1902-05-12

PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr.  T. B.@: FLINT (Yarmouth) moved that the fourth report of the Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament be concurred in.
Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved in amendment :
That after the words 1 Civil Service Act ' at the close of the third paragraph of the report, the fallowing words be added : * And that the salaries of the said officials be continu:d as at present, notwithstanding anything fo the contrary in the aforesaid Act.'
He said : I am requested by the chairman of the Printing Committee, who is unavoidably absent, to explain that the object of this amendment is to cover the case of three clerks who are at present employed in the Printing Bureau, in the distribution office, and who have been up to this time under the control of the committee. By the report of the committee, they are to be placed under the control of the Secretary of State, and to come within the purview of the Civil Service Act. The amendment is to meet any objections which may be raised by the Auditor General to the payment of their salaries.


Mr.  A. A. C.@: LaRIVIERE (Provencher). Do I understand that by this resolution these officers will be debarred from any increase if they were held to be otherwise entitled to it ? I can understand the object or the motion in providing that the salaries shall not be decreased, but I do not think the officers should be deprived of their title to an increase if the committee should recommend it and the government grant it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I think the object of this resolution is to assure these officers of their present salaries in the transfer from one branch to the other. I do not think it would have the effect of preventing an increase, but that will have to be looked into. Of course, there can be no intention of interfering with these officers getting any reasonable and proper increase that they would otherwise receive.
Amendment agreed to ; and motion, as amended, agreed to.



LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: In moving the adoption of the second report of the Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, I am desired by the committee

to bring to the particular attention of the House one feature of that report, which is the following : It was ordered, in the interest of the library, and for the greater convenience of the members, that rule 118 of the House be strictly carried out. That rule provides :
At the first meeting of the Joint Library Committee at every session of parliament the librarian shall report a list of the books absent at the commencement of the session, specifying the names of any persons who have retained the same in contravention of either of the foregoing rules.
As a matter of fact, this particular rule, as well as other rules framed for the government of the library, in the past, have been more honoured in the breach than the observance. The committee have discovered that irregularities on the part of members of parliament in relation to the library are not at all infrequent. The chief irregularities may be stated as follows : Want of promptness in returning new books during the session of the House ; keeping useful books that are not new for an undue period ; taking out books by members for strangers, and mailing the same all over the country ; and retaining of books of reference during many weeks of the session, this being directly contrary to the specific rule. The fact is, that at the present time, a very large number of books which should be in the library are not there, and a very considerable number of books that were owned by the library, and that should be there, have been lost, and a considerable expenditure has to be entailed in buying again these particular books. But the most serious phase of the matter is that books which are required during the session by members are not to be found in the library. Just to show the House the extent to which some of these irregularities have been carried, let me give a list of the number of books not returned by ex-members of parliament and present members. I may say that this is by no means a complete list. The committee were informed that one ex-member of the House had twelve books away from the library, contrary to rules ; another had 17, another 6, another 20, another 11, another 9, another 11, another 39, another 13, another 14, and still another 39. making an average of 19 books to each of this list of twelve ex-members. All of these books have been out of the library for years and are in reality lost to the library. Taking the present members of parliament, one has 7 books out, another 11, another 13, another 10, another 5, another 7, another 22, another 20, another 18, another 7, and still another 7. Thus twelve members have an aggregate of 135 books out, or an average of 11 each. These books have been out of the library in each case more than a year. The Library Committee have thought proper to bring this matter directly to the attention of the House, 1401
and to give the House specific and distinct notice that the rule which I have read, and which is to be found in the rules of the House of Commons, shall next year be strictly enforced. The librarian will be required to furnish a list at the first meeting of the committee next session, and steps will be taken to give the list of delinquents such publication as may then be deemed to be, in the interests of the library and the members of this House, necessary and advisable.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I, am not going to say anything in opposition to the report or the suggestions contained In it, because I think they are in the right direction. I want to refer to what has been the experience of some members in the past, which may result in an injustice being done them. Sometimes reports are sent out from the library that books are held by members although these books were returned during the session. Either through accident or carelessness these books when returned were not credited to the members against whom they were charged. I know that that has been my own case several times. I know of cases in which the books were never taken out of the House of Commons but simply used in the House and then sent back and not credited. Then sometimes the books may be mislaid in the library and it is not known to the members who returned them whether they were credited to them or not. In many instances there are mistakes of that character, which do a great injustice to members who remain charged with books which were returned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to inquire of the government whether a report that a detachment of (troops will be called out on the 24th of Slay for drill and march into the country on the Sabbath, 25tli of May, some five miles from the city and camp there, is correct or not ? I heard this matter alluded to yesterday in some of the Sunday pulpits. If any intention of that kind exists, I beg to bring the matter to the attention of the government and ask the reconsideration of the order, if It has been made. Such a step) would antagonize the sentiment of a very large portion of the inhabitants of Canada, and as this is a Christian nation and we profess some regard for Sabbath observance, I rise to request that consideration be given to the question.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sit Wilfrid Laurier).: Unfortunately, my hon. colleague the Minister of Militia is not here at the moment and I cannot answer for him as I know nothing about the matter, but I will call the attention of my hon. colleague to it when he comes.



CORONATION CONTINGENT.

Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: There is a matter I wish to bring to the attention of the bon. Minister of Militia and I take this opportunity of doing so, although he is not here at present, in order that it may be brought to his notice when here. I believe that the House understood, from the explanation given by that hon. Minister, some weeks ago, that the Coronation contingent was to be thoroughly representative of the active militia, mounted police and the various contingents which have served in South Africa. Recently I have been given to understand that the representation would be confined to the members of the active militia and mounted police force and Strath-cona Horse. If that report is correct it leaves out the members of the second contingent, the first mounted rifles, the Royal Canadian Dragoons, and the Canadian Artillery. In case the rumour is correct, I would like to say that the second contingent was certainly the most thoroughly representative contingent that went to the front. It was drawn from all parts of Canada and it was the only one that was so drawn. The first contingent did not include any representatives from the North-west. The Strathcona Horse came entirely from the west, but the second contingent was drafted from all parts of Canada, and I should think that that contingent Is entitled to representation at the Coronation as well as the others mentioned.



GASPE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr.  C. A.@: GALVHEATJ (Temiscouata) moved that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 102) to incorporate the GaspS and Western; Railway Company.


Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: Because there are two companies, it must he specific :
Of the company interested and of the bondholders thereof.
Now again it goes on and says :
At which meeting shareholders representing at least two-thirds in value of the stock are present or represented by proxy.
I propose to add after the word ' shareholders ' 'of the company interested and of the bondholders thereof ' holding at least two-thirds of the bonds. I think the House will see this is a fair proposition, and that there can be no serious objection to putting this in so as to protect the bondholders if the Bill is to pass, to protect them effectively against anything that may be done against their interests, either by the Baie des Chaleurs Railway Company or by the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company, or the directors thereof. Also :
3. By erasing the words 'and no prescription or statute of limitation should be urged against the payment of said claims by the company, and no valid title shall pass to the company until said claims have been paid to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council.
Now, as to the first part of this amendment, I want to draw attention to the fact that the Bill as amended provides not only for a voluntary sale or lease of the railway, but also for the sale by authority of justice,
by sheriff's sale. In the latter case prescription has been running against a great many of these claims-which it has been stated amount to about $70,000 or more. The prescription has been running under the law of Quebec, under the Civil Code of Quebec ; and this law practically amends the Civil Code of Quebec to the extent that it does away with the prescription, which, under our code, in these cases of wage earners and of boarding housekeepers and hotelkeepers, is acquired by two years. This is done away with, this law amends the civil law of the province of Quebec to that extent. I point out to the House that I do not think any private railway company coming before this House with such an amendment to the civil law of Quebec, can expect their request to be adopted. I call the attention of those who are responsible for the legislation in this House to that very serious question. If it can be done upon this private Bill, upon this measure which is to incorporate a private company for the building of a. railway, it can be done on any other measure that comes before this House. It is a bad precedent to which I call the attention of the law officers of the Crown. As to the second part of the amendment, it is explained by the amendment which I will move in a short time, that is, as to the payment of the claims. I have provided for that by another section. The section as it stands now simply provides that the company shall pay the claims, and that no title shall vest in the company until the claims have been paid to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council. I have substituted another clause, which I think will meet with the approval of the promoters of the Bill, and particularly of those who are interested in the payment of the claims which are provided for by this Bill. To subsection 4 there were added the following words :
But nothing in this section shall in any way affect the rights of the bondholders of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company and of the Baie des Chaleurs Railway Company*
I propose to substitute for that the following saving clause :
Provided that nothing in this Act shall in any way affect the rights of the bondholders of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company and of the Baie Des Chaleurs Railway Company.
The House will see that I have substituted for the word ' section ' in this saving clause, the word ' Act.' Now, it may be said that the rights of the bondholders are sufficiently protected. I do not see it in that light. When the credit of the country is involved all due regard should be given to the rights of the creditors, and every precaution taken to save their rights would be a saving also of the credit of the country. If it can be said that by legislation the rights of the bondholders who have ad-

vanced their money for a railway enterprise such as this can be wiped out, if the security which this country generally offers for such advances in money, can be wiped out, the credit of the country will be diminished to that extent. Then I also propose that the following should be added to section 9 of the Bill :
No valid title shall pass to. the company until the said company shall have deposited in the hands ot the hon. Minister ol Railways and Canals the sum of $100,000 in cash, to be used and employed by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to pay the overdue balances in settlement of the claims mentioned in subsection 4 of the next preceding section. Upon and after the depositing by the company of the said sum1, the Minister of Railways and Canals shall appoint a commissioner, who, after investigation, shall pay to the creditors and claimants the said claims, or so much thereof as may be due, and the remuneration or salary of the said commissioner shall be paid out of the said deposit ; the balance of which, if any after deducting the amount paid out, and the said remuneration or salary, shall be refunded to the company.
The Bill provides for the payment of outstanding balances due for labour, board and materials supplied and furnished for the construction and operation of the railway. These bondholders took possession of the railway in July, 1900, and no claims are now outstanding for the operation and maintenance of the railway against the bondholders ; and a thing which has been unheard of in connection with this railway is that ever since the bondholders have been in possession the railway has been operated to the general satisfaction of the community, and there is not one farthing due for anything in connection with the railway, for supplies, work or board bills, or anything like that. I hold in my hand a copy of a certificate given by the controller of the Post Office Department, in which he says that the mail service has been carried on entirely since July, 1900. This shows that the bondholders are acting in good faith, that they are doing what they are bound to do in carrying out their obligations towards the country. The Bill as passed by the Bailway Committee provides, as I have said, for the payment of the outstanding balances due by company before the bondholders took possession of the road. It is said that no title shall pass to the company until these balances have been paid to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council, but I will call the attention of the House to the fact that it will be in the interest and to the advantage of the company to get these claims settled for as littlte money as possible, and that this has already been done in connection with this very same railway. They were forced under the law of Quebec to pay these outstanding balances and claims, and people have been fleeced because the company, naturally, has every interest in paying as little Mr. CASGRAIN.
as possible of these outstanding balances, and in getting rid of them for as little money as they can take out of their pockets. I call the attention of the government and of hon. members who are specially interested, and particularly the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil), that if the amendment which I propose is adopted, then there can be no such dealing with these people : they will be paid every cent which is due them. I propose that a deposit shall be made with tiie hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, that a commissioner shall be appointed by him to pay these claims, and that it is only-on his report, after he has made an investigation, that these claims have been paid by the company, that the title shall pass. It seems to me that this is an amendment which should commend itself to those who are interested in the payment of these claims before the company takes possession of the road. I have a precedent for this. Some time in 1889, or 1890, a certain part of a subsidy which had been voted by the provincial House, amounting to $28,000, which was due in claims, was to be paid by the government of the province of Quebec, and a commissioner was appointed by the then government, who went up there, paid all the claims, or paid part of the claims to the extent of $28,000 which were outstanding at that time. It seems to me that this is an amendment which should fairly commend itself to those who are really interested in seeing that these people shall be paid. I would ask that when this Bill is sent back to the Railway Committee, these amendments be made to it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Biair).: Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was under consideration by the Railway Committee the disposition of the committee, as I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) will allow, was to see that in every respect the rights of the existing bondholders, and of every existing creditor having claims upon it, were recognized and protected in the fullest degree. It was tiie endeavour of the committee to attain that end, and when the amendments had been made the hon. gentleman who has now given notice of some amendments to the Bill as reported was asked if they were satisfactory to him, or if he had any suggestions to make, in order to still further secure and protect the rights of the people he represents. The hon. gentleman, at that time, was not able to offer any further proposition, and the Bill therefore went through.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: I said then that I could not, at the moment, on an important Bill of this kind, say that these amendments were satisfactory. When the Bill was passed, I said that I reserved my right to offer any other amendment, which after due consideration I thought should be made. That was the understanding.


Tlie MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Quite so. 1 do not think I have misstated the hon. gentleman's position. I say the hon. gentleman was not then able to make any further suggestion. I do not say that it is not proper for him to make the suggestion which he has made now, but I want to dispel any impression that the hon. gentleman's remarks may have left upon the House, that the committee were in the slightest degree indisposed to adopt any amendment necessary to secure the rights of the parties he represents. That was the feeling and desire on the part of the committee. I think myself that the hon. gentleman is quite within his right and is quite* free, notwithstanding anything that occurred before the committee, to suggest whatever he may regard as important tu further protection to these rights. It may well be that lie might fairly expect that some of his clauses should be adopted by the House. In the first place he wants to have inserted the word 'bondholders,' meaning that the bondholders should be consulted as well as the shareholders of the company in order that the concurrence of a proper proportion ot them should be had before any agreement should take effect for the transfer of this company to the present company. That is not an unreasonable proposition. It may be that it would be a little cumbrous to give to the shareholders who, the hon. gentleman says, have been superseded by the bondholders the same voting power, but I do not see at the moment how you could very well set aside the shareholders, and ns 1 am at present advised I would be disposed to think that it would be proper to add the bondholders, leaving the shareholders their present rights in that respect. As one member of the committee, I would vote for that, so that the bondholders may be able to protect themselves in as much ns they have superseded the shareholders, and in ns much by legislation of this parliament they have been placed practically in control of one of the railways at least.
I do not think that the third clause is as clear as the hon. gentleman assumes it to be. He would urge that no prescription or statutory limitation should be urged against the payment of claims by the company. He thinks it improper to insert that clause in the Bill, and he further contends that it is beyond our constitutional powers, because in his opinion we would thereby be amending the Civil Code of the province of Quebec. 1 may be wrong in the hasty conclusion I have arrived at on that point, but I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman. We are simply providing here as respects certain claims which are mentioned in this section ; which are not the claims of the bondholders or of those who hold securities and have priority on the property of the company. but which are claims enumerated in the Bill and which are mentioned ns claims for labour, the boarding house claims,
material and supplies furnished for the construction and operation of the railway. Those claims are being dealt with not as a matter of legal right, but we are simply recognizing that it would be proper to attach as a condition of the transfer of these railway properties, after the prior securities have been dealt with and before this company shall take over this railway property either at judicial sale or by agreement, that the particular claimants named here shall be paid in full disregarding any prescription which might militate against their recovery in law. Wo attach that as a condition to the transfer of the property. We are not interfering at all with anybody's legal rights, and we do not profess to interfere with the Civil Code of Quebec. We simply impose a condition upon the transfer of this property and if that condition is too onerous the company need not comply with it. If they are willing to take the transfer under this condition, they can do so, but if they are not willing they need not do so. I cannot agree that my hon. friend is right in asking that we should say that the company which takes over this property, shall only be asked to pay what claims are not barred. That would be the effect of his amendment if we adopted it. I would therefore think that clause 3 of the amendment should not pass.
I see no objection to clause 4 of the amendment, but I think it unnecessary, because the only section of the whole Bill which attempts to deal with the rights of creditors, mortgagees, or others is the ninth section. However, if the hon. gentleman thinks that his position and that of this clients would be any stronger. I would not hesitate to change the word ' section ' into the word ' act.'
The 5th clause of the amendment is :
That no valid title shall pass to the company until the said company shall have deposited in the hands of the Minister of Railways the sum of $100,000 in cash.
I think that is unnecessary. My hon. friend has no concern at all with regard !o the claimants who are referred to in the last section ; he is particularly concerned -on behalf of the bondholders, and if there is any conflict of interest, that conflict would be between the bondholders whom he represents and these claimants whom he does not represent.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I beg the bon. gentleman's pardon ; I am here to legislate and make good law.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not at all wish to make any disagreeable reference to my hon. friend in the matter, but I rather understood him before the committee to say, that he was speaking for the bondholders and acting for them, which I thought lie might properly do. Did I not correctly understand that ?

Mr. CASGRA1N. Certainly, tout that does not preclude me from amending the Bill in any proper interest when it comes before the House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I perfectly understand that, tout I rather drew the inference that as the hon. gentleman was representing the interests of the bondholders in a professional way outside of his toeing a member of parliament- and perhaps before he was a member of parliament-I could not help thinking that liis interest as representing the bondholders would be rather in conflict with the interest of the other claimants. However, I do not know that is germane to the question, and I shall not dwell on it. If those who are anxious for the right of these claimants referred to in the latter portion of the section, have thought it necessary to seek this provision. They are content that it should be left with the Governor in Council, the Minister of Railways or the Railway Committee to ascertain just what claims there are outstanding. By the usual methods-public advertisement. I presume, they would Jnvite anybody and everybody who had such claims to send them to the department. Then the department would examine into them, and endeavour to adjust them, and having ascertained the gross amount of claims, the duty would necessarily devolve upon one or other branch of the government to see that the claims were fully paid before a declaration should be made to the effect that they had been paid, and before a valid title could pass to this company. Therefore, I do not think it would be necessary to adopt the fifth clause of my hon. friend's amendment. My hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Prefon-taine) has an amendment which he thinks of proposing to my hon. friend's fourth amending clause, and which is a little more specific than anything contained in the Bill, and to which he (Mr. Casgrain) might perhaps give his assent. But, with the exception of the third and fifth clauses, I can see no objection to my hon. friend's amendment being adopted by the House. Do I understand the motion of my hon. friend to be to refer the Bill back to the Railway Committee ?- because he has given notice to refer it to the committee of the whole House. We cannot refer it back to the Railway Committee now; but if he will accept the suggestion I make, we might refer it to the committee of the whole House.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: In view of the statement of the hon. minister, I will not insist on that portion of the motion, to refer the Bill back to the Railway Committee. I understand that the hon. minister does not object to three of the amendments I propose. Of course, when the Bill goes to the Committee of the Whole. I presume these amendments will be adopted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has asked Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
the House to send the Bill to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions to do certain things. He cannot expect those of us who do not agree with some of his propositions to agree to the whole of them; and if he would consent to eliminate the 3rd and 5th clauses, and instruct the committee to adopt the others, there might not be any objection to his motion.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: For the purposes of this motion I will agree to that.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I call the attention of the House to the fact that the only motion in order now is to refer the Bill back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines. We cannot now pass a motion giving instructions to the Committee of the Whole House. That would not be regular.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Of course, we could not give instructions to the Committee of the Whole House to do certain things which they are perfectly competent to do. I had to make this motion, which is the only one that is in order at this stage.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The regular procedure will be. if the hon. minister does not want the Bill referred to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, to withdraw the motion before the Chair.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I cannot withdraw my motion. I am right.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The motion is out of order. The order of the House is for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The motion in my hands is a motion to refer the Bill back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines. That motion is in order.


