigree ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That breed has been long well established and the herd book is accepted as a national record.


George William Fowler: Have you a national herd book ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. I may say that the expenses in connection with this herd book are increasing all the time. This year I am going to publish the first volume of records of French Canadian cattle that has been published.


Mr. W. JACKSON.: There has been some discussion to-night in reference to the embargo. That is a question we cannot settle in the way we would, as we have to deal with a country outside of our own. I am not in favour, and I do not think the average farmer in Canada is in favour, of having our beef manufactured in England. We should finish the beef in Canada, and it seems to me that if we had regulations so that when our finished cattle went to England they could be retained there for a time before being slaughtered, it would be a great advantage; because cattle after crossing the ocean, and perhaps having a bad voyage, are not in fit shape to be slaughtered on arrival. Our live-stock goes to Great Britain under the same regulations as live-stock from the United States. Three or four years ago the British government prohibited cattle from going from a certain part of the United States. It was during the winter, when our cattle were practically barred from going to England, because they were shipped via the short line, which passes through the State of Maine, and we were prohibited from using that road, which practically meant that we had not that outlet for our stock. But bad as this embargo is, the agriculturist of this country must be vigilant to retain the privilege we have in the old country to-day. Our cattle are going through the United States to the British market and American cattle are going through Canada to the British market; and if there is any ground, however frail it may be, for the British agriculturist to say, the cattle from Canada and the United States are diseased, we shall find our cattle placed on the same footing as the Argentine cattle. Therefore we must be watchful of the privilege we have in getting our cattle into Great Britain in the way we do. But there is one thing which we have under our own control, and that is the right and privilege of improving our beef producing cattle, it is a regrettable thing to find in the weekly reports of the British market that our Canadian Mr. FISHER.
cattle are quoted at from a half cent to a cent a pound lower than American cattle. The result is that the British agriculturist who desires to seek a home outside of England will conclude that there is something wrong with the agricultural area of Canada, and will prefer to go to the United States; whereas as a matter of fact the conditions in Canada are such that we can produce better beef than they do in the United States. We can go to the United States fat stock shows and take all the first prizes.
The trouble with our cattle is they are not uniform. Our agriculturists look with pride to the stand our cheese has taken in the old country. Is it not in their interest that our cheese should be rated there as high a3 it is? If that be the case with cheese, it is more so in the ease of cattle. It is highly desirable that our cattle should enjoy the same high standard. While our Agricultural Department has not possibly given too much attention to the cheese producing breeds of cattle, they have not given the attention they should have to the beef producers. We are losing millions of dollars every year through not producing higher grades of beef cattle. I have watched some of the experiments on the farm, perhaps more particularly since I have been in this House, and I must say that the last report of that department has been more to my taste and fancy than any of the previous ones. Our farmers are not as well convinced as they should be that they are losing money by feeding second-class grades instead of first-class stock, and I would like to ask the minister what he is doing in his department to improve the beef producing of cattle in Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: One of the first things we undertook to do was to work in connection with the administration of the different fairs throughout the country and endeavoured to get a definite line of prizes and a definite and uniform system of judging. For that purpose we have sent out judges-not all of the officers of the department-to different fairs and we pay the travelling expenses of these men. The result has been a great improvement in the quality of judging. We have gone further in making these judges give their reasons verbally in the ring for their decisions so that the competitors will understand why one animal is so much better than another. That has a very good educative effect, and we have been very much gratified to find that an increasing number of exhibitions all over the country are asking for these expert judges. The extent to which they have done that, shows the value of the work. We have also had a system by which we have aided in the sales of thoroughbred bulls. Where the associations undertake to have a sale of thoroughbred bulls, we sometimes send an expert to aid in selecting the bulls and in other cases give small amounts to these

associations to assist them in carrying on the sales, by means of which a superior class of male animals has been distributed. Not always the highest clfiss because we cannot as a rule have these sold at auction as the breeders of the choicest animals prefer to sell by private sale; but still we have been able by these means to assist in the introduction of a better breed of animals to be utilized for the improvement of the common cattle and in that way raise the quality of the stock. For instance in this particular neighbourhood of Ottawa, some five or six years ago it was almost impossible for a farm manager to buy fifty or sixty steers in the fall for the purpose of fattening, but to-day he has no difficulty getting them in this neighbourhood, thus showing an improvement in the live stock, and that is true of almost every part of Canada.


