1902-03-06

Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth) moved :: That the time for receiving petitions for private bills be extended to Friday, 28th March, inst., and that the time for presenting private bills to Friday, 4th April next, according to the recommendation contained in the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.
He said : This corresponds with the time set by the Senate for their adjournment so that it really does not affect the time required for the transaction of the business in respect to these Bills.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Before the motion is adopted, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that he has intimated that this was intended to be a short session. That can only be accomplished by adhering as closely as possible to the rules respecting the reception of private Bills. We have today adopted a course which we have pur-

sued in the past, it is true, but which if it is continued this session we cannot hope to make the session reasonably short. I would suggest to the right bon. gentleman that it would be well not to have too many repetitions of this, or otherwise the session cannot be kept within reasonable bounds.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think, Mr. Speaker, we should have no repetition of it at all, after this date.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
legislation of the government of Prince Edward Island, 'in restraint of the freedom of trade,' popularly known as a 'tax on commercial travellers' from other provinces in the Dominion ?
2.	After this question had 'engaged the close attention of the Honourable Minister of Justice,' in accordance with the statement made by the Honourable Minister of Marine and Fisheries (see 'Hansard' report, page 6331-1901), what was'his judgment respecting same ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The legislation in question was reported on by the Minister of Justice; carefully considered by the government and allowed to go into operation.
Bill (No. 29) to incorporate the Sovereign Rife Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 30) to incorporate the Sydney Land and Loan Company, Limited.-Mr. Kendall.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
1.	How many tons of steel rails have been delivered under the contract entered into with F. H. Clergue, of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, and at what price or prices ?
2.	Where were they delivered, on what dates, and in what quantities ?
3.	Where were the rails, so delivered, manufactured ?
4.	Has delivery been made of all rails contracted for ? If not, how many tons are still to be delivered, at what points are deliveries to be made, and at what price or prices ?
5.	Are all future deliveries to be of Canadian manufacture ?
The PRIME MINISTER.: That question was answered yesterday.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The same question ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Identically. No rails were delivered by Mr. Clergue.


EASTERN EXTENSION RAILWAY, NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. BELL asked :: Is the government of Nova Scotia urging the government of Canada for a refund to the counties of Pictou, Antigonish and Guysborough of the amounts paid by these counties for right of way of the Eastern Extension Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The matter has been repeatedly brought to the notice of this government by members of the provincial government, but no action has been taken upon it.


IMPORTS FROM THE UNITED STATES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRODER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
What was the total value of our imports for home consumption from the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901, under the following heads : Mine, fisheries, forests, animals and their produce, agricultural products, manufactures and miscellaneous ?
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The answer to this question involves the preparation of a very lengthy special statement, and it is suggested that an Order of the House be asked for a return in this case.


IMPORTATIONS THROUGH WESTERN ONTARIO PORTS.
Mr. SPROULE asked :: 1.	How many bushels of grain, or other seeds, *nere shipped through the ports of Depot Harbour, Midland, Collingwood, Meaford, Owen Sound and Sarnia respectively, during the year 1901 ?
2.. How many barrels of flour ?
3.	How many bags oatmeal ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The grain and other seeds, and flour and oatmeal, shipped through the undermentioned ports during the calendar year 1901, are reported as follows, viz :
-	Grain and other seeds- Bush.	Flour- Brls.	Oatmeal -Bags.Depot Harbour	17,524,407 7,840,540 222,000 1,447,222 1,570,527 5,024,520 2,065,420	143,262	
Owen Sound	 Sarnia			1,963 297,669


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES.
Mr. KEMP asked :: 1. What steps, if any, have the government taken to cancel or render ineffective certain


Mr. KEMP asked :: What rates per ton does the Intercolonial Railway receive for carrying pig iron from Sydney, Cape Breton, to Montreal and points west of Montreal ? What rates for carrying coal ?

7S4


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The Intercolonial Railway rate for carrying pig iron from Sydney to Montreal is $2.95 per ton.
2.	The rate for carrying coal to the same point is $2.55 per ton. Both of these rates are conditional upon returning box cars being used, which would otherwise have to be hauled east empty.


SALE OF FORFEITED GOODS AT SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Were tenders invited by public advertisement in the spring of 1901 by the collector of customs at North Sydney, N.S., for certain goods forfeited under the customs law ?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received, the names of tenderers and amounts of their respective offers for said goods ?
3.	Was any tender accepted; and if not, why not ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson) :: 1.	Tenders were invited by public advertisement on the 16tli March, 1901, by the collector of customs at North Sydney, N.S., for goods forfeited under the customs laws.
2.	Tenders were received from the following persons for the goods advertised, viz :


David C.: Musgrove, $607; John P. Brennan, $509.32; Charles W. Lavers, for tobacco and cigars, $113.25.
3.	None of the tenders were accepted because articles covered by different seizures were not distinguished separately in the advertisement and goods which were not intended to be sold at the time were by error included in the notice for tenders.
Tenders were again invited by public ad-vertisemeut and the tender of D. C. Mus-grave for $591.50 for the forfeited goods (lots 1 to 5, inclusive) was accepted.


EXPENDITURE ON CANALS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DAVIS-by Mr. Calvert-asked ;
1.	How much has been spent by the Dominion government on each of our canals since confederation 1
2.	What has been the cost of maintenance in each case ?
3.	How much revenue has been derived from same ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: 
Albert Edward Kemp: 


MANITOBA REFERENDUM ACT.
Mr. PUTTEE asked :: 1.	Has the government received a petition from the Manitoba Prohibition Alliance urging, on constitutional grounds, the disallowance of the Referendum Act of 1902 ?
2.	If so, has any decision been arrived at, and what is it ?


The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Hon. H. G. Carroll) :: 1.	Yes, upon grounds claimed by petitioners to be constitutional.
2.	No.


THE ALASKA BOUNDARY.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to say that in looking over the Debates of yesterday, I find that references were made to certain remarks I made some time ago in regard to a declaration made by Sir Louis Davies with reference to the Alaska boundary. I have not with me to-day the papers with which to justify my statement, but I will bring them to-morrow ; and, before the Orders of the Day are called, I will read a letter which I received from Sir Louis Davies to that effect.


MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :-
[Stage Direction]
The Governor General transmits to the House *of Commons, supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending 30th June, 1902, and in accordance with the provisions of ' The British North America Act, 1867,' the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.	'
Government House,
Ottawa, March 6, 1902.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved :: That the message of His Excellency, together with the estimates accompanying it, be referred to the Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. DOMINIQUE MONET (Laprairie and Napierville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish [DOT] to call the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to a telegram from London, that was published this very morning by the Ottawa ' Citizen,' and which reads as follows :
London, March 5.-The war office scheme mentioned by the war secretary, Mr. Brodrick, in the House of Commons yesterday evening, by which he hoped the colonial forces would become available in the event of war involving the general interests of the empire, is said today to contemplate India providing three army corps, South Africa two army corps, Australia two army corps, New Zealand one army corps and Canada four militia army corps.
These in addition to six British army corps would constitute a force for Imperial defence little inferior in numbers to the legions of the continental military powers.
The Montreal * Gazette,' in its issue of this morning, reproduces this telegram and gives the very words used by Mr. Brodrick on the floor of the English House of Commons. He said :
I trust it may be possible that an arrangement may be made by which the whole forces of the empire would be available in case of war in which the whole of the empire would be involved. An opportunity for conferring with our colonial friends on this subject will occur at the time of the Coronation.
When this telegram is published in the evening papers, I do not think I am wide from the mark when I say that it will arouse the public opinion and create a sensation throughout the country. May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister to tell us whether, in his opinion the information conveyed by this telegram is well founded or not ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, the government has had no information whatever up to the present time of the declarations alleged to have been made by the hon. Mr. Brodrick. No communication of any kind with regard to any scheme of military defense to be applied to the empire has been received by us, and I think that when the exact words of Mr. Brodrick are brought to our attention, it will be found that he has been misrepresented. As to the intention said to have been indicated by Mr. Brodrick of taking up this matter of Imperial defence for discussion at the conference which is to take place next summer, the correspondence which will be brought down in a few days, in answer to a motion which was passed by the House some time ago, will show the attitude of this government on that question.


TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN (East York) moved second reading of Bill (No. 2) respecting Telephone Companies.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would ask my hon. friend to allow this to stand, in view of the measure which the government has brought in on the same subject.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Yes, but I would point out. for the information of the hon. leader of the House and the House itself, that my Bill may contain provisions not contained in the government measure, and there should

be no objection to my Bill being read the second time and going to the committee, and the two Bills being considered there together. That being the case, I do not intend to take np much of the time of the House to-day in moving the second reading of this Bill. The object of this Bill is to comply with a widespread public expression in favour of some kind of regulation of the telephone companies of this country. It has been found that these companies have not been treating the public fairly, and this parliament has been besieged with) petitions from all over the country in favour of some measure of this kind. At the present time they are under no regulation, and they do with the public pretty much as they choose. Just take two or three instances in point. These companies, like other great companies, are incorporated to do a certain business, and are given a great franchise ; but there is no compelling clause in their charters to force them to give the public a reasonable service, a cheap service, or a service wherever the public may demand it. It is high time that some means should be adopted for compelling these companies to treat the public fairly.
The Bill which I have introduced provides for the regulation and control of the rates of all telephone companies. It further provides that these companies shall give equal treatment to every section of the community, and that every company shall give the use of its wires to any other company that may desire to use them at tolls to be regulated by the government. In England they have very strict and up-to-date legislation in regard to telephone companies. The charters of all such companies in England cease in 1911. Before they can do business they must be licensed by the Postmaster General, and must have their rates approved by the government ; and in every way provision is made by which local or municipal authorities who wish to establish a telephone service of their own, will be enabled to do so. I am looking forward to having provisions of a similar character put into this Bill, so that not only will the rates of every company be regulated, but it will be compelled to give exchange rates to any other telephone company, and will be prevented from discriminating against municipalities which wish to establish their own telephone systems. Mark what has happened in the case of several municipalities in this country which desired to establish local telephone services. Immediately that they announced their intention of doing so, the Bell Telephone Company cut their rates down to $3 or $5 a year in order to close up the local competing company. This Bill provides that if they do that in one locality, they must do it all over the country, in that way they would be prevented froin choking off local competition. In Ontario provision has already been made in the Municipal Act whereby municipalities can go into the Mr. MACLEAN.
telephone business, and can borrow money for that purpose ; but if any municipality desired to have an exchange over the system of the Bell Telephone Company, it would probably be blocked. My Bill provides that every telephone company shall give equal service to everybody who applies for it. I have been told that this would be interfering with their rights. If we compel them to give the use of their system to local companies, they will be paid for it and are not going to lose anything. The great argument used is that we will be interfering with the Bell Telephone Company by compelling it to give fair treatment to local companies, but it will be very well paid, even though the rates they receive be regulated by the government.
The Bill introduced by the hon. the Minister of Justice proposes to put the control of the telephone companies under the jurisdiction of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. I think it would be better to vest the jurisdiction, as is done in England, in the Postmaster General. In England the Postmaster General has the fullest control over all these telephone companies. He can license them, revise their rates, and compel them all to use the trunk lines which are owned by the government in connection with the post office.
I do not intend to go over the other details of my Bill, as they will be fully threshed out in the committee.
I am told that my Bill will interfere with certain municipal rights. If that be the case, I am prepared to consent to an amendment which will get rid of that objection. However, I do not believe that a Dominion charter can override the municipal right, but it may be better to put in a provision protecting the municipalities, and I am prepared to listen to any recommendation made on their behalf.
I would move the second reading of my Bill, on the understanding that it will goto the Committee of Railways and be considered at the same time as the Bill introduced by the Minister of Justice.


The MINISTER OE JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: If my hon. friend really has in view the control by the government of Canada of the telephone companies, his Bill entirely fails to accomplish that object. However, it is idle to spend our time discussing its details. My hon. friend has fully explained his measure, and when it comes before the Railway Committee, its various provisions will be thoroughly discussed. My hon. friend suggests that the control of rates should be within the jurisdiction of the Postmaster General. That suggestion is worthy of being considered. But when he refers to what is done in England, I would remind him that in this country the telegraph companies are not within the control of the Postmaster General as they are in the

mother country. In the hon. gentleman's own Bill, he omitted to make any provision for any control hy the Postmaster General, so that his suggestion to this effect is evidently one that has occurred to him lately, and no doubt he will explain his change of opinion before the committee.


William Findlay Maclean: If my Bill does not secure government control of the rates, I hope the Bill of my hon. friend does, and in that case I will make way for him.


Mr. CLARKE.: Might I ask the Minister of Justice if both Bills are to be considered at the same time by the Railway Committee V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That of course is a matter for the Railway Committee to decide, but in my opinion it would be better that they should be.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose that reasonable time will be given the municipalities, after the hon. gentleman's Bill has been printed and distributed, to give most careful consideration to both Bills and to be heard before the Railway Committee.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am having a hundred additional copies printed of my Bill, and have arranged that hon. gentlemen may be enabled to send them to the municipalities interested.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That arrangement is quite satisfactory.


