1901-05-08

Hon. Mr. PRIOR asked :: 1.	Did the hon. the Minister of Public Works, or his agent, instruct Mr. Arthur E. B. Hill, C.E., of New Westminster, B.C., in January' 1900, to make an inspection of the Serpentine river, in the district of New Westminster, B.C., from the coast meridian road to the sea, and report as to work required to prevent the overflow of the stream?
2.	Did Mr. Hill state in writing that he 'should be pleased to make such survey on the same terms as those on which he served the provincial government, namely, $10 per day and maintenance from date of commencing work to date of completion of plans and report'?
3.	Did the hon. the Minister of Public Works, or his agent, demur at the time to those terms?
4.	Did Mr. Hill commence the work on the 26th January, 1900, and on the 27th April, 1900, deliver his report, together with design, plans, specification and estimate of cost of work required, to the hon. the Minister of Public Works?
5. Did Mr. Hill send in his bill for $872.66?
6. Has the same or any part of it been paid to him? If not, why not?
7.	Is it not a fact that Mr. Hill's letters asking for payment have been left unanswered?
8.	Did the hon. the Minister of Public Works, in reply to a letter from Mr. Hill's solicitor, asking for settlement of account, write as follows:-'Mr. Roy, in whom I have great confidence, tells me that Mr. Hill's claim is an exorbitant one. Mr. Keefer has been authorized to offer you $450 ' ?
9.	Did Mr. Hill's solicitor write to the hon. the Minister of Public Works asking him to refer the ease to the Exchequer Court of Canada, under the 23rd section of the 'Exchequer Court Act'?
10.	Is it not a fact that this letter still remains unanswered and unacknowledged?
11.	Did the hon. the Secretary of State receive a petition of right to the King's most Excellent Majesty from Mr. Hill on the 5th March, 1901, praying that his claim he adjudicated upon?
12.	Has any fiat been issued thereon?
13* Is it a fact that the reason why no flat has issued is because the hon. Minister of Public Works refuses to make a report to the hon. Minister of Justice on the said petition of right? If so, for what reason?
14.	Was Mr. Hill's work done in a satisfactory manner from a scientific standpoint?
15.	What cogent reasons can the hon. Minister of Public Works give for not paying the account in full?
16.	Is not Mr. Hill a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers of Great Britain?
17.	Is it not a fact that Mr. Hill refused to endorse the scheme under which the dredging was being carried on by Mr. Roy, the resident government engineer?
18.	Do Mr. Hill's report and plans show that the money spent by the government has been laid out to good advantage, and that the scheme has been crowned with success?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. I. Tartej :
1.	Yes. A letter of instructions sent to Mr. Hill by Mr. Worsfold, acting resident engineer, to make inspection and report as to the work required to prevent the overflowing, on the 26th of January, 1900.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	No. Mr. Hill was instructed on the 26th of January, 1900, to make an inspection of the Serpentine river, from the coast meridian road to the sea, and report. He commenced operations on the 29th of January, and completed his work and handed his report on February 9th. Mr. Hill was further instructed, on the 26tli of February, 1900, to prepare plans and estimates in connection with the works he recommended, with the aid of the survey he had already made at the mouth of the river, in compliance with a suggestion made at the end of his report of the 9th or February.
5.	Mr. Hill was paid at the rate of 810 per day and living expenses, from the 29th of January to the 9tli of February, the date on which he made his report, in compliance with the instructions he received from Mi'. Worsfold, on the 26th of January, and as per his own statement he furnished Mr. Worsfold.
Mr. Hill sent in a further account for $862.46, on the 27th of April, being a charge of 24 per cent of the estimated cost of the works he recommended to De performed in his report of the 27th of April. On the 31st of August, Mr. Hill sent in an amended account, at the rate of $10 per day, and an allowance for maintenance for 17 days, at the rate of $40 per month, amounting in all to $872.66.
6.	Mr. Hill's account for $872.66 has not been paid, because it is considered unreasonable.
7.	The hon. the minister may not have answered all the letters, but he did answer to those which required an answer.
8.	Yes. Mr. Keefer was instructed by Mr. Roy, on the 17th of August, 1900, to offer



Mr. Hill $400 in settlement of bis claim for $872.66. The figure $450 referred to in the minister's letter should read $400.
9.	Yes.
10.	Mr. Hill's solicitor's letter acknowledged by the hon. the minister on the 3rd of December, 1900, and a further letter from the hon. the minister, dateu December 12th.
11.	Yes.
12.	No.
13.	The hon. the minister is of the opinion that the claim is an imposition.
14.	Mr. Hill's technical work seems to have been done in a satisfactory manner, but his recommendations have not been concurred in by the department.
15.	Because it is considered unreasonable.
16.	I do not know.
17.	No dredging has been carried on by Mr. Roy.
18.	The works recommended by Mr. Hill have not been executed.


LOCK TENDERS' SUNDAY DUTIES.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Is it the duty of the head lockmaster on the government canals to take care of his lock on the Sunday?
2.	Can the lockmaster appoint one of his lock-tenders to look after the lock on the Sunday?
3.	The locktenders, not being paid for this Sunday work when it is required from them, is it the intention of the government to indemnify them in that behalf?
4.	Will such indemnity apply to the past or only to the future?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The regulation as regards the care of the locks on Sundays varies according to circumstances on the several canals.
2.	The practice of several of the canals is for the locktenders to take it in turn to perform the service, but on Chambly canal the lockmaster performs the duty.
3.	We pay the locktenders up to six o'clock Sunday morning, and no Sunday work takes place after that hour. It has always been customary on some of the canals for one of the men in turn to keep a supervision over the lock during the day on Sunday, but for this no pay has been allowed. This duty is imposed, and has always in these cases been imposed, so far as the department is aware, without objection.
4.	This is covered by the answers to the preceding questions.


QUEBEC CENTRAL RAILWAY-TRAIN SERVICE.
Mr. FORTIN asked :: 1.	Is the Quebec Central Railway under the legislative control of this parliament?
2.	Has the company received subsidies from the Dominion government; and if so, to what amount?


Mr. TARTE.: 3.	Is the government aware that the running of trains on the said railway is suspended every spring, for two or three weeks at a time?
4.	Is the company entrusted with the carrying of the mails; and how is the transport effected while the train service is suspended?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes : $348,342.
3.	No.
4.	Yes. The interrupted train service on the Quebec Central Railway is on the branch line between Beauce Junction and St. Frangois de Beauce, distance 15 miles. The mail service has been performed by hand car during spring floods. Regular train service has been operated since the 26th of April.


THE VACANCY IN WEST HASTINGS.
Mr. NORTHRUP asked :: 1.	Are the government aware, as reported in * Hansard ' for Wednesday, 3rd of April, that Mr. Speaker informed the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the electoral district of the west riding of the county of Hastings by the resignation of Henry Corby, and that in accordance with chapter 13, section 5, subsection 2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada he had issued his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said district?
Has such writ been issued in accordance with the warrant of Mr. Speaker?
If not, why not; and when will It be issued?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1. Yes. Mr. Speaker has issued his warrant for a writ for the constituency of West Hastings. The writ will be issued without undue delay.


CROW'S NEST LINE-COAL LANDS.
Mr. SPROULE asked :: Referring to the Statutes of Canada, 60-61 Victoria, chapter 5, by which the Crown became entitled to select 50,000 acres of coal lands from any area of coal lands earned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company by the construction of the Crow's Nest line of railway in British Columbia :
1.	What steps have been taken by the government towards making such selection and when is it expected that it will be completed?
2.	Has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company verbally or otherwise requested to be allowed to select any portion of such area in advance or priority to the government, and what, if any, reply has been given to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?


Hon. JAMES SUTHERLAND :: 1.	An examination has been made by an officer of the Geological survey, but no selection has yet been made.
2.	No application has been received by the Department of the Interior, and if a verbal request has been made, it would have been to the minister, who is now absent.

TELEPHONE COMPANIES' MILEAGE, &c.


Mr. CLARKE asked :: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The information which I shall give to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke), in answer to this question, has been supplied by the president of the Bell Telephone Company at my request. It does not cover all the provinces of the Dominion, but only Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and the North-west Territories. The president had not available the information regarding the other provinces, and we had not time to procure it.
1. The mileage operated by the Bell Telephone Company in Canada is divided as follows :
Miles of Wire.
Province of Quebec-
Subscribers' lines	 22,673
Long distance lines	 7,092

 30,765
Province of Ontario-*
Subscribers' lines	 39,401
Long distance lines	 14,040

 53,441
Province of Manitoba-
Subscribers' lines	 4,017
Long distance lines	 218

 4,235
North-west Territories-
Subscribers' lines	 169
Total	 88,610
Miles of Poles.
Province of Quebec-
Subscribers' lines	 513
Long distance lines	 2,219
*

2,732
Province of Ontario-
Subscribers' lines	 973
Long distance lines	4,088

 5,061
Province of Manitoba-
Subscribers' lines	  81
Long distance 'lines	 218

	299
North-west Territories-
Subscribers' lines	 25
Total	 8,117
2. The number of subscribers to the Bell Telephone Company in each of the provinces of the Dominion is as follows :
Province of Quebec	 13,360
"	Ontario	
23,459"	Manitoba	
2,014North-west Territories	
302Total	
39,135


Mr. CLARKE.: The hon. gentleman has overlooked the question asked about the other companies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I could not get the information, or we had not got it in time from the other companies.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I allow the balance of the question to stand on the paper ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will endeavour to get the information for the hon. gentleman, or I could furnish it to him privately if he did not wish to leave the question on the Order paper. I think we had tetter let the question drop.


MR. JUSTICE GAGNE.
Mr. BRUNEAU asked :: 1.	Whether the hon. Minister of Justice has recently received a petition signed by a large number of persons subject to the jurisdiction of the court of the district of Chicoutimi and Saguenay, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Justice Gagne in the administration of justice?
2.	If so, what is the nature of the charges so made?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: 1. Such a petition was received at the department on the 7th instant.
2. It is not customary or expedient to state the nature of the charges at the present stage of the case.


Mr. BRUNEAU asked :: 1.	Whether Mr. Justice Gagne has recently applied for leave of absence for several months?
2.	If so, on what grounds?
3.	Bfas such leave been granted to him?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: No application for leave of absence has been received at the department.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That commencing with Monday next, this House shall meet for the remainder of the session at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day; that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall be also an intermission on each day from one to three o'clock p.m., and that Government Orders shall have I re-cedence at all such sittings after questions on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
He said :	In making this motion, which
I hope will receive the approbation of both sides of the House, I may say that the government have no business of any importance to bring down except supplementary estimates, and probably some railway subsidies. The supplementary estimates will probably be brought down to-morrow.
4647

464b
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). Or next day at the latest.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The subsidies will he brought down at an early day.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I may remind my right hon. friend in this connection that I do not think the papers with respect to the Mackenzie and Mann claim have yet been laid upon the Table.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Early in April my right hon. friend expected to lay them on the Table at a very early day, but I suppose something has prevented that being done. It is desirable, in view of this motion, that that should be done at once, as soon as my hon. friend can conveniently do so. The railway subsidies, I presume, will be brought down along with, or soon after, the supplementary estimates.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, early next week.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether it is the intention of the right hon. gentleman so to arrange the business of the House that two steps can be taken with regard to any particular measure on the same day. Sometimes that has been done in the past. It strikes me that could not be done under this motion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, it cannot be done except by unanimous consent. But I am following the invariable practice in past years of having one continuous sitting for the whole day, instead of two.


Robert Laird Borden: And the course of taking two steps with any measure in one day has been done by unanimous consent of the House ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Mr. MACLEAN.: I think the leader of the House ought to tell us, if he intends to take next Monday, what provision will be made for private legislation getting through.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No special provision is necessary, the rule will be followed that now prevails.


William Findlay Maclean: There will still be next Monday an opportunity for private legislation.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How will it affect the work of standing committees ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: They never meet on Monday. But we will simply do what we have done In past years. Next
Sir WILFRID LAURIER,
Monday the same order will be followed as to-day, Private Bills will be the first order.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: There may be some Bills before the committees to deal with, and in that case we will ask permission to sit while the House is in session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. KAULBACH.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Marine, and also of the government as a whole, to the apparent unwarrantable treatment shown a British subject in charge of a British ship in a foreign port.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Is the hon. gentleman going to conclude with a motion ?


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I do not intend to make a speech, but I will conclude with a motion if necessary.
The facts as alleged are as follows : The ship as referred to was the Canada, commanded by Capt. Arch. Conrad, belonging to the port of Lunenburg, N.S., which ship was floating the Canadian ensign, of which we as Canadians are justly proud, on the 1st day of March last past, in the port of Bahia, Brazil, when the consul of the port -suppose it was the British consul-boarded the ship and peremptorily required the (master to haul down his Canadian ensign, and threatened for such gross infringement of rules, to fine him five hundred pounds, and to hold the ship for the penalty. Such harsh treatment dealt out by a British consul, to a British master in charge of a British ship, in a foreign port, is, to my mind, exceptional. But if it is a rule that Canadian shipping is to be subjected to such treatment, by reason of a regulation, or authority of the British Admiralty, then I feel that we who are proud of our Canadian ensign, as well as we admire and feel proud of the British, should be allowed a recognition, and be permitted to float our Canadian ensign side by side with the British, and thereby have Canada treated with proper respect.
I would, therefore, ask the government to communicate with the Imperial authorities through the Secretary of State for the Colonies-Mr. Chamberlain-and have what I consider our rights as British subjects and as Canadians recognized and cared for, and be permitted to float our ensign side by side, or beneath the British, and thus avoid a recurrence in future of the unpleasant state of affairs such as alleged.
I would like to have the views of the hon. Minister of Marine on this subject, in order that I may communicate the same to the
4C50

[DOT]captain of the ship, and if it is conceded that the British consul was within his province in acting as is alleged, then a greater reason exists for a correction, and here I ask that the home authorities be communicated with by this government, and the injustice as represented and complained of remedied, in order that our Canadian merchant marine may have some certain freedom of action in the future, and be permitted to float the ensign of their country.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: I may say to the hon. gentleman that I have no knowledge and have had none of the facts to which he calls attention. It would obviously be imprudent and impolitic for us to attempt any discussion on an assumed state of facts of which we know nothing. If the hon. gentleman will do me the favour of writing me, giving me some of the details, which will enable me to ascertain the facts by corresponding in the proper quarter, I would be very glad to do it, and to furnish the information he desires. I do not know the names of the party, or the port, or the facts in any way, but if the hon. gentleman writes me a letter I would be glad to make inquiry in the proper channel and have the facts ascertained.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I have given the data and the facts as they will appear in * Hansard.' I might write a letter if the hon. minister desires it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the hon. gentleman's statement contains the name of the port where this alleged impropriety took place I will be able to gather it from that.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: It contains the name of the port.



IMPORTATION AND EMPLOYMENT OP ALIENS.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 47) to amend the Act to restrict the importation and employment of aliens.-Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On section 1.
The FRIME MINISTER.: This Bill has been passed with the exception of section 1, which has been reserved for future consideration. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) had an amendment, which I think, Mr. Chairman, he has placed in your hands. I do not know whether he has any further observations to offer in support of his amendment. The amendment of my hon. friend was to substitute another tribunal. While I am not prepared to accept altogether his amendment, I have another one to offer which I think will meet his views. The section which is amended by
section 1 of this Bill is section 3, of the Act of 1897. The section reads as follows :
For every violation of any of the provisions of section 1 of this Act, the person, partnership, company or corporation violating it by knowingly assisting, encouraging or soliciting the immigration or importation of any alien or foreigner into Canada to perform labour or service of any kind under contract or agreement, express or implied, parole or special, with such alien or foreigner previous to his becoming a resident in or a citizen of Canada, shall forfeit and pay the sum of $1,000.
The amendment in the Bill proposes that the original penalty of a thousand dollars shall be retained.
-which, with the written consent of the Attorney General of the province

That is substituting the Attorney General of the province for the Attorney General of Canada

-in which the action is to be brought, or with the written consent of any judge of the court in which the proposed action is intended to be brought, may be sued for and recovered by any person who first brings his action therefor as debts of like amount are now recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction in Canada, the proceeds to be paid into the hands of the Receiver General; and separate suits may be brought for each alien or foreigner who is a party to such contract or agreement.
I may repeat that in this amendment there are two new dispositions ; there is the disposition as to the penalty which is made to range from $1,000 to $50, the lowest being $50 ; and in the other case we propose to substitute the Attorney General of the province for the Attorney General of Canada. My hon. friend from Toronto moved an amendment which was to have the effect of making the sum recoverable


Edward Frederick Clarke: My amendment will be found at page 2484 of ' Hansard.*


The PRIME MINISTER.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) read his amendment ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: With pleasure.
That all the words after ' fifty dollars,' in section 1, be omitted and be replaced by the following ; ' Recoverable in the name of His Majesty in a summary manner with costs, under the provisions of article 58 of the Criminal Code of 1892, before any police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, judge of session or county court judge having jurisdiction where the offender is to be found or where the offence was committed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am disposed to accept the idea which the hon. gentleman has placed in his amendment with some exceptions, and I have therefore to propose the following amendment :
That clause 1 be amended by striking out all the words after the word ' dollars ' in the 14th 'line and inserting the following :

2.	The sum so forfeited may, with the written consent of any judge of the court in which the proposed action is intended to be brought, be sued for and recovered by any person who first brings his action therefor in any court of competent jurisdiction in which debts of like amount are now recovered;
3.	Such sum may also, with the written consent of the Attorney General of the province, or of a judge of a superior or county court in which the prosecution is had, be recovered upon summary conviction before any judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate or stipendiary magistrate, or any functionary, tribunal or person invested, by the proper legislative authority, with power to do alone such acts as are usually required to be done by two or more justices of the peace, and acting within the local limits of his or its jurisdiction;
4.	The proceeds to be paid into the hands of the Receiver General, and separate suits may be brought for each alien or foreigner who was a party to such contract or agreement.
At present action has to be brought in the Superior Court, because the penalty is $1,000. We retain that, but we declare that this suit may be recovered within such court with the consent of the judge of the court in addition to which we give the summary jurisdiction, which is given to police magistrates in speedy trials. The amendment has been prepared by the lion. Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick). We have adopted the ipsissima verba of the statute. It therefore carries out the idea of my hon. friend.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sure I need not say that it is absolutely impossible for a layman, having heard this amendment read for the first time within the last minute or two, to grasp what the full meaning of it is, notwithstanding the very lucid explanation which the right hon. gentleman gave respecting it. I dare say that the legal gentlemen here will be able to grasp the meaning of the clause a great deal better than a layman could, but I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman, if under the operation of the Act as he proposes to amend it, it would be competent for workingmen who believe they are the victims of a violation of the Alien Labour law, to go before a magistrate, lay their complaint, have a summons issued, and the offending parties brought to trial immediately without cost ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Or is it necessary, that the person should first of all obtain the approval of the Attornej7 General of the province, of a judge of a Superior Court or of a county court judge, in advance of his being able to proceed with the trial before a police magistrate ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the authority is ultimately given to a police magistrate to hear and determine the case, might I ask the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
right hon. gentleman why it is necessary that the complainant should be required to get an order from a county court judge to bring the case into the police court ? If the provisions of this Act are not made as simple as possible, if they are not made as inexpensive as possible, and if the speediest possible trial is not afforded, the Act will practically be a dead letter. It was with the desire to obtain these objects that I presented my amendment when the Bill was in committee before. If breaches of the Alien Labour law occur ; if workingmen are to be given any of the advantages of the Act, it is absolutely necessary in their interest that a speedy hearing should be had. It is also due to the employers that if vexatious complaints are made against them these vexatious complaints should be disposed of with the least possible delay, and that the annoyance and inconvenience of having to appear in court should be reduced to the smallest possible limit. I am therefore at a loss to know exactly what the effect of the adoption of the amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman will be. I should like to have it more fully explained. The police magistrates in the cities-and it is they who would most likely be called upon to hear and adjudicate upon alleged violations of the labour law-are well qualified to deal with these matters. They now deal with disputes between employers and employees as to wages, and as to breaches of contract and desertion of employment. It seems to me that in view of their experience in these matters they are just as well qualified in 99 cases out of 100 to determine whether or not a summons should be issued as is a county court judge, or a Superior Court judge for that matter. If persons who complain of a breach of the Alien Labour law have to go to the Attorney General of the province and get permission from him to go before a police magistrate, an unreasonable delay may take place. A delay may occur that will practically frustrate the ends of justice and defeat the desire of the workingmen to prevent cases of breaches of the law. If they have to go to a Superior Court judge it will he necessary for them to employ counsel, it will be an expensive matter, and there may be an appeal from the Superior Court judge. The same circumlocution will have to be adopted, if I properly understand the proposed amendment, even if they have to go to a county court judge. He may be out of the city ; he may be away during the long vacation ; interminable delays may take place in getting permission even from a county court judge to have the case tried in the police court. Extensive jurisdiction is given by the law to stipendiary magistrates in cities. I repeat that they are fully qualified to deal with matters of this kind. In fact I go so far as to say that from the experience they have in the class of cases that come before them, they are better qualified to deal with such a

case as this than are other judges. 1 think the interest of all parties will be perfectly safe if the right hon. gentleman will agree to amend the clause so that police magistrates would, upon information laid before them, be empowered to issue a summons to have the offending parties brought into court, and the case speedily disposed of. I again point out that it is impossible for a layman, having heard a resolution of this kind for the first time, to express a very intelligent opinion upon it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has rightly apprehended the full scope of the amendment which I have introduced, and I do not believe that further consideration will change his appreciation of it. It is just as he stated. As the law at present stands, no suit can be brought except with the consent of the Attorney General of the Dominion, and that suit must be taken before a Superior Court. We propose to alter this. We retain the jurisdiction of the Superior Court but we give to the prosecutor an alternative jurisdiction before a police magistrate to have a S'wedy trial. The prosecutor has the option of going before the Superior Court or of having a speedy trial before a police magistrate. We have, however, determined that if the suit is brought before a magistrate for a speedy trial, the complainant must apply to the Attorney General of the province or to a Superior Court judge, or to a county court judge for preliminary authority.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Can he go to a Superior Court judge without going to the Attorney General of the province ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, he has that alternative. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) asks : Why do you not give the complainant the privilege of at once suing before the magistrate who has to try the case ? Well, that is a very fair objection to take and I will be prepared to hear the views of hon. gentlemen upon it. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has very well said that a magistrate, in a large city like Toronto or Montreal, is as competent in matters of this kind as would be a county judge or even a Superior Court judge. But the hon. gentleman must remember that there are several sections of the country-new sections especially -where it might be difficult to find a stipendiary magistrate equally competent with the magistrates in Montreal, Toronto, or other large centres. When this Act was passed in 1897, parliament thought it wise not to allow the party making the complaint to immediately go into court as is generally the case, but to see that some restriction should be placed upon the power of prosecuting; aud parliament determined at that time that no prosecution should be made except with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada. What was the modern idea which inspired
that disposition of the law ? The idea was that in a matter of this kind, susceptible perhaps of international complications, it would be simply an act of prudence to prevent promiscuous prosecutions, and to see that no frivolous suit should be brought. A good many complaints have been made, amongst others by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), who has always taken a deep interest in this legislation, against this provision of the statute; and I must admit that the working of the law was perhaps cumbersome, because it forced every suitor to come to Ottawa in order to obtain this permission. Therefore, we thought it advisable to extend the power of granting the permission, and we have extended it from the Attorney General of Canada to the Attorney General of the province or a county court judge or a Superior Court judge. My hon. friend would say, and with some reason, you might as well give the same permission to the justice who is to try the case. I answer that we think it preferable, in view of the possibility that stipendiary magistrates would not be as careful in some parts of the country as in other parts, to keep this important power in the hands of an officer who by the nature of his office must not only be more experienced in the law, but have a more extended knowledge of legal affairs, and who would be better qualified to exercise that important power. I do not think any serious injury or injustice or any delay can result from this permission being exercised by the county court judges; who are well qualified in all parts of the country; and I think that my hon. friend on consideration will agree with me that we have perhaps done wisely in surrounding this prosecution with this safe but after all very lenient provision.