Mr. C. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway and vesting those powers in the trustees of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway. The subsidy which had lapsed for the last thirty miles of road was also revived on three conditions of payment:
1.	To the Hamilton Bridge Works Company in payment for bridge superstructures on the said section of railway, when furnished and erected by that company, not to exceed $35,000 ;
2.	For the completion of the road-bed and works incidental thereto ;
3.	Towards payment of overdue balances, pro rata, in settlement of claims for labour, boarding-house claims, and material and supplies furnished in connection with the construction of (he said section of railway ; in all not exceeding 30 miles.
What was my great surprise at the opening of the present session to see what I considered an absolute breach of faith on the part of the trustees of the Atlantic and Lake Superior ? I learned that a Bill had been introduce In the Senate by which the Act of last session was entirely done away with. They - were relieved of the obligation of building three miles of the road, and they ask an extension of time for five years. As there was some doubt raised concerning the nature of the Bill introduced in the Senate and adopted by that body, I shall read it
1. The trustees of the bondholders of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company, appointed by virtue of a deed of trust vesting* in them the property of the company, shall, notwithstanding any limitation of time contained in any Act, have all the powers for construction, completion and operation of the undertaking cf the company as were conferred originally on the company by the Acts relating to the company and by the Railway Act ; but the said powers shall not continue beyond the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and seven, when they shall cease as regards any portion of the undertaking not then completed.
The county was placed in this position. It .wants this road to go ahead and the arrears "paid. The present company are not paying these arrears and do not wish to proceed with the extension of the road. I asked to have a clause inserted in that Bill providing that if the Gaspe and Western Railway should be incorporated, it should have no rights whatever in the county of Bona-venture until it acquired the Bale des Chaleurs Railway, eitiher by judicial sale or otherwise. That clause was inserted.
My second instructions were to have a provision inserted requiring the work to be commenced at Paspebiac within twelve months and that section extended to Port Daniel, the last parish in the county of Bonaventure, within those twelve months. That condition was inserted. My hon. friend from Gaspe (Mr. Lemienx) also had a clause put in the Bill providing that the work in Gaspe Basin must be completed in three years.
What possible objection can the Atlantic and Lake Superior Company have to the Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).
Gaspe and Western Railway undertaking to pay those claims, if it chooses to do so. If the Gaspe and Western Railway undertake to pay these claims let it do so. My hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain), in opposing this Bill tooth and nail before the Railway Committee and defending the rights of the bondholders, completely overlooked the rights of the poor people, the rights of the labourers to be paid the claims due them in the county of Bonaventure. I would not have this Bill go through under any circumstances unless these claims due in Bonaventure are paid, and I may say that these claims are largely owing to Conservatives who were employed in the construction rf that railway by Mr. C. N. Armstrong. I am not standing up to-day for claims held by Liberals only in the county of Bonaventure, but claims held by .Conservatives as well. It is a matter of justice and fair play that these claims should be met, and these conditions having been inserted in this Bill under the instructions I have in my hand, my duty is to ask parliament to allow the Bill to go through. But the hon. member for Montmorency, after having been worsted in the Railway Committee, after having stood up in that committee solely for the rights of the bondholders, comes up now and asks us to insert a clause requiring this new company to deposit $100,000 before it can proceed with this undertaking.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we were dealing with the Bank of Montreal or with the Canadian Pacific Railway or with the Grand Trunk Railway, or some other great concern of that nature, such a clause would be very reasonable. But is not the primary object of my hon. friend from Montmorency, having failed to have killed in the Railway Committee, to burden this new company with such conditions, that it wdl be unable to take over this work and construct the line ? We provide in this Bill that the road must be extended to Port Daniel within twelve months. The people of the eastern part of Bonaventure insist on having that portion of the road built. My hon. friend from Montmorency has a number of very warm friends in that portion of Bonaventure. There are parishes there in which a majority of votes were cast against me, but I am standing up here for the rights of those parishes, as I am standing up for those of the parishes that gave Liberal majorities. I ask the hon. member (Mr. Casgrain) to declare before this House whether he is looking first after the interests of the people of Bonaventure or is merely seeking to defeat this Bill in the interest of the bondholders. I do not object to the rights of the bondholders being secured. I want them to be protected. But they are. in .possesion of the road at the present moment, they have the first lien upon it, and the laws of the country protect them. But the unfortunate people who, for fifteen long years were exploited

by the railway ring which did such injury to the counties of Bonaventure and Gaspe have no protection, and it is to this parliament and to this government that they look for the protection of their interests. 1 hope, therefore, that hon. members on both sides, taking this into consideration, will see to it that nothing is inserted in this Bill which will in any way jeopardize the claims of'the unfortunate people who have been so badly treated for the last fifteen years.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Gaspe).: 1 shall not detain the House long, as I wish to say only a few words in explanation of the position I have taken on this question since its inception. Early in the session, I received from my electors in the county of Gaspe the same instructions that my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) received. I received a petition, and also resolutions which had been adopted by the county council and the different local councils asking me to oppose the two Bills which had been surreptitiously introduced in the Senate by the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company. I had to oppose the two Bills, and I am glad to hear that the company has decided not to press for the adoption of these measures this year. Had the Bill been pressed by them, they would have been defeated in this House. As to the present Bill, the Gaspe and Western, X occupy the same position as does my hon. friend from Bonaventure. The county of Gaspd is the only county in the Dominion, with the exception of Charlevoix, deprived of railway communication. The Bill which is now before us, the Gaspe and Western, contained as at first presented, a clause which, if it had remained there, would perhaps have caused the defeat of the measure. Under that clause, the promoters would have been empowered to locate this railway in the interior of the peninsula of Gas-pfi. My instructions were to oppose the Bill on account of that clause. The people want the railway along the shore, and the promoters having agreed to build the railway along the shore, as near as possible the parishes situated along the Baie des Cha-leurs, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence, my electors are now perfectly satisfied. They have also joined with the electors of Bonaventure in asking the promoters that a clause be inserted by which the labourers in the county of Bonaventure should be paid. And I may say that many of these labourers are now residing in the county of GsapS. This amendment having been accepted by the promoters, together with other changes introduced by my hon. friend from Bonaventure and myself, the Bill is acceptable to both counties. I may say also that, in order to protect ourselves, we have asked the promoters to add to the board of provisional directors the names of Mr. Guite, ex-M.P., and Mr. A. T. Carter, warden of the county of Gaspe. With such a guarantee, this Bill is perfectly acceptable to my county, and I give it my fullest support and hope that the proposed amendments of my hon. friend from Montmorency will not be seriously discussed, because, if the promoters of this railway, besides the obligation imposed upon them by the amendments, were bound to deposit $100,000, they would be quite unable to go on with the work. I say that the obligations we have placed upon the company to pay the debts due by Mr. Armstrong and his associates, to build the section between Paspebiac and Gaspe Basin along the shore, to begin the work within one year and finish it within four, are as much as the company can undertake. To add a deposit of $100,000 can only be a means of defeating the object of the Bill.


Mr. BALL (Nicolet).: As I am compelled to be absent, later on, I present now an amendment to this motion :
That the raid Bill be not referred to Committee of the Whole House, but that it be referred to said committee this day six months.
The reason why I ask the House to give this Bill the six months' hoist is that the measure originated in a curious manner, as I am going to explain to the House. In 1897 a company was formed to build a railway from the Atlantic to Lake Superior, and that was the name of the company. The directors of this company were : Hon. ,T. .T. Thi-baudeau, Hon. Wm. Owens, Henry Hogan, of the St. Lawrence Hall, R. Aud'ette, president of the Quebec National Bank-the man who applied some days ago for $50,000 -R. Prefontaine, Geo. Ball, L. H. Fraser, London, and R. E. D. Fleming, London. At that time there was a contract made between the late government of Mr. Flynn and the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company, whose board of directors was composed of the gentleman I have just named. Then the government asked the company to add three directors to be named by the government, which directors were : Wm. Baker, Cape Town, on the Baie des Chaleurs, Charles Chaput, Montreal, and Hon. J. W. Larue, Quebec. It was stipulated in this contract that the government would hold the company liable for the interest on the $8,000,000 arising from the bonds of the company, the government assuming the responsibility for the payment of this interest for a period of 20 years. The road was to be built from one end to the other according to the charter. Unfortunately, not long afterwards the Flynn government was defeated, and replaced by the government of the Hon. Mr. Marchand. Mr. Merchant! took with him as two of his colleagues, Mr. Duffy, as Minister of Railways and Public Works, and Mr. Arcliambault, as Attorney General. So when the company wanted to compel the government to fulfil the contract the latter pretended that the contract was illegal. They waited some time, and at last, forced more by their own friends than by

the company, the government decided to refer the question to the Court of Appeals. During that session I had the honour to represent my county in the legislature of Quebec. As I say, the government at that time referred this question to the Court of Appeals to decide. Mr. Flynn, the 'Chief of the opposition, was named by the company to defend their case, while Mr. Archambault and Mr. Duffy represented the government. Now, Mr. Speaker, when you compose a cabinet you generally take the most able and educated men for Minister of Railways and Attorney General-something like what we see in this Dominion government. The premier of the Dominion government always chooses a wise man to bo Minister of .Tus-tice. Well, these two able and educated men, Mr. Flynn and Mr. Archambault, pleaded the case of the government as well as they could, but their case was so weak that the Court of Appeals unanimously compelled them to fulfil their engagement towards the company. I say unanimously, but not quite, because on one point, though not an important point, there was one dissident. Mr. Justice Ouimet did not agree with the five or six other judges on one point ; and the Hon. Mr. Duffy told me personally that - Judge Ouimet had more brains than all the other judges together. Well, I think he is wrong. Anyway, when we saw the necessity of going on with the enterprise we presented a petition of right to get the consent of the government to sue them and compel them to fulfil their engagement. But we never succeeded in getting that permission from the government. During that time the company was so confident that they would get justice from the government that they undertook to build 20 miles of the Baie des Chajeurs Railway.	[DOT]
I may say that the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company previously bought the Baie des Chaleurs and Great Eastern Railways. My hon. friend (Mr. Cas-grain) asks me to be short. If it were in French I might put it in a very few words. I want the House to understand my position. I think I have a right to speak here. I do not speak often, and I think I have a right to have any say without any lesson either from my friends or any one. To build twenty miles of this road the Banque Nationale put up $50,000 and the directors agreed to endorse notes to try and build that road. When we found that the government would not do anything to help finish the road, or io pay for the labour, or for anything else, we decided to sell part of the Great Eastern Railway from Montreal to Quebec and put everything on the Baie de Chaleur Railway. We decided to sell part of that road. I think I said something last session about this. I suppose it would not be out of place to refresh the memory of hon. gentlemen. As the mayor of Montreal then, who was a director of our road, had great influence with this government, and being looked upon as a


Georges Ball: future minister, we thought we would take him to approach the government and obtain subsidies for the South Shore Railway, the road whose Bill was before the House the day before yesterday and whose line runs from Sorel to Lotbinifere or LSvis. He was to get also subsidies for the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway from Caplin to Gaspe Basin, not from Caplin to PaspSbiac. At that time this company's charter had not lapsed nor had the subsidies. There was 100 miles of road from Caplin to Gaspe Basin for which subsidies had been granted by the local government : $4,000 per mile. But what occurred then ? We sold the road to the South Shore Railway Company as you know. Subsidies were granted from Sorel to Lotbini&re for the South Shore Railway-$60,000 or $70,000 was to come out of these subsidies to pay the company the price of the road. Subsidies were granted, as I say, but instead of granting subsidies for the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway to Gaspe, parliament granted subsidies to Paspebiac and they granted the rest of the subsidies to a road without naming that road.
They applied for a charter for this road in 1890, but it was not granted. I have a copy of the Bill in which the road is named the ' Gaspe Short Line.' This Bill seems to be for the same purpose, but the same names do not appear in the preamble. I am informed that when the previous charter was put through parliament the names which appeared upon it were obtained as a result of asking the permission of the parties. I cannot say the same as to the names that appear in the Bill under discussion-the Gaspe Western, because I remember that the other day at the committee the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) asked permission to withdraw one name because the person whose name appeared did not want to go into the project. He said : I put his name in the Bill and I thought it would be all right but he did not want to go into it. I must suppose that quite a number of the names appearing in this Bill were inserted in the same way. When Mr. Mullarkey, who is a railway man and follows government business, found out that his name had been inserted in the Bill without his permission he protested, and this shows that other names have been used without the permission of the parties. They put the names in for the purpose of carrying the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, with your permission. The hon. gentleman refers to one of the promoters-Mr. Mullarkey of Montreal. The facts are as follows : When the Bill was introduced 1 was opposed to it ; I wanted some amendments inserted, and I wanted to get some names added to the names of the promoters, so I took it upon myself to put in the name of Mr. Carter, warden of GaspS, and the name of Mr. MAY 12, 1902
Mullarkey, a prominent railway man of Montreal.


Georges Ball: That is not a question Mr. Speaker.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order.


Georges Ball: What question does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) want to ask me ? That shows that these fellows are all alike. They stole our road and now they would steal the floor from me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman referred to me as being one of those fellows, and as having stolen his railway. X do not know what he means by this, and I think it is not parliamentary language.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ball) will have to withdraw these expressions.


Georges Ball: I am not a parliamentarian, and I may very often contravene the rules of the House, because I do not know them. I am at an age where we learn with difficulty. But I am always ready to be shown the proper course in discussion, and withdraw any remark that should not have been made. I now wish to refer to the sale of the Great Eastern Railway. The product of that sale was to go to pay the creditors.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I wish to call the hon. gentleman's attention (to the fact that we are now discussing the Gaspfi and Western Bill, and I do not see that it has any connection with the sale of the Great Eastern.


Georges Ball: Well I don't know the rules well, and so I have to try and get around them some way. I want to show the House that these gentlemen are not working altogether for the labouring men.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman must confine himself to the discussion of the question before the House.


Georges Ball: Ce que je veux dire, c'est que ce bill a origine dans l'iniquite; I wish I could say it in English, but I cannot. The proceeds of the sale of the Great Eastern went to the ex-mayor of Montreal (Mr. Prd-fontaine) and he was to distribute it to the labourers and creditor's. Well, I may say that no labourer and no creditor got anything. The ex-mayor of Montreal took all the money and put it in his pocket, and gave nothing to anybody, and he resigned ns director of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company, and said Armstrong was a rascal. He could not be in the same place with Armstrong, because Armstrong was such a rascal. He got the subsidies to go as far as Faspebiac, with the prospect of a future charter and that is why we had the Bill of 1890. They thought they would succeed better by calling it the Gaspe short line running over the hills. Numerous petitions from the electors of Gaspe and Perce
district came here asking that the railway should pass along the shore, and so this year they changed their minds and decided to run the lines along the shore, and so this year they changed their minds and decided to run the lines along the rivers so as to make the people believe that they were going to build the road and that the company was very rich and going to buy out a syndicate and pay all the merchants and the labourers. They fee] very bad about the poor people and they are crying all the time that they are out of their money. During the whole session they have been sympathizing with the poor people down there, but you will find that they will never pay these poor people. I do not know whether I have permission to say it or not, but I want to state that they seem to be very much afraid of Armstrong. I will make a parallel with him and another gentleman who is here in this House, the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Raymond Prefontaine), and when there are some Bills to be passed this gentleman goes around and says : * Don't you pass that Bill, because Armstrong is in it : or, help me with this Bill because Armstrong is opposing it.' That is the way some Bills are carried here, and some Bills are killed. I was at the funeral of three of them yesterday ; the Atlantic and Lake Superior,'the Great Eastern and the Montreal Bridge. It was said that Armstrong had something to do with these Bills, and so they were sent to the Cimetiere des Innocents. Well, I think this present Bill should also be killed, but should not be placed with the innocents, as it is too guilty. I do not say that all the Liberals, but generally speaking the Liberal party is against Armstrong. If Armstrong passes on one side of the street they pass on the other, and if Armstrong is in town they say : 'There is some bad scheme going on because Armstrong is at the Russell.' Would you know the reason why they are so down on him ? I will tell you*: It is'because Mr. C. N. Armstrong once had a contract for the building of the Baie des Cha-leurs Railway and he had some subsidies coming to him from the Quebec government. He obtained $100,000 from the government. $100,000 was a big cheque, but what did he do ? Did he put it in his pocket and give nobody else anything ? No, he did not. What did he do with it ? He gave about three-quarters of it to a man of the name of Facaud, in Quebec, whom every one knows. And for what purpose ? To help the Liberal party in their election against the Conservative party. That is where the $100,000 or nearly all of it went to.


Hon. Mr. IIAGGART.: Is that so ?


Georges Ball: Yes, it is so. Part of it went to pay friends notes and the balance went that way. That is the pure truth.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman is not in order. The discussion of that question is not germane to the debate.