William Findlay Maclean: I would ask that arrangements be made to print extra copies of my Bill also, as a number of municipalities have asked me for copies.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin) moved second reading of Bill (No. 6) to amend the Railway Act with respect to drainage. He said:	This Bill is of a
similar nature to that introduced a few days ago by the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Cowan), and I would like to have it sent to the committee at the same time, so that both Bills may be considered together. The farmers In my constituency are very much interested in this measure. There are four different railway corporations doing business there and one which comes within a mile of the place. No doubt railways are of great benefit to the farmers, but they also frequently do considerable injury to the lands through which they pass. Fences, timber and crops on these lands frequently suffer considerable damage from the operations of a railway. Many years ago, when railways were first built, the question of drainage was not given sufficient consideration, and many railway companies have refused to give proper drainage. There is
no law compelling them to do so, and I hope that this parliament will see that the farmers get justice in this matter. Last year a similar Bill to this was referred to a sub-committee, composed of eleven members, and that committee reported favourably upon some of the clauses. This year I hope that the whole matter will be taken up again and the farmers satisfied.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I think that, with the permission of the House, I ought to change the wording of the resolution which stands in my name.
I gave notice of a motion for :
Copy ot all correspondence, despatches and memoranda which may have passed between the British government and the Canadian government relating to the new Anglo-German Treaty of Commerce.
The arrangement arrived at between Great Britain and Germany in the early part of 1898 was not a new treaty. The treaty of 1805 had been denounced, and went out of course; and in 1898, an agreement was arrived at but not an agreement having the solemnity of a treaty. I would, therefore, with the permission of the House change the wording of this motion to this :
All correspondence which may have passed between the British government and the Canadian government relating to the new Anglo-German Commercial Agreement of 1898.
This would cover the object I have in view and would avoid describing as a treaty what is, as I understand it, a mere commercial arrangement for a certain time. After what has been decided by this House, I feel that in proposing this arrangement, I and those who join with me in calling for these papers are leading a forlorn hope. It seems evident, under the interpretation of our constitutional usages which has been given, that, in the opinion of the majority of hon. members of this House, the representatives of the people, even though met not merely for the purpose of voting supplies but for the purpose of passing judgment on the administration in general, cannot demand to be put in possession of information which will enable them to form a proper judgment of the doings of the government. I shall not again go over the authorities which I had the honour to quote to you and to this House on a proposition with which, I take it, the members of the House are now absolutely familiar. I believe I am right in stating that the Commons of Canada, as well as the Commons of England, after the final adoption of any act of the government, diplomatic, or otherwise, are entitled to have laid before them the correspondence had by the government, and, as representing the people to

judge in the light of that correspondence the acts of the government. This motion addresses itself to just such a series of acts. After the denunciation of the Anglo-German treaty of 1865, negotiations were at once entered into by the British government and the German government for a renewal of commercial relations between those countries.
The public and parliament of England were made aware at an early date after the denunciation of that treaty-one has only to examine the English ' Hansard ' to be convinced of the fact-that negotiations were going on. What we desire to know to-day, and what I submit this House has a right to know, is what representations were made to the British government by our own authorities in regard to our interests when the new commercial agreement was arranged and was to come into force. It is evident from the agreement which was arrived at in 1898 that we had a paramount Interest, since, as a result of that agreement, Great Britain and, if I mistake not, all the British dependencies were given the advantage of the most-favoured nation clause, and Canada alone was excluded from the benefit of that agreement, thereby causing an appreciable impediment to our grain trade with the German Empire. Since *then there has been a falling off instead of an increase in our trade with Germany. It must be evident to every member of this House, as it requires no argument to show, that having been transferred from the tariff as it stood in 1897 to a higher tariff, having been deprived of the most-favoured nation clause under the new agreement of 1898, we in Canada stand to-day in a more unfavourable position than we did previous to the consummation of that agreement.
Now, what have been in the meantime the endeavours made by this government which was so anxious, if we are to take the declarations made a long time ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to open up new avenues of trade with every country in the world, if possible ? What have been the endeavours made by this government to see, as it was their duty to see, that the interests of this country should be protected V When the time arrived to make the final agreement between England and Germany in 1898, no doubt this government took great pains to make representations to the British government to prevent the unfortunate ending of the' negotiations, to prevent this country from being excluded, as it is specially excluded, singled out for exclusion, from the benefits to be derived from the new agreement 7 Memoranda must have passed between both governments; and it is not only our duty to ourselves to have this memoranda and that correspondence before us, but I submit it is the duty of the government, in face of that agreement as we read it, to Mr. MONK (Jacques Cartier).
disculpate itself, and to show that, having boasted that it has obtained the denunciation of the Belgian and German treaties, and made, as they say, of this country a nation, it is their duty to show that they have taken up the role which appertains to a young nation, that they have done their very best to see that our interests were protected at the time the agreement was made to which this motion refers, the agreement of 1898. What conclusion, Mr. Speaker, must we arrive at if the government should refuse to give us that correspondence V There will be but one conclusion throughout the country, and I submit it will be a fair conclusion, namely, that there is no correspondence; that the government have failed in their duty to make those representations to the home government which, if properly made, would have had undoubtedly the effect of assuring to us a continuance of the German market for our agricultural produce, and particularly for our grain. I say that if the government refuses, as it has already done on similiar occasions, to lay before the representatives of the people the correspondence in question, it will produce in the public mind a well-founded conviction, either that those representations were wrongly made, were not made with that insistence with which they should have been made under the circumstances, or else that no representations were made at all; that those gentlemen were so busy arranging their own difficulties amongst themselves that they forgot their duty upon that important point; that they were so busy, like the Macduffs and the Macbeths, in ' laying on ' to one another, that they did not cry ' hold ! enough ! ' or take up sufficient time to make in a dignified and firm way to the Imperial government, those representations which I have no doubt would have been listened to if they had been made properly and 'at the proper time.
Sir, it is a circumstance which I think should be mentioned, that all the correspondence having reference to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty has been laid before the British parliament, conformably to the usages which obtain in England. Mr. Speaker, the convention by which the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was abrogated was signed at Washington on February 5, 1900; and conformably, as I have said, to the usage which has obtained in England since they have true parliamentary government, since they have responsible government, since ministers are obliged to submit every one of their acts to the judgment of the people's representatives, scarcely a month had passed before the whole correspondence was laid before the British parliament, although we have hitherto vainly sought to obtain it here. Why have.we not that correspondence here? It can be obtained for a penny.

