[Stage Direction]
The report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, part 1.-Mr. Foster (North Toronto).	'

Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).: I beg to give notice that on Monday next when the House goes_ into Committee of the Whole on the Grain Bill I shall move the following amendment:
. Clause 57 is amended by adding the following as subsection 2 thereof:-
2.	Notwithstanding any other provisions in tms Act that may conflict therewith, sample markets may be established in the cities of Winnipeg, Fort William and Calgary, and the mixing of grain permitted in connection therewith, under such rules and regulations as shall be recommended by the board and approved by the Governor in Council.
3.	The provisions of section 208, with the exception of subsection 3 thereof, shall apply to sample markets when established.



FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 112) for the relief of James Denny.-Mr. Aikins.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DOHERTY moved that on Monday next_ the House do go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the payment to each of two judges of the Territorial Court of the Yukon Territory of an annuity equal to the salary of the office now held by him; such annuity to commence upon the resignation of such judge.
Motion -agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of th-e day being called.
Sir WILFRID LAURIE®. Mr. Speaker, from the papers -brought down yesterday concerning the boundaries of Manitoba, one despatch has been omitted. Mr. Ro-blin- in a letter to -the Prime Minister says that he is forwarding through the regular channels to His Excellency the Governor General in Council a memorial regarding the extension of -the boundaries of Manitoba and the terms and conditions on which such extension shall be made. This memorial is not t-o be found -among the papers.
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).: I think it will be found in the *other return.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: No, I think not; I cannot find it.


Robert Laird Borden: I recollect seeing it, I think it is just a reprint of a memorial previously forwarded, I shall send for it at once.


Wilfrid Laurier: With regard to the resolution itself, I observe in the papers brought down yesterday another communication of the Prime Minister to Mr. Roblin, Premier of M'amitoba, in which it is said:
The extension of the boundaries of Manitoba has been under consideration at those interviews and a basis of settlement has been reached respecting the financial terms which hitherto have been in dispute. The basis adopts the principle of equality of terms as between Manitoba and the other Prairie provinces. The application of this principle to the details remains to he worked out.
I notice in the resolutions which have been introduced and are now before the House for consideration, it is proposed to allow to the province of Manitoba a sum equal to the interest on $7,631,683.85, the difference between a principal sum of $8,107,500 and $475,816.15 heretofore advanced by the government to the province for provincial purposes.
This, I suppose, is what was referred to by my right hon. friend when he wrote to Mr. Roblin that the details were to be worked out. I presume the details have been worked out and are in tabular form. It would facilitate the discussion if these details were brought down in 'advance. The same thing would 'apply to the other paragraph of the resolution with regard to the money in lieu of land.	_
It is proposed to pay to Manitoba an annual sum based upon the population of the said province as ascertained by each quinquennial census thereof, less certain deductions in respect of what are known as swamp lands and university lands. It would also facilitate the discussion if the acreage of swamp lands that has been disposed of in favour of Manitoba, or that is intended to be disposed of, should be brought down.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no objection to that, the statement will be prepared.



THIRD READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 60) to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Borden.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 97) to provide for further ad

vances to the Harbour Commissioners of Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
Montreal.-Mr. Hazen, read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend * the Civil Service Act ' by providing for the employment in the office of the Auditor General, for a period not exceeding two years, of such temporary clerks as may be necessary in connection with the audit and payment of fees and expenses under the Dominion Elections Act.-Mr. White (Leeds).
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Leeds).: I am not sure that any explanation is required in connection with this resolution. Action is made necessary by a difficulty experienced by the Auditor General, because of the amendment to the Civil Service Act. Prior to 1908, temporary clerks could be appointed by order in council for a period not exceeding six months, and the appointments could be renewed for six-monthly periods indefinitely. But under the amended Act, these temporary clerks can hold office for only six months in any fiscal year. Very heavy duties devolve upon the Auditor General in auditing the election accounts, and six months is altogether too brief a period for the proper performance of these duties. The work is such that trained temporary clerks are necessary. As the law now stands, the Auditor General trains clerks for a period of a month or so, and about the time they reach their maximum of usefulness he is obliged to dispense with their services. He advises me that he discussed- this matter with the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), when leader of the government. That being so, I assume that there is no objection to the passing of this amendment. The Auditor General has only twenty of these clerks, but they are trained; and after six months the number will diminish. From the investigation I have made I believe that, if not absolutely necessary, at least it is highly desirable that this amendment should be made in order that the Auditor General may efficiently perform this part of his duty. I have figures here showing the amount of work, and other documents bearing on the subject, but I think it is not necessary to present them unless objection is taken.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I remember discussing the matter with the Auditor General. I understood that it involved nothing more than the employment of those already engaged; it does not involve new appointments.


William Thomas White: That is all.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. WHITE (Leeds) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 113) to amend the Civil Service Act.


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

Hon.  F. D.@: MONK (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill (No. Ill) to authorize the payment of a subsidy to the Collingwood Ship Building Company, Limited. He said:	At	the
time the resolution was introduced upon which this Bill is founded, I gave a full explanation of the circumstances. It was a subsidy applied for and worked out under the Subsidy Act of 1908. The work was begun and an agreement was to be signed, when the Act of 1910 doing away with the Act of 1908 was passed. This subsidy conforms absolutely to the conditions of the Act of 1910, except as to the depth of water on the sill. The Act of 1910 requires, in dry docks of this description, a depth of 18 feet on the sill. This dock has a depth of only 16 feet. In every other respect the proceedings are absolutely in conformity with the Act of 1908. It was deemed necessary by my predecessor in office to ask parliament to legalize the change, but there was no time during that session to do so. Hence this Bill.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: On looking over the matter carefully, I think this legislation will be necessary in order to carry out the agreement. I think that in the agreement made by the company a clause was inserted providing for legislation. The dry dock referred to by my hon. friend is in some respects better than the dry docks provided for under the Subsidies Act of 1910. This is a wider, and in many respects a more expensive dry dock. But in the one particular, as my hon. friend says, the depth of water over the mitre sill, it does not comply with the legislation. I think this is very proper.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. COCHRANE moved the second reading of Bill (No. 77) to encourage and assist the improvement of highways.
Wilfrid Laurier: Before we proceed to the consideration of this Bill I will have to ask your ruling on the ob-115
jection I raise that the Bill is not in order. It contravenes article 54 of the British North America Act, and rule 77 of our own rules, inasmuch as it is a money Bill to all intents and purposes. I have to call your attention to section 3 of the Bid which is in these terms:
The Governor in Council may, in any year, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as are prescribed by order in council, grant to any province in aid of the improv-ment of existing highways or the construction of new highways in such province, or for both such purposes, a subsidy not exceeding such sum as may in such year be voted by parliament for that purpose."
The only answer which can be made to the objection I now raise is that the Bill does not actually dispose of money. The money which it is intended to dispose of in this Bill is to be appropriated later on; the appropriation is to be carried out later on. But the purposes for which the -appropriation is -made are now disclosed. I have also to call your attention to article 54 of the British North America Act, which makes my point very clear, that this Bill cannot be considered at this stage. In article 54 I find these words:
-It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or Bill for the appropriation of any part of this public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the session jin which such vote, resolution, address or Bill is proposed.
I call your attention to these words:
To any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or Bill is proposed.
The purpose now indicated in the Bill is the disposition of money which it is proposed to vote later on. But according to my reading of article 54, that very purpose must first be preceded by a recommendation to the House by message of the Governor General. Later on it is indicated that an appropriation will be asked for from parliament for a certain purpose, that is to say, to aid in the building of highways. But that purpose, according to my reading of section 54, must be first considered by resolution upon a message from the Governor General. As I said a moment ago, the only question which can be Taised is as to whether there is an actual disposition of money and I have to call your attention to the fact that according to the jurisprudence of the House upon section 54 the rule applies not only to moneys which are actually voted but to all Bills which involve an expenditure of money. You will find the explanation and authority in ' Bourinot,' page 568:



The constitutional provision which regulates the procedure of the Canadian House of Commons in this respect applies not only to motions directly proposing a grant of publio money, but also to those which involve such a grant.
Well, Sir, this rule applies particularly to this case. It is quite true that the Bill at the present time does not actually propose a grant of money, but it involves such a grant of money, because it is intended to make disposition of the money which it is proposed to ask for later on. Bourinot goes on to say:
A member who has not received the permission of the Crown has noti been allowed to move the House into committee on a. resolution providing for the purchase and exportation by the government of certain depreciated silver coinage.
Then he goes on to give another illustration of it, and I would call your particular attention to this:
In 1871 it was proposed to go into committee on an address to the Queen for a change in the Union Act, so as to assign the debt of old Canada to the Dominion entirely, and to compensate Nova Scotia and Now Brunswick in connection therewith; the Speaker expressed the opinion adverse to the proposal on the ground that it was intended as preliminary to legislation imposing a public burthen, and was consequently not a mere abstract resolution which did not necessarily involve a future grant.
This decision of Mr. Speaker Cockburn is to be found in a book which we have in the library entitled ' Decisions of the Speakers of the Legislative Assembly and House of Commons of Canada,' No. 181. On the 6th March, 1871, Mr. Dorion moved as follows:
That this House will, on Wednesday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider the following resolutions:-
1st. That the division between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, of the surplus of the debt of the former province of Canada, over and above the sum of $62,500,000, assigned to the Dominion of Canada by the British North America Act, presents great difficulties, which it has not hitherto been possible to overcome in a satisfactory manner.
2nd. That the difficulties, resulting as well from the uncertainty as to the amount of the debt to be divided, as from the absence of an acceptable base for the making of such division, and that of the assets remaining in common to those two provinces, threaten to give rise to serious embarrassment.
3rd. That for the avoidance of such difficulties, the debt of the former province of Canada should be assigned entirely to the Dominion, as though it had been so from the first, with compensation to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia for the share which those provinces would have to pay upon the surplus of that debt.
<iir WILFRID LAURIER.
4th. That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to be pleased to recommend that the British North America Act, should be amended in accordance with
these resolutions.
There was no disposition of actual money in that resolution; it was simply that an address be presented to Her Majesty praying for an amendment to the Act so that
the parliament of Canada could make a disposition of money as between these different provinces. Objection was taken by Six George Cartier:
That the resolution cannot, under the provisions of the 54th section of the British North America Act, 1867, be considered by the House, unless recommended by message from the Crown.
Mr. Speaker decided as follows:
The motion proposes that an address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to recommend that the British North America Act be amended, so that the public debt of the Dominion be increased, and that compensation be made to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
In my opinion this motion cannot be entertained, it being in contravention of the 54th section of the Imperial Act for the Union of British North America. In that section it is provided that this House shall_ not adopt any vote, resolution, address, or Bill, for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, &c., &c., to any purpose that has not been first recommended by message of the Governor General. The contention

On the part of the mover, presumably,
-is that the proposed appropriation being beyond the power of the parliament of Canada, this provision of the statute cannot therefore apply.
If any answer is made to my objection this will be the answer:
The contention is, that the proposed appropriation being beyond the power of the parliament of Canada, this provision in the statute cannot therefore apply.
Mr. Speaker Cockburn went on as follows:
In its literal construction it does apply to the motion, and certainly it seems to me to the full as necessary in a constitutional sense, to interpose the check of a message from His Excellency, under the responsibility of his ministerial advisers, before adopting an address which may be followed by legislation, imposing a burthen on the people by a parliament and ministers, owing it no responsibility, as in the case of a Bill or motion for the appropriation of money within our direct control.
The same question came before the House again a few days after in a different form. Mr. Dorion again brought the matter to the attention of the House, by moving as follows:

That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, representing that an equitable and satisfactory division of the surplus debt of the late province of Canada, between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, is not likely to be effected in the manner provided by the British North America Act, 1867, and that the difficulties which beset the question have been greatly aggravated by the award rendered by the arbitrators appointed by the Dominion government and by the government of Ontario, in the absence of any arbitrator for the province of Quebec, which is regarded by the government and the people of Quebec as illegal and unjust, and praying that Her Majesty be pleased to recommend the passing of an Act by the imperial parliament, so amending the British North America Act as to authorize the parliament of Canada to deal by legislative enactment with all questions connected with the said surplus debt.
That was simply an abstract question, and it was met by Sir George Cartier with the following amendment:
That all the words after ' that in the original motion, be left out, and the following inserted instead thereof:-' The validity of the award rendered by the arbitrators appointed by the Dominion government and by the government of Ontario in the absence of any arbitrator for the province of Quebec, being contested by the province of Quebec; and the government of Canada having come to the conclusion not to act on such award until its validity shall have been determined by a competent judicial tribunal, this House refrains from expressing an opinion on the award so rendered.
Mr. Chaveau moved in amendment to the amendment that:
It 19 highly desirable that the difficulty now existing between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario concerning the divisions and adjustments of the debentures, liabilities, credits, properties and assets of Upper and Lower Canada, provided for by the British North America Act, be speedily set at rest, and that this House will give its most favourable consideration to any measure to be introduced by the government, having this object in view, and involving any aid on the part of the Dominion commensurate with the importance of the object itself, and with our resources; due regard being had to the rights of the other provinces.
I would specially call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the effect of this amendment:
That this House will give its most favourable consideration to any measure to be introduced by the government, having this object in view, and involving any aid on the part of the Dominion commensurate with the importance of the object itself, and with our resources.
There was nothing there to bind the House. It was simply a proposition that this House would give its most favourable consideration to the object which would 1154
be a charge upon the public revenue. Objection wa3 taken by Mr. Mills and the objection was sustained. That was on the 9th of March. On the 13th of March, Mr. Speaker Cockburn made the following statement to the House:
I observe that it is entered on the Journal of the 9th March, that upon objection taken by the honourable member for Bothwell, the motion of the honourable member for Quebec county was declared out of order for the reason there alleged.
I desire to correct that entry. The motion was out of order, in my opinion, not because it proposed an appropriation of public money, within the meaning of the 54th section of the British North America Act, and should have been preceded by message, but because it involved an increase of the public debt, and should, therefore, have been first considered in Committee of the Whole.
I am aware that it is doubted whether it is a correct rule of parliamentary practice, that every abstract proposition which, if acted on, would increase the public debt of the country, should be first considered in committee, but my opinion on the point has been expressed on two or three occasions, and I shall so continue to decide, unless the House should think proper to express a contrary opinion. This rule, however, being self-imposed, may be enforced or relaxed, as the House shall determine. But the constitutional rule, contained in the 54th section of the Imperial Act, is one that, being absolutely binding, should be neither extended nor restrained by implication but should, at all times, be most guardedly considered by the House. I desire, therefore, to correct the error on the ' Journal ', so that the precedent shall not be understood as having any relation to the 54th clause of the Constitutional Act, 1867.
What is most remarkable about this, is that the opinion of Mr. Speaker Cockburn on that occasion was ordered to be printed in the Journals of the House, and it was, therefore, incorporated as a rule of the House, which has not since been repealed, and which is at present the law of this House. In my humble opinion, the case seems clear that the present Bill, although it does not actually appropriate money, is the first step towards the appropriation of money, involving therefore, the appropriation of money and is consequently quite within the rule as interpreted by the Speakers who have been your predecessors in office, Sir. I have only to add that this objection is not made in any captious spirit, but it has a purpose behind it, and a very important one. The Bill that is now before us, proposes a wide departure from what has been hitherto our constitutional law. It proposes to extend to the build-ins of new roads or the improvement of old roads, moneys out of the federal treasury, and which roads have hitherto been under the charge of the respective provinces. I do not say that I am against this legislation; on the contrary, I think, under

the circumstances of our buoyant revenue, this legislation ma-v be wise, but we have certainly the right to take exception to the manner in which it is proposed. It proposes to give to the Governor in Council all moneys that may be appropriated, without any regard to the future action of parliament, and to bind ourselves in advance without any rule to be followed, but simply the intention or the action of the government of the day. If we are to discuss this Bill, and vote appropriations of this kind, the time when we should dispose of the manner in which the money is to be expended, is when the money is appropriated, and therefore, it should be first of all, introduced by resolution, when any objections which may properly be urged against the legislation .should be urged. All the conditions which are to be attached to the expenditure of that money, should be set forth- at the time the principle of the Bill is being discussed. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I invite your ruling upon the objection I have raised, for the reasons I have given.


Robert Laird Borden: We have no fault whatever to find with the right hon. gentleman for raising the question which is always an important one to consider in connection with the introduction of Bills. The very language of the British North America Act, which he has read, shows that there is no ground whatever for the objection my right hon. friend has made. Section 54 of the British North America Act reads :-
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or .impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or Bill is proposed.
I venture to submit that this Bill is not within the meaning of that section. It does not appropriate any part of the public revenue, it does not appropriate one dollar of the public revenue for any such purpose. It merely does this: It provides that if parliament shall at any future time appropriate a certain sum of money for that particular purpose, then that money shall be expended by the Governor General in Council under the provisions of this Bill, according to the method now laid down in the Bill before the House. The provisions of the Bill are perfectly simple and plain and not to be misunderstood.
The Governor General in Council may in any year and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as are prescribed by order in council grant to any province in aid of improvement of existing highways or the construction of new highways in such province, or for both such purposes, a subsidy


Wilfrid Laurier: not exceeding such sum as may in each year be voted by parliament for that purpose.
Therefore, it is apparent that before one dollar of public money can be expended under the provisions of this Bill, a resolution must be brought down in parliament, assented to by His Royal Highness the Governor General, considered in Committee of the Whole, and be the foundation of a Bill which will alone justify any expenditure under this Act. When I have said that, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that I have said all that is necessary to be said upon this subject. Not one dollar can be expended under this Bill until a resolution has been brought down in the House of Commons, passed through Committee of the Whole, and until it has also passed through all the stages of a money Bill in this House and in the Senate. Therefore, to suggest, as the right hon. gentleman has done, that this is a Bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenues, seems to me to be entirely a misstatement of the case. The simple answer to it is, that without this Bill, if an appropriation were presented to this House, passed through Committee of the Whole and embodied in an Act of this parliament, the Governor General in Council would be left without any machinery whatever for the expenditure of that money. This Bill is solely designed to furnish machinery for the expenditure of a certain sum of money which may or may not be voted by parliament for that purpose. There is no question of the appropriation of one dollar of the public revenue of this country for this purpose until an appropriation Bill has been brought in founded upon a resolution which shall conform to section 54 of the British North America Act.