466S


Georges Ball: I want to make a parallel.
I aim tired of that man saying Armstrong here and Armstrong there. I say Armstrong is a great deal more honest than the fellow who decries him. I regret that the hon. member for Terrebonne (Sir. Raymond Prefontaine) is not present, because I -would say more. In order that you may not think that I wish to speak until the time expires,
I shall resume my seat.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I have been appealed to, to withdraw the .amendment, and I do so on the understanding that if the amendments which I proposed are not adopted in Committee of the Whole, then I will move them on the third reading.
Amendment withdrawn.
Main motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 0,


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I propose to amend this clause by inserting after the word ' shareholder' in line 22 the following : ' Of the company interested and the bondholders thereof;' and also after the word ' stock ' in the 24th line :	' And bondholders holding at least two-thirds of the bonds.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.
Bill reported ; read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 140) An Act to incorporate the Bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church for North America and Aleutian Islands, and each of the parishes and missions of the said church in Manitoba and the North-west Territories.-Mr. Oliver.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. When this Bill came before the House on different occasions 1 raised some objections on several grounds. First of all, we are asked to incorporate in Manitoba and the North-west Territories a church body whose members have never petitioned this parliament for incorporation. I can readily understand that such a community may need incorporation in order to organize and maintain their respective parishes in connection with their church work, but at the same time I think that the roundabout way in which this Bill has been introduced in this House is not at all regular. We had a petition presented to this House by the Right Rev. Mr. Tikhon, of San Francisco, California, claiming to be a bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church for North America and the Aleutian Islands, asking to be incorporated Mr. SPEAKER.
as a corporator sole, that is to say, as a corporation having the absolute privilege of controlling, not only the spiritual church matters, but the temporal matters as well in connection with this church. By the Bill subsequently introduced, the .prayer of that petition is fully granted, and the most reverend gentleman-as he is called in the Bill -is incorporated a corporation sole, with powers as defined in the Bill :
2. The corporation sola may receive and hold property of any kind for the uses and purposes of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church in Manitoba and the North-west Territories, including the uses and purposes1 of any parish and mission, institution, college, school or hospital now or hereafter connected with the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church, and it may receive any devise by will, gift, deed, conveyance of land or any estate or interest therein," and sell, aJlienate, mortgage or lease any land's, tenements and hereditaments held by it.
Now, we have on different occasions, and even during the present session, incorporated bishops with similar powers. We incorporated, for instance, the bishop of Moosonee, by a Bill passed last week, but we knew that he was a bishop of the Church of England, we knew his status, as set forth in the recital of the Bill for his incorporation, and we knew he was a British subject, a resident in one of the dioceses, that bis diocese was a missionary one entirely, in the northern part of the territory of Keewatin, and that be could not have around him a personnel or a council capable of administering the affairs of bis church. We therefore very properly granted the prayer of his petition. But in this case we are granting the privilege of a corporation sole to a gentleman who is living in the city of San Francisco, who has no connection whatever with the people of the Northwest except that lie happens to be the chief official of the Greek Church, appointed 'by the Czar of Russia over that church. I said on a former occasion that I had no objection at all to providing machinery whereby the members of that church could go on with their own church work, and organize their missions and parishes, so long as the people themselves would have the administration of those missions and those parishes in their own hands and themselves asked for such privileges. But though the Bill was discussed in the Standing Orders Committee at great length and in the Private Bills Committee, we have never had any petition or information whatever with regard to the wish of the people most interested in this measure. No one came to represent those people and their views, and let us know their wishes and their wants. But in spite of all that, we have the Bill which is now before this committee and one which is not at all the Bill which was first introduced, owing to the multitude and variety of the amendments made to it in the Private Bills Committee.
In fact. Sir. I am surprised that such an important Bill should have been so amended
4669	MAY 12, 1902	4670
without it being reprinted and put in the hands of members of the House, so that they might be in a position to study the case. This Bill provides that this Rt. Rev. Bishop of San Francisco, shall be, as I have said, a corporation sole. But when I drew the attention of the Committee on Private Bills to the danger of granting such extensive powers to the gentleman who was a non-resident and who lived so far away from the parties interested in this measure, an amendment was introduced providing that any act, deed or conveyance affecting the properties of the church or any of the parishes in connection with the church- that is affecting their temporal affairs- should be countersigned by no less a gentleman than the Consul General of Russia, who lives in the city of Montreal. And, later on, a clause was added to the Bill providing that the corporation sole shall have and maintain a head office in the town of Edmonton, in the district of Alberta, in the North-west Territories.
John Graham Haggart: For what purpose is the office ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. In order to receive service of any process of court that may require to be served on the church in general. So, Sir, you will see that, for the sake of establishing parishes and missions in the North-west, and having such an organization as this, it is proposed by the Bill to incorporate a bishop living in San Francisco and having a Canadian office in* the town of Edmonton, with the obligation upon him of getting ail the instruments in connection with temporal affairs countersigned by the Consul General of Russia, in Montreal. It is the most absurd piece of legislation ever introduced in this parliament. And, as 1 said before, it is introduced without the knowledge of the people directly interested in this legislation-they do not know the first thing about it. We are going to impose a very extensive, I may say absurd, piece of machinery upon them for tile control of the temporal affairs in connection of their church, and without their having asked for it. I am sure that if bon. members would consider this matter in an unbiased and impartial way, they would see that I was right in opposing the introduction of such legislation without first consulting the parties who were directly interested.
Now, what is the position of this clerical gentleman to whom we are giving control of matters in connection with the Greek Church ? The Galicians belonging to that faith who live in Manitoba and the Northwest are people from Austria. So far as nationality goes they were Austrians in their own country. And, now, we are to put them under the control of a bishop living in San Francisco, who has been appointed by the Czar of Russia Bishop of North America and the Aleutian Islands for the State Church of Russia. And, on the other hand,
we are exacting the signature of the Russian Consul General in Montreal to legalize any instrument that may be executed by' this bishop-a Consul General who has nothing in common with these people, as they do not belong to his nationality, except merely that they happen to profess the same religion as lie does. This, if it were carried out, would be a very bad piece of legislation, to my thinking. I have no objection to recognize the Russian-Greek Church or any other Greek Church, and to give people belonging to that faith the privilege of having their churches, their parishes and their missions. But what I object to is the machinery whereby these temporal affairs of the church will be administered. We do not know what troubles may follow. Orders may come from St. Petersburgh to these people, on some conscientious pretext to do this or do that, or refrain from doing this or that. We already have enough trouble with the Doukhobors, who. under conscientious pretext, are not willing to abide by the local laws of our country. They do not want to register their lands, they do not want to register their marriages, they do not want to do many things that are obligatory upon good citizens in this country. Who is to tell us that, later on, orders will not come from the church officials of the Greek Church in St. Petersburgh to their adherents, imposing duties upon them which will compel them to choose between their church membership and their citizenship ? But, apart from that altogether, I say that we ought to be very careful. There is more importance in this measure than appears. We are told: This is only a private Bill and we can amend it next year. Well, Sir, if there is such a feeling that we may require to amend it next year, I believe it will be far better to put the Bill off until next year, and then prepare and pass a measure that will be satisfactory to the people concerned and satisfactory to the country to which they have come to live. Perhaps I may be taxed with partiality in dealing with this matter. Sir, I have on every occasion endorsed and approved measures concerning other faiths than my own; because I, for one, recognize the fact that we live in a free country, that we ought to be liberal to others, even if we cannot think as they do. But, in this case, it is not a question of faith-it is a question of business, a question of property, yes, even a question of justice. I say that this parliament has no right to impose on a class of the community legislation for which they have not asked, and which we have no proof that they will accept.
Now, there is something very peculiar in the action of this right reverend gentleman in regard to this matter. In the petition that was presented before this pai'liament, and in the Bill as passed by the Private Bills Committee, he represents himself as the bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Creek Catholic Church for North America and the Aleutian

Islands. Since this Bill passed the committee, a hook has come into my hand? called the catechism of the Orthodox church; and in opening this little catechism-which I do not intend to read to this House-I find that this official book of the church is distributed with the blessing of the most Reverend Tikhon-tiie very same reverend gentleman who is asking for an Act of incorporation in this Bill-the most Reverend Tikhon, Bishop of the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church of North America. Now, Sir, if I go to the States, I find that in California the name of the church there is the Greek-Russian Slavonian Orthodox Eastern Church and Benevolent Society. That is the church over which this right reverend gentleman is presiding. If I go to Seattle, in the state of Washington, I find there that the church Is known as the Greco-Russian Orthodox Church of St. Spiridomus. Well, when we come to Manitoba and the North-west Territories we find there are two classes of Galicians, the one calling themselves Or-thodox-Greeks, and the other commonly styling themselves Greek Catholics. The Greek Catholics are a branch of the Roman Catholic Church, they call themselves Greek Catholics because their rite is the Greek rite; they do not follow the Latin rite. The others styling themselves Orthodox Greek, belong to the Greek rite also, but in connection with the Church of Russia.


John Graham Haggart: One part of them inclines to the church of Russia, and to what church does the other half incline ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. The church of Rome.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Let them call themselves what they like, that makes no difference to us.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. What I object to is that this reverend gentleman introduces the word ' Catholic ' into this Bill, and asks us to acknowledge him under a designation that he does not use in any other country.


Mr. BELCOURT.: Nobody has a monopoly of that name.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Well you have not, I am sure of that.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is all right. Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question, all jokes aside ? Do not the Episcopalians call themselves Catholics ? Answer that, yes or no.
ill1. LaRIVIERE. Well, the Episcopolians call themselves Catholics, but they do not ask me to admit that they are Catholics. I call myself a Catholic, but 1 do not compel any one else to call me a Catholic. At the same time, while Episcopolians call themselves Catholics-and I believe that they are using that privilege-they never asked this parliament to confirm them in their right thus to call themselves. They are liberal, they allow others to call themselves what-
Mr. LaRIVIERE.
ever they choose ; and we, with the same liberality, allow them to call themselves whatever they choose.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Supposing the Episcopalians did ask parliament to give them that name, would you object to it ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Well, yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Why ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I do not object to them calling themselves whatever they choose, I grant them the privilege of calling themselves Catholic if they believe that they are so. Mr. Chairman, I see that I am treading on very delicate ground, and I regret it, because I wanted to object to this Bill at first on its general merits ; I did not want to go into these questions of theology or orthodoxy, on the contrary I wished to avoid them, and heretofore I have never mentioned them. But here this right reverend gentleman is known under a different name in San Francisco, and he goes to the North-west, where there is a mixed community, and asks us to acknowledge him a a Catholic. Well, as a Catholic I object to that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are Roman Catholics, they may be Catholics.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This gentleman may be a Russo-Greek Catholic.


John Charlton: I am a Presbyterian Catholic.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The argument used by the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the committee (Mr. Lariviere) might be turned against himself and applied with equal propriety against the church which he represents. He objects that this church is controlled by a foreign power. So is the church of the hon. gentleman controlled by a foreign power, but does he object to that. We had something to say on that subject in connection with the Jesuits Estates Bill. But the arguments used by the hon. gentleman apply with equal propriety, with equal force in every instance, to the church to which the hon. gentleman belongs himself. With reference to the statement that the notice was not given, I think the usual notice was given ; everybody had notice that desired to have notice. With reference to the question whether any other church should call themselves Roman or Roman Catholic, except the one church, I think there is more than one church calling themselves Catholic.


An hon. MEMBER.: Only one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I admit that hon. gentlemen may think that they alone have a right to the name, but that does not prevent others

from using the name, as they certainly do. In my judgment therefore that is no serious objection to the Bill, and I do not think the argument which the hon. gentleman addressed to the House has any great force in it.


Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.: I do not propose to go into a discussion of this question on its merits. But the question was asked from my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. LaRivi&re) what objections there were to the use of the word Catholic in the title of this Act of incorporation. Well, I do not know that there is any serious objection, there does not appear to be in the House at any rate, and no Catholic ought to object to that word in any Act of incorporation when he sees the great popularity of that name to-day. It appears to me there is a good parallel between this case and a Bill I accidentally heard discussed in the legislature of my own province some three years ago. We have in the province of New Brunswick and in the maritime provinces, and all over Canada, a very prominent body of Christians called Baptists. They were known as the Baptist Church. Some years ago they divided and formed two churches, Baptists still, but two distinct bodies. One portion, dissenting from the older body, took the name of the Free Christian Baptist Church and sought and obtained an Act of incorporation under that title. That new body divided again. A clergyman by the name of Osser, 1 think, differed in opinion from the majority, or, perhaps, as he claimed the minority of that body-I am not discussing that point-and he and his followers applied to the legislature of New Brunswick for an Act of incorporation. In asking for that Act of incorporation they wished to be designated by the name of the Free Baptist Church. While there was not much in the matter as they were Baptists too and no one could object that they should call themselves Baptists, when they came to the legislature for an Act of incorporation it was not the Catholic members that interfered but it was the Protestant members of the House. There was a very small number of Catholic members in the House and the whole debate was taken up by the Protestant members. They took the ground that while they were quite willing to give them an Act of incorporation, the use of the words ' Free Baptist ' in the Bill would create confusion, 'and it was something that they had no right to use because the word ' Free ' was in the Actj of incorporation of both other branches of that same church. While they gave them their Act of incorporation, they would not consent to the use of the word ' Free ' as proposed in the Bill. Therefore, I think my hon. friend can very well say that so far as the Galicians are concerned, being two distinct bodies so far as their religious belief is concerned, with this body applying for a charter to be incorporated into the Orthodox-Russo-Greek 147
Catholic church for North America and the Aleutian Islands. I do not see why this House should add anything to its title in giving the charter that is sought for now, I think it would be very simple to leave the word ' Catholic ' out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The only objection which was taken to the Bill in the New Brunswick legislature was that this new church proposed to call itself the Free Baptist and in so doing was in reality calling itself by a name which was used by one of the other branches of the Baptist Church. This division of the church was called the Free Baptist and the fact that it was using the word ' free ' was objected to. It was the prefix that caused the trouble. In this case the name of the church is the Russo-Greek Catholic Church. There is no danger of any other body being confounded with that. I do not know whether our good friends the Episcopalians would call themselves the holy Catholic Church or not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They do it in the church service.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is the prefix that they used that caused the trouble.


John Costigan: The word ' free,' of course, was in the Bill which was before the House under consideration at that time, but the denomination that complained was not called the Free Baptist Church but it was called the Free Christian Baptist Church. They did not take the whole name, they used one word which was used in the title of the other church. In this case they are simply using a word here which does not belong to them.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. As to that point I have the catechism of the reverend gentleman who is asking to be incorporated under the name that he is known by, and there is no word ' Catholic ' there, and in the United States where he has a legal status there is no word ' Catholic ' in his title. Here he is known as the Most Reverend Tikhon, Bishop of the Orthodox Greek-Russian Church in North America. Why should lie assume the name of Catholic because he crosses over the boundary and why should he ask to be called a Catholic.


Mr.  L. P.@: DEMERS (St. John and Iberville. (Translation) Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word or two in connection with the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). From a mere perusal of this Bill, I think that two objections may be raised against this measure. And first of all, what strikes me is that it deals entirely with provincial matters. I do not see any reason why the right reverend bishop should not have petitioned the Manitoba legislature or the legislature of the Nortii-



west Territories. The powers he is asking for are under the control and jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. As a matter of fact, what the Bill deals with is as to whether that Greek bishop may possess property in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. That is a question of civil law which is within the purview of the powers of the provincial legislatures ; and from the fact that this Bill originates from the west, and is promoted by an-hon. gentleman from the North-wesit Territories, I fail to see why this parliament should be more competent to deal with it than if we were called upon to deal with a petition coming from any bishop from the province of Quebec or Ontario. No bishop from Ontario or Quebec would ever think of coming before us and petitioning this parliament to obtain such powers, but would go before the provincial legislatures, which have adequate powers and jurisdiction to deal with this class of subjects. As I said, I do not see that there is anything in this Bill which warrants the promoters of it coming before this parliament, as it is a matter of property and civil law, which is relegated to the provinces.
Another objection which may tie opposed to the passage of this Bill is this, that this reverend bishop is asking to be incorporated as a corporation sole. That is the most serious objection which can be urged against this Bill. We are asked to confer upon a stranger, who is a non-resident, who is not a British subject, all the powers and rights of a public corporation. Does it not strike you that such a demand is contrary to the whole scheme of our legislation ? When we have to deal with a company incorporated by letters patent, are not the directors of that company, or at least a majority <of them, required to be British subjects ? Under this legislation, a stranger, who is living in San Francisco, is to be given the powers of a public corporation. I have no hesitation in saying that such a provision is at variance with the whole scheme of our legislation, and that we are creating a very bad precedent.
Let us take, for instance, the corporations which we have in the province of Quebec : Is not the government entitled to know what use they are making of their funds ? Is it not a fact that the imperial government went to the length of inquiring as to the way in which the property of the Sulpicians was disposed of, and whether a portion of their revenues was sent over to Paris ? Under this Bill, you are going to incorporate ais a corporation sole, a gentleman who is living in San Francisco, and you are going to allow that stranger, who is a nonresident, because he is called upon to govern a church, to enjoy all the powers of a corporate body. I say again that such a Bill is contrary to the whole scheme and spirit of our legislation, and that, if we were to Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).
pass it into law, we should be encroaching upon the rights of the provinces.


John Charlton: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to the definition of the word ' Catholic ' as contained in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, an authority in the United States and an authority universally received wherever the English language is spoken :
Catholic-Universal or general.
This epithet, which is applicable to the whole Christian church, or its faith.
Not narrow minded, partial or bigoted ; liberal ; as, catholic tastes.
Catholic epistles, the epistl9s of the apostles which are addressed to all the faithful, and not to a particular church ; being those of James, Peter, Jude and John.
Catholic. A person who accepts the creeds which are received in common by all parts of the orthodox Christian church.
An adherent of the Roman Catholic Church ; a Roman Catholic.
So we see toy this, that this epithet or designation is applicable in the broadest sense to all churches; to all Christian believers, and indeed to all broad liberal tastes, and the argument raised by my hon. friend from Proveucher (Mr. LaRivi&re) is one which I think he need not have troubled the committee with to such an extent. I do not think that any particular significance attaches to the use of this word ' Catholic ' in connection with this Bill. It is merely a claim on the part of this church which applies for incorporation here that they are a Catholic, broad, liberal, true Christian church. That is their opinion, and whether we dissent from that opinion or not I do not know that we are debarred from allowing them the use of that title, which under this definition is so general in its character.


Frank Oliver: I did not expect to meet with opposition to this Bill at its present stage, and I am more than astonished at the character of the opposition. 1 take exception to the innuendo of the member for Proveucher, that there was something remarkable or underhand in the introduction of this Bill. The House well knows that whatever might have been the intention of the promotors, certainly owing to the vigilance of the member for rrovencher, there was no such thing as getting the Bill through its various stages without every one being thoroughly aware of all its provisions. Not only so, but it will surprise the House to know that the very objections that the hon. member has just urged : as to the introduction of the name of the Russian consul ; as to the provision for accepting service of notice at Bdimonton ; in fact every one of these provisions which he alluded to as peculiar and upon which he asked the House to throw the Bill out. were introduced to meet the objections raised by the hon. gentleman himself in the Private Bills Committee. He was a member of the sub-committee which drafted

these amendments, and it was fully expected by -myself that when he had become a party to the amendments made by that subcommittee he would be content to allow the Bill to pass through this House. 1 am unable to characterize the position taken by the bon, member. I am sure I would be ruled out of order if I attempted to characterize it as I submit it deserves. In regard to the objection that the bishop is a non-resident, I may state that when the hon. member raised that objection in the committee, I said :	' Well if the dropping of
the provisions regarding the incorporation of the bishop will remove your objections, we will incorporate only the parishes and missions.' It is an absolute necessity to the religious welfare of these people, as they understand it, to have the privilege of holding property in these parishes and missions. There can be no reasonable objection to that. The hon. member then objected to the name of the church. The committee was of opinion that they could meet his objection on that point, and also as to the incorporation of the bishop, and I fully understood they had met it. Allow me to point out that the Bill as introduced was an exact copy, so far as it would apply, of the Bill incorporating -the Church of ling-land bishop of Keewatin. In the original Bill, the church was referred to as the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church. The hon. gentleman objected to that name being used, and so we Inserted in the Bill the words: 'The body commonly known as.' That was done in order to remove any possibility of parliament declaring that these people were either Catholic or Orthodox, It seems to me that once we assumed the position of merely giving them the name they ask for and carefully guard ourselves against any responsibility as to endorsing tbe| rightful use of that name, we surely met all reasonable objection. We certainly met the Objection which the hon. member raised at the time. As to the hon. gentleman asserting that as a Catholic he would refuse to accept that name in the title; let -me state that I have here something that may ease his coilscience. We often hear it said that certain people are more loyal than the King, and the hon. gentleman is more loyal to his church than the legislature of the Catholic province of Quebec ; for I find that in the statutes of Qnebee 1868, chapter 55, there is an Act to authorize the ministers of the church ' calling themselves the Catholic Apostolic Church in the province of Quebec to solemnize marriages, &c.' Now, if the legislature of the province of Quebec finds no objection to the use of that title just as we -are using it here by inserting the words, 'The people calling themselves'; surely there can be no objection to our doing so, and certainly we are not violating any man's conscientious scruples in doing so. So far as I am concerned, I would be the last man in this House to Interfere with any one's conscientious convictions, and I 1471
have spoken for the purpose of relieving myself and relieving other members of the House -from the imputation which the hon. member (Mr. LaRiviere) so unjustly cast upon those who are advocating a measure of the simplest justice to a strange people wlho are in our country at the present -time.


