[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

*Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario):: 1.	On what date was the deed of the timber slide on Chats Palls given to D. O'Connor by the late government f
2.	What was the purchase price?
3.	Has the present government received any representations from the city of Ottawa or the Hydro-Electric Commission, urging the cancellation of the said deed?
4.	Has the government decided to cancel the deed or taken any steps to cancel it?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	2nd October, 1911.
2.	$1,471.
3.	Yes.
4.	The question is under consideration.


DISMISSALS.
Mr. FORTIER:: 1.	Have Captain Leon Laroche, commanding officer of one of the boats doing quarantine service at Grosse Isle, P.Q., and Desire Laroche employed at the same quarantine station as policeman, been dismissed? If so,, for what reason?
2.	AVho brought complaints against them?
3.	Will the department or the Minister of Agriculture grant them an inquiry?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	The engagement of Captain Leon Laroche at the Grosse Isle Quarantine Station terminates on the 14th of April, 1912.
The engagement of Desire Laroche at the Grosse Isle Quarantine Station terminated on the 30th November, 1911.
It is not proposed to engage either for the coming season.
2 and 3, answered by No. 1.


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has Joseph Olouthier of St. Adolphe de Dudswell been dismissed as postmaster?
2.	If so, who requested his dismissal?
3.	Has an inquiry been made?
4.	What is the name of the inquiring commissioner ?
5.	If an inquiry has been held, was it in French?
6.	Has the department or the minister received petitions asking for the continuance of Mr. Clouthier as postmaster?
7.	If so, how many signed the said petition or petitions ?
8.	Have any been received asking for his dismissal?
9.	If so, by how many and where were they from ?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	It was requested on the recommendation of Mr. John Hayes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Dr. W. L. Shurtleff, K. C.
5.	The report shows that some of the witnesses spoke in French and others in English.
6.	Yes.
7.	107 persons.
8.	Yes.
9.	Thirty persons, residents of St. Adolphe de Dudswell.


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Has Mr. Joseph Lapointe been appointed overseer of the wharf works on Lake Aylmer at Garthby?
2.	If so, who recommended him for this
position?
3.	How long has he held the said position?
4.	Who replaced him for the completion of the works on the wharf at Garthby?
5.	By whom was he recommended?
6.	Has he the necessary qualifications?
7.	Who asked for the dismissal of Mr. Joseph Lapointe, the former overseer?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Tobin, M. P.
3.	From 8th to 27th September, 1911, when work was ordered to be suspended.
4.	Mr. Telesphore Pichette.
5.	Dr. Hayes.
6.	General instructions are issued to all engineers that the services of an inspector are not to be retained unless he is qualified.
7.	Answered by question No. 3.


PUBLIC BUILDING AT WEEDON, QUEBEC.
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Publio Works to proceed at once with the construction of a publio building at Weedon, Quebec?
2.	Are the plans ready for said building?
3.	Have tenders been called for?
4.	Has a site been secured, as recommended by the Municipal Council of Weedon?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	The subject is receiving earnest consideration.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No.


PELAGIC SEALING.
Rt. Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).: I would like to say to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who asked a question yesterday about the



treaty in reference to pelagic sealing, that I have this further information which I think it is only right that my right hon. friend should have. The Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs informs me that the ratifications in the matter of the pelagic sealing treaty of the 7th July, 1911, were deposited in the United States Department of State on the 12th December, 1911. This procedure is equivalent to an exchange of ratifications. It was thought more convenient for the four powers to deposit their ratifications in the Department of State rather than go through the somewhat complicated procedure of exchanging ratifications with each other.


BIOLOGICAL BOARD OF CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 118) to create the Biological Board of Canada-Mr. Hazen-read the second time and the House went into committee thereon.
On section 3,
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: Will the members of this board receive any compensation ?


Mr. HAZEN.: Section 8 of the Bill provides that no member of the board shall receive emolument for his services beyond actual and reasonable travelling expenses in connection with the work of the board.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it the intention to appoint special officers of the department, in addition to the representatives of the universities ?


John Douglas Hazen: The minister will appoint two members of the board. Prof. Prince has been a member of the board in the past and it is likely he will be again appointed. The universities mentioned in the Bill: Dalhousie, Laval, McGill, New Brunswick, Queen's and Toronto, carry on biological work. There is provision _ made in the Bill that when any other university engages in the work of biological research a representative from it may be added to the board.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the two members of the board appointed by the minister, devote all their time to this biological work ?


John Douglas Hazen: By no means; there is no necessity for that. The work of Prof. Prince in the department is in line with the biological work he will do in connection with this board. The other member of the board appointed by the minister will be an official of the department whose business it is to make a study of fishery conditions.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: - I do not wish to make any definite criticism of the constitution of the board, but in my judgment the minister would obtain better results if Mr. BORDEN
some members of the board devoted their whole time to this biological work. Prof. Prince has not been able to devote his whole time to this work in the past, and I have always considered it a mistake that he should have been assigned to work other than that for which he was originally appointed into the service. There is great field for biological work in connection with our fisheries, and Prof. Prince might with advantage to the country, devote his time exclusively to that work. I do not, of course, object to representatives of the universities being appointed, but still they can only be an auxiliary force and can hardly be considered practical working members of this board. I trust the minister will see that in future Prof. Prince shall devote his entire time to this particular work, and probably it would be well to associate one or two permanent officers with him.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: The minister must not forget the practical side of the work of this board, and I may say that up to this date the board has not done very much practical work for our fisheries. Recently, Professor Prince gave evidence before the Fisheries Committee and he explained that owing to the fact that the gentlemen who composed the board were not salaried, the department was not in a position to give them instructions to do any special work, which I regard as a very important feature of this whole matter. There are many practical questions which arise in connection with the fisheries, and which a board of this kind ought to be able to solve. Tihe scientific side of the question is all right and I have no criticism to offer on the work which the university professors are doing, but most of it is I suppose in connection with their professional duties in their colleges, which of course it is right the department should aid them in. There are a great many questions in dispute among practical fishermen which this board could do a good deal to throw light upon. A few days ago the question of steam trawling was under discussion in the House, and the minister appeared to think that it was not destructive to our fisheries, while I, like many others who live on the sea-coast, take an entirely different view. If we were able to refer such a question to the board and have them make actual investigation as is done in Great Britain where they employ vessels of their own in that service, it would be of great benefit to our fisheries. Then, as to the propagation of lobsters; the Fisheries Department has placed a great many millions of young lobsters in the sea year after year, and there is a variety of opinion amongst fishermen as to whether they ever mature. I do not think it would be very difficult for scientists to discover exactly what pro-

gress these lobsters make 'after they are put in the water. I urge on the minister the necessity of appointing a first-class practical man on this board who will get a salary and devote his whole time to the work.


John Douglas Hazen: As to the desirability of some members of this commission giving their entire time to the duties devolving upon them, I may point out that there are biological stations in different parts of Canada where during the season observations are taken from day to day in regard to matters that are of interest to this biological board.
Observers are placed at these stations for the purpose of making accurate records of the observations so taken. The results of those observations are furnished to the members of this board, and from these, and such observations as they may make themselves, conclusions are arrived at which may be valuable. These observations are, of course, made under the direction of this board, which at the present time is vested with greater powers of management than it had before. While the officials appointed under the board are to be paid, the board itself acts in an advisory capacity, and is charged with the management of these stations and the carrying on of this work. If the results of the work carried on by the Biological Board are found to be beneficial, it will have to be carried on upon a permanent scale; and, if so, it will become more expensive, and a larger sum of money will be required to carry it on than the modest sum voted by parliament in the past. The work will probably be one of growth and development. I think the suggestions made by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), who takes a very active and intelligent interest in all fishery matters, are well worthy of consideration. I shall have great pleasure in directing the attention of the Biological Board to the suggestion of my hon. friend that more practical work should be done under its direction. There are in the department to-day officials whose duty it is to consider these fishery questions from a practical standpoint. My experience has been that it is difficult to get fishery experts to agree, and it is very seldom that they agree on technical questions. I suppose there is room for a divergence of opinion, because after the fish leaves the shores and gets into deep water, very little is known of its habits. My hon. friend, in referring to steam trawling, rather inferred that I considered that it was not destructive. If my remarks conveyed that impression, it is contrary to what I intended them to convey. I think that steam trawling is undoubtedly destructive in its ef-145$	,
fects, from the fact that many more fish are destroyed by that method than by other methods. My hon. friend also referred to the work done by the lobster hatcheries, and raised the question whether the conditions under which the lobsters were being hatched and cared for while very young are such as will enable them to live and increase the lobster industry of the country. I know that there is a great difference of opinion on this subject. There are some who believe that the young lobsters are not sufficiently protected under the present system, and that another system should be adopted. Others take the opposite view. This is a subject which we are trying to work out with the view of arriving at the correct solution. I will take up the suggestion of my hon. friend with the chairman of the Biological Board, and see if it will not be possible, besides giving attention to the scientific aspect of the question, to give attention also to the practical side.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Unless there are certain officers in the department who can devote their entire time to biological work, there is very little use in creating a biological board. This work has been very much neglected in the past. But I rise for the purpose of suggesting to the hon. minister that instead of a biological board there should be a fisheries board, consisting of officers of his own department and certain other persons living in the different provinces and interested in fisheries. I fear that such of his officers as are supposed to devote their time to the fisheries are so fully occupied with matters of a general character that they can hardly be expected to do good work along special lines. I think it would be a very good departure if the department were to organize a fisheries board, with the biological board as a branch of that board, the two Working together. I know that the suggestion has frequently been made, in the province of Nova Scotia at least, and probably it has been conevyed to the minister since he came into office. I have often heard the suggestion made myself, and I have always looked on it with considerable favour. I think the departmental officers would receive a great deal of assistance by working together with appointees from the various provinces interested, and I would like the minister to take this into consideration terore the next session of parliament.


John Douglas Hazen: The suggestion which my hon. friend makes is, in my judgment, well worthy of serious consideration. I do not think the suggestion is a new one. I think it has been made in this House before, when the estimates of the Fisheries Department have been under consideration. Fisheries boards, I understand, exist in

455S
other countries. There is one, I believe, in England, and one in Scotland, and these boards have been instrumental in doing a great deal lor the conservation of the fishery interests in those countries. There is force in what my hon. friend says about the fisheries officials of the department having their time taken up with general matters and not being able to give as much time as should be given to problems of importance in connection with the fishing wealth of Canada.
I have found in the Marine Department that the Lighthouse Board is a most useful body, and one which not only relieves the minister of responsibility-perhaps I should not put that forward as a .reason, because the minister is bound to take the responsibility-but which furnishes advice concerning the aids to navigation, the lighthouses, and the protection of our coasts, that is of very great value, and which it would be difficult to deal with in any other way. I may say-and I am saying it without a thorough study of the subject-that it certainly seemed to me that a board constituted along the same lines for the purpose of advising on questions affecting the fisheries, fisheries protection, the fishery patrol service, close seasons and open seasons, and the implements and means employed in the catching of fish, might be of very great use and assistance to the minister in charge of the department and to the country as well. I have been giving some thought to the matter-I cannot say that I have arrived at a conclusion, I have not the knowledge at present sufficient to enable me to do so-but it is mv intention to give very careful consideration to the matter between this session and the next session of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-salaries to members,
John Howard Sinclair: Is it not intended that there shall be two paid members of this board?	!


John Douglas Hazen: No, not paid as members of the board. There will be two members who receive salaries as officials of the Fisheries Department, but they will not be paid any extra salary for their services as members of this board.
Bill reported, read a third1 time, and passed.


YUKON JUDGES.
[Stage Direction]
House went 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.
John Douglas Hazen: 


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice).: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The provisions of the Bill, as explained by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), seem to be absolutely reasonable. The only question to be discussed is whether there is justification for the withdrawing of two judges from the bench. From the information I have, I think there is cause for that; but it would have been satisfactory to the House-and perhaps it can be done before my hon. friend goes on with the second reading of the Bill-to have stat'is-

tics comparing the condition of business at the time of the appointment of these judges with that at the present time. Representations were made to the late government in the direction now proposed, and we had the matter under consideration, at the time we went out of office, but had not reached a conclusion. The provision that the judges may be called back to resume their duties, should the conditions again arise which prevailed at the time of their employment, seems perfectly reasonable and commendable. Would the Minister of Justice give the names of the two judges who are to be retired?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Justice Dugas and Mr. Justice Craig. Mr. Justice Macaulay will remain. As to information showing the necessity, or at least the desirability, of withdrawing these judges, I shall be in. a position to give that in detail before I ask the House to pass the Bill. In the meantime, I may say that all the judges of the Territorial Court concur in the view embodied in this measure. Furthermore, I have certificates from the clerk of the court that there is in reality not sufficient work for one judge.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: To take the concrete case, what was the salary of Mr. Justice Dugas as judge?


Charles Joseph Doherty: His salary was $5,000 with an additional living allowance of $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And now he will retire with a pension of

?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Five thousand. We save the living allowance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has not the population decreased considerably in Dawson?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, very much. I may say that there are three judges in the territory and only four lawyers. That proportion, of itself, I think, will show that there is not the need for three judges.


Mr. TURRIFF.: Why should not these judges be asked to take up work in some other part of the Dominion? Why make a discrimination in favour of judges as compared with other officials? If you find you have officials in the Yukon or anywhere else, and have not work for them to do there, you do not superannuate them on full salary-you bring them to some other pabt of the Dominion where there is work for them to do. Why not give these judges appointments in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or some other place in which judges have to be appointed? It seems to me the proposal is a piece of extravagance not justified in any way by the conditions of the case. These judges have not been a very long time on the bench and have not earned that pension by their term of service. It would seem to an ordinary layman, applying common sense to the case, that if there is not work in the Yukon and if the salaries of these judges are to be continued, then the judges ought to be given work elsewhere, and so save the appointment of two new judges. This is another such example of extravagance as we had a little while ago. I see by a question asked on the 5th of February that the deputy Minister of Justice has just been paid a sum of nearly $10,000-to be exact, . $9,809.24-for work done for the government, this being over and above his salary of $7,000 and his expenses.


Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario).: Your party paid that money.


John Gillanders Turriff: I will attend to that in a minute. And in addition to this, the Deputy Minister of Justice is allowed to plead cases before the Privy Council by which he. can earn large fees. My hon. friends on the other side say that our party paid that money. I beg to say that our party did nothing of the kind. That maxter came before the late government time and again, recommended, I acknowledge, by the then Minister of Justice, and by several others ministers of justice of that government, but in no case was the recommendation agreed to by the government-it was turned down in every case. It remained to this government to pay over this large sum for work done for the government by this official who was already drawing a salary of $7,000 a year, and who was allowed to plead cases before the Privy Council and so earn large fees besides. I see that in the answer to the question, the Minister of Justice said that this claim had been recommended by his predecessor, Sir Allen Aylesworth. But he did not mention the fact that the government had refused to pay this account, and that the order in council for the payment was passed only- after this government came into power. This case that we have now before us is another examples of the same thing. Two judges for whom ther? is no work where they happen to be located, are retired on full salary instead of being transferred to some place where their work is required.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member (Mr. Turriff) perhaps does not quite understand the matter. These two judges were appointed to the position they occupy, and appointed to those. positions for life. So that this government has no power to order them to go to work somewhere else, and if they chose to say: We do not desire to retire, they might stay on in the Yukon and draw their pay and their living allowance. They are perfectly within their right, they have been appointed to this

particular position for life, and unless they choose to retire, the government has no power, under the law, to retire them.


John Gillanders Turriff: When they do retire could not my hon. friend appoint them to the present vacancies in Ontario?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the first place I am not aware whether these gentlemen are members of the bar of that province as they would have to be for appointment to the bench of that province. Furthermore we might appoint them, hut we could not make them accept the appointment.
With regard to the other extravagance that has been laid at the door of the administration in paying to the Deputy Minister of Justice a bill which he presented for services rendered previous to 1910, I might say that that account was rendered under the administration of the late government and was for services rendered under an express agreement with succeeding Ministers of Justice in that administration and certified to by them. They further certified that in obtaining those services from the Deputy Minister of Justice at the rate at which he was paid the government had effected large savings as compared with the cost of retaining the services of outside counsel. I investigated the account and it appeared to me that the certificates of Sir Allen Aylesworth, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick and the Hon. David Mills were fully justified. Had I been asked for a petition of right on such an account I would not have hesitated to grant it. The country had contracted a debt and we had to pay it. Of course all of this is entirely apart from the question whether it is or is not desirable that a gentleman occupying the position of deputy minister should perform services for which he would receive payment apart from his salary. All of these services were rendered before the passing of the Act of 1910 which absolutely prohibited any civil servant receiving payment in any form for services rendered to the government outside of his salary and unless I assumed that my last two or three predecessors in office had absolutely misstated the facts in reference to these services their payment became a debt of this country.


Mr. NESBITT.: In case of the appointment of a deputy judge would the minister use the services of one of these superannuated judges?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If one of them remained in the Yukon and chose to accept the position of deputy judge that might be done, but without the living allowance I doubt if they would remain in the Yukon.


Wilfrid Laurier: With regard to the payment to Mr. Newcombe, my recollection is that my hon. friend is some-Mr. DOHERTY.
what in error as to his facts. It is quite true that Sir Oliver Mowat, the first Minister of Justice under the late administration, certified an account to be paid to Mr. Newcombe, but that was an account for services which had been rendered under the previous administration, and of course the following Ministers of Justice certified to accounts for services rendered since we came into office, but the basis of the claim of Mr. Newcombe was an alleged agreement that when he took office under the previous administration he had stipulated that he would be allowed to practice and to perform such services as he did afterwards. I do not wish to put in controversy the work done by Mr. Newcombe who is a very good lawyer, an efficient Deputy Minister and a gentleman whose word must be taken, but it was, to say the-least of it, an extraordinary piece of business that an agreement of that kind should be made by the minister of the day without there being any record of it. Moreover, I do not think that such an agreement could have been binding or legal and as to this I would appeal to the judgment of Mr. Newcombe himself. I would have preferred that my hon. friend had done as we did and left Mt. Newcombe to his recourse in law, an appeal to the Exchequer Court.
My hon. friend has chosen to do what the late government would not do. I think there was no cause whatever to make such a payment to Mr. Newcombe. The reason why we did not accept this agreement was the reason which was afterwards embodied in the statute, that no member of the civil service should receive any remuneration beyond his salary. If that was ' not the law in 1892, or 1893, when Mr. Newcombe was appointed, it was the spirit of the law, and, for these reasons, I think my hon. friend would be better advised if he left Mr. Newcombe to his recourse in the Court of Exchequer.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to say whether the agreement went back to the administration that preceded that of my right hon. friend, but this I am in a position to say, that the succeeding Ministers of Justice, under the administration of my right hon. friend, carried on that system with full knowledge that that was the system under which the work was being done, and that, as I said before, if not all of them, certainly several of them, certified it to be a desirable arrangement and one under which the country was saving money. As to what the law was before the introduction of the statute, I suppose it is permitted to lawyers to differ, but I. myself, would have no doubt that, under the circumstances,. Mr. Newcombe had a claim against the government and in support of that, it might be pointed out that, upon a question precisely of the taxation

of costs in a case of this kind, the Supreme Court decided that there was a claim for a fee on the part of counsel, notwithstanding the fact that the work was done by a gentleman receiving a salary. I had the judgment before me, when the matter was dealt with, but. I am not prepared to give all the details at the present moment.


Mr. PROULX.: As there are two new high court judges to be appointed for Ontario, 1 would suggest to the Minister of Justice to appoint Mr. Justice Craig to the high court. I am sure he would accept that, because there is a difference of $3,000 in his salary which he would get. He was a good lawyer in Ontario before he was appointed to the bench in the Yukon and even if his qualifications were not sufficient for the high court bench, the minister could appoint him to the county court bench.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be pleased to give my very best consideration to the suggestion which my hon. friend has made.


John Gillanders Turriff: The Minister of Justice points out that these judges are appointed for life. I understand that the living allowance of $5,000 that they have been receiving in the past, is not a life matter. That was granted at the time because living in the Yukon was very expensive. I am quite satisfied that if my hon, friend wants these gentlemen, who are capable men and who are still young men, to take hold of other work, all he has to do is to drop off the living allowance and they will be pleased, 1 am sure, to take up work in other parts of the Dominion. With reference to the defence that the Minister of Justice makes for paying these large sums to the deputy Minister of Justice, surely it must have appeared to him that, if this account had been hanging fire for so many years, although it had been recommended by three or four Ministers of Justice, there must have been some good reason why it was not paid. What does the deputy minister get his salary for, if it is not to do the work of the department? It seems a very strange proceeding; Why should one deputy minister, who is paid an extra salary anyway, be allowed to charge for work done for his own department? Would you allow any other deputy minister to charge for the work that he does in his denaTt-niient, outside of his own salary? The Minister of Justice must have known that the late government had refused to pay that account, He must have known that, there was some good ground for not paying that account. Here we have an official getting $7,000 a year and all his expenses when he travels over to the old country in connection with the work of the department and it is a remarkable thing that he should be allowed to draw big fees and in addition
be paid his expenses while he is over there pleading cases for private parties. It seems to me to be a very strange thing that just as soon as this government come in they pay this amount that the late government refused to pay. However, the Minister of Justice must take the responsibility for that payment, but it will be pretty difficult to justify it to a great many people in the country, who do not earn anything like $7,000 a year, to whom $7,000 a year and all expenses seems a pretty good salary, equal to the salary of the Minister of Justice and of all his colleagues except the Prime Minister of Canada. In addition, Mr. Newcome is allowed to work for private individuals, to do a private practice and on top of that the government pays an account that the late government refused to pay.


Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon).: Just before the resolution is adopted, I would like to offer an explanation as to the cause which gave rise to the necessity for this measure. When the Yukon was first settled in 1896, after the discovery of the Klondike, there were no laws governing placer mining in that country. Placer mining as an industry did not obtain to any considerable extent in Canada up to that time. There were some placer mines, but they were in provinces which had laws previous to the time that these provinces had entered confederation, such as British Columbia. That necessitated the making of laws governing the placer mining industry in the Yukon Territory, and for several years after the discovery of gold in 1896 the industry was governed altogether, not by laws, but by orders in council. There was a very great inrush I of people to the goldfields, a great many | claims were staked, boundaries overlapped and as a result a very great deal of litigation arose. The courts, in the first few years of the existence of the territory as a territory, were overworked. Subsequently all these regulations were gathered together, assorted and passed upon by the people of the territory, finally brought to parliament and passed through parlia-parliament as the Yukon Placer Act, thus placing the chief industry of the Yukon on a more solid, permanent and better basis. As a result of that Act a great deal of the cause of the litigation of earlier years was removed. The . consequence was that, although we had practically the same population, we had less litigation because our laws were in a better condition. The appeal was formerly from the Yukon court to the court in British Columbia, but after the court of the territory was established with three judges, appeals lay in Dawson city itself. The fortunes of a mining country like the

Yukon may fluctuate and at the present moment I regret to say that we have not as many people in the Yukon as we had when that court was established. That, however, is not a criterion as to the future of the territory, as we hope, and we have every reason to believe, that before many years, we shall have as many people and perhaps more than we have had and that the fortunes of the Yukon will be improved. Many new finds have been made and other prospects are looming up, all of which lead to the hope, based upon the history of mining in past years, that we will have a population in the Yukon requiring this full court. There is in this Bill a clause which provides for the recall of these judges. By passing this measure the country'saves $10,000 per year, and if we find that we have to reconstitute this court we may recall these two judges who are to be retired.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. DOHERTY moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 123) to amend the Yukon Act.