William Jackson: It seems to me that if we would distribute more stock from the farm, that would have a good effect. If you would distribute half a dozen of stock animals of the kind I speak of, our farmers would soon become awake to the fact that it is high time for them to stop breeding from scrub. I am in earnest in this matter. I cannot help but think that our farmers should be roused up in some positive way to appreciate the amount they are losing by not producing better beef. I have no fault to find with the department for what it has done in the promotion of the butter and cheese business, but the very fact that this has been boomed so much has been detrimental to our beef producing herds. I spoke of this matter last year and I know, as a man who has been dabbling in that business all my life, that it is high time we changed our methods. Go to Montreal or Toronto or the old county and you will find some good Canadian bullocks there, but they are not at all uniform. You find just the reverse in the case of American cattle which are exported, and that is the reason why our cattle are not sought after so much as the American.


Robert Nelson Walsh: Does the department propose continuing the present system of testing for tuberculosis? Our cattle intended for export are tested while that test is not necessary in the case of those which remain at home. This interferes considerably with trade, and I do not see why we should insist on our cattle being tested before being sold. I have read the opinion of some officials of the department to the effect that there is no danger in using the milk of a tubercular cow. Why then should we, by applying this test, interfere with our export trade ? I have in mind a case in which the export of Holsteins to South Africa was prevented because we insisted on this test.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have to test them in order to get them into the other country. That is why they are tested. This whole question of testing for tuberculosis is one
of the most complicated I have ever had to deal with, and I must confess I do not think we have any of us yet reached a conclusion with regard to it.


Robert Nelson Walsh: In this case men who are buying did not wish the test. In South Africa they have more disease in a square mile than we have the country over. Tiie test of the cattle was insisted on here.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will inquire into that.


William Stevens Fielding: I would call the attention of the committee to the civil government items, beginning on the first page, and I propose to take these up in their order so far as the ministers are present.
Civil government-Privy Council office-to increase the salary of F. K. Bennetts, assistant clerk of the Privy Council, from April 1, 1908, $400.	'


William Stevens Fielding: I am informed by the Prime Minister that that may be struck out. Arrangements will be made under the law which will meet the case of this gentleman. I move that that be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. WARD.: As it is understood that on any of these items any matter could be discussed, I desire to bring up a matter-


George Taylor: There is another item of the Justice Department further on, is there not?


Henry Alfred Ward: I do not want delay. I regret very much at this early hour of the morning, and this late stage of the session, that I should feel obliged to discuss any matter of importance, but as the question I wish to discuss relates to the imprisonment of a man who, in the opinion of a great many of his friends, has been unjustly deprived of his liberty, I think it is of sufficient importance to devote a few moments to the consideration of it. Frederick Blunden, who lived in the neighbourhood of Fort Macleod, was tried there on November 22nd, 1904, and convicted of stealing two steers, and has been imprisoned at Macleod and Edmonton for three years and a half. Ever since his incarceration he has been appealing to the Department of Justice for a new trial. He objected to appeal for executive clemency, because he insisted that he was entirely innocent of the charge upon which he was convicted, and it would not answer his ends to fe pardoned or allowed out on ticket-of-leave. These appeals have come, as the papers have shown, at intervals ever since his incarceration. The oue answer has been sent to him-that nothing could be done. Now, it would be necessary to enter shortly into the evidence given at that trial in order to show why I differ, in some sense, from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) and ' his predecessor. I do so with a great deal