Mr. SPEAKER.: 
Wilfrid Laurier: There is nothing more to be said on this point, and I shall now proceed to the consideration of the Bill itself. We had an explanation of this measure on the first reading. The Bill is a short one, and, as my hon. friend himself stated in introducing it, is rather meagre. It disposes, in a manner which I think it not in accordance with true constitutional principles, of the money to be expended, by giving the control of it absolutely to the Governor in Council without any guidance as to the manner in which the expenditure should be made. The Bill contains only six clauses. The first is the title. The second is the definition of the word 'Minister'. The third provides:
The Governor in Council may, in any year, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as are prescribed by order in council, grant to an^ province in aid of the improvement of existing highways, or the construction of new highways in such province, or for both such purposes, a subsidy not exceeding such sum as may in such year he voted by parliament for that purpose.
The fourth section provides simply that the specifications for the improvement and construction of highways are to be contained in an agreement between the minister and the government of the province, and are to be approved by the Governor in Council before the money is expended. The fifth section provides:
Each highway to be constructed or improved shall be defined or described in such agreement, and provision may be made therein for the future _ maintenance of such highway in good condition according to a specified standard and to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council.
These are all the dispositions of the Bill. Under this Bill, if it were to pass as it
is, the Governor in Council would be given the most extraordinary powers. We on this side of the House have no exception to take to this new departure for the purpose of aiding in the construction of highways out of the federal treasury. This has not been the practice hitherto, but in the affluent condition of the treasury today, it may not perhaps be unwise that we should apply money in that direction. Moreover, the demand for highways is today more acute than it ever was before, and if it is intended to build new highways, of a certain standard and to assist the various provinces in that respect, for my part I see no objection. The only exception I have to take to this Bill is that any such exception should be made upon some rule provided for in the Bill, and should not be left to the whim or caprice or favour of the government of the day. If this Bill passes in its present form, any appropriations for this purpose can be devoted to one or two or three provinces, according as the ministry of the day may determine, In a matter of this kind there should be a principle of equity and equality applied as between provinces. What is to be the line that is to determine how the money shall be expended? Shall the larger provinces of Ontario and Quebec be taxed for the benefit of the smaller provinces, or shall the new and younger provinces be taxed to enrich the already richer provinces? Shall the whole matter be left to the ministry of the day without any rule of guidance? I think hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will recognize that the Bill in its present shape is altogether undesirable and goes to the verge of un-[DOT]con stitutilon ality if it be not altogether unconstitutional. I submit that any expenditure of this kind should be regulated by some principle. Now, what shall that principle be? For my part, I submit that the only principle for the expenditure of such money is the principle to be found in the British North America Act, which in section 118 provides that the moneys paid out of the treasurv to the various provinces shall be according to population. This provision was amended subsequently, complaint having been made that the allowances to the provinces were based simply upon the census of 1861. There were several conferences of the provinces, first in Quebec and then in Ottawa, commencing in 1887, all protesting that the allowances made to the provinces were not made on the principle of population, but on the population as it was in 1861.
It was felt and contended with great force that the allowance should be regulated on the principle of population, not on the fixed population of 1861, but on the moving population as determined by each census. There were several conferences of the provinces, they all joined


unanimously in asking that the principle should be amended so that the allowance should be made on the scale of moving population as determined by each census, In 1907 this House unanimously adopted this view, amended article 118, and provided that thenceforward the allowances to the provinces out of the treasury should be in accordance with the population as determined by each census. This seemed to me the most regular and the fairer way of approaching the subject. I do not presume that any man in this House will find fault with me if I say that there should be some principle to regulate these appropriations and I do not believe that any fairer principle can be found than that of population. If any-think fairer can be devised I would be willing to consider it, but after giving the matter the best consideration I could, I did not find anything fairer than the principle of population. The great province of Ontario would be the largest beneficiary out of this appropriation. Nobody can find fault with that because if the province of Ontario is the wealthiest of the provinces it is also the province which has the largest charges to maintain. The province of Quebec would come next. This would also be natural because the province of Quebec has also large charges on her treasury. Therefore, I submit that this House should adopt the basis of population in making these grants and that the appropriation should not be left to the arbitrary disposition of those who for the time being happen to be the advisers of the Crown. Therefore, I beg to move:
That the Bill be not now read, but that it be resolved that while the House is favourable to the granting of federal assistance towards the construction of permanent roads it is of opinion that such aid should be given to the governments of the provinces for such purposes, aud should he granted on a fixed basis similar to that now prescribed by the British North America Act and amendments thereto for subsidies to the provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) professes warm sympathy with the purposes of this Bill, but he adopts a very peculiar way of indicating it. He meets the Bill with an objection which was made at the first reading and answered at the time. Unless his memory is very short indeed he did know that the question as to the allotment of any moneys to he voted by parliament was raised on the first reading of the Bill by himself and an answer was given at that time by the minister in charge of the Bill, the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
who said that the distribution of this money among the different provinces was to be on the basis of population or to use the phrase he then used: On the same basis as that on which the subsidies are granted to the provinces. My right hon. friend seems to have doubt on that question now, notwithstanding that assurance. Let me say to him that that doubt is unnecessary.
This is not a government which proposes to deal upon the principle of warm sympathy and cold justice, which actuated hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. When these subsidies are brought down we propose to vote a specific amount for each province which cannot be appropriated to any other province, and we propose to proceed on the basis of population or amount of subsidy. So. far as I understand, that will amount to the same thing. My right hon. friend also says that this Bill gives extraordinary powers to the Governor General in Council. In that he is mistaken again. This Bill was introduced by my hon. friend, the Minister of Railways and Canals, who in framing it, adopted the analogy of at least half-a-dozen Acts introduced by the right hon. gentleman or his government. I refer to the Bills providing for railway subsidies. It is impossible in a Bill of this kind to indicate particular highways, because the province in each instance must be consulted in regard to that. Provision is made for consultation and co-operation with them. But apart from that, the sale-guards which have been introduced in this Bill by the Minister of Railways and Canals, with regard to the character of the highway, and the expenditures of this money upon permanent work and upon work that will bring the highway up to a particular standard, have all ibeen taken from the Bills providing for subsidies to railways, and according to the very lines of these measures which have been introduced not only 'by the late administration, but by previous administrations.
I do not know that there is very much else in what my right hon. friend has said that deserves consideration. I do not propose to reserve to the Governor General in Council, power to determine what amount shall go to one province or another. When the estimates which are necessary before one dollar can be paid over in aid of the construction or improvement of a highway are introduced it will be found that they provide for a particular amount to each province and that those amounts will be regulated according to the principle mentioned by the Minister of Railways when he introduced the Bill.
My right hon. friend speaks of the importance of highways. They are very important indeed, and it is for that reason that this proposal has been made in order that

provinces with limited revenues may thus he enabled to keep up the standard of their highways, and that that standard may be improved from time to time, by means of this grant from the federal exchequer of Canada. I think that is a very worthy purpose.
I do not claim that this Bill is a perfect Bill. It has been prepared in the hurry of a session, by a government which had to meet parliament within five weeks after it assumed office, and the Minister of Bail-ways and Canals, who introduced the measure, stated that it was introduced as the best method of dealing with this matter that could be devised by the.government in the short time at their disposal for its consideration. It is very likely that in the next, or the following session, a more elaborate measure may be introduced, but it is considered desirable by the government that no time should be lost in implementing the pledge made by the Liberal-Conservative party in the last elections, that it would provide aid from the federal treasury of Canada towards the improvement of highways throughout the country.
I have not found that this proposal has been greeted by the people of Canada in quite the same spirit as that in which the right hon. gentleman seems to regard it. I have found unanimous approval among the people towards a measure of this kind, which follows the analogy of the Eailway Subsidies Act, reserving to the Governor General in Council, certain control over the expenditure, in order to ensure that that expenditure may be made wisely and in the public interest.
We have no desire or intention to discriminate against any province on the ground of the political complexion of the government; we propose to deal with every province justly and fairly and without the slightest discrimination. We shall be glad indeed, after the close of this session, to take up this matter with the governments of the nine provinces of Canada, and to deal with them on fair, reasonable, and just lines, in order that this expenditure may be wisely and properly made. Having regard to these considerations, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is no ground whatever for the obstructive motion which the right hon. -gentleman has made, which seeks to delay the passing of this measure, and to prevent the people and governments of the nine provinces of Canada from receiving any measure of assistance_ from the federal treasury for the very important purpose of improving the public highways. I should have thought that if my right hon. friend had entertained the opinion that the principle of this Bill was in the public interest, he would have allowed the second reading to pass without seeking to delay or obstruct it, and would have
sought to introduce by way of amendment., to the Bill in committee, some of those precautions which he mistakenly supposes to be necessary in regard to the measure. He has not seen fit to take that course. He has asked this parliament to postpone the second reading of this Bill to another day, and to pass a resolution which is entirely unnecessary in view of the statement made by my hon. friend the Minister of Eailways and Canals, on the introduction of this Bill. The resolution says :-
That this House is of opinion that such aids, should be given to the governments of the provinces.
The third clause of the Bill does that very thing:-
3. The Governor in Council may, in any year, and upon suc-h terms and subject to such conditions as are proscribed by order in council, grant to -any province in aid of the improvement of existing highways or the construction of new highways in such province, or for both such purposes, a subsidy not exceeding such sum as may in such year be voted by parliament for that purpose.
It is perfectly true that section 6 makes another provision
6. The minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council and uopn such terms and conditions as are prescribed by order in council, may undertake the construction of any new highways or the improvement of any existing highways in any province, and may expend in such improvement or construction the whole or any part of the sums voted by parliament for such -subsidy to that province. Provided, however, that the minister shall first obtain the necesary authority from the legislature of such province and the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Thus, not one dollar can be expended under section 6 of this Act without the authority of the provincial legislature, and the consent of the provincial government having been first obtained. So that this is a Bill to grant aid to the provinces- in-the first instance, under proper regulation by the Governor in Council, in order that the money may not be expended for any other purpose and may not be unwiselv expended, or else it provides an expenditure by this government in any province but only with the consent of the provincial legislature, but also of the provincial government. Are not the rights of all the provinces, and all the provincial governments thoroughly safeguarded under the proposal? The right hon. gentleman's resolution says also:-*	.
The assistance should he granted on a fixed basis similar to that prescribed by the British North America Act and amendments thereto.
He was assured on the first reading of the Bill, and has been assured again today, that when the estimate in furtherance of the purpose of this Bill is introduced

into this parliament, the amount payable to each province will be set forth and that amount will be based in each instance, upon the population of the province, and upon the subsidies founded upon that population. Under these circumstances, it does not seem necessary for me to say anything further in reply to the observations of the right hon. gentleman, but to ask this House to vote down his proposal and let us proceed with this Bill in order that the highways in the nine provinces of Canada may be improved by means of aids from the federal treasury with the least possible delay.


William Pugsley: It does not need the statement of my right hon. friend the leader of the government, that this Bill was prepared in a hurry to convince members of this House of that fact, for an examination of the Bill, I think, will show them that the measure is of the most slip-shod character, that it is rough, crude and immature in its structure. And, having in view the importance of the subject, I think it would be difficult for any hon. member to call to mind any Bill introduced into this parliament which has shown such a want of care in preparation. I do not wonder that my right hon. friend the leader of the government thought it desirable to make the excuse which he has made. But he coolly tells us that if the time be given, if we will leave it with the government until another session comes round, having more leisure,, they will no doubt prepare a measure which will be more acceptable to parliament. That is the effect of what he says. He says that the government have not had very much time to prepare a measure. Well, they have been in office since the 10th of October. From current rumour, they have been very busy, but only in one direction-in wielding the axe, and decapitating officials in the public service, and have not even had time, some of them to give attention to the business of their departments. After four months we have a Bill which takes up not quite two pages, and which certainly could not have occupied a great deal of time. And I do not think it would take a great deal of time to prepare a Bill which would be thorough in its character, and would accomplish what is intended. There was a rumour that the Bill was hurriedly prepared, and submitted to parliament in order to give some evidence to one constituency in Canada-the constituency of South Renfrew-that the government intended to improve the highways. For the report in the public press shows that very great stress has been laid upon that provision, and very great efforts made to capture votes in the constituency by reason Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
of the government having determined upon this policy.
So much for the reason of the hurry: which the right hon. gentleman admitted in connection with the preparation of this Bill. Now, he admits that the Bill ought to contain the provision embodied in the amendment of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition.


Mr. LENNOX.: He did not say so.


William Pugsley: He admits, in effect, that the moneys ought to be expended upon that basis. If that is so, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House, that before we are called upon to support this measure these provisions should be in the Bill. The Bill is of the most meagre description, as I have said. It contains no statement as to the basis to be adopted for the expenditure of these moneys.
It lays down no principle upon which the government shall act. All we have is the statement of my right hon. friend that when, later on, they come to submit estimates to parliament, they: will ask for amounts for the different provinces. If that is the intention of the Bill it ought to say so. Before parliament is to be committed to this expenditure there ought to be a provision as to what shall be the basis of the appropriation. Now let me call your attention to the third section of the Bill:
The Governor in Council may, in any year, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as are prescribed by order in council, grant to any province in aid of the improvement of existing highways or the construction of new highways in such province, or for both such purposes, a subsidy not exceeding such sum as may in such year be voted by parliament foT that purpose.
Under that section it would be open to the government to come down to parliament and ask for a total vote for the improvement of highways throughout Canada, and if parliament passes this Bill with that section, we shall entrust to the Governor in Council the manner in which this lump sum shall be divided between the different provinces. If my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, when he had this Bill drafted, had clearly fixed in his mind that there should be a definite sum for each province to be voted by parliament, based upon population, I think he would have said so in the Bill, I think he would have laid down distinctly the basis upon which the appropriation should be made. Either he had not made up his mind when the Bill was drafted, or had not time to prepare a section which would cover the ground when the Bill was submitted to parliament.
Now as to section 4, I think it is a very wise provision that a highway which

is to be aided shall be built or improved, as the case may be, according to descriptions, provisions and specifications approved by the Governor in Council on the report of the minister. I think it is very desirable, and everybody will admit it is desirable, that federal aid should Only be given to what,, as stated in the amendment of my right hon. friend, may well be termed permanent highways. There should be no federal aid given to roads of a temporary character. The highways which the federal government are to aid ought to be in the nature of main highways,- of important highways, and those highways should be built up to a high standard, and be in all respects permanent roads.
I object to the Bill upon another ground, that it leaves it open to the government to take either one of two courses. They may either make grants to the provinces in aid of the construction of highways and allow the moneys to be expended by the provinces, or they may make arrangement for the construction of some highways as federal works entirely, and entirely outside co-operation with the provinces. I think we ought to determine upon one course or the other. Either these grants for permanent highways should be entirely for the provinces, and we should allow the provincial governments to expend the moneys, subject to the specifications being approved by the Minister of Railways, or we should, as a federal government, undertake the construction of these permanent highways ourselves. We should not have an alternative provision in the Bill. That I think is a most objectionable feature of it. I think hon. gentlemen on consideration will see that it is objectionable. See what an opportunity for undue influence it gives to the government of the day in respect of any province. If they cannot agree as to the specifications with regard to any particular highway, or as to the particular highways to be aided, then the Minister of Railways can very well say: Oh, well, we will undertake the construction of highways in some particular province where we don't want the provincial government to have anything to do with the matter; we will undertake the construction of those highways ourselves. It is true, the right hon. gentleman says that the government cannot do that unless with the approval of the government of the province. But you can easily see what an engine for pressure upon the government of any particular province this would give to the federal government of the day, in case this section were passed. Surely there can be no objection, if these grants are to be based upon the population of the province, to limiting the provisions of the Bill to that mode of aiding public highways. I think it is extremely objectionable that this doublef-barrelled provision should be contained in the Bill, that in some provinces, or in some localities in a province, the provincial government may have charge of the building of highways; and in other provinces, or in other portions of the same province, the federal government may carry on the construction of a highway as a federal work. I think heretofore highways have been entirely attended to by provincial governments and by the municipal authorities, largely in co-operation with the provincial governments, and I think the better way would be that, whatever money the federal government is to give towards improving or constructing highways, should be handed over to the provincial authorities. Then there is another objection which I find in section 6. Certain roads may be undertaken as federal works.


Robert Laird Borden: Only with the consent of the provinces.


William Pugsley: That is objectionable, because if that is done, you may have to have a staff of highway engineers in the employ of the federal government to carry on these federal works. I submit it should be one way or the other; either the federal government should take charge of the highways-which, of course, would be limited to trunk lines or main highways -and aid "this work entirely as a federal work, to which a strong objection can be urged, or the work should be done wholly by the provincial governments by means of the money which is to be paid out by the Minister of Railways. I think myself the proper way is to leave the matter of expenditure to the provincial governments, always making provision that the highway to be aided is subject to the approval of the minister.
Now I think there is another provision which ought to be in the Bill. It ought to be provided that if, during any year, a provincial government does not expend upon highways the amount to which they would be entitled according to population, that money should remain in the federal treasury, and should bear interest, to be paid over to the provincial government at such date as it will be required for the particular highway it was proposed to undertake; that is to say, that if the amount is not expended in any one year, the province should not lose it, but it should remain in the fund to be added to the payments which might subsequently be made.
Now in conclusion, I think my right hon. friend the leader of the government is not doing himself the greatest possible credit when he accuses the leader of the opposition of obstructing this Bill. I see no obstruction to the Bill. My right hon. friend

the leader of the opposition is simply moving an amendment declaring the opinion of this House that the Bill ought to contain just what the Prime Minister I think himself is almost disposed to admit, and which he would have inserted in the Bill when it was brought down if he had given the subject longer consideration. All that the leader of the opposition is contending for is that a principle should be adopted that the whole people will approve of. If the leader of the government were to approve of the suggestions contained in this amendment* it would be the easiest thing in the world to adopt the amendment, take the second reading of the Bill to-day, and then we could expedite it in every possible way. There is no disposition on this side to obstruct the Bill, We are anxious to facilitate its passage just as much as gentlemen on the other side of the House, but what we do desire is that when this Bill passes it shall be a proper Bill, that when this parliament engages to approve of the appropriation of federal moneys for the construction of highways, the Bill shall provide that the appropriation shall be based upon the proper principle. We say that the principle should be the population of the different provinces which is the basis upon which the subsidies are now payable under the British North America Act. With these objectionable features removed, and the Bill improved and made what, I am sure, my right hon. friend the leader of the House will agree the Bill ought to be, because he says that is the way in which they propose to work it out, he will find no disposition upon this side of the House to offer the slightest objection but every disposition to facilitate its passage just as rapidly as possible.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate the government and the country upon the introduction of this Bill. I can hardly conceive of any Bill which would be more to the credit of the government, or which would give more substantial benefit to the country than this Bill. I congratulate the country particularly because it is a distinct act in favour of the farmer and the rural population. With a somewhat lavish hand, at all events with very great generosity, we have been from year to year voting large sums of money for the construction of railways, the development of our canal systems and the improvement of our ocean ports, but we have not been doing very much that brings aid directly to the farmers' door. For many years I have felt that, however much we might devote to the construction of railways, so long as the main highways of the country remain in the imperfect condition in which they have existed in Canada, the farmer will be handicapped both as regards Mr. PTJGSLEY.
getting his products to the markets of the world and also in the matter of the valuation of his land. There is nothing which detracts so much from the ready sale of land at a good price to people coming from Great Britain visiting Canada and inspecting our homesteads as the fact that they contrast the condition of our roads most unfavourably with that of the roads they have been accustomed to in the land they come from.	*	_
So, I hope that the government, having embarked upon this policy, will be generous-very generous indeed, almost lavish- in the expenditure of money which will so directly concern the farmers of Canada.
I congratulate the government, too, upon the fact, which seems to irritate and annoy hon. gentlemen oposite, that the government have not lagged back and for years and years been prodded on to implement their promises, but that they have come down at the very first opportunity to make good the promises which were made on the hustings or elsewhere in this regard. It does not agree with our hon. friends opposite, because they are not accustomed to that kind of thing. It does not agree with them for another reason- because they know that it is in such marked contrast with the flagrant way in which they disregarded their^ promises during the whole period of their administration, and so the people cannot be slow to notice the contrast between the present administration and the administration recently led by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). So. this government have brought down this measure speedily, in haste, in a hurry-as the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Pugsley) says, bearing evidence of hurry-and to the extent to which it may bear evidence of hurry it redounds all the more to the credit and honesty of the present administration, as showing that they are prepared to-day, tomorrow, and always to advance step_ by step in the redemption of the promises made on the hustings and otherwise to the people of Canada. So, I hope it will always be. These hon. gentlemen do not understand it. For sixteen years they avoided the fulfilment of every promise-I think every promise-they had ever made. I think I have heard them say tha,t they redeemed one, but I do not know which one it was. I could never recognize any.


George Eulas Foster: The reform of the Senate was one.


Haughton Lennox: 
Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: The manner of my hon. friend from Simeoe (Mr. Lennox) is so different from the benevolent and smiling addresses which he used to direct towards us in opposition, that I cannot help thinking that he is sharing in an unusual degree the evidence of perturbation and excitement which are animating the ranks of our opponents generally today. Recent events have evidently produced an undue effect upon my hon. friend from Simeoe. I am surprised, very much surprised, at the tone and substance of the remarks of the Prime Minister. He terms this amendment an obstructive amendment. I think he cuts the feet from beneath such a charge by the admission which he himself made that the Bill was drawn up in a hurry and was capable of improvement, and, if the Bill be capable of improvement, what more natural on the paTt of the opposition than immediately to attempt to improve it. Sir, this is not an obstructive amendment; it is an improving amendment. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister's argument faltered

so and his manner was so different from usual that I could not fail to recall a few nights ago our having the assurance of so high an authority as the Minister of Trade and Commerce that if a certain event happened yesterday it meant the injection of venom into the veins of the government. Most clearly the venom is in the veins of the government and a double portion of it appears to be in the veins of the Prime Minister. We on this side of the House hope it will go on working, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce prophesied it would work, until the government is destroyed. Now, the amendment proposes to insert in the Bill a provision that this expenditure upon the highways shall take place upon a fixed basis. Of course, if we were always to have in power a Minister of Railways such as the present, I do not ' know that such an amendment would he necessary to be written in the Bill. We know that he is a non-political minister; we who have listened to him in the House are aware of the almost metaphysical detachment of his intellect. We know the high planes of political thought in which he wanders-; he takes no interest in elections; elections are things apart altogether from his consideration. We know his political career; he would never use the money for highways for the -sake of winning an election; no one could think it for a moment. But, then the present Minister of Railways will not always be in power. We have the assurance of the Prime Minister, and I accept it, that he would not use this money for such a purpose and that so far as his government is concerned this money for roads would never be used for electioneering and poli-cal purposes. The fact that my right hon. friend gave us that assurance almost amounted to an admission that as the Bill is drawn it suggests that that is a possibility, because the suggestion did not proceed, so far as I heard, from the right hon. the leader of the opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, it was in reply, to a remark made by the leader of the opposition that I spoke.