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

Hon.  J. D.@: REID (Minister of Customs) moved second reading of Bill (No. 116) to amend the Civil Service Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. REID.: This is a copy of a Bill introduced last session by the Hon. Mr. Paterson, my predecessor in office, and which was not passed owing_ to the dissolution. The Bill proposes to increase the salaries of some of the officers in the outside customs service such, as the collectors of ports and chief clerks. 'We introduce a class called senior chief clerks with a salary ranging from $2,200 to $2,800, and who will be employed only in the large cities like Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. The present system is to have a chief clerk for each department at these ports, but the business is so increasing that it has been found necessary to have a senior oflicial over these clerks who must be a man of experience in the service and be the very best officer we can find in the port. The surveyors now get from $1,200 to $2,400 a year, and the Bill proposes to make the maximum $2,800. The assistant surveyors now get from $800 to $1,200, and in future they^ will get from $1,200 to $1,600. We provide for new officials called Dominion appraisers, who will receive a salary ranging from $2,200 to $2,600. At present we have an appraiser for each department, but we want a man at each large port who Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon).
will see that the appraisers do their work properly and are qualified for the position. The Dominion appraiser will act as inspector of the other appraisers. Then we are introducing a new class called senior clerks whose salaries will range from $1,200 to $1,600. Under the present law these clerks cannot get a salary over $1,200, although they may have served for many years and be really deserving of better pay. If a senior clerk has reached the maximum of his salary and he is worthy of promotion, the Bill contemplates that he shall get a maximum salary of $1,600.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. CARVELL.: Can the minister tell me on what principle the salaries of customs collectors are based ? I notice that they run from $300 to $4,500 and I have never been able to understand how a man can faithfully perform his duties and maintain himself and his family on the minimum salary of $300. Is the salary based on the amount of business done at the port or upon the number of clerks and outports under the collector, or is there any principle at all in connection with it ?


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand, the system that has been in existence for many years has been based on the revenue of the port. The hon. member says that he can hardly understand a collector of customs receiving a salary of only $300; but suppose a port has to be opened at a small place where very little business is done besides the clearing of a few vessels. Yet there must be a collector, and his salary must be based on the work he has to do.	_


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister uses the word ' collector ' here. Does that include a sub-collector? For example, at Woodstock there is a collector of customs for all the northern portion of New Brunswick; and1 there are under him 3 or 9 subcollectors, some of whom are compelled to spend all their time in the duties of their office, and are entitled to as much as a collector. That would not be the case if their salaries were based on revenue.


John Dowsley Reid: The salary of a sub-collector is based on the revenue collected at his outport, in the same way as the salary of a collector.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A sub-collector would come under the heading of collectors in the schedule?


John Dowsley Reid: Practically the same.

mu


Mr. EMMERSON.: As I understand1, a sub-collector is one who is required to report to a collector near by. For instance, the city of Moncton has a collector, and there are sub-collectors at Shediae, Hillsborough, in Albert county and Dorchester, who are subject to the jurisdiction and the control of the collector at Moncton. At the outports where these sub-collectors are placed the revenues as a rule are not large, though the export business is somewhat large and there may be a great deal of shipping. For instance, at Hillsborough, in Albert county, there is an immense amount of shipping of plaster and other raw material, which is quarried and shipped to the United States and1 other countries. The imports at that port are comparatively small, and yet the sub-collector there is required to be in his office at all times during office hours, and his salary is certainly not commensurate with the time he has to devote to his official duties. The same is true of Baie Verte and Cape Tormentine,. and other ports which are sub-ports of Sackville. In years past, when I felt called upon to interview the predecessor of my hon. friend in office, his uniform reply was that, regardless of the duties a man had to perform or the time he had to devote to those duties, the amount of revenue collected was the governing principle in fixing his salary. Now, I would strongly urge my hon. friend to make a reform in this matter. Take the collector at the port of Moncton, which has a population of 14,000 or 15,000. Under his jurisdiction are sub-collectors at Hillsborough, Cocaigne, Shediae, and Dorchester. He is responsible in a large measure for the oversight of these several suboffices. It does seem to me that $1,400 or $1,500 is a paltry salary to give to a man holding such a responsible position. At the port of Sackville the salary is, I think, $800 or $900. Yet these officers are required to be in attendance at their offices) during office hours, and1 oftentimes outside of office hours, in order to clear vessels so as to enable them to take advantage of the tide. If the hon. minister will inquire into the matter, I think he will realize that these officials have been in the past underpaid, and that a remedy should be applied. I hold that the criterion of a man's salary should not be the revenue of his office. Some of the most important ports in the province of New Brunswick, and also in the province of Nova Scotia, are ports where no great amount of importing is done, and1 where the officials are engaged in attending to export business. In these days the large importations into this country are made at the great centres, such as Montreal, Halifax, Quebec and other shipping ports. But the smaller ports are a necessity in the interests of
navigation, and in the interests of trade and commerce. Officials are necessary, their time must be devoted to the duties of their offices, and they should be paid on a scale larger than has heretofore prevailed1.
I would urge upon the attention of my hon. friend this feature of the question of salaries. I do not observe that under this Bill any particular provision is made for officials of that class, but I think there should be. It seems that these provisions are intended to apply to the larger ports of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, St. John and Halifax. But the smaller ports of the country should also receive attention. Take the one to which my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) referred, the important port of Woodstock, being on the border of the United States the officials there are necessarily continuously applying themselves to their duties. The same can be said of Moncton, which is a centre, Charlottetown and other similar points. The officials at these places are not provided for by this Bill, if I read it aright, and it seems to me that the collectors and sub-collectors, particularly _ the latter, should be recognized. I believe it to have been the policy of the department in later years to combine a number of ports together under the control of one official who is known as the collector, the other officials being designated sub-collectors. And these collectors and sub-collectors certainly have important duties. I invite my hon. friend's favourable consideration to the point raised.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is right about the extra work at the port when an outport is being attached to it. But the outport is really independent in a way. All that is done there is to send the cash and a copy of the entries to the port.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That involves responsibility.


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly it does. Of course at the port the collector has more assistants in order to do that work. _ I agree with my hon. friend that the salaries are small, but it is hard to get any reasonable system by which you can regulate it. The hon. member mentioned a place called Cocaigne.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is in the county of Kent.
(Mr. REID (Grenville). The sub-collector there only gets $300. That amount looks very small indeed, and any person can quite understand that a man could not live on $300; he should have more. That is how it appears on the face of it. But in such a small place as that, where there

is really no business done, the officer generally has some other employment and his stipend from the customs is really extra. For example the officer may be a merchant.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not permitted.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. When the salary is less than $800 he is able to do other work outside.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He is not permitted to deal in merchandise.


John Dowsley Reid: He may not be allowed to deal in merchandise, he is probably engaged in insurance or something of that kind. But take the case of Cocai-gne, which the hon. gentleman has just mentioned, where the officer only gets $300. The man only made five entries and took in $2.19, and there was only one vessel arrived at the port during the year. You can quite understand with that amount of business it is hard to increase the salary of the officer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Refer to Hillsborough and see the number of vessels that arrived there.


John Dowsley Reid: Very well, take Hillsborough and compare it with the other place. At Hillsborough the subcollector gets $700 a year. The total collections at that port were $1,184.30, so the subcollector got one-half of that amount. He made 168 entries, or about one every other day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What about the clearances?	.


John Dowsley Reid: Fifty seagoing vessels arrived and 49 departed. Practically the same vessels went out that came in. Of coasting vessels, 35 arrived and 39 departed. So the hon. member can see that the business there is small.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Still it is important.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit it is very important. Now,the difficulty-


Henry Robert Emmerson: That man certainly could not attend to any other business. He is compelled to keep his office open at all times, I know that personally.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that, but at the same time, he might do some other business if he had his office open. There is no reason why he could not do so, and it is allowed in small places where the business is unimportant. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that these salaries are small; no person realises it more than I do. During the short time I have been in the office, I have had very many complaint? about the small salaries. In cases of this kind, it is left to the minister to grant an increase in each case, in so far as he feel?
Mr. REID (Grenville)
that the circumstances justify it. Last year my predecessor gave increases to 1,752 men-that was the number, if my memory serves me right. Now the hon. gentleman can see that even if you only grant an increase of $100 a year, it would mean a total of $175,000. The practice has been for the minister to place an amount of $200,000 in the estimates for the purpose of increasing salaries and opening new offices. I claim that amount is too small. Every time you open a new outport, it seems on an average an additional outlay of $1,000 a year. Some of the outports may yield a large revenue in which case, a subcollector is appointed. Probably at a salary of $1,000, if there is a lot of work to do, and the other disbursements for rent and so on, would bring the total up to $1,200 or $1,400. You may appoint another man at $500 or $600, so that when you average these expenditures up, it means about $1,000 for an outport. There are very many places throughout the Dominion applying for new outports, and think they are entitled to them; and along the new territory which is being opened up, it is absolutely necessary to open a lot of new outports. That takes a large portion of this appropriation. Personally, I feel that there are very many officials who should have larger increases than I am able to give them, and so far as I am concerned I shall grant to every man in the service, the very largest amount that I can possibly give him, from the lowest official up to the highest, out of the appropriation that is being voted at this session. The case of the collector at Moncton, will be considered with the rest. Personally, I would be very pleased to give him the very best consideration I can, under the circumstances. Under these increases a man gets a raise of $50 to $100, and he finds it hard to realise that where the appropriation has to be divided among a couple of thousand officials, the amount is very small that would be available for each man. I know officers that are applying for increases that should have $200 or $300 a year more, and I would be glad to give it to them if I could. They claim the cost of living has gone up and that they should have a .substantial increase when they have a family to support. On the small stipend such .as the hon. member has mentioned, it is undoubtedly hard to live. Yet the monev that was voted last year is exhausted, and when we come down with the amount the same as last year, it is hard to give the increases that have been expected. I can only say, I will do the best 1 can. to give every deserving officer in the service, the best increase I can. und*r the circumstances.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid, Grenville) approaches the consideration of the question. I ask him to bear in mind, as justification of the

[DOT]course I take, that our revenues have immensely expanded and that trade, commerce and navigation have had a like expansion. All this means the opening of new ports. It is necessary for the protection of the revenue, for the very fact that there is a port of entry in a certain district has the same effect as the placing of a policeman on a beat, such an officer may not have much to do, but the fact of his being there has a deterrent effect upon evildoers. Therefore, it seems to me that the justification for the course that my hon. friend, I know, would like to follow and which, I believe, he will follow as far as circumstances permit, is to be found in the conditions prevailing in Canada to-day.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I am glad that the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson) has brought this matter up, for I believe there is a great deal in it. I would draw attention to another feature of the case, to which, I think, he has not referred. I have in mind a place in Ontario where there is a very large amount of imports for a town of its size. In this town of 2,000 population the imports would probably amount to $800,000 or $900,000 a year. Possibly two-thirds, I might even say three-quarters, of those imports would be of free goods. But all these goods, free or dutiable, have to be passed by the customs officer, and he must be in attendance. If the salary of the officer is fixed according to the revenue, there would be a certain unfairness to the officer, for he must be in attendance during business hours to make these entries even when the result does not show in the revenue receipts. I think some other plan might be adopted to equalize these salaries. I hope the minister will take the matter into consideration, and I am sure the hon. gentleman desires to do justice to all concerned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many offices are involved, and how many new officers would be appointed, and what is the total annual charge?


John Dowsley Reid: The total estimated increase is $10,000; and the officers to which these increases will apply are 13 inspectors, 7 surveyors, 13 appraisers and 30 clerks.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: Are all these in the outside service?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: In section 2, ' other classes ' are mentioned. What is the distinction between * higher classes ' and 4 other classes '?


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member will refer to schedule D of the Bill, he will see the word ' higher classes,'
then ' technical officers ' and ' other classes.'


Hugh Guthrie: The Bill would apply to places like Guelph, Berlin and Stratford?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: And I understand that this is practically the scale of remuneration proposed in the Bill that was introduced by the former Minister of Customs, Mr. Paterson. I think the Bill is in the right direction. We have places in Ontario where quite large amounts are returned to the treasury and a very heavy responsibility attaches to the collector and his staff; and the salaries now paid, I believe, are entirely inadequate. I was [DOT] just going to rise when my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) took the floor, and mention what he suggested, that the revenue collected is not always a fair guide in fixing the salary. I know offices in my portion of the province of Ontario where fully half the imports are on the free list. The work to be performed by the collector is just as great in regard to free imports as in regard to dutiable imports. The responsibility is not so great, of course, because the actual cash is not handled. In Guelph, a city of about 17,000 population, the collections run to about $225,000. The collector there,
I believe, receives $1,800 a year. Pie has been there many years, having been appointed in 1894 or 1895. He is a first-class business man and gives personal and constant attention to his office. The salary paid seems to me ridiculously small for the work done. I have, time and time again, taken up this matter with the former minister, with a view to having his salary placed at a minimum of $2,000. I trust that under the provisions of this Bill the minister will see his way to grant an increase not only in the Guelph office but in all offices in western Ontario similarly situated. As to the principle upon which the minister is to proceed, would it not be possible to devise a scheme by which the inspector would report from time to time? He must visit the offices periodically and make a thorough examination, and I think he would be the proper man to report.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I quite approve of this Bill and I concur in the remarks that have been made as to the great difficulty any minister must have in a department of this kind in satisfying and at the same time doing justice to a horde of officials. I think the minister is in error wuen he says that a collector has no greater responsibility on account of having a number of officers under him. A collector, especially along the boundary line, as in the county I have

the honour to represent, must he constantly on the alert to guard against the very frequent cases of petty smuggling. I know the collector in Woodstock makes frequent trips all over the district extending 100 to 200 miles, to discuss these matters with the sub-collectors. His duties are very different from those of a collector who sits at a port to register the clearing of vessels.
I doubt if the minister is correctly informed, when he says that the word collector would cover sub-collectors. In the Customs Act the word ' collector ' is defined thus:
" Collector " means the collector of the customs at the port or place intended, or any person lawfully deputed, appointed, or authorized to do the duty of collector thereat.
I do not think that would cover a subcollector fifty miles away from the port, and I fear that the minister may not be able to consider the claims and the rights of sub-collectors under this, and there are five times as many sub-collectors as collectors. This would -apply also to tide waiters and preventive officers. Take a preventive officer living at the border. There again you have an entirely different class of duties from those of a man stationed 100 miles away. The man on the border is on the go from Monday morning until Saturday night in order to prevent smuggling and, shrewd and earnest as they may be, they cannot prevent it altogether. Merchants complain that these officers are not doing their duty, that their neighbours are smuggling goods constantly and that nothing is done. I know men who devote their whole energy to travelling up and down the country to prevent smuggling who receive the paltry sum of $600 a year. The duty of the preventive officer is to prevent the bringing in of goods, and if his salary is made to depend on the volume of collections it is not a fair basis. Nor is it fair that a clerk who has to devote all his time to office-work should not have his salary increased merely because the collections at his port have not increased. I hope the minister will be able to give us some rule or basis on which these salaries will be increased from time to time under this Bill.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I mentioned the port of Moncton simply because I am familiar ' with the conditions there, but my remarks would apply to every port and all officials 1 similarly situated. The importations of 1 raw cotton at Moncton are direct and no 1 duty is paid. Large quantities of hard pine timber and anthracite coal are imported in that section of country and the i free goods imported certainly exceed in ] value those upon which duty is paid. The i larger dutiable imports are made at the < larger centres of the Dominion.	|


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


Mr. ROBB.: Possibly there is no member of the House better qualified to judge the value of the outside service in connection with the customs service than the Minister of Customs. He has lived close to the border, where there is always considerable importation going on, and to-day it is reassuring to have the minister tell us that so far as he is concerned justice will be done to every officer in the department. That is somewhat different from the story we hear from his friends in the country. There we hear that promotion will come from the broadaxe. I want to do the minister the justice of saying that in the county I have the honour to represent so far the axe has not moved and I hope it will not be used in that county; there is no justification for it.
Two of the oldest, and as good officers as there are in the service, are Conservatives, appointed by the political friends of the Minister of Justice. One of these officers was appointed by Sir John Rose, and the other was twice the Conservative candidate in the county. I do not think that the customs officers in the country have had the same consideration as officers in the large centres. Looking over the list of collectors in Quebec for the year 1908, I find that at Abercorn the officer is receiving a salary of $900 a year. He was appointed in 1877. At Athelstan, Huntingdon county, where the collector has under him four or five men, and where at times the business is so great that they send out relief officers from the cities, the collector was in receipt of a salary, in 1908, of $800.
I submit that this salary is not sufficient for a man in an office of that character. In the town of Hemmingford, the oldest officer in the service in Quebec, a man who was appointed in 1868, is only getting a salary of $750. I hope the minister will carry out his promise and give greater consideration tc the officers in the country districts. As my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) has pointed out, these officers are continually on duty, and they are at considerable expense. They have to keep horses, they, at times, have to drive at night, and they are the most deserving officers in the .service. At the large ports where goods come in ships, a man is compelled to make his entries, but at these frontier ports the officer must continually be on the watch, and if there is any class of officer in the public service who is de- -serving of consideration it is the country customs house collector.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to ask the Minister of Customs to give some information regarding the dismissal of Mr. Lyman C. Smith, of Oshawa, Ont. I do rot know anything about the matter or the circumstances relating to the case, but I had the curiosity the other day to read the

papers *which the minister had placed on the table, and it seemed to me to be rather an extraordinary case. This man appeals to have been dismissed because he ex-piessed himself as being in favour of a pure election. I think it is a case that the minister ought to give some information about to the House.


John Dowsley Reid: Answering the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Car-vell) first in reference to sub-collectors, I understand that the officers of the department have been appointed sub-collectors under the section he has read. Of course, they are appointed by order in council similarly to the collectors, and for that reason we feel that the sub-collectors should really be treated on the same basis as collectors in so far as their salaries are concerned. As far as my hon. friend from Wellington (Mr Guthrie) is concerned, I would say that this does apply to Guelph and places like that. This will enable clerks who have been in an office like that of Guelph for many years, who probably have families, who have done their work well and are deserving of promotion, but who cannot at present go higher than $1,200, to be increased up to as high as $1,000. With reference to what my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) has said, I agree with him that in places where the business of a port or outport is such that there is a grsat deal of work on account of the free importation of goods, such work ought to be taken into consideration. Of course, it is taken into consideration, and no doubt has been in the past in fixing the salaries of the officers at those different places.
It has been the custom in the past for the minister to give an increase when he thinks it deserved. There is no doubt about it that I must take the advice of the inspectors and the commissioner who have knowledge of the conditions at the different ports, -who know the officers and the service they are giving, and act with them in coming to a conclusion as to what the increases should be. I shall certainly try to do justice to every officer in the Customs Department. With reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) as to the dismissal of an official in South Ontario, I may say that in the first place this collector had never been appointed by order in council. He was simply acting as collector. If I remember aright, my predecessor sent this order in council over and it was returned to him so that this man was never permanently appointed. However, be that as it may, this official acknowledged in a letter that he wrote to myself that he had made remarks that
were certainly offensive to the candidate who was running. I took it for granted from the letter he wrote himself that he really admitted that He had made remarks that were offensive. My hon. friend knows that if a member of parliament makes a charge that an official has been offensive it has been the rule laid down by both sides that we are justified in dismissing that official. That is the rule that I acted upon. Where we have the member's own recommendation I consider that the proper course is to act upon it. In the case of this gentleman in the town of Oshawa, I think it was, the member who demanded his dismissal. With reference to other dismissals throughout the country, my hon. friend from Carleton mentioned that even in his county he expected they would all be dismissed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I said if they kept on at the present rate.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know what the hon. member meant by that, but I think he must be aware that if there have been any dismissals in his county, I have not sanctioned them without having a full investigation and with out a report from the commissioner confirming the charges of partisanship.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know about that. I take the minister's word for' it, and I will presume that he has had a report.	'


John Dowsley Reid: That has been the policy that I have been following throughout. I have been holding investigations and there have been no dismissals with the exception of two or three


John Howard Sinclair: Did the minister have any investigation in this case to which I have called his attention?


John Dowsley Reid: No, because a member of the House asked for his dismissal on account of active partisanship. That rule has never been questioned by either side of the House. The member representing the constituency claimed that this man was an active partisan and I acted on his statement.