of diffidence, because, with my limited experience, it hardly becomes me to differ with gentlemen who have had so much experience in these matters. The trial took place before Mr. Justice Harvey at Fort Macleod. The only evidence that was given against Blunden was that of Richard Train, who was caught by the Northwest Mounted Police killing these two cattle. Train's explanation of the matter at the time the mounted police came down upon him was that he had purchased the cattle two months before from a man he did not know. He repeated that on two occasions to -the two sergeants of police, and he also said that if he had made a mistake he was quite willing to pay for the steers. Train was put in jail at Fort Macleod and lay there twenty-eight days before he made any charge against Blunden. Then, according to the evidence which is under my hand, he stated -that he made this charge to save himself and by the advice of his ' agent '- I suppose he means his solicitor. This evidence of Train was contradicted in one very important particular by one of his own hired men. I might go back for a moment to explain that the story told by Train at the trial was that on Sunday evening, four days before he killed the cattle, Blunden took tea with him in the presence of his two hired men. During the course of the meal Blunden said he had one steer to sell. After eating tea, Train says, they went out together behind the barn, and Blunden pointed out in the bunch of cattle, from 100 to 200-Train said he would not swear there were not 200-these two steers. Train admits that he was not within fifty yards of the cattle, and says that Blunden rode down on his horse and pointed out two cattle in the bunch as cattle which he was willing to sell. Train admitted that it was dusk and almost dark. It seemed absurd to think that a man could distinguish a couple of cattle in a bunch of 200 when he was fifty yards away. The contradictioin to this statement is in the evidence of Lewis Albert Carr. His evidence showed clearly that he was trying to screen Train. His evidence, as given at page 75, showed that he was at Train's on the 11th September, the day this is said to have taken place. Then, at page 70 :
Q. After supper what did he (Blunden) do? -A. He got up and went out.
Q. Did you see him after that?-A. I saw him leave the house; -then I went out and went into the tent and did not see any more of him.
Q. You mean Blunden went out before you did or after?-A. Before I did.
Cross-examined by Mr. Nolan:
A. He turned his horse in the direction of his own house and I went into the tent and saw no more of him.
Q. As a matter of fact Blunden got on his horse and -rode home, come now, tell the


Henry Alfred Ward: trial Train again accused Blunden of having sold him the said two cattle and at the trial of Blunden it was made sufficiently clear that Train had falsely accused the said Blunden to the court, that the said Train was there convicted.
5.	And whereas the said A. F. Blunden is a young man who has always held the respect and confidence of all who knew him, and your petitioners could not believe him guilty until so found on the evidence as given.
6.	That your petitioners know the said R. N. Train and believe that he accused the said Blunden in order to save himself, and we are of the opinion that a great wrong and injury is being done to the said Blunden, and furthermore we 'believe that the said Train was about and in a measure did accuse one James Smith of near the said town of Macleod, farmer, of having sold the said two beef steers, but on account of action -being taken by an advocate on behalf of Smith in reference to business relations between Train and Smith, Train withdrew the accusation and laid an information against Blunden -which led to his arrest and conviction as aforesaid.
7.	It is submitted that Blunden should not have been convicted as Train's evidence was all the proof against Blunden and that Train was no doubt actuated by the motive of selfprotection.
Now, therefore, your petitioners humbr pray that the royal mercy be extended to the said A. P. Blunden, and that the sentence upon him be remitted.
I did not mention that Train was convicted before Judge Scott of stealing two other cattle and sentenced to five years imprisonment, whereas Judge Harvey sen-sentenced this man against whom, as I con' tend, there was no proof, to double that term. Although I have failed so far with my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to get any reconsideration of the case, I trust that he will be able to take a different view of the matter and to grant the prayer of the petition and of the man who has written to him so often upon this subject.
In regard to the conduct of Blunden in prison, I might mention that the reports of his conduct have been from the first satisfactory and that in the last two reports he is recommended strongly as a proper subject for the consideration of the department. I would ask the minister to consider whether this is not a proper case for intervention. This man, although he has been invited, as the correspondence will show, to apply for executive clemency, states that he wants a new trial in order to establish his innocence and to go out a free man instead of a man with a stigma upon him. Surely it is some evidence of the innocence of this man that he refuses to apply for executive clemency, states that he wants a new trial in order to establish his innocence and to go out a free man instead of a man with a stigma upon him. Surely it is some evidence of the innocence of this man that he refuses to apply for executive clemency. It is some evidence of his innocence that he Mr. WARD.
desires, in view of the new evidence which has come to light, that he shall be given an opportunity of showing that he was not guilty in the first place. In that connection I have an affidavit here from a man named Samuel Nelson, of Granum, dated February 13 last, which states that on or before September 14, he met Richard N, Train, with his boy driving a bunch of cattle between Round lake and Rocky coulee. My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron) can give you information as to where that is. They were going in the direction of Train's home, Rocky coulee. This was on the day before Train was discovered killing these cattle and the evidence shows clearly, in fact, Train says, that these cattle were driven in by his boy and his girl. It is stated in one of the letters to the minister that this boy and girl of Train's would swear, if they had an opportunity, that these cattle that they drove in were cattle that Blunden never had anything to do with. In the face of all the evidence that has been presented, I would simply ask the minister to reconsider his decision not to grant a new trial and if that cannot be done, why, I suppose the only thing for Blunden to do is to apply for executive clemency. The man, is far gone in consumption and it will be a blot upon the administration of the department if he should die during his term of imprisonment.