Mr. MORRISON.: Whilst I am free to admit that the amendment is a vast improvement on the Act as it stood before, at the same time I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). There are portions of the Dominion of Canada where the enforcement of this amendment would be exceedingly slow, and I think ineffective. Take, for instance, the vast Kootenay district in the province of British Columbia. There is only one county court judge there, and he resides in a remote part of that district.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There will be two by-and-by.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: If the government will assure me that they will give us a sufficient number of judges to overcome the difficulty, then I am quite satisfied.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend may he sure that we will give the num-

ber of judges required by the legislature of the province.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I know that the present government have been quite ready to give us tiie number of judges we require, did the provincial government only do their part. But at the present time, and for aught we know, for some years to come, owing to the dilatoriness of the provincial government in carving out those counties, we cannot have the additional county judges. At present along the international line, in the towns of Rossland, Trail and a number of other large mining communities, where there are great iniluxes of foreigners, this amendment will be practically a dead letter. It certainly will not be expeditious if the consent of the Attorney General has to be obtained, for he may be hundreds of miles distant. If you wish to obtain the consent of a Superior Court judge, you will have to go to Victoria, Vancouver or New Westminster, the only tdwns in the province in which Superior Court judges are to be found. If you want to get the consent of a county court judge in the Kootenay district, you will have to go a very great distance. If you have a case in Atlin, you are still further removed from any of these officials. So that, unless the case should arise in Victoria, Vancouver of New Westminster, the greatest delay will occur in prosecuting it. At all these points in the Kootenay district, and I believe also in the Atlin district, there are competent magistrates. who, with all due deference to the Superior Court judges and the county court judges, would in my opinion act judiciously and discreetly, and in such a way as to serve the interests of ail parties concerned. I am referring particularly to the province of British Columbia. There must be other provinces where the same objections exist. I am very strongly of opinion that this amendment, although it is an improvement on the old Act, yet falls far short of what we should have; and while we are amending the law, it would be just as well to go a little further and extend the jurisdiction to magistrates. I cannot understand why a magistrate may be considered competent to hear a case and yet not be entrusted with the power of issuing a summons and having an information laid before him. That seems to me a little anomalous. If the magistrate were shorn of his jurisdiction to hear the case, I could understand the philosophy of the government being afraid of giving him the power to issue the summons and take the information. I would strongly urge on the government to reconsider the advisability of extending the jurisdiction to magistrates. I assure them, as far as the province of British Columbia is concerned, that there will be the greatest inconvenience. In fact, in very many instances the Act will be altogether abortive; and perhaps after all that province


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: is more interested In this legislation than any other. I think we are not at all meeting the exigencies of the case by this amendment. So far as we are concerned, it is inconvenient and I think unworkable to confine the jurisdiction to the judges. In fact, I do not see why we should surround with these restrictions the case contemplated by the Act any more than those cases in which persons have a right to launch a grievance against individuals in any other case. With all due deference to the right lion. First Minister, 1 do not see any more danger of international complications arising under this Act than under half a dozen other cases in which the law is set in force by individuals with a free hand. There are numbers of cases that will occur to any lawyer, just as important as this, in which parties need not go to the Attorney General or get the consent of anybody, but they take the responsibility; and there are safeguards against the abuse of the process of the courts in those eases as in others. I do not look at all with favour on the omission to extend this jurisdiction to the magistrates.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman what the provision is in the United States Alien Labour law with respect to the enforcement of the Act ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The jurisdiction is limited to the district and county courts. We are extending the power beyond that.


Robert Laird Borden: And as you are giving more extended jurisdiction, you wish to impose some safeguards ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Tes.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it not probable that the judge to whom application is made for consent will require to hear the party against whom it is proposed to bring the action ? Looking at the practice which prevails in our province, that might probably be the result, and it would make the machinery for the enforcement of the Act rather cumbrous.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: We are extending the scope of this Act far beyond anything conceived heretofore. We are extending to district magistrates, police magistrates, two justices of the peace, the power to impose penalties amounting to $1,000. That is an entirely unheard of jurisdiction in this country. Under these circumstances, is it not proper that some safeguard should be provided or some controlling influence, previous to the initiation of proceedings by a magistrate ? The application is made to a Superior Court judge or county court judge, and he will deal with it exactly as he does with appli-

cations for prerogative writs such as writs of injunctions, wilts of prohibition, quo warranto and mandamus. If a prima facie case is made out, he grants his fiat. If the case is doubtful and he wants to hear the other side, he may do so. He exercises a certain discretion and control over the proceedings.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does not that practically mean that the case must be tried first before the county judge ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: No. My hon. friend will admit that we should not make the administration of this law more burdensome than is the administration of the same law in the United States. We ought to endeavour to keep our law absolutely in the same position as theirs.'


Mr. CLANCY.: Suppose theirs is not convenient ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It is because it is not that we are extending the jurisdiction here. Their jurisdiction is limited # to the two United States courts. We are ' extending the jurisdiction to all subordinate judicial officials. Before extending it to them, is it not proper that there should be some salutary control over the proceedings, before they have the right to deal with "it. I am sure my hon. friend would not like to be brought before a magistrate in a ease involving a penalty of .*1,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They are trying people for their lives every day almost.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: They cannot do that without the express consent of the accused.


James Clancy: I understand that the idea of providing safeguards is because international complications may arise from vexatious proceedings. Is there an appeal from the stipendiary magistrate and the county judge ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: Yes.


James Clancy: Then, if there is an appeal, why should there be any difference between a magistrate trying the case in the first instance, or the county judge ? What is the judge to proceed upon ? He must hear the other side, if not satisfied with the statement made by those endeavouring to get a speedy trial before the magistrate. In that case he will have to call witnesses.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The preliminary application to the judge will be absolutely an ex parte proceeding. The party applying must make out a prima facie case. If the judge thinks it necessary to call on the other side, he can do it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has not the whole-thing to be gone over again before a police magistrate, if he issues a summons ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: At the outset it is only an ex parte application, and it is optional with the judge to hear the other side.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is optional with the magistrate to issue a summons.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: But if you want the magistrate to issue a summons, you will put the whole matter under his control, and that would be improper. My hon. friend appears to overlook the fact that these precautions exist already in our law. There is a multitude of cases in the Criminal Code which cannot be started without the consent of the Attorney General of the Dominion or of the province. It would be absolutely improper to give to two magistrates in any part of Canada over the appointment of whom we have absolutely no control the right to try a man for a penalty, when he may be condemned to pay $1,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to point out that according to section 2 of the amendment, it is necessary, even although the action be brought in a Superior Court, that you should first get the consent of the judge. That does not exist in the United States, and I do not see any particular reason why it should exist here. I have r.ot found any fault with the protection provided in the third subsection, but I might point out this-that it might be held by a judge of the Superior or county court that notice of the proposed application should be served on the defendant. When a fiat is asked for from the Attorney General of Canada for the purpose of enabling action to be taken at the instance of a relation, it is customary for the Attorney General to hear both sides before granting it. In the province of Nova Scotia, where these fiats are very often applied for in connection with claims under the Mining Act, this is the practice. I do not know whether or not the practice has prevailed under this Act, that application to the Attorney General of Canada for leave to institute proceedings be made on notice to the other side. The Solicitor General can tell me.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: It has not.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty, it seems to me, is that a judge of a Superior Court or a county court might hold that that is a desirable thing to do. But it hardly seems to me necessary. If the Solicitor General believes that it is not necessary, would it not be better in section 3 to provide that the -written consent should be obtained ex parte ? That would make it plain and make the Act less cumbrous.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Now as to the form, I think the latter part of the third subsection should be contained in a separate subsection.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is all one section in the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but the difficulty is that you are dividing the Act up into separata sections, and you are providing in subsection 2 that the person complaining may proceed before a judge of competent jurisdiction, and under subsection 3 you provide an alternative remedy. What I desiire is to make it plain that the latter part of the subsection applies to the entire Act. I think my hon. friend will have no objection.


The SO LI GIT OR GENERAL.: No.


Mr. MONK.: I am afraid that in the province of Quebec it will be very difficult for the workingmen to avail themselves even of this section. I know that the question is not free from difficulty, but I have no hesitation in saying that the law, improved as it is, will amount, in the province of Quebec, almost to a denial of justice for the workingmau-for we must not forget that it is in favour of that class principally that this Act is made. Now, I would appeal to the right hon. the Prime Minister that under this law, which gives two jurisdictions, the workingmen of the province of Quebec will not hesitate. He will not go to the Superior Court judge and sue for a fine directly ; he will avail himself of the alternative jurisdiction and go to the police court. Having to do that, he probably will not apply to the Attorney General because that is expensive My right hon. friend knows that the Attorney General of the province of Quebec would not grant such an authorization without hearing the other party, the employer, and without affidavits being produced before him. All that means correspondence and the employment of a lawyer. It is more than probable that he will make up his mind to apply to a judge. Now, hon. gentlemen who are members of the bar in our province know that the judge will not, unless he is expressly directed to do so by the statute, grant application ex parte. He will order the other party to be served with a notice, he will have before him affidavits, and he will permit the other party to produce counter affidavits-for it is no small matter for an employer of labour to be brought before the police court on a charge of this kind, a charge, which, though not dishonourable, is serious. Therefore, the judge will order the hearing of both parties and the workingman will run the risk, if the petition is dismissed by thte judge, of paying costs ; and I think I am within a moderate limit when I say that there will Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
probably be $40 of costs to pay for the application, there will have been practically a trial-not that there will have been a crossexamination of witnesses ordered. And, I venture to say the magistrate coming to try the case will usually bef influenced,,by the decision of the judge who has heard the application in the first place. If the suggestion of the leader of the opposition is adopted and the application is made ex parte, we have another difficulty. I submit that the magistrate who is afterwards called upon to issue the warrant will not issue it without hearing the other party. I know that in the city of Montreal our magistrates are extremely cautious. In a matter of this kind the magistrate would cause the employer to be brought before him by letter or otherwise and hear him before issuing a summons. Then, what is the use of the application ex parte ? On the whole, although I admit that there is difficulty, I think it would be worth while to try the jurisdiction of the magistrates only, at least for a time. I do not think that any great international friction can arise. The fine does not involve distress or hardship upon the American citizen who has been brought here ; it is a fine upon the Canadian employer who has violated the law. The American citizen, the labourer who has come here, is not a party to this trial at all. But I believe that in the province of Quebec the necessity of applying to the Attorney General or to a judge would involve the risk of considerable costs to the workingman, or, if you allow it ex parte, it would not have the value that the government seek to attribute to it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It seems to me that the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) cannot be very seriously taken into consideration. First of all he knows that I have already accepted the suggestion made by his leader (Mr. Borden, Halifax), which I think a very good one-that the application should be made ex parte. That was our intention from the first, and this was simply to make assurance doubly sure, although I do not know tl^at such an amendment is necessary. In the province of Quebec, my hon. friend, who is a practitioner of great experience, knows that many writs are not issued except on the consent of a judge on previous application, as in prerogative writs ; and the other side is not brought in except, I think, in matters of injunction.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But the judge would not, in a matter of this kind, act ex parte.
The PRIME MINISTER, I do not know about that. I think he would be quite as ready to act ex parte in this as in a matter of quo warranto or mandamus. But that will be made sure which I think was sure before by the Act stating in so many words that the application is to be made ex parte. But, if it is to be made ex parte, I do not

see what is the objection. If the hon. gentleman suggests that the magistrate, having the flat of the Superior Court judge, would feel that he was not warranted in issuing a summons, but would send for the other side and review the matter before issuing it, I can only say that X do not think that anything of the kind is to be apprehended. Now, as to the objection of my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Morrison). The hon. gentleman has spoken for his own province, and expresses a fear that in that province it may be difficult to reach the county court judge. Certainly, it would be difficult to reach the Superior Court judge. But it should not be difficult to reach the county court judge if there is, as I know there will be under recent legislation, an adequate number of county court judges to administer justice. But in the province of Quebec there will be rather another difficulty in applying the Act-which I hope will be seldom-not in getting the judge to grant the fiat, but rather in getting a police magistrate to try the case. We have very few police magistrates in the province of Quebec, therefore the objection which might exist in that province does not exist in other parts of the country. It is difficult to legislate for such a broad extent of country as Canada, to legislate for a condition of things that may exist all over the territory covered by the British flag in Canada, because the conditions vary not only from one province to another but from one section of the same province to another section. On the whole I believe the Act, as it has been amended now, will be satisfactory, and will certainly be a wide concession to the applications which have been made by the labouring classes for an improvement of the Act which is on the statu te-book.


Mr. NORTHKUP.: It seems to me, as the hon. member for Toronto has said, that we are under some disadvantage in criticising an amendment that is not before us. But if I understood rightly in the amendment as read by the right hon. gentleman, there is no reference whatever to any appeal. The Solicitor General, however, a few moments ago said there would be an appeal from this Act, but on looking at the original Act of 1897 and comparing it with the amendment now proposed, no appeal is provided for.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: There is the ordinary procedure of the court.


William Barton Northrup: Of course, the proceedings being one to obtain a certain penalty, the same rule would apply to that as to any other case. That is clear, but will it not be the case, taking the amendment as read by the right hon. gentleman, that the judge, or magistrate, or whoever it might be who is named, would be a
persona designata ? There would be no appeal from him. It seems to me if you allow the case to be laid before a Superior Court judge, or a county court judge, or a magistrate, and no provision is made as to the mode of appeal, we have no jury law in this country that covers that variety of cases.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: The procedure applicable to this case will be the procedure applicable to the courts in which the case is to be tried. We cannot affect the procedure of the civil courts at all, as that is a matter which belongs to the jurisdiction of the provinces. With respect to the decision of the police magistrates, that is a matter which is covered by giving the police magistrate power for summary trial.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It strikes me it is just possible that the enactment of the amendment proposed by the right hon. gentleman, by allowing the complainant to go before the Attorney General, or before a judge of the Superior Court, or before a county court judge, to get permission to proceed in the police magistrate's court, may in itself give rise to a lot of litigation. Advantage may be taken of this provision by impecunious members of the legal profession who may be glad to persuade a workingman of the possibility of being able eventually in the police court to secure conviction and a fine of $1,000. The right hon. gentleman says that international complications should be avoided as much as possible, that nothing should be done under the operation of this law to create friction on either side of the border. I entirely concur in that view. But I would draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the fact that the labour bodies of this country, the union organizations, are very largely international in their character. The great trade organizations of this country are affiliated with the trade organizations on the other side of the line. They are jealous of their good name, they 1 desire to retain it. The First Minister himself admitted, when we were discussing this Bill in committee at a previous date, that the informations that were laid as to the infractions of the Alien Labour law were laid with the authority of the trade organization. And the right hon. gentleman and the committee may rely upon it that if facilities are given to these trade organizations of having their complaints heard before the police magistrates in the various centres, they would be chary of exercising that right or privilege unless they were firmly convinced they had a clear case to present to the magistrate. The great object to be attained is to get a speedy hearing, a hearing that will cost the applicant as little as possible, if we can get it before a tribunal competent for trial. I said the police magistrates were given very

large powers; I said they could try a man for his life. I presume I am wrong in that, hut I believe a police magistrate in the province of Ontario, or two justices of the peace, can try a man and inflict a punishment extending to 10, 12 or 14 years confinement in the penitentiary.
llhe PRIME MINISTER. With the consent of the accused he can be so tried.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In some cases, I think, without the option of the prisoner. However, I am perfectly satisfied that the suggestion made is one that the government might fairly try. I am satisfied no abuses would creep in under it. If we give the privilege of a speedy trial, those in whose interest this law is being enacted would be very careful not to present frivolous complaints, complaints that were not well founded and take up the time of the court in trying them. We were told that in two or three instances that had been done. If workmen made frivolous complaints two or three times before a police magistrate in the province of Ontario, lie would be more likely to be chary and to hesitate before issuing summonses to bring the parties complained of into court. The labour organizations of the country would have everything to lose and nothing to gain by making frivolous complaints, by taking advantage of the opportunity of bringing their complaints before a police magistrate to make frivolous complaints. The great advantage to them of having a police magistrate try their cases would be this, that those who deliberately were guilty of an infraction of the law, having this Act before their eyes, would know that within forty-eight hours, or seventy-two hours at the latest, if they were really offenders, that fact could be established in the police magistrate's court, and violations of the law would not be as numerous as they have been. I still strongly urge that the amendment proposed by me some time ago is one that would be found workable. The complaints that would likely be made would be made in centres of population or in industrial centres; and I think it can scarcely be fairly said that magistrates exercising jurisdiction in urban or m Industrial centres would not satisfactorily try the class of cases that would come before them, if the amendment which 1 have suggested was adopted. I must confess, however, and I do so with a great deal of pleasure, that the amendments which the premier has proposed are amendments in the right direction, and that they go a iong way to making the Act more workable than was the Act of 1897. But I hope yet that we can persuade the right non. gentleman that if he will go just one step farther and give the jurisdiction we ask to police magistrates, I am satisfied that a trial of a year or two under the conditions which we sug-Mr. CLARKE.
gest would demonstrate to him the wisdom and practicability of the amendment. If frivolous complaints were made under it the privilege could be withdrawn; but knowing the conditions of the organizations as well as I do, I say again that they would be jealous of the position they occupy and would not permit members of their organizations to make frivolous complaints, or complaints which they believed were not well founded.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend lias spoken upon this question from the point of view of the province of Ontario and of the city of Toronto. If the Act were only to be applied to the city of Toronto or even to the province of Ontario, perhaps I might be induced to accept his proposition. But this Act has to be applied to all the provinces of the Dominion. The jurisdiction of the district magistrates in the different provinces is not the same. Take, for instance, the jurisdiction of the district magistrate in my own province. He has only jurisdiction over petty offenders of a certain grade, and over, those of a more serious character with the consent of the accused. But in civil matters for the recovery of debts, the magistrate has onlv civil jurisdiction extending up to $100. Here you propose to give to a district magistrate in the province of Quebec jurisdiction over cases that may reach $1,000.
Now, does not my hon. friend believe, that, under such circumstances, when you give such an extraordinary jurisdiction to a magistrate, who, under the law of iiis province, has only a jurisdiction to the extent of $100, when you give him power to try cases involving a penalty of $1,000, it is a proper safeguard that there should be some authority over him to see that the case that he is called upon to dispose of is not of a frivolous character ? This consideration, I think, will appeal to the fairness of my hon. friend. I think the amendment should go as it is. My hon. friend recognizes that it is a step in what he would call the proper direction-a very long step, for my part, I am bound to say. After we had given it a trial for two or three years, we will see how it works. At the present time, I think we should go no further.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I did not have the opportunity. when the matter was considered in committee before, of ascertaining the views of the labour organizations upon this matter. I am not aware yet what the views of the labour organizations of the Dominion are, but since the Bill was in the committee stage before, I took the opportunity of sending copies of the ' Hansard ' to some gentlemen who have been deeply interested in the labour cause, and who are still deeply interested in that cause. On Saturday last I had a consultation with two of these gentlemen in Toronto, two gentlemen who. by

the way, are supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite, but whose fealty to the cause of labour has never yet been challenged, and I asked them as to their opinion of the practicability of the amendment which I propose. I asked them as to the necessity of having speedy and inexpensive trials. They both assured me that the Act would be of no real value unless it contained some such provision as that which I suggested two or three weeks ago.


Mr. COWAN.: What is mat provision ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is contained in ' Hansard.' I will read for the hon. gentleman the amendment 1 propose :
That all the words after * fifty dollars,' in section. 1, be omitted and be replaced by the following : ' Recoverable In the name of His Majesty in a summary manner with costs, under the provisions of article 58 of the Criminal Code of 1892, before any police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, judge of session or county court, judge having jurisdiction where the offender is to be found or where the offence was committed.
The intention is to give jurisdiction to these magistrates so that they could receive information, and if they thought a prima facie case was established, they could issue a summons to the person charged with violating the Act, and bring him before them. I suppose some delay will elapse after the Bill passes through this stage before it is read a third time. I would like to have an opportunity, if the privilege is accorded me, of sending copies of to-day's ' Hansard ' to the gentlemen with whom I communicated, in order to ask their views as to the proposition that has been made before proceeding further with the matter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no objection to giving some days to my hon. friend to consult his friends.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Your frieids.


The PRIME MINISTER.: But, I suppose, like myself, he is anxious for the blessings of a prorogation some day, and, therefore, I can only give a few days.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman what provision there is in this law which would enable parties to bring in expert mechanics to do work when they cannot find men who are capable of doing it in this country ? I thought some provision was to be made to that effect. I have received some letters on that line from parties who are interested in this matter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No provision is made in this Bill to meet the suggestion which is made by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). If I tell him the reason is, that I do not think it is at all necessary. I am not aware, from the information I have had from the Labour Department, that any difficulty has been found in securing all the expert labour which is wanted. Whenever there has been a scarcity of expert labour, there has been no difficulty in bringing it into the country, and nobody has raised any objection to it. I may say, to the credit of the labour organizations, that in all the conferences that I have had with their representatives, they have always taken the ground that they have no objection to expert labour being brought in, if such labour cannot be got in the country. The only thing they object to is the importation of labour into the country which can be got here without going outside. The provision of the present law reads as follows :
Nothing in this Act shall be so construed as to prevent any citizen or subject of any foreign country, temporarily residing in Canada, either in private or official capacity, from engaging, under contract or otherwise, persons not residents cr citizens of Canada, to act as private secretaries, servants or domestics for such foreigner temporarily residing in Canada; nor shall this Act 'be so construed as to prevent any person, partnership or corporation from engaging, under contract or agreement, skilled workmen in foreign countries to perform labour in Canada in or upon any new industry not at present established in Canada, provided that skilled labour for that purpose cannot be otherwise obtained.
This clause appears to be sufficient to protect the labour organizations, and the employer as well, so far as my information goes.


Mr. INGRAM.: Suppose a railway company brings In an official from the United States to work under contract, would it not he violating the provisions of this Act ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am very glad to say to my hon. friend that I am not the judge of the law, and, therefore, I shall leave that question to the courts.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not a lawyer or a judge either, but I know that railwaymen are complaining that Americans are brought in here for the purposes of performing official duties on the railways, thus shutting out Canadians. In respect to the Act itself, the chief complaint is that it is cumbersome, and that it is not enforced. This is the objection that I hear in the section of the country that I come from, and I am sure that my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has heard the same objection.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We are trying to make the enforcement of the law easier.


Andrew B. Ingram: So far as I can judge, it seems to me to be very cumbersome yet. If we could get over the difficulty of enforcement, it might be all right.
Amendments agreed to (on division), and Bill reported.

41S68



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 127) to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act (Hon. Sydney Fisher) read the second time, and House went into cimmittee thereon.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This Bill is a very simple and a very short one. When an animal is slaughtered In quarantine it is, of course, a very serious loss to the owner, and under the present law not even the head or the horns or the hoofs or those parts which cannot possibly carry the disease are permitted to be sold. This amendment enables us under certain conditions to allow these parts of the animal to be legally sold. As a matter of fact they are frequently sold now, but it is illegal.
On section 2,


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This goes a little further than the previous section. When an animal is declared to be affected with a contagious disease it is slaughtered, but sometimes the meat is found to be perfectly good, and this amendment enables the health officer of the locality to give a certificate that it may be legally sold.


Robert Laird Borden: Does it occur that the meat of animals suffering from contagious disease is suitable for food ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. There is a disease called lumpy jaw which in the earlier stages is entirely' local, and the rest of the carcass is perfectly good for human food. There is the safeguard that a certificate must be issued from the local health authorities after inspection.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



FINANCES OF THE PRINTING BUREAU.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of the Minister of Finance, the House resolved itself into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to provide that the Minister of Finance and Receiver General may from time to time authorize the advance to the King's Printer, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, of such sum or sums of money as the said King's Printer may require to enable him to purchase the material required for the execution of orders given or requisitions made under the provisions of chapter 27 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, or of any Act in amendment thereof, and to pay the wages of workmen engaged in the execution of such orders or requisitions, before such orders or requisitions are completed and the same are paid for by the Senate or House of Commons or the department of the government of Canada giving them :	Provided that the sums so advanced
shall not at any time exceed $200,000.-Mr. Fielding.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). This resolution is intended to give legal effect to a practice which has long prevailed, and which is necessary in the administration of the printing business. We have equipped a printing establishment; we have provided the building and the plant, but we have not provided what I may call for convenience a working capital. The King's Printer is supposed to receive payment from the various departments and from parliament for the work; but in the meantime supplies have to be bad and wages have to be paid, and therefore, it is necessary, that the King's Printer shall have a credit which will enable him to pay for these supplies, and to pay wages pending the receipt of his money from the various departments. This has been arranged in the past with the Auditor General, but on looking closely into the law his attention was drawn to the fact that there was no legal authority for this practice, and that it would be better that it should be made legal by a Bill in the nature of the resolution which I now propose.
Robert Laird Borden: Has the Auditor General permitted a fund to he placed into the hands of the King's Printer ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has been the practice for years for the Auditor General to give the King's Printer a credit for this purpose, but recently he has discovered that he has no legal authority for it, and therefore it is desirable that it should he dealt with in this way.


William Findlay Maclean: This is another case of arrearage.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. It is _ a case in which we have equipped a printing office with everything except a working cajdtal, and they have been getting along hitherto on borrowed capital without any authority for It.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is practically working on a letter of credit.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Quite so, and the Auditor General makes them account for it.
Resolution reported.