Michael Clark: I may not have heard the address of my right hon. leader as carefully as did the Prime Minister who was to reply, and therefore I accept the correction. In any case I accept the statement of the Prime Minister that he himself would be the last man to use this money in such a way. But I contend that the force with which he made the denial indicates the suspicion that the way this Bill is drawn up would leave such a possibility open. I say to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister as I said in regard to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, that he will not be in power Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).
for ever. Recent events would almost indicate that he may be in power for only a very short time. From all that I hear by correspondence from every portion of Canada, his government has gotten in wrong, and there is widespread thought in the minds of the people of this Dominion, and in many cases in the minds of people who are not by any means strong Grits, that this will be a short lived administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Michael Clark: Be that as it may, I am going to take a ground that gentlemen opposite -cannot jeer at, and I say: you wont' be in power for all eternity.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: And, it may just be that when this government-to which I will attribute for the moment all the perfections that they themselves claim-passes out of power, some wicked Grit administration may come in.


An hon. MEMBER.: Never.


Michael Clark: Well, there is a gentleman over there who believes in eternal possibilities. As I say. some wicked Grit government may come in which would use this Bill improperly. Why not provide against such a possibility in the future; why not act in some reasonable and statesmanlike manner in respect to this matter. There is a better reason to demand that the government should accept this amendment and that is, because the Prime Minister only differs by a hairs-breadth from the leader of the opposition. He tells us that the government purposes doing what the amendment demands they shall write it down they will do. His purpose is exactly the purpose of the amendment only that the government prefers to keep a loose hand; they prefer to keep a roving commission.
If the principle be a good one-and every man of us, on both sides, I think, will be inclined to follow our respective leaders in agreeing to the principle-none of us dare do anything else in the face of public opinion-if the principle be a good one, why not put it in the Bill? What has the hon. gentleman to fear about printing it? If the Bill has been drawn in a hurry, we have at any rate taken enough leisure to arrive at the common opinion that the object is a good one. Then print it in the Bill, and it will bind not only this administration], but future administrations* as well.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend who has just sat down has put the issue very properly to the leader of the government. The leader

of the government told us that his Minister of Railways and Canals, in moving the first reading of this Bill, stated that this money was to be paid to the provincial governments that was the purpose and object of it.


Mr. COCHRANE.: No. I was asked by the right hon. leader of the opposition on what basis the money was going to be expended, and I said on the same basis on which the subsidies were paid.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That means exactly what I said, that the provincial governments were to receive this money in the same proportion in which the subsidies are at present divided.


Francis Cochrane: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If that is not the
meaning of the Minister of Railways, I am at a loss to know what the English language means.


Francis Cochrane: Read ' Hansard,' and you will find.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps my hon. friend will explain; I do not want to take any advantage of him. I understood the right hon. leader of the government to say that the Minister of Railways had taken that position in moving the first reading of (the Bill, and he himself stated to-day that the object was to utilize the money provided under this Bill in the same way as the subsidies to the provinces were granted. That being so, my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), has put the proposition to the House in a form from which there can be no escape. If that be so, there can be no objection to the Premier causing to be put in the Bill that provision in the amplest and clearest way. That is what the leader of the opposition seeks for in his amendment. It is absolutely essential, it seems to me, when you come to consider this whole question, apart from the abstract way in which my hon. friend from Simcoe put it, unless by some unseen method the federal government of Canada shall provide money for the highways. Underneath this proposition is involved the question of the relative powers of the provinces, and the Dominion in regard to the building of roads. Now, under the British North America Act the sole right to deal with local works of that character is vested in the provinces. Outside of the western provinces, where the title to the land is still vested in the Dominion, the title to all the highways is vested in the provincial governments or in the municipalities, as the case may be.


An hon. MEMBER.: In the west also.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That being,so, the federal government, for the first time in
the history of confederation, are proposing to step within the boundaries of provincial authority and legislate on this matter. Now, why was this question of roads left to the provincial governments? Why have the provincial governments been needing more money in order to deal with them properly? Why was the suggestion made that 'the federal government should provide funds for this purpose? Simply and solely because apparently there has not been enough money in the hands of the various provinces to deal with the highways as 'the public opinion of the country would [DOT]like them to be dealt with. In order that the provincial governments might be in a position to deal wtih the highways and other matters, the federal government in 1867 agreed to give certain amounts by way of subsidies to the provincial governments to be expended by them for this and other purposes within their jurisdiction. That was the reason why, from that period down to the present, the federal government has granted subsidies to the various provinces. The area within which the provincial governments could raise money by taxation was defined and circumscribed in such a way that it was impossible for them to obtain within that area the necessary money which would enable them to keep pace with the development of the provinces. As a consequence, there were repeated conferences of representatives of all the provincial governments, in which the whole question of the relation of the subsidies to their expenditures was discussed, in 1887, in 1902, and in 1907, when the provincial premiers met and decided to ask the Dominion government for larger subsidies in order that the needs of the various provinces might be properly supplied. The result was that in 1907, the federal parliament gave to the provinces increased subsidies. All the while the provinces have been dealing with 'the question of roads. In the province of Ontario at confederation there was vested in the municipalities the right to deal with this whole question, and the municipalities have gone on raising money by direct taxation for the purpose of improving the roads. I understand that the same system obtains in Quebec. The governments of these two provinces have used provincial funds for the purpose of building colonization roads. In the province of Prince Edward Island there is no municipal government, but the provincial government has maintained the whole road system of the province out of the subsidy paid by this government. In the province of Nova Scotia we have never had munci-pal taxation for roads except that there is vested in each municipality the right to tax up to a certain amount each year for the purpose of improving the roads, but

the title to the highways is vested in the province, and the provincial government makes expenditures in various parts of the province for the improvements of the roads. The same principle prevails in the province of New Brunswick. Where does the money come from? From the subsidies paid by this government under the terms of 1907. That is the position of affairs. Some of the provinces repair the roads, and there are municipal road inspectors, whose salaries are a matter of criticism in some 'quarters on the ground that a certain amount of money is voted for that purpose.
Then you come into another arena and you have a provincial road inspector and his staff of assistants whose salaries and expenditures are also deducted from the total amount provided by the central authority and you have criticism there as to the large amount that is expended. Does the right hon. the Prime Minister propose under this Bill to set up a third system of officials in Canada to deal with the question of roads or does he not? If he does we are going to have a very peculiar condition of affairs. You will have municipal officials paid out of municipal funds, provincial cfficials, responsible to the provincial government but really paid out of the funds of this government and then federal officials paid out of the money provided for in this Bill. Roads have been discussed 'in my province for years and the leader of the local Conservative party has been preaching there during the last four or five years that the one thing wanted in regard to road expenditure was unification of authority, the adopting of a more comprehensive plan to which every one would give adherence.
This is not a subject which can be treated lightly and my right hon. friend cannot dispose of the proposition of my leader by speaking of it as obstruction. I am sure the right hon. leader of the House will realize the position of affairs that for the first time since 1867 the federal parliament is entering upon this arena which is peculiar to provincial governments and that in so doing he is interfering with provincial rights. True you may be interfering in a way which the province will not mind, you are going to give them money but you are entering upon the trend of an expenditure which is wholly confined to the provinces, you are undertaking to go in and spend money on roads which has never been done before. It will not do for my right hon. friend to say that this resolution follows in a general way legislation used in regard to subsidies for railways. It is all very well to reserve to the Minister of Railways and his engineers the right to prescribe the methods and the usual restrictions under which subsidies can be earned by the construction of rail-Mr. MACDONALD.
ways. That involves only the making of certain specifications well known to engineers, But here we have a new departure. The government say to the minister: you are going to start out for the first time in the history of confederation on a Bill made in a hurry without deliberation, without stating in the document the thing' you say you are going to do. No one has a right to enter upon a constitutional question in such a light hearted and careless way as these hon. gentlemen are doing.


Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Are you against the Bill?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am in favour of the federal government giving to each province by way of additional subsidy more money for the improvement of roads. That is my position and I hope it is my hon. friend's because I understood the Premier t0 say that was his position and all we want to do is to put into the Bill a statement of the fact, a statement of the position of the Premier. Of course the Premier says that this money which is to be expended under the first five sections of the Bill has to be spent in co-operation with the provinces. It is true that you have to deal with the provinces. Why does not my right hon. friend amend that a little and say that the sums of money to be granted shall be in proportion to the amounts which have already been granted to the _ provinces by way of provincial subsidy? My right hon. friend goes further and by section 6 of the Bill proposes a system of expenditure which is not by way of subsidies to the provinces. That is a peculiar clause of the Bill, an entirely new proposition, and one which calls for the fullest consideration by this House. He tells us theTe is not much to be criticised about that because if the federal government propose to go in and expend! money itself in any province, it cannot enter upon the expenditure without obtaining the necessary authority from the legislature of the province. Of course it cannot, how could it? The title to the highways is vested in each one of the provinces. It is very doubtful if there is any necessity for the latter portion of the provision. What power or authority has this government to interfere with the roads in any province of the Dominion? These roads are held by the Crown in the right of the province, not in the right of this Dominion. My right hon. friend would be a trespasser, and any one of his officials would be a trespasser if he went on any public highway without the consent of the provincial government concerned. Not a dollar could be spent for that purpose except with the consent of the provincial government. If that is so would my right hon. friend tell us whether the government intend to inaugur-

ate a new department to be known as the department of highways, as stated in the newspapers, [DOT] through which department the minister is going to start upon a system by which the federal government will deal with the highways of the country? The right hon. gentleman tells us that is not the policy of the government. If that is the policy of the government we want to know, because if so, this parliament is entering upon an absolute interference with provincial rights, and undertaking to deal with matters over which they have no jurisdiction, and with which they cannot deal except with the concurrence of the provinces.


Mr. BRODER.: What objection would you have in the case of an interprovincial road?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend would have to come before this House! with a separate proposition dealing with that problem, and it would require the greatest possible care. Of course, we have Section 92 of the British North America Act, which gives to the legislatures the Wght to deal with local and private works "within a province, except in respect of such works as may be declared for the general advantage of Canada, but the use of highways in that connection up to this moment has never formed the subject of consideration by this parliament. Of course the federal government has legislated in regard to railways which were interprovincial works, and I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite wail on this question of provincial rights in the last parliament and before the Railway Committee, day after day, complaining about the federal government undertaking to grant local charters.


Haughton Lennox: As they had a right to do.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then they ought to be thinking about provincial rights in connection with this Bill. This House| has not yet secured from the government a statement as to what its policy will be. In replying to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the right hon. the leader of the House (Mr. Borden), said that the Bill in the pre-i amble states that this money is to be spent on the same basis as the provincial subsidies. My right hon. friend is going to carry out_ that policy. Let us go on in the enacting clause and provide for that assistance. But the nigger on the fence is this section 6, and it is in regard to that that I hope the Minister of Railways, when he comes to speak, will tell us whether or not it is the purpose of this government, over and above the assistance they propose to give by way of subsidies, to inaugurate a new department to be known as the department of highways, withi officials and all that. If that is the proposition I submit to the House that before we consider it, the government 'ought to place before the House a Veil defined plan dealing with the various conflicting bodies that have to do with road expenditures in this country to-day.
The unification of authority and expenditure is the policy of the Conservative party in the province of Nova Scotia, in provincial affairs. Is it the policy of the leader of that party in federal affairs ? That is the question upon which we ought to be informed. Have the government had any inquiries made on this subject throughout the country ? The Prime Minister is reported to have said to a deputation that waited upon him about two weeks ago that it was not the intention of the government to engage in the repair of old roads, but to engage in the construction of new ones. If that is so, we ought to know it; if it is not so, we ought to know that. I saw that statement'reported the other day; I do not know whether the Prime Minister cares to give assent to it now


Robert Laird Borden: I am responsible for what I said, not for what is reported.
Sotne hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is, of course, not a very brilliant remark. But it does not take much to please our friends opposite since the event of yesterday. But perhaps they should rather wait for some greater utterance on the part of their leader before they break forth in applause, for, certainly, that remark of his was not exactly profound. He is responsible, of course, for what he says, aud not for what he is reported to have said. Well, that only means that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane), when he speaks, will have to tell us a little more fully what is the policy of the government in this regard. Either the policy of the government is to construct new roads or its policy is to repair old ones. This discussion, I am sure, has shown, it must have satisfied hon. members, that there are very great questions involved in this Bill which cannot be disposed of so easily as is suggested. Has the Minister of Railways made any inquiries whatever with regard to the conditions under which this federal money is to be granted ? For, unquestionably, section 6 provides for the granting of that money. Has the minister any information and comprehensive plans to submit to tbe House ? If he has not, then the House ought not to give adherence to a Bill that is put forward apparently on the basis that the *money is to go to the provinces, yet with a little clause behind to enable some kind

of system to be built up foT other reasons. Clearly we are entering upon an arena of legislation for the first time since 1867. This means that we ought to take great care in framing that legislation. The Prime Minister's statement that the Bill was prepared in a hurry and perhaps is not so complete as it might be, but a better one, a wider one, will be introduced at another session, is not good enough for this House. Legislation under which it is proposed to trespass upon provincial authority ought to proceed with the greatest deliberation and oare, and before we are asked to crystallize this Bill into law we should understand thoroughly what we are doing. Each and every one of the provinces of the Dominion, at a conference or in some other way, ought to be consulted upon the question how far they are willing to give up their authority in relation to highways and the expenditure on them, before such a measure is introduced. It does seem to me that, so far as federal assistance to highways is concerned, us the leader of the opposition proposes, it should be confined to grants based upon the provincial subsidies.


Mr. FOWLER.: So far as I could follow the hon. member for Pictou, (Mr. Macdonald), his chief objection seemed to be that the Bill involved a new departure. A strange doctrine, surely, to come from a so-called Liberal in this House-that,, because this is without precedent, because never before in the history of Canada, has a government been in a position, and been wise enough, and broad enough, to introduce a measure such as this for the benefit of the people of Canada, therefore the measure is to be declared bad. This is a measure for the benefit of all the people, irrespective of class, or occupation or of where they live; it applies to every province and covers the whole Dominion.
I have also been amused by the attitude of our friends on the other side, with regard to an occurrence of yesterday. One does now begin to realize the depth of gloom into which these gentlemen were plunged, when one finds them rejoicing with exceeding great joy-over what? Over the fact that they have been able to hold half the majority they had on September 21. Just as proper would it be for our friends the Dutch, to rejoice over taking Holland, or the Irish over the retention of Cork, as for these gentlemen to rejoice so hugely because genial George, the Bill Nye of Canadian politics, has been able to hold South Renfrew, by something like half the majority by which it was carried on the 21st of September. Why do not these gentlemen remember, do they not realize, that the ' great chieftain ' was there with his ' white plume.'? How could George help Mr. MACDONALD.
being elected under the circumstances. True, the ' white plume ' did not have much effect on the 21st of September, but it did seem to be able to hold what they had on the 22nd of February.
Now, my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), finds fault with this Bill, because it is crude, rough, rude. He is such a polished, courteous gentleman, that I can understand how his sensitive soul would be affected by anything that is rude. He also complains of the Bill because it does not go enough into detail. He has forgotten the investigation of the Central railway. If he had remembered that, he would not have spoken against this Bill, on the ground that it did not contain details enough. He will remember that there was a Bill referred to there; it was brought up in the evidence,-a Bill in which was so little detail that it had on it only ' Five thousand W. P.' So, surely the hon. gentleman was not serious when he spoke of this Bill as being improperly drawn because it did not go sufficiently into detail.
It seems to me that the people of this country will look with very little favour upon the criticism of .hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to this matter, whether that criticism be based, like that of the hon. member for Pictou, on the lack of precedent for the introduction of a measure of this kind, or whether it be criticism like that of the hon. member for St. John, based on the statement that the measure is crudely drawn and the language not so perfect and not so Addisonian as if it had been drawn by the hon. gentleman himself. I think the people of this country, irrespective of party, will hail this Bill with great satisfaction, implementing as it does, the promise of the party now in power when it went to the country in the late election, and showing that this government is a government which proposes to carry out the pledges it made to the people, in sharp contradistinction to the party that, for the last fifteen years, misgoverned this country, who carried out no pledges that they made. They said they did carry out their pledges with regard to the Senate, but it was Providence that helped them out with the Senate and ' reformed ' that body to the extent to which it was reformed by making the majority Liberal instead of Conservative.


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland).: I do not intend to detain the House more than a few moments. But this question of good roads is one which, in the section of the province of Ontario from which I come, is of such momentous importance, that I feel that it is my duty to say at least a few words in regard to the Bill before the vote is taken on the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).

I might say without, perhaps, wounding the feelings of the hon. gentlemen, that if they have, no better arguments to advance in favour of this Bill than those put up by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, they have a very weak case. Now, if it were not for the last clause in this Bill, I would not care much whether the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition were carried or not. But it seems to me that clause goes to the very crux of the whole matter. The right hon. leader of the government has told us that the Bill was quickly drawn, perhaps crudely drawn, and will be supplemented perhaps by a better one during the recess. We wish to supplement it by a better one now, and to define clearly and emphatically how the distribution of the money shall be made so that there may be no dispute about it hereafter. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has very properly stated that though the right hon. gentleman is Premier at present, he might not be Premier next year, not that his party will be defeated, but that he himself, whom we hope will live long, might not be in this House. There are lots of contingencies that may arise between' now and the next session of parliament, and another leader, another king, may arise who knows not Joseph ; another king may arise who may not feel that he is "bound by the statements of the present right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, and who may not agree that this money should be divided in accordance with the suggestions made to-day by the leader of the government. So that, now is the accepted time, now is the time to rectify this Bill, and put it in the exact shape in which the leader of the government says he intends to put it. There is no question of obstruction. The amendment can be adopted now and the Bill can be put through probably this afternoon or at the beginning of next week. I want it to be distinctly understood that I am not endeavouring to obstruct the passage of this Bill. I am strongly in favour of this government granting aid for the construction of good roads throughout the country, and will do everything in my power to assist the passage of a Bill for that purpose. But I desire to protest against the way this money is to be expended. Though it may aid in the construction of good roads throughout the country, it can also be used in a way which will not conduce to the advantage of the people, or to the construction of these roads in such a way as we would like. I have my own views as to how this rtfoney should be distributed, and those views I intend to suggest when we are in committee on this Bill. I am not in favour of handing this money over to the provincial legislatures at all, but of paying it 116
out to the municipalities directly, as the provincial governments do-of course under certain restrictions and with certain supervision. That is the proposition which I believe the people of the province of Ontario would approve. I think it would meet with the approval of ninety-nine per cent of all the municipalities in the province, that the money should be paid directly to the counties and not be paid to the provincial government. If the municipalities did not use it properly, then let this government implement, or supplement, whichever word you like to use, the moneys paid by the provincial government in that direction.


Francis Cochrane: I agree with the right hon. the Prime Minister that, judging by the remarks we have heard from hon. gentlemen opposite, their idea is to obstruct tnis Bill. As I understand parliamentary procedure, the discussion that takes place on the second reading is for or against the pnnciple of the Bill, and hon. gentlemen have been talking directly against it. Now 1 clo not know of any other federal government which has adopted this system of aid-!ng . gnways, that work has generally been left in charge of the provinces. I do not know of any other country where the federal government contributes or co-operates with the province for that purpose, as it is proposed to do in this Bill. At Washington, I understand, there is a Bureau of Education for the very purpose of instruct-lng the people on the necessity of good highways, and the manner of constructing them I think probably it would be well if we had in Canada such a bureau as that because the construction and upkeep of public roads are certainly very necessary in a country like ours. I want to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) in his reference to what I said on the first reading of this Bill. The right hon. the leader of the on-position asked me:	1
I would ask the hon. gentleman to tell us it there is any basis of allotment among the provinces. The provincial subsidies are based based on population?


Francis Cochrane: It is to be on the same basis as that on which subsidies are granted to the provinces, in other words, by population.
I have no doubt whatever but that this government can work in conjunction and in harmony with the provincial governments in carrying out the purposes of this Bill. I think every provincial government, whether Grit or Tory, will welcome this Bill and co-operate with us in carrying it out. Moreover, the government will not undertake to force any local government to join us if they do not wish to. I hope we shall be able to arrange with the provincial governments so that they will



make a grant equal to the grant given by the federal government, and that we may be able to go on within a very short time and construct these roads. But if any provincial government does not wish to contribute, I see no reason why we should not go on and do the work ourselves. But if they join in with us, so much the better. We will, co-operate with them in making the specifications. Evidently no specifications can be laid down in this Bill. You cannot draw up specifications to cover all roads, because some might cost much more, and others much less than others. The right hon. the leader of the opposition objected to putting so much money in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor in Coun

cii. What did they do last session, or the session before? They gave a subsidy to a road to be built from Montreal to join the Transcontinental railway in Quebec, and there was no company named to which the grant was to be made; it was left to the government to name the company, and they manipulated it in such a manner as to give the money to their friends. We do not propose to take that course; we propose to work with the provincial governments, not with individuals or with companies. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
Amendment (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) negatived.
Motion (Mr. Cochrane) agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 3-grant of annual subsidy for highways.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would like to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) if he would explain what he has in his mind as being the purpose of these words:
The Governor in Council may, in any year, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as are prescribed by order in council.