John Herron: I wish to say a word in reference to the matter. As the case has been so fully dealt with by my hon. friend from Durham (Mr. Ward) I shall not at this late hour attempt to cover the ground again. The hon. gentleman has dealt with certain circumstances which led up to the conviction of Blunden so fully that the committee will thoroughly understand the situation. I would like to say a word further in connection with what led up to the severity of the judge in this case. I am not going to complain of the action of the judge in any way. For about ten or twenty years cattle stealing had been going on practically all the time all over the country and it seemed impossible to convict any one of this offence. It assumed such proportions that the whole country was up in arms against it, all the [DOT] respectable people of that country, the officers of the law and even the judges, but they did not like to undertake to prosecute men on the ordinary evidence as compared with evidence that might be used in similar cases in other parts of the country. For the last ten years this cattle stealing has been going on to such an extent that the judges have almost reversed the transaction and now they are in many eases over severe. They are ready to convict men who have been accused of cattle and horse stealing on very slight evidence, and sometimes for the sake of getting a conviction they will accept evidence that they would not ac-

cept under ordinary circumstances. That is what has led up to this. I have no doubt that while judges have leaned towards leniency they have on occasions gone to extremes the other way. There is no fault of course to be found with the judge in this case. I hope the Minister of Justice will give this matter his serious consideration and if he gives this man a new trial he will be acting in accordance with the opinion of 95 per cent of the respectable people in that country. A great many people believe that Blunden is an innocent man. From the evidence it will be seen that it is quite possible that the man Train endeavoured to save himself by giving false evidence against Blunden. I believe Blunden is an innocent man and I hope the minister will give him a new trial and an opportunity to establish his innocence.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: When the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Ward) moved some months ago for the papers in this matter I urged that in the interests of the prisoner himself the motion should not be pressed. I am still very strongly of opinion that cases of prisoners who are universally making application for clemency or reconsideration of their trials should not be made the subject of discussion in parliament. The file in this case consists of some 300 or 400 pages and my hon. friend (Mr. Ward) has examined it and is familiar with it. I have read it some time ago and I am somewhat familiar with the circumstances, but other members of the committee are necessarily not acquainted with the facts. I do not propose to discuss them because they certainly cannot be intelligently discussed within a few minutes. Each of these two men had his trial, before a different judge, and each judge came to a like conclusion with regard to the guilt of each man. Neither was tried with a jury but two different judges upon different occasions and upon facts that to some extent differed, was distinctly of opinion that each man was guilty of the offence charged. My hon. friend has seen the confidential report of the judge before whom Blunden was tried and the judge says that he was convinced the man was guilty upon his own cross-examination. I can only say that after considering and reading the testimony so far from being convinced of the prisoner's innocence I have arrived at an opposite conclusion. Of course it is impossible for one who simply reads the evidence, to come to any conclusion at all as satisfactory upon a pure question of fact as the judge can who sees and hears the witnesses. I can see no reason why the conclusion of an experienced judge upon such a question of fact ought not to be deemed as valuable as the conclusion of a jury, or ought to be interferred with any more lightly. With one breath it is said that this prisoner insists upon his innocence and does not ask clemency while with another it is urged that it is a case in which clemency ought to be exercised. The prisoner himself is not by any means as unbending as my hon. friend from Durham puts it, because he has distinctly asked for clemency.