JUDGES OF PROVINCIAL COURTS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 131) to amend the Act respecting the judges of provincial courts, the Solicitor General (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) read the second time; and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have no desire to offer any fractious opposition to this Increase in the number of judges in Montreal, for the reason that we are absolutely in want of additional judges in that city. But I have


Andrew B. Ingram: not changed my mind from what it was when this question came up in the last parliament. It seems to me very regrettable that the two governments, this government and the provincial government, have not been able to come to some understanding as to a better distribution of the judicial work of the province. There are, as hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec know, a considerable number of our judges who absolutely complain that they have too little to do ; and it seems a pity that they should not be employed in Montreal instead of remaining to a very large extent idle in their own districts. I know that the objection to that is that this government and also the Quebec government, are of opinion that a change in the system of districts would be a very unpopular move. I think that opinion is exaggerated. 1 believe the people of the province of Quebec wish to have prompt and cheap justice, and I do not think they require, at all, to the extent suggested, the mere physical presence of a judge in any particular district. The right hon. gentleman knows that by recent legislation the jurisdiction of the clerk of the court has been extended ; so that I really believe that with a little care the districts might be so adjusted that we would be able to have those additional judges in Montreal without increasing the judiciary of the province. Nevertheless, as I have stated before, our judges in Montreal are overworked and distressingly underpaid ; and, as there seems to be no disposition to make any change In the direction I have indicated, I think it becomes necessary for us to have additional judges in the district of Montreal.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The conclusion of my hon. friend is all right, though I disagree with him in his premises. The conclusion is that we must have these three additional judges in the city of Montreal. That is imperative ; it is a necessity which cannot be avoided. With regard to the general distribution of the judicial work of the province, I must say, and I say it without any hesitation, that I have very little sympathy with the judge who says he has not enough to do. I never knew yet of the man, be he ever so busy or so idle, who could not do more than he does ; and when a man says that he has too little to do, I have little sympathy with him if he cannot find work for himself. It is not peculiar to the province of Quebec that there are some judges who have more to do than others. I do not know the province where that is not the case. The distribution of population is such that there are always some judges who are overworked, while there are others who could do more than they do. In the province of Ontario, whose system it has been suggested, I think by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier himself, we should adopt, there are many
county court judges who have not as much to do as they might do. But what are you to do ? The country will insist upon having representatives of the judicial authority at all points, within convenient and easy access. This necessitates the judges being distributed all over the province, and consequently there will be judges who will have more to do than others. That is the case in Quebec, Ontario, and, I presume, other provinces. How you are to avoid that, I do not know. However, the Solicitor General has had repeated conferences on this subject with the Prime Minister of Quebec, and we have come to the conclusion that in the present condition of public opinion, we could not change the present distribution of judicial authority and I do not know, after all, that the province is altogether wrong. My hon. friend, I am sure, would not contend that all the Superior Court judges should be concentrated in Montreal, or Quebec, and that there should be no judges of any kind in the rest of the province. If all the judges of the Superior Court were brought to Montreal or Quebec, personally, I would not object ; I would rather welcome it; but we would have to have some system whereby judges would be distributed all over the province for the easy collection of debts, the trial of petty offences, and so on ; but to leave the province absolutely without any representative of the judicial authority except in Montreal or Quebec, is a system which I think my hon. friend will agree with me cannot be enacted.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right hon. friend is
aware that during the past year judges from outlying districts have come to Montreal to do exactly what these three judges are intended to do, at a cost of between $7,000 and $8,000, whereas this arrangement involves an expenditure of $15,000 a year. I do not think my right hon. friend is right when he says that the judges ought to find something to do. My right hon. friend knows that there are old judicial districts in the province of Quebec in which the judge is not busy more than two or three days a month at the very utmost. Sometimes he has only two or three cases ; and my right hon. friend will not call in question, I am sure, the statement which was published in La Presse newspaper last year, emanating from Mr. Justice Cimon, that sometimes a judge found himself in his district without any cases. A judge cannot make cases if there are none ; he may devote himself to some other occupation ; and, without advocating the centralization to which my right hon. friend referred a moment ago, though I confess that the Ontario system seems to me to possess many advantages, I think we might concentrate in those districts where there is comparatively little work. For instance, the district of St. John and the district of

Beauharnois might possibly be united into one district. Some other districts might also be united. The means of communication are very different to-day from what they were in 1874. To-day a judge can go in an hour what was then quite a journey.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Let me say, in answer to the statement of my hon. friend, that judges have been brought to Montreal from outlying districts, implying that those judges could spare the time from their own districts and give it to Montreal, that I have had numerous complaints from the bar of those districts that they were neglected for Montreal.


William Findlay Maclean: I think the House ought to pause before it praises too highly the system in Ontario. The judges of our Superior Court are not sufficiently paid, and we have far too many county court judges, who have not sufficient work to do. We .have got into the habit of increasing the number of the latter when not required, and to such an extent that it would seem they were appointed solely out of regard to political exigencies.
The hon. gentleman has spoken of negotiations between the Solicitor General of the Dominion and the Attorney General of Quebec, looking to some settlement. I hope that negotiations will also be had between the Attorney General of the Dominion and the Attorney General of Ontario, looking to some kind of reform that will reduce the number of county court judges, and thus enable us to pay our Superior Court judges better. The right hon. gentleman has found a way of relieving the strain in Quebec, and I would like to see him find a way of increasing the pay of our Superior Court judges in Ontario.
We could do with one-third the number of county court judges we have to-day. With the present increased facilities of communication, one county court judge could do the business of three counties. The question may be a difficult one to deal with, but 1 hope that some means will be found of improving our system and increasing the pay of the Superior Court judges.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend has said that the government has found it possible to do for the judges of Quebec what it could not do for the judges of Ontario. He is altogether under a misapprehension. There is no increase of salary in this Bill, but salaries are provided for three new judges.


William Findlay Maclean: You have increased the expenditure with regard to the administration of justice.


The PRIME MINISTER.: In this we have very little discretion. Provision has been made by the Quebec legislature for these, judges. These three judges are absolutely required, and we have no discretion but to appoint them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: '


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps the right hon.. gentleman will find some means of preventing his political friends in the different provinces from loading up the Dominion with a greater number of judges than are required. I hope that the government will take a stand and refuse t^/ give the money to pay them.


Robert Laird Borden: There is this difficulty, that the provincial legislature appoints the judges and fixes the districts in which they shall act, and the Federal authority provides the salary. The only check, therefore, which the Federal authority has is to refuse to supply the money for the additional judges until some redistribution is made, and that would be an extreme course to adopt, and might result in a scandal with respect to the administration of justice. At the same time, I think it is the duty of the government to make the very strongest possible representations-to the provincial authorities, if the circumstances are such as have been detailed here. In my experience, it is most unusual for any judge to believe that he is not overworked. lTet, we have judges in the province of Quebec actually complaining that they have not enough to do. That indicates a very grave condition of affairs. If a judge has only half a dozen of cases a year, he is deserving of sympathy. He has not enough to keep his mental faculties in proper running order, and it does seem a pity that when there are judges in the province of Quebec who claim to be in that condition, their energies and ability cannot be made use of for the purpose of performing the work which is so abundant in the city of Montreal. However, I am inclined to think, under the circumstances stated to-day, that there is no alternative except for us to pass the Bill and vote the money.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: I may say to my hon. friend that perhaps a reason may be found for the statement made by some of our judges, that they have little or nothing to do in their district, A judge says he has nothing to do in some of the country parts, because he wants to go to some town. The judges ought to understand that when assigned to a judicial district, they should live there. It is expected of the judges that they should be the first to observe the law.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it may not be out of place to say a word with regard to the loss which the country has sustained in the death of Mr. Justice King. I think that all the lawyers in the House who have had the advantage of practicing before that very eminent judge, will agree with me that the judiciary of this country has sustained, in his death, a very great loss indeed. I have had the privilege of practicing before him ever since he became a mem-

ber of the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada, and I cannot speak too highly of his eminent abilities, and the splendid qualities which he brought to the discharge of the duties of his position. He had eminently a judicial mind ; he was a man of great learning ; he had the advantage of having gone upon the bench at a very early age, and thus acquired a great judicial experience. All members of the bar agree that on all occasions he discharged in a most satisfactory manner the duties of his high position. Young men, as well as older members of the bar, received from him on all occasions the most unvarying courtesy and consideration, and I think that no higher-praise can be bestowed upon him that that which some years ago was bestowed upon an English judge. That tribute is this, that no suitor who ever came before him went out of the court without being impressed by the belief that Hr. Justice King had brought to the consideration of the case before him the very highest qualities of his mind, the most careful thought and attention, and the most perfect fairness and impartiality ; and that to every suitor he gave a most patient and attentive hearing.
Now, judges may vary and do vary in the ability and experience which they bring to bear upon the duties of their position; but the tribute that I have just mentioned is something which is open to every judge in this country or any other country. And I think that to be able to say, as we all can say, this of Mr. Justice King is to give him a meed of praise which is not only his due, but which will make his memory respected and remembered throughout the length and breadth of this country.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Sir Louis Davies).: 1 am sure that every lawyer in this House who has had the pleasure and privilege of practicing before the late distinguished jurist will certainly cordially approve of the proper and well-considered language in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has eulogized his memory. Coming from the maritime provinces, I take special pleasure in bearing testimony to the great reputation which Mr. King, when he was a member of the New Brunswick bench had attained, before he was translated to the Supreme Court of Canada. He was remarkable in the provincial court as in the Supreme Court for the distinguished courtesy which at all times marked his conduct towards the bar. He was a man well read in the principles of the law which he administered; and those who have practiced before him. or who, though they have not practiced before him, have read his judgments, have been well assured that the country had in Mr. King a well-balanced mind, an erudite and learned jurist, a man who at all times brought to his duties an anxious desire to discharge them faith-147	.
fully and well. It was the privilege of the present government, just after its accesion to power, to appoint Mr. King to a distinguished position as arbitrator for the settlement for the Berhing sea claims between the United States and Great Britain. The duties which he then discharged took up some seven months of his time; and the reputation which he gained not only among the barristers who practiced in that court and persons who had interests at stake before the court, but with the distinguished judge from the United States who became his associate and the counsel who 1 came from the United States to practice before him, was a very high reputation. To this day his name stands high not only throughout Canada, but in the United States of America in connection with the distinguished work which he so well performed. It gives me pleasure to endorse what the hon. member from Halifax (Mr. Borden) has said ; and at the same time I desire to express my personal grief and sense of loss at Mr. Justice King's untimely death. I feel that it will be long before his place can be satisfactorily filled. I only hope that the reputation he has achieved may be sustained by his successors.


The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: After having listened to what has fallen from the lips of my hon. friends from the maritime provinces who knew Judge King better, perhaps, than we from other parts of the country, I may be permitted to say that I feel that we have suffered, in Mr. Justice King's death, irreparable loss. For, after all, good judges are as essential as good legislators, and in Mr. King we had one of the best judges of the land. Speaking as one who had occasion, from time to time, to appear before him in connection with cases arising from the province of Quebec, I can say that though we came before him with a system of law with which he was not necessarily familiar in his early days, no judge gave us greater satisfaction than Judge King.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



INTERPRETATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 134) to amend the Interpretation Act (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL.: In the province of Ontario, besides counties, they have what are called provisional districts in which there are district courts. The object of this Bill is to make the statutes which are applicable to the county courts applicable to the district courts also.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

4G75



P. E. I. CLAIMS-MAINTENANCE OF STEAM COMMUNICATION.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution
That from and after the 1st day of July, 1901, there shall be paid to the province of Prince Edward Island, in addition to all sums now authorized by law, an annual allowance of $3t),000, which allowance shall become payable and be paid to the said province half-yearly on the 1st days of July and January in each and every year, beginning with the said 1st day of July, 1901, such allowance to be paid and accepted in full settlement of all claims of the said province against the Dominion of Canada on account of alleged non-fulfilment of the terms of union between the Dominion and the said province as respects the maintenance of efficient steam communication between the island and the mainland.
He said : This resolution deals with a claim of the province of Prince Edward Island. For some years that province has been pressing upon the attention of the Dominion a claim arising out of an alleged non-fulfilment of the terms of union. This year the government of the island, by deputation and by memorial, have pressed this question again, and have urged that the government of Canada should take some action to grant the relief which they desire. Tiie province of Prince Edward Island entered the union in the year 1873. One of the conditions of the union, which happens to form the subject of controversy, reads as follows :
The Dominion government shall assume and defray all the charges for the following services, viz.:	Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the Dominion winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
The contention of the government of Prince Edward Island is that that condition of the Act of Union was not complied with, and that in consequence of the non-compliance with that condition the island has been for years placed under a very serious disadvantage. The island pressed this claim some years ago, and went so far as to send a delegation from the island government to lay its petition at the foot of the Throne. Her Majesty's government at that time addressed a despatch to the Canadian government, which, without attempting to pass judgment on the merits of the island's claim, expressed a very strong hope that something should he done by the Dominion government to meet the difficulty. About that time the question of constructing a tunnel between the mainland and Prince Edward Island came under consideration, and it was thought that the construction of that tunnel might in some measure be regarded Mr. FITZPATRICK.
as a settlement of this claim. In the despatch of Her Majesty's government, allusion was made to that project, and the hope expressed that the Dominion government would take a very generous view of the matter In dealing with that proposal. As the House is aware, the tunnel project was not proceeded with, and if it was to be dealt with as in any measure a compensation to Prince Edward Island, that is of course now out of the question, for the tunnel project is not a matter of practical politics at present.
As I said, the island entered the union in 1873. For about two years an attempt was made to keep up communication between the island and the mainland by a small steamer called the Albert. I think it will be generally admitted by those who know the facts, and by those who read the papers, that the service rendered by that steamer was a very inefficient one. After the lapse of a couple of years it was felt that the continuance of that steamer on the route would certainly not be a compliance with the terms of the union,and thereupon a steamer called the Northern Light was purchased and placed on the route. The Northern Light came into the service in the year 1877, and continued in the service for some years. She was undoubtedly a decided improvement on the Albert ; but still it is contended, and with much reason, that she failed to render adequate service in maintaining winter communication so that there might be complete connection between Prince Edward Island and the railway system of the Dominion. The Northern Light continued on the service until the year 1888, when the Dominion government placed upon the route a steamer called the Stanley, a well-built and well-equipped steamer, which has rendered excellent service. The Stanley continued ou the service until 1900, then a second steamer was placed on the route called the Minto ; so that during the past winter we have had two steamers on the route rendering a very satisfactory service. Now the contention of the Prince Edward Island government has been that there has not been an efficient service as contemplated by the terms of the union, that there was not such a service until we placed a second steamer ou the route in 1900, the steamer, Minto. We have not felt disposed to recognize the claim to that extent.
The Island government have desired that this whole question should be submitted to arbitration with a view that they might be able to establish what they think would be a very large claim upon the Dominion. The claim which they made when they appealed to Her Majesty several years ago was $5,000,000. We have given the matter very careful consideration. We have to acknowledge from the data that is available that the placing of these better steamers on the route was followed by such a large business that it is not unreasonable to suppose that if

these vessels, or vessels of a similar character, had been placed upon the route at an earlier period, the island certainly would have received much more advantage from them. After very full consideration we have reached the conclusion that while the contention of the Island government that the terms of union were not met until 1900, ought not to be maintained, there was still something in the contention which the House might generously recognize. We have thought whatever might be said with respect of the services of the other vessels, that when the Stanley was placed upon the route in 18S8 and from that time forward, there was an efficient and satisfactory service ; and that the placing of the second steamer on in later years, while undoubtedly it gave the island a much better and more satisfactory service, still it is not to be regarded as necessary to a compliance with the terms of union; for we think it must be admitted whatever may be said as respects the other vessels, that when the Stanley was placed on the line in 1888 she did give that full and satisfactory communication between the island and the mainland which was contemplated by the terms of union. There would remain, then, for consideration the question of whether the island had a fair and equitable claim for failure to comply with the terms of union from the year 1873 down to the year 188S. when the Stanley was placed upon the line. It was ln. the view that the Island government might make a tolerably fair case before a board of arbitration on that point, that this government dealt with the question. We felt that instead of having the matter referred to arbitration, inasmuch as the question has repeatedly been before parliament, and as there was nothing new to be elicited, we ought to deal with the question in the way we have proposed. We have therefore suggested to the Island government whether we might not make a full and final settlement of this matter by giving them an annual allowance of 830,000 in addition to their present income. That was proposed under authority of an order in council, and the Island government have agreed to accept such a settlement, we now propose by this resolution that under the circumstances which I have stated there shall be allowed to the government of Prince Edward Island 830,000 a year in addition to their income, in full and final settlement of the claim as set forth in the resolution.
Mr. EEFURGEY.: I would ask the minister if this 830.000 is given to compensate the island for the non-fulfilment of the terms of union, and up to what date ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Up to the present date, all claims of whatever nature up to the present time, based on the non-fulfilment of the terms of union.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not had an opportunity, nor did any one on this side of the House have an opportunity of looking at the papers mentioned by the Minister of Finance. There is no objection to letting the motion pass and the House go into committee, provided it is understood that all the papers are laid upon the Table before we can allow it to pass.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We shall not ask concurrence until a later day, when the hon. gentleman will have had an opportunity of looking at the papers.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know * that there will be any criticism one way or the other concerning it; but we would like to be put in possession of all the data.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is quite satisfactory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I distinctly recollect that some years ago when final arrangements were made with that province, the Hon. Edward Blake, then speaking from this quarter of the House, asked when we might expect a ' final finality' in our arrangements with the provinces ; and a strong assurance was given that this was being done for the last time. Every one was satisfied, and expected we were then making a final settlement of all differences between the various provinces and the Dominion. But for some time past a spirit of unrest seems to be prevalent, especially in the maritime provinces, with regard to imaginary or real claims that they suppose they still have against the Dominion. One day it comes from New Brunswick, another day from Nova Scotia, and another day from Prince Edward Island.
Now, what we are afraid of is that this is only the commencement of what must ultimately result in going the rounds of the whole of the provinces, and of readjusting these subsidies. I am not opposing this proposition, but I am only looking forward with apprehension to the time when these claims will be presented by the whole of the provinces in some form or other, and when pressure will be brought to bear upon the government to induce them to readjust the subsidies and to give something more to these provinces. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) made a statement that seemed to me to carry with it almost the suggestion that for the present Prince Edward Island ought to be fairly well satisfied. I understood him to say that another vessel was put on during the present year, and that they had succeeded with the additional service in giving steady communication between the island and the mainland.
If this be a fact, and that is all the island is claiming, providing they continue that in future, it would seem to me that they could not very well be dissatisfied. But, this appears to be a claim for losses sustained in

the past through this service not having been performed. I have always thought that there was one thing in connection with this contract and it was that we agreed to do what it was possible for us to do, and that if, through the elements, or from some cause over which human ingenuity has no control, we failed to accomplish what was intended to be accomplished, we ought to be exonerated from responsibility for the nonfulfilment of such a contract. Whether that would apply in the Prince Edward Island case or not, I am not prepared to say, but that is, to my mind, the reason why we ought to be exonerated, because we did not fulfil the letter of the contract. However, the principal apprehension I have is that this is only the commencement of a rearrangement of these subsidies which will ultimately compel us to go the rounds of the whole of the provinces and make another settlement with them.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Sir Louis Davies).: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) misapprehends the purport and scope of this resolution. There is no intention here of asking the House to re-arrange any of the subsidies granted to Prince Edward Island.


James Clancy: That is what it means.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In no sense or way. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) is entirely mistaken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries if Prince Edward Island makes a claim to-day for the non-fiulfilment of that contract, and if another province makes a claim, because we have taken over railways for which we are prepared to give her compensation, it is not an additional subsidy 1


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is drawing upon his imagination to such an extent that I am afraid I cannot answer him. I want to call attention to the principle of the proposition before the House, and to the statement made by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that this was in some way or other an addition to the subsidy which the Dominion gives to Prince Edward Island in consideration of the terms of union. It is nothing of the kind, nor is it a question of unrest having recently taken place in the province, or a claim being pressed now which was not pressed years ago. The hon. gentleman has been in the House longer than I have, aud he knows very well that this has been a burning question for many years past. It is not something that has lately come to the front. He knows, that as far back as 1888, the Island government bombarded the Dominion government with memorials and petitions on this very question claiming that the contract which had been made between the Dominion and the island, at the time that the island came into confederation, had not been kept by the Dominion. This is a matter of good faith, it is a matter of contract. I have read the contract. The construction placed upon this contract by the hon. gentleman may be that we are only bound to keep up continuous communication in so far as it is practicable. It may be that the Dominion made an improvident bargain, but as to the construction he puts upon the contract, what do we find ? We find that question has been solved already. We have carried out the contract for the last ten or twelve years, which shows that it was quite capable of being carried out from the inception. There was no difficulty about carrying out the contract from 1873 to 1888, as it has been carried out since. The reason it was not carried out was simply because the Dominion government did not put on the steamers necessary to do it. They did put on steamers in 1888, and carried out the contract substantially since that time, and they did not do it before. The hon. Minister of Finance referred in general terms to the manner in which the attempt was made by the Dominion government to carry out that compact. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) knows that so strong was the feeling of unrest in Prince Edward Island that when the government, led by the present Chief Justice Sullivan and the present Senator Ferguson, were in power for eight or ten years, they not only bombarded this Dominion with memorials and petitions, but failing to get redress here, they went to the foot of the Throne and laid their memorials before Her Majesty herself. They were told that the Queen had no power to interfere between the islaud and the Dominion, or to compel the Dominion to carry out the contract which she had made with the island. But Lord Granville suggested that inasmuch as it would appear to be impossible to carry out the contract they had made, they should look with favour upon the proposal to carry out the contract by means of a tunnel. He hoped that if it were possible we would adopt that proposal. At that time, the tunnel question was discussed, ns it was supposed that we could not build steel steamships with which to carry out the contract, but since then, we have built steel steamships and put them on the route, showing that we can carry out the contract and that we could have carried out the contract previously, if we had only adopted the means that we adopted in 1888. So that, the claim which was then made on the Dominion government for $5,000,000 for not having carried out this contract was relegated to the Dominion government for settlement, and they settled it as far as I


Thomas Simpson Sproule: the future was concerned by building these steel steamships. If my hon. friend knew the loss and inconvenience to persons and property which the people of that province sustained for the eighteen years that the Dominion failed to carry out their contract, he would understand why the people have been so persistent in pressing their claim upon the Dominion government. In the first three years the Albert was placed upon that route. She did absolutely nothing. She was not a tit boat for the service, she was unable to cope with the work, and she hardly ever crossed over in that three years. The peopl^ of the island, to whom you had pledged your faith to give communication with the mainland, were absolutely without any communication at all except the primitive act of crossing in open boats. Nobody wants to have a Dominion contract kept in' that way. The bon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says that he is not offering any opposition to this proposal, but what he said, I take it, was by way of qualifying the position he took. Then, we put on ihe Northern Light. I will not dispute that when the Northern Light was put on it was a bona fide attempt to grapple with the problem, but. it was an utter failure. In 1876-7. 1877-8 and 1878-9, there were large gaps of months when the boat could not run at all. In 1879-80 for a whole month, from the 10th of March to the 10th of April, she never crossed at all. She was not a strong enough boat, she was not properly built, she was not built of the proper material, and so afraid were the Dominion government of the venture, that they actually passed an order that she should not carry mor" than nine passengers at any one time, and an infinitesimal amount of freight. In the next year, from the 21st of January to the 25th of March, she never crossed at all. Then, in the next year, from the 4th of February to the 2Sth of March, there was no crossing.
I need not repeat them all year after year. Every oue acknowledges that the Northern Light did not comply with the compact. This is not a question of favour. This contract, which was made with the people of Prince Edward Island, was a very important contract from their standpoint : so important that most people believed there was no portion of the terms of the union which had so much influence with the people in inducing them to surrender their independence and come into confederation, as had this one. They believed that their trade would increase enormously. What was the result ? In 1888 you grappled with the question in a businesslike way. You built the Stanley and you put her on the route, and that has resulted in an extraordinary development of trade in the winter season. We only see one side of the accounts here : we only look at the expenditure, but we are apt to forget that there
is another side to that account. Last winter we carried 3,000 passengers and over 200.000 packages of freight between the island and the mainland, and we received nearly $20,000 from freight and passengers. The trade has not only doubled and trebled and quadrupled, but it has progressed in a way which has astonished even those who had the greatest faith in the development of the island when the terms of the union would be carried out. I say that the people of the island are now quite satisfied, wholly satisfied, that the Dominion is carrying out not only literally, but in spirit, the terms of the contract which they solemnly made with the people of Prince Edward Island in 1873. There is not a man on either side of politics who ever believed that there was a successful attempt to carry out that term of the union for eighteen or twenty years. The people of the island suffered greatly during that time. If this matter had been referred to arbitration, it would, I think, be admitted generally that you would have to go into court with the frank admission that you had not kept your contract, and it would be simply a question of establishing the damages. Any one who looks at the extraordinary development of the winter trade with Prince Edward Island since the contract has been carried out, will see that the losses sustained by the people when the contract was not carried, have been enormous. We now stand on a pretty fair ground, and I am glad to see that there has been no opposition so far to this settlement. As the Minister of Finance said, the facts of the case were all known to the government, and there was no necessity for referring it to an arbitration to determine them. The departments were able to give up the facts, and attached to the papers that were brought down are schedules showing the work done by the Albert-or rather showing that the Albert did not do any work-showing the limited work done Toy the Northern Light, and showing the work done by the Stanley and the Minto, and the extraordinary development of trade that followed, these steamers being put on the route.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the minister know of any other claims by the province of Prince Edward Island against the Dominion ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am not aware that there is any other claim before us at present, but I am not discussing that. This is a claim for breach of contract, and I know my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) well enough to believe, that if he is satisfied there has been a substantial breach of a solemn contract, he is not the one to stand up and say that we should not carry out what equity, justice and law declare that we should, namely, to grant reasonable damages. The only

question is : Have we done that ? I think hon. gentlemen will see that we have arrived at a reasonable sum, aud I do not think it will be .complained of.