But, it seems somewhat strange that in the home of liberty and constitutional practice, the members of the House of Commons, on the 25th of March, and the members of the House of Lords, on the 25th of March, 1901, should have had all that correspondence before them, and that we, in this country, who only participated and could only have participated incidentally in the conclusion of the convention, we British subjects, claiming to have the same rights as they have in England, are deprived of that correspondence which has been laid before the House of Commons and the House of Lords in England, and that we should be obliged to address ourselves to the mother country, to correspond with members of parliament in England, or with friends on the other side to obtain that which had been produced to them, which was laid before the representatives of the people about a month, as I have stated, after the convention of the 5th of February, 1901, abrogating the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which had been finally concluded at Washington. I know that it is not the right of any member of this House to criticise the decisions of this House, and I have too much respect for the rules of the House and for the House itself to allow myself to transgress that rule, but I think 1 am not going too far when I say that the anomalous spectacle of the representatives of the people of England having before them the correspondence in question and our own representatives of the people in this country being deprived of it, may lead some people in this country and in the other country from which we derive our free political institutions, to wonder if we are, to use the language of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), going forward, or if, in reality, we are not, under this government going backward, and will be obliged to fight for our liberties over again. I appeal, Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues from the province of Quebec, with whom I am perhaps more familiar, more intimate, than with my colleagues from the other provinces, to say whether they are not in favour of the fullest and most entire knowledge being conveyed to the members of this House of each and every act of the government, to say whether we are to return to the old idea of an absolute division between the executive and the legislative power, or whether we are to conform to the principle which without any doubt obtains in England to-day that the executive power, the ministry of the day, constitutes nothing in reality but a committee of the House of Commons, a committee of parliament, and that the parliament of which the administration is only a committee has a right to the amplest and the fullest knowledge of every act of the government. We hear a great deal sometimes from these lion, gentlemen in respect to the rights of parliament, but I appeal to my hon. friend from Charlevoix (Mr. Angers), for instance,
to say whether he does not support my contention on this point. I feel that in moving for this correspondence I will' have the support of my hon. friend from Laprairie (Mr. Monet), and indeed, Sir, the question seems to me to be such a simple one, it seems to me we are so clearly entitled to the communication of every one of the representations made and memoranda written to the British government by this government during the year and a half that elapsed between the denunciation of the treaty and the final making of this new agreement of 1898, that I venture to say that any lion, member of this House who votes against our obtaining communication of this memoranda will be, in reality, denying to this House one of its oldest and most precious privileges.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has displayed a great deal of mock heroics without any adequate cause at all. He knows very well that there is no reason for him on this occasion to say that he is going to fight for the liberties of the people and the rights of parliament. He will not be called upon to go to such extremities as that. He knows very well that there is not even cause for any interference with parliament on this occasion, but the weakness of the position which he has assumed is such that he has made a strong effort to rebuke the House for the decision it took yesterday. If he has not forgotten the authorities which he quoted yesterday he knows that the one exception whieh is made to the standing rule that parliament is to be placed in possession of every act of the government relates to matters which are still under consideration. My hon. friend says that the parliament of Great Britain has been more favoured than the parliament of Canada because the parliament of Great Britain has had communication of all the correspondence in regard to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. The matter is at an end so far as the government of Great Britain is concerned. There was no reason, therefore, why the rule should not apply. But, the matter is still pending so far as Canada and the people of Canada are concerned. If the hon. gentleman looks into this correspondence-I have had no occasion to look into it-but, I am sure that none of the representations which have been made by Canada in regard to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and the settlement of the Alaskan boundary will be found in that correspondence, because the matter is still under consideration. And so it is in regard to this very question we have here. We have made representations, we are still negotiating, and I may say to the hon. gentleman that we are not only negotiating with the government of Great Britain, but that, so far as we can, also, although we cannot do it formally, we have

made representations to tlie government of Germany, not officially, of course, because we are not in a position to do so, not having the right to make our own treaties, but so far as we can make representations informally in order to plead our own ease with Germany, we have done so. The matter is still pending. The communications which have been addressed by us and which are under the consideration of the government of Germany, have not yet been answered; yet, the hon. gentleman would have us bring down that correspondence and therefore spoil all these negotiations or any effect they could have hereafter. I am surprised at the insistence of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) in asking to place the House in possession of correspondence which is still pending, and to publish which would therefore be in direct violation of this very rule for which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) is ready to fight and to shed his blood. I have only to make the statement to the House, that the correspondence is still pending and therefore there is no reason why this motion should be granted, and it cannot be granted.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) saw fit to taunt the hon. member (Mr. Monk) with his desire to fight, he might have recalled the days when the right hon. gentleman himself proclaimed that lie was ready to shoulder his musket on the banks of the Saskatchewan. I suppose my right hon. friend, on that occasion thought that he was about to shoulder his musket in defence of the constitutional liberties of this country, and therefore I see no reason why he should reproach my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) with being willing to follow the example which he himself has given. If my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has been indulging in mock heroics, what was the right hon. gentleman indulging in when he made that profession to the country on a former occasion. The right hon. gentleman should have a better memory. He has reproached me sometimes with a poor memory, but apparently his own memory has failed to-day and he has not recalled the past quite as vividly as he mignt have done, or otherwise he would not have used that language in reference to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk).
_ With regard to the motion itself I think it. is highly desirable that this House should have information as to the stand this government has taken on this question. There are several reasons for that. In the first place, we have an illustration of what may have taken place in the past, by comparing the despatch of Lord Lansdowne concerning the abrogation of the Clayton-Bul-wer treaty, with the stand which has been taken by members of this government respecting that very matter. Lord Lansdowne, in his despatch, took the ground most Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
clearly and distinctly that the British empire in the right of Canada, was most distinctly especially interested in the question as to whether or not that treaty should be abrogated. I venture to think that we will look in vain for any intimation from the right hon. gentleman himself, or from any member of his government, to show us that this government has ever seen fit to take, with the Imperial government, such a stand as that. Otherwise, how is it that after a stand of that kind was taken by Lord Lansdowne we should find so complete a change of face to have been made by the Imperial government as that which resulted in the abrogation of this treaty without any word of settlement whatever respecting the Alaskan boundary question.
I come more immediately to the question now before the House. In view of the language of the Finance Minister last year when he practically justified the action of Germany, is it not right, that we should know whether or not this government in its communications with the Imperial government on that important subject to this country, took the ground that the Minister of Finance took in this House, when he practically justified the action of Germany, because forsooth he said : We have discriminated against Germany and therefore Germany had a right to discriminate against us. I do not pretend to be quoting the words of the Finance Minister exactly, but I venture to think that any hon. gentleman who looks up ' Hansard ' will find that is practically the stand which the Finance Minister took last year in this House. Under these circumstances I think it is high time that this House should be informed of the position of the government in regard to this matter. It was brought to the attention of the government during the debate on the Address last year ; it was brought again to the attention of the government in the debate upon the motion to go into Supply when the Minister of Finance delivered his budget speech. Notwithstanding that, the government came clown this year with a Speech from the Throne dealing with many matters of the most trivial character and not saying one word to this House or to this country with regard to so important a question as that. That, Sir, would seem to indicate that the government is not seized in this matter with the view which prevails throughout the country as to its importance. If we can judge by the utterances of the ministers, they do not seem to realize that this matter is of the importance which is attached to it throughout the country. In the light of the action of the government with regard to this, in view of the fact that they have taken no action ; that their public utterances seem to indicate that they think that no action is necessary ; it seems to me that the House is justified in asking to have exact information as to the course which has been taken by this government with the Imperial gov-