Henry Alfred Ward: Because he is dying of consumption.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: It is true he maintains his innocence, but he urges his release upon the ground that he has served a long imprisonment already and ought to be the subject of a pardon or of conditional release upon ticket of leave. That is something in regard to which discretion has to be exercised, and I express no other opinion than to say that in view of the circumstances of the case it has seemed to me up to this time at any rate that it would be premature to interfere, and I have been unable to see my way to recommend it. On the question of a new trial I want to say merely a word. I do not understand the law to be that there is resting upon the Minister of Justice any duty or any right to order a new trial because the man convicted asks for it. I think the statute does not mean anything of the sort. We are here with the British system of administering criminal justice under which we have absolutely no provision whatever for the giving of a new trial by the courts in criminal eases, on a question of fact. If there is a mistake in law it is a different thing; if there is a mistake on the part of the learned judge in laying down the law to the jury or if there is legal miscarriage there is provision for a new trial. Can it be that the same parliament which so deliberately declined to intrust to any court in the country the power to order a new trial in criminal cases on a question of fact, would vest that very power in the uncontrolled discretion of a Minister of Justice.
I think it would be extraordinary if that were the law. Now, if we look at the section in the Criminal Code which is relied on, I think it plainly does not mean anything of the sort. It says :	If (not upon
the application of the prisoner) but if, upon an application for the clemency of the Crown in favour of some person convicted of a crime the Minister of Justice feels doubt whether this person ought to have been found guilty, he may, instead of recommending His Majesty to pardon or commute the sentence, after such inquiry as he thinks fit, order in writing that a new trial be had, at such time and before such court as he thinks right. It is not upon an application which the prisoner makes as a matter of right or as a matter of indulgence that a new trial may be given to him, but it is upon an application for clemency. It never could have been intended that any man, by the device of asking for clemency, could in an indirect way ask for a new trial. It is something of the minister's own

motion which is contemplated by the statute. If the minister, in considering an application for clemency, feels so much doubt about the matter that he does not know what to do. then of his own accord he may take this course as a solution of the difficulty. What would you have if it were otherwise ? This is a provision not limited to capital cases or to important cases of any kind, or to cases involving long imprisonment, but extending to every criminal prosecution, every petty squabble before a magistrate ; and if the Minister of Justice has power to grant a new trial in all criminal cases upon being asked to do so, it means that one man is appointed in Ottawa to sit in review over the hundreds and thousands of criminal cases which are tried every day of the week and in all parts of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I think the simple stating of the thing demonstrates that it never was intended by parliament. No court may do it in any province, but one man is to sit in Ottawa and do that work for the whole Dominion. It is an impossible thing on the face of it, because when you once started doing it, you would have an application after every conviction. But apart from that there is no machinery for it. Suppose the prosecutor refused to attend ; there is no means of bringing him before this august tribunal *which is to sit on his cause. And how is the minister to proceed ? No Indication is given in the statute. I can only say that having given, not this particular case, but various capital cases, the most anxious consideration, my mind is unalterably convinced that parliament never intended to vest such jurisdiction in the Minister of Justice. In capital cases it has come to be almost universal that the prisoner's counsel applies for a new trial under this section, insisting that there has been something wrong done by the jury, that there was some evidence which was not correct, that there is something 'new discovered; and the counsel thinks it is a dreadful thing for the Minister of Justice to tell him, what I am saying to-night, that he does not believe that parliament ever intended to vest any such, power in the Minister of Justice. I think it would be disastrous to the administration of criminal justice in this country if it were so. I may say that ever since this section has been on the statute-book, in only one instance has it been acted upon, and that was one in which there was a lamentable miscarriage of justice. How could it be otherwise ? Suppose that a prisoner was convicted and condemned after a long trial by a jury, and then on an application the Minister of Justice sets aside the verdict and orders a new trial. Every juryman at the new trial would know it. There would be the argument almost irresistible that this great potentate had felt that the verdict against the prisoner was so unjust that he would not allow it to stand, and or-Mr. AYLESWORTH.
dered a new trial. It is tantamount to an instruction to the new jury to acquit. In the case mentioned it was so taken ; there was an acquittal in spite of clear evidence. With regard to the case of this prisoner, I can only say that it is plain that although the other man may afterwards have been convicted of a like offence, it does not establish the innocence of the man against whom he testified. On the contrary, as the judge in Train's case pointed out, it might well be on all the testimony that both men were guilty, and indeed that was his opinion. The Minister of Justice must treat these cases when they come before him as applications for clemency, as cases in which the prisoner was properly convicted. He looks about for extenuating circumstances, inquires into all the facts of the case, the man's previous character, and taking into account all these considerations he advises whether or not it is a case in which the sentence, though it is a proper one, can properly be interfered with ; and it is upon that view and upon that only that his recommendations to His Excellency must proceed.