John Graham Haggart: I have heard of this claim of Prince Edward Island ever since I have been in the House. It is founded on some alleged breach of contract which occurred between 1873 and 1888, when Prince Edward Island came into the union ; when, as the Minister of Marine says, that province sacrificed her independence, we made an arrangement to do all that we could to maintain winter communication, and we did all that we could up to 1S88. For my part, I believe we did the best possible in these times. After the Albert we had the Northern Light, and we availed of the best means within our reach in these years. Notwithstanding what the Minister of Marine says, I contend that this is an addition to the subsidy of the province to the extent of $30,000 a year. Taking in connection with the sums which we have lately paid to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, it looks as if we were fixing anew the subsidies to the maritime provinces, leaving the older provinces and the west out altogether.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Marine says that there is a breach of contract, and I would remind him that this compensation of $30,000 for all time to come, means a capital sum of one million dollars. Therefore, for the fifteen years between 3873 and 1888, we are giving to Prince Edward Island a sum of $75,000 a year. The minister (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) admits that from 1888 up to the present we have performed our contract. Yes, we have more than performed our contract. We put two vessels there, when we are obliged to keep only one.	.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Where do you find that?


John Graham Haggart: One vessel fulfils the contract to the fullest extent.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: No.


John Graham Haggart: Here is an island with a little over 100,000 inhabitants, situated within a few miles of the main shore, and one vessel was sufficient to carry on the traffic over these twenty-six or twenty-seven miles of sea. However, we are to have the papers brought down, and I suppose they will contain the reasons which led the government to arrive at this decision. As the hon. gentleman from Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said, the last Subsidy Act which increased the subsidies to the provinces, was considered as wiping out all the claims of the provinces up to that date.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Who considered that ?


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Marine says that this is to be the end of this kind of thing. He say% that we are wiping out a $5,000,000 claim for $1,000,000. What is to prevent Prince Edward Island claiming the rest of this amount ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The Minister of Finance stated that after this sum had been reported by the sub-committee and agreed to by council, communications were had with the Prince Edward Island government, both orally and by letter, which resulted in their agreeing to accept this amount in full.


John Graham Haggart: And will this payment put an end to the claim ? Why, although they may by Act of parliament accept the amount, you will have them coming here next year or the year after or some other year, saying: We were in difficulties at the time and we were obliged to accept the $30,000 a year, but the rest of our claim was equitable if not legal, and so you had better give us the other $4,000,000 that we are entitled to. It is dangerous ground to be treading, this increasing of the subsidies to the provinces without the consent of all the parties that united in the compact. There must be an end put to this thing, or there will be an end put to confederation. If there is an honest, straightforward claim for breach of contract between the Dominion and any province, let it go to the courts, and what the courts find the province to be entitled to we will give. But I deny that the government of the Dominion failed to fulfil the contract with Prince Edward Island to the best of its ability from 1873 to 1888, and from 1888 to the present day. On the contrary, it has more than fulfilled the contract. If the question were submitted to the judges of the land to ascertain whether the province of Prince Edward Island were entitled to anything, there would not be an objection raised by any one to wdiatever amount might be awarded to it; but what I contend is, that we are virtually setting aside the solemn pact which was entered into between the different provinces of the Dominion, by which each was to receive a certain subsidy, and we are giving to the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick sums of money which they are not entitled to under that pact.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I entirely deny that, so far as New Brunswick is concerned.


John Graham Haggart: With reference to this matter, I will wait till I see the correspondence and all the papers. I am only speaking generally on the subject, and when more fully informed I may, perhaps, alter my opinion.


Sir LOUIS DAVIES.: 


Tlie PRIME MINISTER.: It is certainly preferable, from every point of view, tliat the discussion of this question should be left over until the House is fully prepared to go into the merits of the question, and has acquainted itself with the conditions which have brought the government to the decision which it has now taaen. But, I rise to call the attention of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Haggartl, who is generally fair in his arguments, but on this occasion has not lived up to his general character, to the fact that we are not attempting at all to increase the subsidy. That is not the ground we take. The only ground we take is, that the government of Canada entered into a solemn compact with Prince Edward Island in 1873, and for many years did not fulfil that compact. That is the only question, and I will appeal to any man in this House, when he reads the contract, to say -whether the government of Canada was not entirely in fault.


James Clancy: Will the right hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question ? Assuming that Prince Edward Island had a fair claim pending, would not the proper course have been to have given such sum of money to the province rather than to put it in the shape of a subsidy to be spread over all time ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: With due deference to my hon. friend, I do not see where the difference lies between giving 81,000.000 and giving the interest on $1,000,000. But, I come to the point made by my hon. friend from South Lanark. He says the contract is not at all as represented by my hon. friend beside me (Sir Louis Davies)-that the contract made with Prince Edward Island in 1873 was other than to keep up efficient steam communication, that it was not a direct bargain, but that it was qualified with the condition that we were to do the best we could, and if we found the forces of nature too'strong for us, we were not to be responsible. That is not the wording of the contract. This is it, in so many words :
The Dominion government shall assume and defray all the charges for the following services, namely :
Efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers, to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the Dominion, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and railway system of the Dominion.
That is not the interpretation which my hon. friend from South Lanark gave a moment ago to this contract. It is a direct, binding and solemn undertaking that the government of Canada will maintain continuous communication between Prince Edward Island and the Intercolonial Railway. There is no provision there that the Dominion of Canada would try to do it; there is no suggestion that there might be too much ice
in certain seasons. It is true, there might be a case of force majeure. No one would complain if the service were interrupted for a day or two by act of Providence, because that is a case of force majeure. To-day there is a service which is uninterrupted except by act of Providence; but that was not the case for sixteen years. What is done to-day could have been done during those sixteen years ; but the people of Prince Edward Island, for those sixteen years, had no regular and continuous communication between the Island and the Intercolonial Railway and the rest of Canada. That was not due to the action of Providence, but it wTas the fault of the Canadian government, which neglected to do then what it has since done. Under such circumstances, can it be said that there is not ample justice in the claim of Prince Edward Island 1 The Dominion has not lived up to its undertaking, and that is the only reason why we ask tlie House to consider this claim. My hon. friend has alluded to other claims from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Those claims will be discussed, each one in its turn ; but in this case, which is so obvious, so certain, so manifest, the House should not hesitate to redeem the honour of the Dominion of Canada as pledged in a solemn contract. My hon. friend says we might have gone to the judges. So we might; but this claim has been referred to the Imperial authorities, and they, having gone into it, recommend it to the fair sense of justice of the people of Canada ; and that is the reason we make this proposal. My hon. friend from Bothwell says we made a mistake in not asking parliament to appropriate one round million of dollars instead of $30,000 a year. If we had brought down a resolution to grant $1,000,000 to Prince Edward Island, my hon. friend would probably not have supported it.


James Clancy: No, because they only asked $500,000.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think he would still have found some reason for not supporting the appropriation. Perhaps he would have said that we should pay $30,000 instead of $1,000,000.


James Clancy: The hon. gentlemau is not right in assuming that I have taken objection to compensation being given at all. I have not said anything of the kind.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I apologize to the hon. gentleman, if he takes a better position than his friends on the other side.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the right hon. gentleman a question ? Some years ago the county to which I belong entered into a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company under which it gave the company $30,000 on condition that that company would give an efficient railway service. After the railway was built, it was closed for

about six weeks. On the same principle of reasoning, would that not be a ground for a claim by the county against the railway company ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would say that the railway company was liable if it made an agreement like that of the Dominion of Canada. There are now good boats and regular boats running between the island and the mainland, and there are no complaints ; but when there were inferior boats, there were complaints that the contract was not being fulfilled.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not prepared to say whether the government have made a provident settlement with Prince Edward Island or not, but I think there would be a general agreement that if there has been gross neglect in complying with the terms of the union from 1873 to 1888, the province is entitled to some compensation for the loss it must have sustained during that period. But immediately after the hon. gentleman gave notice of his intention to move these resolutions, I received a communication which presents a view of the case that I think the House ought to be fully seized of. This is a communication from the Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada, and I will ask the permission of the House to read it, as it states concisely the objections taken by these gentlemen to the municipal regulations of that province. I think that after I have read it, lion, gentlemen on both sides will conclude that the matter is worthy of some consideration ; and if the government is dealing generously with the province, it should bring its influence to bear to have these vexatious municipal taxes, which are now largely paid by the travellers from Ontario, removed. The letter is as follows
Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada, Toronto, May 6, 1901.
E. F. Clarke, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I notice that there will be presented to the House the consideration of an increased allowance being made to Prince Edward Island, on account of the failure of the government to. make satisfactory winter communication with the island.
Our association consider this a most opportune time for our members to press, as a sine qua non, the abolition of those vexatious restrictions imposed by Prince Edward Island towns upon commercial travellers, taxing them when doing business upon the island, especially so in Charlottetown.	.
I am informed that the tax upon commercial travellers of $15 a year in Charlottetown is to be raised to $50 per annum. This tax is a direct restraint upon interprovincial trade, and should be permanently done away with.
Ontario, the largest taxpayer, would have to pay the largest share of any increased indemnity, and the government should, therefore, take this opportunity to remove permanently the possi-Mr. SPROULE.
bility of the continuance of such an imposition upon her commerce.
Our association appreciated much the action you took on their behalf upon a previous occasion, and would now esteem it a great favour if you would present this matter in the strongest possible manner at the proper time.
Yours truly,



M. C. ELLIS,

[Stage Direction]
President.
I understand that all the correspondence and documents in connection with the settlement reached by the government will be printed, and I desire at this, the earliest opportunity, to present the views of this most important association, and to ask that the good offices of the government be exercised in order to have permanently removed what is looked upon by commercial travellers as certainly a most vexatious tax and imposition.
Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: On what basis was this claim of $5,000,000 arrived at.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It would be impossible to state the basis on which you arrive at liquidated damages.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Was it loss to the business of the island ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, and the figures show the extraordinary development which has taken place since we put on the steamers. Three thousand odd passengers were carried last year and 300,CKIO packages of freight, and the receipts were nearly $20,000.


William Findlay Maclean: Were not these the claims of individuals ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, I do not think so.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



LEASE OF RAILWAYS BY MANITOBA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 103) relating to an agreement between the government of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway Company respecting certain railways.-Mr. Mclsaac.
Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Before the preamble of this Bill is carried, I wish to present a few points to the committee and express the opinions, some of them at least, that I entertain with regard to this measure. It is an unpleasant position to occupy to run counter to the, wishes of many friends and to take a course which, if successful, will disappoint the expectations and desires of gentlemen with whom I have no quarrel and whose purposes I would have no desire to thwart for any rea-

son except that it is incumbent upon me as a member of the House of Commons to represent and speak for the interest of the public at large. The interests of the public at large, Sir, do not always command the consideration to which they are entitled. The masses are not here with the influences that are brought to bear in connection with legislation ; they are not here to urge their own private interests and purposes ; they are not here to ask for the friendly intervention and the friendly influence of members who may find difficulty in declining to meet the wishes of such friends. And so I rise to-night to take a position which I feel is one not entirely to be envied or desired, a position which I take reluctantly so far as it concerns the promoters of this company, who are men of enterprise and men whom I wish well-within certain limits, within the limits proper to their operations as promoters of enterprises ; but gentlemen whose purposes, if they go beyond these limits, if they trench upon the rights of the public at large, the rights of a people of a sovereign province or the people of this Dominion, are purposes which I shall feel it my duty to combat. The question before this committee is one of far-reaching consequence. It is a question that affects the interests of Manitoba in the present ; it is a question which affects, perhaps far more intimately and more positively the interests of Manitoba in the future. The province of Manitoba is not represented upon the floor of this House perhaps by as many members as it should be represented by in opposition to this Bill. The province of Manitoba, so far as the action of its government is concerned, is not represented, in my opinion, by a local government which has sought intelligently to promote the interest of the province whose destinies they have charge. I do not entertain the slightest doubt that this is a bargain marked by improvident folly. I do not believe that more than a minority of this House approve in thesis of this bargain; I do not believe that a majority of this House would stand up and affirm that the legislation that we have under consideration to-night is legislation that in its principle is conceived in the interest of Manitoba or will redound, if carried into effect, to the best interest of that province. Now, Sir, with that belief, no doubt entertained by the majority of the members of the House, I see by the records of the House-I was not present-that there were six members the other night to vote against this Bill, while there were eighty members to vote for it. I suppose I can account for the action of these eighty members, the great majority of whom believe of the Bill, probably, exactly as I do, upon the supposition that they held that this was a matter that appertained to Manitoba, that this was a matter in which Manitoba must take the consequences-if she had acted foolishly she must suffer, if she had
acted wisely she would derive the advantage accruing from that action-but in any event, whether the action was foolish or the reverse, we were not called upon to interfere in a matter pertaining to Manitoba, because this House had taken a position time and again, that it would not interfere with a province in the exercise of provincial rights. Well, Sir, that is an assumed position that does not affect me in the slightest degree, because it is based on an assumption which I hold to be entirely unjustifiable. This is not a question of provincial rights, this is not a question where the Dominion government is called upon to decide whether it will disallow legislation of a provincial government or whether it will allow it. The province of Manitoba is not here before the Privy Council of Canada, the Privy Council of Canada has not taken into; consideration the character of the legislation, it has not taken into consideration the question whether it should admit that legislation to go upon the statute-book and be of binding effect or set it aside by its veto power. That is not the question ; the question is entirely foreign to such considerations. We have a Bill before us, a part of which passed the legislature of Manitoba. That Bill comes to the Canadian House of Commons and we are asked, in a co-ordinate capacity with the legislature of Manitoba, to exercise in this matter concurrent jurisdiction. We are asked to perfect legislation which, without our action in the premises is void and of no effect. I repeat that the question is entirely foreign to any question of provincial rights ; and I assert further that it is a question, taking the phase that it has taken, in which we are just as responsible, and we are in point of fact,1 acting as purely an initiative part in this legislation as the legislature of Manitoba has done. The parliament of Canada is a party to this legislation. We do not pass upon this legislation in an appelate capacity, but we are passing upon this legislation in co-ordinate capacity with the legislature of Manitoba ; and if we pass this Bill we shall do it in a co-operative capacity with that legislature.
We had the other day a declaration from the Minister of Railways and Canals that this was a measure of almost transcendant importance, that this was a measure as important as any measure that had ever come under the consideration of the Canadian House of Commons, that this was a measure with consequences so far-reaching and so momentous that it ought not to be dealt with in a superficial or a hasty manner. I have no doubt that the Minister of Railways and Canals, in expressing that opinion, stated what was absolutely and incon-trovertibly true. Now. the Minister of Railways and Canals should speak for the government of the day in matters pertaining to railway legislation. I am sorry not to

see him in his place ; I would like to have his views upon this question to-night. I would like to know whether he, as a member ot the cabinet, having charge of the Department of Railways and Canals, thinks that this is a measure that should receive the sanction of this House. I would fain know whether it is his honest opinion that this House should sanction this measure or not. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this is a measure upon which the government cannot assume a neutral attitude. It is a measure of so great importance, it is a measure involving the direct action of the parliament of Canada, and the result of that action is so far-reaching that if there is any measure that is more entitled to be considered by the government, and more entitled to a declaration of the policy of the government with relation to it, than this measure is, I would fain know what kind of a measure it would be. I hold that in the proper discharge of the functions that rest upon the government, they cannot escape responsibility for the legislation that is being passed upon now by the House ; and that that legislation, if it is crystallized into law, would be legislation for which the people in the future must inevitably hold this government accountable. That is my opinion, and for that reason I would be sorry to see no expression of opinion from the government. I would be sorry to see the government allow this measure, possessing the features that it does, and upon which I shall enlarge later on, to pass unchallenged and without an expression of its own opinion, of its own desires, of its own views, upon the matter.
Now, there are grave considerations connected with this question. Is this Bill intra vires ? That is a most important question. If it is not intra vires we have no reason to deal with it at all ; if it is intra vires, we may go on to deal with the merits and characteristics of the measure. I believe that it is not intra vires ; I believe that the Bill is essentially unconstitutional. T do not believe that a province of this Dominion can acquire or hold railway lines which are under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government. I do not believe that the subordinate authority can rise superior to the paramount authority in this respect. I do not believe that the province of Manitoba can constitutionally guarantee the bonds of a railway in another province, as it is proposing to do by this measure in the province of Ontario. I do not believe that the province of Manitoba can constitutionally guarantee the bonds of a railway in a foreign country, as it is proposing to do under this measure in the state of Minnesota. I do not believe that the province of Manitoba can assume, as the Bill did assume, when it left that legislature, control over a railway outside the limits of the province of Manitoba, or for that matter, within the limits of the province of Manitoba. For
these reasons, among others, I believe that this Bill is ultra vires, and that we are engaged here in the discussion of a measure when we ought first of all to ascertain as a preliminary step whether our time will be thrown away, and whether we are dealing with a question that is beyond our jurisdiction to sanction, and legislation which would be declared unconstitutional.
Now, I would inquire why we should not ascertain this point ? Why not refer this question of constitutionality to the tribunal set apart by law for passing upon these points ? Why not take the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada as to these various counts and charges that this Bill is unconstitutional ? It strikes me that is the proper preliminary step to take. It strikes me that we are engaged in the discussion of a measure, that we are engaged in operations in this House which are entirely beside our proper functions, and that we are commencing at the end of the performance when we ought to commence at the head, and see first of all what our rights are, what the extent of our jurisdiction is, what the character of our measure is as regards its constitutionality. Now. if we were to take this step wp would avoid very serious complications in the future. Suppose that the government of the day had possessed prescience enough at the time to have referred to the courts the question of constitutionality upon various points connected with the Canadian Pacific Railway charter, in 1881. Suppose that the opinion of the court had been asked as to exemption from taxation. These lands have been in the legal possession of that company for twenty years, and to-day the question arises as to whether the complete period of exemption from taxation has expired or is still continuing. If we had had a reference *of this question, if we had had an authoritative opinion from the proper courts upon this question, we would have been spared all the uncertainty, and all this doubt and trouble with reference to that case. Suppose we had referred to the Supreme Court the question of the length of time that the material used in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway should be admitted free of duty ; we would probably have had an opinion that would have convinced us that we could not admit material free when that road came to renew the superstructure of its bridges ; we would have had an opinion that the exemption from taxation and from duties upon material shall not extend till the Canadian Pacific Railway reached a time when it wanted to renew its bridges and permanent ways. If we had then referred the matter, we might have ascertained whether the Canadian Pacific Railway would be entitled to collect a dividend of 10 per cent upon watered stock that cost 25 cents on the dollar, and on other issues of stock that cost nothing-whether they would have


John Charlton: been entitled to collect a dividend of 10 per cent on all this fictitious water and cash, in proportion of about five times as much water as substance, before the Dominion government could interfere with their tolls. If other questions in dispute had been referred to the proper court of jurisdiction at that time, it would have saved a vast amount of uncertainty, a vast amount of difficulty, and a vast sum of money to the country, and would have been in every respect conducive to the interest of the people. Now, I say that at this juncture the government should ascertain by a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada where we are, what we are doing, whether we have a right to deal with this Bill, whether we are dealing with a Bill that is ultra vires and outside of our jurisdiction. I have not the slightest doubt of this. I take ground strongly that the whole of this discussion, the action of this House, is out of place, useless, so long as we are in ignorance as to whether we have control of the question under the circumstances.
The passage of this resolution in Manitoba was marked by a very suspicious degree of haste. This contract, I believe, was made on the 11th of January, it was made public on the 16th of February, it was confirmed on the 23rd of March,'it was under the consideration of the House twenty-three days-a measure which is liable to ruin, yes, certainly will, ruin Manitoba, a measure characterized by the most monumental degree of folly, put through the legislature of Manitoba in twenty-three days, and sent down to Ottawa for concurrent action on the part of this parliament before the people of Manitoba were aware of the character of the measure.
While we are considering this measure, the people of Manitoba are considering the new features of this Bill and are arriving at the conclusion that their interests have been betrayed, and that this is a measure which could not receive their sanction. The people of Manitoba, I repeat, have had no time to arrive at an intelligent conclusion as to the character of the legislation under consideration in this House. The people of Manitoba, when this Bill was passed, and when it was sent here for our action, were as ignorant of the character of the measure as the majority of this House were when it was first brought before us, and that means that they, as well as ourselves, were in the dark as to many characteristics of this measure, in the dark as to the constitutional aspect of this case, in the dark as to the probable practical application of the measure, in the dark as to whether it was in their interests and to their advantage to sanction this measure or not. Well, the Bill has been submitted to us, and this Bill, as it came from the Manitoba legislature, provided for the fixing of rates by the Manitoba government. That was the essence of the contract, that was the inducement that
led the legislature of Manitoba to sanction it. They were to secure the control of freight rates upon the lines that this Bill had reference to. Premier Koblin, in discussing this matter, said :
We made up our minds as to what we wanted.
I stated that we wanted absolute control of the freight rates and the right to say through parliament what rates should be placed on the ordinary merchandise or produce that was carried to the markets of the world. I might say that the right to control these rates was not obtained without considerable argument and negotiation.
That was the feature of the measure that secured, first of all, the initiative action of the Manitoba government, and, secondly, the ratification of the Manitoba legislature, and if you remove from the Bill that supposed control that Manitoba was to exercise over rates, you sweep away the very consideration that secured the passage of this Bill. Now, has that been done ? It has. It has been done by section 3 of this amended Bill 103. That new section, incorporated into this new Bill, reads as follows :
Nothing in this Act or in the indentures contained in the schedules hereto, or done in pursuance of this Act or of the said indentures, shall-
(a)	divest or limit, temporarily or otherwise, the rights or powers (under existing or future legislation of the parliament of Canada) of the Governor in Council, or of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or of any commission or other authority, respecting any matter or thing, obligation or duty;
(b)	place the government of Canada, directly or indirectly, under any liability, obligation or duty with respect to any payment, matter or thing in the said indentures provided for or referred to;
(e) authorize the Canadian Northern Railway Company to ^charge or demand any higher rates for the carriage of freight or passengers than th03e heretofore or hereafter fixed, under the authority of existing or future legislation of the parliament of Canada, by the Governor in Council, or by the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, or by any commission or other authority.
Well, where is the consideration that led the Manitoba legislature to pass this legislation ? Where is the authority and supervision of Manitoba over rates ? It has gone to the winds. We find the explicit declaration of this very Bill to be wanting, to be gone, and we have before us a Bill that never emanated from the legislature of Manitoba. We have a Bill that makes alterations in the legislation of Manitoba in the most vital and essential particular. We have a Bill that removes the very essence of the Manitoba Bill, and sweeps away the consideration that governed the action of Manitoba. We have introduced new legislation here. We are legislating for Manitoba in the House of Commons if we pass this Bill. We have set aside the legislation of Manitoba and incorporated in place of it legislation of the parliament of Canada.
4695	COMMONS	4696
Well, I do not know whether Manitoba expected this or not. I do not know whether it is proper that we should exercise this authority or not. I do not know whether we are authorized to legislate for Manitoba, hut we are doing it if this legislation passes. We are assuming the functions of a legislative body dealing with domestic questions in the province of Manitoba. We are taking the Bill which has been sent to us from the legislature of Manitoba, and we are deliberately changing it in its essential and vital particulars. We are taking out of the Bill the very core and substance, the very consideration that led to the passage of the Bill, the very thing which, if taken from the Bill, would have defeated the measure in the legislature of Manitoba. Now. did Manitoba depute to Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann and to Mr. Lash the function of amending and recasting their Bills, and the right to put in new conditions in this measure which is to last for 999 years ? Were these men authorized to assume these functions ; were they authorized to legislate for Manitoba ?


Mr. GERMAN.: Mr. Barwick. the solicitor for the Manitoba government, said so.


John Charlton: 
An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: I hear behind me an ironical 'Hear, hear.' I suppose we have friends of these corporations and monopolists and plutocrats in this House who do not like the truth told about these things which menace the liberties of the people of North America. We have, for instance, Mr. Vanderbilt, with a revenue of $2,000,000 a month; rather more than the customs revenue in ordinary times of the Dominion of Canada. We have Mr. Gould's estate, worth $80,000,000 or $90,0000,000. We have other railway magnates with enormous fortunes.


William Manley German: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) what he thinks of the duty on lumber as affecting the interests of the poor settlers of the North-west ?


