QUEBEC BRIDGE SUBSIDY-APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.

Rt.   H@: A few weeks ago the House ordered the appointment of a committee to investigate certain conditions under which the government grant to the Quebec Bridge Company had been made. All the papers connected with the bridge having now been printed, the time has ceme when the committee may be appointed. I therefore move :
That the select committee ordered by this House for the purpose of investigating the conditions and guarantees under which this government paid moneys to the Quebec Bridge Company and endorsed or guaranteed the bonds of the said company, and what measures were adopted by the government to ensure the preparation of suitable plans of construction and the proper execution of the same, and what security the government at present possesses for the sums already received by and guarantees given to the company, be composed of Messrs. Maclean (Lunenburg), Talbot, Galliher, Chisholm (Antigonish), Monk, Barker and Walsh (Huntingdon).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: What amount of bonds have been guaranteed and issued to date in respect to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, how many of these

have been sold or otherwise disposed of, and what amount has been netted by the company th'erefor ?


Hon.  W. S.@: 
ICE-BREAKER ' MONTCALM.'
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	What was the purchase priee or first cost of the government steamer or ice-breaker ' Montcalm '?
2.	What amount has been expended on said steamer for repairs since purchased or built, up to first of May, 1908, year by year?
3.	What amount has been expended for furnishings, viz.:	furniture, carpeting, floor
cloth, bedding, crockery, silverware, cutlery,
&c. ?
4.	What has been the total expenditure in connection with said steamer including salaries of crew, clothing, provisions, &c.?
5.	What revenue has been received for work done by said steamer since acquired?-


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Contract price of steamer, $265,233.32.
2.	1904-5	$ 12,693 941905-	6	
47,545	181906-	7	
38,355	611907-	8	
20,782	49$119,377 223.	1904-5	1905-6	
955 601906-7	
815 Hi1907-8	
1.174 31$6,853 194.	1904-5	1905-6	.... 135,638 191906-7	1907-8	.... 91,921 SO*657,725 415.	This is not a	revenue producin
steamer. It is used for ice-breaking purposes and for carrying supplies for lighthouse maintenance and construction work.


REBATES OF DUTY TO MASSEY-HARRIS COMPANY.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: What amount has been paid in rebate of duty to the Massey-Harris Company during the last three fiscal years, specifying each year separately?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: On goods manufactured for export :-
1905- 6	$ 83,153 59
1906-	7	(9 months)	
90,554	161907-	8	
142.410	56
On goods manufactured for home consumption
1905-	0	 Nil.
1906-	7 (9 months).... Nil.
1907-	S	$34,480	32


BAYONETS FROM ROSS RIFLE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WORTHINGTON-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	On what date was the contract entered into between the government and the Ross Rifle Company for the supply of bayonets?
2.	When was the order in council passed respecting the same?
3.	If tenders were called for, on what dates and in what manner was this done?
4.	What are the terms of the contract regarding delivery and payments?
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	May 4, 1908.
2.	May 4, 1908.
3.	Tenders were called for by letters, dated January 18, 1908, addressed to-
The Ross Rifle Company, Quebec.
The Ottawa Car Company, Ltd., Ottawa.
4.	The contractor undertakes to deliver 52,000 bayonets and scabbards within three years after the delivery to the contractor of an approved standard pattern, specifications and drawings. Deliveries to be made in even monthly quantities, as nearly as may be, and to begin within one month of the completion by the contractor of the necessary machinery, fixtures and gauges ; notice of such completion to be immediately given to the Minister of Militia and Defence.
Payments to be made upon delivery; provided that in any year during the continuance of the contract, if the contractor is not in default in respect of deliveries, he shall be entitled, in advance of delivery, to payment of moneys actually expended upon all bayonets and scabbards or parts thereof to be delivered in that year; such payments in no case to exceed 75 per cent of the price of such bayonets and scabbards. These advances to be made upon the contractor's certificate of the amount so spent, attested by the signature of government chartered accountant, who shall first satisfy himself of the fact of such expenditure.


ARREARS IN ALLOWANCES TO MILITIA.
Mr. WORTHINGTON asked :: 1.	Is the government in arrears for allowances to any militia regiments? If so, to what regiments, to what amounts, and for what periods?

2.	What is the reason some regiments have not received allowances?
3.	Is the government aware that officers of some regiments, including one Ottawa regiment, have been obliged to borrow money to meet requirements that should have been met by such arrears in allowances?
4.	If so, will the government repay such officers the interest paid by them on such loans ?


Hon.  W. S.@: Mr. Speaker, I would call your attention to the third part of this question which it seems to me is not in order, as it contains a matter of argument. If this question is put in proper form the answer is ready, but I would ask your ruling. The words to which I object are ' that should have been met by such arrears in allowances.'
Mr. SPEAKER, I would rule that that was not in order. The question will stand for amendment.
Question allowed to stand.


BEAUHARNOIS CANAL.
Mr.  R. N.@: WALSH-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the Beauharnois canal been transferred to the Robert Company, or is it still under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals?
2.	Is Mr. Deschene, of Valleyfield, in the employ of the government? If so, what are his duties?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The Beauharnois canal is under lease to Messrs. William C. McIntyre and Edmund C. Robert, dated_10th of December, 1907.
2.	No ; Mr. Deschesne is not now in the employ of the government.


GOODS FOR ANGLO-FRENCH EXHIBITION.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What amount of goods has been purchased by the government for the purpose of the Anglo-French exhibition in London?
2.	What is the total sum due or paid for such goods to date?
3.	What is the amount of goods purchased from Messrs. Bryson, Graham & Company of this city?
4.	Are the goods so acquired to be exhibited, marked at their cost pried?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (for Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	Total purchase of exhibits, $5,611.49.
2.	Paid, $953.56.
3.	$2,283.37.
4.	No.


EXPENDITURE-ANGLO-FRENCH EXHIBITION.
Mr. MONK asked :: What is the total amount spent to date by the government in connection with the Anglo-French exhibition?


Mr. WORTHINGTON.: 


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (for Minister of Agriculture).: May 14, 1908, $91,525.46.


NEW GOVERNMENT STEAMER.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES asked :: 1.	Has a contract for the construction of the new ice-breaking steamer for the winter navigation of the Northumberland straits been let yet ? If so, what shipbuilding firm has obtained the contract?
2.	What will the ship cost, and when will she be ready for the service?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY-NEWS CONTRACT.
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Were tenders called for the privilege of a news agency on the Prince Edward Island
Railway for present contract? If so, what are the names of tenderers, and the amount of each tender?
2.	Who holds the present contract, and at what figure per annum?
3.	When were tenders last called for this
service ?
4.	Did any party or parties, other than the present holder, put in tenders for this service since 1904? If so, what are the names of the tenderers, and the amount of each tender?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister ol Railways and Canals) :: 1 and 4. Tenders were called for by newspaper advertisement in June, 1906, for the privilege of selling newspapers, periodicals, &c., on the Prince Edward Island Railway, for a term of three years, to date from September, 1906. Three tenders were received from the following, viz : Herbert T. Prowse, Charlottetown, P.E.I., $501 per annum ; R. B. Norton, Charlottetown, P.E.I., $540 per annum ; Sidney Grey, Charlottetown, P.E.I., $400 per annum? Mr. Grey was afterwards offered the privilege of news agency, at $550, which was accepted, by him.
2.	Sidney Grey, at $550 per annum.
3.	1906.


LENNOX ISLAND WHARF.
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Who has the contract for building the Lennox island ferry wharf, and what is the contract price? ,
2.	What money has been paid on account of said work and is the work proceeding?
3.	Has the specification been found unsuitable for the structure at this point, and is it the intention of the government to alter same by using stone and brush instead of piles ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
George Eulas Foster: I beg leave to apply to the House under Rule 37, for leave to discuss a certain question.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The kon. member applies for leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss the following matter of urgent importance :
The present condition of the Marine and Fisheries Department, especially under the slow operation of the commission last appointed to examine certain matters therein.
Shall the hon. member have leave ?
And leave being granted.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the House for a short time, as requested in the notice, to the position of the Marine and Fisheries Department as it at present appears. In order to do that it will be necessary very briefly to sum up the preceding circumstances which led up to the appointment of the last commission. The first commission for a number of months pursued its inquiry, mostly with reference to the Civil Service situation, conditions and requirements, and devoted a portion of its time to the investigation of the practical working of one portion of the Marine and Fisheries Department, and then, as the House knows, laid its report before the government ; that report was brought down to this House about the middle of March. The report of that commission was somewhat startling to the House and to the country. In brief it showed a state of things in the department which, to say the least, did not contribute to efficiency or tend to establish public confidence in the department, and seemed to call for vigorous and instant action in order to have the faults which had been shown and the bad conditions which had been described in the report remedied as quickly as possible. It is not necessary to recall the express words of that report and the many pointed allusions which were made to certain specific matters. That commission did not busy itself in the same way with any other department of the government, and in fine it came to the conclusion that the Department of Marine and Fisheries seemed to be without direct guidance, was in fact without a head and lacked a conscience. When that report came before this House it at once received the attention of the House and the government, and it was seen to be so important that full and instant action was necessary. The matter could not be left as it was left by the report of the first commission. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries and I think the leader of the government and others were particularly struck with the idea that under the report of the first commission the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries were left more or less under a cloud of suspicion of wrongdoing, and it made itself apparent to the government that it was an improper thing that the officers of one of the great departments of this government should be left in that position. It was destructive of faith and confidence in the department, it hung over the officers of the department and militated against their freedom and efficiency of work ; it was, in fine, a statement of circumstances and inferences which made it absolutely imperative that such steps as were proper should be taken immediately to investigate those matters and to remedy where remedy was necessary, to condemn and reform where condemnation was necessary. The government did not accede to the view of hon. members on this side of the House that it was proper that the se-.cond commission should be allowed to complete in all the departments of the government what the first commission had only in part completed in a small portion of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
It therefore appointed a second commission with limited power and limited scope, and limited as well in the methods by which it should be conducted. Whilst the other was a public inquiry and in the public interest, this was to be a departmental inquiry simply into what were considered the charges or insinuations or inferences against the officers of the department. On this side of the House we contended for a broad commission against which the door of no department should be shut and which would have unlimited power to carry on the investigations which had been left uncompleted by the first commission. Judge Cassels was appointed as the second commission, and there were given him two lawyers to, I suppose, watch the interests of the government. These two lawyers were, as has been stated in the House, supporters and partisans of the government. They received their instructions from the Minister of Justice and are practically under the direction of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Marine himself. It seems to be absolutely impossible, and I think it was not otherwise contended, that Judge Cassels should be put to the almost superhuman task of going through the whole records of the department in all its extensions, and therefore these lawyers were appointed into whose hands were entrusted file bringing of such matters before the commissioner as they might think proper and requisite for carrying out the purpose of the commission which was entrusted to him. It was known by the government



anti well. But in what situation are they to do their duty now ? Anonymous writings and whisperings to the commissioner or to the lawyers, saying that papers are being destroyed, that such and such person is trying to do away with evidence ; one man brought up before these lawyers and questioned as to what suspicion he has of A. B., or J. 0., or of some one else, men prompted and pressed, with all the force and ingenuity of these lawyers, to play the spy and the informer upon their companions in office.
There is the disorganization resulting from suspicion, no man feels like trusting his fellow, no one knows what is being carried on in order to save one and injure another, and all the time two partisan defenders of the government and the department are running through the records and the guilty persons in that department, if there are any, have opportunities for doing away with incriminating documents and evidence. And worse than all, during that whole time, this headless and conscienceless department, as it is characterized by the first commission, is spending the money of the country. What more has happened? An investigation has been made into the conduct of an officer down the St. Lawrence. What has been proved? That he has been guilty of padding pay sheets, and that there has been a conspiracy to defraud the government, and that the government have actually been defrauded. If in that single case fraud has been brought to the surface, in how many cases may it not be found that similar frauds have been committed, and so people will say until the commission has finished its report. For all we know, the whole of the river service-an immense and important service- is permeated and saturated by just such abuses and frauds. What is needed is a thorough and a speedy investigation, so that every honest man might have the chance to have the cloud lifted from him and every guilty man be punished. Today the minister does not know but that there are in that department persons in positions of great trust who will be found guilty when this commission has finished its work. Yet these persons cannot be touched. They remain there. The point I make presses the more strongly the absolute necessity for an immediate investigation and the avoidance of the delays which are inevitable if the present commission continues the work. But delay is what the government seem to desire. Events quickly pass into oblivion and the reports of the first commission are being smothered by the lapse of time. Judge Cassels goes on his circuit and then takes his vacation, nobody is particularly at work, the old machine hums on iu the best way it can, and the people become interested in the next thing that turns up and forget this. And all the time the solicitors, the partisan defenders of the government, have Mr. FOSTER.
their wages going on, and 'I suppose are doing their investigation. And in the meanwhile the efficiency of the department is impaired and deteriorated and its officers are under a cloud.
We do not know all that has been brought out by the present commission so far, but some things have been brought out which do not tend to make public confidence greater. What has been brought out ? A carbide company is formed, it sells to the government, sells without competition, and in that carbide company you find a cabinet minister interested, we find that stock in it was given him by the promoter, and we find that same minister at the head of the Marine and Fisheries Department. That does not help us at all to have more confidence iu that department than we had at the start.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: The hon. gentleman has said that we get our supply of carbide from a company without any competition. I may inform him that the carbide which is supplied to the department was obtained after public tender.


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon. friend mean that to explain the whole case? Let him go to Mr. Willson's evidence. What does Mr. Willson say? There are three carbide companies in this country. One is at St. Catharines and that is the company consisting of Mr. Willson and the late Mr. Sutherland, up to the time of his decease, and Mr. Little, who has succeeded to Mr. Sutherland's interest. Then there is the company in Ottawa. Who formed that company? Mr. Sutherland. Who sold the stock to the Bronsons? Mr. Sutherland. Who got 10,000 shares of the stock for that and other considerations, as Mr. Willson has sworn? Mr. Sutherland. Who has Mr. Sutherland's stock at present ? Mr. Sutherland's legatee. Then there is the company at Shawinigan, and there is nothing to show that that is an independent company. Then there is another company with a more liberal contract, the International Fog Signal Company, which makes little things that cost $300 and sells them to the department for $4,000, as shown by the testimony of the chief engineer. Does my hon. friend say there is any competition among these companies?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: There is very strong competition among them. In fact they are quarrelling. I know that of my own knowledge.


George Eulas Foster: We can quite understand Mr. Willson quarrelling with Mr. Willson. We can quite understand Mr. Little quarrelling with Mr. Little. But we all know that the same men control these companies and have the same interest in them. And in any event, up to a very late period no tenders were called for and there was no competition. It is only within a very late

period that tenders have been asked and there has been any semblance of competition. These things have come out, and they have not added to the confidence of the community in that department. It is too much the habit for this government, either through its members or its closest friends, to be interested in companies which are doing business with the government. I propose to exploit another company just as soon as I can get at it before* this House, and I think I can show that a prominent member of the cabinet at present has taken a special business interest in it. There is, I have said, that state of things brought out so far which leads people to wonder what would a thorough investigation show. This is not a healthy condition of things, but it is a condition* which has been brought on by the government itself. This new and wasteful policy of the acetylene gas buoys and fog signals, these contracts, this division of the department so as to get a favourable report for the purposes of the minister-all this was brought about by Mr. Prefontaine himself. He was the man who, against the report of the chief engineer-a man of worth and through honesty-undertook this wasteful system of expenditure, to say nothing more about it, and laughed at the scruples of his chief engineer. Who was it that appointed the commissioner of lights, a young man-I say nothing against his ability-without experience in the department to any extent, put into a most responsible position in which he carried on things pretty much as he pleased. Who appointed Mr. Fraser? He was appointed by Mr. Pr6fontaine himself and for the very purpose of instituting this acetylene fog signal and gas buoy expenditure which, while good in many particulars, as the first engineer says, was pressed beyond the needs of the country and the requisites of proper economy. The whole plea to-day is that in some way the government is bound, if it can, and it can, to press the matter to speedier conclusions than it is being pressed to-day. That is the whole point of my plea, in the interests of the department, in the interests of the country, and in common justice to the employees of the department, which is historical, and which has been manned in the past by efficient men, and which to-day has within its bounds as honest, painstaking and competent officials as there are in any of the departments of this government. I move that the House do now adjourn.
Right hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister). Before I proceed to discuss the motion which my hon. friend has made, and the point which he has taken under it, I think it is my duty to take at once some exception to the manner in which he has discussed the motion. For myself I do not object to it, because I 2G9i
think it involves a point which is worth while clearing up at once. But the objection I take is that my hon. friend was slightly out of order in discussing what takes place before the commission until the commission has reported. I think that the rule which applies to committees of this House should apply for the very same reason to commissions appointed under the authority of the government and of parliament.


George Eulas Foster: Will the hon. gentleman quote the rule ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: No, I do not quote the rule, because I do not intend to discuss the question to-day, and I did not interrupt my hon. friend. But I think the hon. gentleman was wrong for this reason, that until the matter is ascertained and concluded, the hon. gentleman draws wrong conclusions. One of the reasons which show the force of the rule is this : My hon. friend discussed the composition of the carbide company, and he concluded that all these companies were in the hands of the same parties. What grounds had he to make such an assertion ?


George Eulas Foster: Sworn' evidence.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no sworn evidence to that effect, the hon. gentleman will not find any sworn evidence that the companies which are to-day organized in Canada to manufacture carbide are in the hands of the same men and under the same directorate. I say the evidence corroborates the statement made a moment ago by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that the company which operates at Shawenegan is altogether separate from the other company.


George Eulas Foster: That may be, I did not particularly allude to that.


Wilfrid Laurier: But if that may be, why did he venture to make the insinuation ? Did he not a moment ago say that he had reason to believe that all the companies were in the hands of the same parties ? Now he says that he did not do so, that he did not make the assertion. But he did make an insinuation, which is worse than an assertion. The hon. gentleman will have ample opportunity of discussing that later on the point of order. I do not take it to-day.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would ask the right hon. gentleman whether there are not some of the same men in the three companies, because I was told that there were.


Wilfrid Laurier: Speaking subject to correction I have reason to believe that the Shawenegan company is altogether separate from the other companies.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Mr. Willson owns the patents.


Wilfrid Laurier: Here is a commission that has not yet reported, and already assertions are made and conclusions are drawn. We will have an opportunity of taking up the subject later on. I do not go into it at this moment because, as I say, I am not prepared to discuss the point of order. But it seems to me that if there is any sense in the point of order that we are not allowed here to discuss an investigation by committees of this House, a parity of reasoning would apply to investigations by commissions. Now I come to the point of my hon. friend's motion. He says that because Judge Cassels owes his first duty, as he states himself, to his own court, this investigation has to be put off, and must be put off for some time. Sir, that is a point well taken ; the investigation by Judge Cassels has to be put off because Judge Cassels very properly insists that his first duty is to his court. My answer is this, that if Judge Cassels has not been permitted to proceed with the investigation because his first duty is to his own court, the fault is not with this government, but the fault is with my hon. friend and those who sit around him. Perhaps my statement will cause some wonder among hon. gentlemen opposite, and I see that there are some doubting Thomases on the other side. Let me give the evidence. We have had some correspondence with Judge Cassels on this point, and he pointed out to us at the very outset that he could not undertake to carry on this investigation unless he was provided with assistance to carry on the work of his court. On the 6th of April Judge Cassels addressed to me the following letter :
Ottawa, April G, 1908.
Dear Sir Wilfrid,-Your kind letter of April 3 instant was duly received. As mentioned to Mr. Aylesworth, the fact of my not having been consulted prior to my name being mentioned did not in the slightest degree cause me to think that I had been in any way slighted or treated discourteously. Possibly I should feel that some members of the press understood me better than I understand myself, but the fact, however, is as I have stated.
You ask me to give you my views of what provision should be made for the despatch of business in the Exchequer Court.
First. I think statutory provision should be conferred upon me to perform as judge the duties desired by parliament, and that provision should also be made for the disposal of the business before the court.
Second. As to the business of the court, my views are as follows : I would not make any suggestions had you not asked me to do so. During the last three weeks I have had occasion to acquire a fairly accurate notion of the work to be performed. The work of the Exchequer Court is increasing rapidly. At present no summons or order can be made unless signed by me, no cheque can be issued unless countersigned by me. The circuit engagements are necessarilv numerous.


George Taylor: I have this morning arranged a circuit commencing in May for the trial of actions in Toronto, Quebec, Charlottetown, St. John and Sydney. In September I must go to Winnipeg, and as far west as Victoria in order to try cases that may be ready for trial. It is obvious that while I am absent all procedure of an interlocutory nature must stand over, much to the annoyance and delay of suitors. I understand that the Minister of Justice proposes an amendment to the statute which will confer upon the registrar of the court authority to deal with chamber applications. This Act, if it becomes law, will help matters. A large number of cases to be tried are actions arising out of the expropriation of land by the government. The registrar of the court, Mr. Audette, has been registrar ever since the reorganization of the court in 1887. In the past few years he has, as referee, been performing judicial duties of a very important character, notably, in the matter of the winding up of the Quebec Southern Railway, and of the Baie des Chaleurs Railway; and it is only necessary to read his voluminous reports to appreciate his work. His work has, I think, been appreciated by the profession.
From his long experienoe in the court, Mr. Audette has acquired a very thorough knowledge of both law and practice. In cases of expropriation of land and numerous other forms of action against the Crown, especially in the province of Quebec, he is probably better qualified than I am, to sit in judgment. It would seem to me the best solution of the whole situation, having regard to the present business of the court and its increasing business, would be to appoint Mr. Audette deputy judge with all the powers I possess, If thought advisable, there could be an appeal in the usual way from his judgment to myself if the suitors so desired instead of going direct to the Supreme Court.
I would not make the suggestions contained in this letter had I not been asked to do so by yourself, but having given the subject a good deal of anxious consideration, and having a great desire to maintain the reputation of the court which under the presidency of the late judge it has obtained, I venture to put my views before you without, however, desiring to do more than make suggestions.
Believe me, dear Sir Wilfrid, Yours faithfully,


WALTER CASSELS.
[Stage Direction]
Now, Sir, In this letter, Judge Cassels, in answer to an inquiry from me as to the legislation we should enact in order to facilitate the business of the Court of Exchequer as well as the duties he is to discharge as commissioner investigating the Marine Department, made the suggestion that Mr. Audette should be given certain powers, and these powers given him, that is all he asked for. Now, if my hon. friend will look at the Order Paper, Item 12, he will find that that order is Bill (No. 116), which proposes to give even wider powers than is asked for in this letter of Judge Cassels.
George Eulas Foster: When was that Bill introduced ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It was introduced even before Judge Cassels sent me his letter.


George Eulas Foster: And will the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) tell me also, when, since its introduction it has been pressed ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will come to that presently. But let me call the attention of my hon. friend, and of those behind him, anil of the House and country, to what is in that Bill. Section 1 provides as follows :
In case of the illness of the judge of the court or if the judge has leave of absence, the Governor in Council may specially appoint any person having the qualifications hereinbefore mentioned to discharge the duties of the judge during his illness or leave of absence, and the person so appointed shall, during the period aforesaid, have all the powers incident to the office of the judge of the court.
2.	If the judge of the court-
(a)	is interested in any cause or matter, or is disqualified by kinship to any party, or
(b)	has been professionally engaged in any cause or matter as counsel or solicitor for any party previously to his appointment to the office of judge, and considers himself thereby incapacitated from sitting or adjudicating therein, the Governor in Council may, upon the written application of the judge, setting out such impediment, appoint any other person having the qualifications hereinbefore mentioned to act as a judge pro hac vice in relation to any such cause or matter.
3.	Every such temporary judge, or judge pro hac vice, shall be sworn to the faithful performance of the duties of his office.
Now, in this clause there is provision made to appoint an assistant judge at the request of the judge in certain contingencies. I am not prepared to say that the contingency here provided for has arisen, but it is easy to make it applicable to the present contingency. Now, by section 2 of this Bill, the Exchequer Court Act is amended as follows :
2. Section 87 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:-
(f) for empowering the registrar to do any such thing and transact any such business as is specified in such rules or orders, and to exercise any such authority and jurisdiction in respect thereof as is now or may be hereafter done, transacted or exercised by the judge of the Exchequer Court sitting in chambers in virtue of any statute or custom or by the practice of the court.
-the very thing that is asked for by Judge Cassels in the letter I have read.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: If I may be allowed it seems to me to deal only with matters in chambers.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, I say this is the very matter asked by Judge Cassels, though, possibly, the request of the judge may have gone beyond this. But in this respect the Bill can easily be amended as soon as we take it up. Now. my hon. friend asks me:	When has this Bill been taken up in
the House? I ask my hon. friend:	What
business has been done in the House since then ? The very first thing we have to do in this House is to provide the appropriations in order to carry on the business of the country-to pay the civil service, to pay for the carrying of the mails, to pay the Mounted Police, to provide for the most elementary matters of civil government. We have been trying to get these appropriations through the House. We have moved the House into committee day after day. And day after day we have been met with deliberate obstruction, not avowed at first, but repeated and maintained. We did not know what was the matter, until some of the more candid amongst hon. gentlemen on the other side told us : You will get no estimates until you bring down your legislation : bring down your Election B'U and we will give you Supply. We brought down the Election Bill, and then we are told : You shall not have any Supplies ; we will stop them altogether. If hon. gentlemen on the other side will give us facilities to do business, the very first thing we will do will be to take up and pass this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Whenever the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has not a very good answer, he affects to fly into a passion. He is not in nearly so much of a rage to-day as he would have us believe, and he thoroughly understands that he has not a leg to stand upon in his argument with my hon. friend (Mr. Foster). In the first place, he relies upon a measure introduced into this House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) on the 9th of March, four weeks exactly before this letter was written by Mr. Justice Cassels, to persuade the House and the country that the reason why he has not complied with Judge Cassels' request is that the opposition has not brought on and passed that Bill. I am bound to say the right hon. gentleman is establishing an extraordinary reversal of the functions of government. I have been in parliament twelve or thirteen sessions, and this is the first time I have learned that the opposition has the right to call government orders and to decide in what precedence government measures shall be ta.^en up. If the right hon. gentleman will confide that duty to us, we will bring on the Exchequer Court Bill the first thing after this debate closes. If he had consulted us, or had made us aware that we possessed this authority, we might have brought on this Bill long ago. But it would have been of no use to do so, for this Bill does not, as it stands, make provision for that which Judge Cassels requires, and the right hon. gentleman knows it and conceded it in his speech. The Bill makes provision for the appointment of a deputy judge in case of the illness of the judge of the Exchequer Court or in case he has leave of absence,

and the right hon. gentleman admits that is the purpose for which it was intended. Why, then, does he talk about the Bill, why does he put forward a Bill which does not provide for the difficulty that has arisen? Or, if he intended to utilize this Bill, why has not he, since the letter of Mr. Justice Cassels was written, submitted to the House the amendments necessary to make it provide for the difficulties referred to by. Judge Cassels, and then ask the House, as a matter of urgency, to pass the Bill at once ? That is all he needed to do. When he desired a Bill put through with regard to immigration and stated that it was an urgent matter, it was put throught the same day and sent to the Senate. If he had called up this Bill and asked that amendments be made-and, by the way, I would; ask if the amendments have yet been drafted ?-I venture to say it would have gone through in half an hour. Have the amendments been drafted, and if so, when were they drafted ? The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) does not reply. Well, if the amendments have not yet been drafted, is it not delicious to hear the right hon gentleman suggesting that the opposition. gentleman suggesting that the opposi-gress? In the first place, the argument of the right hon. gentleman is that the opposition are responsible for not bringing on this Bill, and then, in the next place, that they are responsible for not passing through the House amendments which the government have not yet drafted. In that way and in that way only is the opposition responsible for the difficulty which has been created.
. So far as the second clause of the Bill is concerned, a very hasty reading of it indicates to me that the jurisdiction proposed by this Bill to be conferred on the registrar of the Exchequer Court is jurisdiction to transact certain business in chambers and is not that jurisdiction which Mr. Justice Cassels proposed in his letter of the 6th of April.
Apart from all this delightful attempt by the right hon. gentleman to put forward an excuse which he at least knows does not exist, let us look at the situation. The situation may be summarized in three or four sentences. The government themselves have realized the necessity of this investigation by Mr. Justice Cassels or some one else, because on the very day on which the report of the Civil Service Commission was laid on the table of this House, the Minister of Marine arose ond made the announcement of the proposed action of the government. Mr. Justice Cassels was consulted and placed his position frankly before the government, declaring that he regarded his judicial duties as his first concern, that he must give his attention, in the first place, to them. He went further, he suggested the amendments (which have not yet been drafted) which would enable the Mr. E. L. BORDEN.
government to deal with the situation as it has not yet been dealt with. So that, apart from the appointment of Mr. Justice Cassels to fulfil duties which the time at his command does not enable him to adequately to discharge, the government have done nothing and the situation is as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has described it. An investigation is proposed to clear the Department of Marine and Fisheries of certain charges made against it, and to make such an investigation as may be necessary to discover any officers of that department who are worthv of punishment. That investigation is being delayed by reason of the very circumstances pointed out by Mr. Justice Cassels six weeks ago; those circumstances exist to-day and they exist by reason of the inaction of the government. The obvious injury to the public service, the neglect of public interests, cannot be too strongly emphasized and I sincerely trust that steps will be taken by the government immediately to enable that investigation to be carried on promptly and effectually in order that right may be done, those who are innocent may be cleared and those who are guilty, if there be any guilty, may be properly punished.
Motion (Mr. Foster) to adjourn, negatived.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. CYR.

Mr. S. J. JACKSON.: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I would like at the request of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Cyr), who is sick and unable to be present, to raise a question of privilege on his behalf arising out of remarks made in this House yesterday by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and affecting Mr. Cyr's standing in this House. I have here a letter received by me this afternoon from Mr. Cyr which, with the consent of the House, I would like to read.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It must be a question of privilege affecting the hon. member ; if Mr. Cyr is claiming the right it is must affect him.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The letter is as follows :


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: I rise to a point of order. In what position am I.? The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. S. J. Jackson) does not make the allegation that I stated something which I knew to be untrue, but he reads a letter from a gentleman-


William Paterson: A member of this House.


George Eulas Foster: - a member of this House, but he is not present, and he declares in that letter that I stated what I

knew was untrue. Who is to make the renunciation, the member for Selkirk or the absent member? I state myself that I made no statement which I knew to be untrue, that is Incorrect, and the member, being a member, who has read the letter and the member, being a member, who has written the letter have both of them to take it back and I shall have to ask the member for Selkirk to take it back twice, once for himself and once for Mr. Oyr.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: As to the point of order raised by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) I might say that if there is anything in the letter which is contrary to the rules of the House I do, on behalf of Mr. Cyr, take it back.


George Eulas Foster: Have you a power of attorney from Mr. Cyr?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I think so.


George Eulas Foster: I should like to see it.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I shall read the balance of the letter.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: As far as the letter contains a statement which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says is untrue, that portion of the letter should be eliminated.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: It is a little harder later on.
Ottawa, May 14, 1908.
S. J. Jackson, Esq., M.P., Ottawa.
My Dear Mr. Jackson,-I noticed in the Ottawa ' Morning Citizen ' of to-day that the Hon. Mr. Foster did yesterday make a statement in the House to the effect that I was elected in Proveneher at the last general election through fraudulent means employed by one Duggan, who acted there as returning officer for the constituency of Selkirk. The hon. gentleman could not show in a plainer way his ignorance of the facts. I am sorry that on account of ill-health I am unable to be in the House and give the hon. gentleman the castigation which he so well deserves. At last the hordes of Tories who have been hounding my returning officer, Mr. Ayotte, for three years have not yet been able to find a single evidence against him of corruption in any way, and in face of the fact that the election petition against. my return was dismissed by the court, Mr. Foster has the effrontery to make in the House a statement which he knows to be untrue


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Mr.  S. J.@: JACKSON, (reading) :
-and which brands him as a falsifier-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That statement must be withdrawn.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.
-and one who has no respect for truth.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I am not taking it back.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The statement must be unreservedly withdrawn.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: As far as I have power I withdraw it.
And for the reputation of his colleagues in the House I would ask you as a favour, if you feel justified in doing it, to rise in the House on a question of privilege-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish your ruling as to whether an hon. member of this House can bring a letter from another who is Outside the House making a charge against another member of the House, but which does not affect himself. If I understand correctly an hon. member, as a question of privilege, can only bring up something that affects himself, not that affects some other person who is not here. I wish your ruling.


Mr.  S. .T. JACKSON@: I asked the permission of the House to read the letter and was given it; that matter is settled, and I was just beginning


George Eulas Foster: The House did not know what the letter was.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: A question of privilege, of course, is something affecting the standing of a member as a member of the House, and I am not at all clear that one member may not take up a question of privilege dealing with another member. Just at the moment, my own idea would be that that could be done, but in so far as the letter goes beyond what a member would himself be allowed to state in this House, it will be checked by me as it proceeds.


Robert Laird Borden: I wish to raise another point of order. It is not proper for a member of this House to bring a letter from another person, whether a member or not, which contains expressions that he knows to be absolutely against the order and decorum of this House and proceed to read them, and as he is called to order in respect to one expression withdraw it and say there is worse coming later on and proceed, time after time, to insult the order and decorum of this House by improper and injurious expressions respecting another member. I have a great deal of doubt whether a question of privilege can be delegated from one member to another, but putting that aside for the moment, it seems to me the other point is plain if decorum is to be observed in this House.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I would say regarding Mr. Speaker's decision that the hon. member for North Toronto should qualify

the expression that he made use of yesterday-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jackson) speaks to the point of order he is within his right, but he cannot discuss some other matter until that is disposed of.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I would ask you. Mr. Speaker, as a favour-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I am inclined to think that if the statement of the hon. member be correct, that this letter later on contains stronger expressions than those he has already read to the House, it would be hardly appropriate or proper for him to proceed with the reading of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear. hear.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: To my mind there is nothing stronger than I have already read.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member has stated to the House that this letter contains stronger expressions than those he has read. The whole question seems to me to be open to some doubt as to whether an hon. member can delegate a question of privilege to another member, and that being the case it would be preferable that the hon. gentleman should not proceed.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: In the balance of the letter I will not read anything that is improper.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Under all the circumstances I think the whole letter had better be ruled out.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Of course all this illegal and improper stuff will not appear on ' Hansard '


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: Certainly it will.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I may say that Mr Cyr denies in toto the statement made by the hon. member for North Toronto yesterday in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: He only goes on to show the ignorance of the hon. member for North Toronto-	'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Take it back.	.
Mr. FOSTER, I demand a retraction of that. No member has a right to say anything derogatory of any member of the House, and I want an implicit retraction of that.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: If that is the rule of the House and it is carried out it would Mr. S. J. JACKSON.
keep the hon. member for North Toronto! from speaking


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Take it back.
. Mr. SPEAKER. Order. It is quite impossible to deal with a question of order if there is constant interruption while the point is being discussed. At all events, when questions of privilege are being discussed, hon. members on both sides should see that they are treated with great seriousness, because on them depends the decorum of the House. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jackson) should withdraw the statement that has been objected to by the hon. member for North Toronto.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The word ignorant is not unparliamentary.


George Eulas Foster: My hon friend is now sliding out of the question by a very unworthy method, it seems to me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Would the hon. member for North Toronto repeat the statement which he takes exception to ?


George Eulas Foster: I will. I will repeat it as far as my recollection goes. What he did say in reality was to accuse me of ignorance with reference to a matter-


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Ignorance of the facts.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, well. That is disrespectful to me as a member of this House, and I think the hon. member ought to make an absolute retraction and do it in a manly way, that is as manly as he can.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I have nothing to retract as far as the ignorance of the hon. gentleman is concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Take it back.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I would ask hon. gentlemen to keep order. If some hon. members consider this as a matter of levity the chair considers it to be quite the reverse.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Any matter affecting the privilege of the House or decorum in debate is a serious matter and it is not one which should be treated w7ith levity.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The chair is of opinion that any direct accusation made by one member against another of being ignorant is one of those insulting expressions which should not be used. On the other hand, if the expression only goes to the extent of saying that an hon. member is ignorant of the facts concerning a certain matter, that might be a parliamentary expression.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. LORENZO ROBITAILLE (Quebec County).: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to rise to a question of privilege. As this question of privilege is a special thing I wish to appeal to your good judgment, Mr. Speaker, to say that it is really a question of privilege. The question of privilege is brought forth by insulting remarks made by Mr. Hunter, who is deputy Minister of Public Works against the French Canadians in his department, and as one belonging to that nationality I am personally insulted.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member will see that is not a question of privilege. A question of privilege against which affects only hon. members of the House in something connected with their membership of the House.


Lorenzo Robitaille: He insults me as a member of this House.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It is quite impossible to say that the matter to which the hon. gentleman refers, not being personal to himself or affecting his position as a member of this House, is a question of privilege.



BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL.

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :-
Resolved, That it is expedient to make provision for payment of annual salaries to judges to he appointed to the Court of Appeal in the province of British Columbia, as follows:-
The Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal,

Three Justices of Appeal, each, $7,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Why does the Prime Minister not go on with the Exchequer Court Bill ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We shall.


George Eulas Foster: Are we to have no explanation of this resolution ?


Mr AYLESWORTH.: The object of this resolution is simnly to found on it a Bill for the provision of salaries in furtherance of the legislation of the provincial legislature passed at the session which concluded about a year ago. An Act was then passed by the British Columbia legislature to establish a court of appeal for the province : the court to consist of a chief justice with three justices of appeal. The Act contains provision that it is not to come into force until proclamation be issued by the lieutenant-governor in council, and so far as I am aware no such proclamation has as yet been issued. But there have been official com-1
munications between the Attorney General of the province and the Department of Justice on the subject, and with the object of providing the salaries in order that the court may be properly constituted when it pleases the lieutenant governor of the province to bring the provincial legislation into force, the legislation which I propose, if this resolution is adopted, has been prepared.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not hear the hon. gentleman very distinctly. I understand there has been provincial legislation establishing a court of appeal which has to be brought into force by proclamation by the lieutenant governor in council of British Columbia.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: And that they intend passing the necessary order in council some time in the early future, and therefore it is necessary to make provision for the salary of these judges.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: The Act passed by the legislature of British Columbia establishing a court of appeal for the province, contains a clause that the legislation is not to come into effect until it shall be proclaimed. Of (purse no court can be ae- [DOT] tually constituted until there is provision for the salaries of its judges, and that is the legislation which we will propose.


Robert Laird Borden: That is all right.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. AYLESWORTH moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 105) respecting the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. He said : Perhaps I may explain the purpose of the Bill. It contains not only a clause providing for the salaries at the figures just adopted, hut also two or three sections amending the Criminal Code, the Winding-Up Act and the Disfranchising Act. to confer upon the court when constituted the appellate powers which the Supreme Court of the province setting en banc now exercises.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In this connection I would ask the government if there has been legislation on similar lines providing for the appointment of three new judges for the district of Montreal ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: No such legislation has yet been introduced into this House. Legislation of similar character, I understand, has been passed by the legislature of Quebec, and the question of passing in this House legislation for the province of Quebec of similar character to that which I am now proposing for British Columbia is under consideration.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It was in that connection that I put the question, because there is a congestion of judicial business in the district of Montreal, and the provincial legis-

lation has provided for the nomination of new judges. I suppose that during the present session the salaries of those additional judges will be provided for ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is under consideration.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER moved second reading of Bill (No. 163) to authorize the exchange of certain school lands for other Dominion lands. He said : Sections 11 and 29 in every surveyed township in the three prairie provinces are dedicated to school purposes for the use and benefit of the province, and are administered as a trust by this government. The procedure of utilizing these lands for the benefit of the province is laid down in the statute as being by auction sale only. There is, however, a provision that where the lands are settled upon before survey, an exchange may be made by order of the Governor in Council ; but where they have not been settled upon before survey, they must be disposed of by auction sale. Therefore when and where an occasion arises to make it necessary to deal with any of these lands otherwise than by auction sale, a special Act of parliament is required. In regard to the lands with which this Bill is concerned, I will take the liberty of reading to the House the explanation that has been furnished by the officers of the Interior Department:
Ottawa, February 21, 1908.
Memorandum.
With reference to the Bill which it is proposed to submit to parliament to authorize the sale of section 11-20-2-5, west fifth meridian, to Mr. Joseph Fisher, of Millarville, Alberta, and to set apart another section of equal value in lieu thereof as school lands, I beg to submit the following explanation:
On July 17, 1901, Messrs. Joseph Fisher, Henry H. Barnes, George Stagg, E. Stagg, W. G. Hanna and J. S. Hanna applied for permission to divert water from the south fork of Sheep creek for the irrigation of certain lands in township 20, ranges 1 and 2, west of the fifth meridian. These gentlemen had entered into an agreement for the joint construction by them of the necessary works for the irrigation of lands in that vicinity which they individually held under homestead entry or had applied to purchase under the terms of the Irrigation Act, each of them to bear the expense of constructing parts of the said works in proportion to the acreage of land held by him which could be served by the works. Authorization for the construction of the works was issued on November 18, 1901.	.	.
As the works were not completed within the allotted time, investigations were made by the department from which it appears that:
1st. Messrs. J. S. Hanna, W. G. Hanna and Mr. MONK.
Edwin Stagg held under homestead entry the north half and southwest quarter of section 10-20-2-5. The Messrs. Hanna practically repudiated the agreement and did no work on the ditch. Mr. Edwin Stagg left his homestead without making any improvements and did no work on the ditch.
2nd. Mr. George Stagg purchased the southeast quarter of section 10 of the same township, did work to the value of $10, which amount Mr. Fisher paid him, and assigned his interest in his homestead to Mr. Fisher, having paid $160 thereon.
3rd. Messrs. Fisher and Barnes proceeded with the construction of the ditch, but the latter has not appeared to be very actively interested in the work and has left it largely to Mr. Fisher to construct and to finance. Mr. Fisher's lands lie nearest the point of intake for the ditch and his portion of the work has been the most costly and the most difficult to construct. A recent inspection shows that the cost of the works constructed has been paid as follows by Messrs Fisher
and Barnes:
Paid by Mr. Barnes	$1,107 70
Paid by Mr. Fisher	 6,382 82
[Stage Direction]
whereas, if the cost had been borne by them in proportion to the lands held by each, in accordance with the original agreement, the
account should stand:
Expended by Mr. Barnes	$2,931 07
Expended by Mr. Fisher	 4,559 45
7,490 52
thus leaving Barnes indebted to Fisher in the sum of $1,823.37, plus such interest as may be subsequently agreed upon, or judicially determined.
Mr. Barnes was permitted to purchase under the terms of the Irrigation Act the east half of section 18-20-1-5 and the south half of section 24-20-2-5, but the sale of the northeast quarter-section 18 was subsequently cancelled. He has paid $480 thereon. Mr. Fisher was permitted, by order in council dated January 10, 1902, to purchase the south half-section 14, north half-section 2 and the southeast quarter-section 12-20-2-5. Mr. Fisher was under the impression that the southwest quarter of section 12 had been sold to him and he later applied to have the error rectified, but, although the southwest quarter of section 12, has been reserved for sale to him, it does not appear that authority for the sale has been obtained. He has paid $600 on account of these lands. The abandoned homestead of Mr. Edwin Stagg on southwest quarter-section 10-20-2-5 is also now reserved for sale to Mr. Fisher.	'
From the nature of the tract which it is proposed to irrigate it appears that section 11-20-2-5 is the central and most essential portion of the scheme. Mr. Fisher desired to purchase it but, owing to its being a school section, he could not be permitted to do so. He was, however, permitted to lease it for grazing purposes and still holds it on such lease. He was informed repeatedly that no sale of this section could be made to him, but he does not appear to have clearly understood the situation and has expended a large sum of money in the construction of irrigation works, which would involve a consider-

[Stage Direction]
able loss to him if the section were disposed of to any other person.
The fact that authorization was granted for the construction of works to irrigate lands which included this school section has, to some extent at least, committed the department to the sale of the land, if the necessary authority can be obtained, and in consideration of this and of the difficulties which Mr. Fisher has encountered in completing this irrigation scheme, the minister has decided to submit a Bill to parliament for authority to sell section 11-20-2-5 to Mr. Fisher, under the terms of the Irrigation Act, and to set apart another section of equal value in lieu thereof for school purposes. The commissioner of irrigation recommends this sale.
That is -with regard to section one of the Act. With regard to section 2, the memorandum of the department Is as follows :
The application for homestead entry is based on the grounds that by the Acts 56 Victoria, chapter 18, and 58-59 Victoria, chapter 31, the granting of homestead entry is authorized to the persons mentioned in the said Acts on their proving that they were in bona fide residence on, and occupation of the school land applied for prior to January 1, 1880, and that they had continued to reside upon and cultivate the land in accordance with the homestead .provisions of the Dominion Lands Act.
The first application on behalf of Martin Aitken was for the southwest quarter of this section and was filed in the department in March, 1895, with his declaration and that of George Spencer, to the effect that Spencer had settled on the southwest quarter of section 29, in township 10, range 6, east, in 1878, and had cultivated it at intervals until 1880 when he sold it to Aitken, who began to reside on it in 1881, and has continued to do so from that time.
It was, however, impossible to grant Ait-ken's application as the land had already been sold at public auction, and the patent issued.
In any case, however, the application would not have been granted at that time, as the meaning of the Acts 56 Victoria, chapter 18, and 58-59 Victoria, chapter 34, was so interpreted that only actual residence in person by the applicant prior to January 1, 1880, was recognized, while in this case Aitken was hot in residence prior to that date, but claimed through the purchase from Spencer, who had settled prior to January 1, 1880. His name is therefore not included in the Act 5859 Victoria, chapter 34, nor in 56 Victoria, chapter 18, which was passed prior to his application.
It will be observed that the application at that time was for the southwest quarter.
In September, 1900. however, the application of Martin Aitken was again filed here, but this time for the northwest quarter, but as his name was not included in either of the Acts before-mentioned, and as the said Acts were still interpreted so as to exclude any claim through the purchase from one who had settled on the land prior to January 1, 1880. his application was refused.
Since that date, however, this interpretation has been reversed, and in the cases of William and Jackson Holmes their claim through their purchase from one Huggard, who settled on the east half of section 29, in township 10, range 6, east, prior to January 1, 1880, was recognized, and homestead entry was granted them for tl^e southwest and northeast quarters respectively of section 29, in township 10, range 6, east.
In view of the ruling in these cases, application was again made on behalf of Martin Aitken, and it was pointed out that the original application for the southwest quarter was clearly a clerical error on his part, as he was perfectly aware at the time that that quarter-section had already been sold and patented, and that it was his intention to have applied for the northwest quarter, for which land application has since been made.
It is claimed that in view of the action taken in the cases of William and Jackson Holmes that Martin Aitken is entitled on the same grounds to homestead entry for the northwest quarter of section 29, which is part of the same section on which homestead entry has been granted to the Messrs. Holmes, it being pointed out that in his case, as well as in that of the Messrs. Holmes the claim through purchase from the person who settled on the land prior to January 1, 1880, should be recognized, and as Aitken's name was not included in either of the Acts before mentioned that the authority of parliament should be sought to place him in the same position as those who have already obtained entry on the same grounds.
It is urged that had his aplication been originally made as intended for the northwest quarter of this section and had the present ruling as to the right of homestead entry of those persons who purchased the claim of one who settled prior to January 1, 1880, been then in force, his name would have been included in the Act, 58-59 Vic., chap. 34, and that under all the circumstances he is equitably entitled to homestead entry for the northwest quarter of section 29, in township 10, range 6 east, and that entry for that land should now be authorized by legislation.
Mr. HERRON.: Were all the parties interested notified ?
iMr. OLIVER. The only parties concerned are Barnes and Fisher, and the statement I have already given sets out the agreement between them and the carrying out of that agreement by them. It shows that Mr. Fisher is entitled to land in proportion to the amount of money he has paid towards the irrigation of the total area irrigated. He would not get his proper share of the total area which the joint money of Fisher and Barnes irrigated unless this land is sold to him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does the hon. gentleman determine that the land he has set apart for school purposes in lieu of this land, is of equal value ? The land will be enhanced in value by this irrigation ditch, if we are to credit the prospectuses sent out by irrigation companies. According to these prospectuses, the irrigated land is worth $25 an acre whereas formerly it was worth only $3 to $5 an acre. That irrigation would enhance the value of the school land, and if some other lands, which are at a re-

mote distance from the irrigation ditch, he taken in exchange, the school fund would lose to the extent of the difference.


Mr. OLIVER.: I have pointed out that the irrigation involved in this scheme has cost the two parties $7,490.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But are not the school lands more valuable than the lands to be given in exchange ?


Frank Oliver: I say the school section that is involved is part of the area that is irrigated as a result of the expenditure of this amount of money. Unless the parties who have expended this money, receive the benefit of this particular school section they will lose the return on a large proportion of the money they have expended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That may be, but it appears to be one of the accidents of life. Is there any provision in the land law which allows the levying of a rate on school lands for irrigation purposes where other parties irrigate the section?


Frank Oliver: Certainly not. And there is no question of levying a rate in this case. Two private individuals undertake an irrigation scheme


George Eulas Foster: In a certain section?


Frank Oliver: In a certain locality. And this scheme involves certain sections of land. The parties go on and expend their money and bring their scheme to completion. Now, the expenditure of their money gives, unquestionably, a largely enhanced value to the land on which they have spent their money-otherwise, they would not spend it. Part of the land affected by the expenditure of the money is this particular school question, which was included in their original application, and which they believed they would be able to acquire. But, as the fact is, they cannot acquire it under the law except by auction sale; which would, of course, put the man who had spent his money in making the section valuable at the mercy of any buyer who chose to pay for the land up to the amount that Mr. Fisher had spent in order to irrigate it, and who would, in that case, still be better off than Mr. Fisher if he got it for nothing. It would seem to me eminently unfair to put Mr. Fisher in that position. Of course, it is because there is no law to cover the case that 1 ask parliament to sanction the sale of this section to Mr. Fisher and the authority to take a section of equal value elsewhere-that is, of value equal to that of this land before Mr. Fisher's money was spent upon irrigation to make it valuable, not of value equal to it after Mr. Fisher's money had been spent upon it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is where I think the whole thing is wrong. It was contem-Mr. SPROULE.
plated that the land would increase in value by virtue of settlement and other things and that the school fund would have the increased value. This irrigation is one means by which the school land is enhanced in value, and, if you give other land in lieu of it which is not enhanced in value, the school fund must lose the amount of money to which it is entitled. Therefore, this seems an injustice to the school fund.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose John Smith held these sections of land, how could he be dealt with under the irrigation scheme? He would have an absolute right to his sections, and he would gain by the expenditure of other people's money without having to make compensation to them. Was there any guarantee to these gentlemen that they would have all the lands within that area?


Frank Oliver: No.


George Eulas Foster: Then, why should not the government have its chance of increased value owing to the labours of these irriga-tionists as well as private individuals?


Frank Oliver: Of course, that is the question that is before parliament at the moment. If parliament should' see fit to hold that view, it is within the right of parliament to do so.


George Eulas Foster: Does not the minister think it fair?


Frank Oliver: No, my view is that it is desirable to facilitate the bringing under irrigation of land that requires irrigation and is susceptible of it; and that it is not well for the government, having the general interests of the country in view, because it owns a certain piece of land, to use its ownership of that piece of land as a means of preventing the completion of a scheme of irrigation that would be to the general benefit of the country at large and to the special benefit of that particular locality. But let me emphasize the point brought out in this report, that this particular section is the central point of the tract irrigated and that without the benefit of that particular section the rest of the scheme would not be undertaken-that is to say there would not be sufficient other land irrigable to warrant the expenditure of the $7,000 or $8,000 necessary to make the scheme complete.


George Eulas Foster: Is that absolutely so?


Frank Oliver: Yes, that is the fact, and that is set out in the report.


Mr. LAKE.: May I ask the minster -what effect this will have upon large irrigation schemes like that of the Canadian Pacific Railway ? What has been the practice [DOT]with regard to school sections contained in the tracts covered by such schemes? Will this cause claims to be put in by these

companies for the purchase at cheap rates of school sections within their irrigation districts?


Frank Oliver: Each case stands upon its own merits, as, of course, must be the case when we come to parliament for authority.


Richard Stuart Lake: But you are creating a precedent in this case.


Frank Oliver: Yes, but it is only a precedent for the consideration of parliament, which is no precedent, for the right of parliament to give or withhold is absolute. In regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway irrigation scheme, the lands which they have been authorized to take as an irrigation proposition are in the country lying east of Calgary. In that case they were allowed the school sections, and school sections are to be taken elsewhere.


George Eulas Foster: Done by act of this House?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer off hand how it was done, but that is how it is. The Canadian Pacific Railway, when they were allowed to take the odd-numbered sections which they were entitled to select in other parts of the country and to select for them even-numbered sections within the tract, in order to get as solid a block as possible, to facilitate and advantage the irrigation scheme, at the same time, were given the privilege of taking school sections, and school sections in lieu of these have been selected and set aside elsewhere. I think the same thing was done in regard to the Alberta Railway and Coal Company's tract-that is, the part of their irrigation tract that they acquired as a railway land grant, which stands on all fours with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am not able to answer as to the additional tracts that they acquired by purchase under irrigation conditions, but lam under the impression that there the same conditions prevailed. In regard to the tract acquired by the Roblins Irrigation Company the school sections are not disposed of, they remain the property of the school fund within that tract, without any claim from the company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister think that we can properly take away land that was set apart by Act of parliament in trust for the benefit of the provincial school fund, and exchange it at any time? We have exchanged land before, but by what authority ? From the arguments I have heard in this House many years ago I think it was held that we could not do it. Would it not be a great injustice to the province and to the school fund if, by settlement, or by the making of an irrigation ditch, school lands that were set apart in trust for the benefit of the educational fund of the province were enhanced in value, and that then
we disposed of these lands and took other lands in lieu thereof where there was no development, lands which were comparatively in a primeval state ? If these lands are worth $12 to-day, and are exchanged for lands in some remote parts worth only $3 or $5, the province has a just right to claim the difference in value, in the interests of their school fund.


George Eulas Foster: In what province is this land ?


Frank Oliver: In Alberta.


George Eulas Foster: I think my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) has made a strong appeal. This land does not belong to this government, this government holds it in trust for the school fund of the province of Alberta. Is it right for one party, while the other party for whom it is held in trust is living, to dispose of that land and thereby diminish its value to the party for whom it is held in trust, without the consent of the latter ? This land has appreciated in value until it is worth $12 an acre. The Alberta government says that this increase in value belongs to their school fund. You take laud in some other place, it may be of equal fertility, but which is worth only $3 or $5 : and there is no certainty that it ever will come up to $12, but if it does, it will be many years.