John Howard Sinclair: The dismissal appears to have been based upon a letter written by this Mr. Lyman Smith. There* are three letters in the correspondence, one to the Prime Minister, one to the Minister of Customs, and the third to Mr. Smith, member for that constituency. I have been unable to find anything in Mr. Lyman Smith's letter to justify his dismissal, I will read it:

Ottawa, November 21, 1911. Hon. Dr. J. D. Reid, M.P.,
Minister of Customs,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I have received the following from Mr. Lyman Smith, collector of customs, Ottawa, viz.:-
' Oshawa, Nov. 15, 1911.
' William Smith, Esq., M.P.,
' House of Commons,
' Ottawa, Ont.
'Dear Sir,-The 'Indicator' to-day reports that at a meeting in Oshawa at which you were present, Dr. Raiser said I should be removed from office as an offensive partisan. I have thought best to give you a plain statement of facts:
' (1) I was not appointed because of political services.
' (2) I never contributed a cent for any election.
' (3) I never even sat on any political platform in my life.
' (4) I never spoke at any meeting.
' (5) I never was in a party committee room in my life, nor attended any such meeting.
' (6) I never canvassed for votes, nor spoke to any man with any intention of influencing his vote.
' (7) I attended four political meetings- two on each side. I took no part in any demonstration. I never even cheered for any candidate or speaker.
' (8) As the eleotion was the one subject of conversation, I conversed with perhaps a dozen whom I chanced to meet, and expressed my views of the question at issue.
' (9) I hold certain views in regard to the conduct of elections and expressed these views to private parties and only in private conversation. I did not hesitate to express them, but it was with no intention of influencing votes. I spoke to both friends and opponents.
' (10) I do not believe in canvassing for votes. I do not believe in a party fund. The bare expenses of hiring halls, printing, and such absolute needs, should be met, and I think, by the State, for all legitimate expenses are for the good of the country or should be. I do not think voters should be carried to the poll, except old and feeble folk, and the expense of this should be borne by the state. I do not believe in parades or demonstrations. I never took part in one. I think there should be open and fair discussion. Public meetings should be held to inform the people of the questions at issue, then the voters should go quietly to the polls of their own accord and exercise their franchise without fear or favour.
' (11) The head and front of my offending seems to be that I stated to John McCulloch that I considered the right of the franchise so sacred that I would never vote for any man, no matter who he was, or what party, or what the issue, who had proved to have been concerned in the giving of money for bribes. I stated that I had on a few occasions unknowingly voted for such, but I would never so vote if I knew it. Tf pure men did not offer themselves I would not vote at all. I further stated that in my opinion a man that had done this should not have a vote himself, or be permitted to hold any office. This view Mr. SINCLAIR.
was stated in general terms, and I have often, made the same statement when an election was pending. Remember, please, that all this was said in private conversation only.
' I know that customs officers are supposed to take no part in politics; but I judged we lived not in Russia but in Canada, where a man could express his views privately to his friends.	,
' I have done nothing that I wish to deny or conceal. I never considered you anything but a friend, and was persuaded you entertained like feelings towards me. Therefore, there could be no personal animus in this matter. It was merely a statement of my principles.
' I am, dear sir,
' Yours truly,
(Sgd.) LYMAN C. SMITH.
Mr. Smith was appointed to the customs of Oshawa about a year ago, and in many ways was very active during the eleotion which closed on September 21. I think the above letter would be all that was necessary to cause his removal, which I would recommend to be done as soon as possible.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) WILLIAM SMITH.
The answer of the Minister to Mr. Lyman Smith's letter, was as follows:
Ottawa, 6th Dec., 1911. Lyman C. Smith, Esq., B.A.,
Acting collector of Customs,
Oshawa, Ont.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd inet., respecting a charge of partisanship against you, and have carefully noted your representations in the matter.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) ,T. D. REID, Minister of Customs.
The Prime Minister appears to have
turned the letter addressed to him which is almost an exact copy of the letter to Win. Smith, M.P., over to the Minister of Customs, and the next one is a letter from Mr. John McDougald, the Commissioner of Customs, to Mr. Lyman Smits, as follows: Ottawa, 27th Dec., 1911. Lyman C. Smith, Esq.,
Acting Commissioner of Customs,
Oshawa, Ont.
Sir,-In my letter of 80th December, 1910, authorizing your employment as acting collector of customs at Oshawa, Ont., it was stipulated that this employment may be discontinued at any time at the discretion of the Minister of Customs.
I am now directed to inform you, by order of the Minister of Customs, that, on account of political partisanship, your employment as acting collector of customs will be discontinued and shall terminate on the 30th December, 1911, at the close of which day you will deliver the books and other customs property in your charge to the Inspector of Customs who hands you this letter.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) JOHN McDOUGALD, Commissioner of Customs.

Now, there is nothing whatever in that letter of Mr. Lyman Smith which seems to justify his dismissal. I do not know the circumstances more than what appears in the correspondence, but this man was certainly not a partisan. According to his own story he is an extraordinary man; he does not seem to have taken the usual interest that men everywhere take in public affairs, and he appears to be under the impression himself that he was dismissed because he made the statement that he did not approve of bribery at elections. Surely that would not be a good reason for dismissing this official, and that is the reason which appears to have been acted upon in this case after having read the correspondence, I ask the minister to give an explanation.


John Dowsley Reid: I did1 not know that this matter was coming up this afternoon, and I am not prepared to go into it, but now that the letters have been read, I may say that the letter of this man, as read, certainly justified his dismissal, and I acted accordingly.


Hugh Guthrie: What portion of that letter justified his dismissal?


John Dowsley Reid: The whole letter. The man himself admits that he was practically canvassing.


John Howard Sinclair: Oh no.
Mr. REID '(Grenville). Well, it amounts to that; he says he went around expressing his opinion to private individuals.


John Howard Sinclair: And the opinions he expressed is an opinion that is shared in by everybody in this country, namely that we should have pure elections.


John Dowsley Reid: He attended
meetings and expressed his opinion, and certainly took part in the elections. If the hon. gentleman wishes to bring the question up on the estimates I will be prepared to deal with it.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: The Minister of Customs has, with, shall I say painful frankness-it is hard to know how to express it -admitted1 that upon that letter he dismissed this man. It is a letter of high moral tone, a letter, the contents of which, no man could possibly object to. Because that man to one elector expressed the opinion that


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection to the hon. member discussing this matter at the proper time, but I do not think it is in order to do so. on this Bill.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is a little late in rising to the point of order, as the Minister of Customs has chosen to discuss the dismissal and has stated the grounds on which he dismissed this man.
I submit that it is entirely relevant to the Bill to discuss the tenure of these offices, the grounds on which they can be dispensed with, and the rights and privileges of these collectors. I am inclined to think that my right hon. friend is endeavouring to confine the discussion to too narrow *limits.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think the point of order is well taken. I do not see any relevancy to section 1 in the discussion of the dismissal of an officer.


Mr. TOBIN.: I would like to ask the Minister of Customs what decision he has arrived at with regard to Mr. James Pender, the subeollector at Windsor Mills. An investigation was held some time ago by Dr. Shurtliff, of Coaticook, who was the organizer of the Conservative party in the eastern townships; but so far, Mr. Pender has not heard what decision the minister has come to or whether he is to be dismissed or not.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the papers here, and do not know what the situation is. I did not know anything of that kind would come up.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister intend the officers provided for in 39a and 39b, that is, senior chief clerks and senior clerks, to come under the inside or the outside service? Section 39 of the Civil Service Act refers only to officials of the outside 'Service.


John Dowsley Reid: The side-note on the Bill says it i.s for the promotion of a chief clerk in the outside service, and that is what is intended.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The marginal reference is not an enacting part of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend's suggestion is a proper one, and that we had better insert the words 'in such service' in line 10, after the wmrd ' clerk ' and in line 16 after the word ' clerk. ' It will then be well understood that this applies to the outside service.
Section amended accordingly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I read in the papers this morning that the hon. Mr. Lougheed, the leader of the government in the Senate, stated yesterday that it was the intention of the government shortly to put the outside service in the inside service. Did he speak authoritatively?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not seen the observation, which my hon. friend attributed to Mr. Lougheed; but I do not imagine that it went beyond what has already been stated on more than one occasion in this House, that it is the intention and desire of the government to extend the provisions of the Civil Service Amendment Act of 1908

to the outside service as far as may be practicable, and as rapidly as. may be practicable. But of course it must be understood that before we do that, there would have to be inquiry and consideration and investigation in every department. It cannot be done in a moment or without consideration; but we have already said that that is the policy and intention of the present administration; and indeed I think the late administration had something of that kind in eontemp'lation during the last few years.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina).: I approve of the principle of increasing the salaries of the officers mentioned in this Bill. This Bill refers particularly to collectors and inspectors and makes provision for the payment to them of such salaries as will be adequate and sufficient to keep them in a reasonable way. By so doing I believe you will attract better men into the civil service of the country. But there is- a class of government officials throughout the country whose needs I submit, are just as great as the needs of the inspectors, collectors and inspectors of customs throughout the country, and even greater, I refer to the' ordinary customs officials, for instance in the office of Regina, or in the customs offices in similar cities and towns in western Canada, and I believe the same argument will apply to towns in eastern Canada although perhaps not to so great an extent. The cost of living in western Canada, as well as in eastern Canada, has increased tremendously. I know instances of customs officials resident in Canada to-day who are not getting sufficient allowance to actually subsist upon. I submit that is not a fair position to put any government official in. The revenue of this country is vastly in excess of the current expenditure at the present time, and I think that part, of that surplus might very well be expended by the government in making a general increase to the civil service, if not in the actual salary at least in the living allowance. The living allowance granted in the west to .many of these officials is certainly not adequate. My own experience in connection with government offices in western Canada has been that the only man who can he got to enter a government position, outside of the better class of offices, is a man who is temporarily out of employment, and who says: I will go into the position for two or three months in the hope of getting something better outside and then I will leave the service. If you want ability in the government service throughout the whole of Canada, if you wish to secure efficient and capable men who will devote their lives to the service of the government, you must pay them salaries adequate to their positions and equal to the salaries they can obtain in similar employment elsewhere Mr. BORDEN.
I think at the present time we are not paying sufficient .salaries to the ordinary clerks throughout the country. Take for instance in my own part of the country, the wages paid in every calling in life, from the ordinary labourer up, have increased during the past three or four years, and increased adequately with the cost of living in the west. The only calling in which the remuneration has not been increased has been in the civil service of Canada. I recognize, of course, that the class of men to whom I am calling the attention of the House do not come under the provisions of this Bill. At the same time I would ask the Minister of Customs to direct his attention to the ordinary customs officials throughout the country, and if possible give them adequate salaries to live upon. In the city of Regina it would take (half the salary obtained by the average customs clerk to pay the rent of an ordinary house, and that is not a fair position to put these officials in.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 realize that there is a great deal of force in what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Martin, Regina) has said, not only in regard to the customs service but with regard to other government departments. He will appreciate the fact, however, that there has not yet been opportunity to take that matter up in a very comprehensive way. I think something has been done in the Post Office and Customs Departments, and I can only ask my hon. friend to take what we are doing now in respect to these customs officers as an earnest of what we may look forward to doing in placing the public service of the country upon an effective basis. I appreciate entirely the truth of the hon. gentleman's remarks that you cannot have an efficient and stable public service, unless you give to the men who are employed by the government a reasonable salary, hav ing regard to the positions in which they are placed. I am afraid, however, that we shall not be able during the present session to take the matter up in the comprehensive way which my hon. friend suggests, but I can assure him that we appreciate the force of his remarks, and that we will hope at some subsequent .session to bring in a measure which I trust will be alons the lines which he has pointed out to-day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not exactly catch the explanation of the Minister of Customs when he was referring to the amount of increased expenditure, which these augmentations of salary would involve. Did I understand him to say that the increase would amount to $10,000 as regards the whole of Canada5 I .sincerely trust that all the customs officials of Canada will be Irought under this Bill. Some doubt has been expressed as to whether it applies

to sub-collectors, but I am inclined to think that these officials will come under the provisions of the measure. I hope the amount of increase will be more than $10,000; if not it will surely be very inadequate. I want to tell my hon. friend that when the late government were in power the members on this side pleaded with them to increase the salaries of customs officials, perhaps not as publicly as tc-day. but we did it just the same, and vse urged that that increase should apply to the whole service.


David Henderson: It is not the first *occasion on which I have heard the hon. member for Moosejaw refer to subjects somewhat akin to this. I only rise to express my surprise that that hon. gentleman, as well as the hon. member from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) have not in the past complained of these very same matters. They have been sitting here for some years without criticising these small salaries to government officers, and it is only when a change of administration takes place they suddenly come to the conclusion that something is radically wrong. I do not think it is fair for these hon. gentlemen to cast reflections upon the government now in power, when they have been supporting in the past the very thing which they now condemn.


William Melville Martin: Did the hon. gentleman refer to me when he spoke of the hon. gentleman from Moosejaw?


David Henderson: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I mean the hon. member from Regina. I was thinking of the larger town when I spoke.


William Melville Martin: I may say to the hon. gentleman that on many occasions-on several occasions at least-in this House during the past three or four years, I did advocate a general increase in salary in the outside service. If the hon. gentleman would take the trouble to look at ' Hansard ' he will find that is the case. I am not attempting at the present time to cast any aspersions on the present government. I do not think I put the matter at all in that way.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


William Melville Martin: I do not see why the hon. gentleman should introduce the matter of politics into the question at the present time, because I did not discuss the matter at all in that spirit.


David Henderson: I simply rose to express my surprise that nothing had been done in this matter previously, or that these hon. gentlemen had not succeeded in' getting the government that they supported so faithfully to do what they now ask should be done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman is not aware of all that was done.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to correct, the impression that nothing was done by the previous government because my recollection is to the contrary. The minister will remember that a few years ago an increase was given by his predecessor to the customs officials. It was not a large increase, but it was pretty general, I think, and it was supported by the gentlemen who sat behind the government of that day. There were many of us, however, who thought that the increase was rather small.


David Henderson: Not enough.


John Howard Sinclair: That is a different thing, as to whether it was sufficient or not.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the motion for the adoption of the preamble.
Mr. McKENZIE. (North Cape Breton).: I would like to know clearly from the minister if he is fixing the amount of $300, which appears in this schedule, as the minimum salary. Does it mean that any person engaged in the customs service as collector or subcollector is to receive a minimum of $300 a year?
' Mr. REID (Grenville). No, we are paying even less than $300. I am not making any change in this, but I am simply continuing the terms of the old Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought it was $300 to $4,000.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I think that the year before last an amendment of the Civil Service Act made it $300 to$4,500. But even less than $300 is paid.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is why I asked. I am aware of some officials receiving less than $300, and I was in hopes that the intention was to fix $300 as a minimum.


John Dowsley Reid: I am only carrying out the same policy as my predecessors, so far as salaries are concerned, until I can look into the situation. I have had no time to do that yet.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It seems to me that if a man is appointed at all he should1 receive not less than $300. I have listened with great attention to the discussion and concur, so far as my own part of the country is concerned, in what has been said. We have in Cape Breton three very important ports, Glace Bay, Sydney, and North Sydney. I do not know whether this Bill will affect officials at those centres or not. But there are very large transactions in these ports. There is the export



of coal, iron and steel, and1 large imports of iron ore from Newfoundland and other places, as well as the general business, so that the duties devolving upon these officers are very important, and their work is very heavy. I hope the attention given to the officers in such places does not necessarily depend on what is said by representatives here, but I wish to mention these important ports of my county.


Mr. HUGHES (Kings, Prince Edward Island).: There are ports in which the revenues are very small. The representatives of inland places seem to think that there is no need1 for a collector where there is an extremely small revenue. But I suppose it is not the intention of the minister to close the small offices.


John Dowsley Reid: No, that is not my intention.


James Joseph Hughes: Those offices are very important for the prevention of smuggling, assistance to shipping, and otherwise.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course.
Bill as amended reported.


CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT-POST OFFICES.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act by providing that assistant postmasters in post offices in which the postage collections exceed $1,000,000 may be paid a minimum salary of $2,800, with annual increases of $100 up to a maximum salary of $3,500, and that, if the Governor in Council so determines, such provision may be made applicable to assistant postmasters appointed prior to the first day of April, 1912.-Mr. Pelletier.
Hon. L. P. PELLETIER (Postmaster General).: This resolution will be applicable only to the assistant postmasters of Montreal and Toronto. As the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) knows, they are two first-class officers. They are given salaries running from $2,800 to $3,500. The Toronto post office is the one in which there is the largest revenue of the whole country, and Montreal comes next. The revenue of the Montreal post office is going up by leaps and bounds, as also is that of Toronto. We think these officers are deserving of the recognition here given. And this is the sole object of the resolution.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the resolution has for its object only to increase the salaries of these two deserving officials, I very heartily concur in it. Speaking more especially for Montreal post office-with the work of which I am more familiar, Mr. MoKENZIE.
though during my career as Postmaster General I visited the Toronto office a number of times-I can assure the House that Mr. Gaboury is the 'deus ex machina ' there. He has accomplished great reforms in the office. And besides, I am aware that he has received very good offers from different financial institutions, -banks especially, but these he has refused because he is a faithful servant of His Majesty. He could have had a much better salary if he had accepted any of these offers. Such men ought to be encouraged. The gentleman in Toronto who occupies a similar position is also a most valuable officer. The post office in Montreal has, under ordinary circumstances, more work than any other office. I do not refer only to the letter delivery in the city, but also to the work connected with the European mail which is concentrated in the Montreal office, both for the incoming steamers as they reach Rimouski and for the steamers leaving Rimouski and Quebec for Europe.
The work is tremendous, there is an immense number of bags and baskets, and the sorting of the European mail generally is 'of great importance. Mr. Gaboury has reorganized that service to perfection and I am glad to say that under his regime in Montreal we have had fewer thefts in the post office and in the postal service generally than ever before. In fact he has the full confidence of the -boaTd of trade, and generally speaking, of the business community of Montreal. I am very glad that the Postmaster General should have thought of raising the salaries of the assistant postmasters of Montreal and Toronto. They well deserve it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I cannot afford to do any more.
Resolutions reported, read the second time -and agreed to.
Mr. PELLETIER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 124) to amend the Civil Service Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess. .
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
House again fn committee on Bill (No. 115) to provide for the extension of the boundaries of the province of Manitoba.- Mr. Borden.
On section 4, financial provisions.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall section 4 be adopted?


William Pugsley: The question is on the amendment. If any hon. gentleman desires to hear what the amendment is, I might repeat it; but it simply is that the Governor in Council may give interest upon the proposed debt allowance to the identical amount named within the Bill, but that before the amount shall be so fixed there shall be a conference of the Premiers of the different provinces called by the federal government to consider the matter and also- to consider the question with respect to any increase in the debt allowance which would be just and equitable to make to the other provinces of Canada in connection with the increase in the debt allowance which the governin'5"* propose granting to Manitoba. I de-sire to repeat what I said last evening, that this amendment seems to be so reasonable, so well calculated to do justice to the other provinces, that I am surprised it is not readily accepted. It will cause no delay. It has been stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) I think, that there is a conference of the Premiers of the province to be held early in the summer. This payment, unless it is to be dated back, in the ordinary course, would not commence until the 1st of July. It does not mean therefore, practically any delay, and I am -sure that after this conference had been held and the views of the different provinces ascertained the^ Governor in Council would be in a position to come to a conclusion that would be very much more apt to be satisfactory to the provinces and would be much more apt to be fair and just to the provinces, than this proposition now before the committee.


Mr. TURGEON.: Mr. Chairman, 1 wish to be permitted to say a few words of appreciation of the statements made and the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) when he moved his amendment yesterday. This amendment does not interfere with the operation of the Bill. It is only requesting that the grant made, or offered to the province of Manitoba in connection with this extension of territory be delayed for a while until the suggested conference shall have been . held. We are not asking you to take away anything from the amount allotted by the government; we are only asking that further consideration of the general question may be given by such a conference. There nas been a tendency during this debate to allege that Liberal speakers who have presented objeotions to this proposition now before the committee have displayed a spirit of reluctance to allow the people of Manitoba the full enjoyment of what they are entitled to. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, and every member of this House, as I can assure the whole country, that no man in the maritime provinces regrets the 1464
prosperity of Manitoba or any other prairie province. No man has more admiration for the people of Manitoba, who-se activity, intellectual as well as physical, seems to be stimulated and enlivened by the invigorating atmosphere which pervades the country in which they have made their homes. The people of the maritime provinces have generously contributed to the purchase of these western territories fox the common welfare of the Dominion and it is gratifying to us to see that our children have gone forth from Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to assist in	the development of that great
west, have reflected credit upon their native provinces, and that those of them who have been elected to represent their fellowmen, young or old, are to be found in the first rank among the members of this parliament. Certainly I wish to insist upon this point that, whatever position may be taken or whatever suggestion may be made, it is always in the spirit of the greatest liberality of the east towards the west. No greater builders of this nation have been in this parliament than the great men from New Brunswick or the illustrious Howe, who foresaw sixty years ago in that great western country what we have realized to-d'ay and whose hopes in regard to that rich heritage have been fulfilled Jo a greater degree than even he could possibly have expected they would be.
A suggestion has been made by my hon. friend from St. John that this Bill should stand until we have a conference of the Premiers of the provinces to consider the rights of the other provinces in connections with this increase in subsidy-it is nothing else-given to Manitoba. I have always been a generous admirer pf the constitution. It is our admiration of the constitution which has made -the people of New Brunswick as good1 Canadians as they have been. We have suffered, in so far as the Catholic minority is concerned, from the terms of confederation, but our sufferings perhaps have only rendered dearer to us that constitution which we cherish today knowing that it will ever stand for the rights which have been acquired in every part of the Dominion. This Bill to-d'ay is merely a usurpation of the rights given at the last provincial conference to the different provinces. There had been an agitation going on for years amongst the provinces to secure an increase in the subsidies in order to enable the provincial governments to better administer the affairs and1 develop the resources under their control. We all know that with the increased revenue of this government the provinces have increased expenditure, and, therefore, it was nothing but natural that

the amount of money fixed by the Fathers of Confederation should be insufficient to meet the present day needs of the provinces. A conference was called by the then leader of the government, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), to meet in 1906, and the provinces were allotted a certain amount each according to the unanimous resolution which was passed. As I stated a few days ago, I regret that this amount was not made larger, because I feel that the time will soon come when th'e provinces will have to come again and ask for a further increase of these subsidies which at present are not sufficient to enable them to administer their many departments according to the needs of the time. I would have expected that this government, when enlarging the territory of Manitoba, and giving an increased subsidy to that province, would1 again have called a conference of the provinces to consider this question of the increase of subsidies together with many other questions in connection with the development of Canada. We have, as I said a moment ago, contributed very spontaneously and generously to any assistance that the west may have required in the past.	.
We are willing to-day or at any time to contribute for further railways, or for the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, for the great benefit of Ontario and the west. We shall tax ourselves with pleasure whenever any government may be disposed to impose on Canada any expenditure for our national development, which will contribute to the welfare of the people of the west as well as of the people of the east. Meanwhile right is right, and while we are willing always to be generous, we have at the same time to consider our ovra future.
A great deal has been said by my hon. friend the .Minister of the Interior about the province of Manitoba looking like a postage stamp on the map of the Dominion. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island together are perhaps a still smaller postage stamp on the map of the Dominion. In the meantime, we are not less hopeful of the future; but it may be that such considerations will develop in the minds of the people of the maritime provinces a desire to state as forcibly as possible their position. We have contributed to the purchase of the territories which are now to be allotted to the largest and perhaps the wealthiest provinces of this Dominion. Those territories may become very valuable. If we are to believe half of what we are told in the reports on the resources of northern Ontario and of Ungava, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec will soon get the benefit of territories .as wealthy as any portion of the


Onésiphore Turgeon: Dominion. I believe that the people of the maritime provinces have not only a right to a fraction of the money which we paid as our contribution for the acquisition of those territories, but a right to share in some way. or other in the benefits which will be derived from the development of those territories. Very recently the Premier of Quebec stated that the district of Ungava had immense lumber resources, water-powers .and minerals. Therefore, we of the maritime provinces, with our postage stamp provinces, unable to expand, surrounded as we are by the sea and by other provinces, have a right to a portion of those benefits which will accrue to the province of Ontario, and Quebec from the development of those immense resources which are the pride of the country to-day. I believe that the present occasion should be taken advantage of to bring together the Premiers of the various provinces, with the right hon. the leader of the government, who represents at this moment the province of Nova Scotia, and the eloquent Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to whom I listened with pleasure last night, to see what can be done, to-day and not to-morrow, on beha'f of the maritime provinces and the other provinces of this Dominion. I always listen with pleasure to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries even when he comes to my constituency to speak against me