John Charlton: I will discuss that when I get through with the Manitoba Railway scheme. The New York Central Railway fell into the hands of the Vanderbilt clique and it proved the foundation of their fortunes. They first watered the stock 100 per cent ; then they watered the stock 100 per cent more ; and the road is paying dividends on its actual cost equal to 40 per cent per annum. The peSple of the United States the shippers and merchants and farmers of the west, are paying to this monopoly six times as much in the shape of freights and dividends as it is honestly entitled to. In the case of the Southern Pacific Railroad, Huntington and the other originators of that scheme started in business with $12,000, and the property to-day is worth $350,000,000, although they never put in a cent except the original $12,000. The Western Union Telegraph Company property, which cost $16,000,000, was stocked at $88,000,000, on which it pays 8 per cent dividend ; and my hon. friend from Welland can sit down and figure from that how much the actual dividend is on the original $16,000,000, nnd he will no doubt consider it a very proper and reasonable transaction.


William Manley German: It is not equal to the protection you got on lumber.


John Charlton: The great fortunes of the United States, I repeat, represent nine parts out of ten sheer public plunder, and the gains of these plutocrats have been the people's loss. One instance occurred a few weeks ago. These railway corporations control not only the railway lines, but the anthracite coal mines, and to a great extent the bituminous coal mines of the United States ; and while the price of anthracite coal to-day affords a very large profit, the combination has decided to put the price up

one dollar per ton, which represents $50,000,000 more in the shape of profits which the people of the United States have to pay to these men in the future in addition to profits already inordinately large.
These monopolies are of a character which deserve the most unqualified public condemnation. These men are public enemies. It was robbery of the petty larceny kind compared with tlieir transactions when the corsairs of Algiers levied tribute on the commerce of the Christian states, which entered the Mediterranean Sea ; and although the Christian powers rose up and put down those pirates, their operations were trivial and inconsequential in comparison with the operations of the corsairs of the present day. who compel the people of the United States to pay hundreds of millions of dollars of tribute into their coffers to swell their inordinate gains.
These are briefly the conditions that exist in the United States. Are we doing anything to introduce the same conditions here ? These great corporations were built up without the aid of bonuses, except in the case of two railway lines, the Central and the Union Pacific ; and the bonuses to these lines were secured by mortgages, which have since been paid. Such a thing as a bonus, as we use the term, is unknown in the United States. There was a system of land grants at one time, under which roads like the Illinois Central and other lines in the west were built without the investment of large money on the part of their projectors. But the bonus system was wanting. Now, we have in Canada to-day one-half the land of the North-west held up until these railways get ready to make their selections. We have bonuses granted to almost every railway project that is put afloat., We had a bonus of $10,400 a mile granted to one of the railway lines embraced in this bargain from Port Arthur westward. In addition to that, the company has the right to borrow $20,000 a mile, guaranteed by the province of Manitoba. Therefore $30,400 per mile are the ressources placed in the hands of that company to enable it to build a road that will cost over $12,000 or $14,000 a mile ; and in addition to that we propose to let them practically own the province of Manitoba. It is preposterous ; it is outrageous ; it is absurd. The practical operation of this bonus system is to open the door to political corruption ; and the conditions existing in Canada for debauching public sentiment and debauching public men are more dangerous and more likely to produce disastrous results than the condition of things existing in the United States, where the developments have reached the pitch which I have described.
Now, we want to go slowly in this matter. We want to stop and consider the interests of the people a little while. The speculators will take care of themselves. If their demands are inordinately large, if they are


John Charlton: not in the public interest, it is our duty to scrutinize them closely and to refuse them, however painful the operation may be. With regard to this growth of the railway interest, we have a very instructive specimen in our-own country, that of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We gave to that road enormous subsidies ; we placed it in the power of the members of the syndicate to make enormous fortunes, and they have made them. I had the curiosity a day or two ago to look up an article by my hon. friend the member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), giving the cost of $20,000,000 worth of stock that was subscribed for by the members of that syndicate. The list gave the owners $19,997,000 worth of stock. This stock cost them $4,-
997,000.	The dividends on this stock, paid out of the capital of the company in five years, amounted to $5,872,000 ; or the subscribers got their stock for nothing and had $892,000 besides, or 18 per cent better than getting the stock for nothing ; and that stock to-day is worth 113 cents on the dollar. We gave to this corporation a completed line of railway from Port Arthur to Selkirk, 480 miles ; we gave it a completed line of railway from Selkirk to Pembina, 70 miles ; we built for it one of the most difficult sections in British Columbia, 214 miles. We contributed towards the building of these sections $32,000,000 : we gave the company a cash bonus of $25,000,000 and loaned it another $20,000,000 and took 10,000,000 acres of land at $1.50 an acre ; and we left the company with aid amounting to $67,027,000 in hard cash and with 18,000,000 acres and a fraction of land to the good. I remember that when that contract was before this House the Liberal party resisted it and its various provisions to the death. I remember the position which I took with regard to the building of that line, and it was this. I said, we are committed to the building of that line from Port Arthur to Selkirk. Let fus go on and extend it westward up the [DOT]Saskatchewan valley, as soon as the settlement of the country requires it, to the Yellow Head Pass ; and we will then have a road from Lake Superior to the Rocky Mountains at a cost of $25,000,000, and we can then stop and consider our course for the future, and whether we will complete it as a government road or not.
If that course had been adopted and if, when we had reached Yellow Head Pass, we had decided to continue that road to Vancouver in the west and from Port Arthur to connections with the railway lines in the east, we would have built the entire line for less money than we gave the Canadian Pacific Railway, and would have owned the road and 25,000,000 acres of land. Can anything more improvident, more utterly absurd, as a business transaction, be imagined than the course we pursued with the Canadian Pacific Railway-a course which made millionaires of at least a dozen

men of that syndicate, which has fastened upon this country the difficulties that now confront us, and the magnitude and character of which we are just beginning to understand-a course which has locked up great areas of land in the North-west, which has made that country tributary to this corporation, and which is held to be a reason for attempting to perpetrate the act of folly that we are considering to-night for the purpose of shaking off from the limbs of Manitoba the shackles that were fastened on them by the Canadian Pacific Railway syndicate contract. We want to take warning ; we want to begin to consider the constitution ; we require to act with some degree of business prudence. We do not want to have the capital and enthralling influence of these corporations and promoters allowed to exercise too much influence over this House of Commons. We want to rise superior to these considerations and be capable, as a House of Commons, of taking into consideration the true interests of the great mass of the people who are not here to offer us their congratulations or their passes or advantages or' anything of that kind, but who look to us, as honest members of this legislature, to protect their interests.
A few words with regard to the features of this particular deal under consideration. The first salient feature that strikes me is the duration of the contract. It runs for 999 years. It might as well have been made to cover eternity. Nine hundred and ninety-nine years this tie-up will last, and the province of Manitoba, under the conditions of this contract, leases 350 miles of Dominion railway within the province for a period of 999 years, and has to pay $210,000 the first ten years, $225,000 the second ten years, $275,000 the third ten years, and $300,000 per annum for the balance of the, term of 999 years, making an average rental of this road of $298,000 a year. Then it has secured the great privilege of the option of purchasing at the price of $7,000,000, for 350 miles of railways that can be duplicated on the same track that these lines cover for $10,000 a mile In other words, it is allowed to pay $7,000,000 for a road that could be built for $3,500,000, and to pay at the rate of 4 per cent interest practically for 999 years on that double amount of cost.
Then this province assumes the liability of a guarantee of $20,000 per mile on 290 miles of road outside the limits of Manitoba, 50 miles more or less of which is in a foreign country, the state of Minnesota.
Then this province guarantees the bonds of the Canadian Northern within the limits of Manitoba and has to guarantee the payment of $153,920 on that item.
Or the total liabilities assumed by the province of Manitoba-the annual rental that they are liable to pay-is $683,000, or the interest at 4 per cent upon $17,075,000. And this little province, with 400,000 inhabitants, which is already liable for the interest on
$5,000,000-which is practically in debt $5,-
000.	000-voluntarily steps into a position in which that indebtedness may be increased to $23,075,000.
The Manitoba legislature passed a law restraining municipalities within that province from granting bonuses that might jeopardize their existence as municipalities, and it would have been a God send for Manitoba, if some higher power had placed a restriction upon that province itself that would prevent it assuming a liability of $17,075,000 for nothing. The consideration will amount to nothing. If it be true that that consideration is not worth $683,000 a year-is not in reality worth 683,000 cents-I ask is it not fair, is it not proper, is it not our duty, under the existing conditions of things, to allow Manitoba to reconsider this bargain.
. The object of all this is to secure lower rates. The object was to secure to Manitoba what, by the provisions of this Bill, she cannot have, namely, to secure control of the railway rates to Lake Superior, which the Bill under consideration expressly declares is a power Manitoba cannot exercise but which we reserve to ourselves.
Was it necessary for Manitoba to enter on this arrangement and will it give them what they expected to secure ? The Dominion has control of the rates so that Manitoba cannot exercise any control in that respect ; and the situation, without interference on the part of Manitoba in the way of making this contract or in any other way for the purpose of influencing rates-the situation, if there had been no action whatever taken, would have been this.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hour for private Bills has expired.



P.E.I. CLAIMS-MAINTENANCE OF STEAM COMMUNICATION.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the resolution of the Minister of Finance concerning an annual allowance to Prince Edward Island.
Mr.  A. A.@: LEFUIiGEY (East Prince, P.E.
1.	). I only want, Mr. Speaker, to take up a few moments. The hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Marine have spoken on the history of the non-fulfilment of the terms of confederation with regard to winter communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland at some length, and I shall not go over that question again. There can be only one of two reasons, to my mind, why the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) made such a tirade against better terms for Prince Edward Island or rather compensation for the disadvantages under which she was placed by non-fulfilment of those terms. Either he must be inspired by a very small degree of justice for the little province down by the sea, or else he has forgotten the

terms under which that province entered confederation and the treatment to which it has been subjected as regards winter communication since then. It will not be denied that the bargain entered into between Canada and Prince Edward Island provided for continuous communication both in winter and summer. The words are : ' To provide and maintain efficient steam communication between the island and the mainland, & c.
This, it will not be denied, was entered into by the Dominion with full knowledge of the circumstances under which the island was labouring at that time; and it was used in 1869, and again in 1873, by the Dominion as an inducement for the island to enter into confederation, that we should have continuous communication with the mainland. This was indeed the great inducement for the island to enter confederation. Now, we know the history of how this condition has ben fulfilled since that time. In short, for the first year the Dominion did nothing to connect the island with the mainland by steam communication. In the nest two years the Albert was put on ; and it has been shown to the House that this was simply an abortive attempt to fulfil what the Dominion had bound itself to do. In the next ten years, we had the Northern Light. This vessel was not adapted for the purpose of combatting with the ice, nor was she built for that purpose, and after the first two or three years this was fully demonstrated to all who were familiar with the subject. Our delegates continually brought this to the attention of the Dominion government. But, not until 1888 did we get the Stanley, and that was the first genuine attempt to fulfil the terms of confederation. The language of the delegation that went to England on this subject-' no sufficient disposition has been shown by the Dominion government to fulfil their obligation to the island in this matter '-shows the position of the Dominion towards Prince Edward Island up to 1888. I have to dissent from the language of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries when he says the Stanley did fulfil the terms of the obligation to keep up communication between the island and the mainland since 1888. I contend that not until the Minto was put on a few years ago were the promises under which Prince Edward Island came into confederation in any way carried out. Nor do I agree with the expression of the Prime Minister in putting upon Providence the responsibility for the delay in the communication last winter, that delay being due to the incompetence of the department in not placing the boats at the proper points.
I have no objection to the vote of $30,000 a year being given to Prince Edward Island, but I do object, Mr. Speaker, to the agreement that this is adequate to remunerate the island for the losses to which it has been subjected, especially during the first Mr. LEFURGEY.
fifteen years after we came into confederation. The hon. members of this House must take into consideration that we are an agricultural country, and that our products must be marketed within six weeks after the crop is harvested. After that the freights are always high, nearly double the summer or spring rates ; and not only that, but our products are put upon the market at a time when, being rushed forward, our markets are glutted, and the farmers and merchants do not realize within 25 or 30 per cent of the prices they would obtain if communication were kept up for a month or two later. Now, taking these things into consideration, in estimating the loss during the twenty-five years, up to the time the Minto was put on, it will be seen that $1,000,000 will not in any degree compensate Prince Edward Island for all the disadvantage which she laboured under for all these years ; in fact, it seems to me a very small sum indeed compared with the losses that the island has suffered. I wish to place myself on record as dissenting from the view of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the agreement of the local government of Prince Edward Island, in accepting $30,000 per annum as full recompense for all the losses which the island has suffered through the failure of the Dominion to carry out the terms of confederation.
On the subject brought forward by the hon. member from Toronto of the very unpopular, and, to almost all the commercial and industrial people of Canada, iniquitous tax imposed on commercial men by the Liberal administration of Prince Edward Island, I have to say that it is, to my mind, detrimental to the best interests of our people, and contrary to the spirit of that free commercial intercourse which should exist between all parts of this fair Dominion. I trust that the present provincial government will see fit to have this method of extracting blood money expunged from our statute-books, as it stands a menace to our commercial standing.
Mr. JAMES ,T. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.) During the discussion upon this resolution this afternoon, I was surprised at the misapprehension that seems to exist in the minds of some hon. members in this House, and particularly in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite, if the views expressed by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and. especially by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), are to be taken as a criterion of the views of which hon. gentlemen opposite hold. I was surprised, and new members of this House might well be surprised, that an hon. gentleman of the standing in this country of the hon. member for South Lanark, a gentleman who held the position of a cabinet minister in a former government, and who, if the Conservative party had been successful in the last general election, would, in all probability, be a cabinet minister now,

should exhibit such a lamentable want of information on a question of such importance as this, as was exhibited by that hon. gentleman. Any one who has read anything of the histoi'y of confederation knows that the province of Prince Edward Island remained out of the union for several years after the larger provinces were confederated, and that during that time negotiations were continually going on between the Do-' minion government and the government of the island, with the object of inducing Prince Edward Island to join the union. No argument was held out that formed such a strong inducement to the people of Prince Edward Island to join the union as this- that if they did so their isolation would be removed, they would be no longer subjected to the disadvantage that their insular position entailed upon them, that they would be placed in efficient and continuous communication with the mainland. This was the inducement above all others that caused the government and the people of Prince Edward Island to entertain the terms of the union and join confederation. And so important did the people consider this matter, and so important did their delegates consider it, that there was no doubt whatever in the terms that were laid down in the contract of union. This is what the Dominion undertook to do :
To establish and maintain efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers between the island and the Dominion winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and the railway system of the Dominion.
It appears that hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly the two I have named, regard this payment to Prince Edward Island as a rearrangement of the terms of confederation, an increase in the subsidy. It is simply and solely a payment to Prince Edward Island for damages sustained through nonfulfilment of the terms of union for several years. The hon. member for South Lanark, maintained this afternoon that the terms of confederation were carried out-I think he said were carried out in the spirit and the letter-at all events, that was the meaning of what he said. To show how far this is from the facts of the case, I will state the facts, and hon. gentlemen can draw their own conclusions. .For the first year after confederation, no attempt at all was made to carry out the terms of union in this respect. For the next two years the communication was simply a mockery. An old wood boat which, when originally constructed, was not intended even for summer navigation, was placed upon the route. She, of course, lamentably failed. Then, in 1876, the Northern Light was purchased and put upon the route. The Northern Light was not designed for the service at all, she was designed for the River St. Lawrence; and every one knows that the winter navigation of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Straits 148	[DOT]
of Northumberland cannot be compared with river navigation. The Northern Light did not fulfil the terms of confederation, did not give continuous or efficient communication with the mainland during any period of her history.
Now, another mistake under which I am sorry to see hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House appear to be labouring, is that these terms which the Dominion government made in the province of Prince Edward Island were entirely in the interest of the island. That is not correct. They were no doubt in the interest of Prince Edward Island, but they were also in the interest of other provinces as well with which Prince Edward Island traded. If it was profitable for Prince Edward Island to trade with the maritime provinces, to trade with Quebec and Ontario, it was also profitable for these provinces to trade with Prince Edward Island ; because all trade must be mutually profitable or it will cease to exist. We had an illustration of that this afternoon in the telegram that was read by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke), where an association of commercial travellers protested against the per capita tax that was levied upon these men when they came to Prince Edward Island to sell goods. In that telegram they stated that the imposition of this tax would be an injury to the trade and commerce of Ontario, showing that Ontario has a profitable trade with Prince Edward Island. Anything that is done to facilitate trade and travel to and from that island is beneficial to the other provinces. Therefore, the money that is spent in keeping up this trade and carrying out the terms of union, is not entirely to the advantage of Prince Edward Island, but is an advantage to all the other provinces as well.
Now, I have gone over the first three years of confederation, from 1873 to 1876, to show that no effort, practically, was made to carry out the terms of union. In 1876 the Northern Light was purchased and put upon the route. But she was not designed for that service, and consequently she became a complete failure. So great was the failure that she was unable to perform the service at all for about seventy days each year during the whole time she was on the service. In 1881, I think it was, she was icebound for so long a period that the crew and passengers, despaired of reaching land. Among the passengers were several women and children, and the provisions running short on board, they undertook to walk from the vessel, a distance of several miles, to land. Night overtook them, and they were subjected to so much cold and exposure that one of the party lost his health and shortly afterwards died. Another of the party was crippled for life. Now, will the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) say that this was continuous and efficient communication with



the mainland ? In 1884 a party of twenty-two men undertook to cross by the old method in an open boat, a method that was In vogue fifty or sixty years before the island joined the confederation. The movements of the Northern Light were so uncertain that they preferred to cross that way to depending upon the steamer. A snowstorm came on, night overtook them on the ice, and they were out for two days and one night. Every member of the party suffered from the exposure, and several of them had to undergo amputation of their limbs. Now will the hon. member for South Lanark say that this was carrying out the terms of confederation ? Was this placing us in communication with the Intercolonial Railway and with the railway system of the Dominion '?


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries said in this House that it did.
Mr, HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.) Well, I suppose the hon. member for South Lanark is not responsible for what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may have said. I suppose the hon. member for South Lanark has a mind and intelligence of his own, and he knows, or ought to know, whether that was efficient communication or not. Now, so inadequate was that communication by the Northern Light that a committee of parliament in 1883 made this report:
The committee of parliament further recommended that, inasmuch as the evidence taken before them went to show that the Northern Light was fast becoming unfit for service, another suitable steamer should be provided to take her place.	.
Well, another suitable steamer was not provided for live years after that, and yet in face of this testimony it is said by hon. gentlemen that the terms of confederation were carried out. As the Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated this afternoon, so impressed was the government of that time with the inadequacy of this boat, with her unseaworthiness, that an order was issued from the Department of Marine and Fisheries limiting the number of passengers that she was allowed to take on any one trip. Now, Sir, do you think, in view of all these difficulties I have narrated, that the communication then provided was conducive to trade and travel between the province and the mainland ? I myself crossed over from the island to the mainland in 1881 or 1882, and no man who has not crossed there by these boats has any idea of the hardships to which we were exposed. None but the strongest and most robust men would undertake the passage, none but people who were compelled by some grave reason would undertake it at all. They had to be strapped to the boat, so that if they fell overboard, as was a frequent occurrence, they could be dragged up again by some of the other passengers or crew.
Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.)
Now, while provision was made for carrying the mail in this antiquated way, no provision was made by the government for bringing passengers across even in open boats. The passengers had to pay whatever fare was demanded, and to work their own way. Then when they got to Cape Tormentine they had to drive forty miles, over the winter roads, in open sleighs, to Amherst, before they could make connection with the Intercolonial Railway. It was provided in the terms of the union that from the date of union, efficient and continuous steam communication, winter and summer, should be preserved between the island and the mainland. But, will any man who will read the history of this question say that the Dominion government maintained the terms of the bargain ? They did not even do as was recommended by this committee in 1883. The committee recommended that when people were obliged to cross in an open boat, houses should be built on each side of the straits, so that when passengers got to their destination they might have some place to which they could go and warm themselves and change their clothing ; and that there should be on each side some place where boats could be hauled up and put under cover, and be in a fit condition to commence the service the next day. Although that recommendation was made in 1883 by a parliamentary committee, it was not carried out. There was nothing done in that respect for three years afterwards. This is what Sir Alexander Campbell, speaking in the Senate in 1884, said :
I am surprised to hear from my hon. friend opposite that the boat-houses have not been built. I called the attention of the Minister of Marine (Mr. McLelan) to the matter last session, and he told me that the boat-houses would be provided. I shall again call his attention to that question, and to the various suggestions that have been made.
That was in 1884. In 1885, the next session the same gentleman said:
My hon. friend from Prince Edward Island, who introduced this subject to the notice of the House, has, I think, just ground for complaint, ground for complaint, I am sorry to think, perhaps against myself, although really, as he has almost admitted, I am not responsible for the non-execution of the measures which, from time to time, I have been authorized by the government to promise in this House. I remember quite distinctly the undertaking which I gave that the boat-houses should be constructed, one on each side of the ferry. I made that promise with the authority of the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and as is my constant practice, the very day the promise was made, I wrote to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that, pursuant to what he had told me, I made the promise, and that I hoped he would keep it in mind. I afterwards called attention to it, and there were reasons which were more or less sound'-I can hardly say sound -which made the delay more or less excusable. It was thought for a time that the orders had

been given, and that the boat-houses were in course of construction.
For three years after the promise had been made and after the necessity had been pointed out by the parliamentary committee, no boat-houses had been erected, nothing was done to improve the crossing of boats there and the conditions remained the same as they had been for several years before the island came into confederation. Up to 1888, when the Stanley was constructed, no proper, bona fide attempt was made to carry out the [DOT]terms of union in this respect and consequently Prince Edward Island had, by every rule of equity and justice, a claim against the Dominion government for the non-fulfilment of the terms of union. There is no question that the people of the island suffered very severely in consequence of this matter. As has been pointed out already in this debate, the people of Prince Edward Island were obliged to send their agricultural products to the provincial markets during a short time in the fall of the year when the markets were at their lowest. They had no communication with the mainland during the winter. The merchants were obliged to import all the goods wanted for five or six months ahead, in the fall and to pay interest on this large importation. If you want to fully realize what the island did suffer on account of the non-fulfilment of these terms you have only to turn up the records of traffic that have been made since the two isteamers were put on this route. The trade of the island has been so great, that, as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries showed here to-night, it has gone on developing and increasing every year since an honest effort was made to carry out the terms of the union. We have still further proof that this effort has developed and increased our trade. Last year the net earnings of the Prince Edward Island Railway, in consequence of the facilities that were given to trade with the other provinces of the Dominion of Canada during the winter season, were 87,000 and over greater than in any other period of the history of this railway, and this year, in consequence of the two steamers being put on the route and greater facilities being supplied, the net earnings of the railway will be between $15,000 and $20,000 greater than the year before. The net earnings of the Prince Edward Island Railway will, if they go on increasing as they have been increasing during these last two years and as they are likely to continue, will return to the exchequer of this country an amount equal to the amount we are how placing to the credit of that province, so that as a financial transaction the Dominion of Canada will lose nothing whatever. If the net earnings of the Prince Edward Island Railway go on increasing as they have increased since the facilities for trade have been improved, they will in a very few years represent the full amount of the $30,000 additional subsidy or payment 148*
that we are giving to Prince Edward Island. So that in that respect alone the Dominion of Canada will lose nothing by the transaction. That shows clearly that when the Dominion government provides facilities for the trade and commerce of the country between the different provinces and between Canada and other countries, it is pursuing a good policy, a paying policy, and a policy that will always give an adequate return directly and indirectly to the people of the country. If the earnings of the Prince Edward Island Railway were $7,000 greater last year than in any previous year, and if this year they will amount to $15,000 or $20,000 more than they were last year, it will give hon. gentlemen an idea of the loss that the province sustained during the sixteen or eighteen years when these facilities, which were stipulated for in the terms of union, were withheld. I am sorry to think that there should be any sectional difference in this matter. I trust that the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) does not voice the opinion of many hon. members from Ontario on the other side of the House. I hope and trust that this resolution will pass the House by a very large majority. I believe that the government of this country is to be congratulated upon having settled this question fairly and equitably, and I believe that parliament will ratify that settlement, and that hon. members from Ontario, from the west and from the maritime provinces will admit that it is a fair and reasonable arrangement. Perhaps it may be thought by some hon. gentlemen that this is a new question, that it has only been brought up now or since the present government came into power, but such is not the case at all. From the year 1881, right along to the present time the government of Prince Edward Island have memorialized and petitioned, time after time and year after year, the Dominion government upon this question. Wearying and despairing almost of getting any redress of their grievance, as it was pointed out this afternoon, they carried the matter to the foot of the Throne and so impressed the justice of their claim upon the Colonial Secretary Lord Granville, that although he stated that the Imperial government had no authority to interfere in the matter he suggested that the Dominion government should undertake the building of a tunnel beneath the Straits of Northumberland at an expenditure of $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 in order to overcome the difficulty of carrying out their agreement in this respect. The people and the governments of Prince Edward Island never allowed this matter to rest, although the government that had been in power from 1878 right along for many years did nothing more than make a bare acknowledgment of the memorials and petitions that were sent to them. But, the people of Prince Edward Island hoped for the time when a government would be in power in Canada that would do them justice