John Herron: It is hard to get any other land of equal value to this land owing to its being peculiarly fit for irrigation. For that reason there is scarcely any other land that is as valuable. I have no particular objection to this Bill, I have no instructions from any party concerning it. It may be all right to make the exchange. But I suppose the minister has a report from some of his own officers which justifies him in making the exchange. I have known cases where people have bought half and quarter-sections under the irrigation law in that country, bought at a low rate, about $3 an acre, with a rebate when they had constructed a ditch. I know some cases where the value put upon the construction of the ditch was five times more than its actual value ; in fact I think in one case the patent was put through and the sale was completed without there having been any water on the land, and I do not think any water was ever put on the land, nevertheless they got the patent and the rebate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At what figure does the department propose to sell this land ?


Frank Oliver: The regulations under which the land is disposed of for irrigation purposes are as stated by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) that is to say, we sell the land at $3 an acre subject to a reduction for work done on the ditch to the amount of $2 per acre, so the land may stand the purchaser only $1 an acre. This

policy is adopted with the view of encouraging enterprises to bring the land under irrigation. It is a policy which has been in force for a number of years, and I think has proved generally acceptable. Where any part of the country requires irrigation, where the land is capable of being irrigated, and where there is water that can be used for the purpose, it is considered desirable in the interest of everybody that the water should be brought to the land. In order to encourage the employment of capital for that purpose the system of sale which has been alluded to was adopted. It has been generally acceptable, and fairly successful in bringing into operation a considerable number of irrigation propositions, and very useful ones. My hon. friend from Alberta has suggested that in the past there have been cases where work done on the ditch was credited at too high a figure, and where sales were made although actual irrigation had not taken place. Possibly that has been the case in the past. When the irrigation law was administered by the deputy Minister of Public Works for the territories and when he was also Commissioner of Irrigation, he had a great deal more to do than he could attend to. At that time there may have been cases such as the hon. gentleman has mentioned. But when the provinces were divided and it was impossible to continue the previous system, a Commissioner of Irrigation was appointed with residence at Calgary ; and I think I am safe in saying that since then there has been no case such as the hon. gentleman has alluded to. We have been very particular as to the merits of any scheme that is proposed. When an irrigation scheme is proposed to us, we have the locality surveyed by our own officers to see whether the scheme is practicable before we accede to it. After the work is completed, we have it inspected and reported upon before any transfer of the land is made. I think if the hon. gentleman wTill inquire he will find that any recent transactions -which have taken place since the appointment of a Commissioner of Irrigation with residence at Calgary, have not been of the class he has mentioned.


John Herron: The case I have reference to was over four years ago.


Richard Stuart Lake: There is an important principle involved in this question of the exchange of school lands. The proceeds of the sale of school lands are to be put aside and invested in a fund for the purpose of advancing education in the northwestern provinces. A Bill was introduced a couple of sessions ago in regard to the exchange of certain school lands ; one of the pieces of land which had to be exchanged was very valuable, close to the town of Indian Head, and was being used as a nursery for trees by the government. I pointed out at that Mr OLIVER.
time that it was a valuable piece of land and it would probably be difficult to find an equally valuable plot to place at the disposal of the school funds. Can the minister state the actual facts in connection -with that exchange?
With regard to the question immediately at issue here I would not like to see discrimination against any particular Individuals. Whatever the general plan which we decide upon is it appears from the statements of the Minister that in the case of some of the larger companies the acquisition of school lands has been permitted, other lands of supposedly equal value being given to the school fund. I would suggest that it might be better if some arrangement could be made by which when application is made for purchases of land for irrigation purposes, if it was found that school lands would be involved in the irrigation scheme, these lands should be disposed of in advance by public auction and their full value in their natural state obtained.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the minister had any communication with the province, which is of course deeply interested in this and what position do they take on it ?


Frank Oliver: We have had no communication with the province on this matter. As my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) has said, the precedent has been established and no objection has been taken to that position, because I am satisfied that the authorities of the province feel practically quite as much interested in the dedevelopment of irrigation in that country as the authorities here because by the development of an irrigation scheme the taxable value of the land of course increases very greatly. Therefore, from a provincial point of view, there is no objection to the exchange which is suggested here for such a purpose as this. The very fact that there is no general provision for the exchange of the lands which have once been surveyed shows how carefullysthe trust is guarded. In each particular case we have to lay the facts before parliament and it is within the judgment of parliament whether the permission is granted or not. Irrigation propositions such as this one, it will be agreed in fact by every one who understands the question, are on a very different footing from any other cases. My friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) hardly appreciates the position in this case. This is not the case of the mere enhancement of value of the land by reason of conditions surrounding it or near it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is one important element.


Frank Oliver: No, not in this case. That was the case in the instance alluded to by the hon. member from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) but this case is entirely different. In
this case the completion of the scheme de-

pends upon the acquisition of this very land by the projectors of the scheme. Suppose that parliament should not permit this exchange to be made ; if the projectors had known that such permission would not be granted at the beginning they never would have undertaken the scheme.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were they ignorant of the land law ?


Frank Oliver: They assume, I presume, that the same consideration that had been granted to others would be granted to them. The scheme would not have been undertaken if this section could not have been made part of it: then none of the land involved in the scheme would have had the advantage of irrigation and none of it would have been increased in value by the expenditure of this large amount of money upon it. It is not an ordinary case of land which has increased in value by reason of surrounding conditions.
As to the question raised by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) I am not able to give any information directly on that point. The land was required for the purposes of the forestry farm at Indian Head and it did not seem to be advisable or in the public interest or necessary or fair, as it seemed to us, that the government in order to apply that land to a different purpose, which was essential for the benefit of the province in which it was situated as well as in the other provinces, should be required to pay a price for that land because of the surrounding conditions having increased in value, when it was possible to set aside elsewhere land which had an equal intrinsic value. However, that question is a fair subject for consideration and it has been before me for consideration. I have done what I think my friend will admit was fair. Where we find that land has been held under reservation for some particular reason for a considerable length of time, and during that time has come into value, instead of opening that to homestead entry, we have, in certain cases, set aside these quarter-sections of the school lands so that the school fund would have the same advantage in these cases of increased value by reason of surrounding conditions as occurred in the case of the Indian Head farm, and as may occur in numerous cases in which it would be desirable to secure an exchange of school lands.


Richard Stuart Lake: To what kind of reserves does the minister refer?
Mr. OLIVER, I can hardly give any general statement of the classes and I would not say that it was done in cases where there is no special value to consider. But where there was special value in the land, for instance, where there is a preemption taken 15 or 20 years ago which has been held possibly in the centre
of a well settled piece of country, and which has been cancelled, instead of opening that up for homestead entry we may set aside that for the school fund so that the school fund will get the increased value of that land by reason of the surrounding settlement. Another instance is this:	In
the opening of the Doukhobor reserves, right adjoining the town of Langham was a quarter-section of land which was entered for as a Doukhobor by a man who was afterwards proven not to be a Doukhobor, and therefore had not the right of prior entry on this land. It was necessary to cancel his entry. This land was immediately adjoining the town of Langham and of course if it were opened up for ordinary homestead entry it would have been a snap for whoever got it. Instead of opening it for homestead entry or selling it by auction for the benefit of the treasury at large, we thought it right to take that quarter-section in exchange for some of the school lands that we have secured exchange for. My hon. friend may consider if he pleases that we exchanged a quarter-section at the Indian Head farm for a quarter-section adjoining the town of Langham. At any rate we have adopted this principle and I think have thus evened up with the provinces for such eases as he mentions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I understand it correctly, parliament formerly reached the conclusion that we cannot divest ourselves of a trust once it is created nor can we divert these school lands for any other purpose than that provided for in the law creating the trust. In view of that, I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior if he has secured the advice of the Department of Justice as to the authority of this House to deal with these school lands in such a way as Is proposed?


Frank Oliver: I imagine this Bill has been referred to the Department of Justice, but I cannot answer for it specifically. I may say, however, that the trust of which my hon. friend speaks is a trust existing by Act of Parliament, and inasmuch as any Act of Parliament can be amended so that Act can be amended as it is being amended by this Bill. This Bill is only one of several that have been passed to meet such cases as these now before the House. The Acts hitherto passed have not been questioned as to their legality, and the only question for consideration is as to their wisdom in dealing with the circumstances of each case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At one time Manitoba wanted her school lands given up and it was strongly contended by eminent lawyers in this House that we could not divest

ourselves of the trust. Have we any better authority for divesting ourselves of this trust? On that point the opinion of the Department of Justice should have been secured.


Frank Oliver: We are not divesting ourselves of the trust in this case. We are making a certain exchange of lands in accordance with precedents established during all the years since the trust was created. In the general operation of settlement in the country it has been found necessary from time to time to make such exchanges as are contemplated in this Bill. I think there can be no doubt that the precedent has been established for cause, that it has the sanction of law, and that there can, therefore, be no objection to this Bill.
Mr. SPIiOULE. It is of no importance to me personally, and I do not want to object to the Bill, but I would point out that many bad precedents are established and we should not follow them. The impression left on my mind from the discussion in this House was that we could only dispossess ourselves of such land in accordance with the terms of the trust.


Frank Oliver: I do not recall the debate to which my h'on. friend refers and while no doubt some expressed the view he has presented, others possibly took the contrary view.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I believe it was generally conceded that we could not do>
it with respect to the Manitoba school lands, and I would like to know what authority we have for doing it in this case.


Frank Oliver: I still think there must be a very radical difference between handing over the ownership of lands to some organization or person and merely exchanging one piece of land for another, which is rendered necessary in the administration of the lands by the settlement of the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the progress of settlement enhances the value of certain land to $10 or $20 an acre, and you exchange that for some other land worth only $2 an acre, surely the school fund must lose the difference. Could not the province demand from us an accounting for that difference, and claim, equitably if not legally, that we should pay to the province the $18 an acre that was lost as a result of the exchange?


Frank Oliver: It is quite possible that in a close scrutiny of the case that might be done. But, on the other hand, there have been instances in which an exchange has been made of lands less valuable for lands more valuable; for instance, the two sections in the Canadian Pacific Railway irrigation tract, which undoubtedly were of less value, aside from the question of irrigation, then the land for which they were exchanged, which was in a part of the Mr. SPROULE.
country where irrigation was not necessary. In that case the school fund benefited by the exchange; so that, while it is perhaps a matter for discussion, it does not at all follow that by this proposed exchange the school fund will ultimately suffer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the preamble,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would have been interesting to see the correspondence in connection with this exchange. I do not assume that there is anything wrong in it, but there are so many crooked kinks in these land transactions that one becomes a little suspicious about them.


Frank Oliver: It was not contemplated to bring the papers down; but if the hon. gentleman wishes them, I will see that they are brought down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not wish to go into the matter.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



LAND TITLES ACT ASSURANCE FUND.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That the Minister of Finance may, under the authority of the Governor in Council, pay the proper authorities of each of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, out of the Assurance Fund formed under the Territories Real Property Act, chapter 26, of the statutes of 1886, and continued under The Land Titles Act, 1894, chapter 28, of the statutes of the year, so much' thereof as has arisen from transactions relating to lands now within such province.
He said :	This resolution is practically
to complete the Autonomy Bills. It is to provide for handing over to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta certain moneys which have accumulated in the Assurance Fund in the hands of this government under the operation of the Land Titles Act. Under the provisions of that Act, which gives absolute title to lands, and takes the responsibility of mistakes made in the administration of the Act, a certain tax is levied on each transaction, which tax goes to form an assurance fund out of which to pay claims arising as the result of these mistakes. When the two new provinces were organized, they were given control of the registration of titles, and the administration of the Land Titles Act passed to them. They have been operating the Act in those provinces since, but the assurance fund, which had accumulated to the Dominion treasury during the period when the Dominion operated the Act, has not yet been handed over to the new provinces.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the money go into the consolidated revenue ?


Frank Oliver: 3STo, it was a separate fund created for the sole purpose of meeting claims that might be made upon it, arising out of mistakes which might occur in the operation of the Land Titles Act. But the transactions against which that fund stands as an assurance are now in the jurisdiction of the provinces, and as the provinces have assumed the responsibility of administering the Act and consequently any liability for mistakes that may occur, it is only reasonable that this fund should be transferred to them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the amount of the fund now?


Mr. HAGGART.: How does the government divest itself of the responsibility?


Frank Oliver: By the provisions of the Autonomy Acts. The fund amounts at present to $118,912.62.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the assent of the Governor General been given ? That was not announced when the hon. minister gave notice of the resolution.


Frank Oliver: I neglected to give that announcement but the requisite authority has been received.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
Richard Stuart Lake: Could the hon. minister state the amount for each province ?


Frank Oliver: No. the Bill is for the purpose of handing over the money and providing for its division between the two provinces in proportion to the transactions within each province.


John Graham Haggart: How does the Dominion government divest itself of liability to the parties assured ?


Frank Oliver: The government cannot divest itself absolutely of liability, but the two provinces have given an undertaking that they will assume that liability.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.
Mr. OLIVER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 168) to authorize payment to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta of a part of the Assurance Fund under the Land Titles Act of 1894.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.	.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



YUKON PLACER MINING ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill 270
(No. 150) to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act. He said :	Until last session the
placer mining in the Yukon was regulated by order in council. That system was necessary under the circumstances prevailing in the Yukon for so many years. But, as time went on, and the conditions in regard to mining there became better known, not only did that condition of the law become less necessary, but it became less and less to the liking of the people who were affected by it. The very facility which the administration of the mining law by regulation gave to meet changed conditions, or conditions which had been misunderstood, grew objectionable under conditions which had become to a great extent fixed and when people wished to know, from time to time and from year to year, just what their rights were without any question of alteration. In accepting the view that the time had come for regulation to be succeeded by enactment, the Yukon Placer Mining Bill was introduced and accepted by the House. We were aware that, at this distance from the Yukon, and even with the advantages we have of being in touch with conditions in that country, there were difficulties in placing on the statute-book a law that would be in actual accord with those conditions unless there was close consultation with the people of the Yukon, T'he Yukon has a partially representative council or local government, and the representations of a committee of this council were accepted by the government and by the House last year in the terms of the Act which was passed. As I said, the intention of that Act, its very purpose, the desire which it was intended to meet, was that there should be stability in the placer mining law of the Yukon. Therefore, when we come forward at this, the next succeeding session, with a series of amendments, it may seem that either the people who were interested in the passage of the law last year did not know their own minds at the time or that they had changed their minds. The fact is, however, that there are serious difficulties in meeting the conditions, as they are found to exist And, as all legislation is necessarily imperfect and has to be amended from time to time -otherwise there would be no necessity for parliament-so in the case of the Yukon Placer Mining Act, which might be said to have been an experiment in legislation of that character for this parliament, it has been found in operation during the past year that there are faults and failings in it which require to be remedied, instances or conditions that were not foreseen that require to be met, or expressions used that were not sufficiently definite. There is no change in the princinle of the Yukon Placer Mining Act in the amendments now before the House. These amendments are simply to give fuller effect to the principles contained in the Act of last session. These
[Stage Direction]
84S3
[Stage Direction]
amendments, as the Act itself was, were prepared by a committee of the Yukon council in the light of such experience as they have had under the Act and presented to the government here, endorsed by the Commissioner of the Yukon, who is an officer of this government, as being in the interest of mining in that country. The Bill, then is offered to the House under these circumstances.
In the preparation of the Bill for presentation to the House, there has been some little departure from the ordinary form. We have given the amendment in the ordinary wording; beneath that we have printed the section as it is and the section as it is proposed to be amended, with the amendments in italics and with an explanation following. It is hoped that by this arrangement a full understanding of the wording and the meaning of the various changes will be given. However, I may say that since the Bill was put in type there have been certain representations made as to the protection of certain interests in the Yukon which may be said to be an embodiment of a new principle. These I will place before the House as we reach them in the progress of the Bill, and will give the necessary explanations. But the Bill as it stands in print contains and continues only the principles contained in the original Bill.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. Paragraph (c) of section 2 of The Yukon Placer Mining Act is amended by adding the following words thereto:-but does not include streams which may be considered rivers under the provisions of the Dredging regulations, that is, sti'eams having an average width of one hundred and fifty feet.
Mr. SrilOULE. What do you mean by the average width ? I presume most streams are wider in some places than in others.
Frank Oliver: It is because they are wider in some places and narrower in others -that we use the word average. There has to be some way of defining a stream to which dredging regulations may apply, as distinguished from a stream to which placer mining regulations may apply. We have to make some division, and the wording is the best we can make. We give a definition as to the measurement, and in the last resort the decision as to the average width is left to the gold commissioner.
On section 3,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought you only had one gold commissioner, but this seems to contemplate the appointment of several.


Frank Oliver: It may be that more than one would be necessary, and thijs permits Mr. OLIVER
the appointment of more than one. But at present there is only one gold commissioner in the Yukon.


Richard Stuart Lake: Do you mean mining commissioner or commissioner of the Yukon ?


Frank Oliver: The gold commissioner, an officer whose business it is to administer the law in regard to mining, and to bear appeals from the decisions of the mining recorder.


Mr. ARMSTRONG  .@: What is meant by 'Governor in Council ' ?	1 did not know there
was a Governor so-called in the Yukon.


Frank Oliver: The Governor in Council is the Governor of the Dominion Council. This is a law of the Dominion parliament, and the Governor in Council appoints a gold commissioner. This law is not administered by the local council of the Yukon ; that council merely administers the ordinary business of the territory, and has nothing to do with the administration of gold mining.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the salary of those gold commissioners, and what are their duties ? Is it necessary to have more than one ?


Frank Oliver: 
Frank Oliver: The section provides for the division of the territory into mining districts, in each of which there shall be a head office for recording mineral claims. That division is made by the commissioner in council at the present time. Now the commissioner in council at the present time means the commissioner of the Yukon territory sitting in council. As the council only sits once a year it follows that this division could only he made at a time when the council was in session. In case there is a stampede to any particular part of the country it may become desirable to constitute that part of the country a mining district with a mining recorder, and it should not be necessary to wait until the council sat in order to make that division. It is thought proper that the commissioner should have
84S5

power to declare any part of the country a mining district. Mr. Alexander Henderson is the Yukon commissioner now, he was formerly Judge Henderson, at Vancouver.


Richard Stuart Lake: In section 4 the word ' commissioner ' means the commissioner of the Yukon ; in section 3, in the 18th line, the word ' commissioner,' according to the minister's explanation, means the gold commissioner. There is likely to be confusion.


Frank Oliver: In section 3 the word used is gold commissioner. According to the Bill the Governor in Council may appoint gold commissioners and assistant gold commissioners for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. But mining recorders, mining inspectors and deputies thereto, shall be appointed by the commissioner subject to the annroval of the Governor in Council, and in this case the commissioner means the commissioner of the Yukon.
On section 12-Extension of boundaries of claim.
Mr. OLIVER moved to amend the section by adding the words :
Or which may he subject to the terms of any agreement with the Crown.
He said : This is to provide for a certain condition which was overlooked in the original Bill. There are cases in which there are certain rights which are not the rights of ownership but which are rights under agreement with the Crown. These rights will be ignored by the provisions of the Bill as it is printed, but, with the addition of the words which I have moved, will be protected.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I should think the more responsible officer would be the gold commissioner, and yet you include the mining recorder with him in this section.


Frank Oliver: The mining recorder is the officer most nearly acquainted with the actual circumstances and as the distances are great and the means of communication limited it is thought well that in such a case as this where it is really a question of fact, it might fairly be left to the mining recorder with an appeal always to the gold commissioner.
On section 13,


Frank Oliver: The purpose of this amendment is to allow a period to intervene between the abandonment and relocation so that the world will have notice that the claim is available for relocation and so that the person who abandons will not have priority of right in relocating as he would were he allowed to abandon to-day and relocate to-morrow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is any official document filed establishing the abandonment ?


Frank Oliver: Yes. A man must abandon one claim before he can take another and under this amendment he cannot abandon for the purpose of relocating and thereby avoid paying his renewal fee or doing his assessment work.
On section 16,


Frank Oliver: I move that after the word ' following ' in the second line, the words be inserted :
Subject to any right granted by the terms of any existing agreement with the Crown.
This is in order to protect certain rights which are not rights of ownership and yet are rights under agreement with the Crown and therefore entitled to be respected.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL.: What is the effect of that amendment ?


Frank Oliver: There are certain rights to what are called reverted claims, which rights are held under an agreement with the Crown at the present time and this amendment will preserve these rights.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is that reserving to the Crown the right overlapping claims ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Are not these claims in many instances already granted to other parties in the event that they should lapse into the hands of the government. How would the amendment affect a position of that kind ?


Frank Oliver: This condition exists ; there are certain lease holders who have a lease of a large area of territory within which area there are situated individual claims. It is a condition of the lease that whenever any of these individual claims Situated within the leasehold revert to the Crown or when the conditions upon them are not fulfilled, instead of reverting to the Crown they fall into the lease. It is to preserve that right of reversion of the claims within a lease to the leasehold that these words are inserted.


Mr. DANIEL.: I notice in one of these sections, and perhaps it is the case in some others, that the word ' Commissioner ' where it refers to the Commissioner of the Yukon is printed with a capital C, while in other sections it js not printed with a capital C. If the word ' Commissioner,' where it refers to the Commissioner of the Yukon, were printed with a capital C all through this Act it would be better in every way.


Frank Oliver: A very good idea.
On section 21-Performance of work by owners of adjoining claims.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that this is a means of enabling a few parties to get control of the whole district.


Frank Oliver: It is a means whereby a number of men may group their interests in order to a more economical working of the properties. This is a principle which was admitted in the Act of last year as well as under the previous regulations. It is, of course, a principle which is subject to abuse-something that must be carefully guarded against. The difference between the provision in the amendment and the provision in the Act of last year is that the number of claims was not defined in the provision of last year, and it was believed that abuses might readily arise under it; any number of claims might be grouped. The new provision is that ten claims may be grouped freely, but the grouping of a greater number shall be subject to the approval of the Commissioner of the Yukon on the report of the mining engineer. It is believed tha,t mo great harm can be done by the grouping of ten claims or less, while the grouping of more than ten might be subject to great abuse. At the same time, there may bo occasions when it would be desirable that a larger number of claims should be grouped.
On section 22,
Section 52 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection :
2. In granting the privilege allowed under this section the mining recorder shall charge the applicant two dollars and fifty cents for every three months or portion thereof for each claim during that portion of the year it is necessary to renew it to make all the claims renewable on the same day; and the representation work required for the fractional portion of the year for which each claim is renewed shall be allowed at the rate of fifty dollars for each three months or fraction thereof, and the said representation work shall be performed and recorded on or before the date from which all the claims are first made renewable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At present a man must pay a full fee if he renews a claim for a portion of a year. Under this amendment he need only pay for a fraction of the year.


Frank Oliver: It is necessary perhaps to read the section as it stands in the present Act to catch the full meaning of the amendment :
Grants of claims in respect of which such permission has been granted, and grants of any claims within a mining district, owned by one person, may be made renewable by the mining recorder on the same day.
This provision is to permit broken periods to be brought together without requiring the miner to pay a full year's fee.
On section 23,
Section 54 of the said Act is amended by striking out the word ' ground ' in the ninth line and inserting the word r property ' in lieu thereof.
Mr. SPROULE


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) sets a remarkably good example in the fullness of the printed explanations which he brings down to the House when he makes these amendments. It is a course I have advocated in respect of all Bills for several years. I am bound to say that any minister who does this will always succeed in getting his legislation through in one quarter of the time and with about one-tenth of the trouble it would otherwise involve. I congratulate the minister most heartily.


Frank Oliver: I desire to add a proviso as follows :
Provided that before entering upon or constructing or repairing works upon the mining property of another person, such applicant shall give adequate security by bond or otherwise, to the satisfaction of the mining recorder, to secure payment to the owner of such mining property of all damage caused by such entry.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who is to be the judge of that damage?


Frank Oliver: We necessarily give the right to one person to go upon the property of another, but the person who receives this right may not be a man of any substance, and should he, in the carrying out of his work, damage the property upon which he has been permitted to enter, the owner, though he may have legal recourse, may have no valuable recourse against him. This provision requires that before any one enteres on the property of another, he shall satisfy the mining recorder as to his being good for the damage. The owner will then have security should he require to take legal action.	.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the general effect of this section ?-not the portion of it which is amended but the portion which remains as it was before. I will read the section omitting the immaterial words :
A mining recorder may .	. .grant . .
the right to divert or take and use or sell the water from any stream or lake . . . and the right of way through, and entry upon any mining property, for the purpose of constructing and repairing ditches and flumes to convey such water.
Then follows the proviso which has been read by the minister as to security. Thus it will be seen that power is given to grant the right to divert water

 '


Frank Oliver: That is not the material point that is being amended.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that; but the whole section is before us and we should consider what it means. The reason I mention it now is to understand exactly the effect of the amendment. You provide for the right of way through and entry upon mining property for the purpose of constructing or repairing ditches or flumes, and

then you provide that tlie person who exercises this right should give adequate security.


Frank Oliver: To the owner of the claim through which he is permitted to carry the water.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, security for payment to the owner of such mining property of all damages caused by such entry. Well, is that enough-' damage caused by such entry '. You do not say anything about the damage which may be occasioned by the construction and repair of ditches and flumes.


Frank Oliver: The security demanded is at the discretion of the mining recorder.


Robert Laird Borden: No. If it were that,
I would not raise any objection. But you are to give security for ' damage caused by such entry,' thus the ' entry ' is distinguished from ' the construction and repair of ditches and flumes.' You speak of ' entry ' as one thing, of ' construction, and repair of ditches and flumes ' as another thing, and of the diversion of water as still another thing, but you provide damages only for the entry.


Frank Oliver: There is no connection between the diversion of the water and the subsequent part of the section.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps not.


Frank Oliver: There is, of course, a direct connection between the construction or repair of works and the entry. Of course, my belief was that when you gave a person permission to enter upon the property you thereby took chances on whar he was going to do when he got there, and you exacted beforehand security adequate to cover what he was likely to do after he got entry. If that is not ciear, I would like it to be made clear.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the minister had better ask his legal adviser about that. If I were asked to draft a section to cover what the minister obviously intends, I would make it a little wider than this. As I have mentioned the point, the minister can deal with it as he sees fit. When you give power to divert and take or use' and sell water, does that mean power to go on any man's property and divert the water from it ?


Frank Oliver: No. the water cannot be diverted except by the order of the mining recorder.


Robert Laird Borden: All the water that runs in that country is subject to the order of the mining recorder ?


Frank Oliver: Precisely.


Mr. GALLIHER.: In mining in British Columbia, we sometimes meet that difficulty. I think that the case in mind is this :
You grant a man permission to divert water from a certain stream. If it is not necessary for him to take that water across another man's property in order to make it available for his own use, the latter part of this section does not apply. But, if he must bring the water across another man's property, he must receive permission to cross that man's property, but you protect the owner of that property under the latter part of the clause. You give the right of entry and right of way upon the property for a certain purpose, that of constructing and repairing ditches and flumes, and all this is taken into consideration in fixing the security. That is, the entry is directly connected with the construction and repair of ditches and flumes.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not agree that that view is right. But the minister will look into the matter.


William Alfred Galliher: I mention it, not merely as a lawyer, but because we encounter the same thing in our own province and have had cases of it.


Robert Laird Borden: I dare say. But where you specify the entry and also specify something besides the entry, and when your damages are allowed for the entry alone, it seems to me it would be well to make the matter clear.


William Alfred Galliher: But the entry is for a certain purpose and you provide for damages in respect of such entry for such purposes.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand. But where you specify several things in one place, it seems to me they should be covered in the other place also.


Frank Oliver: I desire to have the provision clear and adequate, and so I would like to make a suggestion. If it does not seem sufficient, I will reserve the section for further consideration of the law clerk of the department. Suppose the section were made to provide that ' before entering for the purpose of constructing or repairing works upon the mining property of any other person ' security shall be given for ' all damage caused by such entry for such purpose.'


Mr.   I@: I think it would be better to repeat the words at the commencement of the clause and provide that before entry the applicant shall give security to secure payment to the owner of such mining property ' for all damage caused by such entry, or construction, or repairing.' We want it to be placed beyond doubt.


Frank Oliver: We will sacrifice elegance for certainty; and I move in amendment that these words be introduced :

By such entry, or construction, or repairing.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 25,-amending section 1 of the old Act.
Angus Claude Macdonell: The change proposed here is rather important, and the minister might explain the reason for it.


Frank Oliver: The amendment .consists in inserting the word 'first' in two places. The case which it is intended to meet arises where there has been a diversion of water from any stream for the purpose of working claims which are either not on the stream or are at some considerable distance down the stream from where the water is taken out, and where there are claims discovered upon the creek below the ditch-head and above the return of the water to the creek. These claims are not workable, and this clause is intended to restore to those claims the inherent right which they are in mining custom supposed to have, to some reasonable measure of the natural flow of the water of that creek.


Robert Laird Borden: The water is diverted from the creek into a ditch?


Frank Oliver: This is intended to meet such a case.


Robert Laird Borden: Then there is a claim situated above the place where the water returns to the creek from the ditch-cannot that person be served by the ditch in the ordinary course ?


Frank Oliver: No.
,^r- k. BORDEN. You intend to pro vide that a certain portion of the watei must come down the creek to that man's claim, aud that only the balance of it shal go into the ditch for the purpose of serving the parties for whose use the ditch wa< created ?
RF^VER. Yes. The insertion of the word first' is rendered necessary by an interpretation that it seems has been placed upon the section as it now stands in the Act, that the right of the miner upon the creek to a share of the water only accrued after the owner of the ditch had satisfied his own requirements. Of course that in most cases would mean no relief at all would mean that the conditions intended to be met would not be met. Therefore it is proposed to meet the conditions which the Bill as passed last year were intended to meet, by inserting the word ' first,' so that the first 40 inches or 20 inches of water as the case might be, will be available'on these streams to which that water naturally belongs.	J


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand how it came to pass that the authorities deprived the person of forty inches under the law as at present.


Frank Oliver: Mr. OLI \ ER. Because he was not there when the first grant of water was given.


Robert Laird Borden: The statute is only intended to apply to persons who were there at the time the ditch was constructed ?


Frank Oliver: No, the statute is intended to apply to people who were not there when the ditch was constructed. If they were there when the ditch was constructed, then the water could not be diverted. They were not there when the right to the ditch was granted, and this is to maintain the natural right of the gold-bearing gravel along the stream to some reasonable portion of the water of that stream for the purpose of production.


Angus Claude Macdonell: There may be a case or cases that require some remedy. It seems to me that the language of this amendment goes beyond any case of that kind. The minister's explanation is this, that under the Act as it now stands a person who acquired property on a creek below the ditch-head is entitled to 20 per cent of the water diverted. Under the amendment the claim owner is entitled to the first forty or sixty inches of water, as the case may be, whether the owner of the ditch obtains his quantity or not. Now you are making a general amendment to the law which means this : At the present time the owner of the ditch can only be called upon to give up twenty per cent of his water; according to the amendment he can be called upon to give up the first 40 or 60 inches, as the case may be, and whether he gets any water or not. The case I have in mind is this, the case of companies that have acquired rights there now, who are operating on those creeks, and who have vested rights to the extent of whatever those rights may be. Those people can now be called upon to give up 20 per cent of the water. That is correct, is it not?


Frank Oliver: Yes, provided they are workable claims to which that water would be applied, aud not otherwise, bona fide claims, subject always to the decision of the mining recorder or gold commissioner that they are entitled to the water by reason of having workable claims.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That is assumed. But assuming that, and assuming that these claims are bona fide, these newcomers are down below the ditch-head, and at the present time they can only call upon a man to give up 20 per cent, of his water, whether that be great or small, whether the season be dry or wet; he can only be asked to give up 20 per cent of his supply, whatever it is. Now, by the amendment, an old established company who have rights there might be called upon in a dry season to give up to the newcomer the entire flow

of water that goes through the ditch. That certainly seems to me to be going a little too far. You are interfering with the rights which have been acquired and in a dry season the company above might be compelled to give up their entire supply of water. Surely it was not intended to pass legislation as far-reaching as that. The water might be shared proportionately if the flow is small or great, but do not provide that the newcomer or any one may be entitled to take the whole flow.


Frank Oliver: The proposed provision is exactly the same as the previous provision except that the new provision contemplates that the claim holder on the original stream shall have the first 40 or 60 inches, as the case may be, even if that is all. There was no provision for a division of water in the first instance and there is no such provision intended now ; unless there is enough water to work a claim there is no use in any water being taken, and it is considered that less than 40 inches is not sufficient to do any goodS-i Suppose there were just 40 inches of water in the stream, the percentage basis which my hon. friend suggests of giving 20 per cent to the holder of the claim on the original stream and 80 per cent to the holder on the ditch would not give enough to either to be of any use. It is better, therefore, that one man or the other should have enough if there was only sufficient water for one.
My hon. friend argues on the principle that there is an inherent right to the water resting in the capital employed to divert that water. That is not the principle which obtains in the distribution of water in a placer mining country any more than in an irrigation country. There Is an inherent public right in the water in its natural flow and it is in maintenance of that inherent public right that this provision was made and that this amendment is being introduced. The public interest demands that if there is gold and if there is water by which that gold may be produced, the water shall be applied to produce the gold, and it is not in accordance with sound public policy that the water which is in its natural course available to produce the gold lying along that course should be diverted from that use or purpose to some other use or purpose, even although there should be an expenditure of capital.' The water will flow for ever, the gold will ultimately be exhausted. There is in the long last enough water to produce gold and if there is water by which that is that, for the time being and for the immediate purpose, the water shall be first available to that gold which is most ready of access to it. It is in strict accordance with this principle that this legislation was introduced last year and is being amended this year. There is no change in principle between this year's amendment and last year's legislation, the amendment of this
year is merely to make as definite as possible the intent of the legislation of last year.


Mr. CLARKE.: I do not quite understand the wording of the section. The intention of the section, I understand, is that the person who establishes works below the ditch shall be entitled to the first 40 inches of water. The section says he shall be entitled to that if 200 inches are diverted. I do not understand this diversion very well but it looks as if he does not get the first 40 inches unless 200 inches are diverted.


Frank Oliver: That might be the meaning that is taken out of the section. The English languige is peculiar and it is difficult to so frame it that two meanings cannot be taken. When the committee of the Yukon council drafted the section which appeared last year they fully believed that they had met the case, but under the criticism of legal gentlemen they found they had not met the case. They have made another attempt, perhaps they have failed again. I understand this is the way they have presented the Bill.


Angus Claude Macdonell: What was fix-law prior to last session ? Last year the Act was amended so that the man who had the ditch was obliged to give up 20 per cent of it in a certain event, scarcity of water. You have given the man who builds this ditch certain rights; I presume you have, because they have proceeded and constructed this ditch and watercourse and, after having done that and invested their money and capital you curtail their powers. Last session apparently these rights were curtailed so as to oblige them to give up a certain percentage of that water. You come again this session and say you want that further amended by obliging them to give up what might be the whole flow of water, thereby rendering their works entirely useless, unless there be water sufficient to supply the owners of claims on the creek below the ditch-head. Am I correct in that ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Angus Claude Macdonell: So it practically means confiscation of the works and property of the people who invested their money under the laws that existed which permitted this to be done, and under which they acquired these rights. It is a very important matter. The minister seems to have satisfied himself as to the desirability of a change in the law but it certainly looks as if the result would be to inflict hardship. For instance, there is a creek and there is a ditch-head and water is diverted from that creek. The law is known to be that a man who has a ditch has the right to divert the water of the stream for his own use and possibly for the use of those below him. Under that condition rights have been acquired and under

that condition rights have been abandoned. Rights have been acquired on the ditch and with the knowledge of the law rights have been abandoned on the creek, because those who took up claims on the creek below the ditch-head knew they were doing so subject to the prior right of the man who owned the ditch, if they located below the ditch-head. There would be no hardship in asking the gentlemen to abide by the law as it stood, because whatever rights they have acquired on the creek below the ditch-head were acquired with the full knowledge that the owner of the ditch had the right to divert the stream. If you are going to give one man what may be in certain seasons all of the water and the other man none, it would seem to me that it would be in the interests of justice and according to the faith of the contract entered into with the government that the man who has the ditch and who has previously acquired the right to the flow of water front it by legislation of this parliament, should be preserved in his rights, or if there is not sufficient water for both there should be a division or partition of whatever water is available. They may both have to abate their works to a certain extent, but do not give it all to one man and let the other man's works go dry. It does seem to me that if there be a partition of this water it should be on a percentage basis so as to give them both an opportunity to continue their works. If there is not enough water for both they must both abate their operation, and if there is abundance of water they have both full rights. It seems to me the matter is well worthy the consideration of the government and that the parties interested should be heard. This is a public Bill discussed in Committee of the House and the parties have no right to appear here and make known their claims as they would if it were a private Bill considered in a special committee. There should be an opportunity given to the parties to be heard. I hope the minister has'informed himself well and wisely as to the effect of this legislation and as to its desirability. I am informed that there are companies who have invested large sums of money in these ditches and in the undertakings and works and they should be reasonably accorded a hearing or some means of informing the minister of their position. Let me ask the minister if he has had any representations made to him along these lines, and if so, how lie is considering them ?


Frank Oliver: I have had representations such as my hon. friend has made and they have been carefully considered. In fact the Commissioner of the Yukon came here specially for the purpose of considering, amongst other things, this particular question. He has considered it, I have consulted with him on it, and he is of opinion that the legislation proposed is in the public interest and Mr. MACDONELL
is necessary. I am of the same opinion for the reasons which I have already given to the House. I might add further-I have already said that the gold is there in limited quantities, and that by continuous working the gold will eventually be exhausted in the one claim or in the other, but the water will continue to flow from year to year for all eternity. The application of the water to the claims containing the gold is an absolute necessity to the production of the gold. Therefore, the man who has acquired the right to the water, to all intents and purposes practically owns all the gold, that is subject to the application of that water in order to secure its production. Therefore unless some provision such as this is inserted, the man who has been fortunate in the early days to acquire the right to the water of a small stream and has for reasons of his own diverted that water and carried it we will say down the stream a mile or two or three miles ; unless there is some intervention of this kind, that mail to all intents and purposes has locked up in his strong box and owns against all the world all the gold along the banks of that stream between the ditch-head and where his water is returned to the creek. That is a condition which, of course, cannot be maintained as being in the public interest. This provision is inserted for the purpose of meeting that condition. Of course the right under this section can only be exercised bona fide on the approval of the mining recorder or the gold commissioner or on appeal to the territorial court of the Yukon. But the point is that it is necessary that the inherent right ol' the people at large to the use of that water shall be asserted and shall be maintained and established by legislation. We cannot afford to have the gold of the Yukon locked up by the locking up of the water.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I have not even suggested any such thing. The minister has spoken about those who acquire rights to the water. Now, the man who has acquired the right to the water is the man to whom this government has given the right to divert the stream. No one is suggesting that this man who has acquired this right should be allowed to divert the whole flow of the water or that either party should, but that there should be a partition of the water. The minister speaks about the gold being taken out in a certain time and lie says that the water flows on for ever. That is quite true, but that is no reason why a man should be postponed in his right to take out his gold, to the advantage of another man who is to have the use of the water immediately. Surely the minister would be facilitating the getting out of the gold of that country by extending the area over which the water rights shall be acquired rather than by confining these water rights either to a particular channel or to a ditch. It surely is more in the inter-

ests of the production of gold in that country that the water should be spread over as large an area as possible. Give the ditch owner what water will serve him, if there is water to serve him, and give the owner of the creek claim the same right. If there is a dearth of water, then do the best you can with what there is : give each man a portion. It seems to me that in that way you would be best serving the gold-mining industry of that country. Parliament has, wisely or unwisely, given the owners of these' ditches certain vested rights in the waters of these creeks and streams, and it seems to me to be a great hardship to deprive them of those rights. Curtail those rights if they have too much water ; but it seems to me to be a pretty high-handed proceeding to take them away altogether, so that in a dry season they will get no jwater.


Frank Oliver: I must repeat that the Act as it now stands is identical with the Act as it is proposed, except that the first right shall be to the claim-holder on the original creek. That was the intention in the original Act, and to my mind it is so expressed, but it seems that it is not so held by some authorities. The proposal before the House is the proposal of practical men best acquainted with the conditions and anxious to conserve the water for the production of gold, and I think the House is warranted in accepting their judgment.


Mr GALLIHER.: 
Angus Claude Macdonell: My hon. friend is speaking just as if this were a virgin country and as if no rights had been granted. I quite understand ali that he has said, but he is overlooking the fact that rights have been granted on these streams
to certain persons to divert these waters, and they have made their investments on the faith of those rights. Conditions have changed because of the intervening rights that have been thus acquired. I think the effect of this amendment would simply be to encourage people working claims or pretending to work claims to exact from people who are affected by this legislation certain payments in order that they may be protected in their mining rights. That is not new in mining countries, and I think that you will find history repeating itself here.


William Alfred Galliher: That diversion does not do away with the basic principle that the people having gold-bearing grounds on a stream, even after the wTater is diverted, are entitled to the flow of that water.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inquire how much water any bona fide worker would be entitled to if there were 150 inches diverted, and how much if there were 250 inches diverted?


Frank Oliver: He would be entitled to 40 inches if 250 inches were diverted, or to 00 inches if 300 indies or over were diverted. What my hon. friend from Toronto says is correct, that if there were only 40 inches in the stream and the owner of the ditch had a right to divert 40 inches, and a claim were established below the ditch-head, and the mining recorder gave permission, the owner of the claim would be entitled to that 40 inches as against the owner of the ditch. Forty inches is the amount of water which is considered sufficient for the efficient working of a placer claim ; less than that is not considered to be sufficient.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be better to say that he shall be entitled to the first forty inches of water if not more than 200 are diverted?


William Alfred Galliher: I think that would be a good amendment.


Frank Oliver: He will be entitled to forty inches if not more than three hundred are diverted and to sixty inches if more than three hundred are diverted. How would that do?


Robert Laird Borden: That would be plainer to the ordinary layman.


Frank Oliver: I would then move in amendment that he shall be entitled to the first forty inches of water, if not more than three hundred are diverted, and to the first sixty inches if more than three hundred are diverted.


William Alfred Galliher: Then he would be entitled to forty inches if two hundred and ninety-nine inches were diverted, but as soon as three hundred inches are diverted the sixty inches would start and that is ail he can get.


Frank Oliver: Unless he pays for more.


William Alfred Galliher: They will ask for two hundred and ninety-nine and then he will get only forty.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose two hundred inches are diverted, do you mean that there shall be two hundred and forty inches altogether in the original channel of which forty shall be retained by the person working below, or does it mean that there are two hundred altogether in the channel and one hundred and sixty to go into the ditch?
Mr. OLIVER One hundred and sixty in the ditch and forty in the channel.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it says that.


Frank Oliver: I am under the impression that the Act, as it stood last year, really conveyed the idea desired.


William Alfred Galliher: The trouble about the Act last year was that it did not give a prior right to the man to have the forty or the sixty inches.


Frank Oliver: I think it did. They did not allow it that way, but I think it did.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty arises in the use of the word 'diverted.' You speak of the forty inches as part of that diverted.


William Alfred Galliher: It does not say the water was diverted, but the stream :
If after a grant has been made, any one locates bona fide works on any claim below the ditch-head on any stream so diverted, he shall be entitled to the first forty inches of water if not mdre than 200 inches are diverted.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN Perhaps under the new form of expression the diffieutly does not arise so much. I do not think it does.


William Alfred Galliher: It means absolutely not the water in the river, but the water in the ditch.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the difficulty would arise very much under the form of expression now selected.


William Alfred Galliher: ,1 do not know about that, because the man does not get his forty inches out of the water diverted into that ditch, as I understand it.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. The minister has used the expression, ' if not more than three hundred inches are diverted.' So, if nothing were diverted, the man would be entitled to his forty inches.


William Alfred Galliher: But that would have to be of the water left in the stream to go in its natural course. He does not get anything of the water diverted, for later on, it speaks of that.


William Alfred Galliher: 


Robert Laird Borden: The second branch of the expression-yes, it might leave it open to that difficulty.


William Alfred Galliher: The idea is to leave at least forty inches in the stream undiverted for three hundred diverted, or sixty inches if over three hundred are diverted. Let us suppose that there are 1,000 inches in a stream


Edward Frederick Clarke: What does ' inches ' mean in this case?


William Alfred Galliher: It means miner's inches. That is all defined. They can measure exactly how much goes through a certain head in a ditch or flume. Suppose there are 1,000 inches in a creek. Now, if 900 inches were diverted, there would still be one hundred inches left in the stream for the man below. But the water he would get would be that in the natural course of the stream-I take it that, necessarily, he could not get the water in the ditch, for he is not on the line of the ditch.


Robert Laird Borden: There is another difficulty. Suppose there were a dozen persons located below, each person would be entitled to forty inches, would he not?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes.


Frank Oliver: But the same forty inches would supply each one.


Robert Laird Borden: The water is not used up, then?
Mr. OLIVER, No, it passes from claim to claim. The trouble, as I see it, arises from the insertion of the word ' first.' As I read the original clause, it states exactly what is intended, but, by inserting the word ' first ' you alter the meaning and produce the confusion we are discussing. To meet the difficulty pointed out by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galiiher) I would suggest that we make it read, ' He shall be entitled to the first forty inches of water if not more than three hundred inches may be diverted, and the first sixty inches of water if more than three hundred inches may be diverted.' ' May be diverted '-that is, if the license permits the diversion.


William Alfred Galliher: I am not sure that that will remove the difficulty.


Alexander Johnston: Carried.


William Alfred Galliher: I think it would be better, Mr. Chairman, to come back to this section, even though we leave it in the meantime.


Frank Oliver: In view of the discussion we have had on this section, perhaps it would be as well to let the section stand and the Bill can be considered again in committee with a view to the amendment of this section. Let section 25 stand.
Progress reported.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 116) to amend the Exchequer Court Act.-Mr. Aylesworth-was read the second time, House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. AYLESWORTH It will be observed that this clause is substituted for the present sections 8 and 0 of the statute. The two clauses 8 and 9 are recast, are repeated in a slightly different form, and are made wider in application. At present, section 8 deals with the appointment of a substitute or temporary judge in case of the illness of the judge of the court or his absence from Canada. It will be observed that the section now under consideration widens that slightly, making it apply to the ease, not onlv of illness or absence from Canada, but to leave of absence. Then section 9 as it now stands provides for cases in which an ad hoc judge may be appointed for some particular cause or matter. Those cases, according to the present clause 9, are covered simply by the phrase ' any case In which the judge is interested.' The clause as drafted in the printed Bill applies to the case, first, of the judge being interested in any cause or matter, and then is added ' or disqualified by kinship to any of the parties.' That ground of disqualification is not expressly mentioned in the statute as it now stands; it is practically covered by the general expression of the present Act that the judge should not adjudicate upon any case in which he is interested. But it was thought better that it should be expressly mentioned, and also a similar provision as to the judge having been professionally engaged in any cause or matter as counsel or solicitor before his appointment to the bench. In the present Act that reason of disqualification is not expressly mentioned, but is simply covered by the general expression referring to the judge's possible interest. Then the present statute says that the judge ad hoc for a particular cause may be appointed upon the application of the judge of the court, and the word ' written ' is now inserted, so that there will be a record preserved of the application for the appointment of a judge for some particular cause. The provision as to taking the oath of office in each of these cases is at present in the law as it stands, and is not changed.
Then as regards the present fourth subsection, that is a provision the necessity for which appeared in the events which happened a few days before this Bill was drafted. The death of Air. Justice Bur-bidge necessarily worked an immediate cessation of the jurisdiction of his substitute, Sir Thomas Taylor. There were some cases standing for judgment, and in a few of them judgment was in fact delivered on the very morning of the death of Air. Justice Burbidge. Sir Thomas Taylor was not aware at the time he was sitting in the court and delivering these judgments of what had taken place a few hours earlier in the day, a circumstance which had ended his jurisdiction under the statute. A question has been raised as to the validity of the judgments so pronounced, and whether those cases will have to be tried again or argued again before the judge who has now been appointed to the court. The view has been taken by some of the counsel interested that those judgments would not be affected by the circumstance of the death of Air. Justice Burbidge earlier in the day on which they were delivered, in the view that the law takes no account of fractions of a day, that the delivery of the judgments being a step in legal proceedings, must have reference to the earliest hour of the day, and that at the earliest hour of the day had begun Air. Justice Burbidge was still alive. But it was thought that such a thing ought not to be left to any possible uncertainty. This clause was on that account drafted, and that there might be no possible question about it, I have drafted an amendment which I move to add to this subsection 4 in the shape of a fifth subsection, in these words :
This section shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of January, 1908.
That amendment has application, it will be seen, in terms, to the whole of section 1. But to the first and second and third subsections of the section as here printed there can never be any practical application of it, because the time having gone by since the 1st of January until the present time without there having been in fact any action under these subparagraphs of the clause, it would have application simply to the giving of the judgments under subsection 4, and would prevent any doubt as to the validity of these judgments.
Then reference was made this afternoon to the judicial duties of the judge of the court which might interfere with his transacting the pending business of the court with such expedition as was desirable. I propose to meet that case by the insertion of subparagraph (c) in the second subsection, which is the subsection providing for the appointment of a judge ad hoc in a particular case or matter with regard to which there is such necessity. I propose to insert this subclause (c) in the following words:
Or if the other judicial duties of the judge make it impossible for him to hear without undue delay any cause or matter.
Then will follow the concluding words of the section :
The Governor in Council may in that event, upon the written application of the judge, appoint any other person having the qualifications mentioned in the statute, to act as judge for that particular cause.
Mr.   A A. MCLEAN@: 
Robert Laird Borden: As far as the proposed amendment to section 1 by the addition of subsection 5 is concerned, there could, I think, be no reasonable objection provided the persons interested in the litigation iii question have been consulted, and have expressed their consent to have the judgments, already pronounced, confirmed bj this amendment. It would, I presume, be a matter of course that they would be consulted and be given an opportunity for being heard before the legislation shall be passed. I presume that they have been consulted by the Justice Department.
It is perfectly apparent that this Bill had no relation whatever, wiien introduced, to the additional duties which have been imposed upon Mr. Justice Cassels. It was framed by reason of certain questions arising during the illness of Mr. Justice Bur-bidge, and the Minister of Justice very properly preoared the Bill and brought it Mr. AYLESWORTH.
to the House in order that the inconveniences of which he has spoken might not be experienced again. It had no relation whatever to anything that has occurred in connection with the appointment of Mr. Justice Cassels to be commissioner for the purpose of investigating certain matters in connection with the Department of Marine and Fisheries ; and, indeed, the remarkably fresh appearance of the amendments which have been submitted by the Minister of Justice indicate that those amendments have been prepared not many hours ago.
So far as the proposed subsection (c) is concerned, I entirely agree in the necessity for some such amendment. I do not know that I would have selected exactly the phrasing which has commended itself to tlie Minister of Justice. His amendment reads :
If the other judicial duties make it impossible for him to hear without undue delay any cause or matter.
I am unable to appreciate the use of the word ' other,' in that connection. What is intended to be distinguished by the use of the word 'other'? I would also invite the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to the expression ' judicial duties.'
I am not prepared to say at the moment that the expression ' judicial duties ' would not include duties imposed by the chapter of the revised statutes which enables the government to appoint Mr. Justice Cassels; but it is fairly open to question whether some broader and more comprehensive expression ought not to be used. It is not precisely a judicial proceeding in the ordinary sense of the word ; you do not have two parties before that commissioner, the one attacking and the other resisting some particular judgment or decree which that learned judge will be invited to pronounce as such commissioner. Whether you can properly apply the term 'judicial ' woul !. I think, be open to a great deal of doubt. It should be made absolutely and perfectly plain. I concur entirely in the object aimed at by this section, but without any present consideration of the exact words of the statute providing for the investigation, I am not perfectly clear that the best form of words has been selected.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The history of this Bill is simply that the clause which is here given as No. 2 was suggested by the late Mr. Justice Burbidge in December last as a measure of relief to his work in empowering the registrar of the court to do routine work in chambers and other work of that character. The learned judge wrote me very fully on the subject at that time, making a suggestion with regard to clause 9 of the Act, the appointing of a judge for a particular cause. What is now the second section of this Bill was then drafted. The

first section was not then thought of because it was not then apprehended that any such difficulty would arise as afterwards did take place. After the appointment of Sir Thomas Taylor as substitute judge, and at or about the time of the death of Mr. Justice Burbidge, that which is now the first clause of this Bill was drawn and the Bill was introduced in the House on March 9. I do not remember at the moment whether Mr. Justice Cassels had yet been appointed at that date, hut certainly there was no thought at that time of the new judicial duty which since then has been put on the learned judge with reference to the investigation lie is now engaged in. The report of the Civil Service Commission had not then been made and there was in nobody's mind any thought of what has since taken place.
The amendment which I first read, that is the amendment to cover the case of the two judgments which were in effect delivered after Mr. Justice Burbidge had actually passed away, was prepared some weeks ago. The possibility of difficulty was imminent and whether the question should arise or not, legislation would be necessary to place beyond question the validity of the decisions which had so been pronounced. I am not in a position to say whether the unsuccessful litigants, the parties against whom the judgments have been pronounced, have been consulted or not. The successful litigant, the party in whose favour the judgments have been given, will of course be interested in having these judgments validated if they need any validation, and it does not seem necessary to consult that party with reference to this clause. I fully concede the great impropriety, ordinarily speaking, and except in the most extraordinary circumstances, of any legislation which is to be of ex post facto operation. This is legislation of that character and I would never propose it to this House if it did not seem plainly in the interests of justice that it should in this particular instance be enacted, and if it did not seem that no possible harm could ensue from it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not maintaining that the legislation should not be passed even when an unsuccessful litigant should object, but I do think it is only right that notice of the proposed legislation should be given to the unsuccessful litigant in order that he might place, either before a committee of the House or before the government, his contention, if he has any, against its enactment. Before any legislation of an ex post facto character is passed, the person who is to be affected thereby ought surely to have the right to be heard. Whether we concur in the view he may put forward is another consideration. I am contending merely that he has the right to be heard.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have no objection whatever to the party being notified.
1 think in one instance the Crown is the party. There is no objection to that. With regard to the second amendment I may state with absolute candour that the surmise of my hon. friend is entirely correct that the amendment was not prepared many hours ago. The reason for that is very simple. I had no expectation until a few hours ago that this Bill would come up for consideration to-day. Having knowledge of the correspondence which passed between Mr. Justice Cassels and members of the government in relation to his duties, and having had personal conference with the learned judge on the subject, I had it always in mind that when the proper time arrived the insertion of a very brief amendment in this Bill would meet the difficulties which the learned judge had pointed out. But I had not done the actual work of draftsmanship until as I sat here this afternoon I was told by a friend that the suggestion was made in the House that the clause had not yet been drafted. That occurred to me as more or less amusing and the original draft I penned then and there in a couple of lines upon the margin of the copy of the Bill which now lies before me. I do not know that it is any better or any worse for that. Now as to the wording of it-the phrase ' judicial duties ' is a statutory one and is the phrase in the section of the statute to which the learned judge referred in his communication which has-been read in the House. Section 33 of the Judges' Act, chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes, is the section which provides that a judge is not to engage ' in any occupation or business other than his judicial duties.' A question was put in the House some time ago by some hon. gentleman asking for an interpretation of these words. In answering that question I disclaimed any right to pronounce ex cathedra the interpretation of any statute, but I stated that I had no objection, whatever my opinion was worth, to say what I thought the phrase 'judicial duties' meant, and in response to the question I proceeded to say that in my opinion any duty of judicial character which a judge undertook, thereby became a part of his judicial duties. This investigation is certainly work of a judicial character, and being of that nature -though it may perfectly well be thought it does not fall within the scope of the judge's ordinary duties-it is work of a judicial nature which he has been willing to assume the responsibility of, and once he has so assumed that responsibility it becomes part of his duty to carry it out; and part of his judicial duty, and the full scope and meaning of the phrase it would appear to me in either section 33 of the Judges' Act or in this amendment I am proposing would simply be that if the other

judicial work of the judge makes it impossible for him within a reasonable time to overtake the work of hearing and disposing of any particular cause, then he is empowered to make application to the government to appoint some substitute for that cause that he is unable so to try. It meets the exact objection which the learned judge has put before the government in the present instance, and leaves the appointment of a substitute judge for a particular cause to be made on his application if the circumstances seem to call for it. I am of course not wedded to the particular words I have adopted. I have merely tried in as brief way as I could to express the meaning, that if by reason of other work the judge was not able to hear some particular cause within a reasonable time, he might have authority to apply for some one to hear that cause for him.