John Herron: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to one statement he made which I think is not correct, that is with reference to the judge being one of experience or of long standing. The judge was just newly appointed to the bench, and this was one of his first trials. I do not reflect on the judge or on the sentence at all for that reason. I have never heard any complaint against the judge in regard to tile way he conducted the court or in regard to the sentence he administered at the time ; but I have heard since allegations of innocence on behalf of the prisoner.


Henry Alfred Ward: I want to refer to one statements made by the Minister of Justice, that is, with reference to Justice Harvey's report. I did not feel at liberty to mention that report at all, because my hon. friend showed it to me in confidence ; but as he has referred to it and has spoken of Justice Harvey having stated that he believed Blunden to be guilty, I desire to say that what Justice Harvey did state in regard to that was that Blunden's attempt to prove an alibi convinced him of his guilt. Now, he made no attempt whatever to prove an alibi at the trial. He did bring three witnesses to the preliminary examination before the magistrate, but not before Justice Harvey at all. It is quite true that he made the attempt there ; but he states in his evidence that he got liis brother to write to the clergyman who had performed the christening upon which they based the alibi that he was at home on the day the christening was held. And he got his brother to write to this clergyman to find out if that christening did actually take place on the 4th. When he found from the clergyman's letter that it took place on the 11th, the day he

was said to be at Blunden's bouse, he withdrew the alibi at the trial and there was nothing before the justice at all. How the attempt to prove an alibi, under the circumstances, was evidence of his guilt is beyond me to understand.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: All those names mentioned have increases of salary, and I imagine these are all the increases that the employees at Ottawa will get. Does that mean there are to be no increases for the permanent employees at Ottawa?


William Stevens Fielding: There is no provision for a general increase except under the operation of the Act. Quite a number will get increases though not immediately. The suggestion was first made in the report of the Civil Service Commission, and afterwards in the House, that an increase of 10 per cent would be given, but if we did that for the service at Ottawa and not outside, there would be widespread discontent. It would cost a good deal to do it, and we thought we could not adopt that suggestion at present.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then, as a matter of fact, there will be no increase?


William Stevens Fielding: No such general increase.


George William Fowler: I notice there has been a general increase along the line so far as the deputy ministers are concerned, and that certain officials are regarded now as deputy ministers and receive the increase, such as the clerk of the House and the librarians of parliament. With this I have no fault to find, but there is one officer who has not received an increase, and that is the gentleman who occupies the distinguished position of Speaker. He receives the same salary to-day as did the Speaker thirty or forty years ago. Whoever may be the incumbent of that position receives the salary of $4,000 in addition to his sessional indemnity. He not Only performs the duties of Speaker, but is supposed to entertain members of parliament and to be in a position to entertain distinguished strangers who visit this Washington of the North, and I think it simply disgraceful that he should not have a considerable addition made to his salary. Take the Clerk of the House, a very interesting gentleman, as we all know, and one whom we are proud to reward by giving him a respectable salary, but the Speaker occupies a more prominent position. He Is called on to perform duties in the way of entertaining which are expensive, and there is no special allowance made to him in that connection. I think that his salary should be at least equal to that of a minister of the crown. I would commend these remarks to the careful consideration of the ministry, 410
and hope they will make up their minds to do him justice. The office is the highest in the gift of parliament and one to which consequently should be attached a respectable indemnity, more particularly when we know that the gentlemen who have occupied that position have been, almost without exception, men worthy of it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would like to emphasize what the bon. member from Kings (Mr. Fowler) has said. Many years ago when we were discussing the salaries of the officers of the House, somebody held that the Speaker only filled the position some three or four months in the year, and the rest of the time he could devote to his profession or other business. But when we have sessions such as this one, lasting eight months, it is hard to know what he can do outside of parliament, and, as my hon. friend has said, the salary of $4,000 to the occupant of that high position is ridiculous. There are other officials who should not be lost sight of. There was a report made by the Debates Committee presented to this House, but the adoption of which was not moved for reasons the Minister of Finance knows well. These men have worked for the last twenty-five years at the same salary as they are getting to-day. I mentioned the case to the right hon. the First Minister, and he led me to understand something would be done, if not in the way of adopting the report of the Debates Committee, by a report of the Committee on Internal Economy or in some other manner. I see nothing in the estimates for these gentlemen, and I understand there are to be no more. Either the Prime Minister has forgotten or my hon. friend will let us understand how that report can be acted on. We have the best staff of reporters which can be found in the country and perhaps on the continent. They are the least paid of any parliamentary staff of the kind in the world, and I think it would be only an act of justice to them and Show a proper regard for the report of the Debates Committee, that that report should be acted upon.