in this matter, when a government would be in power to which they might appeal with confidence. Well, they have appealed, and they have brought this matter before the present government, and X am proud and glad to be able to say that the appeal has not been in vain. I believe that the government has considered the matter fairly, reasonably and equitably. It may be, as my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) stated, that the amount is not sufficiently large, but I believe that the government have taken a fair and reasonable view in the matter and that they did what they believed to be fair in the interest of not only of Prince Edward Island, but in the interest of the people of Canada as a whole. I believe that this parliament, endorsed by the people of the Dominion, will ratify this agreement. I hope and trust that when the vote is taken a large majority of the members of the House will support the proposal; indeed I hope that the House will be unanimous in its favour.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: I am not prepared to give an opinion upon the merits of this question, but I assume that Prince Edward Island would not be demanding this extra subsidy from the Dominion, if its revenues were sufficient to keep pace with its expenditures. The question of subsidies for the provinces will in the future be one of very great importance, and will be a question with which the government of this Dominion shall have to deal. If one province, with a population of 100,000 requires an extra subsidy of $30,000 per annum, and makes out a fair case for it, then it is a very simple mathematical problem to discover how much additional subsidy will be required for a province with 2,000,000 inhabitants, which also makes out a fair case. This question is one of very great importance as I have said, and it will no doubt have to be solved by this or by some future Canadian government. I would like to emphasize the point raised by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). The letter which he read from the president of the Commercial Travellers' Association shows that the rest of the Dominion has a real grievance against the people of Prince Edward Island on account of the attitude which it has taken towards the trade of the other provinces. This House may perhaps be guided to some extent in considering this matter by an editorial which appears in to-day's Toronto Globe, a paper which cannot be accused of trying under any circumstances to embarrass the present government. I shall read the following extract from the article in the Globe :
Prince Edward Island, the smallest province in the Dominion, has put forth a strong plea for an addition of $30,000 to its annual subsidy. The outlay of the province seems determined to overtake and pass the revenue, a situation by no means unique in governmental affairs. When the increased subsidy is under consideration, with a prospect of generous treatment, it
Mr. HUGHES fKing's, P.E.I.)
would be a gracious and at the same time a profitable thing for the province to abandon the system of disguised protection maintained against the rest of the Dominion. The local legislature now levies a tax of $15 a year on all commercial travellers doing business in the province, and as soon as a traveller lands at Charlottetown he is a mark for the collector. They should make their markets as free as possible to the trade of the Dominion. Let Prince Edward Island show more intelligent selfishness and collect its revenue by methods that do not discourage commerce, do not take more from the people than goes into the treasury, and do not stir up. a feeling of antagonism in other provinces. Local protection policies by towns and cities are now thoroughly discredited, and no province should seek to exclude the trade of the Dominion.
At any time within the last few years visitors to the island province became at once subjects of suspicion. They were tracked by detectives and if they went there to do business, unless they handed over this $15 tax, they were summoned before the courts. The matter in itself may appear small but it should be remembered that this tax is imposed in the different towns and especially in Charlottetown. It is a mode of taxation which has been discarded all over the world. The city of Quebec some years ago endeavoured to impose such a tax, but the legislature refused to allow it. The people of the other provinces desire to transact business with their fellow-countrymen in Prince Edward Island, and they should not be hampered by this antiquated restriction on trade. The trade between Prince Edward Island and the other provinces should be on the same footing as the trade between Ontario and Quebec, and the trade between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. If the Minister of Marine (Hon. Sir Louis Davies) were in the House to-night, I would ask him to bring his influence to bear on the people of Prince Edward Island to do away with this obnoxious taxation which they impose on the trade of the other provinces. But in the absence of the Minister of Marine, I appeal to the right hon. leader of the government and to the representatives from Prince Edward Island to use their influence in that direction. This tax is not in force in any other part of the Dominion, and I trust that our friends in Prince Edward Island will soon abolish it, and get into line with modern methods of doing business.
Hon. Wm. ROSS) (Victoria, N.S.). I entirely endorse the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Kemp). I believe that there should be no restriction of any kind; on trade between one part of the Dominion and another. We who profess to lean towards free trade ought to feel ashamed that there should be a province in the Dominion which would levy a mean tax of this kind. It is not to the credit of Prince Edward Island, that dear little island, that such a tax should exist. I believe that if a proper appeal were made to the proper legislature, they would

take steps to have it repealed, because it is a tax that should never have existed and the sooner it is wiped out of existence the better.


William Findlay Maclean: I would ask the First Minister whether this claim is based on the federation contract entered into between Prince Edward Island and the Dominion ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes.


William Findlay Maclean: And so the government of the right hon. gentleman are now proceeding to interpret the constitution, instead of referring the question to the courts. The other night, when some of us asked to have the exemption clause in the Canadian Pacific Railway contract determined by this House, the Prime Minister told us that we had no right to interpret contracts and that the proper place for that to be done was in the courts. But now, because of some kind of political exigencies, he is determining a contract and he is not referring it to the courts. On what grounds can he justify his conduct in the premises ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will tell my hon. friend. This contract is between the province of Prince Edward Island and the Dominion, and we can certainly interpret the contract ourselves and make an agreement upon it. There is no third party concerned. If there were a third party whose interests were affected we could not do it and we would have to go to the courts.


William Findlay Maclean: That answer only happens to suit the political exigencies of the government, and has no relevancy to this case at all. I come from the rich province of Ontario-at least it is said to be rich-and I suppose I will be called an Ontario bigot (I believe that was the word used in the House recently) because as a federalist I protest against the opening up of this whole question of provincial subsidies. This claim of Prince Edward Island is only the thin end of the wedge. I would like the Prime Minister to tell me now, whether there are other claims from other provinces under the consideration of the government ? We know that the province of Nova Scotia was recently relieved of certain subsidies it had given in former days to railways which have been taken over in connection with the Canadian government railway system.


Mr. FRASER.: Not relief.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, we have to pay the money. It is a relief to Nova Scotia.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It is a judgment which you have to pay, not a relief.


William Findlay Maclean: I ask if there are not other claims from other provinces before the government ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: What province ?


William Findlay Maclean: Probably New Brunswick has one.


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is a claim from New Brunswick, which has been referred to arbitration.


William Findlay Maclean: Why is this claim not referred to arbitration ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Because there is nothing to arbitrate.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, there is something to arbitrate. It is because of political exigencies of some kind or another that these settlements are being made, and they are not in the interest of the federation, but in the interest of the provincial view of things ; and as a federalist, and not because I come from the province of Ontario, I object to the opening of these questions. I was amused this afternoon to hear the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) say how much the province of Prince Edward Island had lost through the inability of the federal power to maintain the service between the island and the mainland. His argument was that what you do now you could have done in former days. The building of boats and the establishment of lines of communication to-day does not determine what could have been done in the past, and I want to quote for the information of the House what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries said on this very question a few years ago when it was discussed here :


Louis Henry Davies: I rise for the purpose of correcting the hon. gentleman who two or three times over gave as statements made by me statements which I did not make. I did not say that the Northern Light was quite sufficient for the purpose for which it was built. On the contrary, I explained that in spring and fall it did effective service, but that in the middle of winter, for a period of a month or six weeks no boat could he built to do the work.
The same hon. gentleman told the House this afternoon that the government of Canada had failed to do something which it could do. We say that if he based his claim for Prince Edward Island on anything. it was that the government had not established a service that would do the work ; and a. few years ago, when he was in opposition and wished to create trouble for the Conservatives or to defend the Mackenzie government, he said no boat could be built to do the work. Now, this measure is introduced to-day, because there is some political exigency, and some deal has been made. I say again, I do not wish to see the smallest province of this Dominion suffer any injustice, but I do not think the right way is being taken to settle the question. We are beginning a lot of trouble for the Dominion by encouraging every province to put in its claim, and it only needs a little log-rolling to have one province after another coming here, session after session, for a settlement. As Mr. Blake said, I would like to see that at last a final settlement had been made. But now the question has been

opened again ; claims have been filed, and, instead of arbitrating them, the government is now proceeding to settle them by what I would call deals. What has been the outlay of the Dominion in maintaining this service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland True, it bound itself to maintain the service, but it has not been a profitable one. I suppose the country has been out $20,000 a year, and has also spent large sums for the boats which we have to-day, besides subsidizing other boats, in the effort to maintain the service. I believe the Dominion has discharged that contract; it has used every fair means to do so, and the best evidence of that fact is the speech of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries which I have quoted. Do not think for one moment that we from Ontario who object to this thing do it from any small view we may take of it. On the contrary, we prefer to take the broad view, the federal view ; we do not wish to be continually hampered here by the discussion of better terms or by encouraging the provinces to log-roll for one another in order to get better terms. We shall never have a solid Dominion if this is the case. This parliament, as a federal parliament, should always take the federal view of things. It certainly should do justice to the provinces ; but it is going the wrong way about it, and is doing something for the dismemberment of the federation rather than to strengthen it and build it up. I hope that now we have heard the last of these claims of the provinces for better terms, for if we once open the door and invite them to come here and make such claims, we shall be setting province against province and acting against the best interests of the Dominion.


Mr.   D.@: 0. FRASER (Guysborough). I would not like to be bound by the strong statements which have been made by the hon. member who has just spoken. While there is a wrong to be righted, it ought to be righted; while there is an honest claim to be presented, it ought to be considered. The time will come when the last of these difficulties between the provinces and the Dominion will be adjusted. Until that time arrives we ought to be ready to consider every just claim; and when the hon. gentleman brushes away all these claims by saying they ought not to be considered, he is not discharging his duty. As I consider it, there was an agreement entered into under the terms of which Prince Edward Island entered confederation. Has that agreement been kept ? That is the whole question. Barring the question of limitation, would an action lie in a court for the fulfilment of this obligation? In all fairness, I have no doubt that in a court of equity, such an action would lie. Can this country afford to be less just than a court of equity? And is this confederation Mr. MACLEAN.
going to give a notification to all the provinces that no just and equitable claim will be considered? On these considerations, I think this vote is right. It may be a legitimate question for discussion whether it is too small or too large ; but as to settling the claim, whether this is a case of better terms or not, I have no doubt. The hon. gentleman made reference to Nova Scotia. All I have to say is that in a court of law when a man takes property belonging to another, he has to respond. It is part of the constitution of the United States that no man's property shall be taken by the state without being paid for. This Dominion took property belonging to the province of Nova Scotia, and it ought to pay for it. If the hon. gentleman happens to take the lot of another man and build a House on it, I submit that he should not get the lot free simply because he has a house on it. It is only just and right that he should pay for the land, in order that he should act equitably and that he should have a good title. That is the ease of Nova Scotia. The Dominion government got the property of Nova Scotia ; it did not pay the province the value of the property, and the matter was submitted to arbitration, and I submit that the judgment of an ex-judge of the province of Ontario, from which the hon. gentleman comes, is not one from which we ought to appeal; but the just claim of Nova Scotia should be paid. I submit that the judgment is one from which we neither can nor should appeal.
Hon. members have spoken of the tax on commercial travellers in Prince Edward Island. I am as much opposed to that tax as any hon. gentleman present. I think it is about as small a piece of legislation as one can imagine, and I am ashamed that a province, which lies next to my own, should pass such a measure. Perhaps the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island did not get what it was entitled to from this parliament created the necessity for this legislation, but that is the only defence that can be set up for it. I trust that the example will not be followed by any other province, but I submit that the question is too small a one to join with such a big one as that which we are discussing, and that we ought not to attach to this resolution so small a matter. I dp hope that the discussion in this parliament will lead the legislature of the island to repeal that Act. And I know that such repeal will be supported by the hon. gentlemen who represent the island here, particularly by my hon. friend opposite, who is about to address the House. I would ask him, when he goes home, to use his powerful influence with the parliament of that island to obtain the repeal of this legislation against these innocent travellers who go down there in order to bring to the people better goods than they

can produce themselves, who are all hearty good fellows, deserving of better treatment when they bring the glad tidings of great joy to the island, and show the people what fine goods can be produced in other parts of the Dominion. Let the unanimous voice of this parliament be heard in the eloquent tones of my hon. friend, who is just going >to speak, and I have no doubt that the province of Prince Edward Island will set -itself right with regard to the other provinces, and my hon. friend from West To-*ronto (Mr. Clarke) and others, will no longer [DOT]be in a position to point the finger of scorn ,at that beautiful province for keeping on a statute-book any such legislation as that complained of, which is unworthy of that .province, and not becoming to its dignity.


Mr.   E.@: HACKETT (West Prince, P.E.l.)
I shall not detain the House at any length, but before touching the main question, X wish to say that I have listened with great pleasure to the remarks of my hon. friend from Guyshorough (Mr. Fraser) ; and since he has referred to me, 1 can assure him that for the last twelve years I have continually raised my voice against this tax on commercial travellers. But why was my voice not listened to ? Because the friends of the hon. gentleman, a Liberal government, were in power in the province. I would be only too happy to have that tax repealed. It is an obnoxious tax-a tax on the trade of the country. It is not a municipal tax, but a tax imposed by one province against other provinces. If the city of Charlottetown, or the town of Summerside, had imposed a municipal tax on commercial travellers, we could not object so much, but it is the hon. gentlemen's friends who imposed this obnoxious tax against the commerce of this country. I trust that the right hon. the First Minister will urge the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who I regret is not in his place, to use his influence with the local government to have this tax repealed during the session now being held on the isalnd. The wholesale dealers in the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, St. John, Quebec, and other parts of Canada, send their travellers to our province. These men spend their money there. They pay their fares on the railways, they pay their hotel bills. If they want to be driven out into the country they hire the farmers horses, and they leave their money in the province, and it is not fair to treat them in this way. It is not so much the amount of money raised that is irritating as the way in which this tax hampers business, detectives being put on the tracks of the traveller, as the hon. gentleman has said, the moment he sets his foot on our shores. The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock), who is a wholesale merchant, tells me that he sends four men to the island twice a year to sell goods, and it is in the interests of the island itself that this trade should be untrammelled, and this blot upon
the fair fame of the province be wiped out, and I trust that hon. gentlemen opposite will impress on their friends the necessity of having that done.
I would not have risen to address the House but for the remarks made by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart), and the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean).
The resolution before the House does not call for an increase of subsidy, but simply for compensation to the people of the island for the non-fulfilment of the terms of the union. The right hon. the First Minister touched the gist of the question when he said that governments as well as individuals should carry out their contracts. It has been shown that the government of Canada had not fulfilled its contract in this respect, that while they undertook to maintain continuous steam communication, winter and summer, between the island and the mainland, they failed to do so. The hon. member for Lanark was in this House and a member of the government which, in 1887, placed upon the statute-book an Act giving Prince Edward Island in perpetuity $20,000 per year, on the ground that the island was called on to contribute towards the subsidizing of railways in other parts of Canada, which were of no advantage to her. We find, therefore, a precedent in the policy of a Liberal-Conservative government for the course we are pursuing to-day. When that government believed that an injustice was done, they passed an Act placing in perpetuity to the credit of Prince Edward Island this sum of $20,000.
This government is simply repeating what *was done by their predecessors. After careful scrutiny, they find that this money is due to the people of Prince Edward Island. A need not go into the subject of the great loss entailed upon Prince Edward Island because of the want of communication for so many years-that has been gone into fully by my hon. friend from East Prince (Mr Lefurgey) and also by my hon. friend from King's (Mr. Hughes). This is a simple act of justice. It is not altogether in the interest of Prince Edward Island. The letter from the Commercial Travellers' Association, which was read by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), will show that the people of Ontario are also deeply interested in this question of steam communication. The claim was made, as stated by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that $5,000,000 should he paid to Prince Edward Island to compensate for the want of this communication. The government were willing, it appears, to pay $1,000,000. I am glad that they have recognized to a certain extent the rights of the province, and I hope that not only in this matter but in others, the Dominion will be willing to do justice to the people of Prince Edward Island, who are called upon to contribute their share of taxation as one-

fortieth of the population. We accept this as a moiety of what is due us, hut we cannot take it as a full settlement. The Minister of Finance, as well as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, stated that the service since the Stanley was placed upon the route in 1888 was a very satisfactory service and that there was no dissatisfaction with it. I desire to tell the horn, gentlemen that there is dissatisfaction, though the Dominion has placed two boats there. I will not say that an honest effort has not been made since 1888 to carry out the terms of confederation. Still, great dissatisfaction prevails in the province of Prince Edward Island. I had the privilege of bringing to the attention of the House the fact that for ten days this winter the province of Prince Edward Island had been without communication. with the mainland. Can this be called a satisfactory state of affairs ? We must persist in our protest until these boats are placed at the right points, in order to assure the maintenance of communication. Where are the right points ? As I stated here before, the government should keep the Minto on the route between Georgetown and Pictou, at the eastern end of the province, and the Stanley between Summerside and Cape Tormentine, at the western end of the province. If you keep the two boats at one point, they are likely to be blocked, as they were for ten days this winter. I wish to impress upon the right hon. the Prime Minister that to maintain this communication, the pier at Cape Tormentine should be placed in proper condition for the handling of freight, and then have the boats run as I suggest. When the wind blows from the east and blocks the eastern route, it will clear up the western ; and when it blows from the west, threatening the possibility of blocking the j western route-though this has not resulted this winter-it will open the eastern passage. I shall not enter into this contract which was made at the time of the union ; that has been gone into fully. Men of great experience on both sides of politics, made that agreement under which the Dominion was to maintain communication winter and summer between the island and the mainland. Canada failed to carry out that contract in the past, and I fear that unless my advice is taken by the government, they may fail in the future. If they do fail, we shall feel it our duty to press for the recognition of our rights. My hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) spoke of this as an increase of subsidy. The day may come foreshadowed by the hon. gentleman when we must have a general house-cleaning with regard to these subsidies, and a new start. When the province of Prince Edward Island entered into confederation, it was believed that the subsidy, together with a small tax imposed on the people, would be sufficient to carry on the affairs of the government for all time. That has Mr. HACKETT.
been found not to be the case. We have no resources except in our agricultural lands and fisheries ; we have no mines or timber to fall back upon ; and if our revenue fails, our only recourse is to a direct tax. The other provinces have great resources such as we have not. Consequently, it is the duty of the government of Canada, I care not which side of politics it may represent, to look carefully into this matter and see that justice is done to the people. Now, I saw a statement in a newspaper that Ontario was the great milch cow of the Dominion and that the provinces down by the sea were milking her dry. But what are the facts ? I had the honour of having a seat in this House in 1880, when the question of building the great Canadian Pacific Railway came before parliament. I favoured the proposal. We in Prince Edward Island faced the non-fulfilment of the terms of confederation, and there was a claim from British Columbia also that in their case the terms of confederation were not carried out. The people of Prince Edward Island, living a thousand miles east from Ottawa, contributed their equal share for building that railway. There is no province in Canada that has derived such great advantage from the building of that railway as the great province of Ontario. From Lake Nipissing to Port Arthur, a distance of 800 miles, through the province of Ontario, that railway traverses a region that was then unknown not merely to the people of Prince Edward Island, but to the people of the province of Ontario. The building of that railway has opened up the country now known as New Ontario, a country rich in mineral and timber wealth. It is considered a great thing to give the people of Prince Edward Island this $30,000. But they have contributed their share toward the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Ottawa to Vancouver, from which they derive no direct advantage. Let us be just in carrying on the affairs of the country. Whatever party may be in power, what we want is fair-play.
Now with regard to the running of these steamboats, you may consider that the sum of $30,000 is a large amount. My hon. friend from King's (Mr. Hughes) has shown the increase in the revenue on the Prince Edward Island Railway, which is owned by the government, by reason of running these boats in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. You will find in a few years that, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated this afternoon, the revenue derived both from the railway and the steamships will be quadrupled ; and this money that you think you are paying to the province of Prince Edward Island will be returned to the people of the Dominion by the increased earnings of the railway and steamships. I trust, therefore, we have heard the last of this sectional cry that Prince Edward Island is receiving more than her rights. I

hope this resolution will be passed unanimously. There should be no vote upon it. I say again that we accept this money as a part of what is due us because of the nonfulfilment of the terms of union.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
William Findlay Maclean: I wish to read a short extract that appears in La Patrie of to-night on this very question. The heading is ' Conservative opinion.' It says :
The opinion of L'Evenement on the question of Federal subsidies : The Patrie believes that the resolution which has just been reached by the Laurier government of increasing by $30,000 the annual Federal subsidy to the Island of Prince Edward is probably the first step in '.he way of the readjustment of the subsidies to the provincial governments.
There is the organ of one of the ministers of the Crown expressing the opinion that this is the reopening of the whole question of the readjustment of provincial subsidies. L'Evenement goes on to say :
This is an excellent opportunity for the government of Quebec to raise this question. For fifteen years it has been on the programme of every successive government, but from time to time the question has been put aside. The Parent government, which is in perfect accord with the Federal government, ought to undertake a settlement of this question. It is not only Prince Edward Island which has a grievance at Ottawa. We repeat that the opportunity is most favourable for a readjustment of the Federal subsidies, and the government of Quebec ought immediately to improve the opportunity.
That bears out what I said a few moments ago. We are not closing the door but we are opening it. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries said that this was to be a final settlement, that the door was to be closed, when the fact is that they are opening the door, and the proof of it is the statement made by the Prince Edward Island members, and the statement we see in the organ of the Minister of Public Works that the time has arrived for a readjustment of these claims. We have the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), who is in good fighting trim, now filing a claim for the province of Quebec. Where is that going to come in ? As I said before, we are now opening the door to the presentation of claims for readjustment and the result will be that the time of the House for the next five years will be taken up in discussing these claims

from the different provinces for better terms. I, for my part, protest against it, not because I think Prince Edward Island should not have justice done to her, but I protest entirely against the way in which it is being done and against the way in which the government have raised this question.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Mr. Chairman, a good deal has been said by some hon. members from Prince Edward Island in the way of showing that Prince Edward Island has not received its fair share from the Dominion. Now it seems to me that in the past Prince Edward Island has been very fairly treated indeed by the Dominion parliament. We find that at confederation and every year since the province of Ontario received an allowance of $80,000 for government purposes under the British North America Act. The province of Prince Edward Island with a population of only 109,000, whilst the province of Ontario has a population of about 2,000,000, received the sum of $30,000. If the province of Ontario had received for government purposes in the same proportion as was meted out to the province of Prince Edward Island, she would have received, I dare say, about $600,000. I mention this to show the fact that Prince Edward Island has all along, ever since she came into confederation, been receiving, pro rata, nearly $30,000 a year more than she was entitled to receive on the same basis as this allowance was made to the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, so that, if $30,000 a year is a fair basis of settlement now for the loss that. Prince Edward Island has sustained during the fifteen years from 1873 to 1888, I say that Prince Edward Island has already been compensated and compensated fully for this loss. I have no doubt whatever that $30,000 is abundant to meet the loss which has been sustained by Prince Edward Island on account of the non-fulfilment of the conditions entered into at the time that the island came into confederation in relation to the keeping up of communication between the province and the mainland. I say that I have no doubt that $30,000 a year is abundant. I do not know the data upon which this calculation as based. The papers are to be brought down and we will have an opportunity of reading them, perhaps, before the final reading of the Bill based upon this resolution takes place and of finding out something more as to how this figure was arrived at. I have no doubt from the fact that we have this afternoon heard the statement of the Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies), who comes from the island and who appears to be fully satisfied that $30,000 is adequate compensation, and from the other fact that not only the money consideration but the political consideration has to be satisfied, that this amount is sufficient.