Robert Laird Borden: With all deference to the Minister of Justice I do not see that section 38 of chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes has any bearing at all upon the question which we are now discussing. The question which is before the committee is as to the meaning of the term ' judicial duties.' Section 33 to "which the hon. gentleman alluded does not define judicial duties; it simply provides that every judge must attend exclusively to his judicial duties, or, to take the exact words :
No judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or of the Exchequer Court of Canada or of any superior or county court in Canada shall either directly, or indirectly as director or manager of any corporation, company or firm, or in any other manner whatever* for himself or others, engage in any occupation or business other than his judicial duties; hut every such judge shall devote himself exclusively to such judicial duties.
The assumption that this is a judicial duty would control the point I raised, if it were a correct assumption; but this inquiry by Mr. Justice Cassels is no more judicial than it would be if some person other than a judge had been selected to perform that duty, which is of an inquisitorial rather than of a judicial character. There are not two parties represented before him as I understand the situation, nor is it contemplated there shall he. It does not seem more a work of a judicial character than if the minister himself undertook the investigatida or appointed some person other than a judge. It can only be followed by report; it cannot be followed by any action on the part of the judge which would directly result in affecting the status of any person in the department. There are no persons before the judge as litigants. It is perfectly true that he is making an inquiry, but so was the judge who was appointed to investigate matters connected with the operation of the insur-Mr. AYLESWORTH.
ance law in this country. He does not seem to be acting in a judicial character more than were Judge McTavish and the two gentlemen who were associated with him in the work of that commission. For that reason it seemed to me that the expression ' judicial duties ' was not the best expression to select for the purpose intended. I do not know whether or not the gentlemen who -were the predecessors of Mr. Justice Cassels-Messrs. Courtney, Fyshe and Bazin-were to be regarded as performing judicial duties; but they were performing judicial duties to as great an extent as he is called upon to perform them under the commission issued to him. The other point of criticism, which is a very minor one, perhaps merely a verbal one, had reference to the use of the word ' other.' It seems to contrast judicial duty with a cause or matter with which judicial duty may be concerned, but which itself is not a judicial duty.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: My reference to section 33 of the Judges' Act was because that section was referred to by Mr. Justice Cassels in his letter to the First Minister, which has already been read to the House. He felt some hesitation in undertaking this work because of the presence on the statute-book of the section in question, confining him to the discharge of his judicial duties. Upon further consideration of the meaning of this very phrase he came to the conclusion that the duties of this commission, if he undertook them, would be of a judicial character and would fall within the distinct exception in this section of the Judges' Act. That wTas my reason for referring to the phrase found in that section. With reference to the larger question, whether or not these duties can be properly described as judicial, I would with all respect suggest to my hon friend that he is confusing the meaning of the wrord * judicial ' with the meaning of the word ' court.' I do not for a moment argue that Mr. Justice Cassels when sitting in this investigation is sitting as a court. A court is a tribunal having the power to impose an obligation on some person. That essential feature of a court is absent from the functions which Mr. Justice Cassels is discharging in this inquiry; nevertheless his duties in that inquiry are, it seems to me. of a judicial character. A judge has many duties outside of a court, which duties are of a judicial character, although the judge is in no sense a court while he is discharging them. I think, therefore, that the circumstances that there may not be two parties before the judge in this inquiry does not in any degree prevent it being a judicial one, and the duties devolving upon the commissioner under his appointment being duties of a judicial nature. I likened his duties some time ago to the duties of a coroner. The work of a coroner is of a

judicial character, although his tribunal may not be a court; 1 express no opinion on that question. Work of that inquisitorial nature may be, and in this instance I think clearly is, "of a judicial nature. Then with regard to the word ' other ' in the amendment, it is used in contradistinction to the judicial work of trying a cause, which the presence of these other judicial duties makes it impossible for the nidge to do within a reasonable time. He has two pieces of judicial work upon his hands, and the clause I have drafted is intended to provide that where he is not able to do other judicial work of the Exchequer Court proper within a reasonable time he may ask in any particular ease for the appointment of a substitute.


Robert Laird Borden: I have already said that my criticism with regard to the word ' other ' was of a verbal character, and while I cannot say that I am convinced by the explanation of the Minister of Justice, I do not think it worth pressing to any extent. As far as the use of the word ' judicial ' is concerned, I may also say that I am not convinced. If any duties are imposed upon a judge, for the reason that he is a judge, you may perhaps properly describe those duties as of a judicial character, because it is as a judge that he performs them. But you must remember that it is not necessary to appoint a judge to do work of this kind. Any person in the country might be appointed for the purpose, and, therefore, it seems to me that you are bound in making the inquiry as to whether those duties are judicial or not, to consider the character of the work which the judge has to perform. He is to inquire and to report; he is not to hear and determine. If he were to hear and determine in the sense of hearing and determining between two litigants, or two parties in the relation of litigants, he would be performing work of a judicial character. Where he simply inquires and reports, he is not acting so much as a judge, but as an inquisitor. He is doing exactly the same kind of work, on a somewhat restricted scale, as that which Messrs. Courtney, Fyshe and Bazin were doing when they undertook the investigation of some of these departments. However, the responsiblity is with the government in respect to the language employed. Having expressed my views with regard to it, I am quite content to leave it there and not urge the matter further.
On section 2-Rules and orders.
Mr. It. I,. BORDEN. The suggestion of Mr. Justice Cassels, as I recollect it, was that the registrar of the court should receive some wider powers than those which are conferred by this section. Have the government taken that into consideration?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The learned judge suggests who in his judgment would be a proper person to be appointed to the position which is provided for by this legislation. That appointment will, of course, in any given instance be a matter for which the government is responsible, and the suggestion of the learned judge will be very carefully considered. I might draw attention to the circumstance that, under the lawr as it stands, the judge of the court has power to appoint the registrar a referee who would have practically the same power as would be given a substitute judge under this section.


Robert Laird Borden: I perfectly understand that. What was suggested by Mr. Justice Cassels in respect of the wTider powers to be conferred upon the registrar will be covered by section 1, and therefore no amendment wTill be required to section 2. Would the Minister undertake, before the Bill finally passes, that those gentlemen will be consulted and given an opportunity of being heard.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: That will be done certainly.
Bill as amended reported, .read the third time and passed.



MEAFORD HARBOUR.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 158) respecting Meaford harbour -Mr. Brodeur-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see any list of dues set out in the Act.


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: In the statute of I860 the tolls are given concerning the township of St. Vincent. This harbour was formerly under the control of the township of St. Vincent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now you propose to put it under the control of the town, but you have no schedule.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They will have to pass by-laws which will have to be approved by the Governor in Council.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SIGNAL DUES AT HALIFAX.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 152) respecting signal dues at Halifax-Mr. Brodeur-was read the second time, considered in committee, reported without amendment and read the third time and passed.	[DOT]

[Stage Direction]
On the order.
Consideration of Bill (No. 112), to amend the Railway Act as respects the constitution
[Stage Direction]
of the Board of Railway Commissioners, as amended in Committee of the Whole.-Mr. Graham. .
Robert Franklin Sutherland: 1 takA it that this should read ' Consideration of amendments.'


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals. I will explain the situation, Mr. Speaker, as there seems to be some confusion in the Order Paper as to this Bill. As a matter of fact, if the Order Paper does not mean this, then this is what it ought to mean : This Bill is still in Committee of the Whole at the request of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden).: We went through it in committee, but did not take it out for the. third reading.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: It seems to have been reported from the committee, but instead of the amendments being read, that was suspended.


George Perry Graham: Then, I move, that tills order be discharged, and that the Bill be referred back to Committee of the Whole for further consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: It appears from * Hansard ' of March 13, that the Bill was reported, but uothiug was said about it after it was reported. .


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. minister (Mr. Graham) did not so understand it.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister says that I asked it to stand. Does he remember what was the reason given at that time ?


George Perry Graham: We got through the Bill after discussing it in committee for quite a while. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) suggested that we should leave it in committee and I agreed.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the minister (Mr. Graham) wish to have it go back to committee for his own purposes "t


George Perry Graham: Yes, I want it referred back to committee for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went again into committee on the Bill.
George Perry Graham: It may be remembered that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) made a suggestion of an amendment that he thought should be made, to provide that the board may rehear a case.
I have an amendment prepared which I propose as follows :
That section 29 be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
29. The board may re-hear any application before deciding, or may review, rescind, change, alter, or vary any order or decision made by it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The only new words in that section are to provide that an application may be reheard.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Perry Graham: Since the appointment of the new chairman of the board I referred this Bill to him, and he makes a suggestion which, I think, was discussed in committee. The provision he proposes is in force in at least one of the United States boards. The object is to provide that a single member of the board of commissioners may be sent with power to hear evidence and investigate a matter and report to the board.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought you had that in the existing Act.


George Perry Graham: No, but it is recommended by the chief commissioner. There are little cases arising where one member could be sent out to take evidence, and the case may be so clear that his recommendation may be made the order of the board. I have read up some of the cases in the New York Board, and they seem to do a lot of business in this way. The effect is to greatly expedite the work. I propose the amendment as follows :
Section 13 of the said Act is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:
13. Two commissioners shall form a quorum, and not less than two commissioners shall attend at the hearing of every case, provided
(a)	In any case where there is no opposing party and no notice to be given to any interested party, any one commissioner may act alone for the board.
(b)	The board, or the chief commissioner, may authorize any one of the commissioners to report to the board upon any question or matter arising in connection with the business of the board, and when so authorized, such commissioner shall have all the powers of two commissioners sitting together for the purpose of taking evidence or acquiring the necessary information for the purpose of such report, and upon such report being made to the board, the same may be adopted as the order of the board, or otherwise dealt with as to the board may seem proper.
2.	The chief commissioner, when present, shall preside, and the assistant chief commissioner, when present, in the absence of the chief commissioner, shall preside, and the opinion of either of them upon any question arising when he is presiding, which, in the opinion of the commissioners, is a question of law, shall prevail.
3.	No vacancy in the board shall impair the right of the remaining commissioners to act.


Robert Laird Borden: The board will consist of six members as constituted under this Act, of whom two may constitute a quorum. It is possible then for the board to sit in three divisions. There is provision made for a chief commissioner and his

assistant, and there was provision made for a deputy.


George Perry Graham: Under the old Act there was a deputy. There will be three heads in ease they want to sit in three divisions, a chief, an assistant and a deputy.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there provision as to a ruling upon questions of law by other than the commissioner and his assistants ?


George Perry Graham: That is in the old Act, section 12.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before this Bill is reported I would like to make a representation to the Minister of Railways and Canals. Many people in the province of Quebec have represented to me that the commission ought to have a French secretary. The board does a very large amount of business in the province of Quebec; its jurisdiction extends over many matters, in many localities where the English language is not as well understood as it is for instance in the cities of Montreal and Quebec. I believe it was always contemplated that the board should have a French secretary. At the time the board was organized a young lawyer was named who now occupies, I understand, the position of accountant in the organization of the board. But for purposes of correspondence it is a very important matter in the province of Quebec. There is really only oue secretary. I have had a number of representations made to me by members of the bar, from country parts particularly in tlie province of Quebec, and by other people, to the effect that such an important tribunal as this ought to have a clerk who thoroughly understands the French language. I know that at the time this young lawyer was named it was supposed that he ^would act as French secretary of the board; 'as a matter of fact he occupies the position of accountant. I believe the absence of a French secretary has been felt as an inconvenience on several occasions. I make that representation to my hon. friend, and hope that the government will be able to remedy the grievance.


George Perry Graham: We have stenographers and translators who are able to answer letters in French that are written to the board in French. The secretary himself of course is appointed by the government, but the other officials are appointed by the commission itself. The matter suggested by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk! is worthy of consideration, and I wiil suggest it to the commission, and they will no doubt take it into consideration. Perhaps with a French translator we would not need another secretary who could speak the French language. But the commission ought certainly to be provided with some person who can handle the correspondence in French 271
I think that is quite reasonable, and I will confer with the chairman of the commission on that point.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am glad to hear what my hon. friend says. There is a great deal of correspondence which is conducted in French, and I believe that the lawyer who acts as accountant or some other person, performs the necessary translation. But I think as a matter of right, if I may use that expression, a French secretary should be appointed to the board, as this is a tribunal which has a great deal to do throughout the whole province of Quebec. It seems to me that if the clerk is not qualified in both languages there ought to be a French clerk as well. I invite my hon. friend to consider that point because I know it has often been matter of comment in my province.


Robert Laird Borden: It is very difficult to understand, without having the original statute before me, whether or not the matter which I mentioned a moment ago is put in proper shape by this Bill. I hope that whoever is charged with the duty of seeing that the library is provided with a sufficient number of copies of the revised statutes of Canada, 1906, will give some attention to the matter. I have been trying for the last two hours to get the volume of the statutes which contains the section with regard to the appointing of commissions for public purposes, and also the volume which contains the Railway Act, but up to the present time my efforts have been absolutely unsuccessful. For that reason I cannot come to an understanding as to whether or not the legislation now submitted to the House covers the point which I mentioned a moment ago. If it is the intention that one commissioner in certain cases shall make an investigation and report to the board, and if it is also the intention that the board may sit officially in three divisions, each composed of two members, then it is important to provide that each one of these three divisions shall be properly constituted and that the person who presides shall have some power of pronouncing on questions of law. There is provision that the divisions which are presided over by the chief commissioner and the assistant commissioner respectively shall be so constituted ; whether or not there is any similar provision in respect of the third division I do not know. If that provision has not been made, it seems to me it ought to be made. However, having brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Railways and in view of my inability to obtain a copy of the statute in order to satisfy myself, I think that for the present I have sufficiently discharged my duty by bringing it to his attention.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Revised edition

Mr. FIELDING moved tlie adjournment of the House.


Mr. K. L. BORDEN.: Is it proposed to go into Supply to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: In what department ?


William Stevens Fielding: At the point at which we left off, in the estimates of the Minister of Public Works. Possibly if he gets through we may take up the estimates of the Minister of Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, May 15, 1908.
The SPEAKER took the Ohair at Three o'clock

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEOFFRION presented the first report of the special committee appointed to investigate Major Hodgins' charges re Transcontinental Railway, as follows :
The special committee appointed to investigate Major Hodgins' charges re Transcontinental Railway, beg to request that leave be granted to them to sit while the House is in session.
He said : Mr. Speaker, I beg to move :
That the first report. of the special committee appointed to investigate Major Hodgins' charges re Transcontinental Railway be now concurred in.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the chairman of that committee if any provision has been made for taking a stenographic report of the committee's work and having it furnished from day to day ?


Mr. GEOFFRION.: Not yet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman not think it would be wise that provision should be made for a stenographic report ?


Victor Geoffrion: I will submit the question to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called :
Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask what steps have been taken towards establishing telegraphic com-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
munication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland ?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: The day before yesterday I received a communication from the solicitor of the Commercial Cable Company asking if I would interview my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) in regard to the breaking of the cable and also to obtain if possible, permission for the use of the steamer ' Stanley ' in the work of effecting repairs. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries very kindly, at once, consented to the use of the steamer and telegraphed to the agent of the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Charlottetown to that effect. I take it for granted that the seamer is now in use or that the necessary steps are being taken to employ her at once toward making the necessary repairs.


James Joseph Hughes: If it is found that the cable cannot be repaired within a reasonable time, will the government take steps to establish telegraphic communication by the Marconi system ? I presume that would be the next best thing to do.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If it is impossible to make repairs we will find means by which the Marconi system may be used.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr. J. D. REID.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) if he can give me any idea when the returns I asked for on April 6 will be brought down ?


George Perry Graham: I think they are practically ready now.



ANGLO-AMERICAN TREATIES.

Robert Laird Borden: Has the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) any information as to when the treaties between Great Britain and the United States will be laid on the table ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The treaties, Mr. Speaker, can be laid on the table of the House on Monday. The correspondence will not be ready.



CIVIL SERVICE BILL.

Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) at what probable date we may expect the Civil Service Bill ?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not able to give any answer to my hon. friend's question.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-INVESTIGATION BY MR. JUSTICE CAS-SELS.

Robert Laird Borden: Has the right hon. Prime Minister considered the practica-

bility of laying upon the table of the House the evidence taken before Mr. Justice Cas-sels' commission ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I see no objection to that.


William Stevens Fielding: I presume that what my hon. friend means is that a file might be placed on the table as was done in the case of the Insurance Commission ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, precisely.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see why it should not be done.



STJFPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Public	Works-chargeable to income-[DOT]
Brandon drill hall, $20,000.
William Pugsley: I may say that we have allowed military buildings in Ontario to stand over. I think probably there will be no reason for allowing the Brandon drill hall item to stand over because the building is under construction. This is a revote which I am asking of $20,000 to make provision for the erection of the Brandon drill hall. The site is a lot situated on the corner of Eleventh and Victoria streets, being 215 by 120 feet. The building consists of a drill hall 120 by 75 feet and an armoury having a frontage of 90 feet and a depth of 120. The total cost of building, including drill hall, armoury, electric wiring, fittings, furniture, &c., is $70,881.92.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is the contractor ?


William Pugsley: Messrs. Dumais and Lachance, Hull, Quebec.


John Dowsley Reid: What was the difference in the amount of the tenders ?


William Pugsley: Four tenders were received. the lowest was $52,754 and the highest $50,500. The lowest tender was accepted.


John Dowsley Reid: How much has been spent already ?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure to December 31, 1907, wras $12,445.92.


John Dowsley Reid: If the tender of $52,000 was accepted, that would mean that that was what the building was to cost. In this case the minister states that $70,000 is what it will cost.


William Pugsley: The hon. gent'eman must remember that that is the tender for the construction of the building. In addition to that there is the cost of the site, $3,100 ; survey of site, legal and travelling expenses and other items, $835.92; heating and ventilation $2,500 ; electric wiring and fixtures, $1,000 ; fittings and furniture $1,500;
271i
sidewalk and fencing $500 ; contingencies and superintendence, $4,837. There is also to be paid to the contractor for additional work for the erection of a shooting gallery, $3,855.


John Dowsley Reid: Has there been any extra work other than the shooting gallery? Has the contractor been instructed to make any changes, or will he have any claim for extras ?


William Pugsley: Not so far as we know.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is the architect ?


William Pugsley: Mr. Thomas Sinclair is supervising architect and clerk of works. He receives 2 per cent commission. The plans were made in the department.


Mr. WARD.: Can the minister furnish any particulars as to the number of troops to be served by that drill hall ?


William Pugsley: I have a memorandum that Brandon is the headquarters of the 12th Manitoba Dragoons and * D ' squadron.


William James Roche: What was the original estimated cost ? I understand it is going to cost a great deal more than it was estimated it would.


William Pugsley: I have no information as to that.


William James Roche: I think the citizens of Brandon do not expect that the votes taken last year and this year will finish the hall ; in fact they are counting on many more thousands be in? spent and depending on their representative having sufficient pull with the Public Works Department to increase the cost to a great deal more than the total amount estimated in the first place.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend
is mistaken.


William James Roche: That is the general talk among some of the citizens of Brandon.


William Pugsley: I suppose that is because such an exceedingly fine building is being erected ; the contractor is doing his work well.


William James Roche: This is another case of what I complained of the other evening, the expenditure of such large amounts in one town to the exclusion of other towns of almost as much importance both generally and from a military standpoint. Brandon is of no more importance in this respect than Minnedosa or Souris. In Minnedosa, for instance, they have not a decent place to store the arms which are deteriorating, and I am informed that some of the militiamen there are so enthusiastic and at the same time so discouraged at the results of their appeals to the Militia Department for some kind of small drill hall that they have subscribed privately to put up a small build-

ing simply for the protection of the arms belonging to the government. It is not very much encouragement to the company there, in which there are a great many farmers' sons, who have to come long distances to attend drill and who have attended the annual camp and have acquitted themselves so creditably as to have carried off for two years in succession the main prize, to see so much done for Brandon and nothing done for the rural corps. I do not object to Brandon having a good drill hall ; but I do object to such excessive expenditures for buildings in Brandon and Virdeu simply because they are represented by an ex-minister who seems to have a pull with the government, and at the expense of the rural militia.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me that we should have the Minister of Militia here to give information on this matter.


Mr. PUGS LEY.: I have no objection to letting this item stand until he is here.
Dauphin public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This consists of a revote of $2,500 and a new vote of $12,500. It is to complete payments in connection with the purchase of a site and the erection of a building for post office purposes, &c. The lot is 75 feet by 132 feet


William James Roche: Whom was the lot purchased from ?


William Pugsley: Thomas W. Iredale.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you mean by '&c' ?


William Pugsley: The building will have the land office as well.


Mr. BENNETT.: What will be the total cost of this building when completed ?


William Pugsley: The estimated cost, including everything is $36,000. That does not include the site.


William Humphrey Bennett: What has the site cost ?


William Pugsley: 


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: What is the population of Dauphin ?


William Pugsley: In 1901 it was 1,135, but I think it has grown considerably since then.	-


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does the minister know whether any buildings were on this land before, or is it vacant ?


William Pugsley: I am not able to say whether or not there were any buildings upon It. I may say that an inspector from the department who has a very good knowledge of the value of real property was sent to Inspect this land at Dauphin, and to compare its price with the price asked for other lots in the immediate vicinity, and he re-Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
ported that this was a far and reasonable price for the lot.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I wish to say that I am very well acquainted with all the towns about that size in the west, and I do not hesitate to say that $80 per foot frontage is a very excessive price for a lot in a town the size of Dauphin. I do not object to Dauphin having a post office. I believe these smaller towns in the west are as much entitled to public building's as other towns anywhere in the Dominion ; but I do say that a lot of 75 feet frontage could be bought in any town of the west of from 1,500 to 2,000 population for $3,000.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend know of the sale of any lot in the business part of Dauphin having been made within the last six months at less price ?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I know the value of lots in other towns of similar size, and I know that Dauphin is not different in that respect from other towns. I do not hesitate for one moment to say that $6,000 for 75 feet frontage in any part of Dauphin is an absolutely extravagant price.


Mr. BARR.: This is another instance of extravagance in erecting public buildings throughout the Dominion. Here is a village with only 1,000 inhabitants whose future is very uncertain, and yet the government are going to put up this expensive public building. In the village of Shelburne where I live, a village of 1,500, the headquarters of militia regiment for years, we have to rent a room on the third flat over a shop in which to keep the arms. The result is that on several occasions the rain has come through and injured the arms and accoutrements. Not a dollar has been spent on a public building in that village, yet in this village of 1,000 the government are going to spend $40,000.


William Pugsley: This vote is not for an armoury but for a building for a post office and other public purposes.


John Barr: The village of Shelburne has neither post office nor armoury. But it does not happen to be represented by an ex-minister or somebody with a pull. There is no big four in that section. But the big four can accomplish anything they want. All they have to do is to ask for something from the government and they get it. The time has come when we should have some pronounced policy on this question. We should have such a pronouncement before voting these lai'ge amounts of $50,000 or $60,000 for public buildings.


George Eulas Foster: What are the postal statistics ?


William Pugsley: The postal revenue for the nine months of last year was $4,310.65,


George Eulas Foster: Wliat was the expenditure ?


William Pugsley: The expenditure for the rent of the post office was $275 and the other expenses $1,608 including salary to postmaster, $1,125, and commission on money orders, $100. My hon. friend (Mr. Barr) must see that he has put forth somewhat narrow views. He says we should not erect a public building in Dauphin because we do not know what its future is going to be and have not yet erected a public building at Shelburne. My hon. friend might not be able to get all the members of this House to agree with him. While X should be very glad to consider the claims of Shelburne as well as those of any other town, yet I think we should not stop all expenditure on public ' buildings simply because we cannot erect one in every town of Canada. The resolution of the municipal council of Dauphin sets forth that the postal business in 1905 stood the sixth in Manitoba, that Dauphin has a rapidly growing population, and its postal business will rank fourth in the near future. It is the trade and district centre of northwestern Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan. It is the centre of a large and fertile country which is rapidly increasing in population. In erecting public buildings, we have to look to the future. We have to consider whether or not the town is a railway centre or whether or not it is the centre of a fertile country with a rapidly growing population.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister the census figures of the last census ?


Mr. PUG SEE  Y.@: No.


John Barr: I could give the hon. minister a similar resolution from Shelburne or any other village.


William Pugsley: I shall have to go up to Shelburne.


John Barr: That resolution does not prove anything. We know the population is only a little over 1,000 and it is a small place.


William Pugsley: Twenty years ago the whole province of Saskatchewan had only a few thousand. To-day its population numbers in the hundreds of thousands.


Mr. CRAWFORD.: Dauphin is one of the most thriving towns in the west to-day. It has nearly 2,000 of a population. The Canadian Northern has made it a divisional point and is spending a very large amount in shops and other buildings-possibly $100,000 or $150,000. There can be no question as to Dauphin's future.


Mr. STAPLES.: Another railway runs in there ?


George Eulas Foster: I think there is a little railway projected that runs down some twelve miles from Dauphin or very close to Dauphin.


John Crawford: It is all Canadian Northern.


George Eulas Foster: There is a little junction there.


John Crawford: Prince Albert Junction and Edmonton Junction.


George Eulas Foster: Under what circumstances was the land bought? All we have had from the minister is that some one told him that the price was not too high.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) missed part of what I said. I explained that an inspector was sent to .examine the land and compare the price asked with the prices for which other lots similarly situated could be obtained, and he reported that the price is as low as that at which any lot suitable for public buildings could be obtained.


George Eulas Foster: Who was the inspector ?


William Pugsley: Mr. Greenfield of Winnipeg.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Where is the lot situated ?
Mr.' PUGSLEY. It is lot 16 and the easterly half of lot 17 in block 9, situated on Burrows avenue. It has a frontage of 75 feet.


John Barr: Was the fact that a lot was required for a post office advertised ?
Mx-. PUGSLEY. No, that is not usual.


William D. Staples: From whom was the lot purchased?


William Pugsley: From Mr. T. W. Iredale.


John Barr: Is it a corner lot?


William Pugsley: It does not appear to be.


William James Roche: I would like to ask the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) if lots in Dauphin are more valuable than in his own town?


John Crawford: I do not know that they are. There are lots in the town I; live in held at $6,000 and $5,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What frontage?


John Crawford: Frontage of 30 feet,, with a depth of 99 feet.


William Pugsley: This lot is two and a< half times that size.


Mr. LALOR.: I do not know anything about the claims of Dauphin for a post office, but I think that every member- of the.

House must be surprised to find $6,000 paid for a 75-foot lot in a town of 1,100.


William Pugsley: In a rapidly growing town with a population, as we are told by the member (Mr. Crawford) of about 2,000.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I do not see how it can be growing very rapidly. It is an old town; I have heard of it for a long time. And to pay $6,000 for a lot of that size in a town of 1,100 people must strike every member of this House as ridiculous.


William Pugsley: The population was 1,100 last census, but it is about 2,000 now.


George Eulas Foster: What authority has the minister for saying that?


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford).


George Eulas Foster: Does he speak from census returns ?


John Crawford: No, but I understand it is about two thousand now.


John Barr: Then, you do not know.


John Crawford: Not positively.


William Humphrey Bennett: After the statement of the member for Portage ia Prairie, it is quite evident that this has been a bargain day in this place Dauphin when they can sell land for $80 a foot. The member for Portage la Prairie tells us that in his own town, lots of a depth of only 90 feet, sell as a common occurrence


John Crawford: I did not say, as a common occurrence.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman said that a lot 33 by 90 feet sold for $6,000.


John Crawford: No, I did not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, if the hon. gentleman will state what he did say ?


John Crawford: You are making the* statement. And I say your statement is not correct.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, if I misunderstood the hon. gentleman, how much did it sell for?


John Crawford: Some lots sell for $6,000, some for $5,000, or $3,000 or $2,000. It depends on the location.


William Humphrey Bennett: I accept the statement of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, for I know if it was not true he would not say it. The hon. gentleman has repeated the statement that a 33-foot lot sells for $6,000. That is nearly $200 a foot. Well,
I can tell him that if real estate is worth that there, it is worth more than in similar towns in Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER.: Of course.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, from the hungry cry being sent up from the west now, it Mr. LALOR.
does not seem very far ahead of Ontario for the present. Is the report of the Postmaster General right in saying that about $200 a year is paid for rent, fuel and light for the post office premises in Dauphin?


William Pugsley: The amount is $275.


William Humphrey Bennett: The report of the Postmaster General gives it as $206.25.


William Pugsley: Perhaps that would be for nine months.


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, probably.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: The hon. minster (Mr. Pugsley) will remember the purchase of a lot in Sandwich. This is the renowned town of Sandwich, one of the oldest in Ontario, and situated on the Detroit river, where property is naturally held at a high figure. The hon. minster will remember that he purchased a lot in Sandwich much larger than this one in Dauphin and paid only $1,600 for it.


William Pugsley: That shows that we purchase as cheaply as we can.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: And the former purchaser made a profit of 50 per cent. I state this case as a matter of comparison.


William Pugsley: I know that in some towns property can be purchased for a good deal less than other towns where the population is considerably less. A good deal depends upon the age of the town. A .town may be fifty years old but if it is not growing very much even though it has a fairly large population, real estate will not have so high a value as in smaller but more progressive towns. It may be that the town of Sandwich is not growing rapidly, and it may be that there are many sites available for post office purposes. I happen to know some places in the west where land, many years ago when population was not nearly so large as it is now, was held at a higher figure than the same land can be bought for to-day. In the course of time, values settle down, for people realize just what the land is really worth. Daup-liin has become a divisional point of the Canadian Northern Railway and is the distributing centre for all the fertile country to the west and northwest of it. It is rapidly increasing in population, I believe. From the knowledge I have of real estate. I am not prepared to say that this price for a lot and a half, well situated in the centre of business-for that is where we must select sites for post offices and custom houses-is an excessive price.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the contract been let?


William Pugsley: No. In fact, we have not actually acquired the site, but we have agreed to buy on inspection by an inspector-


Mr. PORTER.: The minister has em- i phasized the fact that an inspector was sent 1 to examine the property before it was pur- 1 chased by the government, and cites it, ' evidently,' as though that must settle the matter. This House and this country have had some experience of the work of inspectors. There was a purchase in the city of Halifax where an inspector was sent down to determine the value of property, and yet, upon further investigation, it was found that we got very much the worse of the deal. I can recollect another case, in Moncton, where an inspector was sent down on behalf of this government to ascertain the value of land, and a similar circumstance seemed to exist there. But the government got the worst of the deal, and the middleman was introduced, as the evidence shows he has been frequently introduced by this government.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman say that in the Public Works Department there is any evidence that lots have been purchased through middlemen?


Edward Guss Porter: I said there was evidence that the government did this, I did not single out any department. I want to refer the minister to another case to show what an exorbitant price is being paid for this post office site in a small town of 1,000 inhabitants.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman misunderstood me. The information I have is that the population of the town, by the census of 1901, was 1,135, and that it is about 2,000 to-day.


Edward Guss Porter: If an increase of 100 in the population will help the minister, I am willing to concede that it has 1,100 or 1,200. But even that population does not seem to justify the expenditure of $6,000 for this small piece of land, when you compare it with a recent purchase by the same department in the city of Belleville. There they had occasion to purchase a piece of land for the erection of an armoury, a piece of land more than double the area that is being paid $6,000 for here. Not only is it double in area, but it is a corner lot, fronting on two of the most important streets in the city of Belleville, in the central portion of the town. Belleville is well known to be a very progressive Ontario city, situated in an old and well settled district, where land has a high value; yet the Department of Public Works was able to buy that piece of land for about the same price that is paid for this small piece of land in Dauphin. Now, I would like to know from the Minister of Public Works how frequently this piece of land for the post office has changed hands within a year or so before the government became the purchaser. In the Moncton land deal and in the Halifax land deal, we find by the investigation that
took place that there were a number of transfers just before the government bought the land. Perhaps that is the cue to this matter.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman ought not to make a suggestion like that without some evidence.


John Crawford: I may tell the hon. gentleman that Dauphin had a population of 1,135 in 1901 and 1,070 in 1906, and I think I am fairly within the mark in saying that to-day it has a population of nearly 2,000.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: As showing the increase in the value of land, I may mention that in my little town of Stonewall there were 585 inhabitants in 1901 and 1,08* in 1906. The Bank of Hamilton, a very conservative institution, two years ago bought a lot and paid $50 a foot for it. We have in that town perhaps one block of 550 feet square, and you cannot buy a foot of land in that block for less than $50 a foot.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that a corner lot?


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Yes. They bought a corner lot for $50 a foot. That is a sample of the value of land. Nearly all the business is done in that one block. The bank is now putting up a building to cost $18,000. Hon. gentlemen coming from Ontario vilages do not realize how quickly land values go up in western towns. Take the town of Selkirk in the county of that name. We have a district there almost as large as a small province, 100 miles by 150, but there are very few public buildings at that point. Selkirk is 25 miles from any other town, and yet it will undoubtedly become a large town, because they have a water-power available at the St. Andrew's locks which will be utilized for manufacturing purposes and the town is sure to increase and prosper. It would not be good business to put up a small building in any of those western towns that are growing so rapidly, and the expenditure of _ $41,000 on a public building at Selkirk is justified by the situation of the town. Dauphin is in a similar position, 25 or 30 miles from any other place. It will likely become a very important point, and there should be a building put up there that will serve for the future.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: We are told that in this town of Dauphin there is a building that has been occupied as a post office for some time back. That building must occupy a considerable space, and it cannot have much less than 75 feet frontage if it is used as a post office. It must cost some-i thing to heat and light that building, but ; the owner of it is willing to rent his pro-i perty to the government at a figure equal :	to about $275 a year in view of the increased
: interest on the value of the land and of

the building and of the cost of heating and lighting. I suppose there would not be more than $75 for heating and lighting, and if we call heating and lighting $75, this gentleman owning that building is will iug to rent it to the government for $200 a year, which at 10 per cent represents a value of $2,000 for that land with the building on it.


William Pugsley: What kind of building is it?


William Barton Northrup: I do not care, it must be good enough to use as a post office or it would not be used as such. There is your lot, plus your building, which the man is willing to rent for $200 a year, or perhaps less. That will represent 10 per cent on $2,000 for this lot, including the building. Now, in this case we find $6,000 paid for a vacant lot. I think the statement in itself is sufficient to show that the figure is unreasonable. But apart altogether from the question of price, it is a pity that the minister just coming into office would not lay down some principle according to which these buildings might be erected.


William Pugsley: This building is to be used as a custom house as well.


William Barton Northrup: Add that if you like, and you have interest on a capital of $2,000,
3 ou have heating and lighting additional, your janitor, and probably an additional staff in the office, meaning $3,000 or $4,000 a year that this country will have to pay as against $275 ; or if you allow rent for the custom house of $75, you have $350 or $400 at the outside, to say nothing of repairs and incidentals of that nature. I am quite prepared to admit that the late government went further than I thought they should have gone in erecting public buildings in places not sufficiently large to justify it, but I think that if the late government punished the people with whips, the present government are certainly doing it with scorpions, because they have out-Heroded Herod since they came into office and each year seems to be worse than the preceding one. I would say to my hon. friend that it would meet 'with the approval not only of the people of the country, but of his own friends as well if he would lay down the rule that public buildings should only be erected in the same way that private individuals would erect buildings. If a city or a town is doing a large amount of business, if it would be necessary to pay a large rental and if the government can borrow money cheaply, bv all means put up a public building. If a town is going to grow like Dauphin, when it has grown give it its public building, but it seems absurd to say that we will spend a large sum of money to erect a public building in a town because a few years hence it is expected to increase in size and importance.


William Barton Northrup: 


Mr. BERGERON.: I think that we should follow a good deal of the advice which my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. North-rup) has given because the time will come when all this will have to be stopped. With reference to public buildings in British Columbia and the Northwest, I found when I was in the west, that the government are in the habit of buying property and paying a very large price for it. I will not say whether they buy it from their own friends or not. That is not the point I am making. But, the price that the government pay seems to regulate the price of property in the town in which the government purchase property. I would not be surprised that if a good deal of the prevailing scarcity of money in the west was due to the fact that a great many people have put their money into real estate and it is locked up there in the meantime. I was in a town Where the government had bought a property for a public building for which they had paid a large amount of money. I could hardly believe that property in that place would bring as high a price as was paid.
Mr. rUGSLEY. Where was that ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That was on the main street of Saskatoon. The government bought a piece of land and paid for it nearly a thousand dollars a running foot, the price being higher than would be paid in Montreal. You could not approach property on the main street in Saskatoon where the government are putting up a very costly post office. This is outside of the ordinary criticism that is made with reference to erecting post offices and public buildings here and there, but I wish to call attention to the speculative prices that the government are paying for property in these small towns. This has been going on to such a degree that a great many people have gone into speculation and there is a great scarcity of money in the west because it is locked up in that way. I heard not long ago that merchants in the west cannot pay what they owe to eastern merchants on account of their money being invested in speculative transactions, a large amount of which speculation is no doubt due to the fact that the government are paying these high prices for land. The government have lots of money and they can pay these prices.
I do not mean to accuse them of buying property from their friends although I believe that they do buy most of the property from their friends. Probably their friends know of the intentions of the government in advance, buy the property at an ordinary price, then put up the price and the government pay it.


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: We heard that same absurd speech with regard to the post office property that was bought at Winnipeg. The government held that property but a very

85SO
few months when it could have turned it over at $100,000 advance on the price paid. That condition lias prevailed in the west and we cannot understand it in the east. Take a city the size of Edmonton ; I priced ordinary lots there last summer for which they wanted $700 a foot. Hon. gentlemen talk about the large buildings put up by the government. What are the banks doing ? The banks are showing the greatest example of what they think of the future. There are no such buildings in this part of the country as the banks are erecting in the west, not only in Edmonton and Winnipeg but in the whole of the west. Even in the dull little town of Rossland the Bank of Montreal have a magnificent building. I was in Dauphin last summer and the people were claiming that there was a population of about 2,000 and 2,500. The most optimistic I met stated that there were at least 2.500 people. Dauphin is so situated that it is going to be a very important point. There is no doubt that it will be the distributing centre for the people all the way up to the Pas and Winuipegosls and I certainly think from what I ascertained as to rhe values of western land last fall that $0,000 for a lot in Dauphin is a very reasonable price. I am judging that from my own personal observation on the ground.


Henry Alfred Ward: I think my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Zimmerman) forgets that he struck Edmonton just at the top of the boom and that the boom has fallen out. You cannot judge of the Northwest by boom prices, and I do not think it is fair to advance an argument of that kind especially when my hon. friend got the price just at the top of the boom. Everybody knows that you can buy land at Edmonton at a very much less figure than my hon. friend has quoted.
ilr. ZIMMERMAN. Not in the centre of the city.
Mr. "WARD. Well, this same land. My object in rising is to ask the Minister of Public Works if he will comply with what my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrop) asked him ; that is as to What transactions had taken place with this property in Dauphin during the past year?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Ward) will see how impossible it would be to do that. I would have to send out and have a search made of the records of the registry office. We have no information whatever with regard to previous transactions.


Henry Alfred Ward: My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has stated that the government have decided to purchase this property. The Minister of Justice must have that very information in his office. The abstract must-have been returned by the
solicitor who is looking after the title for the government. Therefore, if my hon. friend would send down to the Minister of Justice he could probably get the information that has been asked for by my hon. friend from East Hastings. The Minister of Public Works has stated that they must look to the future of places like Dauphin in erecting these public buildings, but I would suggest to him that it is not necessary that we should allow the sellers of property to look to the future and fix their prices about ten years in advance, which, I venture to say, has been done in this instance.


Mr. ALCORN.: The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Zimmerman) has not answered the argument of the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron). All he has done has been to take a particular instance of undue inflation in the value of property. May I ask the minister whether there were any other sites considered and at what price ?


William Pugsley: The only knowledge I have is that information came to the department that this site which was suitable could be obtained. A gentleman experienced in land values was sent there to make an examination and also to get values of other lots in the business part of the town which would be similarly situated. He reported that this was an exceedingly good lot and that the price was reasonable as compared with the values of other lots in the town.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is there a copy of that gentleman's report? If we had that we would throw a good deal of light on the former value of this property.


William Pugsley: I presume that report is in the department and I will have it here on Monday.


George Oscar Alcorn: Were there negotiations with any one else ?


William Paterson: What strikes one from the east in going to the west is the value put on lots.


George Eulas Foster: Whan he wants to buy them.


William Paterson: I happened to be in Edmonton on two occasions a few years ago. At the time of my first visit the Bank of Montreal had purchased a lot 50 by 300 feet for $15,000. A gentleman whom I knew took an option on a similar lot at the same price. I expressed surprise and said I would be afraid to take it. On my second visit I inquired about his transaction and was informed that the option had expired but that it was a bad thing for him as the lot had since been sold for one half more. The same thing applies in proportion to all of the western towns which are growing

and, of course, if we come to compare these prices with prices in a town like Belleville, they seem very high. I think it was the banks that set the pace in Edmonton.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 1 also asked the other day on what principle the government established public buildings in the different constituencies. In looking at these votes for Manitoba buildings it would appear that they are erected only in constituencies represented by followers of this government. We find public buildings in Brandon, Dauphin, Emerson, Neepawa, Selkirk, St. Boniface and Winnipeg, all represented by supporters of the present government. That may be a coincidence, but my belief is that it is not. The hon. member from Selkirk (Mr. S. J. Jackson) referred to one of the members here as coming from Ontario and not being able to understand the value of land for public buildings in western towns. I claim to be fairly familiar with land values in all Manitoba towns and I have no hesitation, while I am not opposing the building of a post office in Dauphin, in saying that $6,000 for this lot is an excessive jirice. Dauphin is not a very big place, it is a railway divisional point, but not a railway centre ; only the Canadian Northern Railway goes into it.
The member for Hamilton was exceedingly unhappy in referring to the post office at Winnipeg. If the member for Dauphin (Mr. Burrows) had been here he would not have allowed him to speak as he did. He knew very well that the post office in Winnipeg had to be placed next the ' Free Press ' office no matter what it cost. The ' Free Press ' is owned very largely by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). While we are not going into that there is a very nice story in connection with that affair. The post office building had to be placed so near the 1 Free Press ' office that a light-well had to be placed between the two buildings. This is an exceedingly extravagant price, $6,000 for that lot 75 by 132 feet, even if it is in the very centre of Dauphin.


Mr. BURROWS.: It is in the centre, where the old post office was.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Grant that, but the land was still not worth $6,000, and I do not think it helps matters to say it is where the old post office was because that land would not be so very valuable.


Richard Stuart Lake: Might I also urge on the minister to lay down some settled principle on which he intends to proceed in the erection of public buildings in the west?


William Pugsley: I thought I had doue that two or three times already.


Richard Stuart Lake: Not in my hearing and I have been listening attentively for it. There are many growing towns in that country which will have considerable population in the near future, and I think the Mr. PATERSON
minister will find himself in all kinds of difficulties unless he can lay down some definite principle which will involve the postal and customs revenue or other indication of the business likely to be done in the building.


William Pugsley: I could hardly be expected upon such short notice to do what none of my predecessors since confederation, who have erected many public buildings in all parts of Canada, have done. I do not think it is possible to lay down a hard and fast rule, you cannot do that. You have to take into account very many things. We have to take into account not only the population of a place, but the business done and the revenue derived by the government. It may be a small town where the government derives a large inland or customs revenue. It is also fair to consider whether or not considerable sums of public money are being expended in a town. Take a town which is a seaport. With considerable money being expended for harbour work, dredging or wharfs, the claims of that town for the erection of a public building may not be so strong as the claims of a town which is inland and where there is no large expenditure of Dominion moneys. One has to have regard to a great many considerations, so that it is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule. All I can say is that I am prepared to listen to reasonable representations on behalf of the different cities and towns for the erection of public buildings. I am quite prepared to give careful consideration to any representations which are made by hon. gentlemen opposite as well as to those made by our friends on this side of the House. In the present estimates it will be seen that there are quite a number of public buildings being erected in constituencies represented by our opponents.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Not in Manitoba.


William Pugsley: There may be some reason for that. A large majority of the constituencies in Manitoba are represented by gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, and it may be that the claims of the constituencies represented by our friends opposite have not been very strongly pressed upon the attention of the Minister of Public Works. However, the reasonable requirements of the people in all sections of the country will receive careful consideration.


Richard Stuart Lake: I understand then, that patronage is to enter very largely into this question ?


William Pugsley: I have not said so.


Mr LAKE.: Then, the other principle which the minister has laid down is the revenue derived by the government. Am I to take that as the principal reason he adduced ?	.


William Pugsley: I said that a large number of considerations had to be taken into account.


Richard Stuart Lake: Then I think we may conclude generally that the matter is to be left to the discretion of the minister.


William Pugsley: To the sense of justice of the minister.


William James Roche: Is this building on the main street of the town?


William Pugsley: It is on Burrows avenue.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: There are two business streets; one is Gartmore Road and the other Burrows Avenue.


Mr. GANONG.: What is the customs revenue of the place ?


William Pugsley: The post office revenue is $4,310.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Customs revenue last year was $10,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: The present post office building is rented ?


William Pugsley: Yes, at $275 rental.


George Oscar Alcorn: What other demands, if any, have been made for this building, by whom and when, and how long has this project been before the department ?


William Pugsley: As long ago as 1906 a memorial was presented by the Board of Trade. It has also been pressed by the town council and the municipal council of Dauphin.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the hon. member for Dauphin if the present post office building covers the whole 75 feet frontage ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much vacant land is there on either side of it ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: The present post office building has about 30 feet frontage, and there is a vacant space on each side.


William Humphrey Bennett: So that there is 45 feet vacant of the 75 feet. It looks strange, if this is such a desirable property and is worth this large amount, that 45 feet of it should have stood idle for years. One would have thought land of such great value would be built up completely.


William James Roche: Is the present building a two-story building ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Yes.


William James Roche: Is it occupied for any other purpose than a post office ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: The postmaster lives in it.


William James Roche: Has the government bought the building as well ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: No. It is a frame building, and is not safe for a post office.


William James Roche: The owner of the building has sold the lot to the government ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Yes. It has been the expectation of the postmaster for several years to sell this property for post office purposes.
Emerson public building, $3,500.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. The site has been purchased. It has a frontage of 60 feet on Main street by 140 feet on Dominion street. The building is required for post office and customs purposes.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much was paid for the lot ?


William Pugsley: $1,000-00 feet by 150.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What is the population of Emerson ?


William Pugsley: 020.


John Barr: That is not a very flourishing town, is it ?


William Pugsley: It is an ambitious town.


Mr. CROCKET.: What is the total estimated cost ?


William Pugsley: 


William D. Staples: The last three sessions of this parliament I have been making a claim for the little town of Carman. I have no objection to money being spent so long as the people are getting good value. I am only too anxious to see that Manitoba gets its share of the large public expenditure. Carman has a population of over 2,000. It is one of the oldest, and I think it is the prettiest town in southern Manitoba. It has three lines of railway running into it- the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Jim Hill railroad. Therefore I am quite within the mark when I call it a railway centre. It is a very convenient and necessary place for a port of entry. It has sent here petition after petition asking for some consideration out of the public chest but without success. Last year, as you will find by referring to Vol. 3 of ' Hansard,' I got the promise that this town would get some consideration or at least that its claim would be looked into. That promise has not yet been fulfilled. The town of Carman certainly deserves more consideration, especially when we see what other towns in Manitoba are getting. Last year its postal revenue was $3,415.38 whereas the postal revenue of Emerson is only $1,120, yet it is getting a public building that will cost some $20,000. Neepawa has a postal revenue of $4,783.30. Selkirk has a population of 2,700 and a postal revenue of $2,385.80. Dauphin has a postal revenue of $4,310.55. In my opinion the town of

Carman is better entitled to a building for a post office and custom bouse than any town in Manitoba.


William Pugsley: In what constituency is it ?


William D. Staples: In the constituency of Macdonald which I have the honour to represent.


William Pugsley: Is there any public building in the county ?


William D. Staples: Only a provincial building, the lands title office. I might make a further claim on behalf of Manitoba as a province. I have a list of the appropriations for the little province of Nova Scotia but it would take too long to read it. Comparing these appropriations with those for Manitoba and the revenue in each province, I do not think that the province of Manitoba is getting a fair deal. All we ask is fair treatment. All we ask is to be dealt with as the other provinces. I hope that the Minister of Public Works will consider the claims of Carman and give me at least the further promise that these claims will be looked into and an appropriation made.


William Pugsley: I am very happy to say. in ail sincerity, that I shall look carefully into the claims of Carman. My hon. friend cannot expect me to promise that an appropriation will be made. That is a matter for consideration.


William D. Staples: Should the minister find that the conditions are as reported, will he make an appropriation for the town ?


William Stevens Fielding: Would not that be bribery ?


William D. Staples: Not at all. If it would be bribery in any direction, it would be for the benefit of the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A part of this has been spent. What was that for ?


William Pugsley: The site has been bought.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was it paid for ?


William Pugsley: It appears in the statement up to the 31st of March, $1,500. I presume it has been paid for. An order in council was passed on the 27th of August last for the purchase of the site at $1,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Several years ago Emerson was a town of over 3.000 but to-day it is down to 000. I saw a public building put up in that town which cost $125,000 and is offered at $25,000.


William Pugsley: That is a doleful picture.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I only mention it to remind the minister that it was not because of any great business ability that he was able to purchase a lot for $1,000 in a town Mr. STAPLES.
of that importance. It is an unfortunate fact, as every one knows who has been in Emerson more than once, that it has greatly decreased in recent years both in population and in the value of land. It is on the boundary line, but, for some reason, which may be known better to the people there than to outsiders, the town has not been growing. I do not know that the minister would be doing wrong in providing a building there, because, as it is on the boundary, and an important customs port, a custom office as well as a post office are needed.


William Pugsley: It may be of interest to the hon. member to know that for nine months of the last fiscal period the customs income was $15,677.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a place at which a great many Americans come in, bringing settlers' effects, and so will be an important port of entry notwithstanding the fact that there is not a very large village there at the present time. And I suppose that this building will house the post office and customs house and also the inland revenue.


William Pugsley: The post office and customs house, but as to the inland revenue I am not sure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it were so, it would be all the stronger justification for the expenditure. What is the amount to be spent?


William Pugsley: The estimated cost is


William D. Staples: When I was making my remarks, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) suggested that, if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) made the promise I asked, it would be considered bribery.


William Pugsley: Some of our friends opposite might so regard it.


William D. Staples: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) speaks of bribery in such a case, what would he consider the proper name to apply to his own case when there has been spent in his constituency, from the year 1897 down to 1900, the sum of $2,145,030.13? On the ground on which he takes exception to my request, I should say this was wholesale bribery actually committed.
Neepawa public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote, and is to make provision for a public building. The site has been purchased.
Mr. W? J. ROCHE. What is the size of the lot?


William Pugsley: I have not the figures before me. But the size of the building is 65 feet by 48 feet.


John Crawford: The lot is 99 feet square.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the price?


William Pugsley: $3,000. It is made up of lots 14, 15 and 16, on the corner of Mountain avenue and Cameron street.


William James Roche: Have there been protests against the selection of the site for this building?


William Pugsley: I have not heard of any and my deputy tells me he has not heard of any.


William James Roche: Perhaps the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) can tell us?


John Crawford: No documentary evidence of it has been filed with me.


William James Roche: That so? I would like to read a little article that appeared in the Liberal paper of his own town, his own political organ.


John Crawford: Sure about that ?


William James Roche: About what? That it is the Liberal organ?


John Crawford: You said my political organ.


William James Roche: Well, I am not going to say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crawford) entirely owns it.


John Crawford: Don't say anything that is not according to the facts.


William James Roche: Does the hon. gentleman deny that it is supporting him?


John Crawford: I am not making this speech.


William James Roche: And that he is supporting it as well? When was the site purchased?


William Pugsley: It was authorized by order in council in 1906, and steps immediately taken to purchase it after that.


William James Roche: This was the particular lot authorized to be purchased?


William Pugsley: Yes, the order in council always specifies the lot.