Francis Cochrane: I would understand that terms and conditions would have reference to the specification of the roadway.


Wilfrid Laurier: I thought so at first but on reading the section which comes next I have my doubts because the next section provides exactly for the specifications:
i. Any highway for which aid is granted to a province shall be improved or constructed, as the case may be, according to descriptions, conditions and specifications approved by the Governor in Council on the report of the minister, and specified in each case in an agreement between the minister and the government of the province, which agreement the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, is hereby empowered to make.


Francis Cochrane: ,
I think this clause is perfectly unobjectionable; on the contrary, quite proper, but it disposes of the specification in so far as clause 3 is concerned. My hon. friend must have something else in his mind. I do not exactly understand what the purport of those words is.


Robert Laird Borden: There are a great many considerations which will occur to my right hon. friend in addition to_ those already mentioned. It will be desirable, for example, to have precaution taken that the money should be expended for this purpose and this purpose alone.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is hardly what is meant. The money must be expended for this purpose; it cannot be expended for any other. I ask for this information because I have been unable to satisfy myself as to what is intended. I do not see what conditions are to be imposed which are not to oe found in section 4.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Wilfrid Laurier: I have no exception to take_ to the statement which my right hon. friend has made; there must be conditions which will be covered by the agreement, but everything that has been said by imy right hon. friend so far comes within and is covered by section 4. It is because section 4 is there that I do not appreciate the purpose of the words ' Upon such terms and subject to such conditions,' which are to be found in section 3; I would again call my right hon. friend's attention to section 4.


Robert Laird Borden: That is entirely as to the character of the road.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, that covers everything. Section 4, as I understand it, means that money may only be given to the province after an agreement has been made in regard to the specification and the conditions and everything else about the road. Then, I ask what is the meaning of these words in section 3?


Robert Laird Borden: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Are not all of
these comprised in the section?


Robert Laird Borden: No. I believe ' the descriptions, conditions, and specifications,' refer only to the character of the road, and the expression in section 3 deals with matters to which I have alluded, and many others that I might suggest. It is impossible to foresee at the moment what terms and conditions may be thought desirable, but, those conditions I have brought to the attention of my right hon. friend will no doubt occur to him as- conditions that ought to be agreed upon between the governments before the money is handed over.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not dispute that at all. I simply say that in my humble opinion that is included in section 4.


William Manley German: I call the attention oi tire Minister of Railways and Canals and of the Prime Minister to my suggestion that the best way to distribute this money and the proper policy to adopt is, not to pay the money directly to the provinces, but to distribute the money among the various municipalities in the same manner as the Ontario Act distributes the money among the municipalities in Ontario. The Minister of Railways knows that the Ontario legislature -appropriated $1,000,000 in aid of good_ roads in that province, and that money is distributed by granting to each municipality one-third of the -money which that municipality itself 'expended for the 'construction of good roads.


Francis Cochrane: It is given to the county -municipality.


William Manley German: That policy has worked out with the greatest possible degree of satisfaction and that is the policy which I am convinced ninety-nine per cent of the county municipalities in Ontario would wish to see adopted with reference to this money. In this way you will do away with all possible chances of extra officials. You can say to each county municipality: When you have expended $20,000 or $100,000 in the construction of good roads according to certain specifications and standards, we will pay you a proportion of the money you have expended. If you give the money directly to the provinces it simply means an increase of the provincial subsidy because the province is very likely to use this money for good roads, but they will not use any money of their own for such a purpose.


Haughton Lennox: What the hon. member (Mr. German) says may sound very plausible, but you have to consider how it will work ouit. Should the Dominion government take upon itself the burden of direct-

ly dealing with all the county municipalities in Canada? I do not think so. This emphasizes just the meaning of section 3 as contrasted with section 4. The right lion, the leader of the opposition will not think it is an unfriendly statement if I say that lie has told us a great many times that lie is not a business man and I think that is true of him so far as I have been able to observe from his actions. There is a very clear emphatic distinction between clauses 3 and 4. Clause 4 is directed to the character of the road that shall be 'constructed and in which the Dominion government will put its money, but it goes no further, while clause 3 deals with the question of the terms upon which the Dominion will agree to give its money. For example, some o'f the municipalities have adopted toll gates upon their highways and the Dominion government would probably say: As we are expending this money not for local or sectional purposes but for the general advantage of Canada, we insist that the beneficial results of this work . shall not be hampered in any way by the erection of toll gates, and if you have toll gates we will not pay over any of this money. It may be true that this money could be best expended through the instrumentality of the county councils. The government of Ontario arranges that by contributing a certain proportion of the amount expended by the municipalities upon the improvement of the highway. We might make it a condition, if we wished to, that this money shall be expended directly through the county councils in certain cases where that system has been found to be working satisfactorily, and we might say: We will pay the money over to the province to be handed by the province to the county municipalities. It might be that in the case of a very expensive bridge we would contribute a certain amount towards it if the province would contribute another certain amount.	[DOT]


William Manley German: Will the hon. gentleman approve of the proposition, as far at any rate as the province of Ontario is concerned, that the money should be expended by the county councils in the same manner as the appropriation of the Ontario legislature ?


Haughton Lennox: No, I do not say that I would go that far, though the system has worked fairly well. The Dominion parliament, in dealing with this matter, can, if it chooses, stipulate that the money shall be expended by the municipalities in such a way as tlhe hon. gentleman refers to.
At six o'clock, House took recess.


Haughton Lennox: After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 23), respecting the Harbour of Hamilton.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).
Bill (No. 102), for the relief of Edna Wells.

Mr. Beattie
Bill (No. 83), respecting the Saskatchewan Power Company.-Mr. McKay.
Bill (No 70), to incorporate the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Keewa-tin.-Mr. McKay.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 108), respecting the Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Baker. Bill (No. 109), for the relief of Herbert
Horsfall.-Mr. McKay.
Bill '(No. 110), for the relief of Kenneth
Molson.-Mr. Rhodes.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed in committee on Bill (No. 77) to encourage and assist the improvement of highways.-Mr. Cochrane.
On section 3, grant of annual subsidy for highways,
Andrew Broder: I think the importance of this legislation justifies the new departure. Perhaps it has scarcely dawned on the people of this country what this measure means to the rural sections of Canada, and to the agricultural interests. Let us look at what has been done elsewhere in regard to highways. In France, for instance, a country where agriculture has reached as high a condition, perhaps, as in any country in the world, they have 23,600 imiies of what tare called national highways, 28,600 .miles of departmental highways-all of these roads being paid for by the state-390,000 miles of municipl roads, upon which there is an annual outlay of 125,000,000 francs, or $25,000,000, and, in addition, a great mileage of what are known as rural roads, narrow roads connecting with the greater highways throughout the country. Consider also what is being done in the United States. In the state of New York, a few years ago, they bonded the state to the extent of $50,000,000 for the purpose of improving the roads, and the state proposes to build absolutely at the public expense 3,000 miles of state roads. They propose also, with the money raised by this issue of bonds, to assist what they call towns-we call them townships. In the state of Ohio, the estimate generally accepted is that the improvement of the road system adopted by the state, has increased farm values by from 25 to 50 per cent.

I asked the state engineer of what is called the State Commission, what effect the improvement of roads in the state of Massachussets had had in bringing back occupants to the abandoned farms, of which they have a good many, and he said that hundreds had returned to the farm in consequence of good roads. So it is a very important matter from that point of view. I am glad to see the unanimity existing in the House with regard to the importance of this question.
Now, it might be wise to consider carefully whether we should not have, to some extent, what we might call federal loads built and maintained by the federal authorities. There is danger, if you come down to the municipalities with this money, that we will have a lack of uniformity, we will not have that distinctive system which should govern the outlays on these roads. Now, we have nad some experience in Ontario with reference to giving municipalities money for this purpose. Several years ago there was what is known in Ontario as the Municipal Loan Fund. A number of counties borrowed largely from this fund, while others did not borrow from it. Some counties borrowed so largely that, after a few years, they found it difficult to pay; and away back in 1871 or 1872, I think the Hon. E. B. Woods devised a scheme of settling this vexed question. The legislature passed a law to forgive the debt to many of the borrowers, and in order to do justice to those who had not borrowed, they gave them so much per head. Now, it was not easy for some years to see any real benefit following the gift of that money to the municipalities. The difficulty was that they lowered their taxation instead of using the money to make improvements. I suppose under this Bill that difficultly could scarcely occur, because this money cannot be put to any other purpose than that of assisting in road construction. But. if you relieve the people along the line where you build one of these roads from road taxation, then there should be some arrangement by which the province would tax them for the purpose of forming a road fund, to build roads some where else. There has been a good deal said with reference to some definite plan or scheme being mentioned in the Bill. If you consider for a moment the varied climate of our extended country, you cannot have any uniform system that would apply to all the provinces, because our winter in some parts of the country affects the roads adversely. If you go into the far west and into British Columbia where they have a mild winter a different system would apply altogether. Then another thing is that the material out of which you have to build roads is of a
different kind in different sections of the country. There are some places where road material is much more easily got than in other places. All these matters have to be considered in dealing with this question.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), has raised the question of provincial rights. I think there is very little danger of any sharp trouble arising on this point so long as we are giving them something. The difficulty under the administration 'the hon. gentleman supported, was that the government was always taking something away from the provinces. That was a very different proposition. I am not a lawyer, but I believe this question of provincial rights, is largely a growth of sentiment rather than a difficulty in law. Expediency must to a large extent decide these questions between the federal and provincial authorities. Now the Americans are strong on state rights. When the federal government in the United States proposed to appropriate large sums of money to lend to the state for the purpose of encouraging agriculture, they said in the Act by which they made the appropriation that nothing in this Act should interfere with the right of the state to deal with this question; and there was no difficulty. Now it seems to me there ought to be no difficulty in this country, because our system is more elastic than theirs. I do not fear any difficulty along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Pictou. It seems to be that it will be ultimately a matter of agreement largely between the provinces, and the federal authorities. I think the direction of the road, or the location of the road, will largely be decided by conference between the provinces and the federal authority, because you must of necessity consult the provinces in a matter in which they have to so large an extent the local control.
Now, I feel that it would not be an unwise thing for the federal government to build certain roads as distinctively federal roads, and maintain them as such, because the question of maintenance is as important as the question of construction, and perhaps more so. If a road is not properly maintained, then you might just as well not build it, because it will very soon become dilapidated and useless. That is the experience of every one. Now, I wish to say that so far as I am concerned the proposal of the government has my most hearty and warm support. It is something that will affect the future of this country as nothing else will do that has been proposed for a number of years. As has been so well said by hon. members on both sides of the House, if we make such large outlays in other directions affecting trans-

portation, the burden of which has been largely thrown upon the agriculturalists throughout the country, and white he ha(3 to bear his share of other burdens in which he is also interested, the time has come to consider the advisability and wisdom of doing something to help the farmer, to get nearer to the door of the man who has worked so hard to solve the agricultural problems of this country. I can see no reason why this scheme should .not be carried out successfully, and in such a manner as to result in general welfare to the country. I was much interested in reading the early history of the eastern New England States in reference to roads. Before the railway, there was a strife between different neighbourhoods to secure what was then known as the ' general travel ' along those roads. The well-to-do people who rode in their carriages would choose the best roads, and the different farming communities vied with each other in constructing good roads so as to secure that travel; there was a sort of rivalry between them which resulted in better roads than would have otherwise been made. But when 'the railways came, they did away with all that. And, now, the era of automobiles is coming in, and is bringing that class of traffic back to the farmers' doors that has not been there before for a great many _ years, although it must be said that he is not very anxious sometimes to get it. But we must deal with all these questions as they arise, and they will 'have to be dealt with in this country. It is said that in the state of New York the outlay on roads will be largely repaid by the tax imposed on automobiles in that state. It seems to me that while this House has a right to deal with the matter, it will be a question to a considerable extent of co-operating with the provinces in carrying out the object of this Bill. I wish to say in conclusion that Whatever may be the outcome, I hope and believe that great good will result from this legislation to the community in general.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I think we are all agreed that the legislation which is now before the committee is per se good legislation, subject, however, to tire limitations which were formulated in "the amendment proposed by the right ihon. leader of tire opposition.
However, this amendment was lost, and we are now face to face with the legislation as introduced by the Minister of Railways and Canals. As I said a moment ago, every class in this country will readily admit that a good roads policy is a safe policy. I have always been of opinion, and this opinion is shared by many, that the provinces at the time of Confederation were not given their proper share of subsidies. They were given only limited powers and thereby limited resources. As the Mr. BRODER,
roads were more under their control than under the control of the federal authorities, the highway in the various provinces has not been what it should be. However, Sir, we must not forget that time flies, and that immediately after the old days were past, when that lonely trail was kept open by the settler, came the railway age which did away practically for at least forty years with the immediate necessity for an improved highway. People thought only of railways and of the settlement of the country through the railways. But a new era has dawned in this country, and not only in this country but on the whole of the continent. It is that of the good roads. My hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) has referred to the state of the roads in France and England. A comparison between the roads of the old country and the roads, of the new continent cannot hold good, because the roads in France and England date as far back as the Roman conquest in some cases, and the climate on the other side contributes towards maintaining in their proper condition the highways .of both these countries. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that there is nothing so glorious as a ride or drive on the highways of France or England, but, as I have just stated, it is impossible for Canada or even for the northern portion of the United States, to maintain roads in that condition on account of the climate. But we can imitate, even though it be at a distance, what has been done in the old country and by the richer states of the United States commonwealth. We have passed the age when railways were the exclusive necessity. We, of course, admit as a foregone conclusion that the whole country must be a network of railways, but our attention must also be turned towards the establishment and maintenance of a perfect system of highways. I do not know what has been done in the other provinces, but I can speak of what I have seen in Ontario, where a forward policy has been the aim of the government for the last twenty years. I have noticed, especially around Toronto, Hamilton and London, that they have almost reached perfection as Tegards highways. I do not know how it is in other sections or in other provinces, but the province of Ontario has had very good roads for the last twenty years. In the province of Quebec we have just inaugurated a good roads policy. The progressive administration of Sir Louis Gouin has just decided that $10,000,000 would be appropriated towards the opening and maintaining of good soads within the boundaries of the province. The municipalities are going to share in the construction and maintenance of the highways. There will be a consortium between the municipalities and the government of the province. Each will contribute its

share. No later than last week the Minister of Agriculture was given new powers by legislation for the carrying out of that policy.


Andrew Broder: I think the people only pay two per cent and then the government create a sinking fund.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, that is the basis of the arrangement. I do not share the view of my hon. friend from Dundas with reference to the establishment of a federal roads system in Canada. I believe that we are almost all agreed that the money to be voted by this parliament for good roads throughout Canada should be distributed in the way suggested this afternoon by both my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) and my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). I think the Minister >f Railways should prepare a concrete plan which might be submitted to the different provinces and the moneys might then be handed to the provincial exchequers, and expended under the conditions imposed by the authority of this parliament and by the authority of the minister. 1 believe that under that system we could have shortly in Canada a splendid highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Mv hon. friend from Dundas stated quite rightly a moment ago that the automobile had completely changed the conditions of, shall I say, existence-in America. I know that in the old country conditions have been changed completely since the appearance of the automobile. There the leisurely class of people travel more by automobile to-day than they do by railway. People go across the Atlantic, and take their automobile with them in order to see the country that they do not see well when they travel by rail. I do not wish to be provincial, but I can apeak for my own province where I spend the summers. Even in the remote districts of Quebec, on the coast of Gaspe and at Murray Bay in the county of Charlevoix where they have no railway system, I have seen during the summer, hundreds of automobiles coming from the United States loaded with tourists, visiting our highly favoured, picturesque regions and spending money lavishly. Their visits have had a twofold result. First of all, the people have become a little more proud; they look after their gardens, their farms and keep their habitations more clean and tidy. They supply butter, cheese, fruits and other staples to the tourists and above all they are inclined to do a little more towards maintaining the roads than before. Above all the automobile has been a blessing in disguise in that we have now, in the remotest country districts, better hotel accommodation. Though the automobile is dreaded by many habitants because some horses take fright
when they see it coming, it has nevertheless been a blessing in disguise.
The advent of the automobile has unquestionably been a great inducement towards the betterment of highways, and has given us better hotel accommodation. This is Sir, a progressive policy, and provided the money we grant is not spent to debauch the electorate, but in the public interest, and with safeguards thrown around its expenditure, I believe this legislation will be most beneficial to the inhabitants of Canada.


Mr. GOODEVE.: I endorse the suggestion of the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Bro-der) that this expenditure should be on trunk line roads, and I do so all the more readily, because of our experience in British Columbia. A few years ago, Mr. Taylor, Minister of Public Works for British Columbia, conceived the idea of setting aside a certain sum of money each session for the building of a trunk road from Bur-rard Inlet to the provincial boundary of Alberta. That proposal when first made was received not only by a large number of the members of the House, but by a large number of the people of the province, with very grave doubt, fearing, as they did, that a special trunk road of that nature was scarcely warranted by the then development stage of our province. However, only two or three sessions passed before Mr. Taylor was able to demonstrate the great benefit such a trunk line bestowed on the province. Mr. Taylor is now affectionately called by the people ' Good Roads Taylor,' and there is no more popular grant made in the legislature than the annual appropriation for the continuation of that provincial trunk road. To give an idea how such a trunk road advertises the province, I may mention that last winter I delivered a lecture in Toronto and having referred to this British Columbia provincial road, a number of gentlemen waited on me after the meeting; they were men of leisure and means, and they decided to so arrange their summer tour that they might motor over that scenic route in British Columbia. I feel strongly that if this grant of Dominion money is merely distributed throughout the provinces here and there, for municipal roads, you will not get the same concrete benefit you would if the expenditure were made on a distinctive trunk line road; a road that eventually would stretch from Halifax on the Atlantic to Burrard Inlet, on the Pacific. Were such a road constructed, the municipal roads would become feeders to it, with the result that they would be greatly improved and the whole Dominion would reap untold benefits. I was present at the Yukon Exposition in Seattle, and I attended .there an illustrated lecture on good roads. One of the pictures thrown on the screen showed a team of horses with a wagon containing

two or three bales of cotton, the wagon stuck in the mud, the fences broken, and everything dilapidated and dismal looking. Then, another picture showed the same place five years after the construction of a trunk road, and on this road was a wagon loaded with a ton and a half of baled cotton, drawn by a splendid team of horses, and with fine residences on each side of the rgad. The lecturer assured us that all this change had been brought about inside of five years by the good roads improvement commission of that district, and the illustration impressed itself very vividly on my mind. It is my opinion that the municipalities should continue to look after their own roads and that the Dominion grant should be devoted to a trunk line system of roads, such as I have referred to. The trunk road would be in the nature of a model road; it would be laid out with the idea of reaching from one snecific point to another, exactly like a transcontinental line of railway, and the municipal roads would become feeders to it. I believe that is the correct principle upon which the Dominion grant should be expended. A splendid trunk road extending through the entire Dominion would be an incentive to the municipalities to put their roads in first class order; it would induce travel by tourists who would be free spenders; it would encourage the erection of first class tourist hotels at various places, and on the whole it would in every way benefit every part of the Dominion. I most heartily endorse that portion of the remarks of the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) in which he advocated this trunk line road.


William Manley German: I must express my absolute disapproval of the statement made by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Good-eve) as well as by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) in regard to a general trunk line. The hon. member for Dundas stated that many years ago municipalities in the province of Ontario borrowed money from the government under the Municipal Loan Fund Act, and that in the settlement of that indebtedness things did not work out satisfactorily. I think they worked out with absolute satisfaction. Those municipalities which had borrowed money received certain sums from the government of the province, and that money went into permanent improvements such as the building of town halls or other public buildings.


Andrew Broder: That was not done at all.