An hon. MEMBER.: Without success.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Yes, without success. I admire his way of putting the case, and I believe he is convinced that the time has come for a conference of the Premiers of the provinces to settle many of the questions to which he has referred, such as the decreasing representation of. the maritime provinces in this parliament from census to census. On this question my views have not always been similar to those expressed by the hon. minister and by the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Pugs-ley). As I have said, I am a jealous admirer of the constitution, and at the risk even of losing something, I prefer to hold to the fundamental principles of the constitution. Meanwhile, just because at this moment there are divergent opinions as to what step should be taken by the maritime provinces on the question of representation, I say that it is imperative upon the Premiers of the various provinces to come together in order to see what can be done in that regard. I have held during my whole lifetime that it is better for us to stand by the terms of the constitution than to expose ourselves to the danger of tinkering with it. But a conference of the provincial Premiers is the only tribunal before which such a question could be placed to advantage, whatever their de-

cision might"be; and if perchance they could not come to an agreement by which the representation of the maritime provinces should remain in statu quo, or be placed in the position in which it was at the time of confederation, the Premiers of the maritime provinces and the ministers representing those provinces in this government should insist on some financial return in order to place our local governments in a better position to develop their own resources, and thus keep our population at home and bring more population which would enable us to maintain and increase our representation. I have always held the view that just because we have not been in a position to develop our resources as they should be developed, we have not been able to keep the population that has been going away from year to year, until according to the last census the province of New Brunswick shows an increase of only 20,000-increase solely due to the French population.
I regret to see that in the southern counties of New Brunswick the English speaking people have year after year since confederation been drifting towards the New England States, and all on account of that want of development of our agricultural resources which would have kept the children of New Brunswick on their native soil. I support the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley), because I feel the time has come for us to make a fresh start with greater vitality than has actuated us in the past; the time has come for better terms for the provinces and for improving the financial relations with the Dominion of the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. I have many a time advocated in this House greater transportation facilities for the maritime provinces, and I have advocated the construction of a tunnel between Prince Edward Island and the mainland so as to place the population of that fertile island on the same footing as the people of the rest of the Dominion, thus giving greater opportunities to the young men of Prince Edward Island to stay at home on their fertile soil which is capable of sustaining a population of 300,000, and which now, I regret to say, has a population of only
93,000.	I congratulate the Minister of Railways on promising to establish a car-ferry service between the mainland and the island, but I still believe that the construction of a tunnel, even though we should have to make large sacrifices, would be far more advantageous to the people of the island, and would not in the course of years be any greater burden on our resources. Though I am sure the Minister of Railways will keep his promise with regard to the car-ferry service, I hope to see the day when that tunnel will be constructed. Then again, the question of the representation of the maritime provinces in this parliament must be dealt with, and when we consider that these provinces are decreasing in influence decade after decade in this parliament, it is a matter which must be regretted by every member of this House. Then again, I believe that Newfoundland should he brought into the Canadian union. It may be that the leading statesmen of Newfoundland will not today entertain the idea of uniting with the people of Canada, but there was a time when the stand taken by Newfoundland towards the Dominion was very different, and there may grow up in time to come a feeling in that ancient colony for union with our confederacy. We must not forget that at confederation Newfoundland offered her vast natural resources in agriculture, in lumber, in minerals and in fisheries, to the Dominion, and that unfortunately this offer was not accepted on the terms proposed. Then again in 1895, when the government of Newfoundland came to Ottawa and again offered the resources of their colony to the Dominion, for the sake of a paltry half-million dollars they were permitted to go back without their offer being accepted, and again another fatal mistake was made, by us. Let us not forget that Canada can never become a great nation, unless there is included within the confederation the ancient colony of Newfoundland which occupies such a splendid strategic position at the entrance to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I trust this government will make every reasonable effort to induce Newfoundland to cast in her lot with us. Perhaps there is an opportunity now that we are inaugurating a naval service for asking Newfoundland to join with us. The Minister of the Naval Service has told us recently that the navy such as we have it to-day will remain, and that until he can confer with the admiralty during the vacation the vessels would be used in the fishery protection service. I trust that after the hon. gentleman does confer with the British authorities, he will return to Canada and be able to announce a naval policy in the interests of the Dominion and of the empire.
But I take advantage of this opportunity to say also that before the hon. gentleman goes to Great Britain, before he confers with the British Admiralty in order to effect a change in the navai system of the late government, which was adopted after a consultation with the British Admiralty and on their advice a year or two ago-although I have no objection to further consultation with and further advice from, the naval authorities in London-would it not be proper for him to listen to my suggestion this even-

ing? Then when he goes to London he will be able to say that he is acting after a conference with the representatives of Newfoundland, the representatives of that great British colony-perhaps the most British colony under the Union Jack where no doubt as to loyalty can be said to exist. For I am sure if he has to establish any naval service at all which would be valuable to Canada and to the empire on the Atlantic coast, the same would also be serviceable to the island of Newfoundland, and would save that colony the large amount of money which she has to pay for the protection of her coasts. The concurrence of Newfoundland would be a most valuable factor. There is no doubt that the union of Newfoundland with Canada is about to come. It is her ultimate destiny, and while the movement for confederation is not a popular one at present in that island, still I have faith that if Canada persists in the policy of conciliation towards Newfoundland that desirable result will yet be accomplished. It behoves Canada, however, to make the first step towards union. The occasion is opportune on the creation of a navy, or the creation of a system, the details of which are not known to us, but which must be made efficient in the interests of Canada and Newfoundland, as well as of the British Empire as a whole. At such a' time would it not be well to unite with Newfoundland and take advantage of the fine strategic position of that island lying as it does at the very gateway of the northern part of the continent. I have already said that I have always been a zealous admirer of the constitution. I heard with pleasure the leader of the government speak last night of the harmonious feeling which exists in the province of Nova Scotia, where there are no statutory separate school systems, but where every child in the province enjoys the system of education there on a footing of equality. Let me say that I commend this spirit of harmony which prevails in Nova Scotia, and which also prevails in the province of New Brunswick. In the latter province we at one time thought we enjoyed a separate school system which was statutory, so strong was our faith in the legality of that school system at that time. The leader of the government will admit that the harmony which may prevail in any one or two provinces in regard to school matters does not curtail a constitutional right with respect to schools possessed by any section of people in other provinces. Therefore, it is not merely on the fact that a spirit of harmony exists in the maritime provinces that we should build up our hopes for the future. It is well known that the fathers of eonfedera-Mr. TURGEON.
tion had intended to give the maritime provinces separate schools the same as in Ontario and Quebec, but we did not get them. The words ' by law ' having been introduced into the Act of Confederation, with respect to the school system, it was found that our schools, although they were advantageous did not give us the rights we thought we possessed. Those rights, it seems, were enjoyed by practice but not by law. The troubles of the past in New Brunswick in regard to the school question are well known. I have taken an active part in public life myself and participated in these troubles; and it is on that account, as I said a while ago, that I have learned to admire the constitution. We found ourselves by the decision of the Privy Council confirming the judgment of the supreme court of New Brunswick, in this position: We did not have separate schools by law, and the privileges we had been enjoying were only given to us by practice. If you consider the settlement which was made in regard to the province of Manitoba, you will see how very carefully that great statesman Sir John A. Macdonald acted at that time. By reason of his experience of the situation in New Brunswick he was careful in framing the constitution for Manitoba to insert into the constitution the words ' by law or by practice,' hoping therefore to avoid in the case of the minority in Manitoba the troubles which had arisen in the province of New Brunswick. Again contrary to the interpretation of the law it was once more found that in that western territory, including the province of Manitoba, there did not legally exist separate schools, and therefore it was left to the local legislature of the new province to enact whatever statute it might see fit in regard to education. But it is well known that a system of separate schools, which was agreeable to the majority as well as to the minority, was introduced by an Act of the legislature itself in 1871, and the educational grant was divided according to population, one half going to the Catholic minority and the other half to the Protestant majority. I have always heard the school question in the province of Manitoba spoken of as the trouble of 1896, but that trouble really developed in 1890, when the legislature passed an Act which annulled the preceding law, and therefore cancelled the enjoyment by the minority of the privileges which they had exercised up to that time with regard to the separate schools.
It was in 1890 that the trouble began. And in my opinion, and in the opinion of those who have been consistent in this line the government of Canada at that time should have refused the Royal assent to this measure of the Manitoba legisla-

ture and, instead of making that law operative, should have sent it back to the legislature of Manitoba. Then, had the province of Manitoba taken the thing up and gone from court to court, the Act of 1871 would have been in force and the separate schools would have remained. After five .or six years of agitation, the Remedial Bill was brought in. But the Bill was not in compliance with the order of the Privy Council. The appeal which was made and which ultimately reached the Privy Council was based on the ground that the Manitoba legislature had refused to provide money for the support of separate schools in that province. The judgment of the Supreme Court was to the effect that money should be provided for the schools of the minority according to the law of the province previous to 1890. That Act was not ultra vires, but it was defective in the sense that it did not give the money necessary for the separate schools, and without such moneys it was impossible to maintain those schools. In the province of New Brunswick during the period of agitation to which I have referred, while we were awaiting the decision of the Privy Council, the minority endeavoured to keep our schools notwithstanding. But after a few months, everybody saw that it would be impossible for the minority to keep their schools on an equality with the public schools which enjoyed grants of public money. And the same thing would have happened in the province of Manitoba. When I say that the Remedial Bill was not in compliance with the order of the Privy Council perhaps I may be allowed to read a few words of that judgment-page 127:
The schools before 1890 received their proportionate share of the money contributed for school purposes out of the general taxation of the province, and the money raised for these purposes by local assessments was, so far as it fell upon Catholics, applied only towards the support of Catholic schools.
What is the position of the Roman Catholic minority under the Act of 1890. Schools of their own denomination, conducted according to their views, will receive no aid from the State. They must depend entirely for their support upon the contribution of the Roman Catholic community, while the taxes out of which the States aid is granted to the schools provided for by 'the Statute fall alike on Catholic and Protestant. Moreover, while the Catholic inhabitants remain liable to local assessments for 'School purposes, the proceeds of that assessment are no longer destined to any extent for the support of Catholic schools, but afford the means of maintaining schools which they regard as
1 more suitable for the eduoation of Catholic children than if they were distinctly Protestant in their character.
This is the basis upon which the judgment of the Privy Council suggested that the government of Canada should provide a Remedial Bill. And what did this Bill provide as it was laid before the House? The first provision was to strike off the appropriation of money for the assistance of schools that the government offered to give the Catholic minority of Manitoba. This Remedial Bill was -opposed by the leader of the opposition ol that time, the hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who leads this opposition to-day. It has been said all over the country that the Remedial Bill should have been accepted by the chief of the opposition, and that in refusing to accept it he had failed to do his duty towards the Catholic people of Manitoba. A great agitation, of which I need not speak further, has been made against him in Quebec and elsewhere. Speaking as a member of the Catholic minority, and as one of the French people, though not of the province of Quebec, I say it was great statesmanship on the part of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to refuse the Bill that was offered. And my reason for saying so is that this Bill did not contain the means necessary for the support of the separate schools. I was a candidate in 1896, and explained my position to the Catholic minority in New Brunswick and to the French Acadians of the county from which I come. I took my stand chiefly upon the very fact that the schools offered by the Remedial Bill were not in a position to be maintained, and for that reason the Remedial Bill of 1896 was not worth the paper it was written on. We had had the experience years before in New Brunswick that schools could not be supported without a share of public money. If the Remedial Bill had been accepted, and if an attempt had been made to put- it into operation in Manitoba, it would have been a great misfortune for the Catholics in that province. For it would have been impossible to maintain their schools upon it, and word would have gone abroad that the Catholic people were not the kind of people to maintain their schools. Is it necessary for me to show the correctness of what I state? I do not believe it is necessary for me to weary the House with reading the provisions of the Bill. But let me say that the Hon. Mr. Dickey in presenting that measure in the House in 1896, declared that the portion which referred to the public money would be eliminated and that that matter would be left in the future, to the good-will of the province. And this notwithstanding the fact that it was on the ground that the province of Manitoba had refused to assist in any way, the schools of the minority

that the agitation, for a Remedial Bill had arisen. We know from speeches delivered in 1896 by members of the then government, between the dissolution of parliament and the elections in June, that they would not give a cent of the public money towards the support of these separate schools, that the supporters of such schools would have to keep them in an efficient state or they would be closed. Therefore, the more this question is considered by any Canadian, no matter from what province he may come, the more thankful he must feel towards Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the settlement which he brought about. It has been said on many occasions that when the history of Canada comes to be written, a black mark will be placed against the name of Laurier because he did not accept that Remedial Bill and thus deprived the Catholic minority in Manitoba of their rights and justice. I believe that when our (history is really written, when impartiality has succeeded to sentiment, it will be proven to the country at large, to Canada, and to the British Empire, that there has been no greater act of statesmanship in the history of Canada than the position taken on that question by Sir Wilfrid Laurier . In view of all these considerations, in view of the agitation which may occur in future, owing to grievances of any part of the population, even although those grievances may not be, and I hope will not be always religious, now while we are forming these new provinces, while we are allotting to them immense territories, with immense possibilities for the future, we should decidedly accept the amendment of my hon. friend from St. John_ (Mr. Pugsley) in order that time may be given for further consideration.
There is one other reason which I wish to give. In to-day's papers I see it stated that the addition of the district of Ungava to the province of Quebec, would not affect the unit of population for the future, that the population of Quebec as at present constituted, would be the pivot of our representation, _ but if correctly reported, Premier Gouin to-day or yesterday stated in the legislature of Quebec that the district of Ungava would be given in the future additional representatives beyond the 65 representatives of the province of Quebec, as it is to-day. I hope he has been misrepresented, but still while there are such rumours I feel that we would he only the more prudent and should insist on adopting the amendment of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) in order to give both the government and the members representing the maritime provinces, time to come to some understanding, bearing in mind the possibility of the entrance into the Confederation of Newfoundland, which after all, might be the best strength that could be given to the maritime provinces, Mr. TURGEON.
owing to the harmony of feeling between the people and the similarity in resources.


Mr. MOLLOY.: Coming as I do from the province of Manitoba and voting as I do against this Bill I think it only fair to my -constituents and to this House that I should explain the reason for my course. This question last came before the House in the closing session of the last parliament on an amendment to the motion for Supply moved by the then member for Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart). As that was a vote of want of confidence in the government, I voted against the amendment of the then member for Winnipeg and for doing so I received a certain amount of abuse,
I was called a traitor to the province of Manitoba. I was not a traitor to the province of Manitoba. I love Manitoba better than any other province in the confederacy of Canada. I was not born in that province but I was taken there many years ago and my length of residence in Manitoba is greater than that of any other member of this House coming from that province, and anything I may be able to do to assist towards the advancement of Manitoba I would very gladly do.
The boundary question first came into prominence in Manitoba politics in 1905. In that year there was a by-election in the constituency of Mountain owing to the resignation of Mr. Greenway who had been elected to the House of Commons. In that by-election the Conservative candidate was elected by means which could not be defended by everybody. The boundary was made the main issue by the Roblin government. To show its effect in the constituency of Mountain I may say that the gentleman who was elected at the by-election in 1905, against the same Liberal candidate who opposed him in the general election of 1907 the Liberal candidate received the largest majority of any man elected to the legislature in that year. It was again the issue in 1907. I was a candidate in the election of 1907. The Premier of Manitoba said it was a paramount issue. He made many speeches including one notable speech at Carman, on the day of his nomination. He said it was the only issue. With that those of us who were opposed to the Roblin government at that time did not agree.
It was fought out largely on that issue. Mr. Roblin told the people of Manitoba that he would stand by his claim on behalf of his government and that he would not accept anything short of it. He told the people of Manitoba that if any other man than my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had been at the head of affairs in this country Manitoba would have been justly dealt with. I did not believe that then and I do not believe it now. I have felt con-

vinced, ever since this session opened, that two things would happen; in the first place, that Manitoba would not receive such fair treatment from this government as it would have received from the government of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and second, that the minority in the province of Manitoba would, to use an expression, get tomahawked at the hands of this government. There were some things that were upheld and advocated by Mr. Roblin in the province of Manitoba during the election of 1907. I say that he misled the people of Manitoba with regard to this settlement that he has made. Among other things Mr. Roblin, speaking of the boundary and speaking of the treatment which he was receiving from the then government, said:
I stated at the conference, and I repeat here tonight, that neither Ontario on the one hand nor Saskatchewan on the other have any right either by law or in equity to adjudicate or arbitrate as to what portion of the territory to the north and east Manitoba should have. I say in law, and in making this statement I understand that at once a constitutional question is raised, and I am prepared if Sir Wilfrid Laurier dares undertake to take from us that portion of Kee-watin lying north of Albany river, and which was included in the Act of 1881, and which has not yet been repealed-I say, if Sir Wil-fried Laurier undertakes to deal with that I shall resist it with all the power and all the influence that a united people with a just cause can exercise and command.
A very lofty sentiment.
I will go to the foot of the Throne where justice is always secured and there I believe- I know-that we will get what is ours; we will get what Sir Wilfrid has invited Ontario to claim and which she is ashamed of herself, and thus get at least a portion of the territory he would propose to give to another province.
As a matter of fact, he has not received that territory, and he has not only not received that territory, but he had accepted a great deal less. He has accepted less than that which was offered by the members of the former government in 1908. Speaking at the same meeting he said further on:
We are asking for a territory that Ontario never asked for; no public man in Ontario ever thought of asking for it, because constitutionally they had barred their claim to this particular territory. Sir Wilfrid, however, cunning and designing in his methods of operation to thwart the will of Manitoba invited this province which has no right or interest there to make a claim and they have done so (applause). Now, you say, why cannot you succeed as Sir Oliver Mowat has done? We can and will, if the people of Manitoba stand behind me.
Well, the people of Manitoba supported the Roblin government in 1907, there were
thirteen oppositionists elected. In the general election of 1911, there were thirteen oppositionists elected; so that the people of Manitoba evidently were behind the Premier of that province, and still he has accepted much less than he told the people he would accept. He also said on that same day, speaking with reference to the claims that the province of Saskatchewan was making:
Why do I mention Saskatchewan? I will give you a reason. It is one that will carry conviction to the hearts and consciences of every true Manitoban in this province. WheD we met in conference at Ottawa as I have said, after I had stated my case and after Mr. Whitney had made his pretensions of a claim, knowing he had nothing he could make any argument on, because there was no argument to be made.
That is what Mr. Roblin said in 1907. However, times have changed. The then Minister of Public Works in the Manitoba government is now in Ottawa, and' a member of the present government. He is a strong and influential man-there is no question about that- but he sits beside a man who is also strong and influential, a member of the same Cabinet, and that gentleman is from the province of Ontario. After all the trouble they raised about the boundaries as laid down by the Laurier government in 1908, the hon. Minister off Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) a member of the government of Ontario, made a claim on behalf of that province, and in order to satisfy the wishes of Ontario it was considered necessary by the government to accede to the demands of that hon. gentleman. What is the situation to-day? Here is the old province of Manitoba, here is a portion of the added territory, the northerly portion of which is divided by the Churchill river, and in comes the province of Ontario in the form of a strip five miles wide running from one side of the province of Manitoba to the Nelson river. I wonder what the Premier of Ontario would have said if the government of Manitoba, whether Liberal or Conservative, with the endorsation and assistance of the government of Canada that was in power prior to the 21st of September, had asked the government of Ontario to concede a strip of territory five miles in width Tunning easterly from the Manitoba boundary through the province of Ontario. I wonder what Mr. Whitney would have said, and when Mr. Whitney says * no ' he is given credit for meaning just exactly what he says. But our representatives in the Cabinet, and there are two from Manitoba, have consented to a bargain which is nothing but a jumble on the very face of it. Not only have they given Ontario a roadbed through the province of Manitoba for no reason whatso-

ever, but along with that they have given Ontario some other things as well. In the Ontario legislature the other day members of the opposition found fault with the little that Ontario had received from the bargain that is about to be made. Mr. Hearst in reply said regarding the. strip of territory that is given to Ontario from the Manitoba boundary to the Nelson river:
The Minister of Lands, Forests and Mines, proceeded to point out the advantages Ontario would receive under this arrangement to secure access to Port Nelson. The five-mile strip of the river gave a ten-mile frontage on the south shore and the best shore.
Ten of the best miles on the river will be Ontario's said Mr. Hearst. ' Ten miles frontage on that harbour means that Ontario will own the townsite there if ever it becomes a real harbour.
That statement was received with applause, and no wonder. What I particularly want to point out is that the government of the province of Manitoba would not accept any settlement offered by the Laurier government for the simple reason that it would not pay them politically to do so. They made a football of the Manitoba boundary during the Manitoba campaign on two occasions. They find now that they are about at the end of their tether, and they are willing to act in defiance of the speech made by the now Secretary of State, (Mr. Roche), in 1908, and sitting in the gallery at that time before I had become a membei of this House, I heard that hon. gentleman claim just as Mr. Roblin had done, that under the decision of the Privy Council in 1884, Manitoba was entitled to every foot of that territory known as Keewatin north of the Albany river.
Now, they come back and after all, they accept less from this government than they were, willing to accept from the Laurier government on any consideration. Of course, they had no intention of accepting any terms offered by the Liberal government, because they thought it was good policy-and I regret to say that the result shows it was-t" hamper the Liberal government in every way and to prevent a settlement so far as they could. However, these things all come to an end, and the Roblin government cannot- work that game much longer. What the Roblin government will do for a policy, now that they are going to get rid of the boundary question, I really do not know.	I am
sure they will not appeal to the country on their telephone policy, or on their Manitoba elevator policy, or on the Manitoba land deals on the part of the Roblin government, or on their administration of justice in Manitoba. Well, perhaps they may go^ to the people on their God-fearing and saintly record as a government for the last twelve or thirteen years. As to the Mr. MOLLOY.
financial terms offered to Manitoba by this Bill, I contend that the province will not be as w'ell off, when the swamp lands are given back to the Dominion, as it was before. The province of Manitoba receives under this legislation, an increase on debt account amounting to $202,637 a year; on land account amounting to $313,270; and the interest on the bulk sum given to the province will amount to $119,013. Along with the boundaries offered by the Laurier government, they were offered by that government a yearly grant of $200,000, and the items I have mentioned above under this present proposal, amount to about $634,000 a year. The $200,000 which would have gone with the boundaries, (plus the strip that Ontario has received), would amount in toto to about $434,000 a year more in cash than was offered by the Liberal government. Now, the statement made by the Hon. Hugh Armstrong, Provincial Treasurer, in Winnipeg last year, will give an idea of what the government of Manitoba valued the swamp lands at. The statement of Mr. Armstrong was made on the 22nd of February, 1910, and is reported in the Winnipeg ' Telegram,' of the 23rd of February, 1910. Accounting for the assets of the province, he made this statement:
Provincial lands, 1,425,712 acres; valued at $3 an acre, and amounting to $4,277,136; swanp lands to be turned over by Dominion government 4,000,000 acres.
It has since been estimated to be more, but we will accept the statement of Mr. Armstrong. At $3 per acre, that would amount to $12,000,000 and plus the one million odd acres sold, it would mean a cash value of $16,000,000 which capitalized at 5 per cent., would amount to $800,000	a year.	Tbait would be the
condition if they had retained control of the swamp lands. Now, as against that, they receive a cash subsidy of $434,000 a year better than the Laurier government offered. But they give back to the Dominion the swamp lands of the province, which would mean, if capitalized at 5 per cent, $800,000 a year. But, the argument is made that Manitoba will get back the swamp lands. Well, perhaps she will and perhaps she will not. The people of Manitoba have no guarantee that the swamp lands will ever be returned and those who believe that they will not have just as much right for their belief as those who believe to the contrary. My own opinion is that the swamp lands will probably be retained by the Dominion and be administered by the Department of the Interior. Therefore, I say that the financial arrangements as proposed in this Bill are not in the interests of Manitoba. If the swamp lands had remained in the province of course the other terms offered here would be very much to her advant-