William James Roche: Here is the protest of the Liberal ' Press,' of Neepawa:
The post office site.
There is no getting away from the fact that there is very general and deep-rooted dissatisfaction with the site chosen for a federal government building to be erected in Neepawa for postal and customs purposes. It will be generally admitted that .any public building should be so located as to be convenient for the greatest number of people and especially for those who use it most. A centre of population is desirable, but a centre of business is much more essential. In neither respect,
however, does the site chosen in Neepawa fill the bill. It is so far north as to inconvenience almost everybody in the two south-end wards and not far enough to be any more convenient to the north-end people than if it were two or three blocks farther south, where it would have been in the business centre and near the territorial centre as well as the centre of imputation.
The site chosen never will be central. Conditions are such that there can be no clustering of business around the post office, while two-thirds of the population and four-fifths of the business is now south of the site.
That is a pretty large proportion.'
The probabilities are that, five years hence, four-fifths of the population and nine-tenths of the business will be south of it. It is, and always will be, as unsatisfactory to the farmers as to the business man, for no matter which end of town a farmer may wish to do business at, he must go a considerable distance to the post office.
Perhaps that will refresh the memory of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie as to whether there have been protests. The town is divided into two portions, the north and the south. The major portion is the south. The north end is where the station is located, from which the street runs up to the business part of the town, perhaps, three-quarters of a mile. The business houses are almost entirely on the west side of this street, and it is on this street that the site has been selected. I think I am correct in saying that, except a butcher shop, grocery, Chinese laundry and implement warehouse, and a couple of blocks down from this post office site, a hotel, there are no business houses on that side of the street. I am personally aware that there has been great dissatisfaction with this choice of a site. I have seen many articles, not only in the Conservative newspapers but in Liberal newspapers as well, condemning the choice of these lots. I notice that the minister says that the order in council was passed in February, 1906. Right opposite this site is what is called the Liberal club room. There is a lot and a half in that property, and it cost $600, or at the rate of $400 a lot. The property bought for the post office cost at the rate of $1,000 a lot.


William Pugsley: Was that a corner lot?


William James Roche: I am not sure. At any rate it was nearer the south side which was the business side of the town.


John Crawford: When was that purchased?


William James Roche: The article I am reading was in 1906. I will tell you what this lot cost when it was bought. By looking up the land titles office records it will be found that on January 5, 1906, this lot for the post office was purchased from W.

J. Mathers for $2,000, and it was transferred by him to W. J. Harrison on March 30, 1906. In less than two months afterwards the property was transferred from Harrison to the King for $3,000 ; in less than two months it had increased from $2,000 to $3,000. It may be significant that the hon. member who represents the constituency and who lives in the north end of this town has property north of the site of this post office. The business end of the town is almost entirely south, and businessmen, irrespective of politics, protested against this site. This article in the press says the site is inconvenient, not only for businessmen, but for farmers as well. This Liberal paper states it never will be in the centre of the town, and great dissatisfaction has exised. I think some other influence than the benefit of the town and of the business interests has been at work in the selection of this site.


William D. Staples: I would like to ask the hon. member for Portage la Prairie if any public meetings were called in regard to the selection of this site for a post office, and did the people say where they would like it to be situated?


John Crawford: There was a public meeting called at which I was present myself, and one of our Tory friends said that if they had the control of the situation they would place it opposite the land titles office, away at the other end of the town and away from the business centre. I admit there was a division of opinion over the location of the post office, but the post office was placed as near the centre of the towm as possible. Now, some of the largest business interests in the town are half a mile north of the site selected. The south side of the town, where the hon. gentleman says the business interests are largely located, is not right, as they are not more than a third of that distance from this site, not more than a quarter of a mile, if it is that. Now, one of the sites that some of our friends wanted to get was only 172 feet from this present site, but that was going to cost $6,000 instead of $3,000. I may say that I had a good deal to do in advising the selection of this site, and I thought it was not wise to pay $6,000 for a site when you could get one for $3,000, and when a large percentage of the people were in the opposite direction. I think I have one of the largest business concerns in the town and that is half a mile north of this location. We have three business places at the north end, half a mile north of this site, while the furthest place on the south is not more than a quarter of a mile away. But the main business firms have not more than five or six hundred feet to travel to reach this post office, while we on the north have to travel almost three quarters of a mile. To satisfy all interests and to save expense, I advised that the post office be Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
placed as near as possible in the centre of the settled portion of the town, and that is where it is. The hon. gentleman, in talking of the business places, did not mention the business places on that side of the street at all. There is the Union Bank that cost $20,000 on that side of the street, with in 500 feet of where this post office is to be located. We have one of the largest hardware stores in any country town in Manitoba on that side of the street, two harness shops and one of the largest and best hotels in Canada on that side of the street, within 300 feet of the post office site, and one of the best livery stables in the country very close to it. There is no question as to the location of the site being central. I thought it was wise to save $3,000 in the purchase of that site, as it was only 172 feet from the point where a great many thought it should be situated. I think that our hon. friends opposite will be liberal enough now to give us some credit for trying to save public money.


William James Roche: I hardly think it was economy that influenced the hon. member in recommending this site, especially as the board of trade in his own town protested strongly against the selection of the present site. * Who compose the board of trade? The business men of the town. Are they not the better judges? I do not think the hon. member was influenced solely by a desire to save $2,000 or $3,000 in the purchase of a site, when the business men of the town who desired the location to be where it would suit business interests, protested strongly against the present site.


William Pugsley: Did they want the $6,000 site purchased?


William James Roche: I do not know what the price was but they recommended a different site. The hon. gentleman is entirely astray when he says this location is in the business centre. I think his constituents will be surprised when they read his remarks in the ' Hansard,' unless he revises them considerably before the 1 Hansard ' comes out ; they will be surprised to see the defence he has put up for the recommendation of this site.


John Crawford: I would like to make a further statement. The only protest I have received in an official wav in regard to this site was a largely signed petition from a large percentage of the people of the town, urging that if there was any protest filed in regard to this site no change should be made and that the site should remain where it is. I have that petition in my desk and it is largely signed


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: From the people on the south side?


John Crawford: The south side and the north side. I would like to say in re-
*8541

gard to the board of trade in the town of Neepawa that one of the strongest Conservatives in that town said : We might as well be honest about it, if the Conservatives had their way we would have it down opposite the lands titles office, which is entirely away from the business centre of the town.


William James Roche: Is that what is called Mitchell Corner ?


John Crawford: No.


William James Roche: Did the hon. gentleman favour that personally ?


John Crawford: Yes, personally I favoured that but the majority of the people thought it should go on the main street. The Mitchell corner is one row of lots off the main street. Personally I would have favoured that because it would have been just as central and as cheap.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. gentleman speaks of the northern part of the town being three quarters of a mile from the post office. As a matter of fact, has not the business in the northern part of the town been decreasing and is it not becoming centred down south of the post office ?


John Crawford: All the elevators, the grain business, outside of some shipping in cars, and the milling business are at the north location.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that there were $12,000 voted last year. Part of that was spent. For what purpose ?


William Pugsley: Up to the 31st December last year there was an expenditure of $3,437.56. That included $3,000 for the site, the remainder being expended for survey, legal and travelling expenses, advertising, &c.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it that you have only marked $2,000 here as being expended because the revote is $10,000 ?


John Crawford: There were a couple of thousand dollars voted for the site earlier.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is not well informed.


John Crawford: I would like to say that there were $2,000 voted before this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not last year ?


John Crawford: I am not talking about last year.


William Pugsley: The year before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But there were $2,000 spent.


William Pugsley: There were $2,000 voted the year before and $12,000 last year; that would make $14,000 altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well then $2,000 must have been spent. For what purpose ?


William Pugsley: That goes into the purchase of the land.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The land was not purchased in this year. It could not be because that would be a revote and it would lapse at the expiration of the financial year.


William Pugsley: The order in council authorizing the purchase of the land was passed on the 3rd of February, 1905. I think it probable that the land was purchased in the then current year; but at all events in 1905-6.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then that money was spent in that year. There were $12,000 voted last year in addition. There has been $2,000 of that spent since. How was that spent ?


John Crawford: Three thousand odd dollars in all that should have been spent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the estimates say that the first $2,000 was spent.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman want that information ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes. I notice that a great many times, whether the minister understands it or not, he does not take the trouble to give the House the information. I think there is a principle involved that we should deal with at some time or other. We vote money from year to year which is either needed or not needed. If it is not needed it should not be voted because it is always on the estimates and is a standing bribe whenever an election is called up. We do not seem to be able to ascertain *how much was spent. There has been a portion of the vote spent but when we ask how much was spent and what proportion was spent for the site we. are unable to get that Information. This is the same as some other items. With respect to the last item that we dealt with we were told that a site was purchased but we could not find out what the expenditure was. We ought to be able to get all this information.


William Pugsley: tleman the information as to the cost but I want the hon. gentleman to understand that when he asks me and I do not know what should be the proper information I do not give it. I do not profess to tell what I do not know.
and therefore the other $2,000 must have been spent and he has not given an account of the way in which it was spent. Therefore the other $2,000 must have been spent and the minister has not given us an account of where it was spent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman ought to know because he should have the memorandum before him.	-


William Pugsley: In this case the site cost $3,000. The money has been actually paid. There is nothing to conceal. Any information that the hon. gentleman desires that I can give to him I will be only too happy to give. The first vote for this building was $2,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was that spent ?


William Pugsley: That would be spent on the site. Then there was another vote of $12,000. That would make $14,000. But wo are only asking a revote of $10,000. We have already paid for the site and other expenses $3,437.56. But there will be $563 of last year's vote which we are not asking for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you are asking for
ic.


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You got last year $12,000. you have spent $2,000 and there is a revote of $10,000.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend see that out of the total votes we have had heretofore we have spent $3,437.50 ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have spent $4,000.


William Pugsley: No, $3,437.56.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You must have spent $4,000 if the wording of the item is correct.


William Pugsley: No, the remainder of the $4,000 has lapsed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister said that this $2,000 was spent on a site. Last year we voted $12,000 and we are asked to-day to give a revote of $10,000 thereby indicating that $2,000 has been spent. That, added to the $2,000 previously voted makes $4,000.


William Pugsley: Not necessarily. The total expenditure up to the 31st December is $3,437.56 and now we are asking for a revote of $10,000. The result, as a matter of book-keeping, is that $563 lapses.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no indication of it lapsing because you are asking for a revote of $10,000. What you have spent you do not ask for a l-evote of. That is spent and your estimates show it. We had $2,000 voted the year before, the minister admits that is spent, there was $12,000 voted last year, there is $10,000 of a revote Mr. PUGSLEY.


William Pugsley: These estimates are made up in November and this is an assumed expenditure of $2,000 up to March 31. The actual expenditure up to December 31 was $3,437, of which $3,000 was for the site and $437.56 for survey of the site, legal and travelling expenses, printing, &c. The revote which is to be applied for in the main estimates, 1908-9, is $10,000.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Who was the middleman ? It seems that the property increased in value $1,000 in a few months.


William Pugsley: I do not think it follows that there was any middleman. I have not heard of any.


John Dowsley Reid: How are the places iu Manitoba in which buildings are to be erected, selected ? When I was in the west I saw some fine towns that are not mentioned here, like Hamiota, Carman, Mani-tou and others, some larger than these.


William Pugsley: You would condemn us very much if we attempted to put public buildings in all the tows at once.


John Dowsley Reid: But some of these towns are larger than those mentioned here.


William Pugsley: In which one would you say I should recommend the erecting of a public building ?


John Dowsley Reid: Take Carman, for instance, a splendid town.


William Pugsley: I have said I am going to consider that.


John Dowsley Reid: The trouble is the minister has been considering all of these. Will he give us a promise that he will include any one of these buildings we have suggested in the supplementary estimates ?


William Pugsley: I am not in a position to say what will be contained in the supplementary estimates.


William James Roche: It is only necessary to compare the cost of this lot in Neepawa, $3,000, with the cost of the lot in Dauphin, $6,000, to see that either the price of the Dauphin site is extravagant or that an inferior and unsuitable site has been chosen at Neepawa. I have the highest opinion of Neepawa, it is a smart, thriving town ; in fact I was sorry to part with that town when they took it away from old Marquette because it always gave me a good majority. When it was in Marquette no public building was granted to it. I have also a high opinion of Dauphin. They are much the

same in population and I am sure that no one will say that Neepawa is surpassed by Dauphin. I also think that town property is as high in Neepawa as in Dauphin.


William Pugsley: What do you think a really good site in Neepawa should cost ?


William James Roche: I would not place value on it as I do not live there. But, the member has stated that tor a site which I believe was where the townspeople desired it, $6,000 or $7,000 was asked.


William Pugsley: How can you give such a close value for Neepawa and not for Dauphin ?


William James Roche: I am drawing a comparison between the two towns. My own private opinion is that the Dauphin price was exorbitant.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend say that $0,000 which some gentleman wanted for the other site in Neepawa, which my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) declined to recommend, would be reasonable ?


William James Roche: 1 do not know where the other lot is. The Board of Trade selected a certain site. That board is composed of business men and the site recommended by them was not selected, but another site was selected for which I claim the price paid was unfair because the member for Portage la Prairie says the ordinary value is from $3,000 to $6,000 for these lots.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The population of Neepawa in 1905 was 300 more than that of Dauphin, the figures being Dauphin 1,530, and Neepawa, 1,895.


John Crawford: The population of Dauphin now is represented to be 2,500 people.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We must take the census. Neepawa is more of a railway centre than Dauphin, as it has both the Canadian Northern and Canadian Pacific Railway. It all goes to show the exorbitant price we have to pay for the building of a post office on Buxtows Avenue.


John Crawford: The site for which $6,000 was asked was only 66 by 90 feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see that $167 was paid for surveying the lot and making a plan. The minister gave us that information last yeai\ Does not that seem to be a very extravagant figure for surveying and making a plan of a village lot ?


William Pugsley: It would strike me as high unless there was some exceptional reason for it.


John Crawford: The surveyor may have had to come from Brandon, as there was no surveyor at Neepawa.



REVISED

John Dowsley Reid: How far is that ?


John Crawford: About a hundred miles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me totally absurd when compared with transactions of that kind in this part of the country.


William Pugsley: It is more than the usual cost, which runs from $25 to $50. It was paid in 1905. I will take occasion to have it looked into, and I will bring information as to the particular reasons for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A surveyor in our country will go ten or fifteen miles and survey a hundred acres, running the lines and making a plan, for from $5 to $7.


William Pugsley: In addition to surveying the lot, the surveyor had to take the levels of the ground in order that the plans might be prepared at Ottawa, and to test the ground to see what the foundation would be like.


John Crawford: I may say that the surveyor was no friend of ours. He is one of the prominent surveyors of Canada. I can assure our friends that there was no graft in connection with it.
Mi-. W. J. ROCHE. What is the surveyor's name ?


John Crawford: Moses McFadden.


William James Roche: What is the estimated cost of the building exclusive of the site ?


William Pugsley: $41,000. The total estimated cost, including the site, is $44,437.
Mi-. W. J. ROCHE. I see by ' Hansard ' of last session that Mr. Bennett asked :
' What does the minister intend to spend on this Neepawa building ? ' And Mr. Fisher, who was acting minister at the time, stated : 'I should think about $25,000, but the plans are not yet prepared.'


William Pugsley: The contract price was $28,000, and the additional expenditure is for the cost of the site, the heating, electric wiring, fittings, lock boxes, sidewalks, fencing, &c.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that an expenditure of $44,000 for a public building in a small village like that is extravagant. In the province of Ontario you will find. dozens of small villages of that size a ad larger that have had no expenditure for that purpose and are not asking for it. It seems to me that these large expenditures in small villages, unless there is a strong probability of their growing to be large places, are not justifiable.


William Pugsley: I should explain that this building is to be for a post office, examining warehouse and militia armouries as well.



EDITION

Thomas Simpson Sproule: What militia have you got there ? In these votes for armouries we should have the Minister of Militia present to give us information as to the size of the force and why these expenditures are needed. In the towns and villages of Ontario we have no such expenditures. We only have them in a few of the large cities. But if it he right to put up these public buildings in these small towns in the new provinces, it is right that we should do so in the old provinces. And if it be not good policy in the old provinces, it is not in the new. There should be no discrimination. And whenever we are called to vote any expenditure for militia purposes we should have the Minister of Militia present.


John Crawford: There are two rifle companies there with their equipment and a cadet corps as well. They require some place in which to store their arms.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the cadet corps ?


John Crawford: They are boys from fourteen to sixteen years of age.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many men ?


John Crawford: Eighty men and thirty boys.
Selkirk public building Manitoba, $30,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote of $10,000 and a new vote of $20,000. It is a two-story brick building with stone basement, 44 feet broad and 48 feet deep. The site cost $2,000.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The sites are coming down. Here is a place a good deal larger than Dauphin, yet the Dauphin site cost $6,000.


William James Roche: Is the contract let?


William Pugsley: Yes, it is let to Brown & Garson at $24,000.


William D. Staples: Does that include light and heat?


William Pugsley: No. The heating'and boiler are estimated at $2,500, electric wiring. $1,000; fittings, $5,000; sidewalks and fencing, $1,000, besides contingencies. Total, including the site, $40,111.60.


William D. Staples: Last year we were led to believe by the acting minister (Mr. Fisher) that the expenditure would be $20,000.


William Pugsley: The cost of the building.


William D. Staples: No, the total expenditure. Yet we are now up to $40,000.


John Dowsley Reid: We should have fuller explanation. Last year the acting minister (Mr. Fisher), in reply to the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), said :


William Pugsley: Tenders have just been received. The site cost $2,000. It is 58 x 150 feet at the southeast corner of Manitoba and Main streets. The building will cost about $20,000.
His reply would lead the House to believe that that was the total amount of expenditure. When we get an explanation we should have the whole thing in detail.


William Pugsley: I am giving it to the hon. gentleman. I lnyve given the amount of the contract, the cost of heat and boilers, electric wiring, &c.


John Dowsley Reid: When we come to an item such as this and the minister gives an estimate of the cost, we take it for granted that that will be the whole cost.


William Pugsley: I draw a distinction between a contract for the erection of a building and the total cost, including fittings, &c.


John Dowsley Reid: We have been deceived in every case. Up to the present every year the answer has been practically the same. Here is an instance where, instead of the estimates given by the minister, the property is to cost $50,000 to $100,000 more. Is it not a fact that when the total work is completed it will cost a great deal more than the estimate?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is aware that when we ask for an amount in the estimates, we do not ask for the whole cost in one year, but ask what is intended to be spent during the current year.


John Dowsley Reid: When it is stated that a building will cost so much, does that mean only the portion of the work to be done during that year ?


William Pugsley: I take it that that would mean the estimate given by the chief architect to the minister of the cost of the building. But, if nothing else is stated, that would not be supposed to include the cost of the site, heating, wiring and so on.


William D. Staples: Does the minister think it a good policy to begin a building such as this and only finish it in three years or so ? Especially, in a little town like Selkirk ? Ordinarily, a building begun in such a place is completed in three months.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. We are asking for enough money to finish the building.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The building was started last November-up to that time, not a stroke of work had been done. The foundation was put in and perhaps two or three feet above that. The work is now going on, and it is expected to be finished in July.


William Pugsley: The contract was let in October.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Yes, and I would point out to the hon. member for Grenville

(Mr. J. D. Reid) that two years ago the estimate given by Mr. Hyman was $25,000. The contract was let for $24,000. The owner of the lot asked $3,000 for It. It was a corner lot. At the other end of the same block, the Traders Bank has put up a pressed brick building to cost $30,000. The price asked for the lot was considered too high. Mr. Greenfield, who is In charge of the public works office In Manitoba was sent to Selkirk and inquired as to the value of property there. The owner afterwards offered to take $2,500 but ultimately accepted $2,000, which price was considered satisfactory and the lot was bought. So, there is nothing wrong with the site. There are to be rooms in this building for the Indian office, the inspector of fisheries for Manitoba and Keewatin, the customs office, the forest ranger for the county of Selkirk, and the examiners of masters and mates. Selkirk is the point where these things centre. There will probably be $200,000 or $250,000 worth of shipping there. The population in 1906 was 2,700. The postal revenue for nine months was $2,385, which would be about $3,200 for the year, in Stonewall also, we have a postal revenue nearly as large as that of Selkirk.


William D. Staples: It is evident from what the hon. gentleman (Mr. S. J. Jackson) has stated that the Minister of Public Works of two years ago deceived us as to the cost of this building.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: Why, the contract was let for $1,000 less than he estimated.


William D. Staples: But we understand that this was to be the total cost, including the purchase of site and equipment of the building.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman, perhaps did not inquire particularly as to these other things.


William D. Staples: It is not so very long since I read a speech of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. S. J. Jackson) in which he took credit for inducing the government to construct this building. And he did not stop at that, but went on to claim credit for every mile of railway constructed in his constituency. I began to wonder if he thought himself Sir Thomas Shaughnessy. He took credit for the snagboat that runs up and down the river. You would think he had more influence with this government -evidently he has considerable-than any other member.	[DOT]


Samuel Jacob Jackson: I said that four years ago in one municipality there was not a single mile of railway, and that last November, nearly 100 miles of the Grand Trunk Pacific had been graded and would soon be ironed, and also that there were 40 272J
miles of a new line of railway forced upon the Canadian Pacific Railway because the Grand Trunk was the shorter line. There was also the Canadian Northern, making a total of 150 miles of road that was not there when I was elected four years before. I certainly took credit for supporting the government that brought about these improvements.	i


William D. Staples: I suppose the inference the hon. gentleman's hearers would draw was that, if he had not been elected, the Grand Trunk Pacific, when it came to the line of his constituency, would skip it, and not construct a line there at all.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: The people appreciate the expenditure that the government have made in that section of the country in the last four years.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think the hon. member for Selkirk had better move round all over the country, as he seems to take railways with him wherever he goes. In the matter of heating for these public buildings, will public tenders be asked ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister assures us that the tenders will be asked for the heating in every case ?


William Pugsley: I should say in every case-yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Will these be public tenders ?


William Pugsley: Tenders will be asked from different people in the business.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is, it will not be public competition, but restricted to party friends ?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) can see that the advertising would be out of all proportion to the cost. I can assure the hon. gentleman and the committee that we will take care to get competitive prices.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to say a word with reference to the controversy that has arisen here. As I understand the purpose of asking these questions, and the reason why we expect proper answers to be given, as near as they can be given by the Minister of Public Works, is this : When you propose an item for an expenditure in a particular place the first question we ask is : What is the country to be committed to, what is it going to cost ? We mean by that, What is the cost of the whole undertakings, what will it stand the country ? The minister gives an estimate of what he is going to ask -parliament to vote, that is intended

to inform the House what the country is being committed to in toto, not the amount of the contract, not the cost of the land, not the price of the site only. We must take that into consideration, but that is not all. For instance, the minister might ask for an expenditure of $100,000. Now if he told us we were committing the country to the expenditure of $200,000, does he think that parliament would give it ? Not at all. Therefore we naturally ask every time: What is going to be the cost of this in toto ? When we look at the discussions last year, we find this year that the expenditure" have crept up in almost every case beyond what we were told last year they would be, they do not accord with the facts that are given us this year as to the actual expenditure. In every case the expenditure has largely exceeded what we were told. Are we not justified then in saying that the House was misled, absolutely misled ? Because we gave the vote last year on the understanding that the country was only committing itself to the expenditure of so much money, while we find this year that the expenditure has increased by thousands of dollars over what we were told it would be. Of course we understand that the minister only gives us an estimate and there will be some difference, but we ought to have a pretty close estimate, otherwise we would not be justified in commencing an expenditure of $25,000 if it afterwards turned out to reach $50,000 or $75,000. That is why we are particular to get this information at the commencement of the undertaking.


George di Madeiros Loy: My hon. friend will see how that occurred. Last year the question was asked as to what the building would cost, and the minister said: Tenders are being received. Now when tenders are received for a building the architect always estimates what the building will cost, and when tenders come in they can be compared with the estimates. No doubt that is what the minister meant at that time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I cannot admit that. In every instance we ask when the first estimate is placed before the House: What is this going to cost ? That means what is the whole undertaking going to cost. We do not mean what the land is going to cost, what the cost will be according to the plans, or the contracts, but we want to know what will be the entire cost.


William Pugsley: I certainly understood the hon member for Grenville to say that when the minister was asked as to the cost of this building he replied that tenders had been received, and the cost was estimated to be so and so. Now that_would apply to the cost of the building for which the tenders were received.
.At six o'clock. House took recess.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 151) respecting the Grand Trunk Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Crawford.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was requested by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) to say that it would be impossible for him to be here to-day and as there is an amendment which he intends to propose he requested me to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) to be good enough to allow the Bill to stand.


George Perry Graham: I have no objection, but, of course, it will not be said that the government is retarding the public business. I have been ready for six weeks to go on with this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The last couple of times the government asked it to stand. We did not ask it to stand. The hon. member for South Simcoe was here upon the last occasion and he was ready to move his amendment.


George Perry Graham: Certainly, I know' that the government asked that the Bill be allowed to stand a couple of times. But I want to be in the position of having it understood that I am not asking that it shall be allow'ed to stand to-night.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. G. H. McIntyre).: Stands.



BELLEA'ILLE-PRINCE EDWARD BRIDGE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 20) respecting the Belleville-Prince Edwrard Bridge Company.-Mi-. Porter.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that the hon. member who is in charge of this Bill (Mr. Porter) is not here. Still, if you consent to put a Bill through in the absence of the promoter in one case you ought to do it in all cases. He should be here to attend to the Bill.


George Oscar Alcorn: Has the Bill been printed?


The CHAIRMAN.: Apparently it has.


George Perry Graham: There was some question with regard to this Bill as to the rates to be charged. We discussed it one evening at some length. The hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) was interested in it and we had quite a discussion as to the rates payable to and fro. That night

we got to a certain point when it was suggested that we leave it over until the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) was here.


Mr.   SPROXJLB@: Yes, and he is not here to-night.


George Perry Graham: I have no position to take on it, but I want it to be put in proper shape; that is all.


George Oscar Alcorn: I have no position to take either. I would be willing that the bridge should be free. In the Private Bills Committee we agreed on a tariff. I have not the Bill as reprinted before me to know if it is correctly reprinted or not. The suggestion that was made when the Bill was up before was that the tariff should be submitted to the Lieutenant Governor in Council instead of the Governor in Council, and the hon. member for West Hastings expressed himself to me as being perfectly satisfied with that change. It was said that it was a provincial measure and should be dealt with bv the provincial legislature, and it was suggested that the tariff should be made subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. The hon. member for West Hastings said that he was perfectly willing that should be done. So am I.


George Perry Graham: I am not going to make any objection to it.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I took the exception to this legislation. It seems to me that we are certainly invading the jurisdiction of the local legislature. This was done a few years ago and this is merely an amendment. I thought then and I still think that this parliament should not come down to che discussion of the tariff or tolls over a highway bridge that is wholly and unquestionably within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. I made the suggestion that instead of section 8 there should be substituted a section placing upon the company the onus of applying to the provincial government to have the tariff approved of. I do not think that this section should ever appear on the statute-book of the parliament of Canada. The only way to remedy the matter is to have a general clause to enable the company to have such a tariff as may be approved" by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of the province of Ontario. I think that in justice to this parliament that amendment should be made and that we should pay some attention to the requirements of the British North America Act.


John Dowsley Reid: The amendment suggested by my hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) that the words ' Lieutenant-Governor ' be inserted in the Bill, I suppose, would overcome the objection that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). As I
understand this amendment, as proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward, it is that the tolls should be subject to the order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which practically means that it gives absolute control to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario instead of the Governor General in Council, as is now in the Bill ; so that if the word 'Lieutenant ' Is inserted in the Bill it meets the objection that the hon. member for Westmoreland has stated, does it not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, for the reason that this parliament, by this legislation, undertakes to fix the tolls. It is true that there is a clause which says that the Governor General has to approve of the tolls which are charged. If you were to say the ' Lieutenant Governor in Council,' that might in a measure remedy or obviate the difficulty, but it seems to me that we should not even attempt to fix the tolls, but that we should have a general clause stating :
Providing, however, that the rates and tolls collected and charged shall be subject from time to time to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of Ontario.


John Dowsley Reid: If these rates were established as they are in the Bill, but subject to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, would that not meet the case?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This puts it into the hands of the company as to whether they shall apply or not, and they may never apply.


John Dowsley Reid: But cannot the people apply to the Lieutenant Governor in Council ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I submit not ; that is the point which I have in view. .


John Dowsley Reid: By adding the word [DOT] Lieutenant ' before Governor in Council we would bring this within the jurisdiction of the local government, which would meet the wishes of the hon. member and carry out what I am trying to state the Bill should be.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not wish to oppose the IJill, but I am objecting to this on principle. It seems to me the parliament of Canada should not undertake to fix rates and tolls on a provincial highway, and it should never be set out in the statutes of Canada that there shall be charged so much for a baby carriage, so much for a horse and carriage, so much for an adult, &c. I would expunge every word of this tariff and substitute a general clause empowering this bridge company to collect such tolls as from time to time may be approved of by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of Ontario. My hon. friend's suggestion to insert the word ' Lieutenant ' would not remedy it, because

you were here fixing the tolls, and If they are not satisfactory to the people and are satisfactory to the company there is no redress for the people unless, indeed, this company choose to apply from time to time to the provincial government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you may do as you have done in several cases, make the tolls subject to be revised from time to time by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That has been done with several Bills. Wherever we have incorporated companies to build bridges across streams for highway as well as railway purposes we have set out the tolls.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That came within our jurisdiction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So does this.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I submit not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does because we incorporate this company. Why? Because it is passing over a stream of water that is navigable and there is a draw in the bridge to allow boats to pass.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is not within our jurisdiction although we may usurp those powers. A bridge across a navigable stream does not give jurisdiction to this parliament ; it is within the jurisdiction of the provincial parliament. There are some four or five large bridges over the St. John river and every one that has been built by companies has been built by companies incorporated by the provincial legislature of New Brunswick. The companies obtained the privilege from the Public Works Department of Canada to construct their bridges over a navigable stream.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that in the cases of the bridges at Prince Albert and Edmonton we set out the tolls. We did the same with the Victoria bridge and again when the Victoria bridge was enlarged.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was a railway bridge at Edmonton.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is provision for a passenger bridge as well. I have always understood, and I think I am correct, that this federal parliament is the only authority that controls the crossing of navigable waters. I think we provided for the tolls over the St. Maurice river when we gave 15 per cent of the cost of all bridges costing over $25,000. We have exercised this right, whether correctly or incorrectly, for many years.


George Oscar Alcorn: This is not a bridge over a river, but a bridge over an arm of Lake Ontario, a mile wide. The bridge itself is three-quarters of a mile or more in length. There is a swing and vessels of the largest size pass through there. The Bill does not assume to fix arbitrarily a tariff, it simply


Henry Robert Emmerson: fixes a tariff which the companv is not to exceed, and I am instructed that this Bill was on two occasions brought before the provincial authorities who declined to have anything to do with it on the express ground that this parliament alone could deal with it as navigation was involved, and with all due deference to the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) I think he will find that where navigation is involved, as in this case, over a body of water of this size, that this parliament is the only body with jurisdiction.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I contend that this legislation is an -interference with civil rights which is subject to the jurisdiction of the provincial parliament. I also contend that a company of this character asking these privileges or the original privileges should be incorporated by the provincial parliament, and if the bridge goes over a navigable river or even over an arm of the sea, the company has the right to build the bridge thereupon, subject to the approval of tlie Department of Public Works for Canada. There is a provision in the Public Works Act of this Dominion whereby in similar cases and with a similar condition companies can make their applications, and it is for the Public Works Department to determine whether or not the right shall be granted. The mere fact that it has been done in the past does not give us jurisdiction. We have the right where it is a public work for the general benefit of Canada ; I am not going to discuss that point, but if this is proper legislation for the parliament of Canada, it necessarily follows that we have the right to fix the tolls, and the duty is upon us to do so and it should not be left to the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province of Ontario. But my contention is that we have not that right, and that this is a subject matter for the control of the provincial authorities.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have given the reasons why the conclusion was reached that we had the right, and that this was the only parliament that had the right. Might I remind my hon. friend, who is a lawyer, of the long litigation over the Streams Bill of Ontario ? What was the decision of the Privy Council in that case ? It was that navigable streams were under federal control, and streams that were not navigable were under provincial control.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That does not in any way affect my argument.


William Stevens Fielding: want to give the special reason. It will be admitted that lands under these waters, or under any navigable stream, belong to the province, and this parliament usurps authority to control or deal with these lands, when it authorizes individuals in the name of a company to place piers or to do anything upon these lands. This parliament has no right to authorize any one to do that, and tjie provincial legislature of New Brunswick has acted properly in claiming jurisdiction for itself by incorporating such companies, giving them the right to deal with the land under the water and authorizing them to seek from the Public Works Department of the Dominion permission to do that in so far as it might in anv way interfere with navigation. The point taken by the Minister of Railways in connection with section 2 is absolutely unanswerable and for the same reason. This Bill is an interference with the property and jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. Although this parliament has seemingly committed the error in the past, I do not think it should extend or perpetuate that error by interfering m any way with the tolls that mav be charged because that would be an interference with civil rights.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In part the hon. gentleman is right and in part wrong. Pie is wrong in saying that as the land belongs absolutely to the province, we have not the right to give the authority asked. Go to Rainy river, that may be dividing this province from a foreign county, but we have given a charter to a company to cross there The land there belongs to the province, but the federal parliament is the only one that can giv e authority to build across there, and we have given the right to build the abutments of the bridge on the land on the Ontario side. We do the same when it is a case of passing from one province to another. It is only the federal parliament that has the authority to give that right.


William Pugsley: That is under the express terms of the British North America Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman's contention is that because the land in the bed of a stream belongs to a province, that deprives us of the right to give authority to build a bridge there, I have given instances where we have given that authority.


William Stevens Fielding: There is another feature of interest in this. My hon. frien from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) speaks of this as being distinctly a provincial work.
It strikes me. on the surface that it is. but sometimes we endeavour, whether wisely or not, to withdraw a work from the exclusive jurisdiction of the province by declaring it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. It does not appear that in this instance that was ever done. It does Mr. EMMERSON.
not appear that in the original charter of this company the work was declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, and the question might arise whether it really has become a work which comes under our Dominion authority at all. I think we would do well, under the circumstances, to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that the Bill be allowed to stand, in the absence' of the hon. gentleman who has it in charge.
Progress reported.



THE SASKATCHEWAN POWER COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company.-Mr. McCraney.
Mr. McCRANEY.: When this Bill was before the committee on a former occasion, the question was raised whether it was not a subject more particularly for provincial legislation. I pointed out that under section 21 of the Saskatchewan Act, the Crown lands of that province are in the Dominion as representing the Crown. Consequently the river bed, the waters of rivers, the shores are vested in the Dominion, and complete jurisdiction over them is in the Dominion parliament and not in the provincial legislature. Since that time I have been handed a letter, written by the Deputy Attorney General of the province of Saskatchewan to Messrs. Smith & Johnston, of this city, who are representing the promoters:
Regina, April 28, 1908. Sirs,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd instant in reference to the Saskatchewan Power Company Bill and have also heard from Messrs. Chrysler, Bethune & Larmonth in connection with the matter. Upon consideration of the matter and of the Bill as amended, this province is, I understand, offering no further opposition to the Bill.
Your obedient servant, PRANK FORD,
Deputy Attorney General.


John Dowsley Reid: I have serious objection to this Bill because it looks to me as though it were simply got up by a lot of promoters for speculation. There is no proviso that they must commence work immediately.
It simply states that if the powers granted shall expire by non-user during four consecutive years, or if the company does not come into actual operation within three years from the passing of the Act, the charter will lapse. Should we pass this Bill, the town of Saskatoon will be tied up for at least three years from any other possible chance of having any other water-power.


George Ewan McCraney: This Bill gives no exclusive right of that sort, and there is no reason at all why any other company could not come here and get similar powers. The


vested rights only come in when the plans are approved by the Governor in Council.


John Dowsley Reid: How could you get any other power on the river if a dam is put across it? That will prevent any further power being obtained above, and a dam cannot be placed below because that would spoil the other. I was in Saskatoon last* fall and 1 saw there- a place wherfe I believed power should be developed. Saskatoon is growing very quickly, and to be tied up for three or four years, as it will be if this Bill passes, would be very serious, not only for the town itself, but for other municipalities adjoining, interested in getting water-power. The people out there want this water-power developed, they want all the advantage they can get from it, and we ought to see that the promoters of the Bill undertake to proceed with the work at once. But if we pass the Bill as it is, we shall give these people at least three and probably four years-because all they would have to do would be a few hundred dollars worth of work to entitle them to claim they had begun operations-of absolute control. If there were anything in this Bill which would compel the company to go on with the work at once and spend so many hundred thousand dollars per annum, I would not hesitate to agree to its going through. But the capital is $1,000,000, and for the next four years not even $100 have to be expended. In my opinion this is a piece of legislation that ought not to go through this House, because it would give a body of men an opportunity of peddling the charter around the world and making a lot of money out of it, whereas it only cost them the charges of putting it through this House, while at the same time they are tieing up the water-power for years. Saskatoon will undoubtedly grow and in the next few years it will want this water-power. I protest against this Bill going through in its present shape, and unless a clause is added by which the expenditure shall be proceeded with at once, I would be justified in opposing the Bill.


George Ewan McCraney: I do not know whether my hon. friend was in the House the other evening when I read a letter received by me from the city clerk of Saskatoon. The original Bill as introduced in the Senate was forwarded by me to the mayor for consideration of the council, because I knew that this matter had been discussed by them, and there had been some agitation in favour of the municipally developing power. Here is a letter which I have received respecting the Bill as it is now before the House :
I am in receipt of your letter, also your telegram of April 15, and in reply would say that I have been instructed by the city council to write you thanking you for the interest you have taken on the city's behalf in regard to the passing of the Saskatchewan Power
Company's Bill. The council are of the opinion that it would not necessitate the sending of a delegate to Ottawa on Wednesday, the 29th instant, as clause 3 seems to be in keeping with the petition that we forwarded to you some time ago.
When we come to clause 3 the hon. gentleman will see that there has been an attempt to protect the interests of the city by providing that they shall have proper notice of the plans and an opportunity to be heard.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no doubt that these gentlemen have gone to the city council and told them that they intended to commence the work at once. I have no doubt that the people want this work to go on immediately. But the hon. gentleman knows that the damming of the river is not a very expensive matter, I suppose $100,000 will construct all the dam that is required for this water-power. If these men are sincere they should not hesitate to go to work and build that dam at once. The river is narrow where they intend doing it, and the banks are so high that the construction of a dam would require but a small expenditure, and they should not hesitate to go to work at once. The hon. gentleman knows very well that immediately this Bill is passed one of these gentlemen will take that charter in his pocket and start for England or some other place and sell it and get a rake-off, and that is all they intend to do with this charter. We should put a clause in this Bill that they shall commence work at once, this summer, and expend $100,000 developing it, otherwise this charter is null and void.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice a suspicious circumstance in the fact that among these names is that of the celebrated James R. Stratton who is a past master in this kind of device. They are trying to get hold of this thing as a speculation, and then peddle it around the country and make money out of it. I think the city council of Saskatoon are not paying proper attention to their own interest, otherwise they would not desire that any company should get possession of the only available water-power that is within reasonable distance of the city.


George Perry Graham: I wish to correct my hon. friend. The gentleman named here is not the Hon. J. R. Stratton, he is another man altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood he was out there for some time last summer speculating ; and knowing his operations in Ontario. I naturally concluded that he was engaged in the same business out there.


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps the Minister of Public Works knows if this gentleman is a well known capitalist from New Brunswick.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This James Stratton I think is a lawyer, and was formerly a resident of New Brunswick.


John Dowsley Reid: This Mr. Stratton I understand is the gentleman who used to conduct the elections for the Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick.


William Pugsley: I think Mr. James Stratton has always been a good Conservative.


John Dowsley Reid: In the last local election in New Brunswick this Mr. Stratton came all the way from Saskatoon down to Ottawa, only a week or two before the elections, I understand, at the instance of the Minister of Public Works ; and I understood that he was down in New Brunswick carrying on the campaign.


William Pugsley: You must not believe all you hear.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister cannot deny it.


Mr. MICHAUD.: Mr. Stratton was in England at the time of the elections in New Brunswick.


William Stevens Fielding: I would call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the wording of subsection 2 of section 3, which appears to contemplate that the Governor in Council shall, at a particular time and at a particular place, put aside all other things and take up the hearing of this particular matter. It seems to me the procedure contemplated by clause 3 is somewhat unusual. It is not usual but very unusual, for the Governor in Council to grant hearings to any body. There are some exceptional circumstances under which hearings are granted, but all hearings take place before a minister or a committee of ministers. It seems to me that the proper procedure in this case would be that the application for hearing should be to the Minister of Public Works, then he should report to the council, and the Governor in Council could approve. I would like to make that suggestion to my hon. friend, because I think that is the proper procedure in any matter of this kind. It would seem that for parties to fix the date and say that they would appear here, and that the Governor in Council must hear this particular case, is a very unusual proceeding.


George Ewan McCraney: I would be willing to adopt any reasonable suggestion of that sort.


John Dowsley Reid: I would ask the hon. member (Mr. McCraney) who has charge of this Bill if he would accept an amendment compelling these people to go on with the work during the present year and to expend a certain amount ? or does he intend to insist that the clause should be left as it is so that, practically, the charter may be car-
Mr. BENNETT
ried about for sale and probably the work tied up for the next four years?


George Ewan McCraney: The clause which my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) is discussing is the last clause in the Bill. I have not considered, nor have I discussed with the promoters, the question which he has raised. Even if we go on with the consideration of the Bill, I do not suppose we shall reach that clause. When we do reach that clause, I shall probably be able to give information on that subject.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the Bill in its present form been submitted to the civic authorities of Saskatoon ?


George Ewan McCraney: Yes. I will send the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) a letter which I received from the city council approving of the Bill in its present form.


John Dowsley Reid: Did the promoters assure the council of Saskatoon that they would proceed with the work during the present year ?


George Ewan McCraney: I cannot inform my hon. friend as to what assurances were given by the promoters to the city of Saskatoon. But the city authorities had before them the Bill with the clause as it is now before the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: I think it would be well for the hon. member (Mr. McCraney), in justice to the city of Saskatoon which he has the honour to represent, that he should write to the city authorities at once and bring their attention to this clause, so that we may know that they have been advised of the seriousness of the matter. I, for one, would like to be thoroughly assured that the inhabitants of Saskatoon realize what this may involve. I do not wish to opp.ose the passage of the Bill with the present incorporators, but, on behalf of the people of Saskatoon and of the towns that will be started in that locality, I think there ought to be some assurance that the work will be commenced within a reasonable time. Otherwise, this Bill means the tying up of that whole country in respect of one of its most important public services. I do not know the men who are concerned in this company, except Mr. Stratton. I do not say anything against him personally. I would be just as glad to see Mr. Stratton go through with it as any other man provided we are assured the work will go ahead. But, in view of the seriousness of the matter I hope the hon. member (Mr. McCraney) will to-morrow send a cony of ' Hansard ' to the city authorities of Saskatoon that they may see the little discussion we have had. They can then say whether they are quite satisfied to let the Bill go through.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And what becomes of the argument of the Minister of Public

Works (Mr. Pugsley) and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) with regard to the proper authority to give these privileges ? This seems to be a local affair ; it does not go outside the province. It may cross a navigable stream


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, if it does not, what argument can be used in this case that will not apply with greater force to the Bill if just dealt with ?


William Pugsley: I have been greatly bothered about this Bill. When it was before the committee on a previous occasion ,1 raised this point of the jurisdiction of parliament to deal with the matter. My hon. friend (Mr. MeCraney) who was promoting the Bill called my attention to the fact that by the terms of the Irrigation Act, all the waters of every river in the Northwest, and the bed and shores of every stream are vested in the Crown in right of the Dominion. He raised the question whether the provincial legislature could give authority to erect a dam upon property belonging to the Dominion of Canada. I suggested that he should confer with the Minister of Justice, who was the proper authority to advise on the subject. The hon. gentleman (Mr. MeCraney) has assured me that it is the opinion of the Minister of Justice that the BUI could properly be passed by this parliament. That being so, even though I had some doubt at first, 1 do not see that I should press my views, more particularly as the government of the province of Saskatoon has written, through its Deputy Attorney General, stating that the advisers of the province see no objection to the passing of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With reference to that, I remember that there was a dispute about the fisheries in the province of Quebec on the Matane river, if I remember right, it was decided that the foreshores belong to the people.


William Pugsley: But the Irrigation Act expressly reserves these rights.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But, once the land is sold, the Act cannot reserve it.


William Pugsley: Oh, parliament can do anything.


William Stevens Fielding: I think there is always danger of error in amending a Bill like this at the table in a hurried way. I have an amendment here which I will not move, as the discussion on the Bill is not likely to be finished to-night, but I will hand it in and I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr Mc-Craney) that he should look it over and consult the law clerk of the House about it. I propose that, instead of saying that the time and place for hearing shall be fixed by the Governor in Council, the following shall be embodied in the Bill, following the words
' time and place ' in subsection 2 of section 3:-
At which application will he made to the Minister of Public Works for his approval of such plans; and the Minister of Publio Works, after hearing such application, at such time or such other time as may be agreed upon by him, shall report to the Governor in Council, whether in his opinion such plans should be approved, and the Governor in Council may approve of such plans, &c.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The hour for private Bills having expired, House resumed in Committee of Supply.
St. Boniface public building, $20,000.
['I move that progress be reported.\nProgress reported.']
William Pugsley: The site for this building cost $4,500, and it is estimated that the total cost of the building, including site, heating, electric wiring, fixtures, furniture, &c., will be $39,920.82, and this amount which we are now asking is expected to complete the work, including fitting and furniture.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is this lot in the centre of the town ?


William Pugsley: I am not acquainted with the locality. It is on the corner of Pro-vencher avenue and Aulneault street.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What is the size of the lot ?


William Pugsley: 66 feet on Provencher avenue and 120 feet on Aulneault street.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the cost of the fittings ?


William Pugsley: Heating and boilers, $2,500 ; electric wiring and fixtures, $1,000; fittings and furniture, $5,000; sidewalks and fencing, $1,500.


John Dowsley Reid: The building is erected now ?


William Pugsley: The building is pretty well along. There was expended to December 31 last, $19,920. That includes the site.


John Dowsley Reid: When will it be completed ?


William Pugsley: It is expected to be completed on September 4 next.
Winnipeg-new examining warehouse, $30,-
000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote and it is asked to make provision for the erection of a new examining warehouse in the city of Winnipeg. This is to be a very large building four storeys in height, brick and steel, with istone facings, concrete and stone foundations. It is to be fire-proof throughout. In erecting these large buildings for the purposes of the customs examining warehouses, particularly, it has been thought that they should be as near fire-proof as possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the full cost expected to be ?


George di Madeiros Loy: The total probable cost, inclusive of the site and heating, electric wiring, fixtures, &c., is estimated at $417,744.59. The amount of the contract is $276,000. The site cost $88,125. The remainder covers the cost of heating, boilers, electric wiring, fixtures, fittings, furniture and sidewalks.


John Dowsley Reid: Who has the contract ?


Mr. PUGSLEY H. J.@: McDiarmid & Co., Limited, Winnipeg.


John Dowsley Reid: Who drew the plans ?


William Pugsley: They were drawn in the department.


John Dowsley Reid: It is strange you have men here capable of drawing plans for a building like this in Winnipeg, while for a shed in Quebec there are no men capable of drawing the plans.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentlemen forgets what kind of a shed that is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that this vote has been up once or twice before. I was in the examining warehouse at Winnipeg last summer, and this new building is certainly not coming any too soon because it is much needed. I think it is a disgrace to the government and the country, and it does not allow the people who have the work to do an opportunity for properly doing it.


William Pugsley: I am sure my hon. friend will commend us most highly for endeavouring to wipe out that disgrace or stigma as quickly as possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will, if proper foresight and economy are used in the expenditure of the money. I do not know about the cost of the site. Land, of course, is very high there. I presume that you purpose building alongside of the present building ?


William Pugsley: We have endeavoured to have the building erected at the lowest possibly cost consistently with securing a first-class building for the purpose. We asked for tenders in the usual way. There were three tenders received ranging from $276,000 to $319,000, and we accepted the lowest tender.


John Dowsley Reid: Will there be any extras ?


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware of.
I think the steel alone will cost about $100,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Are there any schedule prices ?


William Pugsley: No, a lump sum contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is the site ?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: Corner of Rorie street and McDermott avenue.


John Dowsley Reid: From whom was the site purchased ?


William Pugsley: It was purchased from Wm. Mackenzie, D. D. Mann and Roderick J. Mackenzie.


John Dowsley Reid: Was there a commission paid to any one for purchasing it ?


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware of.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was never purchased without a commission.


William Pugsley: That is a hard thing to say.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, it is only in line with what we have found when we have got the information out.


William Pugsley: I have been here for a good many months and I have never heard the suggestion made that there has been any secret commission paid to any person who has bought land as a site for a public building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In nearly every case we have had this session, the minister has given us the amount of the commission ;
I cannot remember the instances.


William Pugsley: Paid to people for buying property for the department ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, real estate agents. Do you buy land on the Intercolonial Railway for nothing ?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend does not suggest


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That you are as bad as they are with reference to the purchase of pr< perty on the Intercolonial Railway. You have a reputation that is a hundred per cent worse.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister has a nice way of putting it when he says there is no commission paid. Take the Transcontinental Railway. I will not refer to that.


William Pugsley: I would ask my hon. friend who has taken his seat (Mr. Sprouie) to point out a single instance in which the Department of Public Works has been shown to have paid a commission upon the purchase of land.


Robert Laird Borden: Were not commissions paid for the purchase of this property on Mackenzie avenue ?


William Pugsley: A man was appointed specially to act for the government. I do not understand that the employment of a person to buy land, and the open payment of a commission, as was done then, is what was referred to.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what my hon. friend refers to.


William Pugsley: That is not what he says.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: We have the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) explaining it, but that is only paying commission in another form. Another way is that a friend of the government gets a hint, he purchases the property and makes a great big profit on it. The minister would say that there was no commission paid in that case.


William Pugsley: Tell me of a single case in my department in which such a thing has been proved.


John Dowsley Reid: We will probably before the end of the session, if we can reach the items in the Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. PUGSLEYr. Yrou have the fullest opportunity of examining the Public Works accounts.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, we have examined some and the minister knows it has been rascally.


William Pugsley: I do not know anything of the kind.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister knows it.


William Pugsley: I have made inquiry and I have never found anything that would justify the statement of the hon. gentleman. There may be some cases which would be open to some criticism, but there is nothing at all that I have seen that would justify the severe statement the hon. gentleman makes. It is all very well to take hearsay evidence, insinuations and suggestions, but in order to get the facts you must have proof and have some one who can speak from knowledge. As far as I can observe there has been no proof on which you can place reliance in regard to anything wrong in respect to the purchase of land for public buildings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Last year information was given to the House that we paid $40,000 commission for buying lots of land down there for public buildings.


William Pugsley: Surely my hon. friend must see he is wrong. Does he say that for the purchase of properties on Sussex street commissions of $40,000 were paid ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do say so.


William Pugsley: To whom ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think one White. He paid $3,000 for elections in London and he said he was friendly to the government and therefore it was justifiable for him to give it. I am sure I am within the mark when I say he got $40,000.


William Pugsley: My information from my deputy is that Mr. White received $1,500.
That is as near the mark as my hon. friend usually is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will remind my hon. friend ; my memory is not so bad as that and I went over the transaction with great care.


William Pugsley: You say it was paid to White ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said my impression was the name was White.


William Pugsley: You said positively


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say positively,
I said my impression was. I do not want the minister to pin me down to what I did not say. When I make a statement I stand by it.


William Pugsley: You say now it was $40,1)00 ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I said, speaking from memory, the amount I believed was $4Q.OOO and I think I can hunt it up and show him I am correct. I said my impression was the name was White but I was not sure.


William Pugsley: I was not here last year but I venture to challenge my hon. friend to produce evidence of that. I do not believe anything of the kind ever took place, and I happen to know that the gentleman who has been appointed to purchase the properties is purchasing them upon a small commission. It is absurd to say that $40,000 was paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not solely as commission.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said as commission and I challenge my hon. friend to look up the evidence and submit it to the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not at all concerned about the hon. gentleman's belief if he was an atheist or anything else, but I am concerned about my own knowledge and I shall hunt this up.


William Pugsley: I venture to say you cannot find anything of the kind.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My hon. friend need not be too positive. It is not the first' time he has been positive, nor is it the first time he has been shown to be absolutely incorrect. I will take the trouble to look it up, I am not going to be beaten down in that way.


William Pugsley: I am not trying to beat you down.


Robert Laird Borden: What commission
was paid ?


William Pugsley: It was a small commission, I think 2 per cent.


John Dowsley Reid: I remember the discussion on this last year. There was not only

Mr. White but, if I remember right, another gentleman in Ottawa and the amount was more than .$1,500. The minister has taken the ground to-night that his department has not been in the habit of paying commissions for the purchase of land. We on this side are not in a position to disprove that statement as far as he is concerned, because we have not before us the Auditor General's Report for the expenditures since he assumed office, but we can prove that up to this last year amounts have been paid to certain individuals for purchasing properties.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend assume that the payment of a commission would be improper ? I am not discussing whether commissions Have been paid but I say that in many cases if one known to be an agent of the government goes to purchase land he will immediately find the price raised. That is human nature. It is the part of wisdom that persons shall be employed to get land who are not known to be agents of the government. And if a fair business commission is paid on a transaction of that kind it is a good transaction for the treasury as for one dollar spent in commission you probably save $10 in the price of the land. Of course I am assuming a fair and reasonable commission.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as that is concerned I do not take issue with the minister ; but when Dr. Sproule asked what the commission was the Minister of Public Works took it as an insult and as absurd.


William Pugsley: I did not intend to say anything offensive. My remarks were induced by the suggestion or insinuation which we have had to-day that there was some secret commission, a middleman who had bought the property and had got a commission in some way out of it. That is very different from the appointment of men like Mr. Riopelle who was appointed openly to purchase the properties on Sussex street. What made me speak as I did was the unjustified statement that we had paid as high as $40,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the total amount paid ?


William Pugsley: I think that the commission was 2 per cent and as the property costs between $500,000 and $600,000 the commission would be $30,000 to $12,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was not what invited the reply from the minister. My first question was what commission was paid and the minister answered that it was absurd to ask the question and that there was an insinuation of something wrong.