William Findlay Maclean: They seem to regard it as sufficient, I believe in this matter that the political consideration is possibly as important a factor as the equity consideration that is being given to Prince Edward Island. What the government no doubt want to do is to conciliate the people of Prince Edward Island by giving them a sufficient sum of money to compensate them for their loss and they would never think of making a settlement which would fall short of that and which would leave the people of Prince Edward Island dissatisfied. Whilst they want to conciliate them with a full money consideration for their loss, they want to make it ample to be sure that the people of Prince Edward Island will not be a disappointed factor in any political question which may hereafter come up. Now I have shown that whilst Prince Edward Island has been receiving for government purposes $30,000 a year every year since it came into confederation, the province of Ontario has only received $80,000 a year and the province of Quebec $70,000 a year for the same purpose, so that, practically, the province of Prince Edward Island has received nearly $30,000 in excess of what she would have been entitled to if this allowance had been made pro rata according to the population of the different provinces. But I find that in regard to the allowance per head of the population of 80 cents, given to each of the provinces, Prince Edward Island receives her subsidy based on the population at the end of each decade. She is now being paid at the rate of 80 cents per head on the population of 1891, while the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, the provinces which pay the larger part of this money, are only receiving their subsidies of 80 cents per head on the basis of the population in 1861. You see again that the province of Prince Edward Island has a decided preference in the subsidies that are given by the Dominion to the different provinces. The population of Ontario has vastly increased since 1861, but we get no increase in our subsidy. The province of Quebec has increased largely in population since 1861, but the province of Quebec gets no increase in subsidy, while the province qf Prince Edward Island gets an increase in its subsidy every ten years according to the increase in its population. Therefore, I say, not only in the annual grant for government purposes, has Prince Edward Island had a preference ever since she came into confederation, but in the payment of the subsidy she has a preference over the other two provinces. In this way, I contend, that the province of Prince Edward Island has already been very largely compensated for the loss that she has sustained under the agreement made at the time she came into confederation. However, a grievance appears to exist; the people of Prince Edward Island contend that there is money owing to them, the government have considered this matter no doubt very fully and they have

come to the conclusion, that it had better be settled. I am not prepared at this moment to say what would be a proper amount, whether $30,000 per annum or $20,000 per annum, but I am inclined to think at the very outset that the figure which has been named is abundantly sufficient, and I infer that possibly the political exigencies of the matter have induced the government to arrive at the conclusion that the larger figure is the figure that they should propose to pay to Prince Edward Island. I am glad however that the government have adopted the plan qf paying this sum, whatever it is to be, whether $20,000 per year or $30,000 per year, as an annual subsidy instead of giving the province a bulk sum of money. I think it would have been a bad thing indeed if this sum had been capitalized and the province of Prince Edward Island had been handed over $1,000,000 instead of $30,000 a year. We in Ontario know how our finances have been squandered owing to the fact that the subsidy granted in 1884 has been treated by the Ontario government, not as a subsidy, but as interest on the capital sum and then drawing from the Dominion government a loan against that sum, hypothecating, or mortgaging the capitalized sum of the subsidy. We know in Ontario how our entire trust funds have been wasted and dissipated. Whereas, at the time of confederation we had trust moneys invested and in the hands of the Dominion government to the extent of about $3,500,000 and we got an increased subsidy in 1884 of $142,000, yet notwithstanding that, we are to-day, I may say, without a single dollar of surplus, although the treasurer of the province of Ontario comes down year after year and tells the people he has a surplus of some $2,500,000, a conclusion which he arrives at by simply capitalizing the subsidy of 1884.
I hope that the government will go a little further and that they will grant this subsidy on such conditions that the province of Prince Edward Island cannot possibly hypothecate or mortgage it in any form, so that it will remain for ever a subsidy, and that they never can be able to draw from the Dominion treasury the capitalized sum, or yet borrow from the Dominion government and pledge the subsidy as security. I believe that condition to be essential if we are going to keep the province out of debt. It is a great question to-day as to what is going to become of the different provincial governments. They are rapidly getting into debt and the Federal government will of necessity require to exercise some paternal care over them, because when they get involved beyond redemption you can rest assured they will come to the Dominion government to help them out of their difficulty. If we are entering the thin end of the wedge, if we are again opening up the question of subsidies to the provinces, we should surround it with safeguards that will prevent these subsidies from being dissipated and wasted. We should see to it that the money shall be used for nothing but the ordinary purposes of government from year to year, and thereby reserve for future generations the revenue for the provinces, and not have Prince Edward Island coming back some years hence asking us for something additional. I trust that in the Bill to be founded on these resolutions there will be some safeguard that will prevent as far as possible the extravagant expenditure of this grant.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Both sides of the House seem to agree that the government is doing right towards Prince Edward Island, but some fears have been expressed. The hon. gentleman from East York (Mr. Maclean) has just said that we are opening the door very wide, and of course the Minister of Public Works is in it once more. If he were not in it, it would be very surprising indeed. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) has read from a paper published in Montreal. I have got sons and they are newspaper men. I have no desire to see them die now; I hope they will live long and be good newspaper men. But they are just as independent of me as I am independent of the other side of the House. I have an interest in them, and I trust that in the paper they are editing they will support me as much as they can.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As long as I do right.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I take this opportunity of saying that not only do I not write in La Patrie-I have no time to do so-but often I am a week and more without reading it. I may say, however, that before I came into the Chamber to-night I read the article to which reference has been made. La Patrie has published an article from L'Evenement of Quebec, a Conservative paper. It is a dangerous proceeding. I may say at once that I altogether differ from the sentiments expressed in that article. The province of Quebec is quite capable of going on without the aid of this parliament. The province of Quebec has no claim, and does not mean to have any claim, against this Dominion. It is a false impression that the province of Quebec -is more in debt than the other provinces are. It may appear that way to those who do not know the real facts of the case. The debt of the province of Quebec is pretty large but our municipal debt is small, while the municipal debt of the province of Ontario is very large. I say that the province of Quebec has no claim against the Dominion. My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) has said that the province of Quebec is going to make a

raid on the Dominion treasury, and you will see it in the Toronto World in the morning under big headings. X want to tell the House and the country that there is nothing in that statement, and that the province of Quebec is quite capable of standing on its own legs. I contend that we are not opening the door in any way here, but that we are simply settling an account which should have been settled long ago, as we are settling other accounts which should have been settled long ago. The provinces should not expect from the Dominion anything more than they are receiving now. I, of course, speak for myself alone, but I think that ail those who have given some attention to the affairs of this Dominion are prepared to take the stand that the provinces should learn to know that they must govern themselves according to tl'eir means. If they spend more than they should do, let them pay the tax. The Dominion is one thing and the provinces are another.


John Graham Haggart: I have no great objection to the amount of money which is to be given to Prince Edward Island, but if there is to be a readjustment let it be all around. The Minister of Public Works says that this is a just claim and that it ought to have been settled long ago. How does he know it was not settled long ago ? How does he know that in the readjustment of 1884, Prince Edward Island was not settled with ? The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine say that all these claims had accrued in 1887, but was not the sum granted in 1887 to Prince Edward Island a settlement in full? I remember that when we gave that $20,000 extra to Prince Edward Island it was supposed to be in satisfaction of all claims which were not allowed in 1884. The claim now is, that under the terms of the union in 1873, we were obliged to give an efficient service to Prince Edward Island, and that we failed. It is rather curious to find this Liberal government finding fault with the service which was in existence between 1874 and 1878. They were in power then, and their Minister of Marine in the Mackenzie government built the Northern Light. Again and again we have heard them strenuously defend that vessel, and state in this House that she performed all the conditions required by the terms of the union. Even Sir Louis Davies, after he got into power, admitted that the services of the Northern Light were most efficient, except during a few weeks in the year, and that, from an inquiry by a committee of the House, and from his own knowledge of all the facts known to science at that day, there were no means by which, for four or six weeks in the winter, communication could be kept up. These are the facts of the case. If you want to give a larger Mr. TARTE.
subsidy to Prince Edward Island, if you want to make up for the misgovernment of that province from 1891 to 1901, by which it has lost an amount equal to $1,000,000, or the $30,000 per annum which you are giving it, give the money on some principle which will be just and fair to the other provinces, but not for the reasons which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries assign-th4Tt from 1874 to 1878 the contract was not carried out in accordance with the terms of the treaty. I have heard these hon. gentlemen again and again defend the action of the government in carrying out that contract. From 1878 to 1887, I have heard them justify the employment of every vessel which was employed to perform the contract. I have heard the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, from his place in the House, say that all the requirements of the contract were performed by the Northern Light except for four or six weeks. How have we performed the conditions ? In the first place, years after the province entered the union, there was a net loss to the Dominion of $15,000 a year in carrying out the contract, and for the succeeding years, up to the present time, we have had a net loss of $20,000 a year, and an expenditure of over $400,000 on boats, besides annual grants made to different steamship companies in Charlottetown for the purpose of supplementing the service. We have done our very utmost to perform the contract; and what a farce it is to come here at the present time and ask for $30,000 a year as compensation for conditions which it is claimed have not been performed by the Dominion. I say the Dominion has -performed to the utmost letter every promise it made to Prince Edward Island; and if the island, as I believe it did, entered confederation without having determined its financial position in a proper manner-because I do not think it got justice in coming into confederation-and if it is entitled to a further sum, let the settlement be made on a fair basis, showing the reasons therefor; but, do not come down with apologies such as those given by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for a further grant. If there was injustice done when the little island came into confederation, there is no man in the Dominion, from one end to the other, who is not proud of its acquisition as a part of this great Dominion, and who will not be prepared to do it justice to the utmost ; but if you are going to increase any of the provincial subsidies, people from one end of the Dominion to the other will insist that, at the same time, justice be done to all the provinces ; and if there are to be increased subsidies to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island because they have equitable claims on the Dominion of Canada, my own province has more equitable claims ten times over than any of the provinces by the sea.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Gasp6).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add just a word to what has been said by the hon. Minister of Public Works. Each time a province comes before this government to ask, not for a readjustment of subsidy, but for the settlement of claims, it is the custom for certain papers to say that there will be a raid from the province of Quebec on the Dominion exchequer. Well, Mr. Speaker, although 1 am a young man, I have followed the politics of my own province during the last ten or fifteen years, and I must say that the province of Quebec, as it stands to-day, is well able to take care of itself. Under the administration of the Hon. Mr. Marchand, and the present administration as led by Hon. Mr. Parent, the government of the province of Quebec has been able, during the last four or five years, to show very good surpluses existing in reality ; and these surpluses are a demonstration that the government of Quebec is wisely administered. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the claim of the province of Prince Edward Island has been well put before the House, and the argument which was presented to Lord Granville ten or twelve years ago, when the claim of Prince Edward Island was placed at the foot of the Throne by the delegates from that province, is the justification of the Dominion government in the course they have adopted. About the question of readjustment of provincial subsidies, I may add that while I am not in a position this evening to advocate such a readjustment, I must say that it is not a party question, either in the different provinces or in this Dominion parliament. This question has been studied by the governments of the different provinces since confederation. Speaking for my own province, I may say that even in 1883, the Conservative party in Quebec, led by the Hon. Mr. Wurtele, who is now Mr. Justice Wurtele of the Appeal Court, at that time Treasurer of the provincial government, in his budget speech, made a claim on the Federal government for a readjustment of subsidies, and he gave very good reasons for it. Later on, the Hon. Mr. Mousseau, who after being Secretary of State in the Dominion government, became afterwards premier of the province of Quebec, made also one of the chief planks of his platform, in the session of 1884, this question of the readjustment of provincial subsidies. Later on, in 1887, the question came up before the Quebec interprovincial conference, and it was taken up by public men, not only from the province of Quebec, but from all the provinces there represented.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him who was the moving spirit in that conference ? Was it not Mr. Mercier ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Hon. Mr. Mercier, I must say with pride, was the moving spirit, but he was helped by such sterling men as Sir Oliver Mowat, the Hon. Mr. Norquay, leader of the then Conservative government of Manitoba, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, now Minister of Finance, the Hon. Mr. Blair, premier of New Brunswick, and I think the Hon. Mr. Ross, then Treasurer of the province of Ontario. At that conference all the provinces were represented. The best-spirited public men of the different provinces were there, and passed resolutions which were adopted by each local legislature, and I have in my hands the declaration of the legislative assembly of Ontario, and the resolutions of the interprovincial conference at Quebec were embodied in the journals of the House. They were adopted by that legislature, and in those resolutions I find it stated :
That this conference is of opinion that a basis for a final and unalterable settlement of the amounts to be yearly paid by the Dominion to the several provinces for their local purposes, and the support of their governments and legislatures may be found in the proposal following, that Is to say

Then, axe recited the different grievances and the schedule of yearly payments that should be added to the provincial subsidies. This only goes to show that this claim for the readjustment of provincial subsidies, or what some federalists call raids on the Federal exchequer, did not come from the 'province of Quebec. Such questions are discussed in the province of Quebec just as well as in the other provinces ; and when I find that the province of Ontario adopted the resolutions of the interprovincial conference, I am inclined to say that surely this question must be a very important one, worthy of the consideration of this House and country. Why should we avoid a discussion of such an interesting question ? It is well known to-day that the circumstances under which the provinces joined confederation are no longer the same. We receive, as the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) said, a moment ago, a yearly subvention of 80 cents per head, based on the census of 1861. Well, at the time that this amount was granted to the provinces, it was considered that it would be sufficient to meet the cost of the administration of justice and the maintenance of jails and other services. But it is fairly demonstrated to-day that the population has increased considerably, especially in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The circumstances have completely changed, and as the old English proverb puts it, 'Circumstances alter cases.' This question can very fairly be considered, I repeat. Every true friend of this confederation and of the Dominion parliament should be in sympathy with provincial sentiments and aspirations. The provinces were constituted to live and not to die, and it is the duty of the Federal government to protect them. It has been said that they have gone deeply into debt. To a certain extent that may be true. True

it is that in Quebec we have a large debt of about .$25,000,000 or $30,000,000 ; but, as the hon. Minister of Public Works has said, if we have a large public debt, the interest on it is regularly paid, and it is a debt which the financiers of London were pleased to increase when we made a call on them. It must not be forgotten also that we have in the province of Quebec practically no municipal debt, which cannot be said of some of the other provinces. The province of Quebec has taken hold of certain public works, which the other provinces would not undertake, but left them to be done by the municipalities. Those were outside the ordinary administration of our affairs, with respect to which we stand on an equal footing as compared with the other provinces. I did not intend to make a speech this evening on a readjustment of the subsidies, but I say that we should not be afraid to face that question fairly. It is an open question, and one which it is fitting we should discuss, because the provinces are entitled to some consideration in this compact of confederation. I repeat that the claim of Prince Edward Island has been well established, and if the reasons given by the members of this administration are not considered sufficient by some hon. gentlemen opposite, let me tell them that if they are as loyal as they pretend to be, and I have no doubt they are, they should take the advice of the home authorities. They should take the advice of Lord Granville, who suggested to the Prince Edward Island delegation, that the Federal government of that day-some ten or fifteen years ago-should give that little province a tunnel in order that it might have direct communication with the mainland.


James Clancy: It was an extravagant suggestion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was not. I think the case was well put; and if an arbitration had taken place, the result would have been in favour of Prince Edward Island. But perhaps I may say that while I speak for my own county, I would not like to bring such a petty question as its claim to consideration into a debate of this magnitude. But although I would not urge the Federal government to give a tunnel to the Magdalen Islands in order that they might have continuous communication with the mainland, I think I am entitled to ask the Minister of Marine, who is so well disposed in favour of Prince Edward Island, to give the Magdalen Islands, which are closed during six months of the year, a little help in this way.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I suppose you got that promise before the elections ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, I never made any such promise. The people voted with pleasure for the present government and sustained it by a very large majority.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Matthew Henry Cochrane: With the expectation of getting something.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, I would not ask for anything unreasonable. I would not ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to give us continuous winter communication, but I would point out to him that if that old steamer, the Stanley, is no longer fit to keep up continuous communication between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, the Magdalen Islands should get the benefit of that steamer for a few trips during the winter months.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the Minister of Public Works was right when he stated that we might find some newspapers declaring that a raid was being intended by the province of Quebec upon the Dominion treasury, I am afraid that we may possibly see in tomorrow's papers in the province of Quebec or at any rate in some of them, the statement that the hon. member for GaspS has been defending his province most eloquently against attacks upon it from this side, and I do not think that that would be justifiable. I heard my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) warn the government that there was danger in the granting of the claim-and I do not for a moment pronounce on the merits of the scheme under discussion-but I did not hear him intimate that we had anything to fear from the province of Quebec. I heard the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) say that his own province had claims to urge against the government, but I did not hear him say anything that would lead us to believe that we had anything to fear from the province of Quebec. I heard the hon. member for Halton speak in the same sense, and I do not know where the Minister of Public Works or the hon. member for Gaspe could find any insinuation in his remarks that any raid was contemplated by the province of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not hear any hon. gentleman speak of a raid from the province on the Dominion exchequer, but I was just referring to what some papers would say.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When the hon. members on this side spoke, they did not say anything of the kind. Each of them was preaching for his own province. It has been said that the province of Quebec is in a flourishing condition. I believe that we are well able to meet our liabilities and that though our debt may appear large, for the reasons that were indicated by the Minister of Public Works, it is no larger, proportionately, than that of the other provinces. But I think that, as has been said, you must not look a gift horse in the mouth, and, if distribution is to be made among the provinces, I do not know any man in Quebec who would object to his province getting its share. My hon. friend the Min-
4733 MAY 8, 1901 4734	
ister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) was not in the House when the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) went hack a good many years and pointed out a claim which X think is an equitable claim against the Dominion government. We have a claim arising out of subsidy, and have had it for a long time. That is a question which should be once more examined. I am astonished to hear the right hon. Prime Minister state that there is at present no claim of any kind from the province of Quebec before this government. The PRIME MINISTER. What claim is it? Mr. MONK. I believe that there are claims before this government- The PRIME MINISTER. What claims? Mr. MONK. The right hon. gentleman knows better than I do whether there are any. If there are none, I think it is time for us to make up some claims. I believe that upon this award which was rendered in the province of Nova Scotia, we have a most legitimate claim against the Dominion arising out of the purchase by this government of the Drummond County Railway and the subsidies paid to that railway before this bargain was made. But what I rose for was to point out that I do not believe that the province of Quebec has been singled out in any way as being a province that might make a raid upon the Dominion treasury. But, if there is going to be a raid, and that founded upon a species of right, I would like my own province to be in with the crowd. Mr. CLANCY. I do not think that the hon. member for GaspS (Mr. Lemieux) was quite disinterested in making a claim for Prince Edward Island. I am sure the House was amused to find the hon. gentleman concluding his speech with a claim for the county of GaspS. He recounted with some accuracy, I think, the stages of the proposed raid upon the Dominion treasury. But he will remember that in 1887, when this movement was put on foot, it was purely a party matter-the Liberal party trying to make a raid upon the Dominion treasury because their friends were not in office. Mr. LEMIEUX. Will my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) allow me? Is he aware that the government of Manitoba was a Conservative government and was represented by its premier of that time, the late Mr. Norquay? Mr. CLANCY. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) is able to name one Conservative out of seven, that is all. He knows that the matter was brought up in the province of Ontario and the resolution in favour of the conference was passed, but so strong was public sentiment that the then and now	existing Liberal government dare not go a step further with the matter. Who were the men who initiated this movement ? Mr. Mercier was the leader. He sent out the invitations, and even asked the Dominion government to send a representative. But the hon. gentleman knows that the Dominion refused to attend the conference or to have anything to do with it. It was a movement put on foot by the Liberal party of the day, who wished to better their own provinces. What was the contention of the Treasurer of Ontario ? Why, Mr. Ross declared that Quebec was constantly making raids on the Dominion treasury, and that Nova Scotia also was coming forward with claims on every possible pretext. Reference has been made to the amount of municipal taxation. There is no province in the Dominion that has the municipal taxation that Ontario has. In Prince Edward Island they do not know what municipal institutions are. Mr. TALBOT. Oh, oh. Mr. CLANCY. An hon. gentleman laughs, but it is not a laugh of intelligence. If the hon. gentleman will examine the case, he will find that the services borne in the province of Ontario, and largely in his own province, by the municipalities are borne entirely by the provincial treasury in Prince Edward Island. I do not think that in Prince Edward Island they have any municipal elections as we understand them in Ontario. One thing is perfectly certain, and that is, that in other provinces the provincial treasury has contributed to education, roads and bridges and other services that are largely or wholly paid for in Ontario by the municipalities. They say that they have direct taxation in Prince Edward Island. Why, they do not know what direct taxation is. I believe that Prince Edward Island has in the neighbourhood of 150,000 inhabitants. The whole sum collected in 1897 by way of land tax- and I believe that is the only direct tax- was something like $30,000. In the single judicial county of Kent in Ontario more than that is collected for county purposes, to say nothing of the amounts collected by the municipalities that compose the county. I venture to say that five counties in the province of Ontario pay more direct taxation than the whole of Prince Edward Island-yes, two or three of them would pay more. I do not propose to discuss the matter further. I referred to it because the member for GaspS was trying to make out that the province of Ontario shared in a movement for an increase of subsidies. So far as the Liberal party is concerned, this may be true, but it never was shared by both parties. If the hon. gentleman would turn to the very journal from which he read, he will see that there was a division in the legislature and that every Con-

servative in the House voted against the proposition. As to this vote of $30,000 a year being a subsidy, there can be no doubt that it is a subsidy. The government of the day have taken upon themselves the responsibility of saying to Prince Edward Island: We owe you practically $1,000,000 ; for $30,000 a year is the interest, at 3 per cent, on $1,000,000. I will not discuss the claim on its merits, but what I wish to say is that if this is not a subsidy, hon. gentlemen opposite should have the courage and the fairness to face the people of this country and declare that they are going to give Prince Edward Island $1,000,000 and pay it out of the funds at their control rather than load upon the people for all time the payment of this sum yearly. I say it is not a fair thing. If it is to be a subsidy it is the proper way of paying subsidies ; but if it is not a subsidy, the hon. gentleman and those who are behind him are bound to come down and make provision to pay that over to Prince Edward Island now. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to unload on posterity by these means. If the provinces come for a readjustment later on, we need not be astonished. The Minister of Finance did attend that conference for an increase of the subsidies, but the hon. gentleman was guarded also. He was not quite certain whether he would remain in, the confederation just then. He put a rider on the resolution passed by Nova Scotia, that this was not to stand in the way at least of a dissolution of the partnership later on if it was thought proper. However, we are told by the Minister of Public Works that Quebec wants no more, that she is self-sustaining. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if Ontario should start out with an agitation for an increase, If every one of the other provinces should start out for an increase, as Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have done, and I hear one is coming from New Brunswick

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. Yes, a real solid one.


James Clancy: No doubt it will be a real solid one. No man will prefer a claim which he will not declare to be a solid one, beyond all possible doubt. But I appeal to the Minister of Public Works that if this is to be an all-round pressure, will he still maintain that the province of Quebec wants no more and is able to take care of itself ? Unless there are some rational means adopted for dealing with matters of this kind, I would like to know where it is going to lead us.
I am prepared to deal fairly with the weaker provinces. Circumstances may have so changed that the arrangement of subsidies in the early history of confederation might not apply now. If that he so, I think this country is big enough to deal fairly with the smaller provinces. But let us not conceal our action under all sorts of pretexts.


James Clancy: Let us meet the question fairly and squarely. If we are to have a readjustment of subsidies, let us say so. But when hon. gentlemen say this is not a subsidy, then I say that no readjustment could be made in which hon. gentlemen would not have just as good a right to say it was not a subsidy. Hon. gentlemen ought to take the responsibility of their own acts. I do not propose to enter into the merits of this question, I only enter my objection that hon. gentlemen have no right, by calling it a name that has no significance, to pay this money on the ground on which subsidies are paid. If it is an equitable claim it is not a subsidy, if it is not an equitable claim, it should not be paid at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The government takes the responsibility of the policy that is now before the committee. I would like to know what is the policy of my hon. friends opposite.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: We will let you know our policy when we get in.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And not before ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will take some time, then, before we know it. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, who I am sorry to see is not in his seat, made a speech in which he said that perhaps Ontario should ask for better terms. I would like very much to know what is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite on this point. If they have a policy let us know It. If they are prepared to ask the Federal parliament to vote additional amounts to the provinces, it is time for them to say so. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Clancy) seems to be ready to enter upon such a policy.


James Clancy: My hon. friend is mistaken. I did not propose that, I said if such a policy was to be entered upon, let us do so with our eyes open, and upon some rational basis.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman say that he is not prepared to take the responsibility of such a policy ; and I apprehend that the leader of the opposition and those near him on the front benches will not take that position. Now, our position is clear. We have stated that we are not giving any subsidy. I say without hesitation that if I had believed for a moment that in giving this $30,000 a year we were opening the door for a readjustment of the provincial subsidy, I would not have consented for a moment to make this grant.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has deceived himself very easily.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not that reputation. We have not

opened the door. I am sorry the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has spoken in such a way as to convey the impression that the province of Quebec would be ready to open that door There is nothing to justify such a statement as he has made. The province of Quebec is in a good sound financial condition, and I do not expect that any change will be made in the present condition. Allusion has been made to the interprovincial conference that was held in Quebec in 1887. I was then in the other camp, it is true. I was a newspaper man, and I remember very well having written and published several articles in which I altogether disapproved of that conference. I hold the same views to-day that I held then. If Canada is going to be a nation it can only be by the federal power being supreme. The provinces are important political orgnaiza-tions, it is true ; their jurisdiction has been defined. But we must remember that in the Federal parliament all the provinces are represented. The Federal parliament is the representative of the nation. That was the intention when confederation was affected. No one who will read the debates on confederation but will admit that both political parties were responsible for confederation, and they laid down, as a principle, contrary to that prevailing in the American Union, that the Federal parliament should be the supreme power in the land. I think that confederation has done its work well. We have made more progress than any other young nation anywhere. We are happy and contented. Fortunately, we have not had the very dangerous fight that they had on the other side of the line. I do not see why we should not continue the state of affairs under which we are developing our country. The provinces can carry on their work with the means they have at their disposal, and, speaking for myself, I strongly object to any utterances that would lead the people of the different provinces to believe that this parliament is prepared to do more for them than we have done in the past. We have given this $30,000 a year to the little province of Prince Edward Island because the government have thought that her claim was an equitable one. We have no intention of doing anything else. I thought I should make these remarks to make my position as clear as I could.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would like to know, if, on the lines on which the hon. Minister of Public Works (lion. Mr. Tarte) has just stated the policy of the government, he considers the claim of the province of Quebec, or the matter to which I have referred, as a just claim


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I
believe that when my hon. friend (Mr. Bou-rassa) has thought it over he will be obliged to admit that by-gones are by-gones. The
difficulties. I think without differences of creeds and races, the people of the pominion agree to-day that the Act of union was an unfair one for the province of Quebec. But, we have enough of present difficulties without creating others. As far as I am concerned, I say that that page of history is closed politically, financially, and in every other sense.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe in the papers brought down a reference to a previous report of a sub-committee which has not been brought down. The report to which I refer was made some years ago and perhaps it would be desirable to have that also on the Table of the House as I imagine a great many hon. members are not familiar with it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will find it in the blue-books. However, I shall be very glad to have a copy of it produced and lay it on the Table. It is not new ; it has been on records of parliament for several years. I think it is already published, but if my hon. friend desires it I will bring it down.