age. It was 'but a short time ago that gentlemen opposite were advocating: ' what we have we'll hold.' Let me ask why did not the province of Manitoba retain her swamp lands when she had them? It is my belief that it would be far easier to retain possession of these lands than to ever get them back again. There were over 8,000,000 acres of swamp lands, and at a valuation of $4 an acre they would amount to $32,000,000. According to the statement of the Provincial Treasurer of Manitoba, the lands which were sold were sold at an average price of $5.48 per acre, amounting in all, for the year to $515,298. Last year the statement of the sale of lands alone, outside of subsidies received from other quarters, is as follows:
First payment on land sold.. $ 43,383
Deferred payments	 289,728
Timber dues, &c	 16,167
Interest on deferred payments. 166,319
In eight years the province of Manitoba had received from the interest on deferred payments alone, $923,692 and a great part of these were swamp lands. The most damaging feature in connection with the swamp lands is this:	the swamp lands
will now become the property of the Dominion, and as a consequence the drainage will not be done which otherwise would. I call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the fact that on the fourth of March, 1910, he moved a resolution to the effect that in the opinion of the government of Manitoba it was in the interest of the province that the Dominion should at once turn over to the province the swamp lands so that they could be made into drainage districts. In that way the lands would be drained and they would find more ready sale, and the lands of the settlers adjoining would receive the benefit from the drainage which would have been done. I think that was a very sensible wray to go about it, because when the lands were turned over to the province then not only the swamp lands themselves but the other provincial lands and the lands of the settlers would come under one drainage district and everybody would be benefited. In support of the policy then advocated by the provincial government with respect to swamp lands, I quote no less an authority than the Winnipeg 'Telegram' which 'is the official organ of the Roblin government in Manitoba. On April 5, 1911, the Winnipeg
Telegram ' said in a plainly inspired article:
Under the settlement of the boundary question proposed by Mr. Oliver, 8,000,900 acres of swamp land would likely be transferred to the province. The importance of this assurance contained in Mr. Oliver's communication can hardly be overestimated for it presents the
Dominion government's proposal in an altogether different light. The recent communication from the Dominion government, setting forth the terms under which it would agree to the enlargement of Manitoba's boundaries made no reference to this immense acreage of swamp land which it is proposed to donate to Manitoba, and, the concession of 8,000,000 acres of swamp land is infinitely more important than the cash compensation offered for the surrender of the public domain in the added territory.	,
It was of infinitely more value than the cash offer of $434,000 better than was offered by the previous government. I may say that the swamp lands were estimated by the late Mr. Young to be 8,232,831 acres at $3 an acre, which, capitalized at 5 per cent, would give an income of $1,234,964. I admit that it would naturally cost the government of Manitoba something to drain that land, and something to put it on the market, but little compared with the value received for it.
We have been told time and again that with the advent to power of the Conservative government the prairie provinces would be given their natural resources. Hon. gentlemen opposite say, we have not had time. There is reason and justice in that statement; but I believe that many moons will pass before the natural resources of the prairie provinces are handed over to them by this government, if it is ever done.
Another question which I want to deal with is the school question, or the rights of the minority of the province of Manitoba and in the territory which is to be added to the province of Manitoba. I listened with great attention to the statements made by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk), who is known as a lawyer of high standing in this country, in which statement he tried to justify the action of this government in ignoring those rights. I believe, and I do not care how many authorities are brought forward, that the minority in the province of Manitoba are and have been suffering from a grievance for the last twenty years, and they are determined, and justly so, if it lies in their power, that this shall come to an end. I cast my first vote on the 15th of January, 1896, though I was a Liberal then, as I am a Liberal now, and I voted for the present Conservative member for the county' of Emmerson. My second vote I cast on the 23rd of June, 1896, and I cast it for the gentleman who is now Senator Lariviere from the province of Manitoba. I have been consistent on this question, and I propose to stand out for the rights of those who are suffering from a grievance, and at some time this government or some other government will have to reckon with those people and with their co-religionists throughout this entire coun-

try. I say they have been unfairly treated for political reasons and political reasons only. Just as the Eoblin government made a football of the boundary question for political reasons, so the Liberal government of Manitoba in 1890 made a football of the school question for their own political purposes.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Will the hon. gentleman move an amendment to force the province of Manitoba to recognize the rights of the minority of which he is speaking?


John Patrick Molloy: Will the hon. gentleman vote for it if I move it?


William Sora Middlebro: I have voted already for the Bill as it stands.


John Patrick Molloy: I say I have been consistent on this question. It originated as a result of the Act of 1890 abolishing separate schools in the province of Manitoba which the Liberal government then in power in that province put in force because they believed that the majority of the people in the province, being other than Roman Catholic, would support them, and they did so. Then one Tupper government, at the very last moment, tried to pass the remedial order, thinking that the people of this country would support them, but they refused to do so. As far as I am concerned, I have voted for the Conservative party on this question because I believed they were right, and I will vote for them again if they give relief to the Roman Catholic minority in the province of Manitoba, and particularly in the territory where they are entitled to that relief.
The statement of the Minister of Public Works rather nonplussed me for the time being, when he said that the district of Keewatin did not come under the Act of 1875. I believe that it does come under that Act, for the following reasons:
The district of Keewatin was created as a separate entity by Chap. 21 of the Statutes of Canada, 1876, and by section 9, thereof it was provided that:
All laws in force in the said district as part of the Northwest Territories, at the time of the coming into force of this Act, and not hereby repealed, shall, so far as they are consistent with the ' The British North America Act, 1867/ with the terms and conditions of the admission of Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories into the Union, approved of by the Queen, under the one hundred and forty-sixth section thereof, and with any Aot of the parliament of Canada relating to the Northwest Territories then in force, and with this Act, remain in force in the said district nnfil repealed or altered by the parliament of Canada, or by the Governor in Council, or the Lieutenant Governor and his Council, under this Act, as shall also any Mr. MOLLOY.
order of the Governor in Council made under any Act mentioned in the second seotion of this Act, until repealed, or altered, as it may be, under this Act.
It was also provided that the Governor in Council at any time by a proclamation, should have the right to re-annex the same to the Northwest Territories and when so done, this particular territory should be subject to the same government and laws as that part of the territories to which it was to be re-annexed. This is provided for in the latter portion of section 1, which is as follows:
Provided always that the Governor in Council may, by proclamation published in the ' Canada Gazette/ at any time when it may appear to the public advantage so to do, detach any portion of the said district from the same, and re-annex it to that part of the Northwest Territories not included in the said district; and the portion so detached shall then be subject to the same government and laws as that part of the said territories to which it is re-annexed.
Therefore, at this date clearly the provisions of section 10 of the Educational Act of 1875 were applicable to Keewatin as well as to any or all the other portions of the Northwest Territories. Things remained in this condition until the creation of the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, when a new Act was passed regarding the Northwest Territories, known as chapter 27 of the Statutes of 1905, which, while assented to on the 20th of July, 1905 by section 15 of the Act. did not come into force until the last day of September, 1905, and by section 3 of this Act, the Northwest Territories were defined as follows:
The Northwest Territories shall hereafter comprise the territories formerly known as Rupert's Land and the Northwestern Territory, except such portions thereof as form the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the district of Keewatin and the Yukon Territory, together with all British territories and possessions in North America and all islands adjacent to any such territories or .possessions except the colony of Newfoundland and its dependencies.
It will be seen that Keewatin was not included as a portion of the Northwest Territories, but for the time being remained a separate district, but by an order in council passed on the 24th day of July, 1905 under the provisions of section 1 of the statutes of 1876, hereinbefore quoted, it was re-annexed to and became a portion of the Northwest Territories, to take effect on, from and after the first day of September, 1905, which order in council is as follows :-	'
By proclamation dated 24th July, 1905, under the provisions of the Act, chapter fifty-three of the Revised Statutes of Canada, commonly known as the Keewatin Act, the

whole district of Keewaitin was annexed to that part of the Northwest Territories not included in the said district, on, from and after the first day of September in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fire.
It will therefore be seen that on the 1st day of September, Keewatin became a portion of the Northwest Territories.


Mr. AIKINS.: Under the Keewatin statute, I think it was of 1876, provision was made that a portion of Keewatin might be detached and added to the territories. What portion of Keewatin was detached and added to the territories by the proclamation?


John Patrick Molloy: The whole of it came back.


James Albert Manning Aikins: The whole of it was attached to the Northwest Territories? Under what authority was the whole of it detached?


John Patrick Molloy: I cannot follow the hon. gentleman. It will therefore be seen that under the provisions of the Act of 1876, by a provision which in no way is contrary to the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act of 1905, because both the Act and the order in council were to take effect on the same dates, this condition of affairs was recognized and ratified when the statutes were revised in 1906, as will he found by chapter 62, section 2, subsection (a), which is as follows:-
' Territories' means the Northwest Territories which comprise the territories formerly known as Rupert's land and the Northwestern Territory, except 9uch portions thereof as form the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Yukon Territory, together with all British territories 'and possessions in North America and all islands adjacent thereto, not included within any province, except the colony of Newfoundland and its dependencies.
Therefore, [DOT] without any question, whatever rights were granted the minority by section 10 of the Act of 1875 went to Kee-v atin when it was separated from the rest of the territories in 1876, and remained an inherent right of the people down to the first day of September, 1905, when it was again re-annexed and became a portion of the Northwest Territories, and all of these rights whatever they may be, must necessarily exist at present.
That is to say the district of Keewatin comes under the Act of 1875 and section 10 of that Act guarantees to the minority, Protestants or Roman Catholics, the right to establish separate schools, and only to he taxed for the maintenance of such schools whether they be Catholic or Protestant. It is only fair and just that it should be so. With the constitutional aspect of the question, I am not going to
deal, because I am not a lawyer, but I know the stand of the Roman Catholics in the province of Manitoba on the question, particularly in the city of Winnipeg, and it is their purpose and intention as representing the entire Catholic population, to lay before this government shortly their claims to right and justice in this matter, and I think it would be just as well for the government, knowing, as they must know that intention, to show a little less haste in trying to put this Bill through parliament. I might also say that I have here the Northwest ' Review,' which is the organ of the English speaking Catholics of Manitoba, and in its last issue on March 2, speaking of this question, it goes on to say as follows:
We will not now discuss the constitutional powers of the province of Manitoba in educational matters, but what we do know is that the new territory which is to be added to the province of Manitoba has constitutional rights which neither the government at Ottawa nor that of Manitoba can ignore with impunity. To leave the settlement of our school troubles to the province of Manitoba is sheer nonsense.
The hon. Postmaster General lays considerable stress upon the fact that they will address Mr. Roblin in this matter. But the Catholics of Manitoba have made up their minds that they expect relief, and they do not expect to get that relief from any other source than from this government, they certainly do not expect it from the government of Manitoba:
The treatment that has been meted ouit to us in the last 22 years at the hands of this or that political party in Manitoba is guarantee enough that the future holds very little for us. When one party is willing to enact legislation to restore our Catholic schools, invariably the other party refuses to fall in line, and the efforts and good will of the first are thereby paralysed.
I say it is in the interest of peace and harmony in this country that this question should be settled, as was the opinion of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in the great speech he delivered in this House in March, 1896, when, in closing, he said:
Let us do justice to a weak and patient minority.
As pointed out by the paper from which I have quoted, which represents English speaking Catholics in the west, this question has been a matter of agitation for 22 years, and it is about time in the opinion of the Catholics of Manitoba that they should get relief from some quarter. There is another feature which should be explained and it is this:	The Catholics
of the northwest have been led to believe that they would obtain relief from the

federal government in Ottawa whenever a change of government took place. Ninety per cent of the Roman Catholics in that province, and I think I am well within the mark in making that statement, have on this ground voted in support of the Conservative party.


An hon. MEMBER.: Whom do you represent?


John Patrick Molloy: I represent the other ten per cent. The Conservative party in Manitoba in the provincial, as well as in the federal elections, have received the almost undivided support of the Roman Catholic electorate. There are gentlemen who sat in the last parliament, as well as in the previous one, who would not have had the honour of sitting here had it not been for the vote of the Roman Catholic electors. In order to establish that a large percentage of the Roman Catholic electors have been voting for the Conservative party in the interest of separate schools I will quote from ' Les Cloches de St. Boniface,' the official organ of His -Grace Archbishop Langevin. The statement in question appears in the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' of September 4, 1911, and reproduces the views of ' Les Cloches.' Let me say before reading the quotation that the Roblin government have succeeded during the last eight or ten years in attracting to itself the undivided support not only of the Roman Catholic electorate but of that particular body known as the Loyal Orange Society, and in that way have continued to hold power.


FROM ST. BONIFACE SOUNDS THE TOCSIN.
[Stage Direction]
Every Catholic of French Tongue hound to support Conservative Candidate.
The current issue of ' Les Cloches de St. Boniface ' which bears on every issue the arOhiepiscopal coat of arms and the announcement that it is the official organ of the archdiocese, has the following in the current issue under the heading: " The Election in the County of Provencher ":-
Mr.  J. A. F.@: Bleau, mayor of the city of St. Boniface, seeks the votes of the electors of the county of Provencher in the federal election of September 21. We do not hesitate to declare that every Catholio of French tongue, anxious for our school rights, is in honour hound to support his candidate.
Commenting upon the result of the general election of October 26, 1908, ' Les Cloches ' made the following remarks, and they have lost nothing of their aptness and their justice:-
' The result of this election has been a majority of about 50 for the Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
' The county of Provencher has elected a Liberal and an Irish Catholic.
' The French-Canadians who did not vote for the Hon. Mr. La riviere have forgotten the Mr. MOLLOY.
pact made upon the organization of the electoral divisions here which assured to the French-Canadians the election of one of their own race. They have forgotten, also, that it was the Liberal government which in 1890 abolished the official use of the French language. Catholics who voted for Mr. Lari-viere forgot that it was the Liberal Greenway government which took from us our schools in 1890, that it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier, head of the Liberal party at Ottawa, who opposed, in 1896, the Remedial Bill, establishing the principles of separate schools and presented to the House by the Grand Orange Master, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, that it was the same Sir Wilfrid Laurier who in 1905 did not have the courage to concede all our school-rights, especially the right of the confessional school, guaranteed by the constitution, in Saskatchewan and Alberta, that the so-called final Laurier-Greenway settlement of 1896 gives us none of out former school-rights from the Catholio standpoint, although it gives us a portion of our rights to the French language, placing us, however-us, the first occupants of this country-on the same footing as all other settlers speaking a language other than English. These are incontestable facts, whicli one may try to weaken or explain, but which remain absolutely true and which many know without appearing to be at all disturbed.
' There is no doubt that in the present contest the county of Provencher will he able to recover itself and to regain the position lost in 1908. This county belongs by right to the French-Canadians and to the French Metis, who form the majority and who must inwardly desire to he represented by one of their own race and not by a man who is a stranger to their nationality, and to their language. May the regard for superior interests and for patriotism win the day over the blind party spirit, and may all the French-speaking electors in the county of Provencher contribute by their votes to assure themselves a Catholic and French-Speaking member.'
I am sure that will satisfy anybody as to the direction in which it was thought advisable that the Catholic vote should go in the province of Manitoba, and especially in the constituency of Provencher. Now, we shall see whether they will receive more from the gentlemen who are in power here, and from those who have been kept in power in Manitoba for the last ten or twelve years by this same vote. This is not a political question-or should not be. I am going to support the man and the measure which will give to the minority in Manitoba that to which they are entitled-and they are asking nothing .more-as guaranteed them by the constitution. And if it has come to this, that a religious body, in order to receive justice, must be in the majority, there is something wrong with the existing state of things. In Manitoba the separate schools were taken away,-and let them say of those schools what they will; there was no need to abolish the separate school system in Manitoba; if that system was not

right, it could be reformed. And I say I will give my support only to that man and that measure, which will restore to the Catholics of Manitoba and the territory to be annexed to Manitoba, the rights which they formerly enjoyed. And beyond any question of doubt, the Catholics have a greater right to separate schools in this added territory even than in the old province of Manitoba. I hope the government will see their way clear to secure for these people the rights to which they are entitled as clearly as the Catholics of Ontario are entitled to the rights which nobody would deny them, as are -also the Protestants of Quebec. I remember hearing the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) state in his first speech this session, that it was no disgrace to a man to have gone down with the good cause in 1896. If it was a good cause in 1896, it is a better cause to-day. On behalf of the Catholics of Manitoba being the only Catholic in parliament, from that province, I claim for them these rights to which they are entitled. And the day will come when their rights will be given to them, whether the government of that day be Conservative or Liberal. And we will thank nobody for it, because we are asking only for that to which we are entitled.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is neither my purpose nor my desire to take up the time of the House at great length. But this Bill is of such far reaching consequence, that I think it my duty as representing a constituency of eastern Canada to offer some observations with respect to it. While -the title of the Bill is: ' An Act to provide for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba,' the Bill is not confined either in its provisions or in its consequences, to one particular province. It is so far-reaching that it certainly affects every province in eastern Canada.
Shortly after Confederation, in 1868, as a land speculation if you will, the Dominion purchased what were known as the Hudson bay lands, a venture which was conceived to be in the interests of the provinces. It is now conceded on all hands that it was a wise speculation, not only in the interests -of the original provinces, but in the interests of the great country that was purchased by the Canadian Confederation. And from_ that day down to the present, every province of the Dominion has been interested in our western heritage, as it has been called.
Every province in the Dominion has looked to that western country with pride, with a feeling of proprietary right, and not merely with respect to the good which was to come to the eastern provinces, but with respect to the good which was to come to the country carved out as our Northwest Territories. The original
partners were Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario and when British Columbia and Prince Edward Island came into the partnership they entered having equal rights with the original provinces, and were entitled to share with the original provinces all the benefits that might accrue, and they assumed their proportion of the responsibilities, which were placed upon the Confederation by the act of absorption of these western territories. It is not merely the question of the investment of the original purchase money, not merely the dollars and cents involved in the securing of the western country but from the moment of the purchase down to the present each of the eastern provinces has given of its best to the upbuilding of our great western territory, to the creation of a great west that would invite the millions from all lands. To the upbuilding of the western country the eastern provinces have contributed of their brain and their brawn, year after year we have poured into the west our young men, our. very best, with a view not merely of upbuilding that country but of advancing the individual interests of those who thought it desirable to make their homes in the western land. In the face of great difficulties we have built up a confederacy which has attracted to us the eyes of Europe, the eyes of Great Britain, the eyes of the people to the south of us. Chief among the difficulties that presented themselves to those who were charged with the duty of- creating the federation was the question of finances. Had not some assurance been given particularly to the peoplfc of (the Maritime provinces that financial arrangements would be made sufficient to guarantee them from any direct taxation in order to carry on the government of their respective provinces, there would have been no confederacy. When Sir John Macdonald, the Hon. Geo. Brown and their associates went to Charlottown, at a time when the delegates of the several maritime provinces were meeting to consider the question of a maritime union and presented their proposition with respect to a larger and wider confederation, one of the very first questions asked of them by the men of the maritime provinces was: Upon what terms can such an arrangement be entered into with respect to the financial future of our provinces. At that time each province had entire control of its excise and customs duties and of all revenues, and they wished to know how they could receive compensation for surrendering these revenues and how they could carry on the affairs of their local administration. The second question was with respect to the binding of these provinces together. The provinces were then aliens and strangers to each other.



not settled right, and it is not settled for the further reason that it leaves all these matters open to future adjustment. Instead of calling this ' An Act to provide for the extension of the boundaries of Manitoba.' I would call it ' An Act to create entanglements and embarrassments as respects our western heritage and to make confusion for all time to come in the matter of provincial subsidies.' That, in my judgment, is the proper appellation for the Bill now before the committee. It is calculated to create entanglement and embarrassment as respects our western country. You tentatively have arranged boundaries for Manitoba and you have carved out of if an area for Ontario, thus placing across the territory of Manitoba a bar sinister, and affording a pathway which is calculated to create disturbance, to cause confusion and to engender irritation between those two great provinces. You have (provided in your Bill conditions for the creation of jealousies among the other provinces of the Dominion.
In the public prints of to-day we observe that the province of Saskatchewan has put in its claims. This is a question which, like Banquo's ghost, will never down, which will always be before the Canadian people. This government may not live very long to grapple with it; but succeeding governments will be confronted with the same difficulties. This matter is not settled, and cannot be settled, until it is grappled with, with a courage that has not been evinced by this government. With respect to [DOT] the provincial subsidies, the original basis has been departed from, from time to time. In f906, I think it was, the right hon. leader of the opposition, then the leader of the government of Canada, invited the representatives of the several provinces to take into consideration the question of subsidies. We know the history of that conference, and we realize the position that was taken by the Premier of British Columbia. That gentleman refused to be reconciled, refused even to consider the judgment of his colleagues in the conference, and went away; and that question has been in British Columbia, from that time down to the present, and I doubt not will be for years to come, a disturbing element, a matter upon which provincial elections will be run, and which may become an issue in any Dominion election that may be contested in that province, either a general or a by-election. To the detriment of other great questions, it will cause injury not only 'to the province, but to the Dominion at large. If our human ideals were attained, we would, have great issues settled by the people of the several provinces upon their merits; but when you leave as matters of contention, issues that are local, you have those Mr. KMMERSON.
issues engrossing the minds of the electors to the exclusion of greater issues that affect the Dominion at large. Therefore, I say that in this regard this Bill will not only create confusion, but is a menace to the future of this Dominion, a menace to the good government of Canada, a menace to the parliament of Canada in its consideration of the great iquestions entrusted to it for solution. From that standpoint I condemn this Bill, and I say that it does not meet the difficulties, that it does not attempt to grapple with and solve the difficulties, that it is imperfect, incomplete, and as such deserves the condemnation, not only of this House, but of the people of Canada at large. Who wants simply to half settle a matter? There must be in the mind of every man here, I care not what his political faith may be, a desire to see all these difficulties, as between the federal government and the provincial governments respectively, settled and determined, so that they can be brushed from our pathway, and we can follow along the road of national government in the interest of the whole people, and without regard to any merely sectional prejudice or passion.
Another thing. This question, however settled, affects the future representation in this House of Commons, and as such dbes an injury to eastern Canada. As such it affects the little province of Prince Edward Island very materially. That province has contributed to the upbuilding of the western country, with its brain and its brawn, with young men and young women going from its shores every season. That little province is being depleted-shall I say impoverished? No, because it is so rich and fertile that it is almost impossible to impoverish the ' Garden of the Gulf.' But it is being injured, and1 its representation in this House is decreasing year by year until we can in vision see that it has reached almost the vanishing point. If we go on in the same ratio, the time will come when the constituency of Prince Edward Island will be joined to that of Westmorland, and we shall have an electoral district composed of the county of Westmorland in New Brunswick, with Prince diward Island thrown in and sending one member to this House. The next distribution, I understand, will give Prince Edward Island three members, while it has four senators in the Senate of Canada. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), spoke, I am sure with sincerity, and with a desire to accomplish the very best possible for the province which he so ably represents in this government. But my hon. friend has been too long in politics to be in any way caught by fair promises, and I an! that he must realize that now is the time to have this whole problemTsolved. When

we are discussing the financial arrangements with Manitoba, when we are taking into consideration the enlargement of Ontario, when we are contemplating a solution of the difficulties in the prairie provinces, and when we have in mind the coming to Ottawa of the Premier of British Columbia with his claims, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries must realize, if he realizes anything that now is the time to strike, while the iron is hot, that now is the time to demand for his province, and the other provinces by the sea, the consideration which they should have.
My hon. friend said that the case of Manitoba was urgent. What greater urgency could there be than in the case of the province of New Brunswick, or than in the case of the province of Nova Scotia? There it is assuredly a question of urgency, it is a question which I might almost say is essential to the future of these provinces by the sea. The Minister of Marine is aware that to-day the province of New Brunswick is awaking [DOT]With respect to its future, that its people are alive to the' conditions that confront them, that their environments have created an unrest that is in evidence today in that province. I have in my hand a badge to be worn by delegates from the whole of the province of New Brunswick to a convention that to-morrow is to be held in the city of Fredericton, a convention to take into consideration the conditions -which prevail in that province with respect to the depletion of its population.