William Manley German: It was done in every district that I know anything about. It may not have been done in the district which the hon. gentleman comes from, because the people there may not have been as careful in the management of their affairs as they were in my section. The hon. gentleman talked of a main highway Mr. GOODBYE
through the length of this country, as though it were as important as a new trunk line of railway, paying that the money which is voted by the Dominion parliament should be applied to the construction of a main trunk line of highway from east to west, and, as the hon. member for Kootenay said, feeders built leading to that. Let me tell my hon.' friend that the good roads which the fanners of this country want are good roads leading from their farms to the railway stations in their own localities, and not good roads which lead to any trunk highway which runs from east to west, and which is built simply for the automobilist and the tourist. The farmers of this country want good roads; they are in favour of this Bill, and the Liberal party are in favour of it, because it was the Liberal party of the province of Ontario that first introduced the proposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Manley German: Let me tell the hon. gentlemen who smile that the first good-roads legislation that was ever introduced in Canada was introduced by the government of Sir George Ross in the province of Ontario. That legislation was accepted by the succeeding government, of which the hon. Minister of Railway^ was a member. They improved on it, to some extent, I admit, because they increased the amount of the allowance to the municipalities. I want to emphasize that the money which is to be appropriated by this parliament for the construction of good roads must be devoted to the construction of good roads throughout the various municipalities in the Dominion-not to a main trunk line. When the government sees fit to appropriate money for that purpose, we will discuss that proposal when it comes. But this Bill is for the purpose of aiding the provinces in the construction of good roads under the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces and that is to aid the municipalities in building good roads for the use of the farmers generally in carrying their wheat and other products to the markets on the lines of the various railways!, and not for the construction of a main trunk line from one end of this country to the other.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I want to congratulate the government on having brought this Bill before the House. I believe the remarks made by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat are on the right line, so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned. The trunk road idea is a good one, but the roads through our different municipalities are of more importance to us at the present time. In my province we have laboured under great difficulties' for many years from the fact that we have had very

poor roads and very little money to make good ones. I have often wondered why the Dominion government did not take this matter up years ago. I know that the late government, or at least some of the ministers, were approached on different occasions, but they were afraid t-o bring the subject before the House; they said it was too great an undertaking. That was the answer that some of my friends from Manitoba got, and I want to congratulate the government to-day on having the courage to bring this measure before parliament. To my mind there is nothing that concerns the province of Manitoba more than the question of good roads. In my own county, which is nearly 150 miles square, we have been labouring under great difficulties. Indeed, throughout the whole province the question of making roads is a very difficult one, owing to tile lack of money. The provincial government has come to our aid from time to time, but owing largely perhaps to the manner in which the province has been treated for many years by the Dominion government, the funds at their disposal have been insufficient to aid us to any great extent. The consequence has been that in the settled districts after a heavy shower of rain, it is almost impossible for a loaded wagon to pass along the roads. Therefore, the proposed Bill is a blessing to the province from which I come, and I trust that there will be a well-advised scheme for giving effect to it. Some hon. members spoke of the money being handed over to the different municipalities. If I read the Bill correctly, there is no such intention. I understand that the money will be expended under a well-devised scheme between this government and the provincial governments. In that way I believe we shall obtain value for every dollar of this money. While on my feet I want to say a word about a federal road. There are some districts in Canada where I believe a distinct federal road would be justified, and I have one in my mind's eye at the present time. At Stony Mountain, about twelve miles from the city of Winnipeg, we have a large penitentiary, and ' the road between that point and Winnipeg is almost impassable. There is a daily train service, but we ought to have a federal state road between the penitentiary and the city of Winnipeg. We have a mountain of stone, and the government could construct the road cheaply by using the prison labour.
I hope the government will use that prison labour to construct between Winnipeg and Stony Mountain a first class state highway. The distance is about 12 miles. This would be in the interests of the whole community, and the employment of prison labour in the construction of roads throughout this country is highly desirable. The
section of road I have mentioned would afford a very valuable demonstration as to the practicability of this system. The material is at hand and the road could be built as a distinctive state road. I hope that a large portion of the roads for which money is provided in this Bill will be built in the different municipalities} throughout the country, especially in the province of Manitoba. For instance, a large amount of money has been spent on the road between Winnipeg and Selkirk during the last 30 or 40 years by the different municipalities, assisted by the provincial government, but it is still a very indifferent road, and I trust it will be one of the roads to receive attention. The idea of a trunk line from coast to coast is an admirable one and when the country feels it can afford the luxury of a road of that kind I will endorse the proposal as quickly as any man in the House, but at present I hope the money that is being voted will be spent to aid the farmers in getting their produce to the markets and railway stations, and the only way to do that is to spend it in the different municipalities. I want to congratulate the government on their courage in introducing this legislation, and I hope that the appropriation that is made will be a liberal one.


Mr. NESBITT.: I am in favour of good roads, because naturally I like to drive on them. The people of Oxford county have built many first-class macadam roads under what they call the county roads system, assisted by the province. My support of this measure would depend entirely on what is proposed. One section of the Bill provides that the assistance ' shall be given upon such terms and subject to such conditions.' Does the minister mean that he will keep^ control of the money granted to the provinces to a certain extent, after it is granted? That, I think, makes a material difference. If, as has been stated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways, the money is intended to be granted on the principle laid down by my right hon. leader- (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), then we will have no quarrel with it. As to the construction of a trunk road, if the government intend to keep some control of the construction of roads by the various provinces they could acquire a trunk road without building it themselves by seeing that the various provinces constructed roads which would connect so as to make a trunk road from province to province. I quite agree that what the farmers principally need is good roads leading to their nearest markets.
As to the benefit to the community from having a trunk road with automobiles running along it, the farmers in my sections of the country ate not so keen on having

automobiles on itheir roads; in fact, they are rather opposed to them. The ladies, who after all, should govern, are very much opposed to them, and say they cannot go out without having their horses frightened. Automobiles do a great deal of harm to macadam roads, and I wonder the provinces have not long since taxed automobiles to help construct roads. While I am not opposed to automobiles, as I like to ride in them myself on occasions, at the same time they sweep up an enormous quantity of dust, and farmers with fields adjacent to roads suffer loss from the dust raised by automobiles. I would like the Minister of Railways to consider seriously the amendment moved on the second reading by the leader of the opposition, with reference to giving the money only in the form of subsidies to 'the provinces. The movement is 'an excellent one that should receive commendation if properly carried out, but I think it dangerous to build trunk lines, and absolutely unnecessary if the government retain the .right to control tire building of roads. The money should be given to the provinces on the distinct understanding that it will be given to the municipalities, and in Ontario I think it should be given to the county councils.


Francis Cochrane: What would my hon. friend do in the ease of counties that have already constructed good roads and taxed their people for them under the system spoken of by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), or with reference to the unorganized sections of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec ?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: To equalize them ?


Francis Cochrane: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think the moneys could be easily expended in maintaining the roads. The provincial grants made in Ontario lack provision, which is very necessary, for the maintenance of the roads after their construction.
I know that in our section of country- and we have, I suppose, as many miles of road as any other county in the province- the provincial government assisted the county in building roads. But the great difficulty is that the roads are not maintained in any such condition a(s they should be. Now, where, it seems to me, our section could well be assisted by the Dominion, would be in seeing to it that the province made a condition that the road should be properly maintained according to a certain standard as well as being built to a standard. I may be wrong, but that would be my idea of the way to assist those who have already built roads. There is no county in Ontario, so far as I know, t-hait has built anything approaching the number of roads it required. That is one of the troubles in the sections of country Mr. NESBITT
that are building these roads-the jealousy that arises on the part of those sections which have not good roads. I do not wish to take up time, but 1 would urge my hon. friend the Minister of Railways to drop that portion of his Bill that, apparently, goes into the building of federal trunk roads.	.


Haughton Lennox: We haven't come to that yet.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I know that; but, in the meantime, I hope the hon. gentleman will think it over a<nd be willing to drop that clause, so that the subsidies may go to the provinces to be spent under the control, after all, of the Dominion.


Mr. STEELE.: The Bill now before us is, I am sure, one of the most important that the government will bring forward this session. Especially is it important on account of the direct benefit it is going to bring to a very large proportion of the people of this country. It is a Bill which affects the interests of all classes. We often speak as though good roads affected only the farmers, but they affect far more than the farmers. Good roadis affect the people of -every village, town and city. They affect the welfare of the workingman and business iman -as well as that of the farmer. Good roads will tend to lessen the cost of living in our urban centresi. Some years ago, when many of our towns had a population of 4,000 or 5,000, the people could be 'supplied with farm produce by the farmers living within a radius of five or six miles. But many of these towns, especially in the province of Ontario, have grown so that they have a population of ten to fifteen thousand. The result is that the farmer living within a reasonable radius are unable to -supply all the produce which is required. Unless a farmer lives within seven or eight miles of the centre, he finds it too expensive to market his -produce in that center biy driving -over a road which is not in good condition. The result is that the middleman is coming in. Produce is being brought to the former by train, and the workingman in these centres is being compelled to buy the farmer's produce not from the farmer direct, but from the middleman with the middleman's profit added. The greater portion of the municipal taxation of the present day is levied for the purpose of building and maintaining roads. So much is this the case, that we find the farmers of Ontario 'labouring under a heavy burden of -taxes. We may not say so much about the burden of the farmers of Ontario as some of our western friends say about the burdens of the western farmers, but none the less it is a fact that municipal taxation in Ontario to-day is becoming

very heavy. Anything which will assist in lessening that taxation, anything that will alleviate to some extent the burdens of the farmers in that regard will be received with a great deal of favour by them. I have just said that the greater part of the taxation inf municipalities to-day is raised for the purpose of building roads. Yet, notwithstanding that, w-e find that the municipalities are often unable to raise sufficient ito construct permanent roads. The result is that the roads throughout our province generally, are not improving at anything like the rate they should improve with the vast amount of money that is spent annually upon them. The cost of labour is increasing and we find to-day, notwithstanding the generous aid given by the Ontario government to the municipalities of that province, that the taxation levied upon the farmer is just as great or greater than it was when She road system of 'Ontario was inaugurated. So while the assistance given has in a measure relieved the burden, it has not reduced the cost which is levied upon the farmer. This is, therefore, an opportune time for the Dominion government to come to the aid of the agricultural population in this way and assist them in maintaining the roads that they require.
I am not in sympathy at all.with those who talk of building trunk lines. Every municipality to-day is labouring and wrestling with the problem of how to build and maintain their roads without raising the taxation on their farms to too great a degree. That is a need which is urgent not only in one section of the country, but, I bellieve, in all sections. And it seems to me that it becomes the duty of the government first to relieve the urgent needs of the farmer. Therefore, the first duty of the government in granting aid to roads, I think, is to give aid in such a way as will relieve the municipality of at least a portion of the cost of constructing and maintaining roads. Trunk roads may be all right after a few years., but the time has not yet come when the people are demanding that. What benefit would a trunk road be to the great mass of the farmers of any of our provinces? It might assist those living along that road; but I doubt very much, espe-cilly if a trunk road is to be used solely by the automobiles, that the farmers living along that road will receive it with favour, for we find that those living adjacent t-o roads most travelled by automobiles say that their crops are being injured -by the dust caused by the traffic. In addition to those living along the road, a trunk iroad might aid those living within ten or twelve miles of it. But we know that farmers living beyond that radius will
benefit little or none. Farmers are not travelling fifteen, twenty or thirty miles to market as they did years ago. Every farmer has a market, town within ten or twelve miles of his farm; and the road he wants improved is the road he is using from his farm to the market town.
I am sure that while we appreciate the value of the tourist travel in Canada, and while there are many counties in every province that are attractive to th-e tourist, I hardly think the country is at present prepared to enter upon the task of building roads for the purpose of encouraging tourists to visit Canada. I think that our most pressing need at present is to build roads for the benefit of the farmers. I hope that whatever aid is granted will be expended in such a manner as to benefit the townships and counties, to aid the farmer who is anxious to have good roads, and who is willing to pay generously to build and maintain them. At the same time, we know that he needs assistance, not only from the provincial governments but from the Dominion government, and for that reason I am in favour of this Bill.


Mr. ELLIOT  .@: The question which seems to engage the attention of members on both sides of the House is how best to apply this money so as to get the most benefit out of it for the Canadian people. I had the pleasure the other day of attending the Good Roads Convention in this city; a majority of the representatives were from the province of Ontario. A great many of the delegates expressed their views with regard to good roads, and it was the unanimous opinion of the convention that this money should not be expended in building trunk lines throughout the province, or throughout the Dominion. When that deputation appeared in this Chamber before the Prime Minister and some other members of the Cabinet, they were addressed by five or six persons, the majority of whom represented the cities, the manufacturers and the motormen of Canada. The president of the Motormen's Association, in the course of his remarks, said that our roads were generally in a deplorable condition, -that they were greatly in need of improvement, and he also favoured the system of building trunk lines throughout the country The argument of the representative of the Manufacturers' Association was along the same line. The only sound views, in my estimation, were given in the address of the president of the Good Roads Association. He expressed his confidence that the government would expend this money in road building so as to make it of general benefit to the coun.try districts.
Some hon. members to-night have


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few general observations regarding the Bill which is now before the committee. I suppose it is unnecessary for me to say anything as to the value of good roads, , for I imagine that we
will all be in unison upon this question. There is no doubt that highways have been the greatest element in the civilization of countries. Nothing can promote commerce to a greater degree than good highways, and, perhaps better still, nothing tends to give to a country greater social and national contentment than a good system of highways. The intrusion, however, of the federal parliament into a public service which has heretofore been cared for altogether by the provinces is, as has been stated, a new departure and it raises problems, many of which, I think, will be found by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) and the government, difficult to solve. However, I am sure that hon. gentlemen in this House will agree that if any workable method can be devised of assisting the provinces in securing good or better highways than they have now, the measure before the House will meet with commendation from everybody in it and from the country generally. Great care should be exercised in working out any system, and I think that on the occasion of the introduction of this Bill by the Minister of Railways he spoke as one who felt that it was a very difficult task to prepare a suitable Bill. ' If I may make a suggestion-not thas I expect it to be carried out-I would say that the government might very well have taken the months which will intervene between the closing of this session and the opening of next session and devoted the time to the study of this question and to conferences with the several provinces, so that at the next session they would have been able to have presented to parliament a Bill containing a definite scheme. Had this been done it would have been more satisfactory to parliament and to the country generally. Of course, it was to be expected of the government that they would, at the earliest possible moment, implement the pledge which they made to the country during the recent campaign, namely, to grant financial aid to the provinces towards highway improvement. But I am sure that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and the country generally would have favourably considered a statement from the government to the effect that before introducing this legislation they desired time to consider the whole subject.	It would have been very
much in the interest of parliament and the country and possibly to the betterment of our highways, had the government devoted a little moTe time to the study of the question with its many problems and presented their decision at the next session of parliament. I think I can venture the statement that it is highly improbable that any work can be done upon the highways of any province during

the year 1912. After the closing of parliament, conferences must take place with the several provinces, and when these conferences commence many problems will arise which none of us perhaps foresee to-night. The discussion this evening upon this Bill discloses the fact that hon. gentlemen entertain many different views.
I therefore, believe it will be impossible for the provinces and the federal government to reach a working agreement and to form an organization which will carry out any scheme of expenditure ultimately agreed upon between the Dominion Government and the several provinces. I venture the opinion that there can be no expenditure of moneys by the federal government for the year' 1912, which will go to the provincial governments. If there is, I do feel it will not be profitably expended for the reason that no well-thought out scheme will be possible of attainment in such a short time. While the expenditure of federal moneys upon the public highways is a new thing in this country, I do not think for my part that it will be objectionable. The financial strength of the several provinces is limited indeed and I think before many years the federal government will find that they must, for different reasons, augment the provincial subsidies. In the United States this matter has been frequently discussed. In the early days of the history of the United States, that country did embark in the building of trunk lines, notably one known as the Cumberland Road, starting from the headwaters of the Potomac River in Maryland, going through Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Ohio, and that road was completed in 1805. The federal government constructed ten or twelve other roads, but no great expenditure was made and after the Civil War that policy ended. These roads were constructed largely for military purposes, and while many requests have been made of recent years upon the United States federal government for expenditure on highways, so far nothing has been done. They have however a Good Roads Bureau in Washington which is doing excellent service. I would like to read from an article by a magazine writer, upon improved highways, the following short extract concerning the good roads work done by the United States Government.
Foremost of these outside agencies is the United States office of public roads organized in 1893 with an appropriation of $14,000, with offices in two attic rooms. This bureau has increased in usefulness until now it occupies a four story building of its own which includes within its walls, physical, chemical, petrographic and photographic laboratories and a machine shop, and has at its disposal an appropriation of $116,000. A staff of twenty-four engineers and superintendents of road construction are employed to teach the art Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
of road building to any community that will take the trouble to ask for their services and provide ithe material and labour. A favourite feature of the bureau is the object lesson road project. This consists in assigning an engineer to supervise the construction of a short section of road to demonstrate the proper methods aand instruct local builders. Up to July 1st, 1909, 264 object lesson roads had been built in thirty-five states, demonstrating the proper methods of using crushed stone, sand, clay, shell, earth, bituminous materials and brick. Besides this, the engineers of the bureau give special advice, deliver technical lectures, introduce model systems of construction, maintenance and administration in counties and study and report on practical methods for a series of years.
That is as far as the United States have gone in the way of assisting public highways, although demands have been made for direct contribution to the several states as is contemplated by this measure. However, I believe that public opinion is travelling very rapidly in the United States at present upon the question of improved highways, and that the federal government will ultimately come to the aid of the states possibly in the manner contemplated by the Bill now before the committee. In other countries* of the world in which the federal system does not prevail direct expenditures of moneys are made for the improvement of highways by the government. As has been staged, by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) we find an illustration of this in France, which spends seven million dollars annually upon its highways. There are four systems of roads in France; the national roads which are built and maintained by the state; the military roads, which are maintained by the state; the departmental roads which would correspond to the county roads in this country, and which are maintained by the state and by the department themselves, and the communal roads, which correspond to the ordinary highways in this country, and which are maintained by the people. In England and Wales fifteen million dollars are spent annually upon highways, and, according to the magazine writer from whom I quoted a moment ago, one hundred and sixty million dollars annually are expended _ by fourteen nations of Europe upon their highways. Now, while the House will cordially support this measure and will give to the government every assistance to extend to the country the benefits of this measure, still in this departure of financial aid to the provinces for highway improvements we should exercise caution. Personally, I regret very much that the government have seen fit to deal with the Bill this year. I would never, for my part, have censured them for not presenting to parliament such a measure at this session. In

fact I will go as far as to say that they have, hardly given us a measure at all because the Bill before the House is hardly worthy of the name of a Bill. I approve of the preamble and that is probably the best part of it. But I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite must agree with me that the Bill is very indefinite, that it discloses no plan and no matured, scheme and that everything indicates that the government have so far, given little, if any attention to the principle involved in the Bill. I do not criticise the government for that. I recognize the fact that since their advent to power, they collectively and individually have been very busy, but I think they should realize that in embarking upon a policy of Federal expenditure in connection with roads in this country, they are adopting a policy which is new to Canada, which involves many important questions, and I think they might have well asked parliament and the country to give them a few months to enable them further to study the measure before presenting it to this House.
Now, let me point out some of the matters which should be considered in connection with this Bill. Section 3 says that the Governor in Council may grant money in any year to any province. That is hardly satisfactory legislation. 'It breaks every canon of legislation with Tegard to the expenditure of moneys. It is not the practice to give legislative powers to the Governor in Council in matters of this kind. Then I think we should know approximately what sum of money the government propose devoting to roads in the various provinces. It inust be a very substantial sum or it will 'be of no use. It is important also to know how many years this expenditure will continue-whether it will be perpetuity or for 'a fixed number of years. I understand that the government of Nova Scotia propose to expend money on capital account 'for road improvement in the very near future; and if they knew definitely what 'sum of money they would get from this government, and over what period it would continue. I am sure that it would affect their policy materially. There are many other questions which it is important to consider in connection with the expenditure of money for the improvement of our highways. We should have some information as to the total mileage of the roads in the several provinces. There should be some classification of these roads. There should be some standardization of the work that is to be performed. There will be the question of maintenance, which is far more important than construction and involves more difficulties. I venture to think that it will require many months to develop a method
of expenditure which will be acceptable to the government itself, to. parliament, and to the country; it will take a long time to reach an agreement with the several provinces; and I am sure that if the government appealed even to their own supporters in parliament, they would find many varieties of opinion as to the form this expenditure should take. I trust, however, that if the government decide to proceed with the expenditure this season, which I very much doubt, they will be able to develop a policy and a system of expenditure which will meet with the concurrence of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House. I trust that they will not pay very much attention to the suggestion of a trunk line from coast to coast. We may possibly reach such a thing some day, but in view of the present condition of the ordinary highways of the country, I think I can say with consider-' able confidence that the suggestion of a federal road from coast to coast would not meet with very much favour. There is this to be remembered, however, that as our highways in the several provinces are improved by a better system of construction, reconstruction and maintenance, gradually the scheme of a national highway from coast to coast will develop itself. Neither do I favour the idea of giving this money to any municipality, for the reason that I think experience teaches that the expenditure would not be made by any municipality in such a way as to secure permanent results. If the money proposed to be granted under this measure were given to the municipalities, I believe that it would not be expended in accordance with any system. The provincial governments would be better equipped to make the expenditure, and they can better than any municipality rise above local considerations.
Mr. HENDERSON, I have not given this matter very great consideration, but of all the municipal expenditures throughout the country nothing pleased me more than an expenditure for providing good roads. I am sure that the people are coming more and more every year to appreciate good roads.
The objection to municipal taxation for the improvement of roads which we heard in bygone days is gradually being removed. The advantages of good roads in country places is so much appreciated by the ordinary public that I do not think any objection can be found in Canada against the measure proposed by the government.
I appreciate the efforts the government are making on behalf of the people to provide a good roads system. I want to endorse

their action, to give it my sanction, and to say that in the part of the country which I represent I believe their action will be heartily endorsed. Nothing so strikes our attention in the old land as the admirable roads, founded I suppose on a basis that was laid by the Romans in the olden times. These roads are repaired yearly, Dractically they are never allowed to get out of repair, and so the cost of repair is light, while the people always have good roads It may be said that this measure is immature, but the government are making a beginning, people will begin to talk about good roads as they are proposed to be developed by the Dominion government, or through the provincial governments, or municipalities, whatever system may be adopted, and in that way the government will gradually get a great deal of information that will assist them in maturing their scheme. I, therefore, think they were wise in bringing down this measure at tins early date. Very much cannot be done this year, but a start has been made, and I look forward in the near future to a great improvement in the scheme which is as yet only in its infancy. I have never known any measure to receive such cordial support in this House. There may be differences of opinion as to the time and methods of carrying out this proposal, but on the principle of improving the highways of the country I believe both sides of the House are unanimous in heartily supporting the Bill.