William Pugsley: Did not the hon. gentleman say : It is always the case, always a commission? I took that as suggesting that secret commissions were paid to middlemen.	*


John Dowsley Reid: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not until the hon. gentleman said it was absurd to ask such a question.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: I do not think any hon. member of this House will agree with the minister that the payment of this commission is justifiable. There are in the department many men just as capable as any man in the city of Ottawa to make terms for the purchase of these lands. It was well known in the city of Ottawa that these gentlemen were the agents of the government. Every man on Sussex street knew that the government were purchasing these lands. Then why did the government throw away $12,000 on one of their friends when they had many men in the department quite as capable of doing the work.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman perhaps forgets the evidence that was given by Mr. Riopelle before the Public Accounts Committee, why this commission should be paid. It greatly exceeded $12,000, because in the first instance Mr. White and two or three other gentlemen took a preliminary canter around, announcing to the people that they were going to purchase for the government. I think they were paid pretty nearly $8,000. Mr. Riopelle frankly admitted before the Public Accounts Committee that when he went over the ground he told everybody what he was there for. He established a regular bureau at his office on Rideau street, and the department furnished him with a clerk and a messenger. I think the expense ran altogether to from $20,000 to $25,000. Mr. Riopelle assigned an excellent reason why his intervention was sought. It was that after a conference with Mr. Hyman, they came to the conclusion that there was no person in the department fit to conduct such negotiations. That was an awful reflection on the Department of Public Works. I would ask the minister if the services of Mr. Riopelle and the clerk and messenger are still continued?


William Pugsley: My information is that Mr. White and the other gentlemen to whom my hon. friend refers were not employed for the purpose of purchasing the properties, but were appointed as valuators. The department was desirous of getting, these properties as cheaply as possible, and in cases where they could not be obtained at prices which the department thought reasonable, proceedings would be taken by way of expropriation, these two gentlemen were appointed for the purpose of valuing the properties. I think Mr. Riopelle was the only one employed for the purpose of making purchases. Mr. Riopelle and his clerk are still employed by the department, but the services of the messenger have been dispensed with. We intend to retain their

services untilflthe expropriation proceedings are completed.*


William Humphrey Bennett: How much is it expected that there will be further coming to Mr. Riopelle?


William Pugsley: I am not able at the moment to tell my bon. friend.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What were the valuators paid?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has not told us yet from whom the land for this building in Winnipeg was purchased?


William Pugsley: It was purchased from Messrs. William Mackenzie, D. D. Mann and K. Mackenzie.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Through whom?
Mr, PUGSLEY. I have no memorandum beyond the names of the vendors and the price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister get the information and let us know through whom the purchase was made, and what was paid as commission and for the examination of titles?	,


William Pugsley: I shall be very glad to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: Was the land acquired by expropriation?


William Pugsley: The order in council authorizes the purchase from Messrs. Mackenzie and his associates and therefore I assume that it was not acquired by expropriation.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the $417,000 complete the building?


William Pugsley: Yes, and pay for the site, fittings, furniture and everything else.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: When was it finished?


William Pugsley: "We are asking now for $2,000. There will be a further vote of $6,000 required for furnishings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To come back to the question of commissions, I have found the reference in ' Hansard.' The acting Minister of Public Works at that time (Mr. Fisher) was asked what was the cost of the properties purchased by the government and he replied $400,000. He also stated that Mr. Riopelle of Ottawa had acted for the government in getting options on them. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) asked what about the commission and the acting minister replied:	'He is paid 5 per cent,
I think.' Now, 5 per cent on $400,000 would amount to $20,000.


William Pugsley: My hon. colleague, Mr. Fisher, was either misreported or was in error.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I take this from ' Hansard.' I was not so very far out in my recollection. That $400,000 was only for part of the land.


William Pugsley: Much more than the half-pretty nearly the whole.


William James Roche: The government had a vote last year for additional land. Would the minister inform us what is the total quantity of land?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. There was an exchange apparently with the Canadian Pacific Railway. I think this is a description of the land:
It is composed of the southern fourteen feet of lots 61, 87, 96 and 118, and the northern 52 feet of lots 60 and 88, according to a plan of survey of lot 85, east of Main street, of the parish of St. John, registered in the Winnipeg land titles office, Winnipeg division, as plan 63; and also that portion of lots 95 and 117 of said lot and plan which may he described as follows:	Commencing at the northwest corner of lot 95, thence south along the west boundary of said lot 52 feet; thence east parallel to the south boundary of said lot a distance of 98 feet; thence along a curve to the north of 521 -6 feet, more or less radius to the northeast corner of lot 117; thence westerly along the north boundary of lots 117 and 95 to the place of beginning.


Uriah Wilson: Is this building to be used exclusively for immigration purposes? What length of time are the immigrants allowed to stay in it? Is any portion of the supplies to be furnished by the government other than beds?


William Pugsley: It is to be used exclusively for immigration purposes. As regards the manner and the length of time, that is in the control of the Department of the Interior.
Winnipeg-new immigration building, including additional land, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make payments in connection with the erection of the immigration building at Winnipeg. The building is 200 feet by 61 feet 4 inches. It is four storeys high from the basement. It is built of brick, the roof is covered with copper, the floors are fire-proof, the staircase is of iron, the partitions are covered with iron lath and cement plaster. It is made pretty nearly fire-proof. I may say that the expenditure up to the 31st of December last was $252,585.33.


Uriah Wilson: Does that include the heating apparatus, the furniture and everything connected with the building, or is it only for the building?


William Pugsley: That $252,885 covers everything, fittings and all.


Uriah Wilson: That is a very good reason why the Minister of the Interior should be here. It is not treating this House properly to have any minister absent when supplies are being voted concerning which only he can give the information. The Minister of Public Works cannot give the information I ask because the Minister of the Interior is not here. But these are things we ought to know before we allow the estimates to pass. Wffien an item comes under two departments, both ministers should be present.


William Pugsley: All we are asking for is $2,000 to complete the payment. The information my hon. friend desires can be had when the estimates of the Minister of the Interior come before the committee. What information is it he requires?


Uriah Wilson: Is the building to be used solely for immigration purposes? Does the government furnish any supplies to the immigrants? How long are the immigrants allowed to stay there? Is there any charge in connection with the supplies to immigrants who have the means to pay? The estimates of the Minister of the Interior are usually in block sums-four or five items in all, and we get very little information. If the member interested does not happen to be present, the information is not given. If this item goes through without our getting the information I ask, the chances are we will never get it.


William Pugsley: I can give the practice at St. John and also at Quebec. The right to furnish meals to the immigrants is let by contract, and the meals are supplied at a very small sum above actual cost.


Uriah Wilson: Are none paid for by the government?


William Pugsley: No, unless perhaps in the case of a very poor immigrant.
Winnipeg-new post office, land and building, $100,000.	I


William Pugsley: This is a revote. It is for the erection of a new post office situated on Fourteenth avenue between Garry and Fort streets. It has a frontage of 1.34 feet and a depth of 166 feet. The rear line measures eighty feet in extent. The front portion of the building is to be six storeys high, it has a basement. The total cost, including site, heating, lighting, fittings and furnishing letter boxes will be $774,004.97. There was expended to the 31st December $656,159.97.


William James Roche: When will it be completed?


William Pugsley: It is practically completed now.


William James Roche: Two years ago the minister said it would be completed that year.


William Pugsley: 


Mr. LEFURGEY.: When it|te building is completed, it will not be large enough to accommodate the work required to be carried on.


William Pugsley: Winnipeg is growing so marvellously, it is difficult to anticipate the requirements of the near future. This is a very large building. The lower stories will afford 17,000 superficial feet of space and the upper stories 15,000 feet. The post office alone has 10,000 superficial feet.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: They will have to get additional space.


William Pugsley: They thought years ago that the old post office was large enough.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We are here to think of the future, especially when we are spending millions.


William James Roche: We have heard of the practice in other departments as to the opening of tenders. Would the minister (Mr. Pugsley) explain the practice in his department as it has been and as it is since he became minister!'


William Pugsley: In the advertisement calling for tenders parties are notified to direct their tenders to the secretary of the department. When tenders reach the secretary in ordinary course, they are laid away in the safe. When the time comes for opening them, they are opened in the presence of the deputy minister and the minister.


William James Roche: Not the stenographer?


William Pugsley: No, the deputy minister and the minister.
Winnipeg-postal station ' B,' north of Canadian Pacific Railway track, $35,000.


William Pugsley: I would move that this vote be reduced by $10,000. There is in the vote as it appears a revote of $10,000, which amount was spent during the last fiscal year.


William James Roche: What is the total cost to be?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. The total probable cost including site, heating, electric wiring, fittings and furniture is $76,629.33. The total expenditure to 31st December last is $51,629.33, leaving to complete $25,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to inceme-Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories-'Battleford public building, $7,000.
["What is the total cost to be?\nMr. PUGSLEY'. The total probable cost including site, heating, electric wiring, fittings and furniture is $76,629.33. The total expenditure to 31st December last is $51,629.33, leaving to complete $25,000."]
William Pugsley: This is a revote. It is to make provision for a site and to begin the erection of a public building at Battle-ford for post office, &e. We are negotiating for the site and have sent a representative from the department to Battleford to look over the ground and make a recommendation.


John Barr: What is the building to be used for?


William Pugsley: For a post office, and I understand that the Dominion lands office, telegraph office and immigration office will also be in the building.


Richard Stuart Lake: In which Battleford is the building to be erected?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. The old town of Battle-ford.


Richard Stuart Lake: And negotiations are going on for a site in old Battleford?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the site expected to cost?


William Pugsley: We hope to get a suitable site for $2,500 or $3,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then why this vote for $7,000.
Mr. PUGSLEY". It is hoped to proceed with tile building and do something on it this year.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the total estimated cost, including heating, electric lighting, furniture, &c.?


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that he estimates it at about $35,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are the plans being prepared?


William Pugsley: They have not yet been prepared.


William Humphrey Bennett: I understand the $35,000 estimated is exclusive of the site?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: How long has this item been in the estimates?


William Pugsley: It was in last year, but whether it was in the year before or not I am not informed.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the population of old Battleford, as it is called?


William Pugsley: By the census of 1906 it is 933.


William Humphrey Bennett: And what is the population of the new town of Battleford?


William Pugsley: I have not the figures before me.


John Barr: Is not old Battleford going back?


William Pugsley: The people are very hopeful of its future and it seems to be getting along very well. It has two churches, two hotels, flour mill, sawmill, newspaper and telegraph office. I am not prepared to say that it is going behind; in fact, I do not think that is the case.


William Humphrey Bennett: The building is to cost $35,000 and the site $3,000-$38,000 in all. Does that include every contingency of expenditure?


William Pugsley: That is my information.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems a pretty large amount to spend in a town that has a rival within six or seven miles.


Richard Stuart Lake: The new town of Battleford is probably nearer than that-within two or three miles, if you could go direct across, and I believe there is to be a bridge. The new town has nearly reached the population of the old town. It seems a rather extraordinary proceeding, if the new town is likely to be the larger of the two, to put this building in the old town in preference.


William Pugsley: Battleford seems to be quite an important place. As the hon. member (Mr. Lake) is aware it is perhaps the oldest town in Western Saskatchewan. It has a post of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, it has a land titles office, . an Indian agency. And I have the statement here that the population is now 1,100, which differs a little from the figure according to the census.


William Humphrey Bennett: The census was several years hgo.


William Pugsley: Yes, I am informed that the population now is 1,100.


Richard Stuart Lake: What the minister has said rather gives point to the suggestion that North Battleford is the town in which this building should be placed. These government institutions of which he has spoken are placed in the old town. I find that in 1906 the old town had a population of 933. The new town was not in existence in 1901, but in 1906 it had grown to a population of 824. So the new town has equal claims with the old town to have this government building.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the post office
revenue ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. In the nine months, $3,501. The money orders issued were $26,794, and the money orders paid $31,998. The building will cost about $35,000.
Calgary public building-enlargement for post office and examining warehouse purposes, changes, fittings, &c., $25,000.
Mr, PUGSLEY'. The original building has been found too small, owing to the rapid growth of Calgary, and it has been found necessary to make an addition. The addition is larger than the original building. The contract has been let, and this grant will complete the payments. The amount of the contract was $77,000. There are other contracts for heating, wiring, passenger elevator, and some additional work, amounting to $2,596.



Edmonton public building, $60,000.


William Pugsley: This is to continue the erection of a public building in the town of Edmonton upon a site which was purchased in 1906. The building, which is under contract, will be three stories high with a basement and attic. A portion of the building on the street corner is carried up five stories above the basement. The site cost $20,000. We have paid the contractors $98,720 up to the 31st of December, and there are other expenses in connection with the building, such as surveys, travelling, printing, advertisements, architects' fees and so forth, amounting altogether, including site, to $124,842.67. The contractors are the iMay-Sharp Construction Company. I believe they are giving good satisfaction. The total cost of the building including site, heating, wiring, furniture, will be $285,785.67. It is to be used for a post office, customs house, examining warehouse and weights and measures. The architects were the Ottawa Engineering and Architectural Construction Company.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who comprise that company ?


William Pugsley: The chief architect informs me, Band, Burritt and Meredith. They were paid two per cent for the plans and specifications. We have a clerk of works on the spot.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Why were these plans and specifications not prepared by the architects of the department ?


William Pugsley: This firm was employed because at the time the department was pressed with other work. The clerk of works is Mr. Manson. The chief architect thinks he is getting $4 a day.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That seems a large amount to pay for a site. Who was it bought from ?


William Pugsley: Edmonton is becoming quite a metropolis. The site is a large one, 90 by 100 feet, and was bought from Gar-iepy and Lessard. The land was vacant at the time of the purchase. The property is a corner lot with a frontage of 90 feet on one street and 150 on another.


Richard Stuart Lake: Does this work take up all the time of the clerk of works ?


William Pugsley: Yes, he is supposed to be on the works all the time.
iMr, LAKE. Does the minister think it is good policy to employ a man at a very [DOT] small salary like that to oversee a great public work of this nature ? There must be a great temptation to a man at a very low salary to pass over improper work if approached by the contractor. .


William Pugsley: Of course we have to be guided by the wages that are paid to Mr. PUGSLEY.
inspectors by the wages which are paid to masons and builders. In the east we pay $3 and sometimes $3.50 per day. When we get to Victoria we have to pay $5.50, and in some cases more. In one case on the mainland of British Columbia we have to pay as high as $7 because stone masons and bricklayers get as high as $7 per day. We have been thinking of fixing a scale of wages for the clerks of works in each province equal to the highest fair wage scale of the Department of Labour with respect to the particular work upon which the man employed may be engaged. This man has been doing work for the government for a long period and apparently he has not insisted upon his wages going up proportionately with the wages of other people.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is he a practical man?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. A thoroughly practical man.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is his calling?


William Pugsley: He is a carpenter and builder.


Richard Stuart Lake: It seems to me that we are not proceeding on the right principle. I think that the class of man who is employed to do such responsible work as overlooking the work done by a contractor on a very big undertaking is open to temptation. if he receives the ordinary wages paid to the ordinary workmen on the building, to allow work to be scamped if he is improperly approached by the contractor. On some of these large works a very small amount of work scamped would mean a very large sum of money in the aggregate, and I think we ought to have the very highest class of men employed in overseeing these works. I think that is something that the minister might take into his consideration. Some of the works which have been built by the government of late have not been very satisfactory. We have heard of some of them coming to grief, and it is quite possible that it is attributable to employing men of that class who would consider as a sufficient compensation the ordinary workman's wages.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who inspects the work o.utside of this clerk?


William Pugsley: From time to time an architect is sent from the department to inspect.	,


John Herron: I would like to ask the minister if there are any particular qualifications required for a man to be overseer of a building at the present time. The minister must be aware of the fact that you cannot get to-day a competent foreman to oversee work of that kind for $4 a day. Ordinary carpenters were getting $4 a day all last year in the west. Every man who could handle a saw would get $3.50 and

*8582
$4, and a stonemason would get $6. You could not hire a man in any town in the west for less than that. How do you expect to get a competent man to oversee a $250,000 job at an ordinary workman's wages? I know that, men have been employed to oversee public works who are not competent. Party service is about the only qualification that some have for their appointment. The overseer is on the job and paid every day although the workman is very often off work. That may be some compensation for him.


William Pugsley: Of course, we cannot always be sure that an employee is honest even if we pay him $5 or $6 a day, but we do find that we can get clerks of works who are willing to work for the same wages which those who are actually engaged in the work get. While -the responsibility is greater the work is not of such an arduous character as the work of the stone masons, carpenters and bricklayers. This man who is clerk of works on the Edmonton public building has been acting in that capacity for the government for years. It must be borne in mind that he, having proved himself to be a capable and honest man, as the department thinks, has received steady employment and $4 per day right along, and that is not too bad.


Richard Stuart Lake: Winter and summer?


William Pugsley: Winter and summer. We are fortunate in being able to retain the services of this man at that figure. I think he is just as honest and faithful as he would be if we paid him a dollar a day more.
Estevan land office, $3,000.


William Pugsley: We did away with the project of erecting a public building for a land office at Alameda, and we propose erecting a building of a more expensive character at Estevan, making it a post office and land office as well; so that, this building, it is supposed, will cost about $22,000 when completed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How many of these land offices have been built in Saskatchewan?
'Mr. PUGSLEY. I cannot tell my hon. friend offhand, but we will get the information. [DOT]


Richard Stuart Lake: Have you acquired the site?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: Where about, and what is the price ?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend, perhaps knows the locality. The site is composed of lots 1, 2 and 3, block 43, on the corner of Fourth street and Thirteenth ave., there being a frontage of 75 feet on Fourth street and a depth of 120 feet on Thirteenth 273J
avenue. The price is $2,000. It was purchased from Dr. D. R. Davis. He was acting on behalf of the owners, whose names I do not know.
Humboldt public buildings, $10,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Explain that.
Mr. PUGSLEY, Of this amount $2,000 is a revote. It is to make provision for the erection of a. public building at Huip-boldt for post office purposes, &c. We have not yet obtained a site. We made an agreement to purchase one but the vendors have not so far been able or willing to give title and it is not unlikely we will have to get another site.


William James Roche: What is the population of Humboldt ?


William Pugsley: I have not the population. The postal revenue for nine months of 1907 was, money orders, $15,087 ; money orders paid, $14,883. It is a growing town, a divisional point on the Canadian Northern half-way between Battleford and Dauphin. The cost of the building will probably not exceed $20,000.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would again ask the minister on what principle these buildings are distributed ? I find that Humboldt has a population of 279, but there are other towns in the same district with larger populations such as Davidson, 520; Hanly, 568; and Melthorpe, 351. Why did the minister select Humboldt in this particular case for a public building ?


William Pugsley: It is difficult for me to answer that as the selection was made by my predecessor. Humboldt has been made the location of the Dominion Lands Office with five officers and employees, and it has also been made a customs port of entry so that a public building may reasonably be located in Humboldt.


Richard Stuart Lake: Humboldt is very fortunate indeed, and apparently is getting quite a lot of patronage.


William Pugsley: The site consists of three lots having a frontage of 75 feet on Main street by 132 feet on Franklin street. It is a corner lot. We agreed to pay $3,000, but I regret that the vendors do not seem willing to complete the purchase.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is an absolutely ridiculous price.


William Humphrey Bennett: They know they will get more.
Mr, PUGSLEY. No, they know they will not. In fact we have given them notice that as they have failed to complete the transfer, unless they complete it in ten days the agreement will be cancelled and we will purchase a lot elsewhere.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: To pay $3,000 for a lot 75 by 132 feet is ridiculous.

85S4


Mr. ADAMSON.: Humboldt has a population of from 500 to 600.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not care if it has a thousand.


Alan Joseph Adamson: It makes a difference.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: To pay $3,000 for a site in such a town, is as bad as the Dauphin purchase.


Alan Joseph Adamson: The vendors will not make title.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: From whom was it bought ?


Mr. PUGSLEY H. J.@: McDonald.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is a ridiculous price.
Mr. .1. D. REID. Did the member recommend that price to the government ?


Alan Joseph Adamson: Yes, I recommended the government to close at that price. The vendors asked $4,000, but I advised the government to pay $3,000 and if they could not get it for that to get a lot elsewhere.


William James Roche: Did they know it was to be bought for public purposes ?
Mr, ADAMSON. I presume they did, that the inspector went up there.


Richard Stuart Lake: When the hon. member said that the population was over 500 he was making a very generous estimate.


Alan Joseph Adamson: I have a report from the overseer of the town, the mayor.


Richard Stuart Lake: There are other towns of larger populations in that district and in other districts that are not getting public buildings.


William James Roche: The question of the principle on which these buildings are erected is significantly answered by the buildings iD the Northwest. Public buildings are being erected iu the constituencies represented by our Liberal friends, Messrs. MeCraney, Adamson, Turriff. Oliver, Knowles, Sifton. Burrows, Cyr, Jackson, Crawford and Dr. Cash; while my colleagues on this side, Messrs. Schaffner and Staples and myself from Manitoba have not a public building. We cannot induce the government to spend even $500 to build a shanty to jjrotect the firearms in our town. I think that illustrates the discrimination made, and the fact that the only principle recognized in the erection of these buildings is the principle of patronage to those supporting the government. We have just as important towns to say the least in our constituencies, which are just as deserving of public buildings as other towns, except in the matter of sending a supporter of the government to this House. The hon. minister, who is so politic in some respects, might possible make more headway from a political point of Mr. SCHAFFNER.
view by pursuing a different course. The towTn in which I reside, Minnedosa, is of considerably more importance than Humboldt and several other towns which have been given public buildings. We have there a company of dragoons and a post office, and we at one time had a land office, but we have not been able to induce the government to erect a building.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Will the hon. gentleman give us an idea of what they paid for any other lot of the same size in Humboldt?


Alan Joseph Adamson: I think a statement was sent in and is on file showing the prices of other lots. I am not prepared to admit that the town of Minnedosa is superior tt Humboldt, though it is very much older. Humboldt is in the centre of a very fertile farming district, with a dense population about it and it is growing well.


William James Roche: It has not been pressing its claims so long as some of the other towns I have referred to.


Alan Joseph Adamson: I am not prepared to speak on that point; but there is a customs office and a land office there as well as a post office, and the officers employed in them should be properly housed.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What is the distinguishing feature of this lot ?


Alan Joseph Adamson: It is high and dry and is well situated in the centre of the town, where a public building will be shown off remarkably well.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is a high and dry price, at any state. I would like to ask the minister if his inspector went to inspect that lot ?


Alan Joseph Adamson: Yes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Who is the inspector?


Alan Joseph Adamson: Mr. Mahler.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What did he report ?


Alan Joseph Adamson: He reported favourably.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I would like to call the attention of the public to the purchase of this lot for $3,000 in a town of 500 people, while a lot was bought in the centre of St. Boniface, quite a large city, for $4,000, and a lot in Neepawa for $3,000. This Item should not be allowed to pass.


George di Madeiros Loy: I may say, with regard to Mr. Mahler, who valued the land, that he is a gentleman who has a very high reputation indeed. He was selected as the expert to value the land and buildings of the Dominion government when they were taken over by the province of Saskatchewan, as one in whom both governments might have the utmost confidence. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that one would hardly be warranted in saying

that iu a growing town like Humboldt, which has become a divisional point of the Canadian Northern Railway, which has a land office, and which is the centre of a splendid farming country, $3,000 would he an excessive price to pay for a corner lot equivalent to three 25-foot lots at $1,000 each. At all events, we have the fact that while the department has been urging the vendors to complete the sale, and has been ready to hand over the money, they have declined to do so, and we have been compelled to notify them that unless they complete the title in ten days, we will cancel the offer and look elsewhere.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the name of this place prior to the last general election?


Alan Joseph Adamson: Humboldt.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have the election returns, but I do not And a polling place of the name of Humboldt.
Mr. ADAMSON1. There is no polling place, because the town was not commenced, or the railway built.


William Humphrey Bennett: I find in the election returns that at the polling place of Bonne Madone there were 31 votes for the hon. gentleman and none for his opponent; at Schafer there were 41 votes for the hon. gentleman and none for his opponent ; at Wakwa lake there were 17 votes for the hon. gentleman and none for his opponent; at Crooked lake there were thirty votes for the hon. gentleman and none for his opponent. Crooked lake, thirty for himself and none for his opponent. Trojca, forty-six for himself, none for his opponent. Halzxs, one hundred and nineteen for himself, none for his opponent. Kolonzia, one hundred and twenty-three for himself, three for his opponent. Fish creek, ninety-three for himself, none for his opponent. After the magnificent votes the hon. gentleman got at those different places,-and I may say too there seemed to be no spoiled ballots there, probably owing to the fact that the deputy marked them


Alan Joseph Adamson: I do not think there is any reason for such an insinuation.


William Humphrey Bennett: The names are rather indicative of a foreign element. .


Alan Joseph Adamson: Yes, and they are there still.


William Humphrey Bennett: No doubt that is a comfort to the hon. gentleman. Why should these places, with only 500 or 600 people, be given public buildings, -when these other places which poll 123 votes for the hon. gentleman to six against him, such as Kolonzia. has gone ? What is the population of Kolonzia?


Alan Joseph Adamson: Kolonzia is not a town but a township. There are a good many more than 100 votes at that place now.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I have listened to some of the most reckless statements with regard to the expenditure of public money in that western country, coming from the Minister of Public Works. One would hardly expect a man in his position to make such statements. He is satisfied to give away the peoples' money to the constituencies only which support the government. When charged that only such constituencies may expect the expenditure of public money the* hon. minister smiles and says that is practically where he intends to put it. We find the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) showing that there are a dozen other towns, with two or three times the population, urgently in need of public buildings, but not even a shed will be offered them because they are represented by opposition members. I feel compelled to make my protest against the use of public money in this way. The minister is using the money of the -whole country and not of only one political party, and when I see how he is distributing that money to bribe the constituencies I cannot help entering my protest.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: turn. It was too much, he said, to give in the form of an answer to a question. I find that afterwards a motion was made for this return but up to the present it has not been brought down. It is like some other returns moved for, with reference to which the order of the House has been entirely disregarded.


William Pugsley: On the statement my hon. friend makes, no doubt he was quite right in saying what he did about commissions; but knowing, as I do, that 2 per cent was the amount paid Mr. Riopelle, the hon. gentleman will understand how astonished I was at his statement. The land agents would only make a commission of $12,000 if the properties cost $600,000 whereas at 5 per cent they would get $30,000. I wish to express regret if I said anything which hurt, my hon. friend's feelings. I certainly had no intention of doing so and I think that the hon. gentleman in turn should withdraw the expression ' rude ' which he applied to me. The whole thing is a mutual mistake, and that is owing to the fact that there is an error in the ' Hansard ' as to the amount of the commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no objection in the world to make any amends due the hon. Minister of Public Works. I said what I thought as absolutely true and which I had good grounds for believing was true. In view of the explanation made by the hon. minister, I accept his withdrawl.


John Herron: It is astonishing how liberal the government are in spending money in those constituencies which return supporters of the government. Here we are spending in a town of 500 or 600 people some $20,000 to $25,000 on a public building. I have seven or eight towns in my riding, which never had a public building, and are just as prosperous as the one referred to, and a number of them have 3,000, 4,000 and some have 5,000 population. And I have no doubt that the post office and customs revenue are double the amount which they reach in those other small places. Yet no attempt has been made to supply these places with public buildings. It is evident that the government is liberal only in the case of towns which elect government supporters. Take the two southern constituencies in Alberta : The constituency of Calgary receives only the repairs of a few buildings that were constructed years ago.


William Pugsley: We are spending a good deal of money in Calgary. We are putting an addition to the public building there larger than the original.


John Herron: And in my own constituency, the first settled in the whole province, one of the earliest settlements in the Northwest Territories, we are not getting a single dollar of public money spent. The Mr. SPROULE.
fact is, that is merely a way of giving patronage to the people who ' vote right.' The government should surely have a better method of handing out public money.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the total cost of this building including site, lighting, heatings and fittings ?


William Pugsley: Between $22,000 and $25,000, apart from the site.
.Mr. ARMSTRONG. For a place with 500 people ?


William Pugsley: By the time the building is erected, it will be more.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have been looking over the reports concerning piers built by the Public Works Department at three places on lake Huron. If I had time to go into these matters, I could give the minister facte to show that his department is run in a most reckless manner. Apparently, the ministers in charge have allowed the affairs of the department to be run practically for party purposes. And the present minister appears to be going along in the same way, simply asking for money to spend in the ridings of members on his own side. But the money the minister is spending is the money of the people of the Dominion, not the money of one party.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where is the thing going to stop ? We are putting up this building in a little village of 500 people. In fact, there is no authority for the statement that there is even that many. The hon. member for the district (Mr. Adamson) has not said there are 500 people. Does the hon. gentleman reside in this village ?


Alan Joseph Adamson: No, but I have been there frequently, and can vouch for there being at least 500 people. It is the centre of a very large district. The constituency is over a hundred miles square and has a great number of settlers.


William Humphrey Bennett: But they do not all go to this post office.


Alan Joseph Adamson: No, this is for a land office and customs office. The land office, of course, has a great number of valuable _ documents, and these are not properly ' housed at the present time. This is for the use of the whole district and not for Humboldt alone. There is not a public building within 150 miles to the east of us or nearer than Prince Albert, nor is there one nearer Battleford on the west, which is 90 miles.
It seems to me any person who considers the matter fairly will see that this affords accommodation for a large number of people and in an important district.


William Humphrey Bennett: If we are to erect a public building in every village of 500 population, what will become of the credit of the country ?



Alan Joseph Adamson: This is for the accommodation of the 25,000 people in the district.


William Humphrey Bennett: Of course, there must be people surrounding a village, or there would not be a village. I should think the Minister of Finance would sit up nights wondering what is to become of the credit of the country if this kind of things goes on.


William Pugsley: And yet hon. gentlemen on the other side are urging us .to bud., more.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, they are urging that some prudence and foresight should be displayed and that the public money should not be spent on the principle of party favouritism. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) was heralded by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Fowler) who told us that the minister would be the greatest spendthrift the Dominion had ever known. The hon. gentleman is certainly making good. And his reputation is in his own province seems to have been justified, because they are finding there that a province that was supposed to be on an even keel is millions behind.


William Pugsley: Absurd ! There is no province that is in a better financial position than New Brunswick.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is what the hon, gentleman says, but he cannot make the people of that province believe it.


William Pugsley: They do.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman says that in his own province they have confidence in him. He must be mesmerized; he is suffering under a hallucination.


William Pugsley: We shall see when the


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: There ought to be some way to prevent an expenditure that is so absolutely ridiculous and extravagant as this. The state of affairs indicated by the hon. member for Marquette is bad enough. It is bad enough to have this large expenditure on public buildings in different towns to go on without any principle to guide it. But it is still worse that this country should be called upon to pay $3,000 for a corner lot and two other lots in a town of 500 people. I cannot understand how men would ever have the cheek to ask that amount of money. A fair value for that corner lot, I would say, is about $500 and the other two are worth $200 each, and that is more than would be asked in any town in southern Manitoba. Southern Manitoba is a much better district and much more thickly populated, and you can buy a lot in any town in southern Manitoba from Winnipeg to the border of the province for less than half that money. If there are any means I can use, or any words I can say, to prevent such a reckless and extravagant transaction being put through by this government I want to be considered as having used it and as having said it. This is a parallel case to Dauphin.


William Pugsley: Has the hon. gentleman ever been in Humboldt and does he know what lots have been selling for recently in Humboldt ?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I have never been in Humboldt, and I have never been to the north pole either, but I know pretty well what land is worth in any town in Manitoba. * I would like to know if the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Adamson) can give to this House any reason why lots in the town of Humboldt should be worth more than town lots in southern Manitoba?
time comes.


William Humphrey Bennett: The time has passed. The hon. gentleman certainly came back from the general elections in New Brunswick in a very dazed condition, and he has not recovered from his daze yet. And let the hon. gentleman remember that he is carrying out this policy himself. He is the one who goes to council and recommends that these expenditures should be made. Of course, he has his colleagues in the same boat with him, but he is primarily responsible. While it is true that we cannot prevent them going on, we can enter our protest against this disgraceful expenditure-that is the right word I believe-of $25,000 in a village like this.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Is the minister willing to take responsibility before this House and country of paying $3,000 for this site ?


William Pugsley: I have to. The agreement was made, and I propose carrying it out unless they fail to make good. I have given notice that unless they make good within ten days, we will buy elsewhere.


Alan Joseph Adamson: I do not know anything about the value of town lots in Manitoba, but I do know their value in Humboldt ?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If the hon. gentleman says that a lot 75 by 132 feet in the town of Humboldt, with a population of 500, is worth $3,000, I take it upon myself to say that he does not know anything about the value of land. It is not worth that money, and he cannot find any valuators in Manitoba or any other country to say it is. I can ask for no better instance to explain to the people on a public platform how it is that public expenditure has been increasing so rapidly in this country. We have the same thing over again as occurred in Dauphin. In connection with all these public buildings we find this graft going on and it is high time to stop it. Perhaps the minister is not in a position to know the value of this land, nevertheless I hold him responsible.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentlemen think it is right to make assertions of I graft without the slightest evidence?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not suppose graft is a parliamentary word, and I withdraw it.


Alan Joseph Adamson: There is no ground for the hon. gentleman's statement whatever, there is not a tittle of evidence for any thing he has said. I can tell the'committee that there have been town lots, to my personal knowledge, sold for $1,000 in Humboldt before there was a building erected in the place.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: How long ago?


Alan Joseph Adamson: Within four years.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What makes this land so valuable?


Alan Joseph Adamson: Because it is a growing town.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Five hundred people; talk about being a growing town 1 I say again that the hon. gentleman can give this committee no satisfactory reason why town lots in Humboldt are worth any more or nearly as much as town lots in Manitoba towns. If the minister wants to protect the financial interests of this country he ought not to sanction a vote like this".


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: A few moments ago I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe and the reply of the minister in regard to his own province. I would like to read for the minister's benefit what I find in to-day's evening 'Journal':
Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 15.-Hon. J. X. Flemming began his first budget speech in the legislature yesterday. He made some interesting statements. The old government had estimated $8,000 surplus for the year ending October 31 last. He took exception to the wav this was arrived at, and said that juggling with the accounts was practiced throug-out to make it possible, in the words of an hon. gentleman not now present, for the government to come out each year with a ' tidy surplus.'
To figure out the fallacious surplus of last year, the government not only had to leave their overdraft unpaid, but they had to swell the income by holding open the books for the receipt of money for over a month after the close of the year.
A statement bv Mr. Flemming which aroused much comment, was that that very afternoon a bill had come from the Intercolonial Railway for $47,496.34 for rails said to have been supplied the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company in the year 1902. Here was an account out of sight for six years, though an order in council authorizes its payment. To-day it stands unpaid, with interest on it to the amount of over $8,000. What kind of miserable system had they to admit of such a condition of affairs?
Mr. Flemming figured the total of actual and contingent liabilities of the province at $10,253,193.


William Pugsley: That is an absolutely false and misleading statement.
Mr. PUGSLEY


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What I fear is that when we come to investigate the expenditures in the Public Works Department we will find them carried along in the same old slipshod, careless manner as they have been for the last few years.


William Pugsley: I do not suppose it is proper to bring into the discussion of an item like this things that have occurred in the New Brunswick legislature and questions of provincial politics. But ns the hon. gentleman has done so, I simply wish to say that the article which he has quoted is absolutely misleading. It refers to a claim from the government railway for rails said to have been supplied to the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, and the paper says the accounts have been hidden. Nothing of the kind. The accounts have been rendered by the Railway Department each year and there has been a standing claim against the Dominion government for double subsidy which would pay the contra account of the Dominion government for rails. The statement contained in the newspaper which my hon. friend has read from is absolutely misleading and is on a par with statements which are being made in the New Brunswick legislature in regard to myself and others who have left that legislature, who are not there to answer, and which are absolutely false and misleading.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the people ever send them back to answer them ?


William Pugsley: The people have sent me here, they have sent me notwithstanding the objections made on the other side, and they have sent me by acclamation.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the hon. member for Humboldt if he has any property there ?


Alan Joseph Adamson: Not one foot of property, and never had.


John Dowsley Reid: The government, in favouring these small places, are practically injuring real estate along the line, cause the erection of a public building creates the idea that these are to be the central points. The government are going a little too fast in making an expenditure of this kind in a small place like this. I certainly do not believe that land values in a place like Humboldt are as great as the minister states they paid for this lot. '
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Not paid but agreed to pay, providing they complete the title.


John Dowsley Reid: I am taking it for granted that the purchase will be carried out if they complete the title. I have not heard of prices such as those which have been paid at Humboldt. A third of the amount paid would be a very large I price in a place like that and that is dis-

counting the future to a very great extent.


William James Roche: If hon. members on this side of the House do not bring the claims of their respective constituencies before the Minister of Public Works, and if they subsequently bring them to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, they are at once confronted with the declaration : This is the first time that I have heard of it. The hon. minister has been Minister of Public Works for some time and he says : This is the first time that the hon. member has brought this to my attention. He tries to leave the impression upon the country that we are derelict in our duty, that we have not been looking after the interests of our constituencies, whereas if we, session after session, impress upon the minister the desirability of putting up certain public buildings in our towns he accuses us of ddsiring to increase the expenditure of the country. It seems almost impossible to please the hon. gentleman.


William Pugsley: Rather it is the inconsistency of the hon. gentleman to which I
dir-ct the attention of the House.


William James Roche: 
Alan Joseph Adamson: I was not the intermediary. It was referred to me by the department and an offer was made of $4,000. I do not know the owner of the property, never saw him, never met him and I never wrote to him or he to me. I thought that the price was too high and eventually the department got the land for $1,000 less.


William James Roche: The parties knew that it was required for government purposes.


Alan Joseph Adamson: They could not help knowing. A government inspector was sent from the department.


William James Roche: The Minister of Finance has stated that it is a well known
fact that if parties know that property is desired by the government they raise the prices. No doubt that is true and I think the system of purchasing land should be changed. In the town where I reside with nearly four times the population of Humboldt I guarantee that on the main street you could get a lot with a 60 feet frontage for $1,500. To say that in a town of 500 population it is necessary to pay $3,000 is ridiculous.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I would like to ask that this item be allowed to stand till the minister takes a little pains to find out the facts. I never expected to run up against anything like this. It is beyond any decency and I am going to ask that the item stand.


William Pugsley: I do not see any advantage in allowing it to stand. I told th * hon. gentleman that before I became minister this was carefully inquired into. The department sent one of the most reliable experts in land value in the west, a man of the highest character, Mr. Mahler, a gentleman who was employed by both governments, and who valued some of the buildings which were taken over by the Saskatchewan government, to value this land. An agreement has been entered into to pay $3,000. The lot is 75 by 132, it is a corner lot, centrally situated, and I see no reason why the item should stand. I will get any information in the department with reference to the matter and I will submit it and it will be open to the hon. gentleman to discuss it at another time.


George Oscar Alcorn: Did this commissioner make inquiries on the spot or look for any other lots and get prices on them ?


William Pugsley: That is what I understand he did : I understand he compared prices with other lots.


George Oscar Alcorn: What were the prices of other lots ?


William Pugsley: I cannot say to-night; it is three years ago.


Mr. WM. JACKSON.: I have a word to say in reference to this kind of public improvement. It is pretty hard to build a harbour except where there is navigation. But in erecting a post office or public building it seems to be the kind of public improvement that you can pass around any place. I do not think that the members on the government side should try to make the people believe that the money that is expended on these public buildings all comes from the Liberal party. It comes out of the funds of the Dominion of Canada. I know of a constituency in which there is no public building although it is one of the oldest constituencies in the Dominion of Canada one. of the most fertile and one which has a very lively town in

the centre of it. Unfortunately for that town and county-or rather fortunately- the sitting member is a gentleman on this side of the House. At a meeting held there not long ago this question came up and one of the speakers I believe, the ex-president of the Liberal association, said : The present member for this riding has asked for a post office but cannot get one. What you want to do is to send a Liberal to Ottawa and you will get your post office. Graft or intimidation of this kind is used to the utmost extent in the erection of public buildings. It is a bid to get a few parliamentary votes, but I have to tell you that the people of that constituency have had that gauntlet thrown down to them for the last twenty years that if they elected a Liberal they would get a post office. I say they are entitled to that building and they resent that base attempt to bribe them in their franchise by telling them to vote for this government or they will never get a post office. I have heard that statement from a Liberal. The people of Ontario and of that constituency denounce that kind of thing. We will not stand for it, we will do without our post office rather than sacrifice our franchise.


Mr. TURRIFF.: If they were entitled to it for twenty years why did not your friends give it the last eight years they were in power ?


William Jackson: What I said was absolutely true.


John Gillanders Turriff: Why did not your friends build it?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: They were spending $40,000,000 and you are spending $130,000,-
000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: You will find that post offices were not being erected in such small towns as they are now erected in.


John Gillanders Turriff: In many western towns, even where the population is not very large, the post office revenue is much larger in proportion to the population than in the east. This building will be a post office, land office and customs house.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does that make any difference in the value of the site ?


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. gentleman is aware that in many small towns in the west of from 500 to 1,000 people if you go outside the main portion of the town you can buy lots for $100 or $200, but in the centre of the town the lots sell for a very high price. I understand there was discussion with reference to the town of Dauphin and I was told by a gentleman who has lived there a great deal and knows it very well that a lot had been bought for $11,000 by a private individual for his own purposes, not for the government.


William Jackson: 


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: How big was the lot?


John Gillanders Turriff: 44 feet wide. The government site was purchased for $6,000 for a 75-foot lot, and the $11,000 lot was within 300 feet of it. I venture to say that in Humboldt there may be a dozen lots right in the centre of the town that you could not buy for less than $1,000 apiece, the price being paid here. I do not think it is an out of the way price. It may be a little high but in many towns of from 500 to 1,000 people, $3,000 for three lots, one of them a corner lot, would not be considered high.


William Humphrey Bennett: Would that be a fair criterion for the prices of lots in Blairmore?


John Gillanders Turriff: Perhaps the hon. member knows more than I do about that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I was not as deep under the surface in that transaction as the hon. member.


John Gillanders Turriff: If the hon. member insinuates that I was interested in the Blairmore townsite he is altogether mistaken, and it is a cowardly thing for him to do, but it is what you might expect from the hon. gentleman.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. member knows towns in his own constituency and in mine better entitled to buildings than this, and can he give reasons for the erection of a public building in this town and not in the others ?


Alan Joseph Adamson: I have given reasons. I have said that lots were sold at $1,000 apiece before there was a building there. Before there was a town, lots sold at $1,000.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Why are they sold so high ?


Alan Joseph Adamson: Because the people wanted them, it is a case of demand and supply.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Does the hon. member mean to say that anywhere in the western country in a town of 500, land is worth $250 a foot. That is what your lot cost in Dauphin.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. member heard the same statement as I did in the corridors made by a gentleman from Dauphin that a lot within 350 feet of the lot sold to the government had been bought by a private company there for $11,000 and the lot was only 44 feet wide.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I heard it but I did not believe it, but Sir, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) has said that right in the centre of the town which is a good town, one of the best in the Northwest, lots can be bought for $1,500.


Mr. KNOWLES.: Is there any reason why the hon. gentleman should believe one statement rather than the other?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I accept the statement of the hon. member for Marquette.


Alan Joseph Adamson: Knowing nothing whatever about the subject.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to say that. I say there is not a member from the west on the other side of the House who will say that these three lots, one of them a corner lot, in the small town of Humboldt, are worth 83,000.


William James Roche: The best way to test the accuracy of my statement is for the hon. minister to put in the supplementary estimates $1,500 for the lot, and I will produce it.


Alan Joseph Adamson: Without attempting to cast any reflections upon the town the hon. gentleman represents, I might say that it Is on a side line, it is an old town, and it Is not a divisional point.


William James Roche: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. It is a divisional point.


Alan Joseph Adamson: It is not on the main line of a railway.


William James Roche: It will be on the main line of a railway to Edmonton.


Alan Joseph Adamson: Humboldt is a divisional point on the main line of the railway. The price of land there is governed by demand and supply, like any other commodity, and I can assure the committee that town lots of 25 feet frontage were changing hands at $1,000 each before there was a building in the town. We cannot account for these things, but such is the case.
Mr. SPROtJLE. Why do you pay such a price when you can get the accommodation for the post office to-day for a rent of $75 a year?


Alan Joseph Adamson: They are paying as much more for the land office and possibly as much more for the custom house for buildings entirely unsuitable for the purposes for which they are used.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Weil, admit that you pay three times as much, it would amount to only $225 a year. There are many places yielding a revenue of over $2,000 a year which have no post office at all.


Alan Joseph Adamson: I admit that there are places that should have post office buildings which have not. This is not only for a post office, but for a land office, and it is particularly important that we should have a place for the safe keeping of the records of the land office.
Mr. SPROtJLE. You could build a fireproof registry office for $3,000. In Ontario and other provinces you will find villages yielding a revenue of twice or three
or four times as much as Humboldt, and yet they are not getting a post office or applying for one. It does not seem to me to be defensible to spend such large amounts for public buildings in small new places and to neglect places which are two or three times as large.


Alan Joseph Adamson: In the land office
there are six people employed, in the custom house two, and in the post office two, making ten public servants who have to be accommodated.


Richard Stuart Lake: One point that should not be overlooked is that after you buy a site at a very high price in a new town in a new district and put up an expensive building, you may find in a short time that the town may sink to nothing, and you may have to move the land office and other buildings somewhere else. I remember very well, on the line where my hon. friend from East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) used to live, the land office was moved successively from Cannington to Alameda, Oxbow and Estevan. There were four moves, and there would have been a corresponding waste of so many public buildings if this policy had been carried out in those early days. I think it is a mistake to jump into a new town when it is just on the boom and put up a public building. The people may flock out as quickly as they flocked in, and you may find in the end that the buildings may be all waste.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. gentleman has given one very good reason why a land office should be built. He has instanced the land office at Cotran district. It was first established at Carlyle, where I lived somewhere about 1882 or 1883. It was moved from Carlyle from lack of accommodation and because there was better accommodation up at Cannington. A few years later it was moved from Cannington on account of lack of accommodation. It was moved to Oxbow temporarily. From there it was moved to Alameda. From Alameda it was moved, because of lack of accommodation, to Estevan on account of the latter being so much nearer to the great bulk of land available for homestead entry and because it was the junction of two railways and much more convenient for the immigrants to make entries. But the main reason why the land office has been moved around so often has been lack of accommodation. If there had been proper accommodation at Carlyle in the first place, the chances are it would never have been moved,


Richard Stuart Lake: The very fact that it has been moved shows that the new places were very much more convenient for the purposes of a land office. The hon. gentleman himself admitted that it was moved to Estevan because it was nearer the; centre of operation.


John Gillanders Turriff: And because there was no accommodation at the other places.


Richard Stuart Lake: And because the people to be served In this new district would have to go so much further to do their land business.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: If the minister has a conscience, and I think he has, this discussion should result in a great deal of good to this country. In my judgment the prices paid for these lots are absurd. I am quite willing to sanction the erection of public buildings throughout the whole Dominion, so far as they can be built by the Public Works Department, so long as the money is properly spent, but I will not approve of the purchase of lots at such high prices as those shown to have been paid. It seems absurd to pay $6,000 for a lot where there is not a tow'n but only the site of a town. That is simply paying an inflated price. There is no reason why the government should pay such exorbitant prices. Rather than pay such prices, the minister should refuse to supply the building. I can take you into many flourishing towns in Ontario where you can get the building lots very much cheaper. I want to refer to the town of Sandwich, where a gentleman purchased 208 feet on the main street for $2,000. Sandwich is one of the oldest towns in Ontario.


William Pugsley: Was it bought at ordinary sale ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Yes.


William Pugsley: Would you not say that was very cheap ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: It is about the price you can get lots for in any town of that size throughout the Dominion except in places in the west where the prices are inflated and exorbitant. The man who purchased that lot for $2,000 sold the half of it to the government for $1,700.


William Pugsley: The lot sold the government was 104 feet for $1,700. That was not out of the way.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: That would look fairly reasonable compared with $3,000 for a lot in the western country.


John Gillanders Turriff: Three lots.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Judge them by the feet. You get 108 feet for $1,700. There is not a town in this Dominion which would not give the lot in order to have a public building. I think myself that the government should buy their lots but only pay reasonable prices. The minister ought to lay down some policy with regard to the erection of public buildings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are not charged with the responsibiliy.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: The Posmaster General lays down a policy so far as free delivery of the mails is concerned. There must be so much revenue and so much population. I would not have the nerve to ask for a $30,000 public building for a place with 500 of a population. There should be some policy laid down. Make the population 1,500 or 1,000 or 2,000 and take the revenue into consideration. Then you will have something substantial to go on.


William Pugsley: Would you give a public building to every town having that population ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: -Always taking into consideration the revenue and the customs. I put in a claim the other day for a public building. I advocated a public building for the town of Tilbury and the minister kindly said he would take my application into his consideration.
Maple Creek public building, $20,000.	1


William Humphrey Bennett: Have you bought the site ?


William Pugsley: The property is situated on the comer of Gaspard street. It is 150 feet by 130. The building will be a two story brick building with stone foundation. Dimensions 59 feet by 54.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the price of the lot?


William Pugsley: It is a government site


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the population of the place?


William Pugsley: According to the last census, 687.


William Humphrey Bennett: What w-ill be the total cost, everything included?


William Pugsley: Including everything, $32,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What railway is this town on?


William Pugsley: On the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I saw Maple Creek ten years ago and admired the town site at that time. I had the pleasure of seeing it again last season. It looks to me as if it ought to be an important town, but it seemed to me that it was about the same size when I saw it last season as it was on the occasion of my first visit. This would indicate that some of the western towns do not go ahead as some of their enthusiastic admirers seem to think.


William Pugsley: I was in hopes the other Mr. PUGSLEY. The postal revenue is side would lay down the basis.	$2,424. Apparently Maple Creek does more


Richard Stuart Lake: business than many towns of larger population.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the centre of an important ranching district.


William Pugsley: Yes.
Medicine Hat public building, $22,000.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Of this $15,000 is a revote. This is to complete the building.


William Humphrey Bennett: What will be the total cost?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Including everything, $17,108.06.
Mr, BENNETT. When will it be finished?


William Pugsley: It should have been finished on December 4 last. It is now about ready for the roof ; there has been delay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the contract let by tender?


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: I believe the site that is being bought at Prince Albert for a penitentiary is admirably well suited for that purpose. We have purchased from different parties lots of 183 acres, 165 acres, 125 acres and 174 acres. The total cost is $30,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where is it located?


William Pugsley: It is within the boundaries of Prince Albert. I am told that it is a very desirable property.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Better cut it up and sell it for post office sites. If you get prices such as you paid in Humboldt you will make money.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the contract let?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. No. The plans have not been prepared yet.


William Humphrey Bennett: And no steps will be taken under this vote to construct the building ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. I should suppose not. We might prepare plans and something might be done, but I am not really prepared to say.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What will be done in the meantime with the land that has been bought?


William Pugsley: It will be left. I understand that the Minister of Justice is of the opinion that this will be needed for the purposes of a penitentiary within a short time. I am told that the site is exceedingly well adapted for the purpose.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What is the population of Prince Albert?


William Pugsley: I have not that information before me, but I should think it would be about 5,000.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: It seems to me that this 640 acres of land at $30,000 within the town site of Prince Albert is not out of the way. It figures out at about $47 an acre. There is a lesson here for some of the hon. gentlemen who have been claiming $1,000 a lot in smali towns.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it necessary to have 640 acres for a penitentiary? Is there any other place in Canada where the penitentiary has half that?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. We are urged to make a further purchase.
Mr. s. .T. JACKSON. In my constituency we have the Stony Ylountain penitentiary with 640 acres.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is all rock.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: There are 40 acres of rock where the building is. And, if I mistake not, besides what I have stated, they have 240 acres of hay land.


William Humphrey Bennett: No contract will be entered into under this vote ?


William Pugsley: Not for a building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see what you need so much land for unless you are going to speculate in it.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. At the penitentiary in Dorchester, N.B., they have, I think, 700 acres.


Samuel Jacob Jackson: With a couple of hundred convicts, you can work a lot of land.
Regina post office, custom house, &c., $88,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the public building. It is on the corner of 11th avenue and Scarth street.
air. SPROULE. What is the total estimated cost ?
air. PUGSLEY. Including every thing, $212,565.87. It is to be used for post office and customs house. Regina is a rapidly growing town.


Richard Stuart Lake: Could the minister give us any information about the site and the price ?
air. PUGSLEY'. The purchase was made from the Knox Presbyterian Church of Regina, at a cost of $10,000.
Saskatoon public building, $15,000.
air. PUGSLEY. This is under contract. The total cost including site, heating, electric wiring, is $90,614. We paid $9,000 for the site, which is situated on the corner of Second avenue and Twenty-first street. The building is to have a frontage of 64 feet by

72. It is to be used for a land office, customs, inland revenue, post office and weights and measures.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman's predecessor claimed that this building would cost in the neighbourhood of $42,000 or $43,000.


William Pugsley: That was an under estimate. Mr. Stewart is the clerk of works; he gets $4 per day. The contract was let on the 27th of June, 1907, and calls for completion on the 1st of April, 1909. The amount of the contract is $64,500.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where do the other $26,000 come in ?


William Pugsley: That is made up by the boilers for heating, the site, survey, legal expenses, printing, advertisements, heating, electric wiring, fixtures, fittings, furniture, sidewalks, fences, superintendence and contingencies.
Yorkton public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: The site cost $4,000, and is 100 feet by 120. The population of Yorkton by the last census was 1,363. The contract has not yet been let. The chief architect has not made the plans yet, but I presume it will be a building like at Dauphin, running from $30,000 to $35,000, exclusive of the land, probably.


William James Roche: Yorkton is a thriving towm. I think this price is about $40 a foot, which is exactly the price paid for the lot in Humboldt. But Yorkton has-a population three times that of Humboldt, and lots in Yorkton should be much more valuable than Humboldt.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will we take up on Monday ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it was understood that the debate on the Election Bill was to be resumed. I did not ask the Prime Minister before he left, but I think that is the understanding. If we resume Supply, it will be with the estimates for Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 18, 1908. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 167) respecting the Phoenix Assurance Company, Limited.-Mr. E. M. Macdonald.
William Pugsley: Bill (No. 166) to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act, in so far as the same affects the province of Nova Scotia.-Mr. Aylesworth.


YUKON ACT AMENDENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 169) to amend the Yukon Act. >
Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. member be good enough to give an explanation ?


Frank Oliver: The Bill is very short. It contains three principal provisions. One is to provide for an entirely elective council for the Yukon Territory. Another is to provide for an audit of the public accounts of the Yukon Territory by the Auditor General's office. The third is in regard to the office of public administrator of the estates of deceased persons in the Yukon Territory, to provide for security and duties and an audit of his accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
QUEiSTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. BERGERON.
On the orders of the day being called :
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I rise to a question of privilege. In the Regina ' Leader,' which has been placed in my hands, I find an article concerning myself to which I desire to draw the attention of the House. I shall not read the whole article, as it contains matters which are a subject of discussion which I do not want to take up w'ith that paper, but I shall read the portion of the article which I wish to contradict, and which deals with a matter of fact. The part to which I object is as follows :-
All Canada knew, moreover, that in the Prince Albert by-eleetion, Mr. Hanltain and Mr. Bradshaw were doing their utmost to stir up anew all the anti-Catholio prejudices on the autonomy school clause, and were making every possible use and abuse of the text of Mr Turgeon's nationality and religion. Knowing all this, Mr. Bergeron deliberately went to Prince Albert on the eve of that byelection, stood deliberately on the same platform with Mr. Haultain and Mr. Bradshaw in a campaign meeting and did deliberately all he could to procure Mr. Turgeon's defeat and Mr. Bradshaw's election on a platform conceived in anti-Catholic prejudice and nothing else. So entirely did Mr. Bergeron identify himself with the anti-Catholio candidate in Prince Albert and wish for Mr. Turgeon's defeat, that on the following evening at Rosthern he publicly referred to Mr. Bradshaw as ' our condidate ' and gloated over his possible election. Mr. Bergeron's championship of the minority is indelibly besmirched with shameless insincerity.