eminent respecting this most important matter, and that the papers which have been moved for by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), should be brought down for the information of the House.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker. It is quite certain now that the government have not protected the interests of Canada in connection with this German matter. If we want any evidence as to their incompetence to protect the rights of Canada, we need not go further than their conduct with regard to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. I wish to direct tiie House for a moment to one or two of the main points bearing upon that matter. On February 22, 1901, just about a year ago, Lord Lansdowne did write a despatch, and this despatch is, I say, the charter of the liberties of Canada as regards the negotiations conducted by the mother country with outside nations on behalf of this country. There is in that despatch, to be found the charter of Canadian liberty. There never was such a declaration of the right of Canada to be considered in all these negotiations, as there is in that despatch of Lord Lansdowne. For the information of the House I intend to read that despatch to-day. It was in reference to the proposal to establish a new treaty between the United States and Great Britain dealing with the Nicaragua canal, and in his communication to Lord Pauncefote the Marquis of Lansdowne used the following words-and I wish the House to pay particular attention to them :
* So far as Her Majesty's government were concerned, there was no desire to procure a modification of that convention. Some of its provisions had, however, for a long time past been regarded with disfavour by the government of the United States, and in the President's message to congress of December, 1898, it- was suggested, with reference to a concession granted by the government of Nicaragua, that some definite action by congress was urgently required if the labours of the past were to be utilized, and the linking of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans by a practical waterway to be realized. It was further urged that the construction of such a maritime highway was more than ever indispensable to that intimate and ready intercommunication between the eastern and western seaboards of the United States demanded by the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands and the prospective expansion of American influence and commerce in the Pacific, and that the national policy called more imperatively than ever for the control of the projected highway by the government of the United States.
This passage in the message having excited comment, Your Excellency made inquiries of the Secretary of State in order to elicit some information as to the attitude of the President.
In reply, the views of the United States' government were very frankly and openly explained. You were also most emphatically assured that the President had no intention whatever of ignoring the Claytou-Bulwer convention, and that he would loyally observe treaty stipulations. But in view of the strong national
feeling in favour of the construction of the Nicaragua canal and of the improbability of the work being accomplished by private enterprise, the United States' government were prepared to undertake it themselves upon obtaining the necessary powers from congress. For that purpose, however, they must endeavour, by friendly negotiation, to obtain the consent of Great Britain to such a modification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as would, without affecting the general principle therein declared, enable the great object in view to be accomplished for the benefit of the commerce of the world. Although the time had hardly arrived for the institution of formal negotiations to that end, congress not having yet legislated, the United States government, nevertheless, were most anxious that Your Excellency should enter at once into pourparlers with a view to preparing, for consideration, a scheme of arrangement.
Her Majesty's government agreed to this proposal, and the discussion which took place in consequence resulted in the draft convention [DOT]which Mr. Hay handed to Your Excellency on the 11th January, 1899.
At that time the Joint High Commission, over which the late Lord Herschell presided, was still sitting. That commission was appointed in July, 1898, to discuss various questions at issue between Great Britain and the United States, namely, the fur-seal fishery, the fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the Alaskan boundary, alien labour laws, reciprocity, transit of merchandise, mining rights, naval vessels on the great lakes, definition and marking of frontiers, and conveyance of persons in custody. But serious difficulties had arisen in the attempt to arrive at an understanding, and it had become doubtful whether any settlement would be affected.
In reply, therefore, to a request for a speedy answer with regard to the convention, the Marquess of Salisbury informed Mr. White, the American charge d'affaires, that he could not help contrasting the precarious prospects and slowness of the negotiations which were being conducted by Lord Herschell with the rapidity of decision proposed in the matter of the convention. Her Majesty's government might be reproached with having come to a precipitate agreement on a proposal which was exclusively favourable to the United States, while they had come to no agreement at all on the controversy where there was something to be conceded on both sides.
Shortly afterwards Lord Herschell intimated that the difficulties in regard to the question of the Alaskan boundary seemed insuperable, and that he feared it might be necessary to break off the negotiations of which he had hitherto had the charge. Upon this Lord Salisbury informed Mr. White that he did not see how Her Majesty's government could sanction any convention for amending the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, as the opinion of this country would hardly support them in making a concession which would be wholly to the benefit of the United States, at a time when they appeared to be so little inclined to come to a satisfactory settlement in regard to the Alaskan frontier.
These two last paragraphs are, as I said before, the charter of the liberties of Canada in the matter of negotiations with outside nations. There is a statement contained in that extract which I have read, quoting

tlie opinion of Lord Salisbury, the former foreign secretary of England, and that opinion is reinforced by the present foreign secretary, Lord Lansdowne, who was a Governor General of Canada ; who was the greatest British statesman ever identified with the government of this country, and who to-day is the equal of any statesman in Europe. He endorsed the doctrine laid down by Lord Salisbury:	That no convention should be made unless the rights of Canada in connection with the Alaskan boundary should be discussed and should be settled at the same time.
I say that is the charter of our liberties as regards these negotiations, though it is not contained in an Act of parliament. It happens to be contained in that Imperial despatch ; but many of the great liberties of the British and Canadian people are contained in just such documents as this. When that statement was made, and it was put on record that there should be no settlement of this question until the Alaskan boundary question was settled, a way was opened for securing the rights of Canada. But the rights of Canada were completely ignored ; and why ? Because we had an incompetent government in power in Canada who, when they knew that the British government had taken that stand, failed to insist on the British government maintaining it. They abandoned the whole case of Canada and allowed the Americans to have their own way and get everything they demanded. Nor is it strange, when you investigate the history of lion, gentlemen opposite, to find them neglecting the interests of this country. They are the party of commercial union. They sent the senator from Ontario to go to the Boston meeting to promote commercial union. They preached the doctrine that this is the continent to which we belong. They are the party who throughout their whole history have been ready to abandon the rights of Canada and to ailow the United States to ride rough shod over us. That is the charge we make to-day- that they have completely ignored the interests of Canada in connection with this German treaty ; that they failed to put in a proper protest : that they did nothing. They are also the party, who in connection with our trade relations with the mother country, have been ready to give a preference without getting any preference in return. That is not protecting the rights of Canada ; that is not true Canadian statesmanship. They are also the party who were willing to allow their leading man to become a picturesque figure in the jubilee procession, but were not willing to accept the offer of a trade preference to Canada when it was held out to them. In then-whole record we find that they have been ever ready to abandon the interests of Canada, and by a side wind to advance the interests of the United States. Now, we are sick and tired of that in this country. We