Mr. SUTHERLAND.: This question -affects almost every one in Canada. It must be satisfactory to the government to realize the approval that has been manifested throughout the country, and by those who have spoken on this question to-night. Since the most primitive times the highway has been of the most vital importance to every one. The foot-passenger in years gone by considered that when he was on the King's highway he was safe, and as time went on he was by statue compelled to .go oust and help to construct a highway that would meet the requirements of the country. We have reached the time when it is necessary not only for the provincial governments to do something towards building and maintaining the highways, but for the federal government to relieve the burdens of the people in this respect. It has been said to-night that the civilization of a people can be judged from the standard of their highways. This is quite possible. The hon. member for Rouville said that we have passed the railway age, and must now devote our attention to building better highways. It struck me at the time what a welcome such a system as this would have received from the people of 80 to 100 years ago, the system that has been Mr. HENDERSON.
advocated by several speakers, that is a provincial or federal highway, east and west from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Happily we are living in an -age of progress, and I believe the day has passed when any such system as that is required in this country. The roads radiating from the different .market centres throughout Canada are the roads that ought to receive the greatest attention. I believe the statements made here to-night to that effect are an echo of articles that have been appearing in the public pmess for some, time past and that we may nest assured that those articles have bean inspired by those who desire the bonstruction of a great oon-timnous highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific for a specific purpose. I do not believe that such a system would meet the requirements of the people to the same extent as roads radiating out from these different points. If that were the intention of the government in this Bill I would be opposed to it. If such a system of roads as that were to be constructed the government ought to buy a right of w.a|y and build a road of that kind because it certainly would be monopolized for three or four months of the year by the automobilists to the exclusion of those using horse vehicles. If such a system of highways were built it should be built apart from our present highways, it should be built on a right-of-way acquired for the purpose; where you could turn the automobiles loose and let them run as fast as they like, where they would not interfere with other people. I believe that such a Toad for the use of automobiles would have to be of different construction from any road yet built in the rural districts of Canada. The very best macadiam-roadis in our country have been absolutely ruined in three or four years by automobile traffic. On a dusty summer day an automobile travelling at the rate of forty or fifty miles an hour raises a cloud of dust that settles anywhere between twenty and forty rods of that road. The unfortunate people who live within a few rods of a highway are made very uncomfortable through having to keep their windows closed to keep out the dust. For that reason I contend that if such a system is intended it should be a road constructed of material that would not be drawn up by the suction of the tires of an automobile and sent broadcast over the country.
Now, I desire to say a word about the tourists. We certainly welcome the tourists to our country; we are glad to see them come here. And, as a rule they are people who have time on their hands and are not necessarily as much hurried as those who have business pressing upon them. You notice how the automobile is becoming very fashionable during the past few years. But the rage at present seems

to be not to travel over our rural roads, but to travel through the air. We do not know how long it will be before these tourists will not require our roads at all, and I do not know but that we ought to take that into consideration. Another feature of this road situation is this, that for four or five months in the year it does not matter what the nature of that road is. We have a coating over our roads now, and have had for months, which makes it not very material whether those roads are constructed of macadam, asphalt, clay or gravel. For about two or three months in each year it is important that we should have good roads, but for the balance of the season it is not of such great importance.
I believe the government, are to be commended for endeavouring to relieve the pressure resting upon the people of this country for the building and maintaining of roads. I believe that a great deal of money has been wasted, and worse than wasted, through the manner in which it has been expended on our highways. If, through the influence of the government a more scientific mode of road construction can be adopted, a great deal will have been accomplished., But it is in the maintenance of the roads that the greatest work can be done. I believe our municipal councils, many of them, would do a great deal better if they would expend double the money they do in maintaining and looking after the roads. I believe also that the narrow-tyred wagons hauling heavy loads over our roads do more to spoil those roads than anything else. If the government would encourage the use of wide tyres on wagons-I suppose that is outside the scope of the federal government, but perhaps something could be done-a great step towards the better maintenance of our roads would be taken. These narrow tyres cut up the roads, let the water into them, and so the frost gets in two or three feet deep where there is an upheaval, and consequently the roads are thrown out of balance.
It is argued here that the government is too hasty, that there are bound to be delays before anything can be done. But is it not therefore, all the more important to pass, this Bill, so that the initial stages of this movement may be accomplished? Then, when the Dominion and provincial government authorities get together they will find out what difficulties there are and how they are to be overcome. But I do not think any difficulty will arise that cannot be overcome. All the details will have to be worked out; and then it will come before the House and it will be time enough to deal with the question. I am heartily in favour of the grants to 'be made.
I do not know that it is necessary for us to know at this stage, just how much is to 117	[DOT]
be spent or how many miles of road is to be constructed. That will all come out in good time. The improvement of rural highways is something that needs encouragement. At the same time, I must express my strongest disapproval of the views that have been expressed by a number of members to-night with regard to trunk roads. I think the day has long passed, with our present network of railways, when anything of that kind is required.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm) (Translation).: Mir. Chairman, representing as I do a thoroughly agricultural conistitu-e>ncy, it is in order that I should, on behalf of the people who have sent, me here, refer briefly to the bill now before the House.
I have carefully gone through the provisions of this Bill and I certainly cannot approve of it, for several considerations. In the fust place it is not definite enough. After 'reading it through I am not in a position to give in connection with it an intelligent vote, not having been able to ascertain the manner in which the moneys voted by the House will be applied.
T'he preamble states that it is desirable *to improve and extend the existing highways. Why not state which existing highways it is the intention of the Government to improve? Then, we might be in a better position to vote in regard to it.
Mention is made also of opening great trunk roads, of assisting in the building of highways which it is proposed to build. Why not state what highways are meant? Why not locate them, why not state, for instance, in what provinces it is intended to build, them? No, there is vagueness and indefiniteness about it aJlil. Nobody knows anything as to the government's intentions. Well, whenever I am called1 upon, to cast my vote, I like to know what it is I am voting .for. When I agree to .am, expenditure of public funds, I like to be posted as to the use it will be put to, and not leave matters to be dealt with entirely at the sweet will of the minister 'and the government. Even the quota to be granted to tlie various provinces it not mentioned, neither is it stated in what provinces it is proposed to build those great highways. The minister will decide everything by himself. Weil, to say the least, that is, not of a nature to .satisfy my constituents.
The government is desirous of making a new departure. This is the first time, we hear .it said on both sides, that the Dominion government goes in fox road-making in the various provinces. If the bon. minister of Public Workis (Mr. Monk) were in hi;s seat, just now, I would enquire from him whether for such .an undertaking a referendum is mot in order?
W;e have had elections in 1908 and in 1911, and never has the question been liaised before the electorate, at any rate


David Arthur Lafortune: fairs, and -other 'meetings, to church, to ploughing matches, etc. Those -are the roads which -should be improved in the first place.
At the opening of parliament I was glad to road in the speech from the Throne that the government intended to extend further protection -to -agricultural interests. But I am -altogether opposed to the building of those -great trunk road-s which are to run from the Atlantic to the -Pacific, at any rate not until local roads h-av-e been improved in the interest of the country people.
The hon. minister will -alone h-av-e the right to say where highways are to be -built, in what provinces the money is to be spent.
I for one am of opinion that if the government is desirous of imp ro-ving the roads, it should do so in accordance with the policy laid down by tire former government, that is br granting a subsidy to 'each province. For it is a known fact that the men who -are entrusted with the management of provincial affairs are -better acquainted than is the minister with the needs of -each municipality and of each county. I shall say further: before building those great highways, it would be of greater importance, to my mind, to improve existing roads by improving the grades, the hills whi-clp are to -be found throughout th-e province, widening and straightening -the road-s, having them provided with proper ditches, having them lighted at night, and replacing the old wood bridges, which axe washed away 'every spring and nearly every autumn, by iron [structures.
Let public funds be applied to the^ improvement of our county roads, by affording to the farm-e-rs greater facilities to reach, for instance, -their county town, when the court is sitting, or the registry -office, or else when they -are drawing milk to the creamery or cheese factory; those are the roads which the government should improve.	_
Automobiles are mentioned. Those vehicles are nice to look at, th-ey are fine for speeding, but at times the -occupants are apt to break their nooks. The automobile is suitable for a certain class of people: people whose business is rushing require an -automobile; but the farmer can m-ak-e a better use of time repairing his fences and buildings and buying more land, than touring in automobiles.
Automobiles are great speeders, but it often happens that thieves take advantage of them. As Grown prosecutor, I have some experience in this -connection. Farms are raided by automobilisits at night, and it is often very difficult to get hold of them.
Automobiles are -modem inventions, and worthy of admiration; but I can assure you that they cost an awful lot fo-r maintenance, and -more than one young spendthrift may find himself before long under

the necessity of returning it to those from who he bought it. That craze has even got hold of our young country people. Farmers1' boys occasionally apply to the "old gentleman" for the gift of am automobile. Rubber tires are no longer the thing; it must be an auto.
Well, that is an incentive to extravagance and most of the time has a demoralizing effect. People go in debt to keep up with the times; they have an auto waiting at the door, .and sometimes creditors too. Therefore I say: let us have roads that enable the farmer to reach the market, the court house, &c.; that is all right. I realize that the farming community have undergone great hardships in the past, and it is only right that they should now have some reward. Country roads during dark nights should be lighted. That would be of greater usefulness than highways for autos.
Again I say that it is an encroachment on the rights of provincial governments. The representatives of constituencies, mayors, councillors, aldermen in the various municipalities, are in a better position than the Minister of Railways to know in what manner and in what localities, in connection with what roads, such improvements should be carried out.
Since the government is in a giving mood, and I 'rejoice at it, let us grant a subsidy to each province, to be expended as they think best, as was done by the former government. But patronage' is a great tiling; the minister alone will decide that such a province should be granted so much, while another province will go without it perhaps. The minister alone will decide; in the constituencies represented by friends of the government, lots of money will be spent, while in my county nothing will be spent, because I am a Liberal. I know how it works from exp rrienoe; an amount had been voted for my oi nstituen cy in last year's estimates', and this year it has been left out. I am afraid the same will happen >again.
Let us build suitable roads leading to railway stations, so that farmers may reach them easily and send their products to market. Let us improve our highways, and in this connection, it is not necessary to build great national highways for automobilists and other swells. There is no hurry for improvements of that kind, it is preferable that we should help out the farmer. Automobiles are great at slaughtering people. Some time ago an unfortunate young lady, by the name of Smith, was thrown down and instantly killed, on Victoria bridge, by an automobi.e carrying four or five young men who were slightly intoxicated. I for one fear them.
Once more I say I cannot support that measure, considering tffiat any constituents have not been consulted by means of a 1174
referendum, as requested by the Minister of Public Works whenever there is a new departure. I insist that this Bill should be rejected on the ground of its unfairness to parties interested.


Mr.  J. P.@: 0. GUILBAULT (Joliette) (Translation). Mt. Chairman, I have had great pleasure in listening to the speech of the horn, member for Montcalm, whose constituency adjoins mine. However one thing surprises me: his pluck which I thought was great and indomitable, has failed him entirely. He is afraid of automobiles; he considers them a calamity. I should have judged that he *would welcome with joy the building of fine highways' in the counties of Joliette and Montcalm. My wish is that the county of Joliette be provided with good roads, and even that visitors may be seen touring over them in their automobiles.
It rather confuses me to hear the hon. gentleman .state that the bill under consideration is an infringement on provincial rights, seeing that while it provides granting assistance to the provinces, it is not. until an agreement has been entered info with the provincial governments. I cannot see any encroachment when such a course is adopted.
The bon. member asks for a list of all roads which are to receive help from the government. However, has- he considered that a great deal of work would be implied in such a task? To point out all the roads which require improvements throughout the country would be an impossibility; as that would actually mean almost a book, for the counties of Montcalm and Joliette alone.
No, what the government intends to do,
I understand, is to improve existing roads, so that farmers may find it 'easier to move about in the wet season of spring and autumn. What the government intends to do is to put county towns in closer touch with the adjoining country, to help on agriculture by (facilitating assistance at fairs and agricultural competitions, through the building of good roads.
If it were proposed to build a great commercial highway between Montreal and Quebec, I do not think it would be necessary, as suggested by the member for Montcalm, to have a referendum to find out whether the farming community would approve of such a plan. Well, that is exactly what the government intends to give us, with the approval and [DOT]aid of the provincial governments. Automobiles may be (safely met on such a road, and besides, I believe farmers' sons are not quite so anxious as the member for Montcalm suggested to be provided with automobiles.
I was pleased to listen to his address, and I think others were pleased also. I

shall be happy to give my support to the government's proposal. For a long time past we were met with the cry: What are you about, are you mot going to do something towards the improvement of the roads? Now this government had pledged itself, at tire very opening of the session, to introduce a measure to that effect, and I am happy to see that it has redeemed its pledge. When I visit my constituency, and possibly that of my ban. friend for Montcalm, I shall be happy to be able to state that all Iron, members, whatever their party ties, have acknowledged the desirability of helping on the farming community and of developing the resources of tire "ount-ry through the building of good roads.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: There are some points on which I think the minister ought to give us further information. I would like to know whether he is to define the classes of roads on which the money is to be expended. We are aware that in this country there are a great many roads on which provincial and municipal authorities are spending money. So far as I understood the minister's statement, he has not given ns much information on that question, I think it is very material to know whether this money is to be spent haphazard on all kinds of roads, or whether the government intends to define the classes of roads on which it will be expended. Then with regard to the maintenance of highways after they are built, another question on which the minister lias given us insufficient information. Is it the intention of the government not only to construct these highways but also to maintain them; or is it the intention to oast the burden of their maintenance on the municipalities? That is also a pertinent question. Again, the matter of bridges has not been referred to in the discussion; I do not know that it has been mentioned at all. In my province of Nova Scotia the question of permanent structures 'across streams is a very important one. - The province of Nova Scotia has borrowed the .sum of $2,000,000, and has expended that money in the construction of steel and iron bridges throughout the province. Now, is it the intention of the government to spend 'any part of this money in the construction of bridges across streams ? These questions are all of interest, on which I would like to have the views of the minister before I am asked to vote. I may say that I aim heartily in favour of expenditures of this kind on roads throughout the country. There is nothing so much needed in the county I have the honour to represent as good roads. The Bill, so far as it will tend to the improvements of roads, will have my hearty approval.
The clause that has been discussed a Mr. GU1LBATJLT.
good deal this evening, namely, clause 6, is the one to which I take especial .objection. I was disappointed that the minister did not adopt the suggestion of the right bon. leader of the opposition and frankly say that this money would be distributed according to the population of each province. There is -anotner method that might be adopted, and that is the mileage of the roads and which I think perhaps would be the fairer method. At all events, we are accustomed to the principle that moneys given to the provinces should be given according to population, and I would suppose that on so elementary a matter the minister would have no hesitation in adopting that principle. I do not see why he refuses to adopt it. If money is to be awarded to the various provinces it should certainly be awarded on some principle, and that principle ought to be contained in the Bill.


Mr. BURNHAM.: Does the hon. gentleman consider that mileage is a true -basis? If so, why does he consider the other principle elementary?


John Howard Sinclair: I would be willing to adopt either basi-s. But for my part, I would favour the mileage system. In certain localities the other principle would not work out fairly. At present I am not prepared to say which principle would work out best throughout the Dominion. My province is cut up with rivers and streams, which makes it necessary to build roads in many places on both sides of the river. In some counties there is great mileage of road compared with the size of the county; this great mileage is necessary, and perhaps such a county would not receive its fair share if the sum was divided according to population. But why should the minister refuse to place that in the Bill ? We -are told by the Prime Minister that the appropriation will define the -amount that is to be given to each province. Now that is a very haphazard way of settling it. The appropriation is made every year. The government may divide the money on that -principle this year, and may retain the principle of population; but some future government may not do that. It strikes me that one of the first things that ought to be laid down specifically in this Bill is the principle on which the money should be given to the various provinces. The provinces -all contribute alike, I suppose to the revenues of this country according to population.


Haughton Lennox: Surely the hon. gentleman does not -suggest that alll the present provinces contribute -alike -on the basis of population ?
Mr. 'SINCLAIR. I think so.


Haughton Lennox: They do not.


John Howard Sinclair: I think it will be admitted by everybody' that the provinces contribute to the revenue of the country according to population.


Haughton Lennox: The provinces ruainiy contribute according to the amount they consume, because the revenue is mainly made up from the customs duties.


John Howard Sinclair: Quite true, and taking the country all over, I suppose the consumers in one province consume as in a like proportion. A thousand consumers in the various provinces consume much as a thousand in another province. I do not think my hon. friend will deny that the provinces contribute according to population to the revenues of this country, and that if money is to be taken from the public treasury, and awarded to the provinces for the purpose of building roads, it ought to be awarded on that principle. Now, if it is a good principle it ought to be embodied in the Bill; otherwise the division will be made, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), would say, according to the rule of thumb. Then in order to be of service to the country, in order that we may know how much we can depend upon each year, there ought to be a stated sum. For example, at the present time the municipalities have to take the responsibility, or the provinces if you like, of maintaining and building roads. They would like to know how much they are to receive from me federal treasury in order that they might make their plans, and decide what improvements they can afford to undertake. Of course, if you are to build roads throughout Canada and make them permanent, it is a very large undertaking. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), stated that there were 50,000 miles of roads in the province of Ontario. He calculated that $2,000 a mile would build roads in that province. I do not agree with him at all, I think that figure is too low. In my own province I believe it would take at least $3,000 a mile to build and maintain a macadamized road, or to build a road1 lhat would be an approach to a macadamized road; it would take $3,000 at least. If that is true for the province of Ontario, you would require $150,000,000 to build roads over the province of Ontario, and make them permanent. You would require $60,000,000 in the little province from which I come; and taking the country all over it means that an immense sum of money would be required. It strikes me, therefore, that the government will not be able to grapple with this great question for a number of years to come. That makes it all the more necessary that they should define just what they are undertaking to do, that they
should lay down some principle on which they propose to act, in order that each province may get its fair share of the benefit of the expenditure. As I said before, the question of bridges ought to be dealt with too. They are very much required in some of the provinces. The provincial governments aie at present constructing these bridges. What does the present Bill mean so far as bridges aref concerned? I trust that when the minister addresses the House again he' will deal with that question, and inform us whether the government is going to undertake the construction of bridges.
But my main purpose m rising was to object to the provisions of clause 6. I regard that clause as very objectionable. In the first place, it involves a divided authority, it involves an expenditure of money by order in council under the control of this government. It also involves an expenditure under the control of the local government. Now, a divided authority is not good in the construction of roads. One party will be throwing it off on the other, whereas, the responsibility should be under one authority.


Mr. EDWARDS.: But divided authority was all right when the hon. gentleman's party in power was appointing fishery inspectors throughout the province. .


John Howard Sinclair: I am not now dealing with fishery inspection. We have no divided authority in my province. But I wanted to say something to the Prime Minister, if he were present. In the province of Nova Scotia the leader of the Conservative party in local politics, for the last twenty years has been preaching to us that we ought to have the administration road money under one authority. _ _
In that province we had the municipalities constructing the roads, we also had the local government constructing the roads and there was a conflict of authority which has not worked out well in Nova Scotia. Very recently the duty was taken from the municipalities and given to the local government with the exception of the expenditure under the statute labour law of the province. If we are to have money expended by the counties, by the provinces and by this government we will have three authorities in Nova Scotia looking after 'our roads. That is an undesirable system and if we retain clause 6 in this Bill we will have that system. I object to clause 6 because I submit that it will be a constant temptation to the government to use this money for an election fund. I see that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) laughs at that, but let me tell, him that we have had the spectacle within the last few days of a minister of

the Crown wading through the snow banks of South Renfrew peddling out road commissions in order to get votes. I would not like to see this temptation placed in the way of this government because I am afraid that they would not have sufficient moral backbone to stand up against it. I do not think they will find it possible to make a lair distribution in that way. The pressure on them will be very great in order to get favours here and there-


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. gentleman think it is fair to presume upon the moral rottenness of the people of this country?