John Douglas Hazen: That is a very free translation of the objects of the convention.


Henry Robert Emmerson: A true translation of the objects.


John Douglas Hazen: No, a free one.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will not go at length into the matter of the decline of the population of our province. There has 'been a trek of our young men, from the maritime provinces to the country to the bouth and also to the western provinces of Canada, and no more important convention could be held than the one I have referred to.' I trust that the convention will toe confronted with the questions which really appertain to the present condition. It is all very well to invite men to come to New Brunswick and to occupy the farms that are vacant. Why are they Vacant, may I ask? It is a question which that convention must necessarily answer. And one that every man in the province of New Brunswick must answer. Why are our young men leaving, some to dwell under a foreign flag and others going to the great west to help in 1474
the building up of our western territory? Let my hon. friends stop and think on this point. Hon. gentlemen opposite have made a plea for the suppression of all partisanship in connection with this matter. I associate myself with them in that wish. I would have hoped that this matter could have been dealt with not as one of party exigencies and party expediency, hut I feel that it is and the evidence to 'support that opinion has fallen from the lips of the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior and other gentlemen who have spoken in support of this Bill. Evidently this Bill is * onceded to have been conceived as a tentative measure, to catch for a moment the ear of the people of Manitoba, because of political exigencies and expediencies. This is not a courageous, a complete and comprehensive solution of the difficulties which exist, and for years have existed between the federal authorities and the provincial authorities in their respective 'provinces. These difficulties have not come to a head, as the saying is in some of the provinces. It so happens that in British Columbia and in Manitoba for the past ten or more years there have been in charge of the governments of those provinces, administrations that were not in harmony with the federal administration at Ottawa, and it was in their interest to have a bone of contention and to have a grievance. There are some men whom we meet in the world who always have a grievance, and the last thing they wish in the world is to be free from that grievance. There are some governments with a love of grievances, which could not subsist without having one; and the governments of Manitoba and British Columbia lie under the suspicion at least that they have been thriving on the grievances which they themselves have created. The convention badge which I had in my hand a few- minutes ago-and I am sorry that I shall not be able to attend at that convention-bears the motto ' Delegate to Convention to boost New Brunswick.' Well, although I cannot attend that convention I am here to-night to boost New Brunswick with respect to the difficulties finder which that province labours, and under which it will labour to even a greater extent by the provisions of this Bill if it becomes law. Under the terms of the amendment of the hon. member for St. John there is a provision whereby the matter of the adjustment of the financial terms shall be subject to a conference to be held among the representatives of the several provinces of this Dominion. And who have a better right to be consulted than these provinces? I do not say that on all occasions in the past when an adjustment of the financial terms has been

made that there has been such a consultation, but I do say that where it has not been done it should have been done. That course was followed on the very last occasion of a readjustment of the subsidies, and there can be no question but that a similar course should be followed now.
I wish my hon. friends would carry the idea I have in mind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.
iMr. EMMERSON. I know that I cannot carry it without their help. And I have been pleading, I have been agonizing with them


An hon. MEMBER.: You had fifteen years to do it in.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Ah, but my hon.
friends opposite have come to judgment, and they are to remedy all the Ills that have existed. I am not here to deal with the past-let the dead past bury its dead. But we are dealing with the living present and with the future.


An hon. MEMBER.: You are making it go.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But hon. gentlemen opposite are not making very much go. If they would consider this a little longer and deal with it in a more comprehensive way, greater justice would be done, not merely to the Dominion, but to every individual province.
No man will say, I care not how biased his judgment may be by political associations, that this has been settled right. For the answer to such a statement would be in the utterances of the right hon. the leader of the government (Mr. Borden) himself who has said that these matters will probably be dealt with a little later, perhaps at the next session. We find that the Highways Act, which was heralded in the speech from the Throne, is to be put foward as a tentative proposition, and the leader of the government tells us that probably during next session or in some succeeding session a more comprehensive Act will be introduced. It is admitted to be imperfect-they have not even got a principle upon which to base it. It is put in the form of a contribution of additional subsidy to the respective provinces; and then we have a little rider added whereby the Minister of Railways and Canals who, in some of his fitful moods may be in a position or may feel constrained to do. so, may go out somewhere and build a small culvert or reconstruct a bridge. That is within his authority.
I say the subject of this Bill is left for future consideration, as other matters are left for future consideration. But the country would have been safer, and especi-Mr. EMMERSON.
ally the east would have been in better condition, had this matter been dealt with so as to settle the whole question for at least a score of years. You may place this upon the statute-book; but it is not a settlement. You have heralded it thoughout the country as something that has been done; it is something that has not been more than half done. I would ask my hon. friend to drop this Bill and take hold of a matter that affects Eastern Canada to an extent that few realize, the question of the branch lines. This is a matter which has been formulated and agreed upon, which my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) himself determined even before he was charged with the responsibility of leading the government, believing it to be in the best interests of Eastern Canada and a wise addition to the transportation system which affects not merely Eastern Canada but the whole Dominion. Mr. Chairman, I have taxed your patience,
I know, and the patience of my hon. friends opposite


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. EMMERSON-though I know they are too good natured to say so. But above all, I have so taxed my own strength that I think I will have mercy and say no more at present.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not rise for the purpose of making a speech. But my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmer-son) has referred with feelings of great pride to the fact that he has in his possession, a badge, such as those to be worn to-morrow by the delegates attending the immigration convention to be held in Fredericton. I also am the proud possessor of one of those badges, which I now hold in my hand. I interrupted my hon. friend to say that he was giving a very free translation of the inscription upon that badge, one would have thought in listening to my hon. friend, that the convention was to be held because the people of New Brunswick were bowed down with care and sorrow over the condition of affairs existing in the province, and that they felt it necessary to hold this convention because of what he calls the abandoned farms and the deserted homes throughout the province. That is not at all the reason. The convention is being held because there is a feeling of extreme optimism and of hope in the future in the breast of every one in the province of New Brunswick to-day. Let me read the language of the inscription upon this badge of which my hon. friend gave such a free translation:
Delegate to the immigration convention, Fredericton, March 8th. We are going to boost New Brunswick


Not New Brunswick, the down-trodden, not New Brunswick the depressed, but-
We are going to boost New Brunswick, the busy east of Canada.
Let me call attention to -some of the reasons given why the delegates ought to attend this congress. I have here a report of a meeting of the Board of Trade held in the city of St. John on Tuesday evening last, and reported in the St. John papers of yesterday morning. This is the report in the paper read on all occasions with great care by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and to which he occasionally makes reference in this House:
T. H. Estabrooks then called attention to the immigration congress to be held at Fredericton. He said that owing to the more favourable attitude assumed by the federal government to the eastern provinces, and the interest shown by the provincial government in immigration, they should do all that was possible to boost the immigration movement, and send a large representation to the congress. He believed the St. John Board of Trade could take credit for doing much to promote the feeling of confidence and optimism that now prevailed, and it should continue to take an aggressive interest in the forward movement in the province.
It is not necessary for me to remind my hon. friend from Westmorland or any hon. gentleman who knows New Brunswick, that Mr. T. Estabrooks who made the statement referred to about the more favourable attitude of the federal government towards New Brunswick and of the attitude of the provincial government as regards immigration is not a member of the Conservative party, but is a leading citizen of St. John, and one of the most active and zealous leaders of the Liberal cause in that constituency.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The importance of this question to Nova Scotia -as well as to other provinces of the Dominion, compels me to take up a little time of the House in discussing the subject. In this cabinet Nova Scotia ought to be well represented, and I conclude is well represented._
But that representative evidently must fight for the rights of that province. A strong claim is made for New Brunswick, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has said he is going to do great things for that province. The Minister of Railways not satisfied with taking what lies in front of his province, is stretching out through another province to Hudson bay. When I see these things being done by the present cabinet, when I see the hon. gentleman of the cabinet who represents Manitoba getting everything in sight for his province, when I know that there is a grievance approaching full maturity in British Columbia which is represented in the cabinet by a very capub'a representative, then, knowing that all of these representatives will insist on their pounds of flesh, I feel that the good representative of the province of Nova Scotia in the cabinet is in a position similar to that unfortunate person, who, on one occasion, going down from Jerusalem to Jericho fell among thieves. I feel that no matter how able that representative from Nova Scotia may be, strenuous assistance and support even from the opposition will be required to enable him to impress on his colleagues that there is such a place as Nova Scotia and that it has demands and needs of as great importance as those of the other sections of the Dominion.
We have heard severe criticism of Liberalism from hon. gentlemen from Manitoba, particularly from the Minister of the Interior. I shall not quote the not at all classic or choice language in which he last night made reference to the position of Manitoba in the confederacy. I shall not refer in his own words to the lamentable position in which he says that province has been ever since its creation nor shall I refer to his description of the lack of justice that has been meted out to that province by the Liberal party. But I must remind him that that province was not created by a Liberal government, but was created in 1870 by a Tory government and whatever constitution, whatever terms it received, were given by the late Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald and a Tory cabinet. Thus, if its territory or if its financial terms were not right, it was not the fault of any Liberal government or of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Manitoba was a province during the administration of the Tory party from 1870 to 1896 with the exception of four years from 1874 to 1878. What have these hon. gentlemen supporting the government to-day to say about the conduct of the Conservative party who for twenty-two years made no attempt to improve the position of Manitoba? We have heard a great deal about the Liberal party being responsible for the educational conditions in Manitoba, about the settlement of the school question made by the Liberal party not being satisfactory. If it was not satisfactory to the Conservative party in Manitoba when they came into power in 1899, why did they not remedy the conditions as it was entirely in their power to do? From that day to this they have done nothing by legislation to better conditions there. Whatever that settlement was, it was eminently satisfactory to the Roblin government and the Minister of the Interior, for they have left it severely alone.
I submit that in dealing with the vast heritage which has come to us we should treat it as the property of the whole of Canada. The method which is -being adopted by the government bears a striking

similarity to the winding up of an estate step by step, giving each heir a share of the estate at a different time.


Mr. BURNHAM.: Do you think the country is dead?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think this alarm clock must be wound in such a way that it will not be going off at unexpected moments. I would ask the Minister of Public Works to see that this clock is looked after in some better way.
I was saying, Sir, that my hon. friend, in his practice of his profession, and every hon. gentleman in this House who practices that profession of the law, knows that the settlement of estates can better be accomplished when the heirs or their representatives are all before the court at the same time. I submit that the land of the Northwest Territories is the common property of the people of this country. It was bought by the common administration of the country, and paid for by moneys coming out of the common treasury. The moneys that were expended in the development of the country were the common moneys of the people; The land, and the money given to the Canadian Pacific railway for the development of that country, were land and money expended by the people of Canada as a whole for the development and welfare of the Northwest. We are all on an even footing. No partner of the concern has any advantage over the other. We are all on equal terms, and we have a right to an equal part of that territory. If it be true that while we were expending money and giving land for the advancement of that iarge corporation, for the benefit of ourselves as well as in the interest of the corporation, is it not likewise true that, if now, this land has become profitable and worth looking after, we have a right as partners, to come in and benefit by what is to be got from it. The moment Alberta and Saskatchewan received money in lieu of land, thev began to participate in the profits of that land. It became a source of profit to them. We are putting through this House another Bill by which the province of Manitoba is to receive the rentals from this land. It will receive so much per acre for the land which comes within its lines. Alberta and Saskatchewan are receiving a rental from this land. Why should not Nova Scotia, Ontario. Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island receive an equal compensation, or some compensation from the same property to which they have the same right? That is the ground largely upon which we come here and present our claim. Ontario is getting the land itself. Quebec is also getting land, and they are therefore, not in thp same position as New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Mr McKENZIE.
Scotia. We cannot get the land itself, although we are not without a precedent forgetting it. What has happened in the United States under similar circumstances is that certain sections of Louisiana were set apart for the eastern states and they sold the land to their own advantage. We are not looking for a condition of that kind, but we are looking for something that will be equivalent to it, something that will give the provinces by the sea .some compensation for the interest in these territories and valuable properties. This is the most opportune time for the government to deal with this question. Never again will such an opportunity present itself. Saskatchewan has its part, Alberta has its part, and now Manitoba is getting its quota. Ontario, by a resolution which is on the order paper of this House, is getting its share, Quebec is to get its share and now is the opportune time to settle the question once and for all. We are told by no less a person than the Prime Minister that this is not an opportune time, that we must put it off a little longer, and that when Manitoba gets its share, and all the provinces except the maritime provinces get their share, something will be done. I submit to the Prime Minister that it will be more or less a matter of bargaining before he can reach a settlement -and -that the best time for bargaining is -when lie has something to offer to these provinces for a fair settlement with the maritime provinces. The mother country cannot be suspected of being less honourable in its dealings with the smaller sections of the empire than would be the province of Ontario, Quebec or Manitoba in dealing with the maritime provinces. And yet, when my right hon. friend who leads the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made a change in the tariff by which preference was given to the mother country, we were told that he made a mistake, that he should never have given that concession without something in return, and that if he had stood by -manfully and kept them from getting that preference until they gave us some preference in their markets, it would have been better for us. The situation here is exactly the same, the position is similar, the Premier of this country has to-day the whip-hand, -he has control of these lands, they are the lands of Canada, the provinces want this consideration and it is for him to say as representing the maritime provinces as the trustee of the maritime provinces in this matter, as he is of every other part of the country: Before you can get these lands you must consent to certain concessions as far as the maritime provinces are concerned, you must consent to a readjustment of the representation in the House of Commons for one thing, and you must

agree to some money consideration to these provinces for the interest and right which they have in these vast territories. These are conditions which the Prime Minister will find it comparatively easy to settle to-day, but which he will find extremely difficult to settle if lie goes to those provinces empty-handed without anything to offer in compensation for any concessions that he may ask them to make. It is proposed to enlarge the province of Quebec to a large extent, and I do not begrudge that province any territory which properly may be added to it. If that territory is what we believe it is going to be, it is a territory in which people will live, it is a territory which will become inhabited, it is a territory which will add largely to the population of the province, and if matters remain in statu quo it will increase the unit of representation enormously, and as the unit of representation increases in Quebec 1 need not point out to the Prime Minister that it makes the representation of the maritime provinces smaller and smaller until it comes to the vanishing point altogether. I do not know whether the addition of this territory to Quebec will affect the unit of representation in that way, but I think it would be better, if the territory is going to be taken in, that we should have a reconsideration of the terms of confederation in so far as representation is concerned, and fix a unit of representation at something higher than it is at the present time, in order that justice may be done to the maritime provinces. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) spoke last night about a resolution which was moved in this House in 1909. He will find in the discussion then that all of us practically from Nova Scotia spoke upon it. I spoke upon it myself, and I took the very same position then that I am taking to-day, although we ditd not have the same opportunity of presenting our case, as the question was not as fully before the House then as it is now. I submit that when Quebec is getting its lands is the time to revise the representation and to place a provision in the constitution whereby the maritime provinces will be in the same position as British Columbia. -
It does not work unfairness to anybody and, therefore, I do not see why there should be any objection to putting similar safeguards in the arrangements with the maritime provinces. Why should we not at this opportune time settle everything once and for all? I submit to the Prime Minister with confidence that unless he is going to the imperial parliament for confirmatory legislation, he has no constitutional authority for the Bill now before the House. There is no constitutional
precedent for this measure, unless it is the intention of the government to go to the imperial parliament to get an Act confirming it, as was done in 1871 when Manitoba was first created a province. I am confirmed in my belief in this matter, by the remarks of the Prime Minister himself, who, speaking on the constitutional aspect in respect to the Manitoba school, 'told the House that we had no constitutional authority to deal with the terms upon which Manitoba came into confederation. He told us that section 2 of the British North America Act of 1871 gave us power to create the province and to start it out on its housekeeping and to give it financial and educational terms, but he also told us that we had no authority whatever to afterwards alter the terms of that constitution. I submit that this Bill is a reconstruction of the constitution of Manitoba, and is, therefore, beyond our 'jurisdiction. The twenty-fourth section of the Manitoba Act says:
Inasmuch as the province is not in debt, the said province shall be entitled to be paid and to receive from the government of Canada by half-yearly payments in advance, interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $422,900.
Will any person in this House deny that that section is a part of the constitution of Manitoba? Then when you come to section 4 of this Bill, it commences:
Inasmuch as the province was not in debt at the time it was established, &c., and you are practically to all intents and purposes repealing section 2 of the Manitoba Aot and putting in its stead sections 4 and 5 of this Bill. I submit that before this bargain is confirmed we must go to the imperial parliament for confirmatory legislation, and as the fewer times we go there the better, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that all these changes, everything that is necessary to put the provinces on a proper footing, should he incorporated in the one Bill, that we may once for all settle with the provinces.
My contention is that even if the constitution of a province came only from this parliament, we could not afterwards change it, but how much more is that the case w'hen we find that the charter of Manitoba is practically an imperial Act. At page 2927 of ' Hansard ', 1905, appears an opinion given by Mr. Borden, now Prime Minister, upon the authority of this parliament to tinker with or change the constitution of a province once it is given. The right hon. gentleman then said:
I do not know whether my hon. friend is quite of the same opinion to-day, with regard to the easy nature of the step, but I venture to say in all seriousness that the step which we are taking now is the most important and momentous step that has ever been taken

by this parliament in regard to our Northwestern Territory. We are doing to-day what this parliament cannot undo in the future, because the constitution whioh we now propose to give to the territories of the Northwest can only be adhered by the imperial parliament.
Further on he said:
I, to-day, am standing on the rock of the constitution, as I understand that constitution; that I simply desire that the domination of this parliament shall not in any way destroy or undermine that foundation upon which the provincial rights of this country rest.
The Prime Minister then took the ground that once a constitution was given to a province nothing could be done by this parliament that would interfere with it. I think that I can successfully contend before any authoritative body on constitutional law, that the Bill now before parliament has the effect of changing the constitution of the province of Manitoba and that we are attempting to legislate in this direction without any authority under our constitution.
I have been looking at the different Acts which compose the British North America Act, but I can find no authority to the contrary. If what I say is true, that hon. gentlemen opposite must go to the imperial parliament for authority for the revision of this agreement, I submit that we should only go when all the land questions are settled, and when every province has received what is its due under present conditions. We might have thought, from what we had heard during the last few years, that the moment the Premier obtained charge of the affairs of this country, he would give the land's to the different provinces in the west. But he has brought a gentleman to take charge of those lands in the person of the Minister of the Interior, who is a very different sort of man when he is in charge of them from what he was when he was merely a minister of the province of Manitoba. That hon. gentleman now realizes that to have the swinging of all the lands from Ontario to the Rocky mountains is quite a piece of patronage to have in his hands, and that to give those lands to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario and Manitoba, which I understand is to have a Liberal government in a few months, would be to place in the hands of the various local governments a weapon that they could1 use against hon. gentlemen opposite. For that reason there is a change of front upon this question. It is entirely a question of whose ox is gored. When they could not use those lands themselves, ithey were ready to grant them to the provinces, but now that they have the swinging of the lands and the patronage connected with Mr. McKenzie.
them, they wish to leave them as they are, and the old slogan of last summer, let well enough alone, is brought into piay again. It is said that we cannot give the lands to Manitoba until it is put in the same position as Saskatchewan and Alberta. I cannot understand that reasoning. If it shall be a good1 and proper thing to give the lands to Manitoba ten years from today, why should it not be a good and proper thing now, particularly in view of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite during the ten or fifteen years that they were in opposition in this House? The policy of the government on that point reminds me of the doctor who was treating a patient with fever, and who prepared a large tub of ice-water. He was asked, ' What do you mean by putting a patient with fever in that cold water? He said, ' When I put him in that water, he will have convulsions, and1 I know how to treat convulsions.' In the same way this government want to put the province of Manitoba into a certain position before they give it its lands.
Now, I want to point out where the province of Nova Scotia stands in relation to this arrangement. The province of Nova Scotia and the province of Manitoba are closer together in the matter of population than any other two provinces in the confederation. This arrangement gives the province of Manitoba an arrearage, going back for four years, amounting to $2,380,372.09. Hon. gentlemen tell us that they are doing this under section 3 of the British North America Act of 1871. I say that that Act simply gives them authority to deal with conditions as they are when they pass the Act. That section does not give them any authority to go back one day. It is not retroactive, and they go back those four years without any authority whatever. According to the last census the province of Nova Scotia had a population of 492,338, and it receives from this Dominion $636,671.28, or $1.20 per head of population. The province of Manitoba has a smaller population, numbering about 450,000, on which it receives $2.96 per head1, or more than: double the amount, per head, paid to Nova Scotia. Under the terms of confederation the different provinces were supposed to get exactly the same amount per head. How does the Prime Minister, being the only representative of the province of Nova _ Scotia in this cabinet, propose to explain to his people that the good old province of Nova Scotia is to get along with $1.20 per capita of its population, to do all its work and meet all its obligations, whereas he is a consenting party to giving Manitoba $2.69 per capita to do the same kind of work? That is the bargain