William Findlay Maclean: want statesmen like Sir John Macdonald who, in connection with the Washington treaty, made it clear that he would not consent to anything which was against the interests of Canada. He never sacrificed the interests of his country, and he never had such an opportunity as hon. gentlemen opposite had to hold the British government to such a magnificent declaration as that contained in the despatch of Lord Lansdowne. There never was such a declaration made before ; and, by reason of the fact that Lord Lansdowne was then in control of the Foreign Office, and, by rea son of his experience in Canada, he had a thorough knowledge of affairs in America, and especially of the interests of Canada, and was prepared to stand by them ; and he had the support of Lord Salisbury in doing so ; but. so far as we know, there is no declaration on the part of any Canadian statesman showing that hon. gentlemen opposite insisted on Lord Lansdowne, Lord Salisbury and the British government standing by that declaration of theirs, or offered any protest when it was abandoned. They allowed it to be swept to the four winds, and the Americans got everything they demanded. They got the right to build that canal and to override every contention which Canada has put forward, while we got nothing, and our case was allowed to stand over. The same thing is happening in connection with this German treaty, and the same thing will continue to happen so long as we have unpatriotic men at the head of the affairs of this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I say that the affairs of this country are in the hands of unpatriotic men. They are the men who were commercial unionists a few years ago, who had no faith in Canada, who told us that Canada would only succeed. by the favour or grace of the United States. They are the men who told us that preferential trade with the mother country did not amount to anything. They are the men who are ready to sacrifice our interests in order to give a preference to the mother country in our markets. That is not the view Canadians hold. They want public men who will insist on their rights, and will defend their rights. If they do not, they will put men in oflice who will. The reason I say that hon. gentlemen opposite ought to be dispossessed of power, and dispossessed to-day is that, so far as we know, they have failed to protect the rights of Canada when that great opportunity presented itself last August. So far as we know they did nothing. When asked to bring down the papers, they had an opportunity fo tell us whether they had done anything or not in connection with the German treaty ; but they have evidently done nothing. That German treaty is a detriment to Canada. It is the outcome of the miserable

preference which hon. gentlemen opposite gave two years ago. I repudiate that preference. It is contrary to the interests of Canada. It is contrary to national policy ; it is against the interests of Canadian workmen and Canadian factories. It is giving something to the manufacturers and workingmen of England, and to German and other foreign manufacturers, at the expense of the Canadian manufacturer and the Canadian workingman. That is not the way to show your loyalty to the mother country. The way- to show your loyalty, as I said before, is by sending troops when she needs them-doing something for the nation, not for individual Englishmen who happen to be manufacturers or workingmen. I say I repudiate that preference ; it is unpatriotic and un-Canadian, and this misunderstanding with Germany is the outcome of it. And all this is because hon. gentlemen opposite are wrong in their whole policy. They have always been shillyshallying with the trade question, and have always been getting into trouble. If they had been honest protectionists, as they profess to be now

*


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: No, no.


William Findlay Maclean: Do I hear the hon. member for South Oxford say that he is not an honest protectionist ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Certainly not.


William Findlay Maclean: Is he a dishonest one 7 He sits there as a defender of the national policy.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: No, by no means.


William Findlay Maclean: Why has he not repudiated it ? Why has he not left the government which is maintaining it 7


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The hon. gentleman does not know the difference between a tariff for revenue and a protective tariff.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. Minister of Public Works says it is a protective tariff, but not sufficiently so, and he wants to make it more protective. I gather now that there is a storm coming and that John of Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is to have his jacket warmed in a very few days by Richard of Oxford. When that comes, it will simply be an additional evidence that this government has no fixed or determined policy and is sacrificing the interests of Canada on every possible occasion. It has sacrificed them in the past, and is prepared again to do so, when the greatest opportunity ever yet presented to a Canadian statesman will present itself in June next. This government has been invited to send over a delegate to meet the other
colonial representatives and the British authorities with the view of arranging some kind of inter-imperial trade relation. Can we trust hon. gentlemen opposite to take part in these negotiations in view of the record they have made in connection with the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty 7 They will go over there prepared to be gold bricked, prepared to give a preference and get nothing in Return, as they have done already, and will be received in the capital of the world as 'rubes' prepared to give away everything. There is any amount of evidence that hon. gentlemen opposite are not competent to protect our interests in connection with foreign affairs. As a matter of fact they have no defence to offer and cannot show that they have done anything to protect the interests of Canada in connection with the German treaty.


Albert Edward Kemp: I presume that, so far as the discussion in relation to the documents pertaining to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is concerned, that incident is now closed. But, if the right hon. the Prime Minister had known yesterday that these documents, or a portion of them, were made public in the Imperial House of Commons nearly two years ago, I think that his attitude would have been entirely different.
As regards the motion now before the House for the correspondence between this government and the government of Great Britain regarding the question of German discrimination, this discrimination has, been going on some four or five years, and I do not see that the government is any nearer a settlement of the matter than when it first took it up. It seems to me that sufficient time has elapsed to entitle us to have the documents produced and laid on the Table. The right hon. the Prime Minister has been made aware on many occasions through public bodies in this country, of the situation. In Toronto, in December of 1900, a deputation waited upon him to urge that something should be done. He then described the situation as a German boycott of Canadian products. On July 25, 1901, the Toronto Board of Trade again presented a petition to the government on this question. The Montreal Board of Trade also approached the government as well as the Montreal Corn Exchange, and urged it to do something. In its petition to His Excellency in Council, the Montreal Corn Exchange said :
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Your Excellency in Council will he pleased to take into consideration the matter of said tariff discrimination by Germany against Canada, with a view of adopting the course usually pursued by other nations under like circumstances, i,e., the imposing of such increased duties on German goods imported into Canada as may demonstrate to the German government the inexpediency of continuing to wita-