I desire to say that there is not one word of truth in the whole of the part of the article which I have read. I was not on the platform with any of the gentlemen mentioned. I never said one word, directly or indirectly about the local elections and I never called Mr. Bradshaw or anybody else ' my candidate,' I may say that both of us, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and myself, kept scrupulously out of the legal fight. We spoke of nothing but federal issues.


ALLEGED IMMIGRATION FRAUDS AT HALIFAX.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) whether it is correct, as stated in the press that a Mr. Joseph Bernstein, who, I think, was an interpreter at Halifax, has been dismissed as the result of an investigation held recently. I would also ask whether or not the same'commissioner investigated any other matter-whether there has been any investigation into the circumstances which were commented on in the press with regard to certain facts disclosed in the police court in London some two or three months ago.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior?. The complaints against Mr. Bernstein have been fully investigated and the result has been the production of a great deal of conflicting evidence. If the House desires, I shall lay a report of the investigation on the table. The conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer was that although the charges against Mr. Bernstein were not fully substantiated, it was a question whether the amount of suspicion which had been engendered against him had not done away with his usefulness. I do not know what my hon. friend would do if he had such a report presented to him, but I must say it left me in a somewhat undecided frame of mind. With regard to the Dickey matter, we have had several inquiries concerning it which I am not in a position to place before the House, but so far as I have beee able to ascertain yet, there has been nothing disclosed beyond what has already been published. That is to say, we have not been able to substantiate the more extreme charges which were made against Dr. Dickey. He has offered an explanation of his conduct, and I have not been able to overthrow that explanation although I have examined it as carefully as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood the hon. minister said that the same commissioner was investigating both matters.


Frank Oliver: No. Perhaps I did say that the same commissioner would investigate both, but what I wish to say now is that I had a separate investigation made apart from that altogether.


Robert Laird Borden: That has not been concluded ?


Frank Oliver: It has, but it is of a character which I would not feel warranted in placing before the House. It was an entirely confidential investigation. The investigation which was made by the officer who inquired into the case of Bernstein was on the surface. He took what information he could which was open to the public.


THE ALGOMA STEEL COMPANY.
Robert Laird Borden: Has the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals been directed to the fact that he Algoma Steel Company has stopped operations for the present and that the stoppage is said to be due to some extent to the lack of orders. I would also ask whether the minister has under 'consideration the possibility of placing further orders with the company in order that work might be resumed whether these orders might come from the Intercolonial or the Transcontinental Railway Commission.


Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals. Of course the consideration of any large work such as that would have to depend on our getting the cash to carry it on. The difficulty in the Soo works has been brought to the attention of the Railway Department. As far as the Intercolonial Railway is concerned, I have not been considering the purchase of any rails from the Soo industry, but the question is under consideration with the Transcontinental Railway Commission to see whether anything can be done to relieve the situation.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sorry to hear . that the country is in so bad a condition financially as the minister seems to suggest.


STRIKE AT OWEN SOUND.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Lemieux) what steps have been taken in connection with the strike at Owen Sound ?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Minister of Labour).: I have not yet received any report from the officers as regards this riot-
I do not know that I should call it a strike -which has taken place at Owen Sound. My information is that there was no strike in the proper sense of the word. I am informed that there was no engagement by the company and therefore no employer and no employee, and the law could not be applied. That is my own private information. I have no official information. I have asked the Deputy Minister of Labour to prepare a report. If my hon. friend will call my attention to this riot a little later, I may be able to impart more information to the House.


DAMAGE BY WATER TO THE GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC.
Robert Laird Borden: Has the attention of the 'Minister of Railways been directed to a statement in the public press that a portion of the National Transcontinental is partially flooded, and I notice the suggestion that there seems to have been some mistake in the estimate of what high water levels might be expected. I would ask wheiner or not there is anything in the report that a portion of the railway in the vicinity of La Tuque will have to be reconstructed and that a portion of the track will require to be rebuilt at a distance from the place where it has already been partially constructed.


George Perry Graham: That matter has not been brought to my attention but I shall make some inquiries.


Robert Laird Borden: Let me just read the despatch in the Montreal * Gazette ' of 16tli inst. :
La Tuque, Que., May 15-(Special).-The unusual height of the St. Maurice river this spring has apparently shown up a had engineering mistake in the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway in this district, which may necessitate a complete redrafting of the plans. At the present moment several miles of the roadbed of the new railroad are several feet under water; in fact, one of the contractors came into La Tuque this afternoon and reported that he had paddled in a canoe for two miles over the tracks of the railway, there being two feet and more of water over the tracks during the entire distance.
The floods will undoubtedly cause havoc on the work, the swiftly rushing water undermining the roadbed. It is also stated by the engineers that the piers on the new bridges have been greatly damaged, and many of them will have to be rebuilt during the summer, and the bridges probably elevated.
There is every indication that in planning the road the engineers miscalculated the high water levels, and have laid the road in such a way that it will be flooded whenever the St. Maurice rises unusually high. The river this spring has risen higher than it has done for many years past, and the whole country in this district is flooded. This is, perhaps, fortunate, as it has shown the mistake by the engineers before the road was completed. Whether the plans are changed or not the present floods will cause great expense to the contractors, as the roadbed will be practically ruined by washouts.


George Perry Graham: I shall make inquiries.


IMMIGRATION ACT.
Mr. LENNOX.: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to a matter concerning which I asked a question the other day. At what date may we definitely expect to have the order in council in reference to immigration which we were informed had been passed pursuant Mr. LEMIEUX.
to the recent amendment of the Immigration Act. The minister has promised it on one or two occasions but it has not yet come down.


Frank Oliver: I expect to be able to give the hon. gentleman a definite answer tomorrow.


QUEBEC BRIDGE COMMISSION REPORT.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I ask the Minister of Railways when we may expect that the report of the Royal Commission on the Quebec Bridge will be printed. As there is a committee named to inquire into certain matters connected with the bridge it is important we should have that report printed in full as soon as possible.


George Perry Graham: I understand that the copy is all in. It seems to be a question whether there is to be an index and table of contents. The printer makes this explanation :
The report consists of technical matter and a number of technical signs were required which had to be ordered and we expect to receive these every day. They were ordered some weeks ago. The above remark applies to volume 1; there will be a second colume consisting of evidence, &c.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would suggest that we might have the report without the index as soon as possible and the index might be added afterwards.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE BUILDING-STRIKE.
Mr. VERVILLE.: Is the Minister of Labour aware that there is a strike going on at the Montreal post office ? Is he aware that Mr. Peter Lyall, the contractor, refuses to pay the men under the fair wage clause of this contract? Is it the intention of the government to take any action to compel him to pay the wages he has contracted to pay?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is, of course, no strike in the Montreal post office, if the hon. gentleman refers to the employees. There is, I understand, a difficulty between Peter Lyali & Sons, the contractors, and the bricklayers and stonecutters who are engaged in constructing the addition to the post office. The contract between Peter Lyall & Sons and the government contains the fair wage clause. The contract was let on October 12, 1907, and the fair wage-schedule was prepared by the Department of Labour in accordance with the fair wage resolution of 1900. I am not officially informed that there is a strike among the bricklayers, but my hon. friend (Mr. Ver-ville) has told me that the bricklayers are

protesting against a reduction in their wages. There has been a complaint lodged against the contractors by the stonecutters who allege that Peter Lyall & Sons have sublet the contract for stone cutting contrary to the provisions of the fair wage clause of 1900. As soon as I received the complaint from the stonecutters I immediately sent Mr. Dubreuil, the fair wage officer to investigate and he reported that the complaint was well founded and that report has been forwarded by my department of the Department of Public Works. Although I am not officially informed as to a strike among the bricklayers, I intend, at the request of my bon. friend (Mr. Ver-ville) to send the fair wage officer to Montreal to investigate the matter.


PRIVATE BILES.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 151) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company-Mr. Crawford.
George Perry Graham: Stand.


Haughton Lennox: I don't want to pick a quarrel with the Minister of Railways because he is usually very fair, but the other night in my absence he seemed to think that the opposition were the cause of this . Bill standing. During the four weeks it has been before the House it has been called about a dozen times and except on two occasions the government asked that it should stand. I am ready to go on now. I am quite prepared to bow to what the government say in reference to it, but I want to say that should I not be here on an occasion when it is called I expect the Bill to stand. I have been here ten times when it was called with a number of books ready to proceed, and only twice did I ask that it should stand on my account.


George Perry Graham: I have asked it to stand several times and my hon. friend has asked' it to stand several times, and I suppose we really ought to be ready to go on with it whenever it is called.


Haughton Lennox: Then let it go on now.


George Perry Graham: I ask it to stand to-day as a matter of convenience. I agreed to postpone it the other day because my hon. friend was not here, but if we both attend to business we ought to get rid of it some time this week.
Progress reported.


BELLEVILLE PRINCE EDWARD BRIDGE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 20) respecting the Belleville Prince Edward Bridge Company-Mr. Porter.
William Stevens Fielding: It was understood the other night that this Bill should stand in the 274
absence of the hon. gentleman in charge of it, and I suppose the same rule will prevail to-day.
Progress reported.


SASKATCHEWAN POWER COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company-Mr. McCraney.
John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman in charge of the Bill is not present and I would ask it to stand. The last clause of this Bill gives the promoters the right to delay this work for four year's. I have communicated with some gentlemen in Saskatoon, and if they are satisfied with the Bill I have no objection to its going through. In the meantime it had better stand.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member (Mr. McCraney) in charge of the Bill is not present. Unless he has asked somebody to act for him, I would ask that the suggestion be accepted and would move that progress be reported on the Bill.
Progress reported.


PACIFIC AND ATLANTIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 138) respecting the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The promoter of this Bill is not present either.


William Stevens Fielding: I move that progress be reported.
Progress reported.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 164) for the relief of Edith May Gilmore.-Mr. J. D. Reid.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-by Mr. Blain- asked :
1.	What sums are at the credit of the Rama Indians with the government?
2.	What interest or sums are annually paid these Indians?
3.	Under what conditions is it possible to draw from the fund to the credit of the Indians ?
i.	Have moneys been at any time drawn from the funds of the Rama Indians?
5.	Have all legal procedures been taken in the removal from the Indian fund of these
sums?
6.	Will the government lay upon the table of the House a copy of all correspondence in the matter of withdrawing such sums?
7.	Was the consent of Indian council obtained for withdrawal of these moneys?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	On the 31st of March, 1908, the funds at the credit of the Rama Indians were as follows :
Capital	$49,024 82
Interest	>
722 54

2.	In 1907, $1,200 was paid to these Indians.
3.	The conditions under which it is possible to draw from the capital funds at the credit of the Indians are regulated by sections 87-90 of the Indian Act ; that is, the consent of the band and the authority of His Excellency have to be obtained for any capital expenditure-except for surveys, compensation to Indians for improvements or for any interests they have in lands taken from them ; or by way of contribution to schools attended by Indians : in these three cases the authority of His Excellency in council is sufficient without the consent of the Indians. Expenditure from interest is undertaken at the request of the Indians from time to time with the concurrence of the department.
4.	Money is constantly being drawn from the funds of the Rama Indians. The expenditure from interest is for general purposes, including interest distribution in equal per capita amounts semi-annually ; for the payment of medical attendance; and for other miscellaneous purposes. Expenditure frequently takes place from capital. The expenditure from the latter fund for the five years ending the 31st of March, 1908, has been :
For surveys	$1,176 91
For sidewalks	 387 20
5.	Yes.
6.	If necessary the government will lay upon the table of the House copies of correspondence dealing with the withdrawals from capital for the five years period mentioned in answer to question 4.
7.	The expenditure for sidewalks was agreed upon by the Indians. The expenditure for surveys was taken from capital without the consent of the Indians, under section 89 of the Indian Act.


ANGLO-FRENCH EXHIBITION-REPRESENTATIVE OF CANADA.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Who are the persons appointed by the government to represent Canada at the Anglo-French exhibition being held in London?
2.	What are the salaries and travelling allowances established for each such person?
3.	How much has been paid on account to each?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	The permanent Canadian Exhibition commissioner. Mr. William Hutchison, is Mr. SAM. HUGHES
so far the only person appointed to represent Canada.
2.	His salary is $3,000 per annum and he is given a living allowance of $20 a day for nine months of the year and $10 a day for three months.
3.	Up to the 18th instant he has been
given on account, $3,605.15.


CAMPBELLTON WHARF-PILING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	What amount of piling was used in connection with the public wharf at Campbell-ton this year?
2.	Who supplied the piling, and at what price per foot?
3.	Were tenders asked for in connection with the supplying of piling in this wharf?
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	No piling was supplied this year (1908); the accountant's books show the following was supplied in 1907, 5,632 lineal feet. This piling was required to be from 45 to 50 feet in length.
2.	Messrs. Mann & Baxter, of Campbell-ton ; 12 per lineal foot.
3.	No.


CAMPBELLTON HARBOUR-GAS BUOYS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Blain-asked :
1.	How many gas buoys are in use in the harbour of Campbellton, New Brunswick, and for how long have they been in use there ?
2.	Who has the job of placing and taking up said buoys each season?
3.	Were tenders asked for before the job was let?
4.	If so, who were the tenderers and what were the several amounts?
5.	What sum is paid for placing and taking up said buoys each season?
6.	Are tenders asked for each season for this work ?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine) :: 1.	Six gas buoys are maintained on the Restigouche river between Campbellton and Dalhousie, N.B. Gas buoys were placed in this district for the first time in 1906.
2.	The Shives Lumber Company of Campbellton, N.B.
3 and 4. No. The Sliives Lumber Company appeared to have the best equipment for handling the gas buoys and the work was placed in their hands.
5.	In 1906, $885.88 for five buoys. After that year $150 per annum for each buoy.
6.	No. As the work was very well performed by the Shives Lumber Company and, the price is reasonable, an arrangement was made with them to maintain the buoys at $150 per annum for each buoy.


THE MINT-MANUFACTURE OF SILVER COINS.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	How many dollars worth of silver has been coined in the mint since it opened, and

what amount of said coin has been disposed: of outside of souvenir coins?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to continue the manufacture and storing of silver coins ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 1.	$313,338.35-of this amount $28,025 has been received from the mint and issued to the several assistant receivers general.
2.	The amount of silver coins manufactured will be regulated from time to time by the demand for that class of currency.


PAYMENTS TO MR. EUGENE FORTIER, CHICOUTIMI.
Mr. MORIN asked :: 1.	What amounts have been paid Mr. Eugene Fortier, painter and decorator of the town of Chicoutimi, by the Department of Public Works, since May 1, 1905, to date?
2.	What was the nature of the services rendered?
3.	Wherein are they mentioned in the Auditor General's Report for 1905-6, and 1906-7 ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	2 and 3. March 30. 1906 (Auditor General's Report, 1905-6. page V-228). painting, papering and repairing windows, $153.60 ; March 16, 1907 (Auditor General's Report, not published), sundry painting on tugs and dredges, $13 ; September 2, 1907, (Auditor's Report, not published), painting tug ' Monitor,' $39.50 ; September 23, 1907, (Auditor's Report, not published), painting tug ' Storm King,' $60.25 ; total, $266.35.


RIDEAU CANAL-BUOYS BETWEEN MER-
Mr. J. D. REID asked :: 1.	Had B. McGrath the contract for lighting buoys between Merrickville and Edmond Rapids on Rideau canal during season, 1907? If so, at what price?
2.	Were tenders publicly called for? If so, how many tenders were received?
3.	Has B. McGrath the contract for the same work for season 1908? If so, were public tenders called for? If not, why not?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	No. Byron McCaw is the contractor. $450 for the balance of the season from 1st June.
2.	Yes. Five.
3.	No. The present contractor is working under this contract which the department had the option of continuing in operation for three years and has continued as the service given last year was satisfactory.


LAND SUBSIDIES TO RAILROADS.
Mr. AMES asked :: What area of land was granted by way of subsidy to railroads during each of the follow-mg years: 1892, 1893, 1894, 1895 and 1896?	1
274J


Frank Oliver: 1892, none ; 1893, none ; 1894, 793,600 acres ; 1895, none ; 1896, none.


THE FRENCH TREATY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRISTOL-by Mr. Blain-asked:
When is it expected that the French treaty will go into effect?
William Stevens Fielding: It is difficult to forecast the time for coming into effect of the treaty. My hon. friend is aware that the Canadian parliament has approved the treaty. But, so far, the treaty has received the approval of only one branch of the French Chambers, and until it has received the approval of the second branch of the French Chambers we cannot anticipate when it will be brought into effect.


IMPORTATION OF OPIUM.
Mr. ELSON asked :: -
1.	What amount of money has been received by the government as duty upon the importation of crude opium in the years 1906 and 1907, respectively ?
2.	What amount has been received on powdered opium in 1906 and 1907, respectively, and what amount on opium prepaid for smoking?
3.	Has the government received any petition: or petitions from British Columbia asking for the prohibition of the importation, manufacture and sale of opium ?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce a Bill this session, prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of opium other than for medicinal purposes?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs):: 1.	The amount of duty collected by the government on crude opium during the fiscal year 1900, was $47,281.34, and during the fiscal year 1907, $75,028-34.
2.	The amount of duty collected by the government on powdered opium during the fiscal year 1906, was $218.25, and during the fiscal year 1907, $423. There was no duty collected during these years on opium prepared for smoking.
3.	None by the Department of Customs so far as the officers are aware. I spoke to the First Minister about it, and he thought that he might have had communication or representations in reference to the question from some quarter, but he thought not from British Columbia. I suggest that the hon. gentleman ask the Prime Minister when he is in his place.
4.	I have not an answer.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-DELAYS OF MARITIME EXPRESS.
Mr. J. D. REID (Grenville) asked:: 1.	How many locomotives belonging to the Intercolonial Railway are lying idle at Moncton awaiting repairs?

2.	How many are at Halifax, Riviere du Loup and other points, awaiting repairs?
3.	How many times during the month of January was the maritime express from Montreal late when arriving at Halifax, and how many hours? Also how many times was it late during February, March and April?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Twenty-one at Moncton.
2.	None at Halifax, Riviere du Loup 2, Campbellton, 1.
3. Month of January, 1908.-Five occasions 4 to 16 minutes late; Three occasions 1 hour to 1 hour and 15 minutes late; seven occasions 1 hour and 50 minutes to
2	hours and 30 minutes late; five occasions
3	hours to 6 hours and 40 minutes late; five occasions 5 hours to 6 hours late; one occasion 9 hours and 17 minutes late.
Month of February, 1908.-Seven occasions 11 minutes to 55 minutes late; six occasions 1 hour to 1 hour and 55 minutes late; four occasions 2 hours and 13 minutes to 2 hours and 30 minutes late; 2 occasions
3	hours and 11 minutes to 3 hours and 15 minutes late; five occasions 4 hours to 5 hours late; three occasions 6 hours and 5 minutes to 6 hours and 45 minutes late; one occasion 7 hours and 12 minutes late; one occasion 9 hours and 35 minutes late.
Month of March, 1908.-Nine occasions 3 minutes to 33 minutes late; one occasion 51 minutes late; one occasion 57 minutes late; nine occasions 1 hour and 10 minutes to 1 hour and 55 minutes late; four occasions 2 hours and 23 minutes to 2 hours and 29 minutes late; one occasion 3 hours and 41 minutes; one occasion 4 hours and 33 minutes late; one occasion 5 hours and 8 minutes late; one occasion 9 hours late.
Month of April, 1908.-Fourteen occasions 8 minutes to 55 minutes late; five occasions 1 hour and 20 minutes to 2 hours late; five occasions 2 hours and 5 minutes to 2 hours and 55 minutes late; 1 occasion
4	hours and 29 minutes late; one occasion 6 hours and 16 minutes late.


PURCHASE OF GOODS FROM THE T.
Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	What is the amount of goods purchased from the T. Lindsay Company, Limited, of this city, for the purposes of the Anglo-French Exhibition in London?
2.	What kind of goods and at what price?
3.	Are the goods so acquired to be exhibited marked at their cost price?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	$18.36.
2.	102 yards Hessian at 18 cents per yard.
3.	The goods purchased are not to be exhibited. They were used for packing.


John Dowsley Reid: 


DUTY ON UNLEAVENED BREAD.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRISTOL-by Mr. Blain-asked :
Has any petition been received at any time by the government or any member of it, or any department of the government for placing a duty on unleavened bread? If so, what is the date of such petition or request, and by whom was the same signed?
William Paterson: I will say a few words prefacing my answers, so that they may be better understood. There has been a duty on unleavened bread, as the department understands it, for years and years, dating away back to the 1894 tariff, and before that, I believe. My colleague the Minister of Finance as well as myself cannot recollect any representations having been made to us on that question during the tariff commission. I think my answers will be satisfactory to the hon. gentleman, because he probably refers to something that has happened lately.
Unleavened bread has been dutiable under the present tariff and under previous customs tariffs, but remission of such duty has been made at times by order in council.
The Customs Department has no information as to petitions for placing duty on unleavened bread. Representations, however, have been made to the Department of Customs by solicitors on behalf of the National Matzo and Biscuit Company, Limited, asking that the provisions of the customs tariff in respect of the duty on unleavened bread be observed.


SUBSIDIES TO THE PROVINCES.
Mr. BERGERON asked:: 1.	What was the amount of the provincial subsidy paid to the different provinces of Canada by the Dominion government beforo the adjustment of such subsidies?
2.	What is the subsidy now?
3.	How much was paid to each province before such adjustment, and how much since?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance):: 1. The annual subsidies paid to the different provinces before the passing of the
British North America Act, 1907, were as follows:
Ontario	$1,339,287.28
Quebec	 1,086,713.48
Nova Scotia	 432,805.56
New Brunswick	 491,360.96
Manitoba, including allowances for lands, &c..	..	621,497.46
British Columbia	 307,076.66
Prince Edward Island.	.	.	.	251,051.98
Alberta, including allowances for lands, &c. . . . 1,124,125.00 Saskatchewan, including
allowances for lands, &c. 1,130,335.40

2. The annual subsidies paid to the different provinces since the passing of the
British North America Act, 1907, are as follows:
Ontario	$2,128,772,08
Quebec	 1,686,579.08
Nova Scotia	 610.464.76
New Brunswick	 621,360.96
Manitoba, including allowances for lands,	&c..	..	751,497.46
British Columbia	 522,070.66
Prince Edward Island.	.	. .	321,051.98
Alberta, including allowances for lands, &c.. .. 1,254,125.00 Saskatchewan, including allowances for lands, &c. 1,260,335.40

3. Answered by 1 and 2.


ALBERT G. McDONALD-COMMISSION ON IMMIGRANTS.
Mr. ALCORN asked:: 1.	What sum has been claimed by Albert
G. McDonald, of Pictou, Ontario, as payable by the government for commission on immigrants placed with farmers or other employers, between March 28, 1907, and May 10, 1908?
2.	Has said McDonald claimed payment of any other, and what, sum, or any, and what account other than for commission in respect of such immigrants so placed?
3.	What sum has been paid said McDonald for commission, and on any other account connected with placing immigrants during the period aforesaid ?
4.	Did or does the government dispute any and what part of any such claims, and upon what grounds?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	$294.
2.	Claimed $12.25 expended in housing and feeding immigrants.
3.	$270 paid in commissions.
4.	Government refused to pay account for board, &c.. as instructions stated ' The department wall not be responsible for any other expense than the $2 per capita commission.'
There is a dispute as to the claims of commission to the amount of $30.


DREDGING AT PORT ARTHUR AND FORT WILLIAM.
Mr. BENNETT asked:: 1.	What amount has been paid for dredging at Port Arthur and Fort William or Mission river during the season of 1907?
2.	To whom -were any amounts paid therefor?
3.	What quantity of material was removed at each of said points, and what was the nature of the material or materials?
4.	What were the prices paid at each of said points for different kinds of material removed ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Port Arthur, $29,523.71; Fort William, $309,705.64; Kaministiquia and Mission Rivers.
2.	R. IVeddell and Great Lakes Dredging Company.
3.	Port Arthur, 306,933 cubic yards of clay and sand; Fort William, 2,859,238 cubic yards of rock, sand and clay.
4.	Port Arthur: Rock, $3; all other materials, 9| cents per cubic yard, scow measurement, with an additional charge for haulage of 1 cent a yard for each extra mile.
Fort William and Mission River: $2 for rock and 9 cents for all other materials, scow measurement, with an additional charge for haulage of 1 cent for each extra mile.


LIGHT-KEEPER, INGONISH ISLAND.
Mr. BERGERON asked:: 1.	Who is employed by the government as light-keeper on Ingonish island, in the province of Nova Scotia, what salary does he receive, and where is his place of residence?
2.	Is it true that the said light-keeper has
not resided upon the island during the past winter months and up to the present time, and that he has employed another man to attend to his duties?	.
3.	Has the government sanctioned this subappointment ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1. (a) Robie V. Warren, (b) $360 per annum. (c) Ingonish, N.S.
2 and 3. The department has no such information.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-MEDICAL SERVICE.
Mr. MORIN asked:: 1.	Who is the medical officer employed by the construction commission upon the eastern portion of the Transcontinental Railway?
2.	Is it a Mr. Parent? If so, what is his salary per annum?


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The medical service and attendance on men employed on construction are furnished by the contractors, and this service is carried on under the supervision of the inspectors of the Department of Agriculture. The only medical officers employed by the commission, are as follows:
J B Piegay, District ' C,' salary $80 a month; D. Handheld, District ' C,' salary S75 a month; Geo. R. Johnson, District ' D,' salary $80 a month; W. J. Taugher, District 'D,' salary $75 a month.
2.	No.

8C20


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on tbe motion of Mr. Ayleswortb for tbe second reading of Bill (No. 115) to amend the Dominion Elections Act and the proposed amendment of Mr. W. J. Roche thereto
William Alfred Galliher: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to detain the House at any great length discussing this matter as it has already been referred to and considered pretty thoroughly by members on both sides of the House. However, there are a few features of the case that I would like to draw the attention of the House to and to emphasize. The question of the preparation of the voters' list for a federal election in the provinces of Manitoba and British Columbia, which is involved in the first section of the Bill introduced into this House by mv lion, friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayiesworth), is one of the principal features that has been discussed so far. Between 1885 and 1898 the Dominion government kept control of the lists to be used in elections for federal purposes. In 1898 the government of that day saw fit to delegate to the different provinces of Canada, under certain restrictions, the power to make up and revise the lists that should be used in Dominion elections. I have no doubt that the government of that day felt that they had good reasons for bringing about that change. I did not have the advantage of being a member of the House at that time, nor of having been in the position to look thoroughlv into the matter or to participate in the debates that took place, but I notice, from the extracts which have been read in the House, that there was a distinct line of cleavage as between the Liberal party, then the government of the day, and the Conservative party, or the party in opposition, as to whether or not it was advisable to make that change in tiie franchise law. It is equally apparent to me from those extracts that have been read here that while the government of the day delegated this power to the provinces they did not divest themselves of the right or power at any time, for certain reasons and under certain conditions, to take back unto themselves that power to have control over their own lists. Speaking generally, in so far as T see the matter now. I believe to a verv great extent in the principle of the federal government controlling the preparation of their own lists for federal elections, but whether that was or was not a wise move in 1898 is a matetr that I am not going to discuss. I am not going to quarrel with the position taken by the government or the position taken by the opposition. It was an experiment and the question is : Has it worked out satisfactory in all cases? If there are cases in which it has not worked out satisfactorily, the government have re-
Mr. GRAHAM
served to themselves the right to take control of these lists in cases where the privilege has been abused. I will deal first with the question as it seems to me to affect the province of Manitoba, and secondly with the question as it affects the province of British Columbia. In so far as the question affects the province of Manitoba, I have sat in this House and listened to members who have spoken on both sides ; I have, as it were, taken the part, if I may say so, of an outsider in order that I might come to a fair and reasonable conclusion as to whether or not our hon. friends opposite from the province of Manitoba have any grievance with regard to the provisions of this Bill as it would affect them. I am sure my hon. friends opposite will not expect me to give more credence to the statement made by themselves than to the statements made by hon. members from Manitoba on this side of the House. I think I will be taken as having acted fairly towards them if I say that in coming to the conclusion at which I have arrived I have given to them the same degree of credence that I have given to my hon. friends on this side of the House. It lias been borne in upon my mind, in listening to this discussion, from that standpoint that whatever reason may have been present in the mind of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice when he introduced this Bill or in the minds of members of the govern-inen who agreed with him in introducing it. as to the necessity of applying its provisions to the province of Manitoba, there are the greatest reasons for retaining this provision in the Bill. It strikes me that there are only three arguable grounds upon which our friends opposite can base their objections to this Bill as it was originally brought into the House. The first ground is the taking away of the right of the province of Manitoba ; the second ground is the fear that has been stated to exist in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite from the province of Manitoba that the preparation of the lists will partlv be done under government officials, under the Bill as it was originally introduced, and that they will not receive fair treatment at the hands of officials appointed by the government, and the third reason, if these two are disposed of, is the fact that they are singling out or separating Manitoba from the other provinces of Canada and applying this legislation to it. To my mind these three reasons are all the real reasons that can be urged against this legislation. Let us proceed to take these reasons one by one and to discuss them briefly. Take the first reason, namely, the taking away of a right. I think my hon. friends will not dispute the point when I say that there is no inherent right in the province of Manitoba or any other province of Canada to prepare, for federal elections, federal lists. That is not a right given to them the same as many other rights were
given to the provinces by the British North America Act. What they have is not an inherent right. It is simply a power delegated to them by the Franchise Act passed by the Dominion parliament in 1898. Now you can delegate a power for a time and you can take back that power. Having delegated that power, not only can you take it back from the province of Manitoba but you can take it back from every other province in the Dominion. In 1898 this parliament delegated to the different provinces a power which was inherent in itself and so the taking back of that power is not robbing a province of its inherent right nor is it seizing the franchise of the province of Manitoba.
Mr. SPROUT,E. Is It not discrediting the honesty and fairness and the sincerity of Manitoba in making up the voters' lists when you take back the power from that province and not from the other provinces?


William Alfred Galliher: I will deal with that phase of the question in a moment.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Are you delegating powers to the provinces in any proper sense of the term when you merely accept their work in the preparation of the voters' list?	*


William Alfred Galliher: When you accept their work?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Is it delegating powers to a province when you merely accept the work of the province for your own purpose?


William Alfred Galliher: My statement is that certain powers are delegated to the provinces with regard to the preparation and revision of these lists.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman said a moment ago that this parliament delegated the powers to the provinces.


William Alfred Galliher: This parliament did delegate power. It said :	We will take
the lists of the province of Manitoba as they are prepared and revised by provincial authority.


An hon. MEMBER.: You adopt their work merely.


William Alfred Galliher: You adopt their work, but you must have delegated certain powers or otherwise the Dominion itself would have to prepare the lists. I stand by my first statement in the matter. If I am correct in my premises that disposes of the first objection, because, as I pointed out, there is no inherent power vested in the province of Manitoba to hold control over federal voters' lists any longer than the federal parliament permits it to hold that control. Now, as to the fear expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite from Manitoba that the officials appointed by the Dominion government will not be fair in the making up of the lists, surely that fear is dissipated by the suggestion of the Prime Minister with regard to the preparation of these lists.


George Eulas Foster: What does my hon. friend understand that suggestion to be?


William Alfred Galliher: I will state what I understand it to be. I have read a good many of the newspapers on that point and no two of them seem to have grasped the same idea.


George Eulas Foster: What does my hon. friend think to be the reason for that-stupidity in the newspapers?


William Alfred Galliher: Sometimes, perhaps.


George Eulas Foster: Or a lack of definiteness of the part of the Prime Minister?


William Alfred Galliher: Sometimes the newspapers have been stupid and purposely so, and while I do not mean to say that I am less stupid than the newspaper editors, there is no doubt in my mind as to what the Prime Minister meant. The proposition of the right hon. the Prime Minister is that the county court judges of Manitoba be appointed to revise the present existing lists or the lists as they may exist after the latest revision by the provincial authorities; that, taking those lists as a basis the registration clerks and other officials shall be appointed not by this government, but by the county court judges. That would take the whole modus operandi of the preparation and revision of these lists for the federal elections absolutely out of politics,


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman mean that the judges having revised the lists under the provincial law are to immediately begin to revise them again under a Dominion law?


William Alfred Galliher: The judges may have revised them under the provincial law. but before that revision many names are put apon these lists by the registrars who are appointed by the provincial government, and the proposition is that these registrars, or those who shall place before the revising judges the lists, shall not be appointed by the government of Manitoba or by the Dominion government either, but shall be appointed by the judges and responsible to the judges for their work.


Robert Laird Borden: Under what provision of the Manitoba Franchise Act do the registrars put names on the lists?


William Alfred Galliher: I notice in to-day's 'Citizen' that the Hon. Mr. Rogers, Minister of Public Works for Manitoba-a gentleman whom I know very well-states that no name can be put upon the lists or taken off the lists except by the judges of the province under the present law.


William D. Staples: That's right.


Mr GALLIHER.: The Hon. Mr. Rogers does not state that quite fairly because he

knows that the registration clerks receive applications at stated times and stated places and many of these applications are written in on a list handed to the registrar, and if these lists are submitted regularly the judges cannot strike these names off unless they are objected to and the objections sustained.


William James Roche: Is there not a provision in the Provincial Act to enable representatives of both parties to be present when these sworn applications are received?


William Alfred Galliher: I have no doubt.


William James Roche: And is there not a provision that immediately the representative of either party may hand in an appeal to the registration clerk?


William Alfred Galliher: That may all be, and for the present I am not quarrelling with the Manitoba Act.


George Oscar Alcorn: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


William Alfred Galliher: I do not object to being asked a question now and then during my address nor does it bother me much, but I do object to standing up here to be cross-examined by hon. gentlemen opposite with question after question. I do not interrupt very often when hon. gentlemen opposite are speaking, and I only wish the same courtesy to be extended to me. My hon. friend from Prince Edward county (Mr. Alcorn) will have his opportunity to speak. However, I have no objection to answering his question.


George Oscar Alcorn: The hon. gentleman says the Premier announced that he intended to have lists made wholly under judicial authority.


William Alfred Galliher: Hear, hear.


George Oscar Alcorn: And that a certain modus operandi was suggested by the Premier for that purpose. Where in the right hon. gentleman's speech does tha hon. gentleman find that modus operandi laid down? I might call his attention to this fact, that at the close of the right hon. gentleman's speech I asked this question:
Has the right hon. gentleman mapped out or has he in his mind any modus operandi by which his new lists will be made altogether under judicial authority?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think so. 1 think we will be prepared to do so at the proper time, when we are in committee.
Where else in the speech of the right hon. gentleman does the hon. gentleman find any modus operandi laid down ?


William Alfred Galliher: If my understanding of the right hon. the Prime Minister's suggestion is correct, and if I am stating what is correct, would my hon. friend (Mr. AI-Mr. GALLIHER.
corn) be prepared to accept an Act on lines such as I have suggested?


George Oscar Alcorn: The lines are so very faint I do not think any one could accept or reject it.


William Alfred Galliher: My hon. friend says the lines are very faint. At the risk of repetition I would say that my understanding of the proposition of the Prime Minister is that every official, including the revising judges, who shall take part in the preparation of these lists in Manitoba for federal purposes, shall be an official absolutely beyond the control of politics. Can you suggest any fairer method of preparing lists ? Can any politician, either on the Conservative or on the Liberal side, say that this is not the fairest way in which a list can be prepared, to take it absolutely out of politics and place it in the hands of county court judges ? My hon. friends cannot complain of the county court judges in Manitoba for in running over the names I find that five of the seven are appointments of their own, and I think I know them all, all honourable gentlemen in every sense of the word. I make that comment to show that no fault can be found with the majority of the judges on the ground that they will be Liberals.
Mr. ALCORN'. Where in the speech will the hon. gentleman find that ?


William Alfred Galliher: The hon. gentleman will get his chance to speak and I shall be pleased to listen to him. As I say, my understanding of the proposition of the Prime Minister is that the lists of Manitoba, taking as a basis the lists as they will exist after the last provincial revision before a Dominion election, shall be revised by county court judges, that they shall be taken absolutely out of politics, so that every man, Grit or Tory, will have a fair opportunity of being on the list and a fair opportunity will be given to each party to have the names of any who should not be on the list struck off. I do not believe it is possible to suggest a fairer method.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Why apply that only to Manitoba?


William Alfred Galliher: I am going to that.
I think it is clear that any fear hon. gentlemen may have felt that the lists to be prepared under this Bill as it originally stood would be unfair, is met and completely obliterated by the proposition of the Prime Minister. Thus reason No. 2 disappears.
Reason No. 3, the singling out of Manitoba. I shall refer in this connection to some quotations of the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). I will be fair enough to admit at the start that if no good reasons are shown for singling out the province of Manitoba, that province

should not be singled out. I make that as a flat proposition to start with. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has asked:	Why do you select Manitoba and
not Ontario or Nova Scotia or any other province? If you have a school of nine children, to use a homely expression, and one of those children for some cause or other deserves punishment, if you like to call it so

Some lion. MEMBERS. Oh, oh, hear, hear.


William Alfred Galliher: My bon. friends laugh, but I said I was using a homely illustration ; probably punishment is not the word, let us say deserves correction. My hon. friend would not say it was fair to the other eight provinces of the Dominion that you should correct them all for the fault that was committed by one.


George Eulas Foster: How about the little boy, British Columbia.


William Alfred Galliher: I shall come to the little boy ' British Columbia ' later on. I do not intend to forget British Columbia. If no reasons can or will be given in the discussion why Manitoba should receive different treatment from the rest of the provinces, which is probably a better way to put it, I agree with my hon. friend that this Bill should not go through ; but if it can be and has been shown and the very arguments of my hon. friends opposite as well as those of my friends on this side, have forced me to this conclusion-that in Manitoba, without reflecting on the government of that province, a state of affairs exists and has existed for some time by which justice is not done to all concerned,
I would go almost as far as the Prime Minister himself did when he stated that it was the bounden duty of this government to interfere.
The hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. It. L. Borden), at page 8688 of 'Hansard', referring to the words of the Prime Minister in the debate of 1898; on the Franchise Act, quoted as follows :
But if the day comes when a fraud is committed against this parliament, when legislation of a hostile character is brought forward in the legislature, then it will be always open to this parliament to resume its own powers and to enact a franchise law of its own.
The leader of the opposition himself during that debate said he quite understood the principle that the Dominion government was not depriving itself of its rights for all time to come but could take back to itself again its right if necessity arose. The Prime Minister said :
But if the day comes when a fraud is committed against this parliament

was a fraud against the Liberal party or not. It need not necessarily be a fraud committed against the Liberal party, in fact I think the fraud is much broader and would be, if it is a fraud at all, a fraud against all the electors of the province, whether Liberal or Tory.
Again the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) at page 8690 of ' Hansard ', in speaking of the perfection of the Manitoba Act says :
And this law, enacted by the legislature of Manitoba, under a Conservative administer-ation, has been subject to so little criticism that I say here I do not believe there is in the Dominion of Canada a single province which can show legislation more satisfactory, more fair and effective than that which we have been discussing.
But my hon. friend must know that while we may have an excellent Act on the statute-book, if, in the carrying out of that Act, abuses occur, if the Act is not administered fairly, the results are just as vicious as if the Act itself were vicious.


Robert Laird Borden: It is then the administration and not the terms of the Act itself to which the hon. gentleman objects.


William Alfred Galliher: That is what I am objecting to at present. My hon friend also at page 8694 quotes the following words used by the right hon. the First Minister:
But, sir, I ask my hon. friends if they will not admit that, although the legislation W'hich to-day exists in Manitoba and the manner in which it is administered may be satisfactory to the Tories, it is not satisfactory to the Grits, and that is the reason why we have introduced this legislation.
And my hon. friend the leader of the opposition very astutely rather played on those words and asked: What if we came into power and we should find a provincial Liberal government in office in Nova Scotia and should want to change the Act as regards Nova Scotia, because, although it may be satisfactory to the Grits, it is not satisfactory to the Toribs? My hon. friend sought to leave the impression that the First Minister was merely making this change in the law in Manitoba because the lists did not please the Grits and do please the Tories. But he knows well that outside that little quotation I have read, there have been grounds brought before the right hon. gentleman, and afterwards proved in discussion here, which show unfairness in the administration of this law. Nay, it has been shown that the grossest kinds of frauds have been committed in some parts of Manitoba in the preparation of those lists. These frauds I do not lay at the door of the govermhent of Manitoba, but they must be laid at the door of the officials appointed by that government and of who acted as the agents of those
I think the leader of the opposition said that it was not clear whether this fraud the men

officials, and I suppose that the government of Manitoba is the responsible party in the end.
With regard to the reasons why Manitoba is singled out from the other provinces, I intend making some quotations from the speeches of hon. members on this amendment. I have already pointed out that in 1898, the right hon. tile First Minister stated that while the government of Canada would be justified, on the ground of fraud or of hostile legislation, in taking back control of the federal lists, there were other grounds on which it would be justified in doing so. Let me refer to the speech of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford). Discussing the very point mentioned by the Hon. Mr. Rogers in his interview with the ' Citizen,' the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) brought out some interesting facts to show what the officials appointed by the provincial government had to do with the preparation of the lists in Manitoba. On page 8314 of ' Hansard ' the hon. gentleman said:
Who limits the time for registration? The executive council of Manitoba. Who decides that there should be but one registration clerk and one booth in each constituency? The executive council of Manitoba. Who "fixes the places of registration booths and the hours during which they are to be open? The executive council of Manitoba, the political machine. Who appoints the registration clerks who have very considerable discretionary powers? The executive council of Manitoba. Who fixes the courts of revision, allowing but for a single day, for a part of a day or a number of days? Who fixes the time for the sittings of the court of revision and the duration of those sittings? Who limits the hours during which the court of revision can sit? The government of the province of Manitoba has full control over the courts of revision and everything else, in so far as registration and the revision of the voters' lists in the province of Manitoba are concerned.
The judges, of course, sit where they are authorized to sit. and, during the time they are authorized, decide as to who should or should not be on the lists.


William James Roche: Will the hon. gentleman be surprised to learn that the judges name the places, the dates and the hours?


William Alfred Galliher: Since when?


William James Roche: In practice ever since this Act has been on the statute.


Mr. GREENWAY.: Did the hon. gentleman read the proclamation the other day?


William James Roche: And they are confirmed by order in Council, but it is they who fix the dates.	I


William Alfred Galliher: 


William Alfred Galliher: What does the hon. gentleman say to the last proclamation?


William James Roche: Will the hon. gentleman deny that the judges name the places, the times and the dates for the holding of the courts of revision?


Robert Laird Borden: And have them confirmed by order in council.


William Alfred Galliher: If my hon. friend will take the last proclamation issued in the Manitoba ' Gazette ' of April 25, he will see that what is complained of is still being done in Manitoba even yet, in the face of the Bill being brought down to supply a remedy.


Robert Laird Borden: I can assure my hon. friend-and my statement can be verified by the judges themselves if necessary -that the judges fix the dates, the places and the hours during which they shall sit. The government of Manitoba interferes in nowise with those. Upon the report of the judges being brought to council, an order in council is passed and the proclamation issued.
Mr. GALlJHER. My hon. friend admits that the judges make their recommendations to council, and the council may or may not put them in form of an order in council.


George Eulas Foster: What does the council do?


William Alfred Galliher: It will probably be hard to answer what, in all cases, it does. But that is only one point of the many I have here. I have here half a dozen different ones that are not challenged.


William D. Staples: They were all challenged and answered long ago.


William Alfred Galliher: My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) has challenged them all holus bolus. He pleads the general issue, in other words, but that after all is not a very good answer to a direct statement. Now, let me quote from the hon. member for Portage la Prairie at page 8360 of ' Hansard ' with regard to the distances people have to go to get on the list. Holding up the proclamation, the hon. member said:
Well, here is the proclamation, and you can read it for yourself. For a man to * get on the list in Gladstone he will have to travel two hundred miles coming and going. To be registered in Russell, he will have to travel 156 miles; in Emerson, 216 miles; in Selkirk, 200 miles; in La Verandrye, 210 miles.
Now, let me point out to my hon. friends opposite that there are different degrees of fraud. Where, in the administration of a franchise Act, it is rendered practically impossible for persons duly qualified to be placed on the voters' list to reach the place appointed for them in order to have their

names placed on that list within the time allowed, you are committing, in a degree, fraud against those citizens. Now, there is a state of affairs, which, if it existed in British Columbia, would bring down the condemnation of every man, Liberal or Conservative.


William James Roche: It is not correct.


William Alfred Galliher: My hon. friends opposite had their opportunity of cross-examining the hon. member for Portage la Prairie who made this statement and who knows the facts. These hon. gentlemen know that I cannot know these facts personally. But I am quite sure they will do me the justice to say that I have just as much reason to accept the statement of my hon. friends on this side as I have to credit the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the name of the man who has to do this?


William Alfred Galliher: I think my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) cannot be serious in that question. -Certainly, I cannot give him the information. But the hon. gentleman would have quite a walk if he went afoot to ask this man his name. Now, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie


Mr.   I@: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) permit me a question? What is the length of Manitoba from north to south aud its breadth from east to west?


William Alfred Galliher: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that. But I travelled Manitoba in the old days and I know a little about its physical features. I know that, very often, you have to go around a long way by reason of natural physical impediments. Two places may not be far apart as the crow flies but you cannot always travel that way, as muskegs and swamps intervene that you cannot cross. Now, it has been said that registration clerks have no powers in connection with the preparation of these lists. Let me give an instance, given by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) at page 8365 of ' Hansard
In connection with those voters in the particular case I was going to refer to at Lans-downe last year, here is where an abuse crept in to the extent of 40 voters, owing to the fact that the registration clerk failed to do his duty. Applications were made to strike 40 names off the lists, but when the case came before the judge, owing to the fact that the registration clerk had failed to notify the electors whose names were protested the judge would not deal with it at all, and those men were allowed to remain on the lists.
That shows you that this matter is not all in the hands of the revising judge, for others-aud these appointed by the executive council of Manitoba-have duties to perform. The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid
Laurier) proposes that these men shall not be political appointees, but shall be appointed by the judge who is chosen to prepare and revise these lists.


William James Roche: What year is that?


William Alfred Galliher: I am informed that that was In 1907. Now, let me quote from the speech of the hon. member from Dauphin (Mr. Burrows) with regal'd to the actiou of the registration clerks. X quote from page 8617 of ' Hansard ',
The hon. leader of the opposition and other gentlemen opposite have challenged us to show where any person was left off the list of electors by any official of the Manitoba government, or where any complaints had been made against the lists that had been prepared, My -hon. friend from Selkirk gave last night a good many instances of this kind, hut I might refer in addition to the incident at Balsam bay where 28 voters applied to the registration clerk to put their names on the list, but they could not get the registration clerk to receive their applications and they were disfranchised. The registration clerk, in making the return wrote to his friend, who was the candidate for the constituency, and said': ' Nobody had applied hut the few Grits, and you bet I did not put them on/


William D. Staples: Have you that letter ?


William Alfred Galliher: I took the trouble to ask the bou. member for Dauphin (Mr. Burrows) if that letter was iu existence and how the letter had come out. He told me that the case came up in court and this is how it was brought to the attention of the public. Will my hon. friends opposite say that that was not a fraud committed on these electors? If these citizens were justly entitled to be placed upon this list in order that they may exercise their, franchise, was not this refusal of this registration clerk, because they were Grits forsooth, a direct, a gross fraud practised against these citizens?


William James Roche: The hon. member (Mr. Galliher) knows that the reply has been given to that statement. I do not wish to repeat the facts. But there was not a man of these disfranchised-they were all put on the list.


William Alfred Galliher: They were, for the time being. Hon. gentlemen opposite can reply to what I am saying in good time. The hon. member (Mr. Burrows) who makes the statement I have quoted is responsible and I give the statement on his authority. But I will quote some statements later that my hon. friends cannot take this objection to. Now, let me quote from the hon. member for Dauphin-page 8261 of ' Hansard '-with regard to the disfranchisement of the Lac du Bonnet electors. I would like to quote another statement made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Burrows) in that regard.

Another case which has been cited before, a very glaring case-a case which shows wo had grievances under this Act-was the deliberate disfranchisement of 38 electors at Lac du Bonnet. In this case the revising officer, Mr. Heap, in order to enable the people who were living at Lac du Bonnet to be placed on the list, and at the request of representatives from that district, adjourned his court and agreed to go to the lake and take the applications of the residents there.
Now Mr. Heap saw himself that it was not possible to deal out fair play to these men if he did not appoint another place which could be reached by them, where they could have their names put on the list. He did so, and what was the result ?
The train goes to Lac du Bonnet once a week, remains about two hours and returns. The clerk sent word that he would be there on a special train, the residents met him, and he took all their applications. They were bona fide electors. . Nobody raised a claim that they were not entitled to vote. But as soon as the government found out that he had adjourned his court, they notified him that his action was illegal; and notwithstanding the fact that the registration board certified to the list, when the election took place, the sheets containing these names were torn off, and these men were disfranchised.
I have a copy of his certificate here.


William D. Staples: Better read the two certificates.


William Alfred Galliher: I will read the one X come to first. When their own officer was trying to do what was fair and to give these men an opportunity of being placed on the list, what did the government do ? The government, or those delegated for the purpose, did not draw any thin red line through these lists, as the hou. member for Selkirk has said, but they tore them off liolus bolus ; and I am informed by an hon. member who took the trouble to look it up, that notwithstanding they had torn these thirty-eight names off the list, when the list came down here certified by the clerk to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, fourteen of those names that had been torn off were interlined on that return, and that was returned as the proper list to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. It is quite reasonable for Liberals to assume that these fourteen names were not friends of the Liberal party. Now in regard to the resolution of the Trades and Labour Council of Winnipeg, the hon. member for Dauphin quoted that also. This resolution was published in their organ, and I draw7 attention to it in order to show that it is not only the Liberals w'ho are complaining of the manner in w'hich the local Act is being carried out, but those belonging to the great labour party as well. On page 8625 we find this in the speech of the hon. member for Dauphin.
The resolution which the Trades and Labour Council passed unanimously and which the Mr. GALLIHER.
boards printed in large type on its front page was as follows;
Whereas the facilities for registration of voters have proved altogether inadequate for the purpose, therefore be it resolved:
That this trades council demand of the government that registration be re-opened and be kept open for at least five days.
And my hon. friend went on to say that the Roblin government did not reopen the registration proceedings. Again, on page 8631, the hon. member for Dauphin alludes to w'hat took place w'hen the returning officer, in the last Dominion election, urged that an additional poll should be opened in one of the ridings of Selkirk, at Lac du Bonnet, so that the people might have an opportunity of exercising their franchise. My hon. friend said :
If the provincial polling division had been followed in the Dominion elections of 1901, the people of Lac du Bonnet, in Selkirk, would have been obliged to go to Cromwell to vote. This would have involved a railway journey from Lac du Bonnet to Molson, and another railway journey to Beausejour, and a drive from Beausejour to Cromwell, in all a drive of forty miles. It is very difficult, in fact impossible, for the electors to go from one place to the other, as there is only one train a week. If the train happened to go on election day it would be all right, but trains do not, as a rule, run on election day any more than on any other day if it does not suit their convenience. The Dominion returning officer put a poll at Cromwell and another at Lac du Bonnet, and they had to divide the list to agree with the polls. That was one of the cases in which action was taken against the returning officer for using the thin red line, as stated by the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.
So that wherever it was sought to give the electors an opportunity to record their votes w7e find that even the returning officer was arrested for attempting to do so. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word with regard to the affidavits that were placed on * Hansard ' by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole), in his speech on this Bill. My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) seemed rather to reflect upon the hon. member for Winnipeg because he had read those affidavits in the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that rule were to obtain in this House, I think we would find among our hon. friends opposite very many offenders in that regard. If it is wrong to read an affidavit in the House which discloses improper acts on the part of any person, our hon. friends opposite, who have heretofore read such affidavits in this House, would be to blame fully as much as my hon. friend from Winnipeg. The whole question is as to the truth or falsity of these affidavits. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), in his speech a few days ago, paid me the compliment of saying that if I would rise in the House and, in my fair and manly way, as he put it, would give my

opinion of this matter, I might speak in a manner differing somewhat from my hon. friends. Now I do not want to destroy the opinion the hon. member for North Toronto had of me ; still I must say that if I had in my possession affidavits which I knew to be true, or had every reason to believe were true, and which disclosed wrongdoing in the preparation of the lists in the province of British Columbia, 1 would rise in my place in this House and read those affidavits, if occasion called for it. I think that the hon. member for Winnipeg only exercised his privilege in reading those affidavits, nay more, it was his duty, not only to his party but to the country at large, to read them as he did. Therefore X think that the reflection cast upon my hon. friend from Winnipeg by the hon. member for Macdonald for reading those affidavits, was not at all warranted. And how did the hon. member for Macdonald treat those affidavits? Did he venture for a moment to say that the contents of those affidavits were not true ? No, he met them by flourishing a cheque and saying, there is the cheque that paid for them.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Galliher: Yes, and I intend to say, hear, hear. The question is not whether those men who made these affidavits were paid for the time that they lost in leaving their work and going to make them; the question is as to the truth or untruth of those affidavits. What is the use of saying whether these were paid for or not if the cheque which my hon. friend there held was paid for by his friend's friends too ? But, be that as it may, so long as the statements in this affidavit are true it matters not to me whether the men were paid for their time or not. If they are true the gist of the whole thing and the application of the cheque has nothing to do with it whatever. If they are untrue, of course, it is a different thing. But, there must be either one or two conditions with regard to these affidavits. If these affidavits are not true then what should be the result V These affidavits were made in the city of Winnipeg right under the nose of the Attorney General's department of the province of Manitoba by residents then and now, as I understand, of Winnipeg. I heard that one of them has taken a trip away, but the majority are there yet, and if there is anything untrue in these affidavits the Criminal Code of Canada provides a means of dealing with men who make false statements under oath. It is the bounden duty of the Attorney General's department of Manitoba to prosecute all these men if they have made false statements in these affidavits. I am not going to say that the Attorney General's department was derelict in its duty in not doing that. I am rather inclined to take the charitable view of the case and to say that the reason that these men were not
prosecuted is that the contents of these affidavits are absolutely true. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), when the four or eight affidavits were quoted and the circumstances staled, remarked that that was the herd that the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) and the right hon. Prime Minister were travelling with. How he came to that conclusion I do not know. Not only were his friend's friends-if I am wrong I wish to be corrected-travelling with these four or eight men. but they were travelling with a herd of 450 men, a herd bigger than the herd of buffalo which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has imported into this country. It is not unreasonaple to suppose that hon. members on this side of the House, knowing the contents of these affidavits, would not wish to have men of that description on the list and would wish to have men who were placed on the lists under these circumstances removed in order that they might have a fair election. I will read some extracts from these affidavits. My hon. friend from Winnipeg read these affidavits, but made very little comment upon them. I propose to take a short time in making some comments on these affidavits. We will take first the affidavit of Theodore Rudneski ;
Province of Manitoba, to wit:
I,	Theodore Rudneski, agent, make oath and say as follows:-		
I am personally, intimately acquainted with W II Hastings, the organizer in the province of Manitoba for the Conservative party, and I have been acquainted witb the said Hastings for upwards of two years.
About the middle of the month of January 1907. I pointed out to the said Hastings that a large number of foreigners, particularly of the class usually known as Galicians, were residing in various parts of the city of Winnipeg who were at that time entitled to take out naturalization papers in Canada, but who had not at that time done so and who were otherwise qualified to become electors in the elections then in contemplation in the province of Manitoba.
This is how it started :
Shortly after the middle of January, 1907, the said W H. Hastings, in my presence, made arrangements with a committee of six composed of Joseph Makarski, Thomas bnezek, Prank Szablewski, George Czornij, Michael Humilowicz, Thomas Jestremski, to proceed at once to make up a list of Conservative Galicians eligible for naturalization.
I noticed that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) asked my hon. friend from Winnipeg if this were not in connection with naturalization and not in connection with the preparation of the lists. My hon. friend does not imagine for a moment that we are so guileless as to believe that the Conservative party in Manitoba are going to pay for the naturalization of 450 Galicians unless with the object of having them placed on the list as good

Conservative voters. The first step in placing a foreigner on the list who is not a British subject is to get him naturalized and it is with the naturalization of these people that these affidavits have to do. I will not read all the affidavits but I will read some parts of them that strike me very forcibly:
Prior to the third day of February, 1907, the committee aforesaid and other friends of the Conservative party made up a list of some 450, more or less, Galicians, Polanders, Germans, and other foreigners said to be at that time eligible for naturalization.
Prior to the said third day of February, 1907, the signatures of a few of the men on the list of 450 as aforesaid, were obtained

The signatures of a few of these men were obtained.
-by different parties to blank oaths of residence

	.
Blank oaths of residence:
-and oaths of allegiance on the forms in common use in connection with the naturalization of aliens, but the greater number on the list aforesaid had, prior to the third day of February, 1907, signed no papers whatever, or taken no oaths or affidavit whatever with a view of complying with the requirements of the Naturalization Act.
The great majority had signed no papers. A number of them had signed what? Were they aware of the papers they were signing? Was it filled in? Not at all, but it was a blank form of naturalization paper.
On Sunday the third day of February, A.D. 1907, I, this deponent, and Thomas Sne-zek, Frank Szablewski, Thomas Jestremski, Billey Chicocki, Vladmir Rudko and Julian Nowacki went, at the request of the said W. H. Hastings, in the Maw block on Market square, in the city of Winnipeg, and set to work about two o'clock in the afternoon to prepare the naturalization papers for the parties on the list of 450, thereabouts, above referred to.
And they continued that work until two o'clock on Sunday, just these men there present, nobody else, none of the applicants.
I was personally present at the time and place aforesaid, and I saw the said Thomas Jestremski sign as commissioner, the various naturalization papers aforesaid and certify that the contents of the said papers were sworn to or affirmed by the respective parties mentioned therein, without any of such parties swearing or affirming or being present on the occasion in question.
Actually the commissioner, the man employed, the man paid by the Conservative Party to get these men naturalized so that they might be put on the lists as good Conservative voters in North Winnipeg actually purported to swear men who were not present at all, and he actually affixed their signatures as having sworn when they had in reality made no deposition at all.