which is being submitted to this House today, and which is supposed to be accepted by the people of Nova Scotia. We have 36,724 more people in the province of Nova Scotia than there are in the province of Manitoba, and yet the latter province gets $712,674.11 per year more than Nova Scotia does. I submit that this is an absolutely indefensible and1 unfair position for the Prime Minister to take in regard to the: province he represents; and I presume it is the same with reference to every other province.
I figured it out as between Manitoba and the province to which I belong, because I am particularly accountable to the people of the province of Nova Scotia. I submit, therefore, that any legislation confirming this arrangement is not fair to the province of Nova Scotia or any of the maritime provinces, and it is not fair to any other province in Canada. Unless the Prime Minister intends to bring all the provinces up to a position of equality, to put them on the same footing, and give them all according to the population the same amount of money, he cannot expect to have peace, contentment, or harmony in the family of provinces over which he presides. One thing more, and I perhaps should not say very much about it. I want to point out to the Minister of Public Works and to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that this Manitoba school question seems to be a very important one, and that if they want to do anything with respect to the constitution in Manitoba on the subject of education they are beginning at the wrong end. They say that they have not the authority to touch the territories, and that they cannot give any new law to the territories, but they are creating boundaries for the provinces. Everything within those boundaries will constitute the one province. There will be no north, south, east or west about it, all that territory will be in the province of Manitoba. When Sir John A. Macdonald and his government drafted section 22 of the Manitoba Act, will anybody tell me that it was not his intention to give separate schools in that part of Manitoba. The section provides:
In and for the province, the said legislature, may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions:
Nothing in any such la.w shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to Denominational schools which any class of persons have by law or practice in the province at the Union.
It was the intention of the government of that day to give separate schools to the people of Manitoba. It was the belief of the people who went into Manitoba that under that law they had that right. When that section came to be interpreted by the
Lords of the Privy Council they said: There is no doubt about it, that was the intention of that legislation, but the drafters of the Act did not use apt language to fully carry out what they set out to do. Now the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and every other lawyer in the cabinet, and every man that is in the cabinet or is supporting it, cannot escape the responsibility by saying that there is nothing in the Territories Act to enable them to change the law. All they have to do now when if they are giving a new charter, or a new constitution, to Manitoba and I challenge anybody on the other side to say to the contrary-that if they are giving a new constitution to Manitoba changing its financial terms, and changing its boundaries, what is the matter, if they are true to their principles, with changing that section to give what it was intended to give from the start. That is the condition, Sir, and there is no use in hon. gentlemen trying to escape by any back door, or by saying there is nothing in the Territories Act which gives them the right to do this. If the government had the right to change the financial terms, they have the right to change other features. They cannot escape their responsibility and they may as well confess that they do not want to do it. That is the position and that is where I want to leave it. Now I submit that all these things should be put right, and that the province should get what belongs to it. If these matters are not righted now there will be an appeal to Caesar, there will be an appeal to the people. If we cannot get our rights here, we will get them at the ballot-box, and this government will be hurled from power and will have plenty of time to lament not taking the action which they could have taken in this matter.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: The Bill before the House is, in my judgment, one of the most important measures that has ever been introduced in parliament since [DOT]confederation. As has been pointed out by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, it is in effect, an attempt at recasting the terms of confederation. It goes to the very essence of our constitution, It deals with matters that pertain to all the provinces, and with especially matters of very vital importance to each and every one namely, the extent of its territory and the financial arrangements under which it came into confederation, and form part and parcel of that grand scheme. I shall say nothing as to the rights of the people in the addition which is being made under this Bill to the province of Manitoba. I want to deal more particularly with this special point:	I represent a constituency which, from what I

have heard within the last few days, regarding the effect of the late census on the question of representation, will stand a good chance of being wiped out. I am quite convinced, after listening to the eloquent speech of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries yesterday, that it was not the intention of the fathers of confederation that any of the maritime provinces should lose the representation which they had at that time. I have the honour to speak for a constituency that was represented about the time of the union and afterwards by men who took a prominent part in the confederation scheme and afterwards in the securing of better terms. I refer to one of the bright and shining lights of confed-ration one who took a prominent part in the confederation deliberations, William A. Henry, subsequently, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, who at that time, represented the county to which 1 have the honour to belong. I refer likewise, to the late judge Hugh Macdonald, who also represented the county of Anti-gonish, and who after confederation went to England to secure better terms for his native province. I am quite sure that if these men could have anticipated that the county of Antigonish would- be put into the position it is likely to be, by reason of the legislation which is now before the House, and legislation which will be brought down with respect to the extension of the boundaries of Quebec-not directly due to that legislation, but indirectly due to it-I am quite sure that if they could have foreseen that the constitution would be construed in the way that it is likely to be construed, they would have taken care that more apt language was used in connection with the clauses dealing with the question of representation, than was used. It has been pointed out by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who backed up the members from this side of the house that the provinces by the sea, are likely to be placed in a very humiliating position by reason of the great growth that is going on in the western part of the country, due in a large measure to the drain that has been made upon the eastern provinces. They are likely to have their representation still further reduced. I have listened with a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction to that hon. gentleman's statement when he said that we should approach this question without any party spirit. On this question, he said, .all those from the maritime provinces, should be united. I agree that, it is a most serious question, and I invite hon. gentlemen opposite, and especially those from the maritime provinces, to show that they appreciate the gravity of the situation by urging upon the government to afford some protection to that section of Canada before this measure Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonis'.i.
goes through. Now is the time, I submit to do that, when the province of Manitoba is asking for an extension of her boundaries and for a change in the terms and conditions under which it entered confederation, and under which it existed in that confederation for a period of 40 years%
The province of Quebec, as explained by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, is to have almost an empire added to it. And the papers tell us that the province of Saskatchewan is asking for further consideration and for redress of grievances which it alleges will exist if this measure goes through. Does anybody doubt for a moment that, if we give this large territory to Manitoba and make the proposed subventions to that province, the other provinces will be discontented? Though I have listened to this debate carefully I havj not heard a solitary, substantia! reason advanced in supnort of these concessions to Manitoba, except that Manitoba is a young, energetic, active province that was well worthy of the advantages proposed to be given, and deserving to be as well treated as Alberta and Saskatchewan. There was no constitutional ground for the favours to be granted-only a comparison with Alberta and Saskatchewan. We are asked to depart from the terms of confederation on which Manitoba came in and under which she has existed since, and this is to be done on the plea that it is necessary in order to place Manitoba on, an equal footing with Alberta and Saskatchewan-not because there are constitutional grounds for the change. But what about the other provinces of the Dominion? What about New Brunswick? What about Prince Edward Island? Have not these provinces equal rights with Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba? And if you are going to make an increased grant to Manitoba simply because a certain grant was made to Alberta and Saskatchewan and not because there is a legal constitutional ground for it, why not deal in the same way with the maritime provinces and British Columbia?
This is the time when the people of the maritime provinces should urge their grievance. That there is a grievance, no one can deny who has listened to the calm and earnest speech of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) and to the speeches of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) and the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson). Anybody who listened to these speeches, whether in sympathy with the maritime provinces or not, if he applies reason, judgment and fair-play to the question must come to the conclusion that the people of the maritime provinces have a just and valid claim, that they have a

grievance that should be redressed. I refer to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the speech he delivered to show that in my judgment we should look at this question not from the party point of view. We should not seek to make party capital out of it.
It was pointed out by the hon. member for Westmorland that the intention of the fathers of confederation was that the maritime provinces should continue to have the representation that they had on entering confederation. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries emphasized that. But the whole difficulty is that the intention was not expressed; what was intended to be said was not said, or that which was said was different from that which was intended. But that is not by any means unprecedented. The hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) referred to the Manitoba school case and to the decision of the Privy Council, showing conclusively from the language of the members of that court that there was no doubt as to what was intended so far as Manitoba was concerned, which was separate schools, but the difficulty was that apt language was not used, and they had to consider the language used and give their decision accordingly. It was pointed out by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and others that the idea of the fathers of confederation was that the representation of the maritime provinces should bear a certain proportion to that of the rest of Canada. But what was meant by Canada? The maritime provinces contended that it meant the original four provinces. But the courts held that it meant the Dominion of Canada as it then was, including the added provinces. And we suffer in consequence, and we must accept the constitution as it is. But we appeal to this government to take steps to secure for the maritime provinces that which it was originally intended they should have. I say it is time that we should press our claims, now when other provinces are coming and asking that justice be done. When the half of Canada is asking for changes, seeking favours and concessions-justice if you like-from this parliament, that is the time when we should be more likely to get the ear of this parliament and of the other provinces for our own demand. The Prime Minister intimated yesterday that something would be done for the maritime provinces. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries also gave us some comfort in that regard. But the statements of the Prime Minister were rather vague and indefinite and, while in form reassuring and comforting, were far from satisfactory. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who was rather more assuming so far as the rights of the maritime provinces are concerned, asked us not to throw
any obstacle in the way of this measure, not to press our claim just now, but to take the chance of the goodwill and generosity of the other provinces at a later date. I concur in what the hon. member from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) said, that the time when others are seeking for redress of grievances, the time when the other party is seeking a favour from you, is the proper time to do business. The words of the Prime Minister were somewhat comforting and the words of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries perhaps were well conceived. Yet I think the words of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) were far from comforting. The Prime Minister tells us that later on the provinces by the sea would be taken into his council and he would see wrhat could be done for them. But he did not promise definitely that anything would be done. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries went further and said he hoped the day was not far distant when these grievances would be settled and thus justice done.
The Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works rather ridiculed the claim that we made. The latter was somewhat sarcastic when discussing our claims. Tlhe argument of the imaritime provinces is that this large territory which is to be added to the province of Manitoba is not the patrimony of Manitoba but the equal property of all the rest of Canada. It was purchased by the four original provinces, costing $1,500,000, but since then there has been expended on it a vast sum of money for surveys, policing and development, the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, the Canadian Northern railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific and other railways, and it is surely right for the other provinces to say that we must jealously guard our own interests with respect to "that country. The Minister of Public Works grew sarcastic and ridiculed this claim. He said:
When we heard the hoti. member speak of the necessity, in the disposal of these great territories, of consulting provinces far removed from the regions which we are discussing, and talking of compensation being given to these provinces, one would suppose we were assisting a land deal. Well, that is not the split in which the founders of confederation proceeded; that is not the spirit which presided over the negotiations when they acquired Rupert's Land and the territories of the northwest. There was no payment there for real estate; it was under an order in council of the imperial government that most of these lands were handed over to us, and, while it is true, that in 1868, compensation was paid to extinguish the rights-other than trading and commercial rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, the idea at the bottom of it was that these territories would afterwiards

be distributed among the provinces in order to complete a symmetrical plan under which this territory would become provinciality organized for the fuller and more completed development of the confederacy than in an embryo state. It is not a matter of adjusting accounts among the provinces; it is not a matter to be taken up in a book-keeping spirit; but it is a matter which should he regarded in the light alone of the fruition of the scheme of confederation. It seems to me, therefore, that the criticism we have heard to-day about the financial terms granted and about consulting the other provinces and about an accord between Manitoba and Ontario, as to a right of way for a purely provincial railway into the hinterland and towards Hudson bay; it seems to me that the constitutional points raised in these questions did not evince on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite that large and liberal-minded view which we should take of an event of this kind.
It may be that the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General, who spoke on similar lines, think that this is a matter of no great importance or concern to us, and that we should look at it in a big, broad, liberal-minded way. That is not the way the people of the maritime provinces look at it, Conservatives as well as Liberals. They feel that all the provinces must have a fair proportionate share of this land in order to carry on their administration. As the hon. member tor North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) pointed out. when Louisiana was purchased by the United States, a large tract of the land was reserved and afterwards dealt out to the various states of the Union. The states received large grants for the support of colleges devoted to agriculture and the mechanical arts. This was done under the Morel College Land Act which was approved on July 2, 1862. We in the maritime provinces are far removed from that western country, but we have a right to participate, and some scheme could be worked out similar to the Morel Act. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries have urged that the further consideration of the rights of the maritime provinces should be deferred until this matter is disposed of. I venture to say that if that is done then later on, when the maritime provinces ask to have their case dealt with, they will be told that they should have presented their claim in 1912, when there was a readjustment of the boundaries of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, and of the indemnity paid to Manitoba. I submit that the time for us to present our case is now, and that there is nothing unreasonable in asking the government to let this matter stand over until a conference of the various Premiers may be held on the question of fair and equitable readjustment of the subsidies. The Mr. CHISHOLM (AntigonisJP
principle of the extension of the Manitoba boundary has already been recognized by the seconding of the Bill. The people of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec wil'l not suffer from the postponement, and I submit that if this measure goes through it will practically for ever bar the maritime provinces from coming in and securing a redress of grievances. It is now or never with us.
If that be the case, I think it is only fair that the further consideration of this matter should stand over until this question of what our rights in the maritime provinces, both as to representation and provincial subsidies has been determined. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries pointed out that we would likely have our grievances redressed a little later on. The language of the Minister of Marine was somewhat assuring, but the language of the Prime Minister was rather less assuring, while the language of the Minister of Public Works and of the Postmaster General, in referring to the claims of the maritime provinces, was positively disheartening. How far did the Prime Minister go in this connection? He said:
And I would like to repeat what I have already said in speaking upon the resolutions in that regard, that when we do come to consider -that proposal I think- it will -be just and necessary to give some consideration to the maritime provinces whose -boundaries cannot be enlarged by reason of their natural situation, to call them into our councils and give them a just voice as -to the terms upon which these lands shall be handed over, and especially with regard to what compensation, if any, should be given to the three maritime provinces by reason of the transfer of these lands to the governments of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
It will be observed that the Prime Minister was very -careful not to commit himself to the statement that the maritime provinces reasonably could expect to participate in these lands at a later day. He said that they would -consider what compensation, if any, might be granted, and he said that they would be called to the councils of the government, but nothing further than that. That surely -cannot be satisfactory to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who come from the maritime provinces. They may have some further assurance that we know nothing of. If they have I can understand the position that they will take hut, if they have iiot any assurance further than these words in the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister, speaking in the debate, they are recreant to their duty to the maritime provinces if they do not take a firmer and more positive stand on this occasion. This is the time for us to act and to act unitedly if we hope to accomplish anything. The hon. Minister of the Interior emphasized

the fact last night that the people of Manitoba have had a long standing grievance, that they had been complaining in season and out of season ever since they had entered confederation, and in order to placate them it was necessary to come down with some such measure as this. He emphasized the fact that they had complained, that they had remonstrated with this government time and time again ever since confederation. They succeeded, or they are about to succeed. Therefore, I say it is up to the people of the maritime provinces, who have been suffering in patience, who have been quietly seeing their population dwindle away census after the census, who find that the finances of the various provinces are scarcely sufficient to carry on their business in a satisfactory manner, and who are handicapped very much because of their limited revenue, to get busy now and try and secure from this government the measure of compensation that they are entitled to. They should take a leaf out of the book of Manitoba. They should agitate, they should remonstrate with the Prime Minister, who, we are proud to acknowledge, is one of our own people from the maritime provinces and whose sympathies are, or should, naturally be with us. It is up to the people of the maritime provinces to make their grievances known and to press their grievances in season and out of season, so that they may secure that measure of justice to which they are entitled.
Mr. HUGHES, Kings, P.E.I.). I find in the Morning ' Chronicle ' of Halifax of the 6th of this month a telegram dated from Charlottetown, which says that Premier Matheson of the province of Prince Edward Island and two members of his government were here lately presenting the claims of that province for increased subsidy for the non-fulfilment of the terms of union in regard to winter communication and for an increase in subsidy in respect to the land which is given to Manitoba and which is intended to be given to Ontario and Quebec, that h committee of the government was appointed to take these claims into consideration, and that that committee is now considering them. I wish to ask the Prime Minister if that statement is correct? Perhaps I had better read the telegram.
' Mr. BORDEN. I do not think it is necessary to read the telegram.


James Joseph Hughes: That telegram is here.
' Mr. BORDEN. Very good.


James Joseph Hughes: It is this:
Charlottetown, P.E.I., March 5.
Premier Matheson has returned from Ottawa where he had gone, accompanied by Hon. A. E. Arsenault and Hon. John McLean, two members of his government, to press the claims of the island for better financial treatment by the federal government. Claims on account of the Prince Edward Island railway's failure to maintain regular communication in winter, and for compensation to this province, on account of public domains being acquired by other provinces, whose boundaries have been extended, were strongly pressed. The question was submitted to a committee, consisting of Premier Borden, Finance Minister White, Hon. G. E. Foster, Hon. Messrs. Rogers and Perley.
Mr. Matheson makes no definite announcement as to the result of the trip but says he believes justice will be rendered this province. Delegation also succeeded in arranging that the rights in certain harbours and other waters, now vested in Canada, be vested in the province, in order that oyster cultivation he carried on.
I just desire to ask the Prime Minister if he would give any information as to 'whether the matter is being considered, Whether a decision has been reached yet *by the committee, or whether he expects that it will be reached in time to submit *the question to parliament during this Session?


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister of 'Prince Edward Island and his colleagues presented certain claims to the govern-'ment which are under consideration.


James Joseph Hughes: That is not very definite information; in fact, the telegram contains a great deal more than that. I am rather inclined to think that the Premier of Prince Edward Island will give the people of that province more information than the Prime Minister has given to me or to members of this committee. I would ask the Prime Minister, is the mater under consideration?


Robert Laird Borden: I have already said so.


James Joseph Hughes: By a committee of the government.


Robert Laird Borden: By the government.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.) There is no doubt that the province of Prince Edward Island is presenting to the government certain claims which they expect to be considered and which are really at the *present time under consideration,. The government of the province of Manitoba is also presenting claims which, we understand, are to be settled by arbitration. If this Bill passes there is no doubt but that other claims will be presented by nearly all the provinces because this Biil will unsettle the financial arrangements between the federal government and the provincial administrations.

Would it not be a just thing to do, to accept the amendment of the hon. member for St John (Mr. Pugsley) and call together all the provinces to present all their claims so that the Dominion government may dispose of them at one and the same timejl If you adopt this Bill you will practically issue an invitation to all the provincial governments to come here and present the claims they have or think they have, and then you will be compelled to dispose of these claims in a fragmentary way. Prince Edward Island thinks it is entitled to consideration because of the public domain that is being given to the other provinces, and it appears to me this government has some idea that there is merit in that claim because the Prime Minister, speaking on the subject, gave us an intimation that when the three prairie provinces are given the ownership of their lands the government would consider the claims of the maritime provinces for compensation in reference thereto. I fear it will be many years before that matter is disposed of, and if Prince Edward Island has to wait that long for compensation, it is certain the subsidy to that province will not be increased in the near future. I would, however, point out to the Prime Minister, that although he himself gave that promise, and although it was concurred in to some extent by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, no other member of his government who spoke appeared to take the same view. The remarks of the Minister of Labour would lead us to suppose that he did not think there was anything in the claim of the maritime provinces with regard to this; the Minister of Finance appeared to take the same ground, but the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) strongly disapproved of the idea that the maritime provinces, had any claim in regard to the public domain that would be handed over to the other provinces, and the Minister of Public Works indeed said that the hinterland of Quebec and Ontario had always belonged to these provinces and that it was always understood it would be handed over to them in due time. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) told us that we should not approach this question in any huckstering spirit, but in a broad and generous way, and judging by his attitude, it would seem to me that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) would be quite pleased to take the land for Quebec and to leave the broad and generous spirit to the maritime provinces. Surely there can be no better time to settle this whole matter than the present. It is a matter that concerns us in the maritime provinces very intimately.
When this matter was first discussed the member for Kings and Albert (Mr Fow-Mr HUGHES (Kings).
ler) made the statement that this measure would not pass until the maritime provinces got fair-play and justice, and the hon. memebr for Queens, Prince Edward Island, agreed with him in that view. These gentlemen are not here to-night but if they were I have no doubt they would be just as insistent as we upon this side of the House are in seeing that we get a more definite statement in regard to this question. I have presented my views on the matter, I think they are fair and reasonable views, and I believe they should receive just consideration from the government. We do not want to retard this legislation; we do not want to be unfair to Manitoba or to any province in the Dominion, but we want to get fair-play for the maritime provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Joseph Hughes: Surely that is a fair claim to make, but judging from the manner in which these gentlemen opposite receive these remarks they would seem to think that the maritime provinces have no right to present their case in this House. I leave these gentlemen to their responsibility for taking such an attitude as that.


William Pugsley: I wish to present a few figures to the committee which have been omitted to be given by the Minister of the Interior. In addition to the swamp lands, it ought not to be forgotten that the federal government has given to the province of Manitoba two sections in every township for educational purposes. I shall give the figures taken from the speech of Mr. Armstrong, the provincial treasurer of Manitoba, made in the year 1910, and which shows what a very valuable asset these lands have been to the province of Manitoba. The school lands fund, resting with the Dominion government for the benefit of the province on the 31st of March, 1909, is $2,185,211; deferred payments on lands sold to 31st of March, 1908, $2,750,600. In addition to that there were at that time unsold 1,789,674 acres, which at the low valuation of $8 per acre-which I think is very much below what the school lands sell for-amounts to $14,317,792, making a total value of the school lands in Manitoba including the cash on hand and the deferred payments and the value of the unsold land at $8 per acre the very handsome sum of $17,977,136.
Mr. Armstrong also stated that the province was at that time receiving a revenue from the school lands, cash, and deferred payments, of $166,056. I think that this must necessarily be taken into consideration in dealing with the question as to whether this proposed settlement is fair or unfair to the other provinces and particularly to

the smaller provinces of Canada. In my opinion, instead of passing this Bill as it is, instead of going through this farcical arrangement of taking back from the province of Manitoba its swamp lands, with the idea that two or three or four or five years from now they will be handed back, in connection with some arrangement with the three prairie provinces, it would be infinitely better, in view of the fact that the Dominion to-day is administering for the province two sections in every township, or one-seventeenth of the entire area of the lands of Manitoba, to let the province keep her swamp lands, keep as she will under this Bill the school lands, keep the lands in the added territory if you like, and give her a fair and reasonable, nay, a liberal sum, to enable her properly to administer affairs in the added territory. This is an additional reason why the amendment which I have the honour to propose to the committee should be adopted.
Amendment negatived: yeas, 62- nays, 101.


Hugh Guthrie: I mentioned last night that I had another amendment to move to clause 4. I move, seconded by Mr. Pardee:
That section 2 of section 4 be struck out and the following substituted therefor: The first half-yearly payment under this section shall be made on the 1st day of July, 1912.
As it is a pretty late hour of the night, and as this is a ' bona fide ' amendment and is likely to be a contentious one and to take some time to discuss, I think I may fairly ask for an adjournment.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is going to take a good while to discuss it, we had better utilize some of the time this evening.