hold from this country the most-favoured nation treatment it formerly enjoyed.
It lias been said by the right hon. the Prime Minister that we have no treaty making power. That being the ease, what is our position ? Great Britain, being a free trade country, is unable to make reciprocity treaties with other nations, and can be of no help do us in this matter, so that it becomes a serious question what are we going to do, if other nations besides Germany pursue the same course. The position of our producers is this :	When our
products were allowed to go into Germany on the same conditions as those of the United States, one of our largest grain exporters in this country exported into Germany, by way of Montreal, in the year 1897-8, 1,767,397 bushels of grain, and by way of Portland, 1,549,842. Since then this same Arm has only exported 73,727 bushels from Montreal and 70,000 bushels by way of Portland to Germany. True, after this discrimination took place, a very large amount of Canadian products found their way to Germany through the United States and were classified by the Germans as American products. But the Germans, having discovered this practice, now insist on certificates of the origin of the production so as to show that these are Canadian.
They discriminate against us now to the extent of 50 per cent more duty on wheat, oats and rye, and 40 per cent more duty on peas, than they levy upon the products of the United States. It may be said that our trade was very small with Germany and lias not decreased very much. Well, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the commodities which we can produce, the United States has increased their exports since 1897 to Germany about 100 per cent. Our position is peculiar in this respect, while we take from Germany about three of four times as much in value as we send there, on the other hand the United States sent to Germany nearly double what they buy. And although we allow German products to come In here at a tariff half that of the United States, yet Germany sees fit to subject us to this humiliating and unfair discrimination. I claim that there should be no pretense of state secret in regard to this correspondence. Four or five years were ample time for the government to do something, and so far it has done nothing. Nor is it at all likely to in the future. The attitude of the German government has been so far that of a bully. Such is practically the description given of it by the London correspondent of the New York ' Tribune.' When these resolutions were passed by the Montreal Board of Trade and the Toronto Board of Trade, that correspondent thus discussed the attitude of the Germans; they threaten that, if the government yields to the demands of the Montreal bodies, they will bring their influence to bear so Mr. KEMP.
as to have the general German tariff on Canadian goods increased by 50 per cent.
Now, what position do we occupy ? Suppose that the United States were treated in this way by Germany, how long would Germany be allowed to discriminate against the products of the United States ? I venture to say that they would not discriminate for more than twenty-four hours. Look at the position of Russia at the time when the United States put a duty on Russian petroleum. I do not think there was any danger of petroleum being sent from Russia to the United States-that would be like carrying coals to Newcastle. But, the moment the United States did that, the Russian government at once retaliated in such a way that the Americans saw fit to remove the duty that they had put on. Therefore, I contend that there is only one way for this country to deal with Germany. Our government should take into consideration how they can so arrange the tariff of this country as to protect ourselves in cases of this kind, if we are unable, through the mother country, to get justice. Germany, of all the nations of the world, is the last from which we should accept unjust treatment. What has been the position of Germany with regard to the British Empire for the last two or three years ? What has been her position with regard to British troops in South Africa ? Her position has been one of misrepresentation and abuse. I consider that the attitude of Germany towards Great Britain, and towards the British Empire, of which we form part, has been a most unjust and most unreasonable one. They have looked forward to the downfall of the British Empire, and have considered what portions of the empire might fall to them should that downfall take place. They are the greediest nation on the face of the earth, and their attitude with respect to this discrimination against Canada is their attitude in all trade matters. It is a day of extreme commercialism and extreme materialism in Germany. Their attitude to Great Britain concerning the war in South Africa has been dictated by no higher consideration than their commercial advancement. I hope the government will see fit to lay these documents on the Table of the House.
House divided on motion (Mr. Monk) :

Messieurs
Alcorn,	Kidd,
Avery,	Lancaster,
Bell,	LaRiviere,
Bennett,	Lavell,
Birkett,	Lefurgey,
Blain,	Lennox,
Borden (Halifax),	Maclean,
Boyd,	McGowan,
Brock,	McIntosh,
Broder,	Monk,
Carscallen,	Morin,
Clancy,	Northrop,
Clare,	Osier,

Clarke,	Pope, ,i
Culbert,	Pringle,
Earle,	Richardson,
Fowler,	Robinson (Elgin),
Ganong,	Roche (Marquette),
Gourley,	Sherritt,
Hackett,	Simmons,
Haggart,	Smith (Wentworth),
Halliday,	Sproule,
Henderson,	Taylor,
Ingram,	Tolton,
Johnston (Cardwell),	Tupper (Sir Charles
	Hibbert),
Kaulbach,	Ward,
Kemp,	Wilmot,
Kendrey,	Wilson.-56.
NAYS.	
Messieurs	
Angers,	Laurier (L'Assomption)
Archambault,	Lavergne,
Bazinet, j Ij	LeBlanc,
Beith,	Legris,
Beland,	Lewis,
Bernier,	Logan,
Blair,	Lovell,
Borden (King's, N.S.)	Macdonald,
Bourassa,	Mackie,
Brown,	MacKinnon,
Brunet,	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Bureau,	McCoU,
Calvert,	McCool,
Campbell,	McCreary,
Carbonneau,	McEwen,
Carroll,	McGugan,
Cartwright (Sir Rich'd)	Mclsaac,
Champagne,	McLennan,
Christie,	Maiouin,
Copp,	Marcil (Bagot),
Cnstigan,	Marci! (Bonaventure),
Cowan,	Martineau,
Davis,	Matheson,
Demers (LOvls),	Maxwell,
Demers (St. John),	Mignault,
Douglas,	Monet,
Dugas,	Morrison,
Edwards,	Mulock,
Emmerson,	Murray,
Erb,	Oliver,
Ethier,	Paterson,
Farquharson,	Proulx,
Fielding,	Puttee,
Fisher,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fitzpatrick,	Riley,
Flint,	Ross (Ontario),
Fortier,	Rcss (Victoria, N.S.),
Fraser,	Rousseau,
Gallery,	Russell,
Galliher,	Schell,
Gauvreau,	Smith (Vancouver),
Geoffrion,	Stephens,
German,	Sutherland (Essex),
Gibson,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Gould,	Talbot,
Guthrie,	Tarte,
Harwood,	Thompson,
Heyd,	Tobin,
Holmes,	Tolmie,
Horsey,	Tucker,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.)	Turcot,
Johnston (Lambton),	Turgeon,
Kendall,	Wright.-107.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	
PAIRS.	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Belcourt,	Cargill,
Bruneau,	Vrooman,
26*	
Harty,	Bruce,
Johnston (Cape Breton)	Robinson (Northumberland),
Lang,	Rosamond,
Lemleux,	Leonard,
McCarthy,	MacLaren (Perth),
Madore,	Barker,
Meigs,	McLeod,
Parmelee,	Seagram,
Power,	Porter,
Prefontaine,	Reid (Grenville),
Roche (Halifax),	Hale,
Rose (Rimouski),	Calvin,
Scott,	Cochrane,
Sifton,	Casgrain,
Wade,	Hughes (Victoria),
Hyman,	Gilmour,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Charlton,	Tisdale,
Blckerdike.	Roddick.
Motion negatived.


PENSIONS TO NORTH-WEST MOUNTED POLICE.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following resolution :-
That it is expedient to provide that pensions or gratuities may be granted to officers of the North-west mounted police and to the widows and children of such officers, as follows :-
To an officer compulsorily retired, for any cause other than misconduct or inefficiency, after 20 years service, or retiring voluntarily after S5 years service, a pension not exceeding one-fiftieth of the pay and allowance of his rank or appointment at the time of his retirement for each year of service ; service beyond 35 years not being reckoned.
To an officer who retires voluntarily after 25 years, but less than 35 years service, a pension 20 per cent less than is above provided for.
Towards making good the said pensions, 5 per cent to be deducted from the pay of officers.
To an officer retiring on account of infirmity, or retiring to promote efficiency or economy in the service, a gratuity not exceeding one month's pay for each years service ; if retiring on account of injury received in the discharge of his duties, a gratuity not exceeding three month's pay for every two years service.
To the widow and children of an officer who had served twenty years, and was at the time of his death on full pay, or in receipt of pension, the following pension or allowance :-In the case of the commissioner, $500 to the widow, and $80 to each child ; the assistant commissioner, a pension of $450 to widow and a yearly allowance of $80 to each child ; a superintend-ant or surgeon, $350 to widow', and $70 to each child ; an inspector, assistant surgeon or veterinary surgeon, $250 to widow, and $65 to each child ; it being permissible to double the amount to children if they are motherless and in need ; no allowance to be granted to a son aged eighteen or a daughter aged twenty-one ; and the total amount, granted to the family of an officer in one year not to exceed the amount of the pension attached to his rank.
The TRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Chairman, I venture to express the hope that the resolutions which are now before you will receive the very favourable consideration of the com-