John Graham Haggart: Two nice questions seem to have arisen under this Bill. One has been raised by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Demers) as to the power of this parliament to make a corporation sole of an entirely foreign body. Here is a bishop living in San Francisco, and we constitute him a corporate sole in Canada. Have we the power to do that ? The next question is that we are -creating two corporations-a corporation aggregate and a corporation sole for the one purpose of exercising rights in Manitoba and the Northwest which eo-me under the definition of ' civil rights and property ' and so appertain to the provinces. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has missed altogether the point of the objection of my hon. friend (Mr. LaRiviere). He does not seem to see that this Russo-Greek Church which seeks incorporation has two leanings-one to the old Greek Church of Constantinople, and the other to the Latin Church of Rome. My hon. friend from Proven-eher wants to protect those who have a leaning towards the Church of Rome from the sole control of the Greek bishop of San Francisco and the Czar.


Frank Oliver: I take the liberty of saying that the hon. gentleman has entirely misapprehended the point of the hon. member from Provencher, and I call on the hon. member for Provencher to put him right.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. You had better explain your objection. I do not see it.


John Graham Haggart: I think the hon. member for Alberta understands the point well enough. I asked the hon. member when he was on his feet wk-a-t leaning the other half of the church had. He said towards the Latin Church of Rome. The moment the hon. gentleman said that I saw at once the object lie had in this Bill. My hon. friend from Provencher did not want to give the -control over the parishes and churches of this portion of them in Manitoba and the North-west Territories to any foreign potentate, like the Czar or the Bishop of the Greek Church. He wanted, if any powers were given at all, to give to his bishop at least equal powers to those claimed by the parties seeking incorporation. I would like to have the opinion of the Minister of Justice as to the power of this parliament to create a corporation sole of any person who Is altogether a foreigner in this country, especially one whose sole object is the interference with civil rights and the possession of property in the provinces.


Frank Oliver: Before the Minister of Justice replies, I would like to poin-t out that
4G79

iu the nature of things there is no such purpose in this proposed incorporation as has been indicated by the hon. member who has just sat down. The words which are used are used for the purpose of defining that this bishop and church shall not have any control whatever over any person who has even a leaning towards the Latin Church, the Church of home. The words ' Orthodox Russo-Greek ' are used so that there shall toe no question or mistake on that point. X decline to toe understood as attempting to be a party to any transaction whereby an advantage would be taken


John Graham Haggart: I do not accuse the hon. gentleman ; far from it.
Sir. OLIVER, The hon. gentleman accuses me of doing it without knowing that I am doing it.


Hon.   S@: I accuse the hon. member of not understanding what the ground of my hon. friend's opposition to the Bill is.


Frank Oliver: I must admit that I do not understand my hon. friend's opposition to the Bill ; but I point out that there is no such ground of opposition as that stated by the hon. gentleman.
Sir. LaRIVIERE. I will explain it to my hon. friend. There is a matter which I did not want to bring before the House ; but as I am compelled to do it, I will do it. Not far from the hon. gentleman's residence, near Edmonton, there was a concession of lands granted to a section of Catholic Galicians to build a church, and they did build a church, three trustees being appointed for the purpose, and the money being supplied by the Roman Catholics. Since then the three trustees have been induced to join the Greek Church, and have transferred the church to the so called Orthodox Greek Church. They have stolen the property of the Roman Catholics, and the matter is now sub judice. The very people who have prepared this Bill, and who want this parliament to recognize these Orthodox Greek Church people as Catholics, in order that they may retain this property which belonged to the Roman Catholics, are the solicitors against the Greek Catholics.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member is making a very broad statement. There has been a dispute between the two parties following the Greek rite in that part of the country. It is a case of Greek versus Greek. They both follow the same rite, but the one acknowledges the jurisdiction of the I'ope and the other acknowledges the jurisdiction of the Czar. The circumstances are very much as stated by the hon. member for Provencher, except this, that it is the lack of such definite name and standing as is provided by this Bill applied to one or other of these bodies that makes the confusion that has occurred there possible. If Mr. OLIVER.
the one body is incorporated under one specific and definite name

Mr. CASGItAIN. It will get tile church.


Frank Oliver: Not at all. It will be possible then for those who object to that body to prove that they do not belong to it; but it is very difficult for them to do so now, because neither of them have, any name or standing in law, or the right to own property in this country.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Do you mean to say that those under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church have no legal right at all ?
Mr. OLIVER, They certainly have no recognized legal right given to them by statute in this country.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. It is not a different church at all. It is the Roman Catholic Church, and the Roman Catholic Church has rights, and can exercise them at any time.


Frank Oliver: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. That is just where lie is not very well informed. These people are not members of the Roman Catholic Church. They are members of the Greek Church united with the Church of Rome. They have their own ecclesiastical organization separate from the Church of Rome, under the headship of the Pope.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Might I ask who appoints the bishops of the people of whom the hon. gentleman has just spoken ?


Frank Oliver: I take it that they are appointed liy the Pope. But allow me to point out that there is in Galicia a Roman Catholic organization distinct from the organization of the united Greek Church, although occupying exactly the same territory.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it not a fact that in the notices given by tbe bishop, before coming to tliis House, a different title was given to him from tbe one he assumes in the Bill ? I was present in the Standing Orders Committee when that question was discussed.


Frank Oliver: Certainly not. The title in the Bill is tlie title asked for in tbe notices.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It seems to me that a great deal more trouble and fuss is made over this Bill than it really warrants. It is a matter of business, not of religion at all. I am not going to follow the example given by tlie hon. member from Provencher and indulge in religious dissertations. Not being very well informed, I might fall into some such egregious blunders as lie lias. Parliament does not recognize this particular church any more than it does any other religious body which has come here in the past asking for incorporation. Tbe objection made here was made in tbe committee by my bon. friend ; and in order to meet his objection, these words were put in tbe Bill : 1 Tbe bishop of tbe religious community com-

monly known as the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church for North America.' In passing this Bill parliament does not in any way recognize that this is an Orthodox church or a Russian church or a Greek church. We simply recognize these people by the title they claim for themselves. The defining words in this Bill are ' Orthodox Russo-Greek.' There are people who call themselves Catholics, qualified by another adjective. The Roman Catholics cannot complain if the word 'Catholic' is used, but they can complain if the words ' Roman Catholic ' are used. In order to meet the objection which is made by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) that this is an alien seeking incorporation in this country, the committee took great pains to limit the purposes for which this incorporation was granted. Looking at sections 2, 5 and 3 the House will at once see that the bishop himself, though he is constituted a corporation sole, is constituted for certain purposes only, which are well defined in section 2 :
For the uses and purposes of any parish and mission institution, college, school or hospital, now or after connected with the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church.
These are the powers he gets and no other. He cannot engage in business or do anything beyond what is mentioned in the four corners of the Bill.
In order to prevent this bishop from abusing his powers, in order to prevent his doing what the three trustees, of whom the hon. member for Provenclier has spoken, have done, in order to prevent his taking over the property witli him to another church, say the Catholic Church or any other church or disposing of the same for purposes other than those mentioned in the Bill, the committee required that whenever he shall convey property belonging to his church, he must do so in conjunction with the other trustees mentioned in the Bill. He has no other powers than those defined in the Bill, and they are clearly limited to the purposes mentioned in section 2.
I am not prepared to say that the objection made that this is properly a subject for provincial legislation is not a good one.


John Graham Haggart: Does this Bill invest this corporation sole with any property at present owned by the church.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Not at all. I am glad the hon. gentleman reminds me of that, because the matter to which the hon. member for Provencher has made reference, namely, the disposition of the property by these three trustees. That matter is now sub judice, and the passage of this Bill would not affect it in the slightest degree. If any one can show me that it does, I will support the Bill. That matter to which the hon. member for Provencher refers is now in the courts, and this Bill has nothing to do with it.
I was saying that the subject is perhaps one which should more properly be dealt with by a provincial legislature. It is one which concerns exclusively property and civil rights. But I do not suppose that this society, which is asking for incorporation, should be treated differently from others. We have incorporated the Synod of the Diocese of Saskatchewan.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: In 1884. Wo also have incorporated the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is an exceptional case. It lias jurisdiction in more than one province.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Also the Episcopal corporation of Pontiac.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is likewise an exceptional case.
lion. Mr. HAGGART. The first case mentioned by the hon. gentleman, the Diocese of Saskatchewan, we have jurisdiction over entirely, because it is In the Northwest Territories.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: We incorporated the Union of the Methodist churches.


John Graham Haggart: The bishop of Pembroke is in the unorganized territory over which we have jurisdiction.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That may be. I am not dissenting from that view. I think that the powers of the Dominion parliament are brought into requisition in some cases when resort should have been had to a provincial legislature, but I thought at first sight that the cases I mentioned were cases in point. There is the Union of the Methodist churches, also incorporated in 1884. The present Bill may properly be a matter for provincial legislation, but we have created precedents to the contrary, and it seems to me that we ought not to make an exception in this case. As regards the name, the question for us to decide is whether the one chosen is likely to lead to confusion. If not, I cannot see any objection to it, and I propose to deal with this Bill as I would with that of any ordinary corporation seeking incorporation for business purposes. No one in the committee pointed out that there was any danger of any confusion. As far as I am concerned, being a Catholic, and a good one, notwithstanding the doubts expressed by the hon. member for Provencher, I cannot see why a Roman Catholic should have the slightest objection to this name. How anybody is going to confound the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church with the Roman Catholic Church is something beyond my comprehension.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. My hon. friend introduced into this House a Divorce Bill, and since then I have some doubts about hi* orthodoxy.


Charles Marcil: This Bill, if I understand its title, refers more especially to Manitoba and the North-west Territories. Why was this legislation not sought for in the legislatures of Manitoba and the Territories ?


Frank Oliver: For the same reason that legislation is now on the statute-book for the incorporation of the bishop of Ottawa, because this diocese covers two provinces. He could have secured incorporation in each province. In this case the Bill covers Manitoba and the Territories, two different provincial organizations, and therefore we come here for incorporation.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have been appealed to in connection with this measure. I do not intend to discuss it from an ecclesiastical standpoint, because I recognize my limitations in that direction. It is proper for us to consider what this Bill is likely to lead us to before we vote in favour of it. When it first came up in the House, I thought that perhaps the proper course would have been to refer it to a select committee in order to ascertain whether or not we have any precedents in this country for a Bill of the sort. The right of a foreigner, an alien, to petition parliament is not recognized in the English system. My hon. friends will all remember the Cretan and the Boulogne cases. But in this country the practice has grown up of receiving petitions from aliens. As far as I can judge, that practice dates from 1878. On March lltli of that year, the attention of Mr. Speaker Anglin was called to a petition from some United States citizens interested in the Connecticut Mutual Insurance Company, praying for amendments to the Insurance Law, and after a very brief statement by Mr. Mackenzie, and without any discussion at all, Mr. Speaker Anglin decided that the petition would be received. It would appear from the brief debate, as reported in ' Hansard,' that those who spoke were under the impression that that was the English practice. I can state most emphatically that it is not. However, that practice, which was then initiated, has continued down to the present, and I suppose it would not lie in my mouth to claim that it should not be carried out in this instance.
But here is what I wish to direct the attention of the House to-that the petitioner here is not a foreigner who comes in here with certain British subjects to ask for incorporation. This is not a corporation aggregate at all, but a foreigner residing in San Francisco who will continue to reside there, and who asks you to create him a corporation sole with all the privileges of a corporation sole, he continuing to reside beyond your jurisdiction. That is the position you are placing yourselves in by adopting this Bill. Now, it is said the property is in your jurisdiction. But let us realize what the corporation is. A corpora-Mr. LaRIVIERE.
tion aggregate is a person distinct and separate from the persons who compose the corporation. When the corporation is formed it is not merely the individuals who form it but a definite body that results from the bringing together of these persons. And if a corporation of that sort is formed in our country it resides here and is dealt with under our law. But here you have a corporation which is a fictitious person and distinct and separate from the individual incorporated ; but where that individual is the corporation remains. Now, what i? this going to lead us to ? Here is this person residing in San Francisco, who would not have the right to be elected as a municipal councillor in this country, and whom you could not clothe with that right unless you amend the Naturalization Act; and yet you are going to make him a corporation enjoying all the privileges in this country that* are thus conferred.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Any set of foreigners could be made a corporation.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, a set of foreigners can be made a corporation since 1878, in consequence of the ruling of that time. But the foreigners could not be created a corporation in England; and under the Joint Stock Companies' Act a set of foreigners cannot be created a corporation, the majority of the directors must be residents of this country. But I state these facts, and it is for the committee to consider them. My own view is that the Bill might have been more carefully considered by the Special Committee chosen for the purpose of dealing with it. I have not given the matter sufficient consideration to justify me in saying I have a fixed opinion on the subject, and to advise the committee either to adopt or to reject the Bill. This is a matter which ought to be carefully considered, and more careful consideration should have been given to it than I have been able to give to it. But these are my impressions, and, for what they are worth, I communicate to the committee.
The MINISTER -OF THE INTERIOR. The ingenuity of the gentleman who is opposing the passing of this Bill is certainly very remarkable. My hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. LaRivi&re) is known in the province from which he comes as a very able and ingenious man

Mr. LaRIVIERE. Thanks.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: and he has given sufficient proof of his
claim to that reputation in connection with this Bill; because, on every occasion when we have had this Bill before us, he has had an objection, and always a bran new one, and very plausible and very arguable objection. ' To-day he has brought forward an entirely new objection. And the proof of my hon. friend's ingenuity is still further
seen in the fact that no two members of the House, apparently, agree as to what his objection really is. As to the point raised by the Minister of Justice, I desire to say a word. When the statement is made that the House is asked to incorporate a foreigner residing in San Francisco and give him power to hold property, he still residing outside our jurisdiction, that statement, naturally, is likely to startle the House. But, if the words ' outside the jurisdiction ' be technically correct, substantially, I submit to my bon. friend, and in the sense in which the House would naturally understand it, they are not correct. For, as I understand it, provision is made in this Bill-my hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong-for service upon the corporation in the North-west Territories. Thus, the only object of having a resident in the North-west Territories is served by the fact that the Bill provides for the service of process in the North-west Territories, and. to all intents and purposes, with this provision inserted, the courts have jurisdiction to the same extent, in the same way and quite as effectively over this corporation, and in relation to any property that the church may hold, as if the bishop resided in Calgary or Edmonton. So there can be no substantial objection to incorporation on that ground. Now, so far as the suggestion is concerned that this ought to be reconsidered or sent again to a special committee, I submit that that is an unfair point to present at the present stage. When this Bill first came before the House, it was suggested by the hon. member for Provencher that the petitioner for incorporation wTas an alien, and that he resided in San Francisco. Thus, the House was then seized of that fact. Later on, the Bill came before the Committee on Private Bills, which is the proper committee to consider these questions. That committee discussed the objections raised by the hon. member for Provencher, dealt with them as has been stated by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), met the objections one after another, provided for service upon the corporations within the North-west Territories, and reported the Bill to us so that it might receive the sanction of the House. And I submit that no person could listen to the discussion that has taken place upon this Bill without being satisfied that an unfair attempt is being made against these parties. I do not mean unfair in the sense of being outside the rights of members of parliament, but as being in the direction of depriving these people of the right of incorporation in such a way as to treat them differently from others who come here seeking a similar right. I submit that these people have the same right as others to assume a corporate name. And it makes no difference whether we personally approve of that name or not. If the hon. gentleman and others split off from the church to which he belongs, and desired to assume
another name, no one would object to that; and if they asked parliament for the incorporation of the ecclesiastical body thus created no objection would be taken. It has been done scores of times in legislatures all over the British dominions. I submit that this will be the first time where any unfair and invidious distinction has been shown, and where people who simply come asking the right to hold property in accordance with the law have 'been denied that right by the law-making body. For, let it be understood that all that these people ask is the right to hold property in a corporate capacity. As was said by the hon. member for Alberta, who promoted the Bill before the Private Bills Committee, he was willing that the name of the bishop should be struck out and that the right to hold property should be given to the parishes or to a local organization. The committee did not accept that, but thought fit to report the Bill in its present form. Therefore, if the House or the committee refuses the Bill at the present time it will be taking the ground practically that it will refuse these people the right to hold property in a corporate capacity, a right which has not been refused to others and which should not be refused to those who are associated as a religious body under any name they choose to assume.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot oppose this Bill, for the excellent reason that all the heads of the Roman Catholic orders reside outside this country. First, the head of our church does not live in this country, but in Rome. The heads of the Jesuit order live outside' of this country, the heads of the Sulpician order live outside of this country-the heads of nearly all Roman Catholic orders live beyond our jurisdiction. The head of the Russo-Greek Catholic Church lives in San Francisco. I do not see any difference whatever between the Roman Catholic orders and this Russo-Catliolic Church so far as the residences of the heads are concerned. I for one, as a Roman Catholic, do not see any objection to the Bill. As to the name, my hon. friend, on second thought, will admit there is nothing in that. There are many other churches who call themselves Catholic, and I do not see any objection to that. We are Roman Catholics, let us call ourselves Roman Catholics, and let us be proud of it, if we wish to. But let other people call themselves what they like. It is no shame to us if these people (tall themselves Catholics.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. The Minister of the Ulterior has charged me with opposing this Bill at almost every stage. Well, I did not oppose it merely for the sake of opposition. The fact that this Bill has been amended in almost every clause to meet my objections. is a proof that I was right in opposing it when it first came before tlifc House. If I had wished to kill the Bill, to prevent its

passage, I could have done so on the second reading, because the Bill was read the second time under a suspension of the rules. Though I knew my privilege, though I knew I could have stopped the second reading, I did not avail myself of that privilege nor prevent the legislation going through the House. My opposition to the Bill was not with a view of preventing its passage, because when I could have prevented its passage I did not do so. Now, in answer to the Minister of Public Works, let me say that my contention is this : This right reverend gentleman, Bishop Tikhon, who is living in San Francisco, is known under the name of the Bishop of the Orthodox Greek Russian Church in North America. This is his title in the catechism he has published, and that he sends to the flock with his blessing.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Read it.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. I will send it over to the hon. gentleman. Now while this church is known under the name of the Orthodox Greek Russian Church in San Francisco, in Seattle, and in fact everywhere else where it has parishes in the United States, why, after it crosses the boundary, should it assume that subtitle of Catholic in addition ? Why should it change its name when it comes across into Canada ? It must have been done for a purpose. I say if that is the official name of the bishop in the United States, I do not see why he should come here and ask to be incorporated under some other name. Evidently there must be some reason for it, he must have an object, and I think, I put my finger on it when I said a little while ago that there were two branches of the Greek Church in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. It was only to avoid a conflict between the two that I asked that this word ' Catholic,' which he does not bear in the United States and elsewhere, should be left out of the Bill, and that he should be acknowledged under the same title as he gives himself in one of his official books, the catechism published in San Francisco in 1901.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Under what name is it known in Russia ?