William Alfred Galliher: 


George Eulas Foster: Will my hon. friend allow a question?


William Alfred Galliher: Surely.


George Eulas Foster: Has my hon. friend read the affidavits of Mr. Hasting's and the other gentleman concerned in which they absolutely deny this? Why not give as much credence to these affidavits as to the others?


William Alfred Galliher: I have not read the affidavit of Mr. Hasting's. I am not taking second-hand proof. I am taking the sworn statement of the very men that Mr. Hastings employed to do this work. This is direct evidence. Talk about the thin red line, but when it conies down to sweariug in 450 invisible men you are drawing a very much finer and more evanescent line. This affidavit goes on to say :
12. The only commissioner present at the time and place referred to in paragraph 7 hereof, was Thomas Jestremski, and it was necessary in order to complete the naturalization papers for the 450 applicants, more or less, above referred to, for the said Thomas Jestremski to sign his name some twelve or fifteen hundred times, more or less, and the said Thomas Jestremski complained from time to time towards the latter part of the session in question of fatigue and complained that he was too tired of writing to complete all the papers. To overcome this the said Jestremski told others of the parties referred to in paragraph 7 hereof to sign the names of the said Jestremski to a number of the papers which were being made out as aforesaid, and the same were signed accordingly.
Thomas got tired of his job before it was all complete. I believe there is something known as writers' cramp, and Thomas appears to have got the writer's cramp, although I can find nothing in these affidavits that discloses the fact that he had any cramp in his conscience. And what did our friend Thomas do under these conditions? It was a mere matter of form to Thomas to declare that people were present before him when they were not present, but greater things were required of Thomas and when Thomas had worked to the point of exhaustion for his employers, Thomas very calmly turned over to his co-workers, who were also paid by the Conservative party, the right of signing his name as a commissioner for taking affidavits. There might be some powers that Thomas could delegate, but the taking of affidavits is not one of them. However, Thomas was equal to the occasion, and this affidavit goes on to say that these men signed the affidavits with Thomas' name until they completed the lists. We can imagine how closely the signatures of Thomas Jestremski was copied by his four or five co-workers when we know that the person whose duty it was to see that these affidavits wTere in regular order could not distinguish between the genuine and the bogus signature of Thomas.
Is it reasonable to suppose that these affi-

davits were not only not scrutinized, but deliberately allowed to go in knowing they were improper. Then I would take the affidavit of Mr. Rudneski (page 8192 of ' Hansard '), and it follows closely on the lines of the affidavit of Thomas Jestremski. He also knows Mr. Hastings and he also says that these other men were emnloyed to do this work by Mr. Hastings for the Conservative party, first at a stipend of $2 a day and as they improved in the manner of doing their work they got it increased to $2.50. This gentleman also says among other things that Jestremski was the only commissioner there and that he was troubled With writer's cramp and delegated his powers as I have mentioned. Further we find that a Mr. Irving connected with the Attorney General's Department has said that some of these affidavits ought to be dated back to January so that it would make them appear as being at a certain time before the holding of the court in February in order that the naturalization papers might be issued. He says distinctly that Mr. Hastings was present and knew the nature of the work being done on the said Sunday, February 3, and that they were dated back to January 2, 5, 8, 10 and 11, 1907. Now, as to how these people got naturalized: First, the great majority of them never signed the papers at all ; secondly, a few of them signed in blank ; thirdly, none of them were present wheu the commissioner took the oath which it was necessary to administer to them; fourthly, the commissioner delegated his authority to somebody else to sign these affidavits for him, and, fifthly, the dates of these that were taken on the 3rd of February were put back to certain days in January in order that they might meet the conditions that would arise. Now, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness I ask if in that case an unmitigated and indefensible fraud was not perpetrated upon the electors of North Winnipeg? These affidavits are taken from the mouths of the very people who were employed and paid to do the work. Hon. gentlemen may say that these affidavits were not made by very high-class people, but if that be the case the fault lies with the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite who employed and paid that class of men to do that class of work. But something else occurred in connection with these naturalization certificates. I shall refer to an affidavit put in by the hon. member for Dauphin at page S622 of ' Hansard,' the affidavit of John Hyzy, who says :
To wit: I, John Hyzy, of 627 Lorette avenue, in the city of Winnipeg, do solemnly declare I am at the present time vice-president of the Polish Conservative club. I have seen in the ' Free Press ' of this morning certain affidavits from Theodore Rudneski and others as to the way in which naturalization papers were made out just previous to the last election, in March, 1907. I have also seen in the Winnipeg 'Telegram' of this evening affidavits denying such charges, and, writh a full knowledge of the facts and the seriousness of such charges, I do say and solemnly declare:
After having read the affidavits and contradictions, I would like to know how Hyzy or any one else who was not present would know in what way this was done.
1.	During the month of February, 1907, I went to the headquarters of the Conservative club, in the Maw block, and met Mr. Rudneski and Mr. Sablewski, and asked them about the naturalization papers for Mr. Des-put and Mr. Jaworski and others, and they told me that they were not ready, but Rudneski said it was easy to make them out.
Yes, there is no doubt that their methods of making them out were"free and easy.
2.	Mr. Rudneski then sat down and filled in one of the papers and several others afterwards. I had to spell the name of Desput for him. He then went into an inner room on the right hand side of the large room where I was. I followed him to the door of the inner room, but he told me not to come in. There were other persons there whom I did not know.
3.	I saw him go to the table, then the door was closed. He came out a few minutes later with the papers. Before he took them in I noticed they had no stamp on them, but I could not say whether the signature of the clerk of the court was on them or not. When he came back and gave me the papers they had the stamp or seal of the court on them down in the left hand corner.
Now what a state of affairs. A man swears positively that this naturalization board, went in to the back room of the committee of the Conservative committee room in the Maw Block in the city of Winnipeg, that the papers when they went in did not bear the seal of the court, and when they came out from that room a few minutes afterwards did bear the seal of the court. In my opinion, and I think this will be agreed to, there is one proper place of custody for the seal of the county court of the county of Selkirk, or the city of Winnipeg, whichever it may be called now, and that is within the precincts of the court, and neither the clerk of the court nor any body else has any right to take the seal of that court either into the Conservative committee rooms or into any other rooms outside the court. It is there for a special purpose and when we find the seal of the court brought into the back room of the Conservative committee rooms in the Maw block in Winnipeg, in February, 1907, and have these naturalization papers stamped with that seal in that room, will any one say that there is not another case of fraud ? These affidavits disclose absolutely cases of fraud probably unparalleled in the history of the preparation of voters' lists, and when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. D. Borden) and other hoc. gentlemen on the other side of the

House ask why Manitoba is singled out from the rest of the provinces of Canada, I refer them to not only the conditions in Manitoba which have been set out in concrete form by my hon. friends the Liberals from Manitoba but also the scandalous actions in naturalizing these men and placing them on the list, for Rudneski swears that most of these names were placed on the lists afterwards


William D. Staples: Would my non. friend like to see the original cheque with which he was paid for the affidavits?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes. Might I ask my hon. friend how much his friends paid Rudneski for that cheque ?


William D. Staples: Not one cent more than its face value and I will prove it to the hon. gentleman if he wants it.


William Alfred Galliher: My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) need not get warm at all ; I am speaking in all kindness and we are old friends, when he played shortstop I played long-off.
Mx-. STAPLES. And you are a good sport too. Play the game fair.


William Alfred Galliher: I do not think I will
be accused of playing it unfair. I have not made statements and called them my own


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Galliher: I have taken affidavits right from the root of the thing, right from the very meu who did the work and I have taken statements of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who, I believe know what they are talking about and I have given them as their statements.
I shall now proceed to British Columbia which, as my hon. friends know, is also included under the provisions of this Act. In British Columbia we have in many respects an excellent franchise Act but in some respects it is weak. One of the good features of the British Columbia Act is that the list is revised twice a year in May and November. One of its weaknesses, to my mind, although this is possibly owing to the conditions physical and otherwise of British Columbia, is that it permits registration without personal application. The provincial government can give authority to any one to take affidavits in connection with the placing of names on the list, such a person can then go about among the people, as they do on both sides of politics, and in three or four days hand in a list of names of men who have taken affidavits without those men having to come personally before the registration clerk. I think myself that the only actually safe way to register is to have personal application for registration, but that would be difficult in the case of many miners who work in mines removed Mr. GALLIHER.
from a town where a commissioner is appointed. Probably that is why the commissioners are appointed in this way, although that practice gives rise to frauds, [DOT]as I have no doubt there are many cases where men are placed on the list who cannot read or understand the English language. No doubt in many instances men are on that list who cannot read or understand English, yet I suppose who have taken the affidavit with regard to residence and naturalization required by that Act, without understanding it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That works on both sides.


William Alfred Galliher: I am not making any distinction but mei'ely pointing out what is probably a weakness in the Act, which, in many other respects, is an excellent one. I notice that one of the provisions to entitle a man to be placed on the voters' list is that he shall be able to read the Act or any portion thereof, if so required, to the satisfaction of the registrar. But as a rule that provision is never exercised. My hon. friend will see that in the schedule that there is no provision regarding that in the affidavit, and the test can only be administered by the registration clerk or the registrar. Another and probably a more serious defect in the Franchise Act of British Columbia is this. Take the present list which is now five years' old. There is no question that in every x-iding in British Columbia to-day there are hundreds of names on that voters' list which ought not to be there as they represent either dead men or absentees. I consider that a serious weakness, and while owing to British Columbia being a new country and owing to its conditions, I would not go so far as my friend Mr. John Houston, the editor of the ' Empire ' of Prince Rupert, who asks that the list should be revised every year, still I think the suggestion is one it would be well for the government of British Columbia to consider. It would, I think, be only fair to have a complete new list made up at least every two years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman say that the lists are only revised once in five years?


William Alfred Galliher: I say that the list now in existence is five years old. Dui'ing that time we have had two courts of revision every year, the first Monday of May and the first Monday of November, and our Act provides that the registrar may, on giving notice or on the application of any one strike off the names of dead people or absentees; but in the practical working of the Act, it is very difficult to strike off names unless very special attention for a very special purpose is paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have not the other provinces to do the same thing?


William Alfred Galliher: I am not arguing that there is any distinction. I am merely endeavouring to point the excellencies and the defects of our lists. There is the power to strike off names but a lot are allowed to remain on from one election to another, and moreover you have to deposit one dollar for every name you object to. If you wish to have 200 names struck off, you must deposit with the registrar of votes $200. In every case in which you succeed, your dollar is returned. Otherwise it is forfeited. But while you may be morally certain that John Smith went away from the district of Kootenay a year ago and is not entitled to be on that list, yet you will hesitate before making an affidavit to the registrar that he is not in the district. The provisional divisions are very big, and it is barely possible that John Smith may be in some out of the way place, up in some mine, and never comes to town for six months in the year. Add to that the circumstance that you forfeit a dollar if the name is not struck off. and you can see that a great many names are left on the list which ought not to be there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be interesting to know how many dollars the hon. gentleman squandered in trying to get names struck off.


William Alfred Galliher: If it would be interesting to the House, I have no objection to telling my hon. friend that in the district of Kootenay I have gone before the people taking my chances on the will of the majority, and that I neither squandered dollars that way nor in buying any man's vote. In fact I did not have to. While we have a good Act in many respects in British Columbia, it has some defects, and if the Bill submitted to the House does not become law, we shall in British Columbia have to face an election with lists loaded up with a lot of driftwood and absentees. But I may say candidly to my hon. friend that if we were alone in this matter, while the revision of the lists, as provided in the Bill submitted to the House would certainly work no injustice to the province of British Columbia, yet I am disposed to say that had it not been felt desirable to introduce a Bill of this kind because of the conditions in the province of Manitoba there is no very grave necessity for applying it to my province. I candildy admit that I have not received from my district any expressed wish on the part of those who support me that this legislation should apply to British Columbia. On the other hand I have received from Conservative associations-and as I represent all the people there, I think it but fair that I should state this-objecting to the application of this Act, some from misunderstanding, some on the ground that the lists are all right as they stand, and others on the ground of disapproval 275
of tlie principle. Now, I have stated the matter fairly, and I state just as fairly, that I believe that, had there not been, as there is, in my opinion, every necessity for applying this Act in the fair manner in which the Prime Minister proposes to the province of Manitoba, it would not have been asked as applying to British Columbia.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) know whether the Liberal members sitting in the legislature of British Columbia have ever made a move to have the Act amended in the way my hon. friend suggested a moment ago?


William Alfred Galliher: I do not know of any instance in which they have done so. But I will frankly say to my hon. friend (Mr. Bergferon) that I do not really think that makes any difference ; I think that is beside the question ; because, whether I happen to be a member of the federal House or a member of the local legislature, I certainly am entitled to my view as to what should be a proper franchise Act and what amendments I think should be passed in the interests of the people.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But, in 1898, we adopted the principle of leaving all this to the local legislature.


William Alfred Galliher: I understand that that is the position, but I presume that my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) will admit that if you have the power to give you have the power to take away, for reason. I think we have scriptural authority which might possibly be applied to that. If I might make the quotation, Scripture says : ' The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away.' So, we might say, the government gave and the government takes away. And, perhaps my hon. friends opposite would not object to my applying the latter part of the quotation also and saying ' Blessed be the name of the government.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are not well up in that.


William Alfred Galliher: I quote that subject to correction by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) who is an authority. Before leaving British Columbia, I would say that the Liberal members of British Columbia have been considering some features of this Bill and may ask for some change later on when certain sections come up for consideration separately. In other words, we wish to be understood as having in view certain matters that will be in the interests of British Columbia.
Now. I will only refer to one other section of the Act and then will leave the matter of discussion on any other section to the time when the Bill is being discussed clause by clause in committee. I refer to section 17. I quite agree with the view expressed bv the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) when he says that it is very



desirable to preserve tbe secrecy of tbe ballot. I think that is something that will be admitted by members on both sides of the House. Probably, the wording of section 17 as it is may be a little wide ; it may give cause of the apprehension expressed by the leader of the opposition. However*, this Bill, like others, must be taken up for consideration clause by clause, and it should be the endeavour of every hon. member to make the Bill as good a measure as possible. Merely expressing niy own opinion hurriedly, I would say that it seems to me that the wording of the clause leaves it open to the serious objection that my hon. friend (Mr. B. L. Borden) sees in it. What, as I fancy, is intended is that, if the returning officer places a mark upon the ballot of a voter through Inadvertence. his doing so is not to have the effect of disfranchising the voter, but the ballot should be counted. Left in its present form, this section might possibly give rise to the abuse suggested by the leader of the opposition. But if the section be so framed as to allow only for cases of omission or inadvertence, then it will not be open to the same objection. For, after all, we have to consider the right of every elector to exercise his franchise; and, when he casts his vote, that vote should not be cancelled because of an error of the deputy returning officer. We all know what took place in the Wentworth election two or three years ago. I had in mind, in this connection, a case decided in the Supreme Court of the state of Washington. It is the case of Moyer and Van de Vanter, and is reported in 12 Washington, page 377. I have not gone into the case itself but have merely taken the syllabus. It says :
The provisions of the general statutes, section 391, directing that in the canvass of the votes any ballot which is not endorsed by the initials of some one of the election officers shall not be counted

That is, as in our case, if the returning officer, being required by the statute to initial the ballot, through error or inadvertence, fails to initial it, the principle announced by the Supreme Court of Washington would validate that vote. For it says that not to count such a ballot would be :
-in conflict with the constitutional provision entitling all male persons having certain qualifications to the right to vote at all elections, since the effect of such statutory provision would be to debar voters of their constitutional right to vote, without fault on their part.
In other words, declaring that it was unconstitutional to say that a vote should be void and bad and could not be counted through an error or omission on the part of the returning officer. That is the extent to which they have gone in the state of Washington, and I understand that the same ground has been taken in the courts Mr. GALLIHEK,
in Michigan. So it does appear to me that if, through inadvertence, a returning officer happens to place an initial on a ballot where it should not be, a man who has an inherent right to be on the list should not on that account be deprived of his franchise. It is an easy matter to distinguish between an error or inadvertence and a deliberate act ; I do not think the court would have any difficulty in deciding that. So I say that if, through inadvertence or omission of the returning officer to do a thing which the law called upon him to do, and through no fault of the elector, who had marked that ballot in accordance with the law, it seems to me that it is due in fairness to that elector that his ballot should be counted. I think probably this section 17 could be so redrafted as to do away to a certain extent with the reasonable and proper objection that was raised by the leader of the opposition, namely, that it would be absolutely wrong to leave it in the hands of a dishonest returning officer so to mark a ballot that John Smith could be identified.


George Oscar Alcorn: Where does the hon. gentleman find anything about inadvertence in this section?


William Alfred Galliher: I am saying that I think the section can be redrafted so as to include only such cases as I am suggesting. As I say, the court can easily distinguish between what is an error and what is deliberate. For instance, no returning officer has a right to write the name of John Smith on a ballot, or to mark the initials of a voter. The only difference between this Bill and the present Act is that, under the present Act, the returning officer, if he is dishonest, can put these marks on the ballot, and the result is that the ballot would not be counted, and the voter is deprived of his vote by the wrongful act, not of himself, but of the returning officer. This Bill would in effect say:	Notwithstanding that the returning
officer wrongfully puts a mark on the ballot the voter shall not be deprived of his franchise. But if this provision is going to open the door too wide, surely we can come to some conclusion with regard to drafting, so that at all events the error or omission of a returning officer will not deprive a qualified elector of his vote.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this Bill much longer than I intended, and I ask pardon of the House for having taken up so much time. I thought I would be able to condense my remarks into half an hour, or an hour at the most. Although this question has been discussed at great length on both sides of the House, I felt it my duty as a member of this House to place my views on record. I trust that there is no misunderstanding with regard to the proposition of the Prime Minister, because, if I understand aright, it appears

to me that no reasonable man in Manitoba can say that in so far as the preparation of the lists is concerned, the proposition of the Prime Minister would not provide an absolute guarantee that every qualified elector in Manitoba shall have the right and the opportunity of registering- his vote.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose at six o'clock we heard from the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) several statements with regard to the proposed Bill which is now before us and, knowing that hon. member as I do, I cannot help but feel that he was labouring very hard to-day in the effort to make out a case on behalf of hon. members on the government side of the House. I believe that the hon. gentleman sings a song called * Play the game ; play the game fair.' I only wish that he would take the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) aside for a few moments and sing that song to him. I believe that if he did we would have better results than we are likely to have from the arguments which have been advanced by government members. However, his whole speech goes to show that the government is not playing the game fair. Statement after statement that the hon. member made, in attempting to defend the government's action on this Bill, certainly proved to me conclusively that the government are trying to force on the House and the country, ancl upon the province of British Columbia and Manitoba in particular, an unfair and unreasonable measure. He said that the statements he made were not his own but that he took them from the speeches of the hon. members who are supporting this measure, but, if you investigate these speeches you cannot help but feel, as hon. members on this side of the House feel, that they contain statements which are not founded on reasonable grounds. He did not tell us about the short space of time that the government would give the people of Manitoba to register their votes under the operation of this Bill. He did not tell us that practically the people of Manitoba would only have four weeks in which to register and have the lists revised as well. The one great cry of hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House is that the Manitoba Election Act does not give them sufficient time in which to register the names of voters in the different polling divisions or to revise the lists, but when you inquire as to the time they are likely to grant for the courts of revision and for the placing of names on the voters' lists you cannot help but feel 275J
that the Act which the legislature of Manitoba has given to the people of that province is much better than the one which is proposed by this government. He did not teir us that the government were likely to introduce the Ross ballot clause in this Bill-Clause 17 is a clause that the people of Ontario fought for many years to eliminate from the statute-book of that province and we are proud and glad to know that we have in the province of Ontario a body of men who have been able to carry out the promises that were made to the electorate previously to their coming into power and one of the promises that they have carried out since coming into office has been the elimination from the statute-book of the numbered ballot. We are surprised that an effort should be made to introduce this into the Dominion Election Act and we can only think that the Hon. Mr. Ross, in coming to Ottawa, has had something to do with placing that clause in the Bill which is now before the House because it was through having that clause on the statute-book of Ontario that he was able to carry practically the last two elections that he did carry and was able to retain office for a longer period than he otherwise would have been. The hon. member who took his seat before six o'clock did not quarrel with the Manitoba Act. He had practically nothing to say in opposition to that Act. He was trying to explain, for one thing in particular, the Prime Minister's speech but the press of this country and members of the opposition have been unable to understand what the Prime Minister's meaning was in making the statements which he did make to this House in defence of the Bill. The hon. member for Kootenay also stated that Manitoba must be punished. That is a pretty strong statement for a member of this House to make in regard to the Bill which is now before us and which deals with the province of Manitoba. Why should Manitoba be punished, may I ask that hon. gentleman ? Why should Manitoba and British Columbia be singled out for special legislation in connection with the Election Act of the Dominion ? I cannot help but feel that if the hon. gentleman would investigate this matter thoroughly he would be satisfied that the Election Act of Manitoba is not only a reasonable and fair measure, but that the province of Manitoba, should not be singled out as a province to be dealt with in the manner in which this government are attempting to deal with it. Manitoba must be punished. He said that it was practically for her own good that she should be punished.
Then he spent an hour dealing with affidavits which have been presented to this House by some hon. gentlemen opposite and which have been dealt with by hon. members on this side of the House, particularly the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. T.

Roche) and the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) in the most able manner. They were able to show that these affidavits wrere not founded on fact and they had affidavits from prominent men and officials in the west distinctly stating that the affidavits quoted by hon. gentlemen opposite were false. Take the affidavits for instance of Mr. Hastings, barrister, of Winnipeg, and of Mr. R. 0. Irving, inspector of legal offices for the provincial government. I will read the affidavit of Mr. L. N. Betourney :
Dominion of Canada, province of Manitoba; to wit:
In the matter of naturalization of aliens in the Winnipeg county court, in the year, 1907.
I, L. N. Betourney, of the city of St. Boniface, in the province of Manitoba, do solemnly declare
(1)-Since the amendment to the Naturalization Act requiring three weeks' notice to be given to the court by aliens applying for naturalization, no applications have been read in open court and no certificates of naturalization have been issued by me, without such notice havimr been given by such aliens as required by law.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and: effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.
(Sgd.) L. N. BETOURNEY.
Declared before me at the city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, this 7th day of May, A.D. 1908.


AUGUSTUS MILLS.
[Stage Direction]
A Commissioner in B.R., &c.
As you are aware, Mr. Betourney is clerk of the court of that province, lie is a reliable person and he says distinctly that these affidavits are not authentic and that they have not been presented to him for record. 'Hie hon. gentleman depended on the speeches of the government members for his information which he placed before the House to-day. If the hon. gentleman had investigated these speeches and looked into the statements which have been made by a number of hon. members coming from the province of Manitoba and others who have addressed the House on this question he would come to the conclusion that the government were prepared to take an unfair advantage of the Conservatives of Manitoba. Year after year the Manitoba government have been courting inquiry into their Franchise Act and year after year the Liberal opposition in the legislature have been unable to point to one serious irregularity under the election law. And yet we find the Dominion government selecting Manitoba for invidious distinction and attempting to belittle it in the eyes of the Dominion. Some of these gentlemen opposite told us that voters had to go as far as 212 miles to vote, but the province of Manitoba is only 264 miles long by 284 miles wide, a fact which goes to show how reckless have been the statements made by hon. gentle-Mr. ARMSTRONG.
men opposite. The hon. gentleman from Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) was fair enough to tell us that the election Act of British Columbia was just and reasonable and he told us that so far as he was concerned he was willing that British Columbia should not be included in this Bill. No doubt a great many constituents of the hon. gentleman have been pleading with him to give fair play to his own province as well as to Manitoba. In the province of Manitoba there are 41 constituencies and there are on an average practically 12 registration booths in every one of these constituencies. I have here a proclamation referring to the electoral division of Turtle Mountain, and had I time I would read the whole of it in order to show how fairly registration booths are conducted in that province but the following paragraph which is printed in large type will suffice :
Only such persons whose names are not on t he last revised list of electors but possess the qualification to be registered as electors under the provisions of the Manitoba Election Act need attend the registration sittings or court of revision for the purpose of being so registered. Electors can make application for registry at any of the places mentioned above.
As I understand it this means that if a man who resides in the lower part of a constituency happens to be at the extreme other end when a court of revision is being held there he would be justified in going before the court and getting his name on the list, and the application would afterwards be investigated before the judge and his name would appear on the list in its proper location. The hon. member for Kootenay in effect admitted in his speech that the Prime Minister had practically gold-bricked not only the opposition but the press of the country. He told us that the Prime Minister was anxious to give a square deal to the Conservatives, but let us see what the right hon. gentleman said and I quote from page 8296 of ' Hansard.' Here are the right hon. gentleman's words :
I have no hesitation in saying that 1 am a partisan but in all fairness to myself I do not believe that I would willingly and conscientiously strike below the belt in order to take unfair advantage of an opponent. ~
I have been a member of this House for a number of years and I must say that I do not believe the right hon. gentleman is responsible for the clauses in this Bill which have no other object in the world than to strike below the belt.
The right hon. gentleman continued :
I am a partisan anjl I have sufficient experience of political life in this country to know that very often the judgment of a parti san may be biinded and warped.
I cannot help but think that the right hon. gentleman's position on this Bill is blinded and warped, and that he is attempting to force down the throats of His Ma-
[Stage Direction]
jesty's loyal opposition a measure that is unfair, unreasonable, and invidious and a measure as to which tire opposition of this House are justified in straining every nerve to oppose. The right hon. gentleman continued :
I understand fully, I think, the motive of the opposition which has come to this Bill from gentlemen on the other side of the House and especially from the members from the province of Manitoba. They dread the effect of the law of their own province if it is to be administered not by officers appointed by themselves, but by officers appointed by this government.
The hon. member for Kootenay tried to defend the position of this government in seeking to let their officers take charge of the lists in Manitoba, but he was unable to say a word against the Manitoba Franchise Act. He was willing-no I could not say he was willing for the hon. gentleman plays ball, as he reminded one of the members on this side that he played ball wi'h him, and the hon. gentleman knows liow to play the game fair, and his laboured remarks this afternoon plainly proved to me that he would like to play the game fair, but he could not do so and defend this Bill. The hon. gentleman was defending this Bill with one hand while he was taking back the words he uttered with the other hand, and instead of taking a manly stand against the measure he was compelled to make a .weak and vacillating defence of it. I am sure when he reads his speech to-morrow he will feel humiliated because knowing the hon. gentleman as I do I know that the task imposed upon him as a western member to defend this Bill was most distasteful to him. The right hon. Prime Minister further said (' Hansard ' page 8298) :
Sir, is it not a fact that in 1885 the Conservative party crammed down our throats a system whereby the lists were taken from independent officers and placed in the hands of officers appointed by themselves.
And yet the right hon. gentleman is today trying to cram down the throats of the opposition a measure which, were lie in our n'ace he would use his most strenuous efforts to prevent becoming law. Sir. I admire the men on this side of the House who are coining out boldly and manfully in defence of Manitoba, of British Columbia, and of the unorganized districts of Ontario and Quebec which are attacked by this Bill. When yon see these men fighting for their existence iu this House and for the rights of the people, you cannot but admire the position they are taking. The right hon. gentleman says that in years gone by the Conservatives attempted to cram down the throats of the then opposition a nefarious measure. 'Why then should he bring in such a measure as this and attempt to cram it down the throats of the opposition ?
At page 8557 the Trime Minister says :
We held to the opinion that the preparation of the lists should be left in the hands of the provincial authorities.
That is referring to the conditions previous to 1885.
-still, we had, in the language of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, to keep watch over the provinces and if we found that conditions arose which would not he fair to this House, then it would be our duty to resume our powers and to have the list prepared by ourselves.
What are the sections in the Provincial Act of the province of Manitoba to which the right hon. the Prime Minister alludes when he says:
If we found that conditions arose which would not be fair to this House then it would become our duty to resume our powers and to have the list prepared by ourselves.
The right hon. gentleman was unable in the whole of his speech to refer to any section in the Act of the province of Manitoba that was unfair or unreasonable. He was unable to show this House or the people of the Dominion that the Provincial Act of Manitoba was unfair or unreasonable in any way, and was not for the general benefit of the people of that province.
The right hon. gentleman referred to tho overlapping of constituencies in the western provinces, but he could find similar overlapping in every eastern province. In almost any province in Canada he will find overlapping more serious and very much greater in proportion than he will find in the western provinces. For instance iu my own riding there is overlapping and there are irregularities in regard to voters' lists and the same thing prevails in many Ontario constituencies. The hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. B. L. Borden) was able to state that for the one irregularity that could be pointed out in Manitoba he could show two in the province of Nova Scotia. I feel sure that on investigation the Prime Minister and his cabinet would find that the Manitoba Provincial Act is reasonable, that it does justice to the people of that province irrespective of party and that the proper course for this government would he to. adopt that Act. Pages of the Prime Minister's speech on Thursday last were devoted to the defence of Bench, but after the statements made by the bon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), I am sure that those who were attempting to defend Beach will feel that his position in the eyes of this country is not a good one The Prime Minister said :
If the polling divisions are not divided by the boundaries of the Dominion constituencies, I do not see any necessity for intervention; it is only where they are divided, so far as I can see, 'that the necessity for intervention arises.
[Stage Direction]
But when you come to look into the results of the forcing of such a Bill as this upon the province of Manitoba before the last Dominion election, it is found that many irregularities resulted.
Let me read from the Prime Minister's words at page 8311:
On this side of the House there is an intimate conviction that the lists in the province of Manitoba are very unfair to the political party to which I belong. The members from Manitoba who sit on this side have given what seem to me conclusive evidence on that point. I have looked into the Manitoba Act. In many respects, it is a commendable Act.
In the whole of his speech he was unable to point out one section of that Act which was not for the general advancement of the franchise in that province and when he refers to the members who are supporting him in this matter, I cannot but feel that by this time he is surely cognizant of the fact that they have not been furnishing him with the proper kind of information in regard to the western provinces Then at page 8315 he says:
I ask my hon. friends if they will not admit that although the legislation which today exists in Manitoba and the manner in which it is administered may be satisfactory to the Tories, it is not satisfactory to the Grits-and that is the reason we have introduced this legislation.
' Mr. Speaker, there is practically the crux of the whole question. The First Minister admits frankly and fairly that as far as he is concerned he must have partisan administration in the province of Manitoba and the unorganized districts or he cannot carry the next election; and I believe it is our duty to see that this province and these unorganized districts are protected and that he shall not secure that advantage.
At page 8317 the Prime Minister says:
That is the proposition I have to make. The judge who is empowered to adjust the lists will be entrusted with the work of correcting all errors which may have been committed in the preparation of the lists in Manitoba.
If that is the only proposition he has to make to the members of the opposition, the Provincial Act provides for that in the province of Manitoba and there is no need of discussing this question any further. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) asked him the question :
Will the right hon. gentleman point out some of the abuses committed by the registration clerks?
Although that question was asked twice the right hon. gentleman was unable to point to one abuse by the registration clerks.
Having read carefully the speeches of the Prime Minister and.his prominent supporters in defence of this measure, I can only
Mr. ARMSTRONG,
say that I do not find any argument that will substantiate their statements in regard to the forcing of such a clause upon the people of Manitoba. The opposition are called obstructionists. I think that on Friday last we were able to give to the House and the country proof that we are not obstructionists. But. Sir, we are patriots, we are ready and willing to stand by this province, and by the unorganized districts and to see that justice is done to them.
The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) laughs at my statements. Does he think it is right that this measure should be crammed down our throats. I cannot believe that he is supporting this Bill with his splendid energy and voice, nor can I believe that he will stand by and see this little province saddled with an obnoxious measure such as is now proposed. Coming from the province of Ontario, he will not wish to see the province of Manitoba saddled with the marked ballot which for years kept the Ross government in power Is that the object of the hon. the Minister of Customs ? Does he want to force upon the people a numbered ballot ? Does he think it is in the interest of the country that a man should be able to go into a poll and write his name practically on a ballot ? Clause 17 is one of the most unfair clauses we could possibly place in an Election Act. Let me read it :	_
Provided, however, that no ballot papers shall be rejected on account of any writing, ' number or mark placed thereon by any deputy returning officer.
That practically means that the door is flung wide open to acts of corruption. It means that what was practised upon the province of Ontario up to the advent of the present Ontario government is to be perpetrated upon the whole Dominion. I cannot believe that the Minister of Customs has given his sanction to this Bill. I cannot help believing that when he comes to speak, as no doubt he will shortly, in defence of this measure, he will not attempt to defend that clause. On his own side man after man has pronounced that clause a most unfair and invidious piece of legislation which should never have been proposed by the Minister of .Tustice. If they have not done this on the floor of the House they have done it in the intimacy of friendly conversation. The Minister'of Justice knows that it is unfair. The First Minister is well aware that It is most unjust and unreasonable. Yet we are called obstructionists because we are trying to have it eliminated, and the right hon. gentleman is threatening us with dissolution. Well, all I can say is that we welcome dissolution. it is high time that the people were given an opportunity to drive this government out of power. It would be the best thing that could happen this country if we should have a dissolution and have these
barnacles cleaned oft the ship of state. Let this government go into the dry dock of pub-lie opinion and get the barnacles scraped' off, they will soon met their fate in the next election however. According to the Montreal ' Star ' of to-day, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) declared in Montreal that provincial politics must go hand in hand with federal politics for both are destined to work for the good of the country. I can hear the Minister of Agriculture down in that province telling the people of the wonderful advantages this Bill is going to give them. He went on to say:
While provincial issues must be more particularly discussed on such occasions, he wished to warn the electors of the county of Brome that they must be ready for another campaign in a very short time. The opposition at Ottawa are trying to usurp the powers of government.
Just fancy the Minister of Agriculture, with his sixty majority, going to the province of Quebec and telling the people there that the opposition at Ottawa are trying to usurp the powers of the government. Did he tell them it was high time the opposition were on the treasury benches? Did he tell them about the corrupt acts of this government, about the corruption carried on in every department of the government, not excluding his own? No, but he went down and said :
The opposition are trying to usurp the powers of government. The latter have been entrusted with that duty, however, and if we cannot carry it out with the present parliament, we will appeal to the country in three or four weeks and have another parliament to do the work of the country.	.
I want to tell the hon. gentleman that he cannot go to the country any too soon, and when he does he will find that this moribund government, with . one foot in the grave, will be compelled to give up the offices they now so unworthily hold. The hon. minister was trying to buoy up his own courage.
An hon. MEMBER.: He was feeding the chickens.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Perhaps. Or talking about his cold storage scheme and other measures which he has not yet been able to make any practical use of. The government appear to be very unhappy over the Manitoba list. But we do not find any complaint from the Liberal members in the legislature of that province. We do not find any complaint from the men who are living in that province and who represent the people on the opposition side in the provincial legislature. They have not been making any outcry against the present voters' lists there. They have been unable to see that any unfair advantage is taken of them. Hon. gentlemen opposite, however, have recourse to all kinds of
means to force this measure on that province.
When we consider the unhappy position in which this government is, we cannot help but conclude that the country is ripe for dissolution. The government to-day are practically in the hands of the money lenders. Look at the position in which the Grand Trunk Pacific stands to-day financially. Look at the position in which our bonds are in the old country market. Consider the tens of millions of dollars which we shall have to borrow in the old country in the near future. To-day we are obliged to pay	four, five,
six and as high as seven per bent for our money. Is it not time, therefore, that the present government should be ousted and a business government be given control? This government are in the hands of the middlemen and the grafters. When we compare the way our finances are managed at Ottawa with the way the provincial finances of Ontario are administered, we cannot congratulate the present administration. I need hardly point to the Quebec bridge and the corruption in the different departments. With regard to this measure, the opposition have been contending all along that clauses 1 and 17 should be eliminated. In this matter each province to-day is a little kingdom unto itself, but the central authority is trying to change that condition. What they ought to do is deal out justice to Manitoba. They are trying, however, to ignore provincial rights and, further, to take the ballot from the people in the unorganized districts.
Reference has been made to the position taken by the Prime Minister in 1901 with regard to the measure which was then contemplated. I can only say that the Bill must have been drafted in the Justice Department and that some one in the government must have been responsible for it, for we find that it is was ' printed by the King's Printer ' some one must have directed this. The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says that he is ignorant of it. Then, who is the dominating force in regard to this measure ? Was it the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). And is that hon. gentleman dominating the government in regard to this matter and forcing it upon the provinces of the west ? I cannot but believe that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) is largely responsible for the present Bill. We have the hon. member for Carle-ton. N.B., (Mr. Carvell throwing slurs upon the laymen of this House and parading his greatness as a lawyer and a legal luminary before the country. As I understand it, law is based on common sense. But when you read clause 1 and clause 17 of this Bill, you cannot but see that, instead of being based on common sense and fair play, they are based upon the very opposite. That hon. gentleman asked why it was that more days were allowed for registration in Manitoba

in 1903 than in 1905. But, though he asked the question, he would not give the opposition an opportunity to explain. The obvious reason is that, in 1903. every man had to be registered, but in 1905 only those who had not been registered before needed to have their names put upon the list, and so it would have been folly to have allowed an equal number of days for registration.
Our duty in regard to this measure is plain. The Liberal-Conservative party are fighting for a square deal and we should be weaklings not to fight for our position. The Liberals of Manitoba are not asking that the present measure should be forced upon that province. The Prime Minister appealed to the sense t>f honour and fair play of hon. members on this side. Why, we have been fighting for nothing else than honour and fair play. Hon. gentlemen opposite accuse us of obstructing the business of the country in this House ; but when these hon. gentlemen look back upon their own record, they can hardly find fault with us for the position we take. The Prime Minister tells us that Leach is a respectable man. Well, so is rreston a ' respectable ' man ; so is Vance a ' respect-aide ' man : and tin1 O'Gorman's, and the Lewises and the Pritchetts and all who have been doing the dirty work of this government-so are they all ' respectable ' men.
If this Bill becomes law, the candidate in Manitoba or the unorganized districts will not have an opportunity to see the voters' lists practically until polling day. What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker ? Is that playing the game fairly ? Is that giving the square deal to the opposition ? Is that a reasonable measure to cram down the throats of the opposition ?-to use the words of the Prime Minister. The Conservatives ask that the government allow the judges to take the present lists, and, where overlapping occurs, let them make the changes. That is all that is necessary in order to attain the end which the government says is the end desired in this case. We find the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) admitting that there were no irregularities in the Manitoba law ; and the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Duncan Boss) practically said that, so far as he was concerned, he knew of no irregularities in the Manitoba law. Man after man on that side is unable to find fault with the Manitoba law as it exists, but still all are ready to take advantage of the little province of Manitoba and of the unorganized districts.
I cannot but think that this is all part of a great election scheme prepared in advance by this government. Months ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Bro-deur) came from Europe amidst a great blowing of trumpets and firing of guns, with government ships to meet them as


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: they approached our shores and many willing helpers to tell the news that a treaty had been made between the Dominion and the French republic. After these gentlemen landed, at public meetings in different parts of the country they gave the people to understand that the treaty was a wonderful thing that would give the people of this Dominion immense advantages in the French market. But when that treaty was laid on the table of this House, the members of the opposition were able to show that it would not benefit our agricultural classes and that only a few manufacturers would reap advantage from it. But this was only part of the election scheme. We had also the all red r<5ute. In the imperial conference, the Prime Minister took a position in which I am surprised to see hon. gentlemen opposite supporting him. He listened approvingly to a scheme of transportation by fast steamships on the Atlantic, then overland across our own country, thence by steamship to New Zealand and Australia. Next we heard it heralded throughout this country that the premier was going to have a fast line of steamships to Australia and New Zealand. But, when we came to this House expecting to find that some definite .steps had been taken in regard to this measure, we found instead-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) will see that he is wandering a little away from the subject.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Possibly I am, Mr. Speaker. I was going to show that this measure was but a part of a government election scheme. This is the crowning act of the drama and the worst, for it takes an unfair advantage of the people and, instead of being for the general welfare, it will allow corruption to be sown broadcast throughout the country. Well, that is another blunder of the Minister of Justice, because we have seen many blunders on the part of that hon. gentleman since he became a member of the cabinet. I cannot think of a worse blunder than this. It simply means that ballots can be marked, that bn Hots can be stolen, as this government have been in the habit of doing, and burnt, as the Ross government have been in the habit .of doing ; it means that all kinds of corrupt acts are liable to be tried on if this measure becomes law. Are the requests of the opposition unreasonable ? N'o, Sir. we are not unreasonable in asking the government to withdraw sections 1 and 17. because we believe that those sections will encourage corruption in elections. If hon. gentlemen who are so strenuously defending this Bill on the other side of the House will look back and read the words- of the Hon. David Mills, or the Hon. Edward Blake, or of their own Mr. Sifton, or Mr. Fitzpatrick, and see what those gentlemen said in fa-

vour of adopting the provincial franchises, they would not persist in their advocacy of a measure like this. The Minister of Justice says that the Manitoba Act is tyranny and oppression as compared with this Bill; but he was unable to point to one section in the Manitoba Act which was either tyrannical or oppressive. I say that these two clauses in this Bill will open the door to all kinds of corrupt practice, and 1 think that this government should be better employed than in bringing down legislation of this character and asking us to pass it. There is no room in this Dominion for men who will bring down measures such as this, and try to force them down the throats of the opposition, when they know very well that they will have the effect of depriving of their franchise electors in the outlying districts of this Dominion. Now who are the people living in these outlying districts ? They are the friends, the kinsmen and the relatives of members of this House. Instead of hon. gentlemen taking the position they are taking, they should bring down a measure that will do away with electoral corruption. The government should have brought down legislation dealing with corruption in elections. There is no provision in this Bill for holding by-elections at a certain time, no provision made as to the character of the returning officers, no provision with regard to corporations contributing to election funds. Civil servants are still allowed to take part in the elections, there is no statutory declaration for financial agents to take. The door is thrown wide open to criminals and the Lewises, the Pritchetts' and the Prestons will have full swing if this Bill becomes law. Are these people in the outlying districts not worthy of the protection of this government ? The Minister of the Interior says that he is willing to allow men who are only receiving $30 a month in the civil service to go on the platform and take an active part in electoral campaigns. Did I understand aright, the Minister of the Interior to say that because officials in his department were only receiving some $600 or $800 a year, they had a perfect right to go on the platform, a perfect right to become scrutineers and to take an active part in elections ? I can only say that if that is the position taken by the' Minister of the Interior, the time has come when we should have a Civil Service Act that will do away with such abuses, and afford no occasion for ministers of the Crown to take such a position as that.
Now this Bill takes away the right of appeal before a judge, which is the safeguard of men living in the rural districts. This government would not dare to force such a measure on the older provinces, this government would not dare to force this measure on the province of Ontario. Let them come before the province of Ontario
with such a nefarious measure as this, and they would very soon find reason to regret it. The Conservative party stands for hands off Manitoba, it stands for the rights of minorities, for purity in elections. But we cannot have purity in elections with such a law as this on the statute-book. However, we feel that brighter and better days are dawning for the people of this Dominion. The present government are tottering to their fall, their knees are shaking like Belshazzar's at the feast. All I can say to the opposition is, stand firm on this question and let dissolution come. Let the government go to the country on this question if they dare.


Mr. TALBOT.: When ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Whenever they dare. The Minister of Agriculture who boasts down in the province of Quebec, of the little he has accomplished for the farmers, let him go out into the western provinces if he dare, and talk of the measures he has put on the statute-book. Instead of going into the province of Quebec and trying to rouse up the people and telling them to look out for what is coming, he had better go into the west and say to the people of Manitoba that he is going to give them a square deal in this matter. But I am afraid that the Minister of Agriculture is too much of a party man to be willing to give the opposition a square deal in regard to this Bill.
I am afraid he is falling into the views of the men who sit behind him, that they cannot possibly win the next general election unless they bring in some nefarious measure like this which will give them an unfair advantage. I can only say to the men who are fighting this Bill to stand to their guns. It is our duty to stay here and to persist in our present attitude. I say that we are justified in withholding a large portion of the estimates, so that this government may not hold the whip hand over us for the next few weeks or the next few months. We feel that we are justified in taking the stand that we and our friends from the Northwest have taken in regard to this measure, we stand by the convincing statements that we have made, statements that no man who will investigate this question and who will take a reasonable view of it can fail to support, and we confidently believe that it is our duty to stay here until tiie snow flies if necessary, to fight this Bill. In closing, I would ask the government to take this matter into their serious consideration and to give to the western provinces and the unorganized districts of Ontario and Quebec a square deal. If the government will eliminate clause 1 and blot out clause 17 they will find the opposition ready and willing to sit down and discuss with them a measure that will be for the general benefit of the country.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, the objection to the present Manitoba law regarding voters' lists is not so much to the registration as to the revision. In the compilation of voters' lists there are two separate stages : registration and revision. Under ordinary conditions a voters' list is fixed by the "revision, not by the registration, but under the Manitoba law as administered, registration is more important than revision. Names are placed on the preliminary or registration list by the registration clerk, on a statutory declaration being made personally before him by the applicant at a certain time and place. If personal presence is insisted upon in some cases and not in all and especially if it is insisted upon in the case of members of one political party and not in the case of members of the other-a great advantage is thereby given to the favoured persons or party in getting their names on the preliminary lists. An instance has been given and admitted in which three names and declarations were accepted by the registration clerk without the presence of the parties, which names were allowed by the judge at the final revision of the lists notwithstanding opposition based on the wording of the law. The position taken by the registration clerk, as stated by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), was that his duty was merely to accept applications for consideration and decision by ti e revising officer. The revising officer approved the application and added the names to the list although he was satisfied that application had not been made in person to the registration clerk, as required by the statute. Being satisfied of the qualifications of these voters he ruled, as stated by the hon. member for Marquette, that he would not allow the technicality of their failure to appear for registration to debar them from the list According to this precedent and under this ruling of the revising officer the presence of the voter is not an absolutely necessary condition of registration. Given registration clerks appointed by and only responsible to the provincial government, guided by such precedent and ruling, it is only reasonable to believe that the presence of the voters, as required by the statute, was not insisted upon by the registration clerks in the case of Conservative voters as it was in the case of Liberal voters. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Jackson) stated, in addressing this House, that on going to the registration office himself to have his own name placed upon the list, the name was placed upon the list by the registration clerk without any affidavit on his part and he personally saw the registration clerk add the names of a number of other voters without affidavits on their part. We have this indisputable evidence that names have been placed on the lists by the registration clerks without affidavit and again we have Mr. ARMSTRONG.
absolute evidence that they have been placed on the registration list and allowed by the revising officer without the person's presence at the registration booth. These two facts being established, we have not then a compilation of the list as required by the Act. This is an instance where the law is satisfactory but the administration is not satisfactory. In a country where population is scattered and distances great, registration without the presence of Conservatives while the presence of Liberals was insisted upon, would give a tremendous advantage to the Conservatives in getting names on the preliminary list. No provision was made for the printing of the preliminary list. It was posted on the door of the building in which the revision was held and copies could be demanded of the registration clerk, but to get the copy from the registration clerk was quite a different matter from making the demand. Compliance with the demand could at least be delayed so as to render the right of demand of little value. The list as compiled, in many cases, did not give the post office address of the voter. In case of an attempt to have a name struck off the list by the revising officer notice had to be sent to the person whose right was questioned. In case a person whose right to be on the list was questioned-


William D. Staples: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman what document he is reading from.


Frank Oliver: I am rending from a document of excellent authority, quite superior to the affidavits that my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) read.


William D. Staples: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your ruling?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: My ruling as to what.


William D. Staples: The hon. Minister of the Interior is reading his speech.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Of course the rule is plain that an hon. member is not permitted to read his speech.
Mr. OLIVER, i take the point of order that my hon. friend raises as a considerable compliment-that the remarks which have been placed before the House have been direct and to the point. I will admit that the remarks that I have been placing before the House are written. They are written for the purpose of enabling me to put before the House the arguments that I desire to place before it in the shortest and most concise form in order to save the time of the House.


George Eulas Foster: Whose are they?


Frank Oliver: When they are placed before the House they will be mine.


George Perry Graham: Tliey will be presented to the House.


Frank Oliver: Yes. I want to continue if I may.


George Eulas Foster: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the point is pressed, of course the bon. gentleman cannot continue to read.


Frank Oliver: Then I would like to impress upon the attention of the House the eminent fairness with which it is proposed by our friends of the opposition to carry on this debate. I think that is a fair sample of the fairness with which they carry on the business of revising the voters' lists in the province of Manitoba. However, I do not think that the point of order, or the effort that they made, will at all deprive the House of the views that I desire to put before it although it may cost the House a little more time. , As however it seems to be the object of hon. gentlemen to squander the time of the House and the country I presume they are thereby attaining their object. I was proceeding to say, Mr. Speaker


George Eulas Foster: No, to read.


Frank Oliver: I was proceeding to say, Mr. Speaker, that unless it could be shown to the satisfaction of the revising officer that the voter whose name was objected to had been notified at his post office address the revising officer properly and legally refused to strike the name off the list. By the device of not giving the post office address of the voter on the registration list the name was protected from revision by the revising officer, although the revising officer was a judge of the county court.


William James Roche: What list is the minister referring to?


Frank Oliver: The list as compiled by the registration clerks.


William James Roche: Appointed by the judges?


Frank Oliver: Appointed by the judges if you like.


William James Roche: But not since they have been appointed by the government. They put the post office address in each case ; that is the superiority of the present system.


Frank Oliver: I have said that the lists as they stand to-day are without post office addresses of a large number of the men whose names are on them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Frank Oliver: That has been stated and restated here.


Mr. HENDERSON.: It is wrong.


Frank Oliver: It has been stated and restated by hon. members whose word is absolutely good on the question.


George Eulas Foster: Their word may be good, but their facts may be wrong.


Frank Oliver: Well, it is a fact or it is not a fact and it is not worth while arguing it. It was stated as a fact by hon. gentlemen who have personal knowledge and their statement was not contradicted.


Some hon. MEMBERS: It was.