Hugh Guthrie: The subsection which
1	propose to amend occurs as subsection
2	of section 4, and as subsection 6 of section 5. In section 4 it applies to the payment of arrears on debt allowance, and in section 5 it applies to the payment of arrears in regard to lands. I fancy that the same argument will probably apply to both cases, and that, without infringing any rule, I can discuss both subsections under my motion, although the language of the amendment which I propose is directed merely to subsection 2 of section 4.
That brings up the whole question of the payment of arrears which to my mind- having examined the Bill as carefully as I could, and having listened now for several days to all the arguments which have been offered by supporters of the government in favour of the Bill both in principle and in detail-is perhaps the most objectionable feature in connection with the whole measure. It is certainly a feature which offers an opportunity for sound argument in opposition to it, and I noticed that the Prime Minister laboured very much as he sought to justify the payments proposed under subsection 2 of section 4 of this Bill. I followed very closely the argument of the Finance Minister upon the question, and I submit to any hon. member who will give the matter unbiased judgment, that the Finance Minister did not justify, nor attempt to justify, the payment of these arrears. I noticed" also that, in the somewhat lengthy speech delivered by the Postmaster General, the only subject which he dealt with, apart from the school question was the payment of arrears, and I understood him to say that it did offer reasonable ground for argument. I should have liked very much had we had the benefit of the opinion and the learning of the Minister of Justice in regard to this particular clause. I cannot understand upon what principle it is proposed. I know of no principle of law, no principle of equity, which would justify such a proposal. I have not heard anything advanced which justifies the proposal so far during this debate, and I appeal to hon. members, whether on this or on the other side of the House, to give this question their earnest consideration. I am going to discuss it as seriously as I know how.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: I regret very much the hour is so late for the discussion. I have waited patiently for two days in the hope that I might bring this matter before the House, and before a serious House


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: Which would give this matter real consideration, and neither howl it down nor shout it through. The proposal as it affects subsection 2 of section 4 arises as to the debt allowance. It would almost seem unnecessary at this stage of the debate to approach the question of debt allowance from an historical point of view. Yet it is necessary to make some reference to it in order that one may place before the House a connected statement in regard to the matter. From what I have *been able to gather myself, and from what I have gathered from the remarks of hon. gentlemen on both sides, I have come to the conclusion that the whole question of debt allowance is more or less of a fiction. The payment of the debt allowance itself is a fact but founded upon fiction. In the year of confederation, or the year prior to that event, when negotiations took place, and when the agreement was made between the representatives of the various provinces, the question of debt was a most difficult one to handle.
In old Canada, or in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, large sums

had been expended on public works. We had not paid the money, we owed the money. New Brunswick had a debt, and Nova Scotia had a debt, and after many conferences and much discussion the founders of confederation finally reached an agreement that the debt of Canada, or of "Ontario and Quebec should be assumed by the Dominion. At first it was stated at $67,000,000, but latterly at $62,000,000, that of New Brunswick at $7,000,000, and that of Nova Scotia at $8,000,000. Now the peculiarity of that assumption of debt was this: The provinces were relieved of their obligations and of their payment of interest. From thenceforth the Dominion of Canada was to bear the obligation and to pay the interest.
We transferred our assets to the Dominion of Canada, we made nothing out of the transaction at all; the Dominion of Canada assumed the debt and took over the assets, themselves. Now, under conditions such as I have narrated, why should a new' province entering confederation without debt have a debt allowance at all. That, I submit, is the fiction in connection with the whole matter. I do not believe there ever should have been a debt allowance to provinces which came into confederation without actually having a debt. But the custom has been followed, in ail cases since confederation to make a debt allowance when any new province did enter confederation, so that it is probably too late at this present time to raise such an objection. But T am convinced in my own mind the whole theory of debt allowance is wrong, the whole thing is founded in fiction and should not have been allowed in the first instance. But we have done otherwise, and having done otherwise in regard to all the other provinces, I do not think we should make an exception in regard to the province of Manitoba. As each province entered into confederation a dtebt allowance was fixed. ' The amount was settled by agreement between the parties interested, and once having been fixed, settled, and adjusted, it should, I think, have been the proper course to have pursued that the settlement made should have remained final and unalterable. But I must admit that it has not in the case of various provinces had that finality. The debt allowance of the various provinces has been on more than one occasion revised, and on more than one occasion altered, but the principle has been adhered to as nearly as possible. The original principle upon which the provinces entered into confederation under actual agreement should1 be adhered to as nearly as may be, particularly where any change might work to the prejudice of one of our sister provinces.
The province of Manitoba comes to this government asking-as I read the memori-


Hugh Guthrie: al that has been presented-for equal treatment with the sister provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The_ Finance Minister (Mr. White) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) also emphasized the point that the guiding principle in the terms set forth in this Bill is to effect this equal treatment. There is no very good reason why such a parity should be established. Superficially, it sounds very well to say that the three prairie provinces are now placed on equal terms. I do not know that there would be very great objection to that course if the Bill did place the three prairie provinces^ on such terms, without doing harm or injustice to the other provinces of the Dominion. But my first point is that in regard to this debt allowance you are not placing Manitoba on equal terms with Saskatchewan and Alberta, but are giving Manitoba a distinct advantage over the other provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Hugh Guthrie: 

tario. I am inclined to think that the five ministers from Ontario cannot and do not appreciate the true significance of the position. I believe that they have been asleep to the situation, or else the influence of the Minister of the Interior has been prepondering over them. He simply *walked over them in connection with this transaction. It may be a great tribute to his ability-it is; it may be a great tribute to his tenacity-it is; it may be a great tribute to his influence in the Cabinet, and it is a great tribute to any one man who by his influence can drive through a bargain such as is grafted upon the present Bill, whereby Manitoba can come to the treasury of Canada and take out $2,000,000 odd of the taxes of the people. Upon what principle? I have not heard anyone state upon what principle. Upon no principle. There is no principle to it; it is nothing more nor less than a straight treasury raid. What is the significance to Ontario? I know that part of the province from which I come and I wish I had some of my neighbours in that province here tonight. I want my hon. friend from North Wellington (Mr. Clarke), my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Best) and my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), who support this government, to tell me how they are going to justify to their people this proposition. Here is the province of Ontario with a population, in round numbers, of 2,500,000, out of a total population of 7,-
200,000.	We have about 35 per cent of the people of this country living in the province of Ontario, and at the same time we pay, as nearly as may be, 40 per cent of the taxes of the whole Dominion. We have a greater interest, in the province of Ontario in the amount of money "which is taken out of the treasury than any other part of the country Jias. We contribute more in taxation than any other portion of the country. Where do we get our money? How is it going to come into the treasury? Where does it come from? The money comes from taxation, and the chief source of that taxation is our customs taxation. We received $73,000,000 last year from customs taxation, and $16,000,000, or $18,000,000 from excise. Ontario paid something over $29,000,000 in customs taxation out of the $73,000,000 collected, which is nearly 40 per cent, and we have 35 pelr cent of the population. We are paying more than our share. What does this proposal mean to Ontario? It means that you are going to pay out of the treasury this $2,000,000 odd to the province of Manitoba and that $800,000 of taxes of the people of Ontario are going to be handed over to Manitoba without the slightest justification, as 40 per cent of that amount will come out of the taxes of the people of Ontario. What are Mr. GUTHRIE.
we going to say to our people? How are we going to explain it?-merely by the fact that in 1905 we constituted two new provinces and gave them terms adequate, proper and just at the time they were incorporated and that we did not at that time do so with respect to Manitoba? Is that a good reason, is that a good excuse? Will it do to say that in 1908 we unanimously resolved in this House that we would enlarge the boundaries of Manitoba? Would that be an excuse because Manitoba said :No we will not take those boundaries. If that were the ground upon which the transaction rested these arrears .should only go at the farthest to October of last year, when Manitoba formally accepted that boundary. If you do not rest it upon that what are you going to rest it on? I do not know of any principle. I have tried to think of one. I have tried not to involve the matter but to get it as clearly in my mind as possible and to present it as concisely as I could to the committee. I know that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) is a gentleman who has had very great experience in dealing with large financial transactions. I know that the Minister of Finance is perhaps the most experienced man in this House in dealing with large bulks of trust money. I know he will realize that in handling the money of the people of Canada he is handling trust money and that as in his career up to the present time in the city of Toronto he has handled very large amounts of trust money, I believe that if the case is fairly presented to him it will appeal to him that, as the trustee for the people of Canada, as the trustee of the money in the public treasury, he must have a much stronger case than has been made out here to authorize him to take $2,000,000 odd out of the treasury and hand it over to Manitoba when that money belongs to the people of Canada and when forty per cent of it has been paid in taxes by the people of Ontario. I think that if the case is fairly presented to him he will be impressed with the responsibility which he must carry with regard to this transaction. I do not believe that members of the government ijrom Ontario have seriously corfcidexed this aspect of the case. The hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) has discussed this question and he is in his place tonight. I know he is a lawyer and a good one, but I do not believe that he has ever looked into the question of the payment of these arrears. I do not believe that any ground exists upon which that money can be legally paid. The onlv thing that you can do is to say to Manitoba: Here, out of the treasury of Canada, is $2,000,000 odd which we are going to give to you as a gift. It is a gift. Let the people

know that you are giving it as a gift. Do not say that you are giving it on the ground of arrears. I noticed my hon. friend dealing with it, labouring with it and endeavouring to explain that feature of the proposition to the House. Any one who watched him could well understand the difficulties that he had to .contend with. I do not believe that he satisfied his own mind and he certainly did not satisfy hon. members who sat on this side of the House, that there was anything right or anything proper in connection with the payment of these arrears. The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), I believe, was prepared to swallow the whole thing in one gulp, but even he had to say that it was an awkward point which had been raised in regard to these arrears and that there was ground for argument. Is there not a ground for argument? I appeal to the Minister of the Interior and ask him what justification there is for handing over this sum of money. Suppose we give this sum on account of debt allowance, suppose it is right-which I do not admit-suppose the land allowance is right too, suppose the boundary line is right also, what justification can my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior give to the committee for this transaction? To me it appears to be nothing short of an outrage, nothing short of an enormity. I do not look upon it as political payment to the people of Manitoba. I believe that the public men both here and in Manitoba are above that sort of thing, but I believe it is wrong to take the money of the people of Canada and hand it over to Manitoba unless the province of Manitoba is legally entitled to it. I have stated the facts as they present themselves to me, I have endeavoured to state them fairly and accurately, and if there is any right or justification on the part of the government of Canada in paying over this money to Manitoba I would like to hear about it. In the meantime I propose to move a resolution. It applies not only to subsection 2 of the present clause, but it is likewise applicable to subsection 6 of clause 5.
My amendment, which will probably be moved again on the third reading of the Bill is:
The first half-yearly payment under thfis section shall be paid on the first day of July,


Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to concur with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) that the expedient of debt allowance in respect to the new provinces, was only an expedient after all, and perhaps a somewhat awkward one. There was justification for a debt allowance in the first place, in that the provinces had incurred debt 148}	: | |	[DOT]) jg
for the purpose of constructing public works which were at confederation handed over to the Dominion of Canada, and with respect to which it was proper the provinces should receive consideration. When Alberta and Saskatchewan were constituted as provinces, the system of debt allowance was continued, and the argument of the hon. gentleman appeals to me when he declares that it was only an expedient for giving to these provinces a certain amount for the purpose of enabling them to carry on their government. The hon. gentleman argues that there is discrimination in favour of Manitoba as against Saskatchewan, because Saskatchewan has 40,000 population in excess of Manitoba, but he surely knows that when the two provinces were started in business in the first instance, Saskatchew'an had a larger population than Alberta, although *section 19 of the Alberta Act, and the same section 19 of the Saskatchewan Act, put these two provinces precisely on the same basis. Therefore, on his argument, the very measure which he supported in this House, created a discrimination between Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Hugh Guthrie: My argument was based on the assumption that the case of the government was founded on the principle of equalization. I did not argue that Saskatchewan and Alberta were equal, but what I said was, that the excuse for this legislation was to make them equal.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. member understand that there was no principle of equality when Alberta and Saskatchewan were constituted provinces? Did the measure proposed by the late administration which he supported establish a basis of inequality as between Alberta and Saskatchewan? The hon. member contrasts the population of Manitoba with that of Saskatchewan, but why does he not contrast the population of Manitoba with that of Alberta, or the population of Saskatchewan with the population of Alberta? In order to make a ooint against the measure we have in hand, the hon. gentleman is driven to conclusions which would point directly against the measure he supported in 1905. He asks us to name the principle upon which we make this debt allowance, after he has himself declared that the debt allowance to Alberta and Saskatchewan was based on no principle at all. But, I have a very good answer to his question and it is that we base the debt allowance in this case upon the principle that the province of Manitoba is entitled to be placed on an equality with the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I have already conceded that in the case of Alberta and Saskatchewan it was only an expedient for enabling these provinces to proceed with their national housekeeping

and to take care of their public expenditure.
Then the hon. gentleman asked why in the name of all that is sensible any land allowance should be made to Manitoba especially during the past three or four years when Manitoba has not had these lands. The hon. gentleman has argued this whole question more or less as if he were arguing a lawsuit, and I would remind him of the well known principle: that equity regards that as having been done which ought to have been done; and inasmuch as the province of Manitoba should have and would have had these her boundaries extended in 1908, if the financial terms now accorded had been granted to that province at that time, I say it is no more than just that we should compensate Manitoba now. The hon. gentleman seems to overlook the fact that according to the measure he himself supported in 1885 without a murmur, the compensation in lieu of lands was based on population, and I would ask him why it is that a very large allowance in lieu of public lands should be made to Alberta and Saskatchewan and only a trifling allowance in comparison should be made to Manitoba. Inasmuch as these three provinces have not their own natural resources, inasmuch as these resources within their boundaries are administered by the government of Canada, we are disposed to regard them all as in the same category, and for that reason, and taking the principle which the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) supported in 1905, we say that Manitoba to-day is entitled to similar compensation in lieu of her public lands to that which was given to Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 and winch has been enjoyed by both of these provinces ever since.
For the reason that I have already mentioned, we say further that the allowance in respect of public lands ought to date, not from to-day, but from the 1st day of July, 1908. My hon. friend seems to think that there is no precedent for this. There have been a good many precedents for antedating allowances. It was done in the case of Nova Scotia in 1869; it was done in respect of all the provinces in 1884. Nova Scotia under a statute of this parliament passed in 1869 received an allowance, not from 1869, but commencing on the 1st day of July, 1867.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that was on finding that her debt was really more than it had been considered to be by the conference. It was ascertained that she had really spent more money in the interval.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that there is any particular reason why this parliament has not the same power to correct an Mr. BORDEN.
error in 1912 that it had in 1869. What I find in the statute is this:
Nova Scotia shall receive from Canada for the period of ten years from the 1st day of July, 1867, an allowance of $82,698 per annum, in addition to all other sums payable to the said province under the British North America Act, 1867.
That was passed on the 22nd of June, 1869, and a similar statute was passed in 1884. Under these circumstances, I think my hon. friend, on reflection, will come to the conclusion that the allowances proposed to be made by this Bill are no more than just and fair, and I do not think that the appeal which my hon. friend seems disposed to make to this province or that province or the other province, especially to the province of Ontario, will find very much response. If the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are entitled to be placed on the basis which he himself supported in 1905, it seems to me that the present government is doing no more than simple justice in extending to-day the same treatment to the province of Manitoba.


Hugh Guthrie: I than* my right hon. friend for the very courteous manner in which he has replied to my remarks; but he has directed his reply more to the question of debt allowance and allowance in respect of lands than to the question of the payment of arrears. My motion is directed entirely to the question of arrears. I did not ask for any justification in regard to the payment of debt allowance or the allowance in respect of lands; but what I do ask for is some justification to be laid before the House upon the question which my hon. friend the Postmaster General struck in the course of his remarks the other night. It was tne one branch of the question which he touched upon, and he saw that there was an argument in it. My right hon. friend refers to the case of Nova Scotia. I can only depend on my memory and on the statements made in the course of this debate, to say that when the arrangement in the preliminary agreement was made with Nova Scotia, the debt of Nova Scotia was placed at a certain amount, and before Nova Scotia had actually come into the confederation it had spent a million or two million dollars more. Then, two years after the union the question was raised, and it was enacted by the Act which the right hon. gentleman has just read that Nova Scotia's debt allowance should be paid and interest should be paid from the date of confederation. So it was with the re-arrangement of 1884. Then it was discovered that instead of the allowance which Canada, that is, Ontario and Quebec, got of $62,000,000, the allowance should have been $73,000,000, and changes were made in respect of other provinces. Canada was paying interest from 1867 upon

$10,000,000 upon which she should not have paid it, and the Act of 1884 provided that the interest payments should be to Canada as of the confederation year. There was a principle for which there was full justification. But surely that is different from this case. Alberta and Saskatchewan weret incorporated five years ago. But leave that out, and come to the year 1908. Since 1908 Alberta and Saskatchewan have been governing and controlling all the territories within their boundaries and have been entitled to the subsidies which we gave them. Manitoba on the other hand, has not been in possession or control of the added territory at all, nor has she spent a five-cent piece or incurred a responsibility there, while on the other hand, she has had possession of the swamp lands, which have been estimated as worth from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000, and has enjoyed !the proceeds of those lands. Is there any parity in these cases? My right hon. friend cites the well-known maxim of equity, that equity considers that done which ought to have been done. What would have been done if Manitoba had passed an Act in 1908 accepting the boundary then offered? But she did not do it. Manitoba was in default and not Canada, and why should the treasury of Canada suffer to the extent of $2,000,000 because of that default on the part of Manitoba? That is the ground of my amendment.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The right hon. leader of the government has not attempted to answer the argument put forward by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) against taking $2,178,000 from the people of the rest of Canada, and giving it to the people of Manitoba. My right hon. friend did not elucidate that point any more than he did when he introduced the Bill, when he said:
I have already said that Manitoba urged, and urged with great insistence, that inasmuch as her claim should have had consideration in 1905 it would he proper, and only just and fair, that whatever financial provisions were to be embodied in the Bill providing for an extension of her boundaries, should date not from today, but from the period in 1905 when the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were first constituted.
But [DOT] he goes on to say that he hardly knew whether that was right or not, and he finally made a compromise under which he dated from the 1st of July, 1908. Well, Sir, the only earthly reason my friend gave last Monday for the payment of these arrearages was that the province of Manitoba had been wanting an extension of its boundaries, and they had not got it. Then my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, who I notice is not here to-night-will have great diffiou'ty in coming here and defending this thing.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is speaking in very had taste indeed. The Minister of Finance is detained from the House by illness.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do not get excited.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well it is early in the evening yet.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If you will give me time to do so I will be only too glad to take it back. I had no idea whatever that the Minister of Finance was ill. I had no reason whatever in the world to imagine that he was absent on account of illness and therefore I make the most humble apology possible. Now if the Minister of Finance were here, I think there is no man in Canada who would feel as ashamed of himself for being a party to this transaction as would that hon. gentleman. The Minister of Finance, as has been stated here a great many times, is a man who has been used to handling financial transactions of great magnitude and he is too good a financier not to know that there is not one particle of foundation on which this thing can be based. You have the statement by the Minister of Finance when the resolutions were introduced, that Manitoba had a grievance and was dissatisfied, and therefore, something must be done to relieve that grievance and dissatisfaction. That is all the excuse that can be urged. The Minister of the Interior last evening attempted to give us an excuse for this-I will not say hold up, although if it were a business transaction I think it would be treated as such-but the hon. gentleman said that in 30 years, or thereabouts, the province of Manitoba had had something to do with administering the affairs of Keewatin. But when it was called to his attention that the Dominion had paid the Governor of Manitoba a salary for his services, the hon.. gentleman was driven back to the statement: Well o(ur police magistrates sometimes have issued warrants in connection with criminal affairs. And the hon. gentleman went so far as to say farther: We have to pay them salaries, and possibly we pay them salaries a little in excess of what we would otherwise do, on account of their looking after the administration of affairs in this territory. Well it is a pretty small excuse to urge that salaries have been paid by Manitoba to a few police magistrates in the province of Ontario for the last four years to administer the affairs of 700 or 800 white people, and probably they have not issued half a dozen _ warrants in that territory during that period. It is a pretty

small excuse to come to this Parliament and ask us to pay $2,178,000 for that small amount of work. I have taken up the argument of the three responsible Ministers of the Crown, and I come now to the arguments of the Prime Minister when trying to answer my honi friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). The latter hon. gentleman's amendment complains not of the debt allowance, and not of the allowance for land, although he does claim that the debt allowance paid is based on scientific principles. I want to tell _ my hon. friend in passing that the original debt allowance was noit based on scientific! principles, it was based on good mathematical grounds, and grounds which could be justified before any legislative assembly. But the right hon. gentltman beat around the bush, he failed to come to the point, until finally when he saw that he had to say something in justification of this, and then what reason did he give? Oh, well, equity considers that as being done which should be done. And he says that because Manitoba wanted an extension of her boundaries' in 1905 and1 in 1908, and did not get that extension, because-she wanted to be put in the position that! Alberta and Saskatchewan were put ip. 1905, and the request was not granted, therefore, she ought, in all equity, to be put back in the same position as though she had received her lands, and received her boundary extensions in 1905. I would1 ask my right hon. friend if Saskatchewan and Alberta did not want autonomy some four or five "years before it was granted to them, I want to show the fallacy of the argument which the right hon. gentleman made. These two provinces wanted autonomy for four or five years, and it was not granted to them, but finally when their wish was acceded to, what were the principles upon which the financial arrangements were made? They were to get a grant for government purposes the same as any other province gets. They were to get an allowance in lieu of debt, based! if you will on scientific principles. Then they were to get an allowance in lieu of their lands, which I think is based on scientific principles. And fourth they were to get a certain amount for the erection of public buildings. Did they get these payments extended back for four or five years previous to that because they had wanted it? Again, whenever the right hon. gentleman has been driven to the wall he makes the retort: The present leader of the pres>-ent opposition did 'it when he was in power, and, therefore, because he did wrong we are entitled to do wrong. Pressed a little further on this question he says: Alberta and Saskatchewan got certain things in 1905. I submit that these provinces got on $2,000,000 of arrearages be-Mr. CARVELL.
cause they had a grievance which had not been remedied for the last four years. Therefore I think the right hon. gentleman has to look further than the financial arrangements made with Alberta and_ Sas->
katchewan in order to justify this raid on the public treasury of Canada at the expense of the rest of the provinces.
Section 4 agreed to.
On section 5,


William Pugsley: I would suggest that as there are some gentlemen who wish to make remarks on this section 5, that perhaps it could stand, and we might proceed with sections 6, 7, 8 and 9, which are non-eontentious.


Robert Laird Borden: Let section 5 stand; pass sections 6, 7, 8 and 9.
On section 9.


Mr. MONDOU.: I gave notice of an amendment yesterday to section 7.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I regret that I cannot


Albéric Archie Mondou: I wish to know when there will be an opportunity for me to speak to the amendment of which I have given notice?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Section 5 stands, and perhaps the hon. gentleman-


Albéric Archie Mondou: I do not understand the procedure, but I want to know when will lie the proper time for me to speak to my amendment?
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Borden House adjourned at 1.50 a.m. Friday.

Friday, March 8, 1912.