John Howard Sinclair: I may say to the hon. member for Peterborough that I was much pleased to know that these corrupt proposals did not work in South Renfrew, that the people rejected them and that the leading Conservative paper in that municipality denounced and reproved the Minister of Customs for what he had done. I was much pleased to know that that was the case. If the government have the courage to make this a good Bill, a Bill that will have all objectionable features eliminated from it, a Bill that will give the money to the provinces according to the population, to be expended on the roads and not for election purposes, I can assure them that they will have the hearty support of every man on this side of the House and they will also have the support of the whole people of Canada.


Mr. JAMESON.: Mr. Chairman, 1 think that the measure which the government has brought down and which is now before the committee for consideration should receive the unanimous approval of the members of this House. I believe that it will meet with the approval of the people throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. I must confess that I was somewhat surprised at some remarks which were made by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). He stated that in his judgment the government should have deferred bringing down this legislation for a year. Well, Sir, the hon. member for Halifax has been a member of the government of Nova Scotia and I presume he is somewhat familiar with the financial conditions of that province. I observed in an ' associated press ' despatch which appears in the papers throughout Canada today a reference to the speech from the Throne at the opening of the legislature of Nova Scotia which makes particular allusion to the financial condition of the province. This is the statement which was made in the speech from the Throne with reference to the finances of Nova Scotia, as reported in the Ottawa ' Citizen
The speech commenced by saying that the growing expenditures of the province in con-Mr. SINCLAIR.
nection with the administration of the various services of the government necessitates provision being made,for the obtaining of additional revenues to meet the requirements, and a measure dealing with this question will be presented to the House.
If that means anything, it means that the province is perilously near the time, if indeed, it has not reached it already, when direct taxation will have to be resorted to, in order to provide revenues to carry on the public service. Yet the hon. member for Halifax, when this government proposed a measure which will be a relief to the people of the province of Nova Scotia, in that respect, says that it should be deferred. I think that a statement of that sort, made upon an occasion of this kind, made when legislation of this nature is brought down to the House, shows that the hon. gentleman is exhibiting a spirit of partisanship, which, I think, should not be in evidence in considering a measure of this character. It would have been very much better, in my judgment, if he had accepted the situation, if he had endorsed this legislation and, if he desired to make any suggestions as to amendment, to have done so, rather than to have proposed that there should have been a delay in bringing down legislation of this character when the province from which he comes, stands so much in need of assistance in regard to the maintenance of its roads. One disadvantage which the province of Nova Scotia has suffered for a considerable length of time, and, I presume, it is one that is in a measure common to all the provinces of Canada, is in reference to the state of the roads. We in Nova Scotia have of late years, been endeavouring to secure an increase of immigration into that province. We believe we have there splendid opportunities for those who desire to secure homes in Nova Scotia, but one of the disadvantages we are confronted with, is the condition of the roads, and this legislation which proposes to assist very materially in improving that condition, unfortunately does not meet with a very hearty reception from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. What is the objection which they are urging in this connection? It is simply that the government at this time does not give details as to how this money shall be expended. I do not think that is a very serious charge. I do not think that the government should at this time, say how this money is to be expended, nor do I think it is necessary that particulars in connection with the expenditure of the money, which the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), has requested, should be given at this time. The hon. member for Guysborough has said that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane), who has charge of this legislation, should state to

this committee how this money is to be given to each of the various provinces of Canada. That was stated by both my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) and the Minister of Railways and Canals, when this legislation was introduced into this House. It was understood, and it is understood, by every fair minded man in this House, I think, that this money is to be distributed amongst the various provinces, practically upon the same basis as the subsidies to the provinces are paid. I do not think that any person who is prepared to consider the matter fairly can say that this is not a reasonable and proper manner in which to distribute the money. The bon. member for Guysborough finds fault because the Bill does not say that certain sums of money are to be expended upon the bridges of the various provinces. The Bill leaves that very largely in the hands of the governments of the different provinces to deal with.


Haughton Lennox: A road would include a bridge, would it not?


Clarence Jameson: I think that it would, but anyway, I take the ground that under this Bill the legislature of any province of Canada that desires to do^business on business principles with the government of the Dominion, will have no difficulty whatever in securing its fair and reasonable share of the money that is proposed to be devoted to roads and these legislatures can do with that money, in connection with the construction of roads and highways that, which, in their judgment, under the agreement is fit and just.	_
But we find that there is a very distinct difference in the opinions of hon. gentlemen opposite, upon the other side of the House, with regard to the cost of the construction of highways, and from the province of Nova Scotia we have had two opinions this afternoon with regard to that matter. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) considered that $2,000 per mile would be sufficient to construct permanent roads in the province, while my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) thinks that $3,000 per mile will be necessary. And although there is this diversity of opinion between these two gentlemen in respect to this one particular subject, yet they expect the government to come down now and say how every dollar of this money will be expended in all the various provinces throughout the Dominion. Nothing could be more unreasonable and nothing could more pointedly show the partisan spirit in which they are considering this proposed legislation. I have noticed that throughout this whole discussion every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, no matter in what state of mind he approached the consideration
of this measure, always came to the final conclusion that he was not prepared to oppose it in any way, shape or form. Every one of these gentlemen came, so to speak, with the intention of cursing the legislation, but before they concluded their remarks we found them blessing it. There is not one of them who dares to vote against this measure, because they know that the fair-minded people of Canada are going to support it and to support the administration which has implemented one of its preelection measures this early in its career.
I believe that the farmers and those who are general users of the highways will declare that in the initiation of this legislation the government of this country has taken an advanced step. I believe that in submitting this Bill to parliament the government will meet with the unanimous en-dorsation of all reasonable and fair-minded people in Canada.


Mr. McKENZIE.: I did not intend to join in this discussion, but the debate has taken such a trend that in justice to the people I represent I must make a few observations upon the measure. I regret that the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) found it necessary to drag political issues into the discussion of such a measure. He wanted the world to understand that Nova Sootia is in a deplorable state financially. Well, there is no evidence, public or private, upon which the hon. gentleman can base that statement with any degree of certainty. The only thing he could quote in support of his statement was a press despatch, which has no authenticity whatever. All I have to say to the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) and to this House and to the country generally is that the revenues and financial standing of the province of Nova Scotia are on a better foundation to-day than ever before. The observations of the hon. member (Mr. Jameson) compel me to review to some extent the relations of the party to which he belongs in that province towards the financial condition of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia has the unique record of having been governed by Liberals for the last forty-five years, except for one four years of the Thompson-Holmes government, which stands forth as a bare spot in the desert, as a pelican in the wilderness. At the end of the four yeaTS of the Conservative government in Nova Scotia the revenues of that province amounted only to $500,000, while to-day, through the various legitimate means which were taken by the Liberal administration, the revenue is fast approaching the two million dollar mark. And, what is the record of the Tory party in Nova Scotia in regard to every measure taken by the Liberal government to put that province on a sound financial basis? When Mr. Fielding took steps to bring

about the consolidation of the mines and to raise the royalty on coal at different stages from seven and a half cents to twelve and a half cents a ton, the Conservatives fought that proposal at every stage; they said that the coal business of Nova Scotia would be runied if the royalty were raised in that way.


An hon. MEMBER.: Cut it out.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, I fear that the hon. gentleman is not speaking to the question before the Chair.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Some hon. gentleman fold me to cut it out, but I do not know what he means exactly by that, because I cannot cut out what I have said already, and I do not know by what process I could cut out what I have not yet given expression to. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, if you will pardon me. You were kind enough to allow me to go thus far, and I want to point out, that the revenue from coal in Nova Scotia was brought to its present excellent condition in the teeth of opposition from the Tory party. We got $675,000 from the eastern extension award, and thait. we fought for in the teeth of the Tory party, both in Ottawa and Nova Scotia. We got better terms for the province of Nova Scotia, as well as other provinces of the Dominion, through negotiations conducted by the Liberal government in Nova Scotia with the Liberal government in Ottawa, All of these things were fought by the Tory party, to which my hon. friend from Digby belongs. Therefore, if Nova Scotia has a good financial standing to-day, we have nothing to thank the Tory party for. That is all I have to say about the remarks malde by the hon. member for Digby.


Clarence Jameson: Does the hon. gentleman deny that in the speech from the Throne at the opening of the Nova Scotia legislature, an intimation was given that some means would have to be taken to raise additional revenue to meet the increased expenditures of the province?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The province of Nova Scotia is going along at very rapid strides.


Clarence Jameson: Will the hon. gentleman answer the question?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And in providing for these new departures in which the province of Nova Scotia is launching forth, keeping the lead educationally and otherwise of every province in the Dominion, I suppose the Premier of Nova Scotia finds it necessary to take steps to add to the revenues of that province. But that is not because there is anything the matter with the financial standing of the province, if they choose to keep within the narrow compass


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: which no doubt the hon. member for Digby would prescribe for them.


Clarence Jameson: Does the hon. gentleman not admit that what I said is absolutely correct?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not admit anything of the kind. I do not know what is in the address at the opening of the Nova Scotia legislature, I did not see it, and I am not going to commit myself or my friends to press despatches which do not give the text of the address at all.
The Premier of Nova Scotia last summer told me in conversation that there were some sources in the province which should contribute something towards the revenue, and it is possible he is going to take steps to bring about such a condition as he had in mind, not because of lack of prosperity in the province, but in order to secure contributions to the revenue from sources which are not contributing at present. When my hon. friend comes to deal with the matter, I think he will find that this is not from any urgency for a fair distribution throughout the province of the collection of the moneys necessary for the different purposes which come within the purview of the provincial government.


Clarence Jameson: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman favours deferring to 'another year the payment to the province of Nova Scotia of any portion of the money proposed by this legislation to be distributed amongst the various provinces?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am certainly in favour of a fair contribution to the provinces along the lines suggested in this Bill, but I am disposed to agree with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) that the government should be in possession of some further information before dealing with this Bill. When the Bill is passed, as it no doubt will pass, and when the hon. Minister of Railways or some representative of his department goes with that Bill in his hands to negotiate with one of the provincial governments, I think he will have very insufficient 'and meagre material with which to negotiate. If the negotiations had taken place first and the conditions and circumstances had been known to the minister, I think a better Bill could have been framed. I do not think the passing of the Bill at this session of parliament will hasten things very much, if clause 6 is permitted to remain in the Bill, because it evidently contemplates some legislation by the legislatures of the different provinces before anything can be done. I think it is a fair assumption that before this Bill becomes law, the legislatures of the different provinces will have prorogued, and there

will be no opportunity of implementing this Bill by provincial legislation this year. If this is the -case, there would not be very much lost if the government adopted the course suggested by the hon. member for Halifax. Some of us have the misfortune to be lawyers, and when, we come to deal with questions involving constitutional considerations, we wish to keep as much as possible within constitutional lines. Some hon. gentlemen may think that it is not very difficult to take any amount of money and spend it on the roads of the different provinces. If the hon. Minister of Railways had come today with a Bill asking that a certain amount of money should be devoted to education in the different provinces, it 'would strike us at once that he was up against a difficult situation, because it is well understood that education is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces; but when you come to look at the provisions of the constitution under which we live, you find that roads and education are in precisely the same condition, both being under the exclusive control of the provincial legislatures.


Mr. HAZEN.: If that is correct, how was it that the previous government was justified in appointing a commission for. the purpose of investigating and reporting on the whole question of technical education?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is quite easy, and if this government had taken the precaution to appoint one of their numerous and prolific commissions to inquire into the condition of the roads, they would have been able to offer a better Bill. The outgoing government wanted to know whether it would be advisable or not to depart from the beaten path with regard to education, and to appropriate some money for the advancement of technical education in this country, and for the building of institutions devoted to technical education. I am proud to say that the province of Nova Scotia had blazed the way and had given the cue to the government of Canada in that respect, and that commission was appointed for the purpose of finding but whether or not the conditions of the country would justify this wide departure of taking the moneys of this Dominion and applying them to technical education. That is my answer to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and I think it is satisfactory. But he, lawyer as he is, will not for a moment question my statement that this road question is entirely within the purview and scope and authority of the local legislatures. The hon. gentleman shakes his head; but I shall 'be thankful if he can find1 one line of authority in the British North America Act giving
us power to devote the moneys of this country to be expended on public roads. There is nothing of the kind. But I am not finding fault with this measure. I am glad the government are taking this [DOT] course, only I wa,nt it done in the proper way. We know that in the province of British Columbia, and some times in the province of Ontario, a great deal of difficulty has been experienced by reason of overlapping authority with regard to the fisheries. In those two provinces it appears that the local governments can issue licenses for fishing purposes, and the Dominion government can issue them also, so that there is always a conflict of authority. The Minister of Railways and Canals, by this Bill, is bringing about a condition which will cause a similar conflict of authority, and if he will follow the course suggested by the right hon. leader of the opposition, he will avoid that. It would appear to me that, as far as any political favouritism is concerned, or favouring one regulation more than another, the chances are that the division 'will be pretty well balanced for many Vears, perhaps always. We have nine local governments, some will he Liberal, some "will be Conservative, probably they will be pretty well balanced at all times.


John Hampden Burnham: Do I understand that this measure is, in your opinion, ultra
vires?
1 Mr. McKENZIE. While I am not opposing the measure in any way if I were called on as a lawyer to give an answer on this as a question of law, I would have to say that I do not think that there is any provision in the constitution ^s it stands now which would justify this legislation. If the money thus voted would come as an addition to the subsidies to the provinces and within their control, I would endorse it, but if it is the intention of the government to keep this money under their own control and to work through officers appointed by this government, the Act is going to be a source of inconvenience and very difficult of operation.
In answer to the argument of the Prime Minister that this is analogous to the subsidies granted to railways, I would point but that whereas the subsidy granted to a railway company is hedged in by three Acts of parliament, the Act incorporating a railway company to which the subsidy is granted, the subsidy Act itself, and the general Railway Act, this is not hedged by any Act, it is entirely controlled by the will of the Governor General in Council. That is why we on this side want something in the statute providing that this money shall go to the provinces and shall not be expended according to the caprice of Dominion officers, or of whatever gov-

eminent may be in power here. I think that section 3 of the Act vests the title to this money in the provinces. Once you grant the money to the province, there is only one way that the province is represented and that is by its government, so when you grant the money to the province you vest it in the government of the province and that is the end of it.
What I particularly wish to point out is that what is required on this side is that provincial rights shall be observed. When we are giving this money to any province, we are not giving anything but what is their own. The people of this country are the people just as much in the right of the provinces as in the right of the Dominion; and we must not assume that we are giving gifts to paupers in making these grants. But when we give to the provinces it is our duty to leave it to the provincial authorities to deal with the money. They have the control in dealing with the roads through their representatives in the provincial legislatures and through the provincial government. The only objection I have to this measure is the mode in which it is proposed to carry it out. I am perfectly satisfied that a fair amount of money should be afforded to the different provinces for the purposes of roads, but I hope it will be put absolutely under the control of the different provinces, subject to the supervision by the department. As the Prime Minister said, it was analogous to the railway subsidies. And these subsidies are paid, I understand, on the certificate of an engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals that the railway is finished up to the standard set by certain well defined plans and specifications. All the Minister of Railways need do, if he wishes to keep control of it, is to pay out money to the provinces on the certificate of some officer of the department that the work was properly done according to the standards of the department. Beyond that the expenditures should be entirely under the control of the local government.


Mr. HUGHES. (Kings P. E I.).: I wish to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals whether the appropriation made for each province will be the same year by year. I could see great objections to it if the amount were large one year and small the next. This point has not been touched upon before, so far as I know.


Francis Cochrane: I can give no promise or statement on that; it is a matter of policy.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: The hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) accused the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) of displaying partisanship. But it seems to me that the display of partisanship, if there was any, was made by the Mr. McKENZIE.
hon. member for Digby himself. He spoke of the provincial finances of Nova Scotia and mentioned a telegraphic communication from Halifax. As to what he read, I do not think anybody on this side could raise objection to it; but the inference he drew from it is what we object to. He said that the province is perilously near the time when direct taxation is at hand.


Clarence Jameson: If the hon. member will pardon me, I think I said, it would seem from the speech from the Throne that such
was the case.


William Chisholm: This bugaboo of direct taxation we have been hearing out in Nova! Scotia for a quarter of a century, and we are no nearer it now than we were twenty-five years ago. The hon. member from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has well said that the finances of Nova Scotia are, taking everything into consideration, in a very healthy state. What I object to particularly is the insinuation that we on this side are opposed to this legislation and to assisting the provinces in providing improved roads. For myself, sitting on this side of the House, I am in hearty accord with any measure that would improve the condition of the roads in Nova Scotia and elsewhere in Canada. After hearing the discussion, I believe that this Bill, as has been charged, is a very crude Bill. Still, the object of the Bill is a good one-to assist in improving the highways, But when we examine the Bill we find that, stripped of verbiage, it means that this parliament proposes to assist the various provinces by giving them an additional grant for the maintenance and improvement of highways.


John Hampden Burnham: Does the hon. gentle-mas disapprove of that?


William Chisholm: I do not say I do. But why sail under false colours? Why not put clearly in the enactment what is the effect of the Bill? It does look a.s if there were something behind the motives of the government in bringing in this 'legislation. It is true, they say, that this will implement the promises they made before the election. But the hon. member for Cape Breton and others have pointed out that so far as roads and bridges are concerned, these are entirely within the jurisdiction of the local legislatures. I had the pleasure of being present when the right hon. the Prime Minister received a delegation from Ontario on this subject of improved roads, apd I remembeT distinctly that he stated that the fathers of confederation never expected that this parliament was going to deal with the maintenance of roads and bridges and that we were going very far when we proposed to assist the provinces in the manner we intend to do

this session. It does seem that you do not go very far if this parliament is not going to maintain the rouds after they are built. Reference has been made to trunk roads. I agree with those hon. gentlemen who say that that is not what this country requires; what we want is improvement of the highways that are being used every *day. The great trouble with us in the older provinces is that we have many roads but not enough money to keep up the reads we have.


Haughton Lennox: Will not section 3, cover all that?


William Chisholm: I am not referring to any particular section, I am merely referring to the conditions as they obtain in our province. Our roads were not laid out as systematically perhaps as they are in some other provinces, or as they should have been. There is no such regularity about our roads as there is in the western provinces. In Nova Scotia we have a greater mileage according to population than any other province in the Dominion, and we have to bear a Iheavier burden to maintain our Toads than any other province according to population. The discussion this evening has shown that what will suit one province will not suit another. It has been pointed out that in some provinces the municipalities are bearing a certain proportion of the cost of maintaining roads, that in other provinces is borne by the provincial governments, I believe in the province of Ontario the municipality pays t and the Local Legislature 4 of the cost of improving the highways. In certain provinces the municipalities are prepared to bear a certain burden of taxation for the maintenance of roads. But in the province of Nova Scotia we are not. prepared at present to tax the municipalities to the same extent that they are taxed in Ontario, our people have not been educated along those lines. Now in view of these different conditions in the various provinces, is it not better to hand this money over to the provincial legislatures, who can spend it more judiciously for the improvement of roads? The member for Digby (Mr. Jameson), remarked that my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean), had criticised the government because there was no conference provided for between the provinces and the federal government with the view of working out a scheme; he intimated that my hon. friend from Halifax was arguing in favour of delay, and that he was inconsistent in view of the fact that Nova Scotia required more money to enable it to conduct its affairs. But I want to point out that if the member for Digby is sincere in this matter, he will ask the government he supports to pass
this money over to the province so that the roads may be put into good condition at once. The province has all the machinery now, we have engineers as good as; this country can furnish. We have in the road engineer, Mr. McKenzie, as good a road maker as can be found in the whole of Canada. If tire member for Digby is desirous of helping out the province of Nova Scotia and guarding against delay, he will urge the government to pass this money over to the local legislature.


Clarence Jameson: Does the hon. gentleman disagree with the member for Halifax?


William Chisholm: I do not. The member for Halifax made no appeal for delay, but he pointed out, what is true, this if this Bill passes now we are going to have delay. If this Bill passes there will be no improvement of the roads inj Nova Scotia or elsewhere next summer; because this legislation provides practically for an agreement with the provinces. Why an agreement with the provinces?' Because it is recognized that under the* British North America Act any man who goes to work on a road in another provi ince would be a trespasser and liable to indictment. If the Minister of Railways sent one of his men down to Nova Scotia to attempt to improve the roads, he could be indicted for interfering with the public highways, unless there was some previous consent obtained from the provincial government.