Frank Oliver: When the hon. gentleman said his name was so and so in San Francisco, he said it was something else in the state of California. Now what name is it in the state of California ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I said the church was incorporated in San Francisco under a different name.
On section 7,


Robert Laird Borden: There is an eighth clause. With regard to the eighth clause it is quite true, as the Minister of the Interior liak said, that you could give this corporation a domicile in this country, al-Mr. LaRIVIERE.
though the person constituting the corporation may live outside the country. But it does not seem to me that the eighth clause dees that very effectually.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I had not time to read the amendments, as they' were just handed to me when I was speaking. I was told the provision had been made by the committee. It may be it is not effectually done.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it is very effectual. It says :
The corporation sole shall have and maintain a head office at the town of Edmonton in the district of Alberta, and service of legal process at such head office shall be good and sufficient service of such process upon the corporation sole.
Well, the corporation sole may maintain a head office-that is an expression I never before heard of in connection with an ecclesiastical corporation-the ecclesiastical corporation is to have a head office in the town of Edmonton. However, passing by that curious word, suppose the ecclesiastical corporation does not happen to have a head office at Edmonton, where are you under this Bill ? The clause has not been drafted with sufficient care. It should go further and provide that in the event of the corporation sole not opening a head office in the town of Edmonton, service upon the corporation could be effected by service of process upon a priest or some person connected with the corporation in that particular district ; otherwise this clause 8 is of no service whatever. Or service might be effected by letter addressed to it, or by publication. The clause in its present shape is absolutely ineffectual, it seems to me ; and I would suggest it should be amended by stating that the domicile of the corporation shall be at such and such a place in this country, and that the head office-call it that-should be opened in that particular place, and that in default of such head office being opened, service on the corporation can be effected by service upon some priest, or by posting up the service in the town hall, or something of that kind.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Or that it shall have a registered address.


Robert Laird Borden: But it may not have a registered address.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It may be required to have.


Robert Laird Borden: If you do require it, it may not observe that provision. You must have a provision that the service of the process may be made by posting it up, or by advertising it in the newspapers, or something of that kind.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is a matter of procedure.


Robert Laird Borden: But it must be dealt with by this Bill.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not think it is necessary, because if the head office is stated to be at Edmonton, it will be for the provincial court to determine the manner of making a service.


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman's argument is sound that the provincial courts can deal with the matter, it is perfectly clear that this parliament should have nothing to do with it. I do not know whether there is any procedure in the province of Manitoba or in the North-west Territories to cover a ease of this kind. So far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned I can say that there is no procedure that I am aware of to cover a case of this kind, and I suppose we are not to pass this Bill with an understanding that this provision is ineffectual unless we know something about the procedure of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. I do not think we should leave it to provincial enactment. We are doing a somewhat extraordinary thing when we incorporate a person who not only lives but proposes to live outside of the jurisdiction. It may be all right, but let us provide that he shall have his domicile inside the jurisdiction, and also provide some effectual mode of service upon him within the jurisdiction.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As a member of the committee which suggested this amendment to the Bill I may say that perhaps the wording may yet be somewhat Improved. I think if the hon. member who has made this suggestion would agree to an amendment providing that a registered letter addressed to this corporation at the town or city where they happen to have their head office under this Bill would be a sufficient service the objections would be removed. Personally, I feel, that as long as this country recognizes the right to grant incorporation to these religious and semi-religious bodies, entitling them to hold property, I do not see why it should refuse to do so in this case. As there is a considerable number of these people in the North-west Territories, I thiuk they should have the same privileges as all other people in this country and that an Act of incorporation should be given to them so that their religious bodies may be entitled to hold property for their own purposes. I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that it should be made clear that the only power we give under this Bill is the right of these people to hold property, and that carries with it the right to sue and be sued. This ought to be perfectly clear as the hon. lender of the opposition has pointed out. If any person has a claim against this church it must be perfectly clear that nothing in the Bill shall allow them to evade
the laws of the country. The desire of the committee was that they should receive this Act of incorporation without doing an injustice to any other person, and that they should be held amenable to the laws of the country the same as any other person or corporation.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to understand me as objecting to the incorporation of any religious association. I thought at first that possibly there might be some objection to this Bill, because It would, as far as property is concerned at least, confer jurisdiction upon this bishop over persons who, though, perhaps of that particular church, nevertheless were under the jurisdiction of bishops appointed from Rome. I thought there might be something in that but I am not so familiar with these subjects as some hon. gentlemen who have spoken, and therefore, there seems to be nothing in the suggestion which has been made.


Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: Mr. Chairman, I think this discussion has shown that we should not go farther with the Bill, and therefore, I move, Sir, that you leave the chair.
Motion negatived.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR moved :: That section 8 be amended by adding the following words : ' Service of any writ, bill, legal process, notice or document whatsoever may be effectively made by mailing a copy thereof, duly registered, to the corporation by its name, as set forth in the first section of this Bill at the town of Edmonton, and by posting a copy thereof in the office of the Territorial Court in the said town of Edmonton.
H6 said : The mailing of a copy is not regarded by the legal profession as a very effective service, but the posting of a copy in the office of a clerk of the court is regarded as an effective service, because it will give notice to the clerk of the court and to lawyers doing business In the place where the notice is posted.


Mr. HYMAN.: Mr. Chirman, I thiuk I can make a suggestion which will cover the objection of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I suggest that the usual clause be put in that if the construction of the diocese is not commenced within two years and completed within five years and 15 per cent of the capital expended the charter shall lapse.
Section, as amended, agreed to, and Bill reported.
Mr. OLIVER moved the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I beg to move, if I can get a seconder :

That this Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six months.


Louis Philippe Demers: I will second that amendment.
House divided on the amendment (Mr. La-Riviere).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Hackett, .
Archambault,	Kaulbach,
Bazinet,	LaRivifire,
Bernier,	Lavell,
Bourassa,	Lavergne,
Bourbonnais,	Lefurgey,
Brook,	Lemieux,
Bruneau,	Loy,
Casgrain,	McLennan,
Champagne,	Malouin,
Costigan,	Martineau,
Delisle,	Morin,
Demers (St. John),	Murray,
Dugas,	Robinson (Elgin),
Ethier,	Rosamond,
Fitzpatrick,	Turcot,
Gauvreau,	Turgeon.-34.
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Barker,	Lennox,
Belcourt,	Lewis,
Birkett,	Logan,
Blair,	Macdonald,
Borden (Halifax),	Mackie,
Boyd,	MacLaren (Huntingdon)
Calvert,	MacLaren (Perth),
Campbell,	McCormick,
Cargill,	McCreary,
Charlton,	McEwen,
Christie.	McGugan,
Clarke,	McIntosh,
Copp,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Douglas,	Matheson,
Dyment,	Morrison,
Earle,	Mulock,
Erb,	Oliver,
Farquharson,	Prefontaine,
Fielding,	Proulx,
Fisher,	Reid (Restigouche),
Flint,	Riley,
Fowler,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Galliher,	Scott,
Gilmour,	Sifton,
Girard,	Sproule,
Gourley,	Stewart,
Hyman,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Tarte,
Johnston (Cardwell),	Tolmie,
Johnston (Lambton),	Tolton,
Kemp,	Tucker
Kendall.	Ward,
Kidd,	Wilmot,
Lang,	Wilson,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Wright.-71.
LeBlane,	
Amendment negatived.
Main motion agreed to, and Bill read1 the third time and passed.


Mr.   L@: 



BILL WITHDRAWN.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 127) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of George M. Depew.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 103) for the relief of Samuel Nelson Chipman (Mr. Flint), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On the preamble.
John Charlton: This Bill which I have in my hand entitled ' An Act for the relief of Samuel Nelson Chipman ' calls upon me as a member of the House to act in a judicial capacity. I was not present at the trial of this case; I heard none of the testi-moiiy; I do not know whether that testimony was properly presented and duly weighed or not. I do not suppose that there is a member of this House who is called upon to act in a co-ordinate capacity with the Senate in this matter who is in a position to exercise judicial functions in this case properly. Of course I shall not move that tbisl Bill shall not pass, but I protest as I have often protested against the method of granting divorces in this country. I say that we are not in a position to act judicially in this matter and that it is a scandalous thing-I use the word advisedly -it is a scandalous thing that this practice is adhered to in this Dominion of Canada. If a divorce is to be granted at all, of course the law must define what is the cause and what is the offence that will warrant the granting of that decree. If a divorce is granted because the provisions and requirements of the law have been transgressed, it is a question of evidence as to whether the party applying for the divorce is entitled to that divorce. I repeat that I know nothing about this evidence; I am in no position to act on this evidence as a judge ought act. The evidence comes to me in a sense in a hearsay way; I have not heard the evidence; I have not seen these parties arraigned ; I have not heard these parties questioned; I do not know what the method of carrying on this trial was, and I again repeat that if a divorce under any circumstances is proper to be granted; it should be granted by a legal tribunal. The whole system we have been pursuing in the Dominion since confederation is on a false basis, and I shall avail of the privilege, if I am spared another session, to bring a resolution before this House affirming the principle that the method of granting divorces in Canada is not a well-founded and proper method, and that if divorces are to be granted at all the law should define clearly what is the offence that will warrant the granting of the divorce, and that the

case shall be referred to a proper legal tribunal. .
Bill reported; read the third time, and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 158) to incorporate the Union Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Ingram.
Bill (No. 144) to incorporate the Metropolitan Bank.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 166) to incorporate the Securities Bank of Canada.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 167) respecting the Royal Marine Insurance Company.-Mr. Marcil (Bonaven-ture.)

Mr. GALLIHER.: I would ask leave to present the 10th report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills regarding the Dominion Association of Chartered Accountants, and move that it be received.


Mr. CLARKE.: I do not desire to offer any opposition to the Bill. I was present a short time at the meeting of the committee this morning. There was a discussion going on between parties interested on each side and there seemed to be a desire to arrive at a satisfactory compromise. Was such a compromise reached ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I think so.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I know that there is a great deal of opposition to the Bill. I have had a number of telegrams and communications with reference to It. It is claimed that there are already companies chartered under this same title, and objec-tiou is made to any other company being chartered under that name. I was not able to attend the meeting this morning, and 1 do not know what decision was arrived at, but if no satisfactory decision was reached between those who are opposing and those who are promoting the Bill, it should stand over for further consideration.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The question before the House is whether the report be received or not.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: As being in charge of the Bill and present at the committee, I may say that the subject was fully considered in committee, and so far as I understood, all the objections which any of those interested had to make were withdrawn.


Robert Laird Borden: Were there any amendments made ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I do not think so.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I was
present at the meeting this morning. I had been undecided how I should vote on this Bill, but when I saw such eminent counsel as Mr. Blake and Mr. Thomson, of Toronto, and many others, who appeared before the committee, come to an agreement among themselves and allow the Bill to pass harmoniously without an objection at all, I made up my mind to support the Bill.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member have leave to present the report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. BELCOURT moved that Bill (No. 160) to incoiporate the Dominion Association of Chartered Accountants be placed on the Order paper for immediate consideration, and that the House go into committee on the said Bill.
Robert Laird Borden: I thought there were some amendments to be made to satisfy those who were opposed to the Bill.


William Alfred Galliher: As chairman of the committee, allow me to inform the hon. gentleman that in the committee this morning the suggestion was made that certain names be added from the province of Ontario, but after due consideration, the parties on both sides practically came to an understanding, and the Bill passed without any amendment whatever except some amendment of a clerical kind in the punctuation. The Bill went through without opposition, and the parties who were present to suggest amendments, said everything was perfectly satisfactory.


Robert Laird Borden: Did those who were representing associations, incorporated under provincial laws, assent to the Bill in its present shape ?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would like to repeat the question put by the hon. the leader of the opposition. Is it understood that the parties objecting to the Bill have withdrawn their objections ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I understand so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If it is clearly understood that those who appeared before the committee have withdrawn their objections, I have no more to say.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I may say to the hon. Finance Minister that I have seen the gentleman who abted for the parties opposed to the Bill, and he says that all the objections have been withdrawn on the understanding that clause 3 is amended by making some changes in the punctuation as it appeared in the original Bill.

On section 3,


Robert Laird Borden: This clause appeared to have been subjected to some amendment in the punctuation. I do not know that there is very much use in changing the punctuation. I would suggest that the words ' such others ' be struck out on the fourth line and in place thereof be substituted the words ' any other persons.' This makes better English and the meaning clearer.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported; read the third time, and passed.


Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that Ebenezer Wheatley, of Charlottetown, P.E.I., made two shipments of mutton in November, 1898, from Halifax to London, in cold storage, by ss. 'Halifax ' and ss. ' City of St. John,' of the Furness-Withy Company's line ?
2.	Is the government further aware that both of these shipments reached their destinations in bad order, the meat being rotten, and was ordered to be burned by the health authorities of London, at the expense of the shipper ?
3.	Were the boats of this company subsidized by the government, and required to provide cold storage ; and if so, under whose supervision was it done, and what guarantee was held by the government that such cold storage would be efficient ?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to see that Mr. Wheatley is indemnified for his loss on those shipments ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fislier) :: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. The subsidy was granted under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture.
4.	A clause in the steamship companies agreements states that neither the government nor the steamship owners shall be responsible for the cargo in cold storage from any cause whatever, but that every reasonable precaution shall be taken by the steamship companies to protect the cargo. The report with regard to this contract made to the department was that the Fur-ness-Withy Company were not providing the accommodations as agreed, and they were required to refund a portion of the amount.


P.E.I. RAILWAY-SOUTHPORT TO MURRAY HARBOUR.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Were tenders, by public advertisement, invited for the construction of the railway from


Edward Frederick Clarke: Southport to Murray Harbour in the province of Prince Edward Island ?
2.	If so, was it by notice in the public press or by posters ?
3.	If by notice in the press, in how many papers was it inserted ? What were the names of tho papers, number of times inserted, and dates of issue ?
4.	How many tenders were received, the names of tenderers, and the amount of their offers, respectively ?
5.	To whom was the contract awarded ?
6.	Does the contract include the entire cost of grading, bridge building, track laying, ballasting, erecting station buildings, and all other expenses incidental to completing the line ?
7.	When will qaid railway he complete, according to contract ?	.
8.	Has the government decided as to whether the southern terminus of the railway will be at Murray River Bridge or Murray Harbour south ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes, tenders were invited for about 114 miles of the branch railway on the Prince Edward Island Railway from Mutch's Point towards Murray harbour, on the 15th of December, 1899.
2.	By newspaper advertisement.
3.	It was'inserted in five newspapers in
New Brunswick and five in Prince Edward Island. The names of the newspapers are as follows:	New Brunswick, 'Telegraph,'
St. John; 'Globe,' St. John; 'Gazette,' St. John; 'Railway News,' St. John; 'Transcript,' Moncton. Prince Edward Island, 'Patriot,' Charlottetown; 'Examiner,' Charlottetown; 'Guardian,' Charlottetown; 'Pioneer Journal,' Summerside; ' Islander,' Charlottetown.
Number of times advertisement was inserted is ns follows :	St. John 'Telegraph,'
seven insertions; St. John ' Globe,' seven insertions ; St. John ' Gazette,' seven insertions; St. John ' Railway News,' one insertion; Moncton 'Transcript,' eight insertions.
Advertisements sent out from Moncton on 15th December, 1899, up to and including 23rd December.
In Prince Edward Island newspapers, advertisements	inserted from 15th November, to 18th December, 1899, as follows :	'Patriot,' Charlottetown; 'Examiner,' Charlottetown; 'Guardian,' Charlottetown; every other day or fourteen insertions. each.	' Pioneer Journal,' Summerside; ' Islander,' Charlottetown; weekly, or four insertions each. Tlie 'Transcript' published the advertisement on the following dates :	December, 1899 ; 15th, 16th, 18th,
19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd. In the information received from Moncton, there is nothing to show the dates of insertion in other papers.
4.	Five tenders were received as follows : From George E. Full, Willard Kitchen, John W. McManus, J. B. McManus, Thomas Campbell. I cannot tell the hon. gentleman what any of the offers would be. There was a schedule of prices, which have not been made up, or which I have not been able to procure from Moncton.

5.	To John W. McManus, 'but on account of severe illness and consequent inability to conduct the work, the contract was cancelled, by Order in Council, and was awarded to the next lowest tenderer, W. Kitchen.
6.	The contract does not include tracklaying, ballasting, nor erecting station buildings, but it covers the cost of grading, bridgebuilding and all other expenses incidental to completing the line to subgrade.
7.	The date for completion named in the contract is December 31st, 1900, for the 111 mile section, but it has been extended to July, 1902.
8.	No, the government has not fully decided where the southern terminus of the railway will be.
Hon. Mr. HA6GART. If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I would like, in order that I may understand the answer, to ask the minister whether he said that the prices were not made up yet in these contracts V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said they had not yet been received from Moncton, though I had called for them. I put off answering the question lioping to receive them, but have not received them yet. I presume that they would be made up in order/ to decide the tender, but I .have not the information from Moncton.


NEWCASTLE POST OFFICE-RESIGNATION OF MR. RICKARD.
Mr. WARD asked :: 1.	Kas William Rickard resigned the position of postmaster at Newcastle, Ontario ?
2.	If so, when was such resignation received ?
S.	Has his resignation been accepted ?
4. If so, when ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: Mr. William Rickard, postmaster of Newcastle, Ontario, tendered his resignation of that office on the 3rd of March last. He wrote again on the 29th April, urging the acceptance of his resignation, and it was accepted on the 2nd instant.