Robert Laird Borden: For the purpose of convenience it may as well be added to this file.
Resolution reported.



PENSIONS TO OFFICERS OF PERMANENT FORCE.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 133) respecting pensions to officers of the Permanent Staff and officers and men of the Permanent Militia, and for other purposes.-(Hon. Mr. Borden, King's), read the second time, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 3, subsection 2,
Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: What is the meaning of that ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The meaning of that is that an officer retiring before he serves out his term will not get as large a pension as an officer who has served out his full term. It is to discourage effective officers from leaving the force before their terms are served out.
On subsection 3,


Robert Laird Borden: It is not intended to give a pension at all to an officer who voluntarily leaves the force before he has completed twenty-five years service ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.


Edward Gawler Prior: 
Edward Gawler Prior: Will lie lose tlie amount he has paid into the fund ?


The MINISTER OE MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is the principle of the Superannuation Act generally.
On section 4.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This is copied from the English Act, and a similar provision is in the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


Edward Gawler Prior: It leaves a tremendous power in the hands of the minister if he should be influenced by any prejudices.


Robert Laird Borden: Who has the corresponding power in England ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The Secretary of State for War.
On section 5,


Edward Gawler Prior: I again protest against this, but I suppose the government will not alter it. It seems to me rather small, that where the amount is so trifling, Canada cannot afford it without deducting it from the pay of the officers. In every other country in the world, pensions are given without any deduction from the pay of the officers.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That may be true, but we are giving more than half, because we are practically continuing the gratuity to which no contribution is made by the officers, and in addition we are pensioning the wives and children. For the present at any rate, it is not too much to ask this contribution from the officers.
On subsection 2 of section 5,


Edward Gawler Prior: Is not that rather complicated ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think it is quite clear. Immediately after the Bill becomes law, if an officer is compulsorily retired he will be pensioned. The total amount paid him will be ascertained and divided by the number of years he has served, and an amount at the rate of 5 per cent will be deducted from the pension until such time as he has paid his 5 per cent for each year of service.


Edward Gawler Prior: Suppose an officer has served twenty years, and he died in a couple of years after retirement, would it be deducted from the pension to his wife and children ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think not.


Edward Gawler Prior: Then the widow and the children of the officer who died, would get the benefit without any deduction ?


Mr. BORDEN (King's).: 


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: They get very much less.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the language of the section is capable of Improvement in lines 21 and 22.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This Bill was prepared by my deputy who is a lawyer, and then it was submitted to the Department of Justice, and I have a letter from the Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Newcombe, saying that he himself looked into it very carefully. Not being a lawyer myself, I am anxious to have any verbal change that would make the meaning clear. Of course an officer may have had a salary of $1,000 at one period and $2,000 at another, and that is the reason an average is taken.


Robert Laird Borden: What you mean is that you shall ascertain the average pay by the means pointed out in the first part of the section. Then you desire to say that a sum amounting to 5 per cent upon such average pay shall be deducted every year from the pension of such officer, and that said deduction shall continue to be made until the expiration of a number of years and so forth ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That was the intention.


Robert Laird Borden: I dare say that the language used would mean that, but I think it could be improved. However, as it has been passed on by the law officers, it may be as well to leave it as it is.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: What would you suggest ?
Mr, BORDEN (Halifax). I think it would be better to say in line 21 :
And a deduction amounting to 5 per cent upon such average pay shall be made yearly from the pension of such officer, and such deduction shall continue to be made yearly until the expiration of the number of years last mentioned.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I will have that suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition considered, and it can come up on the third reading of the Bill.
On section 6,


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That will be one-twelfth in the first case and one-eighth in the second case.


Edward Gawler Prior: Does the minister not think that is a very small amount for a man who has been incapacitated without any fault of his own-one month's pay for each year of service ? Would this apply to an officer if he was wounded on active service ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Oh, no. That is a different thing altogether. In the Militia Act 'there are cer-

tain regulations which apply to cases of that kind.
On section 8,


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I may explain that from section 8 down to section 16, inclusive, this Act is an exact copy of the North-west Mounted Police Pension Act, except that it is adapted to the militia.
On section 10,


Edward Gawler Prior: Do you think it is fair that a man's allowances should not be considered as part of his pay in calculating the pension ? They amount to a good deal, and they are to all intents and purposes part of his real pay.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: They do not amount to much. Besides, we are not asking the men to contribute anything, while we are the officers.
On section 24,


Edward Gawler Prior: There are no pensions or compassionate allowances for the widows or children of the men ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, nor are there in the -British service.
On section 25,


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that by section 86 of the Militia Act, it is thus provided :
When any officer or man is killed on active service or dies from wounds or disease contracted on actual service, provision shall be made for his*wife and family out of the public moneys.
And section 87 provides as follows :
Every case of permanent disability arising from injuries received or illness contracted on active service shall be reported on by a medical board, and compensation awarded, under such regulations as are made, from time to time by the Governor in Council; and any medical practitioner who signs a false certificate in any case shall incur a penalty of $400.
I suppose it is to the regulations made under that section that the hon. gentleman refers.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: If I may be permitted for a moment to refer to section 6, I would point out that, as it seems to me it does not carry out the provision that is carried out in section 87, which I have just read. If the hon. gentleman will refer to the latter part of section 6 he will see that it provides :
-and if any such officer is so constrained to quit the service before such period by reason of severe bodily injury, received without his own fault, in the discharge of his public duty, the minister may, on the recommendation of such board, allow him a gratuity not exceeding three months' pay for every two years' service.
149}
Now, I am assuming that section 6 of this Bill does not override section 87 of the Militia Act


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Probably it does not, though possibly that might have been made clearer. But, the latter part of section 6 does not deal with the case of the officer who has contracted an illness in the discharge of his public duty. These two cases are dealt with in section 87 of the Militia Act as on the same footing, and I think properly. Should not section 6 of this Bill place them on the same footing also ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think I am correct in saying that this clause is not intended to refer to the cause, for instance, to one who was wounded


Robert Laird Borden: I am assuming that. But, I am pointing out that the case of an officer who is permanently disabled through illness is not dealt with on the same footing a's one who quits the service because of severe bodily injury, so far as this section is concerned, although these cases are on the same footing under section 87 of the Militia Act.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: But, infirmity is dealt with in the first section of the Act, which provides for any officer who is constrained from any infirmity of the body or mind, to quit the force.


Robert Laird Borden: This refers to infirmity of body or mind generally, but the case omitted in the latter part of section 6 is that of disability arising from illness contracted on active service.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think there is a great deal of force in that. It may throw a little light upon the matter if I state that this clause is copied word for word from the civil service superannuation now in force.


Edward Gawler Prior: What harm would it do if this were inserted 7 It seems to me that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has brought up a matter of great importance to the force. The hon. minister knows that there are cases of officers being incapacitated through ill-health brought on through reasons which were no fault of their own.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think the change would be advisable. The first part of the clause refers to sickness and injury, while the second seems to distinguish between the two. It seems to provide a rate of only one-twelfth of the pay for the number of years the officer has served, in the case of infirmity of body or mind, and a large rate, one-eighth, in the case of severe bodily injury. My hon.

friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) would suggest putting In the word ' or illness ' ?


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it would require a little consideration as to the exact language. Are not the permanent force on active service all the time ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: They are on duty all the time-yes, they are on active service all the time.


Robert Laird Borden: 

PACKING AND SALE OF COMMODITIES.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 117) respecting the packing or sale of certain staple commodities.-Hon. M. E. Bernier.
On section 1,
The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: As I explained on the introduction of the Bill, there is no change in the law as it stands to-day. The Bill simply transfers from the Weights and Measures Act certain provisions which do not appertain in any manner thereto, and incorporates these in a distinct Bill, respecting the packing and sale of staple commodities.
On section 3,


David Henderson: I am not sure. I understood that in the law as it existed in reference to the weight of salt, there was a certain percentage allowed for weight ; for example, if it did not at any time deteriorate more than 5 per cent of the weight of a barrel there would be no infringement.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: That is provided for here.
On subsection 3,


Mr. BLAIN.: I would like to ask the hon. *minister if there is any provision in the Bill in respect to the stamping of salt sold in bags instead of barrels.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: No.
On section 4, subsection 2,


William Ross: What are these barrels for ?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Macdonald).: Apples.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I would like to propose an addition to this section. The House will remember that when Bill No. 10 came up for discussion the right hon. Prime Mr. BORDEN (King's).
Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) suggested that it should be left over until this Bill of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue should be brought into the House and the two considered together. As the section which the Chairman has just read relates to packages of fruit, to apples, and as Bill No. 10 relates to the packing of other fruits and to the size of packages, I presume this will be the proper place for me to propose my amendment. I beg to move :
That immediately after subsection 2 of section 4 of the Bill the following subsections be added :
3.	Every box of berries or currants offered for sale in Canada shall be plainly marked on the side of the box, in black letters at least half an inch square, with the word ' short,' unless it contains when level-full as nearly exactly as practicablefa) at least four-fifths of a quart, or
(b)	two-fifths of a quart.
4.	Every basket of fruit offered for sale in Canada, unless stamped on the side or cover, plainly in black letters at least three-quarters of an inch deep and wide, with the word ' quart ' in full, preceded with the minimum number of quarts, omitting fractions, which the basket will hold when level-full, shall contain, when level-full, one or other of the following quantities :-
(a)	fifteen quarts or more;
(b)	eleven quarts, and be five and three-quarter inches deep, perpendicularly, inside measurement, as nearly exactly as practicable;
(c)	six and two-thirds quarts, and be four and five-eighths inches deep, perpendicularly, inside measurement, as nearly exactly as practicable; or
(d)	two and two-fifths quarts, as nearly exactly as practicable.
I presume it will not be necessary to go over tbe reasons why it is desirable to have a standard measure for fruit. Hon. gentlemen will observe in reading this Bill that we have a standard measure for almost everything that is sold, for all kinds of grain, vegetables, apples, barrels of salt, potatoes and even bundles of hay, but there is no standard size for a basket of fruit. A fruit basket originally was supposed to contain 12 quarts. The growers found the 12-quart size to be about the right size, as it was the largest size in which fruit could be conveniently sent to market. They adopted that size, but the size not being legalized, gradually diminished because there were dishonest men who wished to take advantage of the fact that the consumer could not tell easily the difference between an 11-quart and a 12-quart basket. The size fell until to-day there are proportionately more ten and a half quart baskets than twelve quart baskets, which is a great injustice to the honest shipper who wishes to ship in a standard basket. A similar condition prevails in regard to berry boxes. As I said when this Bill received a second reading, I do not think there is at the present time much dishonesty in the shipping of berries by the growers, but there is a great injustice done to growers by dealers in the

large cities who buy these berries in regular standard boxes and before they reach the market they transfer them to smaller boxes and retail them out in smaller boxes to the consumers, the consumers believing they are getting the ordinary sized boxes. I believe some growers are shipping in these small boxes which so much resemble the standard boxes that the consumer is not able to detect the difference. If there are not many growers doing it now, it will not be long before they learn the lesson from the dealers who are doing it. This is not altogether a proposal of my own but a proposal of the Ontario Fruit Growers Association. It first came from the meeting of the Fruit Growers Association held at Brantford last winter. A large committee of that association met committees from other associations all over the province, and the sizes mentioned; in this proposed amendment are the result of then-deliberations. I could have got a petition signed by every fruit-grower in Wentworth and Lincoln, but I thought it was not necessary as at public meetings held in those counties they expressed themselves unanimously as being in favour of legislation of this kind. No one will deny that it is in the interest of the consumer who wishes to know when he buys a basket of fruit that it is of the standard size instead of being at the mercy of any one who desires to sell a smaller basket than a basket of the standard size. The dealers are in favour of it a!,so. I have in my hand a petition from nearly every dealer in Ottawa asking for this legislation. Further, in the adjoining county where public meetings were not originally held, hearing that there were one or two interested parties opposing this legislation, I took the trouble to go into it and lay the measure before the people, and with the exception of the few people who had committed themselves through false representations, they were unanimously in favour of it. I trust the House will give the fruitgrowers legislation which is given to almost every other class of people in this country, and give them a standard measure for fruit.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. While I sympathize with what has been said by my hon. friend, I may say that I object to a certain extent to apply that cast iron rule to imported fruit as far as we in the west are concerned. 1 have no objection that the Canadian producer or exporter may be made subject to such regulations as are suggested bv my hon. friend (Mr. Smith, Wentworth), but we in the west get our fruits from the Southern States about two months earlier than we get them from Ontario. If the regulations proposed in the amendment were adopted we would be deprived of this privilege, because our trade is not extensive enough to pay the American fruit-growers to go to all the trouble of marking and stamping and packing which this amendment calls for. We
should not be deprived of the privilege of getting our early fruits from California and other states.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: My hon. friend (Mr. LaRiviSre) labours under a misapprehension. The American berry box is a lull quart. I have here the Acts providing for the standard box in New York and Massachusetts, and I think it is the same law in the other states. These boxes are all larger than the boxes provided for in this amendment, and consequently it would not in any way interfere with any American berries coming into the market. The other fruit which we get from the United States is chiefly from California, and is packed in cases and boxes, the boxes holding four quarts, similar to strawberry boxes. I have purposely framed this amendment so as not to include any of these fruits that come from California and the other states.


Mr. McCREARY.: I did not expect that this question would come up at this late hour, and I unfortunately have not with me letters which I received from the Winnipeg Board of Trade and from other parties interested in this matter. The complaint is made that one of the Bills submitted to the House requires that the fruit should be removed from the cases and each basket stamped before it can be sold. The Winnipeg merchants make serious complaint about this as they cannot comply with the law and sell fruit that same evening. The California and Oregon fruit comes by express to AVin-nipeg on the Great Northern Railway or the Northern Pacific, arriving about three o'clock in the afternoon. That fruit has to be in the hands of the dealers about five o'clock in the afternoon, because if it is kept over night it deteriorates. They claim that if this law is passed, they could not possibly comply with it and prevent the fruit from being spoiled. This is certainly a serious complaint.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The dealers in Winnipeg have reference to the Bill brought in by the Minister of Agriculture with reference to apple inspection. There is no requirement in this Bill to take the fruit out of the baskets. This has only reference to fruit in baskets.


William Ross: I feel inclined to sympathize with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith). In the course of my business I have to handle a good deal of these small fruits, and I must admit that during the past three years or perhaps four years, there has been a marked improvement in the packing of raspberries, strawberries, currants, peaches, plums, cherries and other small fruits in baskets. I think, however, there is room for improvement, and it would be well if the law should make provision in this regard. AATe sell potatoes by the bag,

and the law says what the bag shall contain. We buy and sell all kinds of grain by the bushel, and the weight of the measure is specified. We compel the dealers in salt, and the men who sell straw and hay to sell up to a certain standard, and why not compel the fruit men to sell up to a standard also. This amendment puts all engaged in the trade on the same level, and it protects the consumer. This fruit has to be sold rapidly when it comes to the market, and it is absolutely necessary that it should be in proper shape when it arrives. The size of the baskets and the manner in which they are filled is all important. I believe it would be in the interest of the people generally if the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman from Wentworth was adopted.


William Forsythe McCreary: Section 5 of Bill 10 means that strawberries and other fruit have to be taken out of the case and inspected as to whether or not it contains two-thirds or four-fifths of a quart, and if not they have to be stamped ' short.' That would entail much time and labour and in consequence the fruit would be spoiled before it reaches the consumer.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: They do not require to be stamped ' short ' unless they are less than four-fifths of a quart, and as no American boxes are less than four-fifths of a quart, they do uot require to be stamped ' short ' at all.


William Forsythe McCreary: If you saw some of the boxes of strawberries we get in Winnipeg, especially early In the season, you would say they are short of anything.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. This is a sort of surprise party. I have no objection that the amendment should remain as a suggestion from the hon. gentleman, and then we shall have time to consider it. I have myself some letters on the subject from the Board of Trade of Winnipeg and the Fruit Association of Winnipeg, and I would like to hunt up these papers so as to be in a position to discuss the matter with more intelligence than I can do now. All I know of these fruits is their taste. I do not know the way they are packed.


David Henderson: I would like very much if the minister could say whether the size of the box, proposed by this amendment for berries and currants is the same, or practically the same, as the box which has been used for the past thirty or forty years in the province of Ontario. It is rather a complicated problem to tell whether the box is of exactly the same capacity or not. I hold in my hand the ordinary berry box, which is in the shape of a frustrum of a square pyramid ; and have made a calculation from the size of the top and the bottom and the sloping depth to ascertain whether it is exactly four-fifths of a quart, or a little Mr. ROSS (South Ontario).
less or a little more. This is the box which our fruit-growers have been using for a great many years ; and, with the exception of the shark box, or the one known as the Montreal fraud, which the hon. member for Wentworth referred to, and which is smaller in the bottom by about half an inch, so that the dealers in Montreal, by transferring the berries from this box into the smaller box, could make five boxes out of three-with this exception, the boxes are the same in measurement. I would like the minister to say, before he allows this amendment to
pass,	whether four-fifths of a quart is exactly the same as the capacity of this box, because the growers of fruit in my county have their crates and wagons and everything arranged for a box of this size; and any material change from this size would entail upon them considerable expense. I do not want to unduly oppose this amendment; I am in favour of having a standard, which is certainly for the protection of the consumer, and, to my mind, is for the protection of the producer as well. In my county a considerable quantity of small fruits are grown, and they are sold in these boxes. People in the town of Oakville tell me that they are not desirous of any legislation at all, as things have gone very well in the
past.	In the town of Burlington people say they would rather the measure remained over for another year until they could consider it further. I have no axe to grind in the matter ; I simply want to carry out the wishes of my constituents. So long as they are satisfied, I am satisfied ; but before a measure becomes a standard, I would like to know that it conforms closely to that which has been in use.for such a long time, and that the words used in this amendment will not entail a penalty on the man who makes the box or on the man who sells the berries. I may tell the minister that I made a calculation myself, although I do not profess now to be an expert in mathematics, and according to my estimate there Is a difference of three-fourths of one cubic inch this box being smaller than four-fifths of a quart ; but I would like the minister to have his officers make the calculation, and assure me whether my calculation is absolutely correct or not before I can assent to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wentworth. He knows the trade a good deal better than I do; but I do not want a new standard introduced which would entail a penalty upon people who are using this box and who have been using it for a great many years. So long as I can be assured that the standard is not going to be changed, I certainly cannot take strong objection to the amendment.


William Ross: I think this is so important a matter that it should go over until the third reading of the Bill. There are several reasons which make me think so. The more I read it, the more I think

it possible that you might hamper the trade. There is a penalty attached to this, although it is omitted in the amendment. It is provided that the fine shall go to the informer. That is a premium to some one to worry dealers in the busy season when they may have made a mistake, and we do not want to put any more restrictions on trade than we can help ; we want to make it as free as possible. Then, you do not want to prohibit the early fruit coming from the United States, which does not come into competition with our fruit ; and unless they understood this law and conformed to it, it might have that effect.


Robert Laird Borden: With respect to fruit coming in from the United States, it might meet the views of the hon. member for Wentworth to except that from his amendment. If it is as he says, there is no necessity for making any provision. That would also meet the objection raised by the hon. member for Provencher.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I may say that the fruit-growers do not feel like that. They feel that we should make laws in this country for the good of our own people, and if outsiders choose to ship their fruit into this country, they should conform to our laws. The states of Massachusetts and New York have laws with regard to the size of their berry boxes and they are very much larger. If we ship to New York and Massachusetts, we must conform to their laws and ship in boxes larger than those proposed in this Bill. At the same time, I can assure the hon. gentleman that this will not affect the importation of berries for that reason, and this Act does not impose any penalty on any one using a box larger than that provided.


Mr. BOSS (Ontario).: I want the hon. gen tleman to understand that I was not defending the American trade, but it is well known that there is a large American trade before our fruits are ready. Their berries are here months before ours are ripe, and when our Canadian crop is ready, there are no American berries brought into the country.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 5,


Duncan Ross: I presume that means that when we sell our eggs by the standard dozen, then the dozen must weigh a pound and a half. It does not compel us to sell eggs by the pound.


The MINISTEE OF INLAND EEVENUE.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the expression, standard dozen, well known to the trade ? If not there ought to be some definition of it.


David Henderson: This amendment was introduced last year or the year before by Mr. McMillan, formerly representing one of the Hurons. I know his object was entirely to affect the export trade and ndt ordinary transactions.
On section 6,


Mr.   McCEEAEY@: That would interfere with the American twine coming in. If the twine is not stamped, it cannot be handled, and in the North-west we buy a large quantity of American twine.


Mr. HOLMES.: That was introduced last year at the express request of Mr. Frost.


Mr.   McCEEAEY@: No doubt, but our dealers in the west who handle a great deal of American twine complain that they cannot comply with that section.


David Henderson: If any man is buying twine from the other side of the line, he shall have to insist on the twine being stamped in the manner prescribed by this Act. It will be necessary for him to inform the manufacturer on the other side of the requirements of our law. To my mind the whole clause is unworkable. If you take a ball of twine and unravel it in order to determine whether it contains the requisite number of feet, you make it utterly useless ; and no man would be foolish enough to destroy a ball of twine worth 50 or 60 cents, in order to find out whether he could collect a penalty of 25 cents from somebody infringing the law.


The MINISTEE OF INLAND EEVENUE.: I propose to replace subsection 2 by the following :
Every manufacturer or importer who neglects to comply with the provisions of this section shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a penalty of not less than 25 cents per ball. And every manufacturer or importer of binder twine, which is not of the length of or pounds stamped upon the ball, shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a penalty of not less than $25. And all such twine deficient in the quantity shall be confiscated to the Crown, provided that no deficiency in the number of feet contained in the ball shall be deemed a contravention of this section unless such deficiency exceeds 5 per cent of the length stated upon such stamp.
I think that this will overcome the difficulty mentioned by my hon. friend. To destroy a ball of twine, which is of more value than 25 cents, in order to ascertain if it has the required length, would not be in the interest of the consumer, but on inflicting a penalty on the manufacturer or importer, then the manufacturer and importer would be warned that he must give the exact quantity as far as possible.


Mr.   McCEEAEY@: Our dealers in the west do not buy their twine until rather late in the season. There is always some risk of

frost or something else that will injure the crop, and they are afraid to buy large quantities of twine until the season is pretty well advanced. The consumer would not have time then to telegraph an order for so many tons and have it manufactured and stamped. He would have to take the twine as it is or not take it at all. Nor would the manufacturer have time, even if the twine was manufactured, to put on it the stamp required. As to confiscating twine, which is not of the proper length, I do not think that is practical. I think this clause might be deferred along with the amendment suggested with regard to packages of fruit. Before the third reading, I hope to be able to bring the letters from dealers in Winnipeg.


David Henderson: This section provides for a penalty of $25 for each offence. Does that mean for each ball, or for each bale or each ton ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: There are two penalties-25 cents when there is no stamp on the ball, and $25 when the importer or manufacturer falsely stamps the twine.


David Henderson: But will each ball falsely stamped constitute a separate offence ? I think that would be about $20,000 a car-load, and you could not collect it.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: This will stand.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Before you leave the Chair, I desire to propose that the following be added as clause 8 :
The Governor in Council may transfer the administration of the provisions of this Act from the Department of Inland Revenue to such department or departments as he deems fit, and to make such regulations as he considers necessary for the proper working thereof.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see any provision of the Act confining its administration to the Inland Revenue Department.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The entire Bill is taken from the Weights and Measures Act.


Robert Laird Borden: That may be, but I cannot see any provision in the Bill which says that the administration shall devolve upon the Department of Inland Revenue, and if there is no such provision, it does not seem to me that the amendment is applicable. The idea may be all right, but it is not necessary to put it in this way.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, instead of transferring it, simply give the Governor in Council power to assign the administration to any department.
Mr. McCreary.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes, I would ask to amend the proposed section so as to read :
The Governor in Council may assign the administration of the provisions of this Act to such department or departments as he deems fit, and may make such regulations as he considers necessary for the proper working thereof.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. But, supposing that the Governor in Council should not do that, would the Bill remain inoperative ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But, you must not suppose anything of that kind.
Progress reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business may wre expect for to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Supply- the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.10 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 9, 1901.