Clarence Jameson: How does the hon. gentleman expect to make an agreement until he has authority to make it?


William Chisholm: I say that the member for Halifax was not arguing for delay in the expenditure, but he was arguing for delay with a view of getting this government and the provincial government together so that everything could be made ready and the machinery could be put into operation for improving the roads as soon as an arrangement had been made.


Clarence Jameson: Does the hon. gentleman think that a delay of a year in passing this legislation would mean an equal delay in the payment of any sum of money which might be made eventually under this legislation to the various provinces?


William Chisholm: What difference would it make if the Minister of Railways conferred with the provinces in the month of June, and made an arrangement for working out this scheme, this parliament would not meet again until November, so the Act could not be put into operation until the following year. Now I regard clause 3 also as! rather suspicious. In the marginal note it states that it is a grant of an annual subsidy for highways. I

say the marginal note is misleading, it is not an annual subsidy at all. In the Act itself, it says that the Governor in Council may, in any year, and upon such terms and conditions as are prescribed, grant to any province. It does not say that this grant shall be actually made, it is an appropriation made at such time as suits the Governor in Council. I have no doubt, that in an election year, you will find there will be a grant, but- the year after election there will be no grant.


Haughton Lennox: You ought to know.


William Chisholm: It is practical politics, I suppose; but this is too big a matter to be used as a political question. On this side of the House, we think this matter could be better worked out if the money was given to the various provincial legislatures to expend. It is also to be noted in this clause, that the grant may be made to any province; it does not say to the various provinces, but to such province as the Governor in Council may decide. The whole Act seems to have been framed with a view of having more patronage to distribute.
That is exactly what one would conclude from reading the Act. It is true the Act speaks about highways, but the desire is to get the money for election purposes. This is the construction that one would have to put upon the Act from the way in which it is drawn. I do not wish to be taken as criticising the Act. I am strongly in favour of the principle, but I think that the provinces could get far more and the roads would benefit to a much greater extent if a certain amount were apportioned among the provinces either according to mileage of road or population. It is time that there should be an increase in the subsidies to the various provinces. Since 1898 the subsidies to the provinces have been increased twice under the Liberal administration, and I think it is time there [DOT]should be another increase. AfteT 1896 the amount of the subsidy was doubled. I think it was $4,500,000 and it was increased to $9,000,000. Another increase is due and, as my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) said, it is only what the provinces are entitled to.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Guysborough called the minister's attention to what is unquestionably an omission from section 3 in regard to the question as to whether or not the aid that is proposed to be given by this government shall be extended to bridges. It must be manifest to the minister that it is absurd to talk about improving existing highways or constructing new roads if you are not going to have power to improve old bridges and to- construct new ones. That I need not argue, because I am quite sure that Mr. CHISHOLM (Antdgomsh).
the hon.gentleman will agree with me that the government would have no power to make any expenditure under this Act for the improvement or construction of a bridge as distinct from a highway.


William Cameron Edwards: Why not take the bridge to be part of the road?


Mr. BELAND.: Sometimes it is not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) may dispose of it in that easy way.


William Cameron Edwards: I am not disposing of It, but as we understand it in our part of the country a bridge is part of the highway.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman looks up the legislation in the province of Ontario dealing with the question of roads, he will find that the legislation deals specifically with bridges in addition to roads. There is no such thing as a grant of money to roads without dealing specifically with bridges at the same time.


William Cameron Edwards: Certain bridges.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, not certain bridges.


Francis Cochrane: Up to a certain extent.
Air. A1ACDONALD. Aly hon. friend is mistaken.


Haughton Lennox: In Ontario it is provided that if a bridge exceeds a certain length it is within the jurisdiction of the county council, and in other cases it is under the jurisdiction of the township council.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is what the minister means. There has been a great deal of discussion as to the general principle of this Bill, and it has been very interesting to hear what hon. gentlemen have had to say with regard to it, but I am free to say that I think a good many of them have taken a great deal for granted in the discussion and in the speeches which they have made. I want to look at this measure in a careful manner, and I submit my hon. friend could not spend money upon bridges unless he put in an amendment which would entitle him to do so.


Francis Cochrane: I think so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He may have some familiarity with the practice in Ontario but the legislation in other provinces is different. Bridges are one thing and highways are another. They have been dealt with in many provinces of the Dominion as being entirely apart one from the other. Legally they are entirely apart when it comes to a question of liability in regard to the repair of highways. I do not have to go into this question or to make any

very elaborate legal argument about it because in the constituency from which I come there was a leading case on the question of liability for non-repair of a highway-the case of Gerdert vs. Municipality of Pictou county which went to the Privy Council and in which the municipality raised an issue in regard to the maintenance of the highway which had never been raised in any part of the Dominion before. We are here to legislate seriously and if the Minister of Justice, who must take the responsibility for legislation of this character, were here I would go into the question with some *degree of elaboration for the purpose of showing that my hon. friend under this Bill could not deal with bridges either for their improvement or construction unless he includes in the section the words which I propose. My hon. friend surely can take no objection to it. It is extending the principle of his measure and I apprehend that if the proposition is to be a working one, if it is intended that we are going to have anything at all in this measure, we want to get it in such a proposition that can be worked out.


Francis Cochrane: I do not object to putting it in.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I rose for the purpose of suggesting an amendment which I Thought should be accepted.
Mr- COCHRANE. It does not have reference to clause 3.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes it has. I propose :
That clause 3 he amended by inserting the words ' or bridges' after the word ' highways ' in the fourth line and the words ' or bridges ' after the word r highways ' in the fifth line and by striking out the words ' both ' in the fifth line and inserting instead the words ' all or any.'


Mr. OLIVER.: What is the contemplated policy of the government under subsection 3? Does the government contemplate aid to local roads, to trunk roads, or to colonization roads? That is important in deciding as to the merits of the Bill as respects each individual member's vote upon it. If the policy of the government is to use the money for the improvement of local roads, that is a matter of general interest, and I think everybody in the House would vote for it. If it is for the improvement or construction of colonization roads, then certainly those of us who represent the provinces where there is new country to be developed, would, of course, be strongly in favour of that. If, however, the proposal is to expend any large proportion of this money in the establishment of what might be called trunk roads, for the benefit particularly of the automobile section of the population, I am not so sure that
every member of this House would be pre pared to strongly support the measure. It is important that the minister should give us some information as to what policy the government has in mind.


Francis Cochrane: This will be largely a matter of policy to be determined on between the local governments and the federal government. I would hope, in dealing with the different provincial governments, to lay down a policy that could be worked to from year to year, so that we would not have checker-board improvements. In my opinion the scheme will he largely worked out in connection with the local governments of the different provinces, probably one province might prefer one scheme and another province another.


Frank Oliver: I do not think that is any explanation at all. The Bill is couched in very general terms, and that being so, it is only fair that the members should know what policy the government proposes to pursue. Of course, if the minister says the Federal government is going to pursue any policy that will suit any of the provincial governments that would be quite intelligible.


Francis Cochrane: Probably the roads in the provinces represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) would require different treatment from the roads in Ontario or Quebec, and I have had no hesitation in saying from the very beginning that we would work in connection with the local governments.


Frank Oliver: If it is understood that what is done will be on the responsibility of the local governments, then we can understand where we are, and I would be willing to accept that position, but if the Federal government is going to exercise jurisdiction in the distribujiion of the money it is only fair the minister should gajf what particular class of roads he proposes most to favour.


Mr. DAVIDSON.: I did not propose speaking on this question, but the hon. gentleman from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), in reply to what I thought was a respectful question, took occasion to make a personal reference to me. I asked him if he thought there would be any danger under the arrangement proposed, of the money advanced by the Dominion government to the provincial government of Nova Scotia, being garnisheed by creditors of the provincial government, and, for want of a better answer, the hon. member stated that perhaps I had in my own experience, suffered from the garnishee laws of my province. Now, I do not pose as a millionaire; I am not wealthy at all; I am not in the fortunate position of some gentlemen opposite in that I have not received offices

of emolument from the government, and I have not had an opportunity of laying by money in that way. I have not fed extensively on the public treasury nor do I expect to do so, and consequently, I am not a millionaire, but my assets have never been garnisheed, and I never expect that they will be. I want to say that if I had been as prodigal with the expenditure of my income as the province of Nova Scotia has been, I would expect such a procedure. I want to say further that in the carrying out of the provisions of this Bill, I hope the minister will exercise a great deal of care, in respect to the province of Nova Scotia. Hon. gentlemen opposite who come from Nova Scotia have advocated that the money be paid over directly to the province and that the Dominion authorities part with any control over its expenditure. Well, judging from the history of the Nova Scotia government in the past, with regard to road construction, that would be a most dangerous policy to follow. Several years ago the province of Nova Scotia borrowed some $600,000 for the purpose of constructing permanent roads, and they used this money, not to make roads, but to make votes, and to-day there is not a foot of permanent highway in that province.


William Chisholm: Is that the policy you propose adopting now?


Avard Longley Davidson: That is a policy I do not propose adopting. I advocate that the Dominion government working in conjunction with the provincial government, should be thoroughly satisfied that every dollar is being expended in making roads and not in making votes. These gentlemen opposite do not seem to have any conception of making roads; their idea in reference to the Road Act is something to make votes with for themselves, and consequently you see them divided as to how this' money shall be expended. The hon. member from Welland (Mr. German) says: Don't give this money to the provincial government. And why?
Because the government of Ontario is Conservative he says, give it to the municipalities. The hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for Antigonish, and the illustrious member from North Cape Breton say, give this money to the provincial governments, because they know that the provincial government in the province of Nova Scotia is in a very difficult corner, and they want this money to be expended to make votes for themselves in the coming elections. My hon. friend from North Cape Breton represents a constituency in which there was a good deal of jobbery in connection with the expenditure of the $600,000 to which I referred, and he should be the last man on earth to advocate giving the provincial government a free hand in"the expenditure of this money. I sin-


Avard Longley Davidson: cerely hope that nothing of the kind will be done. A few years ago the federal subsidy to the province of Nova Scotia was materially increased. It was hoped by some admirers of the provincial government that it would use those funds for constructing highways; but instead of doing that, they used it to increase their own salaries and appoint certain zealous officials. I venerate to a large degree the hon. member for Halifax, and on most matters would be inclined to take his opinion, but I cannot but remember that he sat for some years in the provincial government of Nova Scotia, and if he had any knowledge of roads he did not show it then, and I do not think he is in a position to instruct this House on that subject.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no one in this House who is more willing to give a respectful reply to a respectful question than myself. I would be the last man in this House to give any other than the most respectful reply to the hon. member for Annapolis if he had asked a respectful question; but I leave it to the judgment of any hon. member whether it was a serious or respectful question to ask a representative of the fair province of Nova Scotia if I did not think it was a dangerous thing to pay money over to the credit of that province for fear it might be garnisheed. There is an old saying and a true one that it is an ill bird that befouls its own nest. Let the hon. member for Annapolis think what a reflection he has put upon the province that has given three premiers to this Dominion. The province of Nova Scotia is proud of having given to this Dominion the present Premier. Yet the hon. member for Annapolis stands up in this House and says seriously that the financial condition of that province is such that any moneys paid to its credit are liable to be garnisheed. I want the province of Nova Scotia to know that that is the reputation which the hon. member wishes to give to the province of Nova Scotia in the presence of this House. Every province of this Dominion has been represented in this discussion, but not a man has said anything disrespectful of the credit and standing of his own province except the hon. member for Annapolis. I want the good people of Annapolis to know that they have sent a gentleman here who thinks it his duty to speak in such a disrespectful manner' of the fair province of Nova Scotia. The hon. member says there was jobbery in my county. I do not know to what county he Tefers.


Avard Longley Davidson: Victoria.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I defy him to produce the record to show that there is a word of truth in that statement. It would not be parliamentary to say that the hon. gentle-

man uttered a falsehood, but I do say that he was born with a predisposition to strike the truth at an impossible angle.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. gentleman is very bold in challenging me to produce records that are about a thousand miles away. He knows very well about the circumstances. He says that I spoke against the reputation of the province of Nova Scotia. He must know that that is incorrect. I never said a word against the reputation of the province of Nova Scotia, and I want to say, in justice to the reputation of my province, that the good people of the province intend at the very earliest opportunity to put out of office the men who have put the province in debt and have given it nothing but bad government.


John Howard Sinclair: Clause 3 of the Bill provides that the Governor in Council may in any year grant to any province in aid of improvement of highways; that is, it may grant to any one province and leave out all the others. The language bears that construction, at all events. I do not think we should allow the clause to pass id that shape. I think we should assert the right of each province to participate in any grant that is made. I know that the Prime Minister has stated that he will observe that principle in the distribution of the money that is proposed to be spent under this Act. The Minister of Railways has also made the statement that the money will be expended according to the population of the various provinces, but they will not be here forever, and my objection to the clause is that it does not express that idea. As it reads, it simply gives the government power by order in council to grant money to any one province. Therefore, I beg to move that the following be added to clause 3:
Provided always that when any such grant is made to any one province each of the other provinces shall be entitled to a proportional grant based on the population of such province.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to second this resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Lost.


Mr.   MAODONALD@: My hon. friends are calling ' lost ' as if this discussion had been carried on altogether by hon. gentlemen on this side. Quite as many have spoken on the government side as on this side, and there is no desire on the part of the opposition to obstruct or delay this Bill. What objection can there be to putting in the Bill what the Prime Minister to-day said was the policy of the government. It would not be fair for the government to say that in one year all the grant would go to one province. That is surely not the intention of the government.


John Douglas Hazen: The adoption of the amendment proposed would render the Bill useless and abortive. The Bill is based on the idea that the money is to he spent by arrangement with provincial governments so that if we adopted this amendment, then if the government failed to come to an agreement with Nova Scotia, for instance, no money could be spent in New Brunswick or any other province because of this amendment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is nothing in section 3 in regard to agreement with the provinces,that is fixed by subsequent sections.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not see that it would make any difference whether that is fixed by section 3 or a subsequent section.


John Howard Sinclair: We are not saying you must spend money in the province, but, that you must appropriate a similar sum.


John Douglas Hazen: Which means that unless you make an arrangement with every province the whole scheme will fail. The matter may be safely left to the good sense of the government and to the good judgment of the people who would not tolerate any injustice as between the provinces.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister's argument is erroneous as a matter of law and of interpretation of this Bill. There is not a line in section 3 which makes the voting of the money contingent upon the making of an arrangement with a province. Sections 4 and 5 control section 3 and limit the power of the government and prevent them making an expenditure except under the conditions contained in the agreement arrived at with the provincial governments.


Wilfrid Laurier: When the Bill was introduced some days ago the minister stated that the money which was to be appropriated every year should be apportioned among the different provinces as the subsidies are now apportioned. The object would be to work in with the different local governments. In order to make the intention surer, I said:
I was asking the hon. gentleman to tell us if there was any basis of allotment among the provinces. The provincial subsidy is based on population.


Francis Cochrane: Yes, I explained it was to be on the same basis as that upon which the subsidies are granted to the provinces.
When the Bill was distributed 'and I came to read it I found no such disposition in it.
Therefore, in order to make the matter certain, I moved an amendment to insert this in the Bill. But the Prime Minister said there was no necessity for that, because the Minister of Railways in intro-

ducing the Bill, had told us that such was the intention, and upon this he asked the House to vote down the amendment, I supposed then that matter would be disposed of in Committee of the Whole, and that words would toe inserted to carry out what was declared to be the intention of the law. But that has not been done. Surely, so important a matter is not to be left simply to the good-will of the -government. As I have said, governments do not live forever and a succeeding government may not agree with the disposal of money in such a case as this proposed by the government it replaces. And even the same government will sometimes change its mind. So, if it is the intention of the government that this money is to be divided among the provinces according to proposal, surely that should be incorporated in the Bill. The amendment of my hon. friend, I think, does not convey the idea. Therefore, I move, in amendment to the amendment, that the following words toe inserted as subsection 2 of section 3:
The sums of money voted in any year to be expended under this Act shall be apportioned among, the different provinces of the Dominion according to the population of said provinces as established by the last census for the time being. *


Some hon. MEMBERS: Lost.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Before that vote is taken, ' it is surely due to the committee that the government should state why they decline to implement the policy stated on the introduction of this measure and on the second reading. We have discussed this measure assuming that at the proper time the government would express their policy in the Bill. Why is it not done? Hon. gentlemen opposite are saying ' lost,' but there is no explanation.


Mr. ROGERS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) heard the right hon. leader of the government this afternoon make a clear and distinct statement that when parliament was being asked to vote this money the money would be appropriated an amount for each province in Canada, and there is no purpose to be served by the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition. The motion was rejected this afternoon, and I am sure it will be rejected again to-night.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is not the intention as explained by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). He just intimated to the committee that an agreement could be made regarding one province only, and an appropriation made for it while the rest of the provinces would be left out.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


John Douglas Hazen: No, no.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What, then, is the contention of the hon. minister?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Lost.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Hon. gentlemen opposite say ' lost.' But we want to know why this amendment should be rejected. That is all we ask. We propose that the money be distributed according to population. The Prime Minister has said that it is the intention to do so. We want that put in black and white in the law. And not1 only is that refused, but we are refused an explanation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Surely a proposition of this kind, a serious proposition, and one involving a new departure is not going to be disposed of in this fashion. Hon. members opposite cannot complain of captious discussion on the part of the opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hon. gentlemen who have been here all evening know that more members spoke on the government side than on this side. And they spoke at length. They lauded the government for this Bill. One hon, gentleman wanted to see a great ieaeral highway from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Others on the same side opposed that, and propounded all kinds of theories as to how this money should be spent. After listening for three hours to a discussion of these academic problems, we come to the details of the Bill. We ask the government to incorporate in the measure the statement made by the Minister of Railways in introducing it and by the Prime Minister on the second reading. And the only answer we get is the cry of ' lost.' That is not a dignified way to deal with a grgat question, and one in which this parliament is entering for the first time upon an expenditure of road money, dealing with a matter which seems to trench upon the sphere of the provincial authority. And we have this anomaly that while the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Rogers), is the third minister to state that the government is to divide this money among the provinces, according to population, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), tells us that that is not the policy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: On the contrary the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hazen) argued against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) by telling him that it would have this effect, that, if the government should

vote money for expenditure in any particular province, having made an agreement with that province, the amendment would compel them to vote money for expenditure in other provinces where they had no agreement.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald), must know that he has misconstrued me, or, I should say that it is evident that the hon. gentleman has misunderstood me, and I am sorry I did not make myself clear. I said that the effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair)-which by the way, was not accepted by the leader of the opposition


Wilfrid Laurier: It was an improvement.


John Douglas Hazen: -the effect would be that if the government made an agreement with the government of one province for an expenditure of a certain sum in that province and failed to make an arrangement with some other province, they would be precluded from spending money in any province; just the reverse of the position stated by my hon. friend from Pictou.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am glad the minister has succeeded in getting himself into a position which, he thinks, in some degree consistent with that taken by the other ministers.
My hon. friend has reaffirmed his attitude. The committee has not forgotten the discussion we had a few moments ago in regard to that matter, when I showed him that the amendment of the member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) would not have the effect which he anticipated. Do I understand the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say now that it is the policy of the government, when *hey take a vote in any one year, to take a vote for all the provinces at the same time?


John Douglas Hazen: That is the policy laid down by the Prime Minister, to which I adhere.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think that was the policy of the government as stated by the Prime Minister this afternoon, and as stated now by the Minister of Railways and Canals, but the hon. gentlemen opposite who are responsible for carrying out this Bill will not put it in the law. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) seems to be the boss of this administration. He stated-I remember his words very well -after the Prime Minister spoke and said that was the intention of the government, the member for Simcoe made a general demurrer. Oh no, he sarys, I don't think that is the proper principle, to expend this money according to population, there are some localities that should have more than 118
others. That was the view taken by the hon. member for Simcoe, and he is the real master of the administration. Now, the government will not put into the law what the Prime Minister declared was his intention this afternoon, because the member for Simcoe objects to it. I congratulate my hon. friend on his power over the present administration.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Sinclair) negatived.
Amendment (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) negatived.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is time to adjourn now.	[DOT]


Francis Cochrane: No, finish it up, it won't take us. long.


Wilfrid Laurier: You cannot do it. It is not fair at one o'clock in the morning to ask us to sit here ajny longer.


Francis Cochrane: I move that the committee rise and report progress.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. COCHRANE moved the adjournment of the House.
Wilfrid Laurier: Will we take up the same thing on Monday?


Francis Cochrane: No, the Grain Bill will be up on Monday, and other government Bills, and then estimates of the Department of the Interior.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.58 a.m. Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 26, 1912.