William Stevens Fielding: It is expected before the session closes that some action will be taken with regard to the ' Hansard ' staff. More than that I cannot say at present.
Department of Finance and Treasury Board -to pay H. T. Ross, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, a salary of $900 per annum as law clerk, from the date at which the Civil Service Act <xf the present session comes into force, $600.


George William Fowler: What is the explanation of this item?


William Stevens Fielding: In the case of gentlemen belonging to the learned professions, ' we have considered that we should pay



them a somewhat higher salary. We are doing it in one or two instances. This gentleman is acting as assistant deputy at $3,600. If he were not a professional man, we would have to employ a law clerk, and this item is so worded that if at any time the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance should not be a professional man, he will not get the benefit of the increase.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-to provide for the appointment of an assistant deputy minister at a salary of $3,600 per annum.
'Mr. TAYLOR. Why do you want an Assistant Deputy of the Marine Department?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are two branches in the department and the work is very extensive. It was increased last year by the addition of some branches which belonged formerly to the Public Works Department, and it is necessary that we should have somebody to replace the deputy minister when he is absent. We have no secretary of the department.


George William Fowler: Have you made the appointment yet?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The appointment is practically made, but the order in council has not been passed.


George William Fowler: Who is to be the incumbent?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I could not say off-hand.
Mi-. BERGERON. Mr. Desbarats is acting now?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As deputy minister

yes.


John Dowsley Reid: In whht position are the two men who are under, suspension ? Are they receiving their salaries ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


George Taylor: I see you intend to appoint a purchasing agent. Surely, one man could purchase, not for one department alone, but for the whole government.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As our purchases are extensive, it has been considered that, instead of having this work in the hands of agents and others in different parts of the country, it should be concentrated in one hand so that goods may be bought for the whole department at one uniform price and the lowest attainable.


George Taylor: One man could purchase for the whole government.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It would be a big job.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose the purchasing agent will be given the patronage and told to confine himself to that'?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are merchants whom we know to be good merchants, fur-Mr. FIELDING.
nishing reliable goods at fair prices; and in the case of small purchases, he goes to these and they are bound, to furnish the best goods at prices that are fair and reasonable.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why should there be a patronage list ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In some cases, we cannot ask for public tenders. In all cases where the purchases are over $5,000 we do call for tenders.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But if the department is to have a purchasing agent, why should not that purchasing agent buy according to his own judgment?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly. That is what he is going to do.


George William Fowler: Have you a man in your eye for this position ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George William Fowler: Merwin ?