mittee. They are exactly similar to the resolutions that were introduced last year to provide pensions tor the militia. By the North-west Mounted Police Act, which has been in force now for many years, constables are allowed a pension, but the officers have been denied that privilege. Last year a Bill was introduced to give pensions to officers of the militia, which Bill, I may say, was received with great favour by the House, and elicited nothing but favourable criticism and the sanction of both sides of the House. Now, without making any invidious comparison, and whilst I do not at all wish to abate from the just praise which is due to the militia, I think that the mounted police are entitled to at least as much consideration. The services of the mounted police do not require to be praised. Those services have been so valuable, especially in recent years, that I am sure the country will feel that we are only giving the North-west mounted police their due when we provide that the officers as well as the men shall receive a pension in their old age. At present the work of the mounted police, far from being restricted, has increased, and is increasing. In the Norm-west Territories we now have patrols all the way from the United States frontier of Montana and Minnesota up as far as Mackenzie river. The most northern post we have is on the Great Slave lake. In the west we have one or two posts, certainly one on the Peace river. In the Yukon it is a fact recognized by everybody that the services of the mounted police have been simply invaluable. They have maintained order, and made the Yukon as safe as any other part of Canada. This is saying a great deal in- favour of the force, especially when we reflect that the Yukon is of such recent growth, and is settled, as such countries must be settled, by a rather unsteady element.
Provision is made first of all that the officers of the mounted police, like the officers of tiie militia who are to receive a pension, shall contribute a certain amount thereto, consisting of an abatement of 5 per cent of their salary. Then it is proposed that if an officer of the mounted police is retired after 20 years of service he shall receive a pension equal to twenty-fiftieths of his annual pay for the time he has been in the service. A similar pension is given to other officers who are retired after a service of 25 years. Those who retire voluntarily after 35 years of service are entitled to a pension equal to thirty-five-fiftieths of their income during that time. The number of officers who will be entitled to participate in this fund is 55 : the commander, the assistant commander, 11 superintendents, 35 inspectors, G surgeons and 1 veterinary surgeon. Then there is a provision that the wives and children of the officers shall be entitled to a pension in the same way as the officers of the militia.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


An hon. MEMBER.: Do the provisions apply to those who have retired ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Only to those who are in the service. I think those who have retired would not be entitled, because they have not served the full time of 20 years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the minister made any calculation of how much money will be required to be added to the 5 per cent to make up this pension ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, I have not made any calculation, and I do not see how it is possible to make such calculation. We think the country will not be called upon to contribute to any of these pensions for a long time to come, and I will give the reason for thinking so. There are, as I have said, 55 officers who will be entitled to this pension. Of that number 16 have now served under 5 years ; 7 under 10 years ; 11 under 15 years ; 17 under 20 years ; 2 under 25 years, and 2 under 30 years. So there are only 4 who could participate in the fund at an early date. I think only one or two members of the force are likely to take advantage of this fund for a considerable time to come. But the greater number of the force have not yet been 20 years in the service, so it is not probable that for a long time to come the country will be called upon to pay anything towards these pensions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I right in understanding that this 5 per cent only applies to officers and not to men ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: To officers alone. The men, I may say, contribute nothing. Though the force has now been in existence about 27 years, and there have been 4,000 men passing through the force, we only pay at present in pensions to the men less than $2,000 a year. The reason is that a good many of those 4,000 have withdrawn from the force and settled in the North-west, and have thereby renounced their pension.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: I understand the officers of the mounted police have been paying into the superannuation fund a great many years, I believe 2 per cent.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I was so informed by the controller of the police. However, there is one clause in the resolution which I cannot agree with, that which says that an officer retiring on account of injury received in the discharge of his duties, gets a gratuity not exceeding three months pay for every two years of service. Therefore, if an officer has joined the North-west mounted police and, after two years service, has received some injury in the discharge of his duties necessitating his retirement, he would !,e

entitled to the magnificent sum of $240 on retiring. Now, as the officer might receive injuries that would unfit him from maintaining his family, I think the government should arrange in some way that he should receive something more substantial than that amount of money.


Robert Laird Borden: My attention was drawm to the same clause, which the hon. gentleman has just mentioned. It does seem to me that if it is intended to make some provision for an officer in case of injury in the discharge of his duty, the resolution is hardly in the form in which we should expect it. Possibly it is intended to be an addition to the pension.


The PRIME MINISTER.: These resolutions have been copied word for word from the Act which was passed last year in regard to the militia. I will take note of the objection and at a future stage I will be able to give information upon it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand this pension applies to the officers only and not to the men ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: To the officers only.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Undoubtedly we have adopted a somewhat similar principle in the militia branch, but, I have always held that wherever we employ men and give them good compensation in the shape of wage or salary, they have no more reason to expect superannuation or pension if they have served 20, or 25, or 35 years, than hundreds of thousands of people who are discharging service in the country quite as hard, whose occupation is quite as dangerous, whose remuneration is much smaller, and for whom we make no provision whatever.
Resolution reported.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Return showing :-
1.	The amount of refined sugar imported into Canada (a) from the first of January to 31st of December, 1900 ; (b) from the first of January, to the 31st of December, 1901.
2.	The amount of raw sugar imported within same dates, each year separate, and the name of the country from which it has been imported.-Mr. Madore.
Copies of all papers, Orders in Council, telegrams, letters or other documents relating to the dismissal and superannuation of Mr. William Jackson, late lighthouse-keeper at Gananoque, and the appointment of Mr. Robert Chadwick, as keeper of said light, :as successor to Mr. Jackson, also the cancellation of such appointment, and the appointment of a Mr. Landon to the position.-Mr. Taylor.
Return showing :-
1. The total amount paid by the government to the Montreal ' Herald ' since the 30th June, last.
2.	The total amount paid by the government to the Toronto ' Globe ' since the 30th June, last.
3.	The total amount paid by the government to the Halifax ' Chronicle ' since the 30th June, last.
4.	The total amount paid by the government to ' Le Soleil ' of Quebec, and ' La Patrie ' of Montreal, since the 30th June, last.-Mr. Monk.
Return showing
Lists of all passes issued, and to whom, on the Canadian government railways and steamers during the past year, other than those issued to members of parliament and the various provincial legislatures.-Mr. Clarke.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 5.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, March 7, 1902.