Frank Oliver: I beg pardon, it was explained very clearly that while the lists as they existed up to a certain time did not contain the post office addresses, names added to the lists after that time did contain the post office addresses. Therefore, the lists as they stand to-day contain names which have not post office addresses and, therefore, are not subject to the same scrutiny in revision as if the post office address were given. That seems to be admitted by gentlemen on both sides. It is also admitted, I think, that the time which elapses between the preparation of the preliminary lists and the revision is not sufficient. It was stated by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie that in one case the time allowed between the close of the registration and the opening of the court of revision was three days. Under the law the revising judge is entitled to have the lists in his hands three days before the court of revision opens and the registration clerk not being required to deliver up those lists until two days after the court of registration is closed, five days would be required therefore to fulfil the terms of the land and in this case only three days were allowed.


William James Roche: Who fixed the date of the court of revision?


Frank Oliver: I do not know.


William James Roche: The judge did.


Frank Oliver: It would appear from the proclamation which the hon. member for Kootenay had here to-day that it was fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.


William James Roche: That is wrong.


Frank Oliver: It makes no difference as to that, because the point I am making is that there was absolutely no opportunity for revision in that case.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman refers to the case at Neepawa. It was the judge who appointed the date for the court of revision there and I stated at the time that I was convinced it was an oversight on the part of the judge. His attention has since been called to it and the judge has postponed the date of the

court of revision for upwards of twenty days.


Frank Oliver: Any way here is an indisputable instance of the allegation that has been made-


George Eulas Foster: But it is not a partisan instance.


Frank Oliver: Never mind, it is an indisputable instance of the fact that there was not sufficient time allowed between the registration and revision. The allegations we make is that the whole system of administration is such as to prevent adequate revision. *


Mr.   I@: And the non-partisan officer who had control of that has rectified it.


Frank Oliver: Admitting that, it is not yet established that there has been any rectification in other instances throughout the province which are not quite so glaring.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister know of any case which has been brought to the attention of a judge where it has not been rectified?


Frank Oliver: I am not here to give instances. The friends of my hon. friends have made a law and they have administered it, and when the attention of the country is called to an iniquitous piece of administration of that lawr it is not good enough to say it is rectified in that instance and left as it was in every other instance. The fact that there was such a case is evidence enough that a lawT which can be so administered is not a proper law or that its administration is not proper.


William James Roche: But that is the law which this Act is going to perpetuate, and not only that, but it is the same revising barrister or judge who by this Act is going to administer the law.


Frank Oliver: We will come to that presently. We have established that there is not a fair opportunity for revising the lists, and that the lists in the first place are compiled with such lack of scrutiny, supervision and control as to give the advantage of so-called registration to the one party and to cut it off from the other.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Explain how that could be?


Frank Oliver: I don't object to make a long speech if gentlemen opposite insist on it, but I did intend to be brief. I have already stated how it is. May I go so far as to say that the very fact 'that my hon. friend and his friends are so determined to retain this law affords evidence that there is a great gain to them in doing so.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William James Roche: 


Frank Oliver: If they would be willing to discuss this matter fairly we might believe that they intended to play fair, but do they expect us to believe that in the back township of Manitoba with a registration clerk appointed by a government which, however much it is entitled to credit for energy and executive ability has never yet been accused of impartiality to its opponents, do they expect us to believe that the registration clerks appointed by such a government would give us any fairer play than these gentlemen opposite give us in the House of Commons in the broad light of publicity before the whole Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister think that the accidental oversight of a judge in fixing the date for revision in one instance is sufficient ground upon which to argue that the law ought to be entirely changed?


Frank Oliver: I do not at all admit that there was only one instance. The hon. gentlemen from Manitoba stated numerous instances but I mention only the most glaring one.


George Eulas Foster: And that fell to the ground.


Frank Oliver: That did not fall to the ground. It is thoroughly established that the date fixed for the court of revision was not a proper date because the same authority that fixed it changed it. As far as I have followed the information given by the members who directly represent Manitoba, the interval between the closing of the court of registration and the holding of the court of revision was in the majority of cases too short to give a fair opportunity to revise the lists. It must be remembered that the constituencies in Manitoba are in some instances very large, that moil communication is not. in all cases frequent and that notification to the voter whose name is on the list must practically be made by post, and unless he has been notified of the sitting of the court of revision by mail addressed to his post office then, when the removal of his name comes up before the court of revision, it cannot be struck off. Given a rural constituency 100 miles in length and given a desire to revise the list in regard to names of men residing in remote parts of the constituency with only a weekly mail, will any one say that an interval of a month between the sitting of the court of registration and of the court of revision is sufficient or more than sufficient ? I say unquestionably it is not. There should be at least a month in many constituencies in Manitoba in order to secure a fair revision.


William James Roche: What proof is required by the judge that people have been notified ?


Frank Oliver: It would vary in different cases.


William James Roche: All that is necessary is simply a certificate of the registration of a letter from the office where is was posted.


Frank Oliver: I suppose the judge would take account of the length of time necessary for the letter to reach the person to whom it was addressed and to permit that person to make appearance or to be represented at the court. If the judge does not give consideration to that feature of the case, I think we will have to revise our opinion as to the judgment of the judges. If the man whose name is appealed against is to have an opportunity to appear on his own behalf or to make representations on his own behalf there must be an allowance of time, and I submit that an allowance of a month between the closing of the court of registration and the opening of the court of revision is not more than sufficient time in some constituencies in Manitoba.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) the other night read to the House the times allowed in the diffenent constituencies. and in no case that I remember was more than a month allowed; it seemed to me that it was seldom that a month was allowed, in the large majority of cases it was considerably under a month.


George Eulas Foster: Clause 1 of this Act states that the whole operation shall take place after the issue of the writ which runs for about 28 days. How does he propose to get all the other notices in and then give this month's notice of revision ?


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend had read the first clause as carefully as he probably has read some other portions of the Bill, he would have seen that the Bill does not confine action in the ordering of the revision to a date subsequent to the issue of the writ.


Robert Laird Borden: It permits it and why should it not ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, and why should it not? If there had not been a revision before that time and a revision was required before the election it could not do anything else, it could only give the time available and no more. But when my hon. friend says that is the only provision in the Bill, he is mistaken, because he will find on reading that it provides after the issue of the writ or at such other time as the Governor in Council may see fit. Therefore the revision is not confined necessarily to that period after the issue of the writ, it is only confined to that period in case there has not been a revision previous to that time and I suppose my hon. friend will admit that even this government is not required to give more than is possible or more than exists.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman think he will be a better judge of the length of time necessary than the board of registration of the province of Manitoba which consists of all the county court judges of that province ?


Frank Oliver: I can only say it has been up before the House repeatedly


Theodore Arthur Burrows: The court of revision does not decide the date, it is fixed by proclamation based on order in council.


William James Roche: The judges in every case fix the time, hour and place. How else would the people be notified of the time except by proclamation.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: The time is fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council by order in council.


William James Roche: It is not.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: I beg pardon, I can get the order in council. The Lieutenant Governor in Council are the only part}' having power to fix the time for tiie court of revision and they do so.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman went further he would see that is always done on the report of the board of county judges.


William Paterson: So what the hon. member (Mr. Crawford) says is true.
Mr. CRAWFORD The county court judges have no power to fix the time. The power is vested in the Lieutenant Governor in council.


Robert Laird Borden: Who in practice have always acted in the representation of the board of judges.


William Paterson: What the hon. member (Mr. Burrows) says is true then ?


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman asked if it was not reasonable to suppose that the board of registration, composed of the county court judges, would know better and would be more likely to give adequate time between registration and revision than the Lieutenant Governor in Council. My only answer is that in the instance mentioned here a few minutes ago, whether it was determined by an individual judge or the Lieutenant Governor in Council, sufficient time was not given in a most glaring case. It strikes me as remarkable that this most glaring case should have occurred in the constituency of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie. It will be observed that it did not occur in the constituency of my hon. friend from Marquette or that of my hon. friend from Souris, or even that of my hon. friend from Macdonald^-It occurred in the constituency of Portage la Prairie.


Mr.  W. J.@: ROCHE That is rather a reflection upon the judge.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentlemen have said repeatedly that the judges fixed the dates for the sittings of the court of revision. The statement has been challenged from this side of the House and in explanation the leader of the opposition replied that the dates were fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the report of the judges.


Robert Laird Borden: Which has never been departed from.


Frank Oliver: I cannot accept the explanation. It is not good enough. When there is such a villainous case as that in the local constituency of Beautiful Plains, it is not sufficient to say that the order in council was based upon the report of the judges. I am not questioning the action of the judge but I am questioning the authority which passed the order in council.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend agree to withdraw this clause if the judges are called upon to substantiate what I have said and do so ?


Frank Oliver: Most undoubtedly not. I do not know whether my hon. friend has made the suggestion simply as a suggestion or to draw attention from the argument. I am rather inclined to the latter view. I say again that under the statute, the sittings of the court of revision are fixed by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: Upon the report of the judges.


Mr.  W. J.@: ROCHE (Marquette) The statute does not say that the judges alone shall be the revising barristers, but in practice they are.


Frank Oliver: I think the House is entitled to rather fairer treatment than it is receiving.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: When my hon friend said that this court of revision was appointed by the judges, he should have had better evidence. I now have the authority of the statute for saying- that the dates are fixed by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I have the text of the proclamation fixing the dates by order in council. My hon. friend says that in practice the report of the judges is accepted by the Governor in Council. In reply I say that I think he is going too far in asking the country to believe that the judges of Manitoba-one or all of them-are responsible for the fixing of the date in the Beautiful Plains case.


William James Roche: The best way to find that out is to ask the judges to come down here.


Mr.   W.@: 


*J. ROCHE.
Frank Oliver: If our hon. friends are going to rest their case on a proposition of that kind, they should have come here fortified by a statement from the judges. It is established that the dates of the sittings of the court of revision are fixed by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council empowered thereto by a statute of the provincial legislature. Let me add that the period between the closing of the court of registration and the opening of the court of revision does not correspond, in the list the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) read, with the areas of the different local constituencies, with their means of communication, or with the opportunities within them of proper notification regarding the sittings of the court of revision. The dates did vary considerably. In some constituencies there were upwards of thirty days, in some there were less than twenty days, and in others they were down to seventeen and fifteeen days. I am not familiar with the actual circumstances, but I say that it is a fair supposition that the difference in the periods between the closing of the court of registration and the opening of the court of revision in the various local constituencies depended rather upon political exigencies, as understood by the provincial government, than upon the merits of the case or a desire to secure a fair revision, and I instance in this connection the case of the constituency of Beautiful Plains. The places at which the courts of revision sit are fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. They may be convenient or they may not. We have the instance often alluded to of the Lac du Bonnet case where the court was appointed to sit at a place where it was impossible for twenty or thirty voters to get their names on the list. When the court was adjourned so that these men could get their names on the list, the sittings were illegal and the names were not legally inscribed. Although on some occasions permission was given to have a number of registration offices in each local constituency. at which hundreds of names were registered, with or without personal presence, according to or contrary to the law, as the case may be, the court of revision- if I remember rightly the statement of the case made by the hon. member for Marquette-sat in a large majority of instances only one day or a part of a day in each local constituency. It is proposed under this measure that the revision shall take a day or part of a day when the registration took four, five, six, eight and ten days. I would ask the House how it could ever have been expected that a registration which took eight or ten days, could be revised in one day or less and yet have the levision adequate. The evidence is incontrovertible that the court of revision was not intended to revise. In fact it was in-

tended to prevent revision. We have the statement of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie that in his constituency there were 600 names of Conservatives on the list which should not be there as compared with 200 Liberals; and he told the House that it is impossible, under the law, to have these names struck off. If they are ever to be struck off, it must be by mutual agreement between the two parties in the interest of fair play. Just to revert to the point which we were discussing a few minutes ago. The Manitoba Election Act, chapter 52, revised statutes of Manitoba of 1902 with amendments of 1903 and 1904, published by authority, says, in section 21;
The list of electors shall hereafter only be made and revised at such times and in the manner hereinafter provided Annually on or before the first day of May, the Lieutenant Governor shall, by order in council, authorize the issuing of a proclamation setting forth:
i. The date or dates on, the place or places at, and the hours between which courts of revision will be held in the several electoral divisions of the province to consider and decide such applications, and to receive further applications of others to have their names added to the list of electors.
I find nothing there in regard to the authority of the judges to either revise or amend that authority. The ' Manitoba Gazette ' of Saturday, April 25, 1908, contains a proclamation in regard to the revision of the voters' lists, and gives the names and post office addresses of the persons appointed as registration clerks in the several electoral divisions. It appoints the hours at which they shall sit and says :
That, where not otherwise stated, the hours between which registration clerks shall "hit to receive applications for registration and the correction and striking off names of electors, shall be from 9 o'clock a.m. to 12 o'clock noon and from 1 o'clock p.m. till 6 o'clock p.m.
I find nothing, so far, stating that the judges have any authority whatever in this connection.


William James Roche: That is with regard to courts of registration.


Frank Oliver: Yes, I have already read with regard to the courts of revision.


William James Roche: Oh, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) does not understand it. He has posted you wrong.


Frank Oliver: I find in this publication, the same issue of the ' Maritime Gazette,' the following :
A proclamation.
Whereas it has been determined to add to and revise the lists of electors in and for the several electoral divisions in the province of
Manitoba, pursuant to the provisions of the Manitoba Election Act, and it is necessary for the said purpose to constitute the several judges of the county courts in the said province a board of registration:
Now, therefore, we have thought fit and do hereby, pursuant to the powers and authority contained in the Manitoba Election Act, constitute the several judges of the county courts holding office in the province of Manitoba a board of registration for all and singular the premises.
In testimony whereof, we have, &c.
Now, our friends opposite have stated in so many words that the boards of registration composed of county judges, appointed the registration clerks.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Never.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Frank Oliver: They did not ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Frank Oliver: Then I hope we have the point fixed


William James Roche: Certainly they did not.


Frank Oliver: Very well, that is accepted.


George Eulas Foster: It never was contended otherwise.


George Perry Graham: It was stated to-night.


Mr. W. .: 7. ROCHE. I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. Who stated it ?


Frank Oliver: I think it was stated by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche).


William James Roche: The member for Marquette stated nothing of the kind. I did not refer to the courts of registration at all.


Frank Oliver: When I was alluding to the instances of names which were put upon the lists without the presence of the voters, my hon. friend (Mr. W. J. Roche) rose and said : Who appointed that registration clerk ?


William James Roche: Yes, because it was done under the original Act, the Act of 1903. The hon. minister (Mr. Oliver) is not posted ; that is all.


Frank Oliver: Then, my hon. friend gave the House a most excellent impression in regard to the fairness of this Act, which, whether I am well posted or not, I have, in my ignorance, been fortunate enough to show clearly is not justified. My hon. friend by his statement, whether intentionally or not, conveyed to the House the impression that the registration clerks were appointed by the board of judges.


Mr. W. .: 1. ROCHE. Originally.


Robert Laird Borden: So they were at one time.


Frank Oliver: So they were at one time? But they are not now. So, we have that established for the first time in this discussion. It is established that the registration clerks are appointed by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council. They are then partisan appointments.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand they are not partisan appointments ?


William James Roche: Do I understand the hon. Minister (Mr. Oliver) to say that when the judges appointed the registration clerks they did not appoint Liberals as well as Conservatives ? And, if so, does he claim that tlie Conservatives were partisans but that the Liberals were not ?


Frank Oliver: I am not talking about that at all. What I am asking-if the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. .1. Roche) wants crossfiring in this way-is:	The registration
clerks who, to-day, are appointed by His Honour the lieutenant governor, are they or are they not partisans of the government of the day ?
Mr. BERGERON'. Why should they be ? Mr. OLIVER. Are they or are they not ?


William James Roche: What do you call a partisan ?


Frank Oliver: A man who votes consistently and persistently for one political party.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: And is rewarded.


Frank Oliver: And I say that my hon. friend (Mr. W. J. Roche) will not deny that these registration clerks are partisans of the provincial government.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: - And then

?
Mr. OLIVER, Well, now, that point is established-that to these partisan appointees is entrusted the choice as to whether personal registration shall be insisted upon or not.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What about the law that is proposed here ?


Frank Oliver: If that is the case, I ask what is the provision as to personal registration but a provision to keep Grits off and let Tories on ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What about the law that is proposed here ? Will it not be the same on the other side ?


Frank Oliver: We will come to that


Robert Laird Borden: Is the minister (Mr. Oliver) aware that two. of the main cases that have been relied upon on the other side are cases which occurred when these Mr. W. J. ROCHE
registration clerks w7ere appointed by the judges ?


Frank Oliver: I do not think that has anything to do with the case. But now we have that preliminary point established .-that the compilation of the preliminary list is absolutely in partisan hands under the interpretation that has been given to the law on the authority of my hon. friend from Marquette, and on the statement of my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. S. J. Jackson) they are given practically a free hand in the compilation of these lists to party advantage. Now, I said before, and,
I beg to repeat, that in instances where it is considered necessary that there should be a number of courts of registration in a single constituency, it is not considered necessary that there should be an equal number, or anything like an equal number, of courts of revision. That is to say that, where names can be put upon the list by the partisan registration officer at his own sweet will, in four, five, six, eight or ten different places


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Seventeen.


Frank Oliver: -these names could only be struck off in one place in the constituency in one day or part of day. I said, and I beg to repeat, that that is not a provision for the revision of the lists, it is a provision to prevent the revision of the lists. The time that is allowed for the revision of the lists is, as I have shown, absolutely inadequate. There are naturally a number of people who have not been able to get their names on before the court of revision and who are anxious to get on. They may be of one political party or the other, or of both ; we will suppose they are of both parties. The court of revision has but one short day to sit. Now, it is natural and proper that'the application of the men who are present to be on the list will be taken up before the applications to strike off are considered, with the result that in practice there is to all intents and purposes no striking off the lists compiled in the way I have described. Do my hon. friends contradict that statement?


William James Roche: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Then I will refer them to the statement of my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner), who informed the House that at a certain date there was a revision in the city of Winnipeg which resulted in the striking of 2,500 names off the list. Nobody questions that it was a proper revision. The city of Winnipeg is a large city and has a very fluctuating population, much more so than any city in eastern Canada. My hon. friend from Souris informed the House that in the year succeeding that revision there had been in one year 25 names struck off. in another year I think 30 names and in another year 30 or 40 names. I think

he managed to total up in three or four years about 100 names that had been found to be improperly on the list in the great city of Winnipeg ; when in the revision immediately before that it was found there were 2,500 names that were improperly on the list. Now, these lists having been compiled as I have described, hon. gentlemen will not suggest that there is any good opportunity to get names off those lists improperly. When in the city of Winnipeg, where every effort is made, if it is made anywhere, to get the lists revised properly, it has only been possible to get a paltry hundred or so off the list in three or four years, the House need not go further for absolute evidence out of the mouth of the member for Souris that there is no such thing as a revision of lists in the province of Manitoba.
In this connection it might not be out of place to refer to the methods employed to secure names for insertion on the lists in the city of Winnipeg, as described by my hon. friend who represents that city. He placed before the House certain sworn statements by certain people, that at a certain day, a certain hour Sand a certain place, and under certain circumstances, some 450 men who, in a large majority of cases were not entitled to be naturalized, and in any case were not entitled to be naturalized as they were, were naturalized by the assistance of the party machinery of the local government in the city of Winnipeg. The affidavit is explicit, it gives time, place, dates and persons. The affidavit is denied by our friends on the other side and is denied by counter affidavits. It is not creditable to the city of Winnipeg, it is not creditable to the party in power there, that their party machine did, as admitted, employ the person who made this affidavit, and which affidavit they declare to be false. They declare that he was a jail bird and that now he is a fugitive from justice. This is the man that their party machine employed. They admitted that he was in their employ, that he is the man they employ to-day to do their work. He is the man who has made this affidavit as to the management of the party machine. We find that these 450 naturalizations took place on the day immediately preceding the day for registration of the voters in the city of Winnipeg. And we find on searching the records here the remarkable fact that there were some 790 naturalizations put through in the city of Winnipeg on that particular day. It is a coincidence of course that the affiuavit of Rudneski accounting for 450 of these should happen to be made on the same date. But it is a coincidence our friends will admit. It is also a coincidence that in the constituency of North Winnipeg, which was considered to be a safe Liberal seat, one of the leading citizens, one of the oldest inhabitants in the city of Winnipeg, 276
a man who had enjoyed the honour of being mayor of the city, in that safe Liberal seat was defeated in the election by the candidate of the Conservative party machine by a large majority, a majority, if I remember right, of about 400 or 450. Those who are acquainted with the political conditions in Manitoba were astonished when they heard how the election had gone. It was indeed a famous victory. It is only a coincidence that the Conservative majority in North Winnipeg was approximately the same as the number of manufactured naturalizations that Mr. Rudneski swears to. But it was a coincidence at any rate.
Now, it is said that this Rudneski is a very improper person, that he has been a jail bird, that he is now a fugitive from justice, and that he committed perjury in making that affidavit. That is a serious charge. It is asserted also that not only did he commit perjury, but that he was suborned to commit perjury, that he was paid for doing it by a cheque to the amount of |25 given to him by a certain gentleman named Walton, who acts in some capacity on behalf of the Liberal party. I submit that the statement on the part of members of the Manitoba government that Rudneski was a jail-bird, that he is now a fugitive from justice, that he is a suborned perjurer, or that Mr Walton suborned that perjury, is not good enough in this case. These gentlemen are charged with the administration of justice in the province of Manitoba. I hope that under their administration perjury has not become so common as to have no attention paid to it or that subornation of perjury should not be dealt with as the Criminal Code provides. If the facts are as these gentlemen have stated-have stated broadly in the newspapers-in the newspapers of their own ownership, as it is even said- their position it seems to me is not enviable. Either the Rudneski affidavit is true or the government of Manitoba is not maintaining the law as the government of Manitoba is charged with the responsibility of doing. The government of Manitoba is winking at perjury, at the subornation of perjury if it does not take every proceeding within its power to bring the men Rudneski and Walton to justice, to lay them by the heels in jail and to see that they are punished to the full extent of the law. That is the only answer they can make to the Rudneski affidavit. It is that or it is nothing. Either Rudneski and Walton should be in jail or the Rudneski affidavit is true. There is no escape from that. Rudneski Is out of the country, it is said. Perhaps he is and perhaps he is not. We do not know whether he is. My hon. friend from Macdonald rather indicated to the House that the government of Manitoba, or at any rate the party machine in Manitoba, had



knowledge of the whereabouts of Rud-neski while they had knowledge of the nature of the affidavits which he had made.
Mr. STAPLES I beg to contradict the hon. gentleman. I never made any such statement. I never said anything of the kind. I am surprised at the minister.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend knew the price that was paid for the cheque ?


William D. Staples: Yes.


Frank Oliver: He says he knew the price that was paid for the cheque. Does he know who paid it ?
Mr. STAPLES Yes, I know who paid it.


Frank Oliver: Then my hon. friend knows that somebody got it from Rudneski.


William D. Staples: Precisely so.


Frank Oliver: That it was not in the interests of the party machine in Manitoba.
Mr. STAPLES Why not ?


Frank Oliver: No reason in the world why not, but it could not have been got by the party machine in Manitoba for its face value unless there had been protection to Rudneski guaranteed by the province of Manitoba. Why should Rudneski give up a $25 cheque for $25 instead of taking it to the bank and getting it cashed ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The bank was closed.


Frank Oliver: Does he know where it was paid ? My hon. friend knows too much about this1 cheque for his own good and so do his friends know too much about it. This is a question of perjury, a matter of seven years' penitentiary if justice is done.


William D. Staples: Did this government undertake to prosecute Nixon or Wagner ?


Frank Oliver: This government is not called upon to prosecute Rudneski any more than it was called upon to prosecute Nixon or Wagner. It is the business of the government of Manitoba to prosecute Rudneski.


William D. Staples: May I ask the hon. gentleman whose duty it was in Wagner's case?


Frank Oliver: I do not know that it makes any difference as to whose duty it was to prosecute Wagner, But, I will say that Wagner was prosecuted. Wagner was convicted, I think, on improper evidence. Our friends who have been shouting in this House and out of it against Wagner, whose prosecution or persecution has been referred to by the hon. gentleman, are not taking any steps against Rudneski. Again I say that either the Rudneski affidavit is true or the government of Manitoba stands convicted of being a government unworthy to govern.


William D. Staples: I would like, in reply to the minister, to say that the government of Manitoba are to-day trying to find Rudneski.
Mr. OLIVER My hon. friend had possession of the cheque which he held up in this House.


William D. Staples: Do you want to see it ?


Frank Oliver: I saw it or what my hon. friend said was it, I am taking his word and it is good enough. He said that the cheque had not been cashed.


William D. Staples: Neither it had.


Frank Oliver: That no more had been paid for it than its face value.


William D. Staples: That was right.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: If it would give evidence of his having been suborned to perjury to the men who are charged with the responsibility of punishing him is it to be supposed that he would give up that cheque unless he got a promise of protection? Rudneski is accused of being a jail-bird, he is accused of being a fugitive from justice, he is accused of being a perjurer, but he is not accused of being such a consummate fool as that. However, we will drop the question of Rudneski.
There is an affidavit placed before the House by my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) of another person who, in so many words, confirmed every statement made by Rudneski. Apparently he was not paid anything for this, at any rate, our friends have no cheque to show that they got from him. They have not said that he is a fugitive from justice, that he is not in the province of Manitoba. If the Rudneski affidavit is false the affidavit of this other man is just as false, and it is the duty of the Attorney General of Manitoba to see that the man is laid bjr the heels in jail under the terms of the Criminal Code if they dare do it. It is not good enough to send broadcast statements in the newspapers that this, that, or the other statement is not true. It is not a question of veracity, it is a question of the breaking of the criminal law in one of its most important provisions; of the breaking down of one of the greatest safeguards of society done with the cognizance, in the case of Rudneski, and I very much fear with the assistance of the party machine in the province of Manitoba. Another affidavit was read in the House today from a citizen of Winnipeg and a voter in the province. It has not been alleged so far that he has been paid for his affidavit; it is not pretended that he is a jailbird and a fugitive from justice ; it is up to the Manitoba government to put that man in jail on a charge of perjury and not ask this House to believe that the fact that Sandy Macdonald was defeated in North Winnipeg by 450 votes and that 450 names were improperly placed on the list, were merely a coincidence.

867&


William James Roche: Was not that constituency already in the hands of the Conservatives by a very large majority?


Frank Oliver: And apparently the friends of my hon. friend did not think it was a safe seat or they would not have taken such sirenuous measures to secure it. Had there been a fair opportunity for the revision of the lists in North Winnipeg this would not and could not have occurred for it would have been useless to put these bogus names upon the list. But it was in the full knowledge that there was no opportunity for revision that these measures were resorted to and these naturalizations made out in order to secure the defeat of the Liberal candidate on that occasion. And if these things were done in North Winnipeg what is there to hinder their being resorted to in every constituency of the province. The court of revisions is the safeguard of the liberties of the people and when the court of revision is not given a fair opportunity to discharge its duty it matters not whether it is a judge or a layman who presides over it. It is in restricting the opportunity for revising the lists that the great iniquity of the Manitoba law exists and it is because of that iniquity, it seems to me, that our hon. friends are so persistent in holding on to the law.


William James Roche: Can the minister quote any authority to say that there was any complaint from the Liberals of the city of Winnipeg about sufficient time not having been given for the court of revision to discharge its duty ?


Frank Oliver: They did not know what the results would be until the votes were polled and it was the surprise of the elections that this constituency went as it did. How were people to know that such acts had been perpetrated when they were not given a fair opportunity to know what names were on the list and to have the list revised ? To sum up : The registration clerks are appointed and hold sittings as directed by order in council. The requirement of personal registration is interpreted to give all the advantages to those whom a partisan registration clerk may desire to place on the list. Once the preliminary list is made up there is no fair opportunity to secure a proper revision of the names on it. The publicity given the list is not sufficient. The location of the persons whose names appear is not sufficient. That point has been established. The time allowed for the preparation of appeals may be and sometimes is manipulated by the local government so as to be absurdly insufficient. That point was established. The number of courts of revision allowed is insufficient. The time allowed the courts is insufficient. The place of sitting of the court is frequently inconvenient. The provision that the court may not adjourn from day to day un-276i
til its work is completed makes the preliminary list compiled by a partisan registration clerk, and not the list as revised by the judge, practically final, under the present provincial law as it is administered. So far as the overlapping of provincial and federal constituencies is concerned there must be a revision or there cannot be an election. The present provision for correcting the overlapping by the returning officer has not been satisfactory in practice, therefore some other method should be provided. In order that the people may freely cast their votes it is necessary that polling divisons should be conveniently arranged. In a country where the population is rapidly increasing there is need for a frequent readjustment of polling subdivisions such as would not exist under other circumstances. There is the same need that the right to subdivide into federal polling divisions should exist, and should be used when needed independent of provincial divisions as that the boundaries of federal constituencies should be independent of the bounds of provincial constituencies.


Mr.   POSTER@: Is this a quotation ?


Frank Oliver: No, it is a statement that I am making to the House. Does my hon. friend agree with it or not ?


George Eulas Foster: Is it the minister's own statement ?


Frank Oliver: It is my own statement. No provision exists in the present law for such a readjustment of polling divisions and voters' lists and therefore provision should be made. The conditions actually existing demand a distribution of the voters on the provincial lists amongst the several constituencies of the province and amongst the several polling divisions in these constituencies by some legal authority. Given adequate opportunity for revision of the lists and for the proper distribution of polls and of voters, and the compilation of the lists as at present would not be greatly objected to. It is believed, however, that so long as the principle of personal registration is accepted there should be a registration office opened in each polling division as established at the last preceding election. But without proper revision of the lists and distribution of voters the compilation of the lists and distribution of the voters however made, is only a means of reaching the end of unfair lists.
What is wanted is r
Printing of the preliminary lists. The lists as printed to give post office address in all cases. A statutory minimum period between registration and revision that shall be sufficient in all ordinary cases. Actual dates to be fixed by registration board, not by order in council. I am suggesting that

Tvliat my bon. friend said was now the practice shall be made the law.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that in the Bill before ?


Frank Oliver: It is not in the Bill before.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is a new departure.


Frank Oliver: The times and places of sitting of courts of revision to be fixed by the registration board, not by order in council, and courts to be adjourned from day to day until all applications to put on or strike off names are disposed of. Officers appointed to revise the lists to adjust the voters' list as revised to the limit of the Dominion constituency to which they properly belong. Returning officer to have authority to establish polls, define polling divisions, and adjust lists to meet requirements as now done in provincial elections subject to appeal to the registration board. If the law as it stands at present were in itself fair and not subject to improper administration, there could be no "reasonable objection to placing it in the hands of the federal government for administration in regard to federal lists as proposed by the Bill.


David Henderson: That is very dangerous.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would you do that in Nova Scotia ?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) said that would be very unfair.


David Henderson: No, I said it would be dangerous.


Frank Oliver: The whole burden of the interruptions which have been directed to me to-night have been on that line, that it is not fair that the provisions of the Bill should be adopted. It is not fair that the provisions of the Bill should be adopted it surely is just as unfair that the Manitoba election law should remain as it is, because all that the Bill says is that the law as it stands shall be applied to a revision of the lists for federal purposes, and all the criticism and all the objections that my hon. friends have made have been with respect to their own law. They have accused us of all sorts of constitutional and political crimes because we have, in the innocence of our hearts, supposed that they would accept the application of their own law in this case. But, when we undertook to apply to them their own law administered by us, their shrieks of agony rent the heavens. They threatened a dissolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear, no, no.
ilr. OLIVER. Yes, and they threaten an obstruction of Supplies.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: Their newspapers do. I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) to make that threat on behalf of his colleagues.


Mr. ARMSTRONG  .@: 1 do not think the hon. gentleman wishes to misquote me. My statement was that my personal feeling and 1 know the general feeling of the country is that the sooner a dissolution comes the better for the people of the whole country-


Frank Oliver: 
Mr.   J G. H. BERGERON@Beauharnois: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, Sir, that the rules of the House did not permit my hon. friend to continue the reading of his speech ; it would have been a great deal shorter and it would have been more to the point. My hon. friend is not quite posted upon the laws of Manitoba and while he displayed great cleverness, he had to work very hard to answer the criticisms and interruptions from this side of the House. I have listened to many of the speeches delivered during this discussion and I have to say to you, Sir. that I had no idea that the lists in Manitoba were made as well as they are.
X do not believe that there is another province in Canada where the lists are as well made as in Manitoba. Of course I understand why the government want to make the lists in Manitoba, but the more I have listened to gentlemen on both sides of the House the more I have been convinced that everything that can be done to give the vote to a man who has a right to vote, is done in Manitoba. As far as British Columbia is concerned, we had this afternoon, from the lips of the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) a representative of that province, the statement that they are perfectly well satisfied with their election law. Why he says there are excellent things in that law. There are weak points. What are they? That registration does not have to be made in person, and for this he gave the reason that miners cannot come to central points to register, a perfectly good reason. Otherwise they are entirely satisfied with their lists. I asked him whether any objections had been made in the IXouse at Victoria last session on account of the lists? He said :	No, not a word. Did you ever
hear of any complaint ? No, on the contrary I have letters from Conservative clubs and even from Liberal clubs saying they are perfectly satisfied with the present lists in British Columbia.
The Minister of the Interior has been working very hard to defend this measure. I do not think that any one of us in the House will convince others on the opposite side. Mv intention, in the few remarks I have to make, is to talk to the man on the street. It seems to me that this measure is not well understood outside the House. Look at the great title of this Bill :
An Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
That is a fine title. Is there any thing there to say that elections will be carried on in an honest and clean manner, and that the will of the people will be allowed to
assert itself at the polls ? Not a word. Is there any thing in this Bill to say that the election shall take place all on the same day ? That was one of the old and sacred principles of the Liberal party, but there is not a word about it in this Bill. This Bill is an attempt to manufacture Liberal votes in some provinces in this Dominion. Quebec is introduced simply as a pretense. My right hon. friend admits what was said by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), that there is no necessity for this measure in the province of Quebec. The franchise there is under the control of the local government and every thing is done there, as far as it can be, in a proper way, though the election law in Quebec is far from being as good as is the election law of Manitoba. And in Ontario, they are carrying on elections to-day for the local legislature. Why not carry them on for this House just as they are carried on for the local House ? This Bill is simply an attempt by this government to elect their friends in Manitoba and British Columbia if possible.
We can discuss this Bill very briefly and very plainly. We can discuss it so that the man on the street will understand it thoroughly. We are discussing a principle. When I hear my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) arguing for all he is worth on a little technicality, such as whether the delay between the closing of the registration and the opening of the court of revision shall be thirty days or twenty days or fourteen days or whether a man shall have to travel ten miles or fifteen miles to register his vote, I need only reply that is not the question before the country. The question is shall we have a franchise made by the Dominion parliament or shall we accept those made by the local legislatures ? That is the sole question. In 1885 we had a Dominion Franchise law passed by this parliament in spite of all the efforts of hon. gentlemen opposite who were then on the opposition benches, and that law provided that the Dominion franchise would be the same all over Canada. It provided that every man elected to this House would be elected on the same franchise, whether he came from British Columbia or Prince Edward Island. Hon. gentlemen opposite fought that law as much as they could. They were afraid that partisan enumerators might not do them justice. and there might have been something in that contention, although subsequent events proved that their fears were unfounded and that no injustice was done then. It was under that system that my right hon. friend was returned in 1896 by an overwhelming majority, thus showing that no injustice was done him and his party by means of that Franchise Act. But of ail the pledges made by the Liberal party when in opposition, every one has been

discarded except that to abolish the Dominion Franchise Act. They did abolish it in 1898, and in its stead they accepted the local franchise Acts, and the members of this parliament were to be elected upon franchises made by the local legislatures. That was the principle adopted by this government and that is the principle on which elections have since been held. Why are they not now willing to stand by that principle which they themselves established? When Manitoba had a Liberal majority in its provincial legislature, no man said a word about its franchise law. When British Columbia was Liberal, its franchise law was all right. When Ontario was Liberal, there was not a word against its franchise. But just as soon as a province becomes Conservative again, this Dominion government steps in and says : We shall not trust you to make the franchise ; we are afraid you will not do it in the proper way. Surely no sensible man will take that as an argument. I say that this Bill is unconstitutional. This parliament has not the right to discriminate against any one or more provinces. It has not the right to legislate for one province against another. It has not the right to say that in one, two or three provinces, the local authorities shall make the election lists but that in the other provinces they shall be made by the Dominion officials. What have we had said by hon. gentlemen opposite as a reason for our passing this Bill ? They say that things are not carried on exactly right in Manitoba.
ell, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing perfect in this world. Although the Manitoba Election Act is the best in the whole Dominion it is not absolutely proof against defects or against illegal practices. You may find the same in the province of Quebec, where we have a good franchise law and also in Ontario, whose law is on the whole a model one. But as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has pointed out, is there any partisan list made in any province in the Dominion as partisan as that made in Nova Scotia, where the local officer may put on the list the names he wants and strike off those he wishes, and there is no appeal. My hon. friend said there were old men in Halifax who had been on the list twenty-five or forty years, whose names were struck off at the last election. I may be told that that was an error. Still there is nothing in this providing that the revision of the list in Nova Scotia shall be taken out of the hands of the local authorities in that province Why that. omission ? Simply because the IS ova Scotia government is a Liberal government. In the province of Quebec there are thousands of men who are disfranchised and will not be able to vote at the next election. There are men who lived in mv county in the month of September last and have since gone to Montreal. They are not Mr. BERGERON.
on the list of my county nor in that of Montreal, because the lists in Montreal were made the year before, and are only made every two years. Those men therefore will not vote in either place. And there are thousands of voters who travel around from one district to another, who are in the same position. How are you going to remedy that ? Are you going to say that the lists shall be made here ? If the right hon. the First Minister should come down with a law providing that the Dominion shall control the making of the lists, if he should come down with a Dominion Election Act, I will stand by him. But if he says he is in favour of the provincial legislatures controlling the franchise, let him stand by that. The present government obtained office by promising every thing they could imagine to the electorate, but not one of those promises has been carried out except their promise to adopt the local franchises, and now they are trying to get rid of a part of that. They have taken every possible means, both in and out of parliament, to secure power and retain it. They have carried on the elections in every possible way in their disposal or at the disposal of their friends. They have done every thing possible to prevent the election of Conservatives. We know the history of the West Huron election, where it was proven under oath that the votes of the electors were stolen by men who were sworn to do their duty-what has happened to them ? The Minister of the Interior says that there was nobody sued for perjury in the province of Manitoba. He besmirched that government because of their failure to do so. Well, what is the matter with this government or with our Minister of Justice or our Department of Justice in not suing for perjury the men who swore they had stolen the votes of the electors in West Huron. We do not hear a word about that. When that matter was brought before parliament a second time for investigation, what were we promised by the right hon. the First Minister ? He promised to give us a royal commission to investigate the West Huron and the other elections in which frauds were committed. But we have not heard a word about that royal commission since. Not a single appointment has been made to it. And the consequence has been that election crooks were given a free hand throughout the Dominion. They knew that they were protected by the Dominion government, and they did every thing they could to carry the elections for their party. They did it in West Elgin, in Brockville and in Belleville. They W'ent down to St. James division, Montreal. Is there anything in this Bill to prevent such frauds as were committed in the St. James division, where it was proved that fifteen ballot boxes were opened by the deputy returning officers and the poll clerks, the Conservative ballots stolen out of them,

86S6
and replaced by ballots for the Liberal candidate. And there is nothing at all in this Act to prevent that kind of thing from oc-curing again. And when I


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) allow me? He refers to his own election in St. James division and the case of Brunet. The parties who were accused with tampering with the ballot boxes, were they not arrested? Were they not prosecuted ?-


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: X was coming to that if my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) had given me another minute.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was the prosecutor in that case, and I think that my hon. friend wil] agree with me in saying that the offenders were sentenced and sent to the common jail. I think that, in that case at least, justice was done.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If my hon. friend had waited a moment I think he would have had an answer to all that. I know the case very well, for I was the candidate;
I was the man who was robbed. I got these men arrested. The one who had been the manipulator of the whole thing was sent to jail for four months, but the jail door was opened by the Minister of Justice of Canada and this man came out after he had served barely two months.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At the request of whom?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not know. Does the hon. gentleman say that I asked-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who signed the petition for their release? I could tell the hon. gentleman.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not know. I did not. But even if a thousand people had asked to get this man out of jail I would not say that the Minister of Justice should have freed these men. Why they are the greatest criminals. The hon. minister (Mr. Lemieux) will not insinuate that I signed that petition or that any one that I know signed it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What does the hon. gentleman mean-that I signed it?


Wilfrid Laurier: Some one very near you.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Does the right hon. gentleman say that I signed anything of that kind?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not seen the petition.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think you are alluding to me. I know that I got dozens of telegrams from Ottawa, and I think I could name the parties who sent them, saying that the Minister of Justice was disposed to act, but would not act unless I signed the petition.
I knew the parties, and as they came to me and stated that as it depended upon me and not upon the Minister of Justice I signed it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is well able to defend himself and I leave the case in his hands. I know I did not sign the petition, and I had to fight the people who asked me to sign, though to ask me to sign such a petition I thought was an insult to me. This man Brunet was sentenced to jail for four months, but he was set at liberty in two months. Yet a poor woman, who had personated a voter in a municipal election in St. Jean-Baptiste village, was sent to jail for four months, and though she was a widow and her children were on the street, she was not liberated until she had served the term of her sentence. And the deputy returning officer, Hetu, who had sworn to do his duty and who had manipulated the ballots as he himself declared, was found guilty and sentenced to jail for four months. But in two months he also was liberated by the Minister of Justice. I ask my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) if the Attorney General of Manitoba, knowing of such cases, would be likely to be anxious to put the whole legal machinery of the province of Manitoba in play to put a man in jail and then have the Minister of Justice of Canada use his authority to let him out?


Frank Oliver: As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) has asked me, I may reply that, judging by the action and attitude of the Attorney General in the case of Leach, there is every reason to believe he would.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I was saying that this government have tried many different means of keeping in power. The rules of debate do not allow me to go as far into that subject at this time as I -would like. The matter can be further discussed on another occasion. What does the government want now? They want to find new ways to keep in power. And hon. gentlemen opposite know very well what their record is. And they know very well what they can expect from the independent electors of this country when they appeal to those electors. They know what they can expect from the province of Ontario, and they are by no means in doubt as to what they may expect from New Brunswick. And they have a strong suspicion how Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island will treat them. And they will very soon know what to expect from the province of Quebec. So they look to these provinces in the west, believing that, if they can snatch a verdict there, it will be of assistance to them. And so they bring forward this Bill under which an officer is to be appointed for the preparation of the list. And he will not be a par-
8G87

tisan. Oil, no ! This officer will be appointed by the Dominion government. He will not be a judge. But he will be a good Grit, I will swear to that, a good strong partisan. And for the purpose of preparing the list of voters, the Governor in Council is to be authorized to appoint all the necessary officers and to confer on them all the necessary powers. These men are to be appointed by the Dominion government to make the lists in the province of Manitoba. In that province the lists are prepared with every possible care and are revised by the judges of the land. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister will appoint his man. And what will he do, this man appointed by the head of the government? He will strike off the lists those whom he wants to strike off and will put on those whom he wants to put on. The Bill provides that he is to add the names of persons who are qualified and to strike off the names of those who are not qualified. The man on the street will not believe that there is a man on this side who is worthy the name of a man who would allow such a Bill to become law. I do not wish to discuss the details of the case, for I stand on the principle that we have not the right to touch these lists. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), when he was obliged to drop his manuscript, seemed to go astray when he dealt with the question of the time allowed for registration. How could he expect to make the people believe that it was better to allow, as under this Act, twenty three days when they have in Manitoba fifty-five days? And, if I understand this Bill, it is said that only when the time of election has arrived, when the writs are out, is the preparation of the list to be begun. How can you have time to prepare the lists and revise them after the issuing of the writs?


Frank Oliver: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that there would be just the same time for the compilation and revision of the lists after the issue of the writ for a Dominion election in the province of Manitoba, as now exists for the compilation and revision of the lists in the unorganized districts of the province of Ontario in respect of the provincial election now going on.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT.: The hon. gentleman is certainly not correct. Those lists are now under revision' in Ontario, and have been for nearly two months.


Mr. BRISTOL.: They are first prepared by the sheriff and then revised by the stipendiary magistrate. It is done every year.


Frank Oliver: I am speaking on the authority of the member for Rainy River and Thunder Bay (Mr. Conmee). who represents one of those constituencies, and he informed the House that unless the date of the election was postponed a large num-Mr. BERGERON.
ber of electors in that district would be disfranchised under an application of the law regarding the revision of the lists as applied in the province of Ontario to-day.


William Wright: I represent the constituency, and I know whereof I speak.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then my hon. friend switched off to the province of Ontario. I was talking about Manitoba, because it is Manitoba that the government wants to strike principally. Now this measure is very improperly put before the public. On Saturday last I was reading in one of the leading newspapers of Montreal an article speaking to this effect :	Is it not extraordinary that the opposition in Ottawa are trying to prevent the government from giving to Manitoba voters' lists revised by the judges of the land ? How unjust ! The government at Ottawa wants every man to exercise the franchise who is qualified, and as the government do not make the lists in the west, they say they should be made and revised by the local judges. Of course, all that is a misstatement of the case, but that is the way the people are being misled.
Now I want to say a word more about section 17 where the government provide that even if a ballot is disfigured or mutilated, it shall remain good. I have heard my right hon. friend in years gone by speak about the sanctity of the ballot. Why, the Bill is not passed yet, and I do not think it ever will be passed, but I have heard some people in the provincial elections telling their friends that on the 8th of June they will be voting under this new law. The right lion, gentleman said the other day, why there are men who will lose their votes by a little spot on the ballot. Suppose a hundred or two hundred men lose their votes, it is very unfortunate, but if you pass this Bill with clause 17 in it, the result will be still more unfortunate. A man will say, how much will you give me for my vote ?-$5-How can I know that you voted for me ? I will make such and such a mark on the ballot. The deputy returning officer, who is a partisan, and the clerk of the poll, who is also a partisan, find this promised mark on the ballot, and the voter gets his $5. And my right hon. friend thinks we should allow a Bill of that kind to pass so that every voter and the deputy returning officer will know how such and such a man voted. Where is the secrecy of the ballot ? Where is that principle that it required so many years of eloquence and work to obtain ? And yet it is a so-called Liberal government that proposes a Bill which will abolish the secrecy of the ballot, a government who pretend that they follow the example of the Liberal party in England. They ask us to pass a Bill which will make of elections a farce, worse than that, criminal. My right hon. friend says -if not himself, some of his colleagues and


his press organs-why, we are threatened with a refusal of Supply. I am not going to make any such threat, but I am going to tell my right hon. friend that if everybody thought as I do, this Bill would never become law. I would revise the Bill and put in some clauses to insure honest elections, providing that if a deputy returning officer does not do his duty he shall go to jail, and the same with the clerk of the poll. There is nothing in the present law like that. When I wished to prosecute dishonest men in Montreal, I had to appeal to the Criminal Code, because there was nothing in the election law under which any of those men could be sent to jail. Why not put something like that in the law ? Why not have all the elections on the same day ? My right hon. friend knows that I am right, and that all the elections should be held on the same day. We know what it means to have by-elections after a party has got into power.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: How could you carry an election on the same day in the district of Yale-Cariboo, for instance ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is very easy, hold your nomination a week ahead of the other nominations. The right hon. gentleman need not laugh. That is done in the county of Gaspd ; the nomination is some two -weeks before the election, and the election takes place on the same day as in other constituencies.


Duncan Ross: Assuming that that could be done, after the issue of the proclamation dissolving the House and calling an election is issued, how could you arrange to have the nomination in the district of Yale-Cariboo within a week of the general nomination ?


George Oscar Alcorn: Have the writ in the returning officer's hands twenty-three days before the nomination.


Duncan Ross: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that it is a physical impossibility to issue the proclamation in the various districts in Yale-Cariboo as required by law within twenty-three days.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Well, I think my hon. friend will have to accept the method I suggested. It is very easy, it is done in GaspS and in some other counties, and it is done in the province of Ontario. There are cases where the nominations are held a fortnight before the election, and the election takes place on the same day as in the other constituencies. instead of weeks afterwards. That is perfectly feasible, and every man listening to me kno-ws that it should be done so. The present mode takes an undue advantage of one party or the other.


Duncan Ross: But you say you are going to win ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We will not have the pleasure of his presence in this House if his election takes place on the same day.


Duncan Ross: Yes, you will.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is what the electors told me when I was in the hon. gentleman's county. I stated at the commencement of these remarks that I was talking for the man on the street. When this measure is understood, when it is known that the government want to make the lists in provinces where the governments are Conservative and that they do not want to touch the lists in Nova Scotia which is a Liberal province and where the lists are so unjust to the Conservative party, the people will understand why we are fighting this measure with so much determination.


George Taylor: What about Alberta and Saskatchewan ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The preparation of the lists there is done through the instrumentality of this government. They are all right. Any man can go and register there and if he takes an oath that he has the right to vote he has the right to vote whether he is a British subject or not. We have heard a good deal of dissolution talk. I do not believe that the right hon. Prime Minister will ask for a dissolution. He dare not do it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: He will not go to the country to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Because the record of the government is too bad. That is as clear as day. There is no danger of it. We have read in some of the papers that we -want to starve the civil service. We are not the government. The government are responsible for the civil service. The government are responsible for carrying on the public works. The government are responsible for everything that happens in the country whether it is good or bad. Why ? When we had good crops it was due to my right hon. friend, and if so why should he not take the responsibility for bad crops or anything that happens ? We have a duty to perform and we will perform that duty. It is to see that no iniquitous law shall be put upon the statute-book of this country. The House has been sitting for five months and hon. gentlemen opposite knew that they had this contentious Bill to bring before parliament. This was known at the commencement of the session. This Bill might have been brought down in December and discussed at that time. We had even to grant the government the courtesy of consenting to a one-eighth Supply Bill. They want an other eighth and we say: Hold on we are not going to do that until we know whether

you are going to carry this nefarious scheme through or not. They say that we are going to starve the public service and stop public works. Whose fault is that ? It is the fault of the government and they will be looked upon as being responsible for it by the people of the country when they understand the whole situation. As far as dissolution is concerned there is no danger. Never would there be a better time to go to the country than the present. The hon. gentlemen opposite are so much afraid of it that they had to appoint one commission to explain another. There was the Cassels Commission appointed to explain the Royal Commission, and when it had explained a very small part of the Royal Commission it adjourned sine die and probably we will never hear anything more about it. There is no danger of dissolution. The right hon. gentleman has only one thing to do and that is to withdraw the obnoxious clauses of this Bill, follow the kind advice given by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, strike out clauses Nos. 1 and 17 and let us see if we can devise some means of carrying out honest elections in the country.


Mr. W. ROCHE (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman who has taken his seat (Mr. Bergeron) but I wish to put one question. He spoke, once, twice, thrice of the partisan lists in the province of Nova Scotia, and he also spoke of the nefarious proceedings in the county of Halifax. I want to ask him now if he knows of his own personal knowledge that there were any more Liberal-Conservatives left off the list in the county of Halifax than there were Grits through inadvertence.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not care about working too hard. I will put the matter in the hands of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition who knows a great deal more about the province of Nova Scotia than I do and who will answer my hon. friend (Mr. Roche).


William Roche: I only ask the hon. gentleman, if, in making that statement, he made it of his own personal knowledge ? I was not here when the leader of the opposition made his statement, but I heard the hon. member for Beauharnois.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: No, I made it after hearing the statement made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in whom I have perfect confidence.


Robert Laird Borden: I mav tell the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Roche) that I do not know how many Liberals were left off but I do know of many Conservatives being left off.


William Roche: How many does the hon. gentleman know of to his own personal knowledge ?
Mr. BERGEROM


Robert Laird Borden: I could not state the exact number, but I know that dozens came to me during the election of 1904 and complained of it and I gave the names of a number of grits left off.


William Roche: Would the hon. gentleman kindly give me the names of any more than a dozen who came to him and complained ? There must have been a number of grits left off.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not doubt it at all. That only shows that the lists in Nova Scotia are very defective.


William Roche: I would tell my hon. friend that it was quite possible that a number of individuals who had the right to vote in the various districts, through the reviser's inadvertence, were left off the list. There were as many left off, to my certain knowledge, on the Grit side as on the other. But that there was a partisan revision I deny and repudiate. The lists were revised by the city clerk and they were scrutinized by both parties.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is there an appeal to a judge ?


William Roche: There Is a revision. In certain country districts the lists are revised by the municipal authorities and every care is taken to have the names properly corrected. Any man whose name is left off can go and have it put on ; any man can apply to the sheriff and have It put on.


Mr BERGERON.: Is there an appeal to a judge ?


William Roche: No.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not state that the list in Halifax had been prepared in a partisan way. I stated that a great many people in Halifax who were Conservatives were left off in the last election and at the previous election, for that matter. I said that in some of the counties in the province the lists had been dealt with in a very partisan way, and I gave illustrations which I am prepared to bring before a committee of this House.


William Roche: I am only speaking to my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) who alluded in very pointed terms to partisanship in the county of Halifax. I knew my hon. friend was not speaking of his personal knowledge and that he knew nothing of what had taken place in the county of Halifax. Both parties did their utmost to put upon the lists all that were qualified. Every effort was made to do so in every possible way according to the law, and when my hon. friend charges the province of Nova Scotia generally with partisanship, with the preparation of improper lists and with nefarious conduct I deny and repudiate it

and I think the hon. gentleman ought to '[DOT]withdraw his statements if he has not made them on his own responsibility.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not think my hon. friend followed what I said all through.


William Roche: I followed the hon. gentleman very closely.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not want the hon. gentleman to put words in my mouth that I did not utter. I said that after hearing the remarks made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition I came to the conclusion that the making of the lists in the province of Nova Scotia was very far from being as fair to both parties as the making and revising of the lists in Manitoba, because there they are revised by the judges of the land, whilst in Nova Scotia there is no revision before a judge, but it is before a sheriff who is an appointee of the local government. If the government want to make the lists in some of the provinces, instead of going into Manitoba where they are well made, they should go into Nova Scotia where they are not well made.


Alexander Johnston: My hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) will have very great difficulty in producing before the people of this country or a committee of this House any evidence to show that in the province of Nova Scotia there has been any undue interference with the preparation of the lists by anybody on behalf of the Liberal party, and I can produce to my hon. friend the evidence that proves most conclusively that some of the gentlemen interested in the party which he supports have been guilty of improper conduct in connection with the preparation of the lists.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Where ?


Alexander Johnston: In the county represented by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield).


William Roche: You would have to pass a new Act for the province of Nova Scotia.


Alexander Johnston: We are looking after that.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken to-morrow ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not prepared to say which just now, but we will either go into Supply or resume this debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House adjourned at 11.17 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May, 19, 1908.