John Dowsley Reid: The purchasing agent should be allowed to purchase wherever he wishes to. But I know what will happen [DOT]-there will be no difference from the condition of affairs we have known. The minister speaks of calling for tenders for over $5,000, but there are many purchases that aggregate same $5,000 to $40,000, the purchases made in small quantities.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: From the same person ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The minister shakes his head. He has many times questioned the accuracy of my statements, and yet I think I have established them all. I can take the Auditor General's Report and show where he has purchased for the use of the department $10,000 from one person in the course of a year and has paid retail prices. Now, what the department ought to do is to follow the course taken by the Department of Railways and Canals some years ago. Seeing that the same goods were purchased from time to time, tenders were asked for the supply of these goods for a year, and the different centres of. departmental work were supplied as required. But I can foresee what will happen-the minister will give tlie purchasing agent a list of names of merchants, and the purchasing agent will buy from these at retail prices ; he will purchase $5,000 worth at the same rates, that I would purchase $5 worth. The hon. gentleman knows that his deputy minister declared before Judge Cassels that had the purchases been made at wholesale rates, as he had urged should be done, $200,000 would have been saved under the present minister. I have no doubt that in the next three years another $200,000 will be lost.
Department of Public Works-to provide for the increase in salary of the ohief clerk appointed to the position of Assistant Deputy

Minister of Public Works at $3,600 per annum, from April 1, 1908, $1,650


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Has the successor to Mr. Gelinas, the late secretary been appointed ?


George di Madeiros Loy: No appointment has yet been made.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will it he made soon?


William Pugsley: Yes, very soon.
Board of Civil Service Examiners-to increase the salary of Dr. Thorburn, chairman of the Board of Civil Service Examiners, $400.


George William Fowler: I do not think this amount should be increased. Dr. Thor-burn is getting $500 for holding examinations, and that should pay him pretty well.


William Stevens Fielding: He held two examinations at special points in the west during this year.


George William Fowler: There are cases far more deserving of an increase than this.


John Dowsley Reid: You are increasing the salary of this man from $500 to $900, and yet there are a lot of poor men in the service who expected a little increase this session, and they are not going to get one cent.


George William Fowler: In consequence of an explanation which the Clerk of the House has made to me, I withdraw any objection I had to this item.
Supreme Court of Canada-contingencies- additional amount required, $500.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand that there is a gentleman over in Paris buying boons for the Supreme Court. I think he has bought about $35,000 worth of books in Paris. Who ordered those books?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There is nobody in Paris, that I am aware of, buying books for us. There was a proposition made last year when a vote of $5,000 was taken, that the money should be handed to a dealer in books living in Montreal, and that he should get all the books he could for that amount. I declined to sanction such an arrangement, and the money was left to be expended under the supervision of the judges, by the registrar of the court. The books wanted were particularly in the line of French civil law, and the work of purchasing them was to be supervised by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Girouard. But no one has been commissioned to make purchases in the old country, so far as I know.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The information I had was that orders had been given to buy books in Paris, and that instead of buying them in Paris one gentleman was buying old books around Montreal and having them 4104
bound again, and another one was in Paris to do the same work. It looked like a scheme.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think probably if second-hand books were being purchased and rebound, it would be a proper expenditure. But that is being done as a matter of private enterprise.
Penitentiaries-St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary-to pay Keeper J. P. Forster for services as brickmaking instructor during the season of 1906, $100.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why are you singling out Keeper Forster for extra pay?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: He was performing special services altogether outside of his ordinary work as keeper, and in regard to which, as the inspector has reported to me, very much more than that amount was saved to the government.
British Columbia penitentiary-to purchase additional land and buildings, $15,000.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: That is to purchase a small corner of property which we have coveted for a long time, but we have only now been able to obtain it. It is in the corner of the penitentiary reserve. The reserve is bounded by two streets, Cumberland street and Columbia street, and at the intersection, of these two streets was the residence of a judge, and an adjoining lot which approached almost up to the penitentiary wall. It was very desirable that that property should be added to the reserve, and we are now able to secure it.


George William Fowler: I would like to have an expression of opinion from the hon. Finance Minister as to the argument that I was putting forward regarding an increase of salary to the Speaker of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I can only say that the suggestion of my hon. friend is deserving of serious consideration, but I do not feel at liberty to say anything more about it.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-day?


William Stevens Fielding: It is understood that the Election Bill will be taken up for part of the day, and that at an early hour the motion for Supply will be made to enable an hon. gentleman opposite to bring up a matter of which he has given notice.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: At 11 o'clock ?


William Stevens Fielding: At 11 o'clock the Election Bill will be taken up, but if it

takes too much time we will adjourn the consideration of it and the House will be moved into Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 2.15 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 14, 1908.