IMMIGRATION TO CANADA, 1902.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROSS (Ontario)-by Mr. Schell-asked : '
1.	How many immigrants have come to Canada from January 1st to May 1st, 1902 ?
2.	How many arrived each month since January 1st, 1902 ?
3.	What is their nationality ?
4.	In what part of Canada did they settle ?
5.	Has the government any knowledge of the amount of money brought into the country by said immigrants ?
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: 1.	24,122.
2.	January, 1373 ; February, 1,997 ; March, 7,583 ; April, 13,169.
3.	British, 5,164; Continent of Europe,
7,478 ; American, 11,480.	.
4.	Returns to the first of May are not complete. Up to the first of April the proportion is approximately as follows :-Maritime provinces, 4 per cent; Quebec, 9 per cent; Ontario, 12 per cent; Manitoba, British Columbia and the Territories, 75 per cent.
5.	The value of settlers effects entered at customs ports during the first four months of the present calendar year is $1,261,289, which, according to the records, are almost entirely those of immigrants from the United States. Thus the average per head, including men, women and children, is over $109. The amount of money in the possession of immigrants from the United States is noi of record, but correspondence in the department shows the amount is considerable.
Regarding the amount of money possessed by immigrants coming from the British Isles and the Continent, the department has no means of ascertaining definitely the amount possessed by them. In connection with bonuses paid, the only class regarding whom there is a restriction as to money are those who come from a portion of Austria and with respect to them it is found that for the past two years the amount possessed by them, as shown by the returns of moneys exchanged at the seaport from which they sailed, averages from $50 to $200 each. If all Continental and British immigrants are possessed of a similar average, which is a reasonable conclusion as many of those who come from England as well as other countries are possessed of a very large amount of money, the total amount possessed by those who have arrived during the past four months at Canadian seaports and who were destined for points in Canada, would be not less than $1,264,200.



NEWFOUNDLAND AND CONFEDERATION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GOURLEY-by Mr. Clarke-asked :
1.	Are any negotiations pending between the government of Canada and that of Newfoundland, looking to the province of Newfoundland entering the confederation ?
2.	Has there been any correspondence on this subject between the said governments or any member thereof on this subject since the last session of this parliament ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: There is no correspondence now going on between the government of Canada and that of Newfoundland looking to the province of Newfoundland entering the confederation. There has been no communication, either through the government or any member thereof.



MEDALS FOR THE ' ROTHESAY BLUES.'

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GOURLEY-by Mr. Clarke-asked :
(a.) Have any petitions been received by the government in reference to granting medals to the 1 2 3 4 5 Rothesay Blues,' a volunteer rifle company with headquarters at Truro, who were en-
[Stage Direction]
gaged in active service during the Fenian raid of 3S66, or were called out for that purpose ?
(b.) Has the government had any correspondence with any officer or member of that company in reference to granting such medals ?
(c.) Has any application been received for such medals ; if so, from whom ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
(Hon. Sydney Fisher). So far as the records in this department show (a.) No.
(b.) Tes.
(c.) Yes. From Lieut. George Albert Layton.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GOURLEY-by Mr. Clarke-asked :
(a.) Have any petitions been received by the government in reference to granting medals to the 2nd Colchester regiment, who were called out for active service during the Fenian raid of 1S66 ?
(1>.) Has the government had any correspondence with any officer or member of that regiment in reference to granting such medals ?
(c.) Has any application been received for such medals ; if so, from whom ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
(Hon. Sydney Fisher). So far as tilie records in this department show :
(a.) No.
(b.) Yes.
(c.) Yes. From Major W. S. Hamilton, Capt. James Hamilton, Lieut. James Hamilton, Sergeant Aaron Boomer, Sergeant Charles Moore and Privates Alexander Boomer, Thos. Boomer, Isaac Brlnton, John A. Brinton, William Clarke, James Dens-more, William Augustus Hamilton, Charles C. Lockhart, James McLellan and Ezra Stevens.

Mr. WARD asked :: 1.	Does Samuel Clegg, of Peterborough, hold any position under the governmemt, either in the Department of Public Works or Railways and Canals ?
2.	If so, in which department ?
S. What, is the date of his appointment ?
4.	What amount has been paid him for salary and expenses since appointed ?
5.	What amount has been expended under his superintendence since appointed ?
6.	What are the particulars of work done, and cost of the work at each place ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. (Hon. J. I. Tarte).: 1.	Yes.
2.	Employed and paid by both departments.
3.	1st March, 1901.
4.	Salary, $1,600 a year, half paid by each department.
Amounts paid by Public Works Department :	Salary, $866.66; expenses, $40.47.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Total, $907.13. Report on works done to 30th June last at page 225 part 4 of Annual Report.
5.	$1,330.85.



VISIT OF DR. SEWARD WEBB, TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	What amount was received by the government for the conveyance of Dr. Seward Webb and his party from Charlottetown to Summer-side over the Prince Edward Island Railway in the autumn of 1901 ?
2.	Was Dr. Webb's party carried by a special train ?
3.	On what day of the week was this train used ; and if on Sunday, who authorized the working of this train on the Sabbath day ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: 1.	No charge was made for conveying Dr. Seward Webb and his party from Charlottetown to Summerside over the Prince Edward Island Railway in 1901, as a matter of usual and ordinary courtesy between railways.
2.	Dr. Webb's party was carried by special train.
3.	The train was fun on Sunday on the authority of the general manager.



POSTMASTER, BATHURST TOWN, N.B.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. EMMERSON-by Mr. Campbell-asked :
1.	Is the Postmaster General aware that the postmaster at Bathurst Town, N.B., Mr. Henry Bishop, allows persons outside the government employ to use the post office as a place of business ?
2.	Does the Postmaster General know that the post office at Bathurst Town is kept closed from 12.30 until 2 o'clock every day, to the inconvenience of the public ?
3.	Does the Postmaster General know that the postmaster at Bathurst Town frequently permits outsiders to lounge for hours inside the delivery and assorting room, and in touch with mail matter to and from the office ?
4.	Does the Postmaster General know that the postmaster, as agent for American club men, frequently absents himself from his office without leave, and leaves' the same in charge of a young girl or boy, who are incompet.ent
5.	Is the Postmaster General aware that, as a result of the postmaster of Bathurst being acent for American fishing clubs, the post office has been the scene of several unseemly broils between the postmaster, the river guides, and American anglers ?
6.	Should these charges he formulated, will an investigation be granted ; and if proved, will Postmaster Bishop be dismissed ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Win. Mnlock).: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. No.
In regard to the sixth question any charges made against tlie postmaster will receive careful consideration.



JUNIOR JUDGE FOR LEEDS AND GRENVILLE.

Mr. SPROULE asked :: 1.	Has a junior judge been appointed lor the united counties of Leeds and Grenville ? If so, who ?
2.	If no appointment has been made, is it the intention of the government to make an early appointment there, and whom ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: No one has been appointed to the vacant judgeship. An appointment will in all probability be made in the early future.



THE COASTING TRADE OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for :	*
Resuming adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fitzpatrick that Bill (No. 165) repecting the coasting trade of Canada be now read a third time, and the proposed motion of Mr. Charlton in amendment thereto,
Amendment negatived, and main motion agreed to.
Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 152) further to amend the provisions of chapter 183 of the Revised Statutes with respect to the Halifax Industrial School and St. Patrick's Home at Halifax, (Tlie Minister of Justice), read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1.
Robert Laird Borden: What change was made in respect to the age of offenders ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The only change made is to increase from sixteen to eighteen years the age at which a boy may be incarcerated, and to decrease the period of incarceration from two years to one. At present the period may be not exceeding five years and not less than two. The change makes it not less than one year.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: What is the effect of the section repealed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The original statute, section 62, of chapter 183, was amended by section 35, of chapter 37, of the statutes of 1890. Section 35, chapter 37, of the statutes of 1890 provides :
Section 62 of the said Act is hereby repealed, and the following substituted therefor:. 'No such sentence shall be pronounced unless or until provision has been ma le by the municipality, within which such conviction is had, out of its funds, for the support of boys so sentenced, at the rate of not les3 than sixty dollars per annum for each boy.'
The legislature of Nova Scotia has provided that the maintenance of these boys or girls, as the case may be, shall be contributed half by the municipality and half by the province.
Bill reported; read the third time, and passed.



FRUIT MARKS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 136) to amend the Fruit Marks Act, 1901.-The Minister of Agriculture.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I may say that I am quite willing to move that these amendments be agreed to, but, in consequence of these amendments, I think some verbal alterations will have to be made in section 10. The first amendment is to section 2 of the Bill, which was passed by this House. In addition to the words ' No. 1 ' the senators want to put in ' or XXX ' which I think is quite right. That comes in the fourth line of section 6 of the original Act. Then, the senators, move in amendment to section 10 to strike out the word ' inspectors.' Section 10 of the Act says:
Every person who wilfully alters, effaces or obliterates wholly or partially, or causes to be altered, effaced or obliterated, any inspector's marks on any package which has undergone inspection, shall incur a penalty of forty dollars.
1 have no objection at all to that, but I wish to insert, after ' who ' in the first line of section 10, the words * not being an inspector,' so as to provide that an inspector may efface certain marks when he finds that they have been wrongfully placed upon a package. Otherwise this amendment would interfere witli section 9 of the same Act. I therefore move :
That these amendments be concurred in, but that in section 10 of the said Act, in'the'first line, after the word ' who,' the words ' not being an inspector ' be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['The present bridge requires to toe rebuilt and a swing bridge is necessary.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 2.55 a.m., Tuesday.', 'Tuesday, May 13, 1902.']
Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I would like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and of the lion. Minister of Labour (Mr. Mulock) to the dispatches which appeared in the morning papers as to the continuation of the strike amongst the employees of the loco-

motive works at Kingston. I notice a dispatch in the Montreal ' Gazette ' to-day dealing with the matter, and it is as follows :
Ottawa, May 11-(Special).-A report which comes from Kingston is to the effect that aliens are being imported into that town to take the place of striking machinists in the locomotive works. It is said that these aliens are employed on the locomotives which are being constructed there for the Intercolonial Railway. The attention of the government will probably be called to the report to-morrow.
In this morning's ' Citizen ' there is a more lengthy despatch, as follows :
Kingston, May 11-(Special).-No settlement has yet been arrived at between the striking machinists and the Kingston locomotive works. The company, contrary to the provisions of the alien labour law, is importing foreigners to take the place of the strikers to do work on government contract locomotives. Ralph Smith, M.P., president of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, was agreed upon as arbitrator of the conflicting interests, but the company refused to be bound by his decision; therefore, Mr. Smith refused to act further.
Mr. Robert Glockling, of the Ontario Labour Bureau, has been here at the instance of Hon. Frank Latchford, Minister of Public Works, to endeavour to bring about a settlement, but has been unsuccessful. Mr. Glockling, it is said, has reported to his minister that the company is entirely to blame, and if a speedy settlement is not made, the chances of the Liberal candidate. Mr. E. J. B. Pease, for re-election, are decidedly slim.


Mr.  C. A.@: Holmes, organizer of the International machinists' union, is still here looking after the interests of the strikers.
It is understood that the Minister of Labour, Hon. Wm. Mulock, will step into the breach at the solicitation of the machinists and depute Mr. Mackenzie King, Deputy Minister of Labour, to visit the city to enforce the alien labour law, and also strive to effect an immediate settlement of the differences.
I would like to ask the right hou. leader of the government or the lion. Minister of Labour what special effort has been made to prevent the importation of aliens into Kingston to do work in connection with these locomotives, and if their attention has been drawn to the fact that aliens are coming in, and also to know if the hou. Minister of Labour has moved' in the direction of sending his deputy up to try and bring about a settlement of the dispute which so unhappily exists between the machinists and their employers. It seems to me, that, in view of the fact that the government gave a contract for twenty locomotives, without tender, to the locomotive works at Kingston, they are specially called upon to see that in carrying out a contract of this kind, union wages are paid to the men engaged in the work. If the statements made in both of these papers are true, I submit respectfully that it is a duty incumbent upon the government to see to it that the men who are out on strike for a fair wage shall not be
handicapped by aliens being permitted to take their places in contravention of the Alien Labour Act. I would like to have a statement from the First Minister, or from the Minister of Labour, as to what has been done already and as to what the government intend to do in the future in reference to the matter.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Mulock).: The government has received no information from any source that there is any infraction of the Alien Labour Act, at Kingston or that such infraction is intended. Neither the government nor any member of it, nor the Department of Labour, has beeen asked to intevene by either party for the settlement of the dispute, and until invited it would not be likely to produce any good results should the department intervene.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



Robert Laird Borden: Sir. Speaker. Before you leave the Chair I would like to refer to the subject of the approaching conference in London at which all me representatives of the self-governing colonies are to meet in conference with His Majesty's government. The correspondence which has taken place between the Canadian government and His Slajesty's government has already been brought down, and it has been referred to in parliament on one or two occasions. I think it well to refer to the terms of that correspondence, and to point out certain facts in connection with the attitude which the Prime Slinister has taken with respect to the subjects which are to be discussed. The first document which appears on the file brought down to the House, is a letter from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to His Excellency the Governor General and is as follows ;
My Lord,-It has become my duty to inform you that the Coronation of His Most Gracious Majesty King Edward VII. has been fixed to take place on the 26th of June, 1902. It is His Majesty's desire that the great self-governing colonies of the empire should be represented on this occasion by their leading statesmen, and I have accordingly to request you to be so good as to convey to the Premier of Canada our invitation, on the part of His Majesty's government, to visit this country in June next. It is not anticipated that the duration of the actual ceremonies in connection with the Coronation will extend beyond a few days, hut it would probably be convenient to Sir Wilfrid Laurier to arrive in England a few days beforehand, and His Majesty's government hope therefore that he will consider himself their guest for a fortnight from the date of his arrival. It would be an additional satisfaction to them if Sir Wilfrid Laurier should be accom-


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


MAT 12. 1902
[Stage Direction]
panied by some lady member of his family. It will be readily understood that on an occasion like this it is necessary that all arrangements should be made some months in advance, and "without therefore desiring to press for an immediate answer, His Majesty's government would be glad to learn at Sir Wilfrid Laurier's early convenience whether it will be in his power to accept their invitation. The question of representative detachments of troops from the various colonies is also under the consideration of His Majesty's government, and whenever a decision has been arrived at on this subject I shall address you in a further despatch.
The next document is a cablegram from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to His Excellency the Governor General, dated London, Jan. 23, 1902, and is as follows :
Mr. Chamberlain to Lord Minto.
.	London, January 23, 1902.
It is proposed by His Majesty's government to take advantage of the presence of the premiers at Coronation to discuss with them the questions of political relations between the mother country and the colonies. Imperial defence, commercial relations of the empire and other matters of general interest.
Should your ministers desire to submit definite proposals or resolutions on any of the above questions or should they wish to suggest any further subject for discussion, I should be glad to be informed of purport by cable in order that the other governments can be communicated with.
With view to proposed conference, hope your premier will be able to remain for a short time, say three weeks, after ceremony, as the guest of His Majesty's government.
Please telegraph reply. Despatch follows.
(Signed) CHAM BE 'iL AIN.
To that the following answer was sent by His Excellency the Governor General, on February 3, 1902.
Lord Minto to Mr. Chamberlain.
Ottawa, February 3, 1902. Referring to your despatch of the 27th December, my government accepts invitation extended to Prime Minister to attenA Coronation. He expects to sail about 10th of June, accompanied by Lady Laurier, but exact dale cannot yet be fixed.
Referring to the several questions mentioned in your despatch of 23rd January, I he only one which in the opinion of my ministers, gives promise of useful discussion is that of the commercial relations between the various sections of the empire. The political relations now existing between the mother country and the great self-governing colonies, and particularly Canada, are regarded by my ministers as entirely satisfactory, with the exception of a few minor details, and they do not anticipate that in the varying conditions of the colonies, there can be any scheme of defence applicable to all.
In the opinion of my ministers, there is thus but a limited range of subjects upon which the contemplated conference can be productive of useful action. Nevertheless my ministers realize the desirability of taking advantage of every opportunity for the discussion by the public men of the mother country and the colonies of questions of Imperial interest, and 148
Canada's representative will be prepared to give respectful consideration to any proposals, that may be submitted by His Majesty's government or by the representatives of other colonies.
It is to be noted that the despatch promised by the communication from the Secretary of ?onoe ,for the Colonies of the 23rd January, IJ02, has not yet arrived in Ottawa so far as I understand the situation. I made inquiry in regard to that only a few days ago, and I was informed by the right hon. Prime Minister that no further communication had been received from the imperial government up to that time. Now, the government of Canada have laid it down in their answer to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that there is practically only one subject on which any useful discussion can take place, and they state that that subject is the question of the commercial relations between the various sections of the empire. I do not know whether or not the answer which has been sent by the government has had the effect of breaking off the correspondence with the imperial authorities on this subject. One would be inclined to take that view, inasmuch as the despatch promised in the cable message of the Secretary of State for the colonies has not yet arrived.
With regard to the various subjects mentioned by the Colonial Secretary as suitable subjects for discussion, I wish to say, so far as the question of imperial defence is concerned, that there seems to be no reason why this government should not discuss that question with the imperial authorities. As I have pointed out before in this House aud m other places, I am ready to uphold as strongly as any one, the necessity of the control by Canada of the expenditure of our public moneys and of the question of imperial defence relating to Canada. But holding this view, I see no reason why we should not be open to discuss that question with the imperial authorities. There are three possible futures before this country. One is existence as an independent nation ; another is absorption in or annexation to the United States of America ; the third is a continuance of the relations which at present exist between Canada to the mother country. The last is the future condition of this country to which I for one look forward as likely to be permanent; and so long as the tie which binds us to the mother country continues to exist, it seems to me that we must take into consideration the question of the defence of this country ; and in connection with that, there is no reason why we should not at least discuss with the mother country, when invited in a courteous way to do so, the question of imperial defence. ' We must not shut our eyes to the fact that we participate in all the benefits and advantages resulting from the existence of the British army and navy and the influence which they make felt throughout all the world. We. as British subjects, hold ourselves entitled to the protection of the Brit-

[Stage Direction]
ish flag in every corner of the world. While that condition of affairs continues, while we enjoy these rights, while we have the advantages which the British consular system gives us, there seems no good reason why we should not at a conference of this kind say to the mother country in a courteous way that we are prepared, while reserving to ourselves all possible liberty of action, to discuss that subject or any other subject which the mother country suggests for consideration.	.
Coming more particularly to the subject which this government say they do propose to discuss at *the conference, that is, the question of the commercial relations between the different portions of the empire,
I wish to take the time of the House for a few moments in reviewing the position which the two great political parties in this country have taken during the past five or six years with regard to that question.
In the first place, I take it that all public men in this country have conceded that it would be a great advantage to Canada to [DOT]enjoy a preference in the markets of the mother country. I could weary the House, if I desired to do so. with very voluminous extracts from the speeches of lion, gentlemen on the other side of the House with regard to that subject: but I will content myself by referring merely to one or two which I have under my band. In the campaign of 1890, the Prime Minister, in speaking of preferential trade, said :
Just see what a great advantage it would he to Canada if the wheat, cheese and butter, which we would send to England should he met in England wfth a preference over similar products of other nations. The possibilities are immense.
The present Minister of Customs, on the 27th of April, 1897, in this House said : Every one will admit if Canada can obtain a preference in the markets of Great Britain, Canada would be very glad to receive it, and every legitimate means put forward to secure that would be hailed with pleasure by both sides.
The hon. gentleman who sits for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) said in this House on the 23rd of March, 1896 :
If we could have preferential treatment in the English market for our breadstuff3, a preferential treatment sufficiently pronounced to amount to a substantial advantage, it would be a dream that would go a long way towards reconciling the people of this country to such an arrangement.
That is an arrangement, as I understand it, for preferential trade within the empire. Then, the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has more than once, I think, expressed his view that a system of preferential trade would be of advantage to this country; and the present premier of Ontario, the Hon. George W. Ross, has in very strong terms on more than one occasion dwelt at great length upon the considerable advantages that would accrue to this coun-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
try from a preference in the markets of the mother country.	„
Now, granting that such a preference would be of advantage to this country, the next question that presents itself to our minds is as to the practicability of procuring such a preference as part of a scheme of mutual preferential trade within the empire. The record of the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches is not a very consistent record with regard to that particular branch of the subject. Up to a recent period the right hon. leader of the House, speaking for the party he leads, expressed the belief that this was an entirely practicable scheme. For example, on the 17th of March, 1896, shortly previous to the election at which his party came into power, he used the following language :
Mv hope is-nay, my conviction is-that on the 23rd June, the Liberal party will be at the head of the polls, and that it will be the Liberal party with its policy of a revenue tariff that will send commissioners to London to arrange for a basis of preferential trade.
It is quite dear that the right hon. gentleman, having these views and making that pledge to the country on behalf of his party, thought it was perfectly practicable to secure and carry out a scheme of preferential trade within the empire. He entertained the same opinion even at a later date, because on the 19th of July, 1899, in this House, he used the following language :
I say at once it is the duty of the government of Canada by all means in Its power and as soon as it is passible to do so, to get preferential treatment in the markets of Great Britain.
The Minister of Finance and the hon. member for North Norfolk, in 1896 and 1897, expressed their belief that the obtaining of such a preference was impossible, but they were not in a position to speak for the Liberal party in the same way in which the Prime Minister spoke; and therefore we must assume that up to 1899, at least the Prime Minister regarded the proposition as a practicable one.
The next question is to what extent and in what way has the government carried out the pledge which was made by the leader of the House in the campaign of 1896, immediately before the election at which his party came into power ? Let us run very briefly over the legislation which has taken ! place with regard to mutual preferential trade since that date.
In 1897, the government introduced legislation by which a preference was offered to 1 all countries throughout the world whicli admitted the products of Canada on terms which on the whole are as favourable to Canada as the terms of the Canadian reciprocal tariff are to the countries to which it may apply.' This legislation was put forward in debate by some members of the government as not being a preference to the mother country ait all, but as a step towards

free trade and nothing more. For example, the lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce, speaking on the 26th of April, 1897, said :
But X say with respect to the offer we now make that it Is not a preferential offer at all in the true legal sense of the word. That offer is open to all the world. The Americans may avail themselves of it and so may the Germans and the Belgians. The whole world are welcome to avail themselves of it.
Afterwards in the same debate, he said :
I tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. McNeill) that this is an offer of preferential trade to all countries that are qualified to come in.
His whole argument went to show that this really was not an offer of preferential trade to the mother country, but a step towards the accomplishment of a policy of free trade in this country.
Sir Louis Davies, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, took the same ground. He said :
The premier took that stand which the Finance Minister took, which every member of the cabinet took and holds to-day, that these treaties did not apply and did not bind Canada. The premier took the stand, which is now carried out in every customs-house in Canada, that these treaties do not bind Canada, and that German and Belgium goods are not entitled to preferential treatment because of these treaties1, You cannot read anything of that kind into this proposal, and it is a violently forced construction to say that the resolution does	
It attaches no terms which are not common to Groat Eritain and to all countries.
The view which the right lion, gentlemau himself put forward in the debate did not quite agree with that which his colleagues expressed and which I have just quoted. The right hon. gentleman said on the 28th of May, 1897 :
We had to look around in the world as to see what countries would be admitted under this preferential tariff, and having looked over the world, from- the one pole to the other, wo saw only one nation in a position to take advantage of that tariff, and that was Great Britain and possibly New South Wales
In this connection, I may say, that it was pointed out to the government on that occasion that the German and Belgium treaties prevented this government from passing that legislation in such a way as to exclude those countries from the preference. The right hon. gentleman admitted that this legislation was intended practically as a preference to the mother country, but the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Sir Louis Davies) and other members of the government stoutly insisted this was not the case, and, therefore, that the German and Belgium treaties offered no obstacle whatever, and as a proof of the soundness of their views they pointed to the fact that the custom houses in this country were then granting the preference to goods from Great Britain and were denying it to goods from Germany 148*
and Belgium. It is needless to reply that the view of these hon. gentlemen proved to be entirely unfounded, and this government was finally compelled to refund to the importers of goods from Germany and Belgium, imported before the German and Belgium treaties were denounced, every dollar of additional duty which had been collected on these goods over and above those collected on imports from Great Britain. In short the law officers of the Crown pronounced against the view put forward by this government, and the goods imported from Germany and Belgium became, until the treaties were denounced, entitled to the benefit of the preferential tariff. The German and Belgium treaties were denounced by the imperial government, and in the following year, 1898, as a result of that action, the preference was put in a shape, which the government in 1897 said they did not intend it to assume. It was put in the form of a preference to certain named portions of the British Empire and such other portions of the empire as should enact tariffs which, on the whole, were as favourable to Canada as was the tariff of Canada to the products and manufactures of these particular countries. In that position the tariff stands at present.
Having thus granted a preference to the mother country, let us look at the results both as regards the mother country and our trade relations with Germany and Belgium, more particularly Germany. In the first place, the German government has continued to extend to all portions of the British Empire, except Canada, the most-favoured nation treatment, which admits the products of those portions of the empire under the minimum German tariff, while the products of Canada are subjected to the maximum tariff of that country. So far as we know from any documents ever laid on the Table of this House, this course has practically been assented to by our government. In fact the hon. Minister of Finance, in reply to the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) last year, almost justified the action of Germany in excluding Canada from the more favoured nation treatment. I wish to point', if it has not already been brought to the attention of this government, to what was said by Lord Salisbury when he caused these treaties to he denounced. In the language of Lord Salisbury, those treaties were denounced in the general interests of the empire-a fact to which the attention of this government does not seem to have been directed-but the result of the denunciation of those treaties, in the general interests of the empire, has been to exclude Canada from the benefit of the most-favoured nation treatment, which to every other portion of the empire has since been granted by Germany. There can be no doubt about that, and it is a remarkable thing in this connection that we are obliged to go to the papers laid before the parliament of Australia for the purpose of getting informa-
[Stage Direction]
tion on this point. We have asked this government in vain on more than one occasion to lay the papers relating to this matter on the Table, and it is only by going to the papers laid on the table of the Australian Senate, as far back as November, 1901, that we are able to understand the situation with regard to this particular subject and other cognate matters which directly affect the interests of this country. To get the necessary and proper information, which will enable us to understand whether or not the action of this government has been in the public interest, we are obliged to go to other colonies or to the imperial parliament itself. And this information which we are thus obliged to seek ought to have been laid on the Table of this House long ago. What do we find ? We find that Lord Salisbury-I am quoting from documents laid on the table of the Australia Senate in November, 1901-in his despatch instructing the minister at Berlin to denounce this treaty, uses the following language :
Eeyond this the provisions of article 7 of the treaty of 1865 quoted above constitute a barrier against the internal fiscal arrangements of the British Empire, which is inconsistent with the close ties of commercial purposes which subsist and should be consolidated between the mother country and her colonies. Under these circumstances Her Majesty's government find themselves compelled to abrogate the treaty which is no longer compatible with the general interests of the empire.
That makes if clear if words can do so that the imperial government, in denouncing this treaty, took the ground that they did so, not especially in the interests of Canada, but in the general interests of the empire. Further than that, he says in the same despatch referring to thet same article :
No such article is contained in the treaty of 1865 between Great Britain and the Zollverein, and the consequence is that certain of the British colonies which are all comprised within its operations find themselves committed by treaty to a commercial policy which Is not in accordance with the views of the responsible colonial ministers or adequate to the requirements of the people.
In the despatch to the minister at Brussels, the same language is used. He says :
And thus the provisions of article 15 of the treaty of 1862 quoted above constituted a barrier against the fiscal arrangements of the British Empire, which is inconsistent with the close ties of commercial intercourse which subsist and should be consolidated between Great Britain and her colonies. Under the circumstan-stances Her Majesty's government find themselves compelled to terminate a treaty which is no longer consistent with the interests of the British Empire.
So it is plain from these documents, laid on the Table of the Australian Senate, that the treaty was denounced, not specially in the interests of Canada, but in the general interests of the British Empire. Further
Robert Laird Borden: t
than that, we find a statement in the despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor General of the Australian Commonwealth, which is significant. perhaps, in this connection. On the 25th February, 1901, Mr. Barton presented a memorandum to His Excellency the Governor General of the Commonwealth and asked him to communicate that memorandum to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I will not read the memorandum, but I may say, in a few words, it was for the purpose of ascertaining wliat would be the probable result if the Commonwealth of Australia should enact a tariff granting a preference to the mother country. The inquiry was whether or not it would result in the Commonwealth of Australia being excluded from the most favoured nation treatment by the German Empire. And the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in dealing with that question in the despatch to the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia, uses these words :
A copy of the 'correspondence will be forwarded to the Governor General of Canada with the request that he will ask his ministers for a report as to the consequences of the action taken by them not merely as regards their trade with Germany, but also as regards Iheir trade generally with the rest of the world.
And I suppose that a communication of that kind has been received by this government, and that an answer has been sent to that communication. But we can only know the fact of such communication having been received and an answer having probably been sent by referring to documents that, three months ago were laid on the Table of the Australian Commonwealth, and which, at the commencement of this session, should have been laid on the Table of this House. It would be interesting to know what the answer of the government is with respect to this question. I presume that this government has received the request of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and has sent some answer, but this House, up to the present time, is absolutely ignorant on the subject.
Now, let us see on what grounds the action of Germany has been based in excluding Canada from the treatment that Germany extends to the rest of the British Empire. The despatches are not upon the Table of this House, but upon the Table of the Senate of Australia. I will not trouble the House with reading the des patches in full, but may quote a line or two from them which indicates as distinctly as possible that the denunciation of these treaties and the consequent result that the preference of 1897 extends to Great Britain and other portions of the empire and not to Germany and Belgium are solely responsible for the circumstance that Canada, at the present time, is excluded from the advantages of the most favoured nation treatment by Germany. Since the denunciation

of the treaty of 1865 between Great Britain and Germany, the latter country has granted to the United Kingdom and to other British colonies the same advantages as are granted to the most favoured nations, but has excluded Canada by name from such advantages, and has assigned as the reason that Canada-and now I quote the language of the German Chancellor-
Has accorded to imports from Great Britain customs advantages which she is not prepared to extend to imports from Germany.
Now, what does that amount to ? It amounts to this-that Canada is excluded from the favoured treatment accorded by Germany to other British colonies. Yet that has been occasioned by the denunciiftion of these treaties, which denunciation was carried out, as Lord Salisbury stated twice in his despatches, not in the interests of Canada but in the general interests of the empire. Would you not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that a fact such as that would have justified this government in making the strongest possible protest in being thus excluded by Germany from the treatment which she affords to the other portions of the empire ? Would you not suppose that not only this government but the imperial government as well, would have taken the strongest and most vigorous measures to assert that a policy of this kind adopted in the general interests of the empire, should not be made occasion for excluding one portion of the empire from the benefits that other portions receive ? These treaties may have been denounced at the instance of Canada, but not of Canada alone, for, if I remember the facts correctly, Canada had the support of other portions of the empire in the position she took. As a result of the denunciation of these treaties and of the legislation proposed by this government in 1898. Canada is excluded from the most favoured nation treatment, and remains excluded until this day-and remains excluded, so far as any information before the House shows, without a single word of protest by this government, without a line of which we have knowledge from any official document, making the vigorous remonstrance which should have been made as soon as these facts came to the attention of the government.
But this is not the worst of this matter. The government so framed their tariff of 1898, following in that respect the lines of the tariff of 1897. that Germany, while holding up this Canadian preference to imports from Great Britain as a reason for excluding us from her markets, has practically enjoyed a great measure of the advantages of the very preference of which she complains. We are excluded by Germany from the advantages of the most favoured nation treatment and are subjected to the effects of the maximum tariff of Germany. Yet Germany, at the same time, is sending her goods to Great Britain
in large quantities, and these goods, after receiving in the mother country the addition of a small percentage of work and some trifling additions of material, are coming into Canada by hundreds of thousands of dollars worth every year under the advantages of the preferential tariff. It seems to me that this is a very serious condition [DOT] of affairs. It is sue result of the policy of this government with regard to preferential trade, but it is not the only result, as I am about to point out. The next result of the making of this preferential tariff in 1897 was this :
The right hon. gentleman who leads this government went to London in 1897, and he delivered a number of speeches in various cities of Great Britain, more particularly in London, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow, and also at Birmingham, I think. He went to England after having been elected upon his pledge to this country that he would send commissioners to the mother country for the purpose of securing preferential trade wthin the empire. Yet, while in Great Britain he took the ground there that we did not desire preferential trade at all. that we had no desire whatever for any preference in the markets of the mother country. Now the language of the right lion, gentleman in Great Britain, which lias been often quoted, is as follows
I claim1 for the present government of Canada that they have passed a resolution by which the products of Great Britain are admitted on the rate of their tariff, at 124 per cent, and next year at 25 per cent reduction. This we have done, not asking any compensation.
There is a class of our fellow citizens who ask that all such concessions should be made for ' quid pro quo.'
And that was an expression which the hon. gentleman used in a great many speeches on the other side, I am only quoting one.
The Canadian government has ignored all such sentiments.
We have done it because we owe a debt of gratitude to Great Britain. We have done it because it is no intention of ours to disturb in any way the system of free trade which has done so much for England.
I could quote from a great many speeches of the hon. gentleman on the other side, if there should be any denial on the subject, in which he said that free trade was to be upheld in Great Britain at all possible hazards, that Canada did not desire anything in the world which would in any way affect the stability of free trade in the mother country, and that Canada generally speaking did not desire any return whatever for the preference which we had given to the mother country. Well, the right hon. gentleman continued :
What we give you by our tariff we give you in gTatitude for the splendid freedom under which we have prospered. It is a free gift. We ask no compensation. Protection has been the curse of Canada. We would not see you

come under ita baneful influence-for what weakens you must weaken us.
I am sure that when my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works realizes the full force of that language he will experience a shock which will incapacitate him from any further work in this House for two or three weeks at least. The right hon. gentleman thus deliberately renounced the intention he had expressed to the people of this country that he would do his utmost to procure a system of mutual preferential trade within the empire, and as a part of that system, a preference for Canada in the markets of the mother country. He did that without any mandate from parliament. Parliament had not passed upon the subject at all. He did that coming fresh from the people in a campaign in which he had given his pledge that he would do his utmost to secure this preference. And so far as we were able to judge at the time, he even did this without any mandate from his colleagues ; because, if report is to be believed, some of his colleagues were not particularly pleased at the very extreme way in which he expressed himself on that occasion with regard to this matter. The hon. gentleman, on his return to Canada, took an entirely different position. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that in England he said he did not desire any preference in the markets of the mother country, he did not desire any return for the preference we had given her, that we had done this as a free gift. The right hon. gentleman came back to Canada and went to Toronto, and what did he say there ? He told the people of Toronto that the reason he did not make any attempt in the mother country to obtain a preference, was, not because he did not want it, but because he knew he could not obtain it-a very different reason altogether. His language at Toronto was reported as follows :
If I had thought I could have obtained for the products of Canada preferential treatment in the markets of Great Britain, not only would I have been wanting in patriotism, but I would have been wanting in reason, I would have been simply an idiot if I had not obtained such preference for the products of Canada. ******
The treaties have been denounced, there is nothing in the way now, the coast is clear, the ground is ready for discussion.
While the hon. gentleman's position as expressed by him In Great Britain was that Canada did not want any preference, his position as stated in Toronto was that he did want a preference very much, but that he did not make any attempt to obtain it because he knew that he could not get it.
Now apparently the expression of opinion which he gave in Great Britain during 1897, is that which is entertained by some members of his cabinet up to the present time, because I notice that the Minister of Agriculture, on two or three occasions during the past year-I am quoting from newspapers Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
sent out under his own frank to members of pai'liamenit, anid I assume they contain a correct statement of his utterances- the Minister of Agriculture has taken upon himself in Great Britain during the past year, to tell the people that we wanted in return for this preference no preference in the markets of the mother country. ' Canada asks for no preference,' was what the hon. gentleman stated in Eiverpool on one occas-sion. He repeated the same thing in Manchester : * He was not going to ask for any advantage in their markets ' and so on. So the view which the right hon. gentleman expressed in 1897 seems to be the view of some of his colleagues at least even as late as 19Q0, because we have the Minister of Agriculture expressing that view to the people and the statesmen of the mother country during that year. Now would it not have been worth while for the hon. gentleman to have made some effort at least in the line of obtaining this preference in 1897 ? What have we been told with regard to the disposition of the mother country towards us at that time ? Why, we have heard the statement over and over again in this House and in this country, that the granting of this preference to the mother country caused the people and statesmen of that country to be very well disposed to us, to such an extent that we had practically a preference in the British market by reason of the fact that British consumers looked for Canadian goods instead of goods from other countries. Well, some figures which have been given to the House during the present session on the budget debate indicate that there was really nothing whatever in that idea. As a matter of fact, while imports to Great Britain from other countries have increased during the past years, imports from Canada in exactly the same articles have decreased during the past years. If the people and statesmen of the mother country had that favourable sentiment towards Canada in 1897, was it worth while for my right hon. friend to take the ground that he did, and to mislead the people in the mother country by telling them that Canada did not want any preference ? The *right hon. gentleman surely might have stopped short of that; he might at least have told the people of the mother country that he was elected upon a pledge to do his utmost to obtain a preference for Canada in the markets of the mother country, and that, provided the people of the mother country were willing, he was ready to discuss that question with them, and to do everything in his power to obtain that great boon for Canada. The hon. gentleman was very generous in giving away something which really did not belong to him. He was bound to protect Canada's rights in that respect, but he had no mandate from this country he had no mandate from this House, and I venture to think he had no mandate from his colleagues to give away the rights of
Canada in that respect by making the statement which he did in the mother country.
Now, since the right hon. gentleman took that course, the Liberal-Conservative party in this House have on various occasions affirmed its belief in the advantages of mutual preferential trade. On the 30tli day of March, 1900, Sir Charles Tupper moved the following resolution in this House :
This House is of opinion that a system of mutual trade preference between Great Britain and Ireland and the colonies would greatly stimulate increased prod action in and commerce between these countries and would thus promote and maintain the unity of the empireand that no measure of preference which falls short of the complete realization of such a policy should be considered as final or satisfactory.
The government did not accept that resolution and it was defeated. In 1901 I moved the following resolution in this House :
That in the opinion of this House the adoption of a policy of mutual trade preference within the empire would prove of great benefit to the mother country and to the colonies and would greatly promote the prosperity, unity and progress of the empire as a whole, and that the present time when the Commonwealth of Australia is laying the foundation of its fiscal system, Is particularly opportune for taking prompt and energetic steps towards the furtherance of this object.
This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should be imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries not within the empire in all eases where such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms and that the government should take for this purpose all such available measures as may be found necessary.
This resolution was not accepted by the government and was voted down. Tbe main grounds which the government and their supporters took in voting down this resolution were twofold. In the first place, they put forward the absolute hopelessness of expecting the mother country to Impose duties on foodstuffs. I will not weary the House by going over the debate and pointing out," in the language of almost every one of these hon. gentlemen, the argument which was based upon that supposed aspect of the question. But, I will quote from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who said in his speech in 1897 : All the advocates of preferential trade, at all events all who have taken an active part in that movement, have assumed that,, as the first step, England must consent to put a duty on corn. We know that England does not view that project with favour. We know that no more unpopular project can he offered the English people than to ask them to put a duty on bread-stuffs.
In 1900 the hon. gentleman, in an interview in Montreal, I think, said :
There are three points which Sir Chirles Tupper would like to make, but In not one of them is there any foundation for his efforts. He continues to talk about the Conservative party obtaining a tariff preference for Canadian products in England ; that Is to say, that Great Britain would impose duties on foreign foodstuffs while admitting those of Canada free. Thi3 13 an old cry with Sir Charles Tupper, but no one knows better than he does that it is arrant humbug.
Everybody who has had a correct view of English public opinion has been and is still aware that such tariff legislation in Great Britain for the present or the early future is impossible.
Well, our position in regard to this matter was that the policy of Canada should be a policy of action and not a policy of inaction. We did not believe it as impossible as hon. gentlemen argued on the other side that Great Britain would be disposed to impose a tax upon foodstuffs and upon corn.
At all events, we said, it is in tbe interests of Canada that efforts should be made for the purpose of inducing Great Britain to grant us a preference in her markets. It may be true, we said, that the project does not meet with favour in Great Britain at the present time, but what we read in the press of Great Britain, and of the utterances of statesmen in Great Britain at the present time leads us to suppose that a change in public sentiment in regard to that particular matter is rapidly coming about in the mother country. And it is the duty of this government, we said, having regard to that probable change, not to sit supinely in a state of inaction and say it is impossible, but to make some effort in the matter, because Canada will be none the worse off if you do make some effort and take some action, while on' the other hand it may result in some very material advantage to this country.
Even more significant is the language which the right hon. leader of the government used in this House in the debate of 1901 in which debate be put forward the other argument which has been used against this proposition-the other argument which is that unless Canada is prepared not only to give up her policy of protection, but her customs tariff also, it is absolutely hopeless to suppose that you can ever obtain a preference of this kind or any system of mutual preferential trade within the empire. I was surprised on looking over the debate to find the extent to which the right hon. gentleman had gone in making an assertion of that character and I find that the position he took, as the leader of his party, supported by many statements of lion, gentlemen who followed him in that debate, was this. In the debate upon a resolution introduced by me in 1901, tbe right hon. gentleman used this language :
Allusion has been made very often to my trip to England and to the position I took there. The position I took there was this : I acted like a reasonable man, I saw at once that it could not be possible, so great is the free trade sentiment in England, to have a mutuality of preference so long as we continue to levy customs duties upon English goods. But the moment we are ready-it may take a long time, but I hope some day it shall come-to discard our

tariff, the moment we come to the doctrine of free trade, then it is possible to have a commercial mutual preference based upon free trade in the empire.
The right hon. gentleman continues even more strongly. Referring to the Conservatives' quid pro quo argument, the premier said :
Such a policy would not be received in Great Britain, it is not to be taken seriously. It is
not a thing to be discussed seriously	
If we are at any time to obtain mutual preferential trade between Great Britain and Canada -and more thah once I have stated that for my part, I think it would be a great advantage for Canada, but if we are to obtain it, upon what condition can we have it V
I would like to call the attention of the House to what the right hon. gentleman stated to be the condition :
We can have it perhaps upon one condition, but we cannot discuss it unless we have that condition.
Mark you, we cannot discuss it even unless we have that condition.
We cannot even discuss it as long as we have a protective tariff or a customs tariff in Canada. That is the position which I have taken again and again.
That is the right hon. gentleman's language used only last year. He says that we are pointing in the direction of free trade. We have not absolutely got free trade but we are pointing in the direction of free trade. I believe that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is pulling back in the traces upon that particular question, as hard as he can, but the right hon. gentleman who leads him tells us that we are pointing in the direction of free trade. We are not even in a position to discuss mutual preferential trade with the mother country unless we give up, not only our protective tariff, but even our customs' tariff as well. The right hon. gentleman has told the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonies that he wants to discuss the question of commercial relations within the empire. That is the only subject mentioned by the Secretary of State for the Colonies which lie thinks it will be useful or profitable to discuss. What does he mean by commercial lelations within the empire ? If he means anything surely he is alluding to a mutual preferential trade within the empire. If he was alluding to anything else, when he used the expression ' commercial relations within the empire ' as a subject for discussion perhaps he will be good enough to tell us what it was, and until he does so I shall assume that he had reference to that subject. But. lie lias told us that we cannot even discuss it at the present time unless we are ready to give up, not only our protective tariff but our customs tariff. These were not light words which the right hon, gentleman i used in the debate last year. These were well-matured views. These words were , considered, no doubt, and these are words


Robert Laird Borden: that were reiterated over and over again in the speech-that unless we were prepared to give up, not only our protective tariff, but our customs tariff as weU, we were not even in a position to discuss the question of mutual preferential trade within the empire. My right hon. friend will not discuss political relations; he says that except in a few minor points they are all right. He will not discuss the question of imperial defence, and he cannot discuss the question of commercial relations within the empire. It then follows, necessarily, that the right hon. gentleman must go there, sit in the conference and never open his mouth and it will not be necessary for him, in so far as any useful or practical result is concerned, to delay any holiday trip he may have in view after attending the Coronation ceremonies as he has precluded himself from saying anything useful upon this subject. After he had told the people of the mother country in 1897 that we did not want a preference, he sent his Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) over there during the past year to reiterate that statement and he did so. He has told the people of the mother country that he will not discuss the question of political relations, that he will not discuss the question of imperial defence and he told the people in a well considered speech last year that we were not in a position to discuss the question of mutual preferential Hade at alii unless we were prepared to give up not only the protective system in Canada, but our customs tariff as well.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman lis going to the conference, and if he proposes to enter into any discussion upon the subjects which have been mentioned ; we are entitled to know what the policy of the government is with regard to these'different subjects. The right hon. gentleman's conduct did not commend itself to this side of the House at least, when he told the people of the mother country in 1897. that Canada did not want a preference. We are entitled to know what the attitude of the government is now, and we are entitled to know even what steps the government have taken with regard to mutual preferential trade within the empire during the past few months.
In the months of January and February ; nay, as far back as the months of November and December of last year, it was in the air, it was in the press, it was all over England and all over Canada, that duties were likely to be imposed on foodstuffs by the mother country. What steps have the government of Canada taken for the purpose of securing complete or partial exemption from these duties ? Have they lifted their finger for that purpose ? In view of the preference of 33J per cent which we have given the mother country, have we made any presentation pointing out that ray right hon. friend did not correctly inform the mother country in 1897. when he stated that

we want no preference. Have the Canadian government taken any -steps to withdraw that declaration ? Have they taken any steps to point out that Canada at the present time is very desirous that there should be an exemption of Canadian products from this tax, either in whole or in part. If the government of Canada have not done that, they have not done their duty. I have examined to some extent what has taken place in the English parliament, because it would seem to be hopeless to obtain information from this government on the subject; and I find that a member of the imperial parliament was informed bv the government that a letter from Cord Strath-cona had been received by the imperial government upon this subject. Well, a letter from Lord Strath-conn is not exactly the way in which we would expect a communication of this kind to go to the imperial government. We would suppose that there would be a memorandum and a communication from the Governor General to the Colonial Secretary, and we would expect that a communication of that kind would within a reasonable delay, and particularly during the session of parliament, be laid upon the Table of this House. There can be no excuse whatever for the Canadian government taking no steps in this matter, because their attention was very often directed to it through the public press, and many commercial bodies passed resolutions on the subject asking the Canadian government to bring the matter to the attention of the British government. On the 21st of April last -the right lion, gentleman stated that copies of these documents which had been forwarded to this government would be laid upon the Table of the House. Although a considerable delay has elapsed they have not yet been laid on the Table, but I happen to have a copy of one of them which I shall read. I suppose there must have been so many of these that the great volume of the correspondence between the Boards of Trade and the government has caused delav in the copying. However, the Board of Trade of the City of Toronto, on the 10th of February. 1002. passed a resolution which is in the following words :


THE BOARD OF TRADE OF THE CITV OF TORONTO.
[Stage Direction]
Report -of Committee ' re duty on Wheat.'
To the President of the Board of Trade.
Your committee having fully considered the question referred to them, beg leave to report the following resolution for submission to a general meeting of the board :-
Whereas, according to the press despatches it is the intention at the present session of the imperial parliament to levy additional taxes in order to meet the heavy expenditure caused by the war in South Afrloa, and the large additions to the British navy, and amongst other products which may be taxed wheat has been especially mentioned.
In view of the position so strongly urged by this board for many years, for a preferential I
treatment of the different products of the empire exchanged therein, and Canada having granted a tariff preference on the products of Great Britain when imported into this country, one of the results being that Germany has discriminated in her taritf against us by imposing practi-cally prohibitory duties on our cereals, tnus closing a valuable market to our farmers ;
Therefore, be it resolved, that in the opinion of this board, any tax placed by Great Britain upon products similar to those produced in this country should be so levied as to gran-t a preference to the products produced within the empire.
That if Great Britain should see her way clear to adopt such a policy, it would result in the knitting together still closer the various parts of the empire, and thus materially strenghen our position by diverting to the colonies a large portion of the emigration from the United Kingdom now going elsewhere, with the result that ere long the wheat and other food products required could be entirely supplied within the empue.
And that copies of this resolution be sent to the premier of Canada, and he be requested to cable the same to the Honorable Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary, Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, and the premiers of Australia and New Zealand, and to forward them the full text of the resolution by mail.
Further, that copies of this resolution he forwarded to the different hoards of trade and commercial todies in Canada, and that they be requested to pass similar resolutions and forward them to the proper authorities.
(Sgd.) C. B. WATTS, Chairman.
Toronto, February 10, 1902.
Adopted as the report of the board at a general meeting held on February 12th, 1902.
This was adopted at a general -meeting of the Toronto Board of Trade on February 12, 1902, and as I am informed a copy was immediately sent thereafter to this government. Therefore this government had ample notice that these duties were likely to be imposed and had ample opportunity to take energetic and active steps in good time for the purpose of impressing on the British government the desirability that tbe products of Canada should be exempt in who-le or in part from these duties imposed by the mother country.
Now, I did propose, Mr. Speaker, to move a resolution, setting out some of these facts which 1 have mentioned in a succinct form, as an amendment to the motion to go into Supply but I do not wish to take any step which instead of being an assistance might rather be a detriment so far as any action by this government may be taken at the present time. Therefore, I prefer to say to the government and to the right hon. gentleman who leads the government : That on this side of the House we are prepared to support a resolution assuring our belief in the advantages of a system of mutual trade preference with the empire, and so far as we are concerned, to have that resolution passed in the House unanimously for the purpose of strengthening the- hands of
[Stage Direction]
the government at the approaching conference. I think that is a fairer way to deal with the question than to move an amendment setting out the various matters which I have dealt with in my speech to-night. X thought it well to review these matters as I have done, and I say that so far as assisting the government in its endeavour-if it proposes to make any endeavour to procure a preference for Canada in the markets of the mother country-we, on this side of the House, place the interest of the country, above the interests of the party if they ever differ, and we are prepared to acquiesce m a resolution of that kind and to assist the government in having it passed this House unanimously.
Now, Sir, I wish to say before sitting down that the country expects from the government some declaration as to the course which will be pursued by the Prime Minister and his colleagues at this conference. It is only fair to the House and to the country that some full and explicit statement should be made by the right hon. gentleman with regard to his course. I think we should know what policy he proposes as the policy of the government with regard to all the subjects which have been mentioned by the Secretary of State for the Colonies as proper subjects for discussion at this conference. We want to know whether the government, while retaining for Canada the full control of all her public moneys and her system of defence, is prepared to discuss with the imperial authorities a sysetem of imperial defence. We want to know whether the Prime Minister proposes, as he did in 1897, and as the Minister of Agriculture did in 1901, to tell the government and the people of the mother country that Canada desires no preference in the British markets. We want to know whether the government are yet fully seized of the fact that the British government have adopted a policy with regard to duties on breadstuffs which the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues have repeatedly declared during the past 5 or G years was absolutely impossible of adoption by the mother country in the near future. We want to know whether, having regard to that changed condition of affairs, the government are still impressed with the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister repeatedly in the debate of 1901, that Canada cannot obtain any preference in the British market nor any system of preferential trade with the mother country unless Canada is prepared to give up not only her protective tariff, but her customs tariff. Now, I submit, Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is not an unreasonable thing which we on this side of the House are asking the right hon. leader of the government on this occasion. We desire to be informed as to the course he proposes to take with regard to these great and important subjects; and I trust that the right hon. gentleman, before he sits down, will give us such clear and explicit information on Mr. BORDEN (Halifax!
that point, as will enable us to judge accurately, and if necessary to criticise the attitude which he proposes to take on behalf of this country at the conference to be held in June next.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: 
Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend will pardon me. I do not remember using any such expression as that which he attributes to me.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am very glad that my hon. friend takes exception to my observation; but if I were permitted to refer to a past debate, I could quote expressions which have been used in this House and repeated over and over again by the press which supports the hon. gentleman, with reference to this despatch as wanting in courtesy.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my right hon. friend is referring to some observations made by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean).


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is sufficient, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend disclaims that intention, and I will not pursue that matter any further. I now come to the substance of the answer. My hon. friend says we ought to be prepared to discuss the subject of imperial defence. I think I am correctly stating the position he has taken this
evening. I may observe to my hon. friend upon this subject that the conference will be composed of representatives of the imperial government and the self-governing colonies. It will include representatives from Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Newfoundland, Natal, and Cape Colony, and perhaps a few others. It will be open to all members of this conference to bring to its consideration any subject he may please. We all know that the First Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Seddon, proposes to bring to its attention the subject of imperial defence, and if we are to credit the newspaper reports which have appeared recently, the Premier of Australia, Mr. Barton, has rather taken the same course we have and deprecated the introduction of any such subject. At all events, we shall be there, at the invitation of the imperial government, to discuss all the subjects mentioned in the despatch 1 have read, and we propose to discuss them in the spirit of the reply we have given. That is to say, while we are prepared to discuss this question of imperial defence, neither my colleagues nor myself believe that any useful purpose can he served by such discussion. It is no use whatever, at this stage of the proceeding, on the floor of tliis Canadian parliament, to try to deceive ourselves as to what is intended by this subject of imperial defence. If it be intended simply to discuss what part Canada is prepared to take in her own defence, what share of the burden must fall upon us as being responsible for the safety of the land in which we were born and to which we owe our allegiance, in which all our hopes and affections are centered, certainly we are always prepared to discuss that subject. Nor do I believe that we need any prompting on that subject or that our attention should be specially called to it. Even this very session the government has given its pledge to the House that it is prepared to consider and to the fullest extent to carry out its duty on this score, and in that declaration the government received the support of both sides. But there is a school abroad, there is a school in England and in Canada, a school which is perhaps represented on the floor of this parliament, which wants to bring Canada into the vortex of militarism which is now the curse and the blight of Europe. I am not prepared to endorse any such policy. But the Canadian delegates will give a respectful hearing to all the propositions that may be made, and it is in this spirit I speak, and speak with candour. My hon. friend asked me to give expression to our intentions. Well, I can assure him that I intend to perform the duties which will devolve upon me when in England. I am speaking my full mind and have given my answer as to the position we hold on this question, an answer which I think should satisfy him. My hon. friend has not mentioned the political relations which we are invited to discuss in the des-

patch of Mr. Chamberlain, and since he has thought fit to leave that matter aside I shall follow his example.
But he has come to the commercial relations and prefaced his remarks on this subject by expressing the hope that we a up all one in desiring a mutual preference between Canada and Great Britain. He expressed the hope that all parties were as one on that subject, but I must say that I am sufficiently incredulous to doubt my hon. friends sincerity. I have heard a good many expressions on this subject from my hon. friend and his friends behind him. I have heard them state more than once that they were in favour of a mutual preference, but notwithstanding all declarations I have heard on the subject from these gentlemen, notwithstanding the many eloquent speeches from the other side on this topic, I am yet in doubt whether or not it is the sincere wish of hon. gentlemen opposite to have a mutual preference. I will not go over the speeches they have made. I shall not follow my hon. friend in quoting from scrap books, but shall content myself with the single declaration just spoken by my hon. friend himself and to which he invited and received the full concurrence of his followers. I refer to the resolution, moved and voted on this session, and which reads in this way :
This House, regarding ihe operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory, is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products and manufacturing industries, as will at all times insure the Canadian market for the Canadians.
Now, Sir, if the Canadian market is to be secured for Canadians, where is the preference to come for British goods? What place is to be left in the Canadian market for the British ? What is the preference these hon. gentlemen are going to give Great Britain if we are to have protection ? Protection against whom ? Against the United States ? Of course. Against Germany ? Of course. Against France ? As a matter of course. And against England ? As a matter of course also. If that is the policy of these lion, gentlemen, if they have nailed protection to the mast of the ship they intend to sail, if their policy is protection against the world, Canada for the Canadians, I want to know what is the preference we are to give British goods. My hon. friend told me a moment ago that he was ready to vote in favour of a resolution of which I shall speak in a few moments, and I want him to supplement his resolution by instructing me as to what goods of Canadian manufacture, our manufacturers are willing to sacrifice at the colonial conference next summer. I would ask him if, in his opinion, Canada should give a preference to British woollens. I see the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) before me. He wants a preference given Great Britain, I know, but I would like to know if he is prepared to


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: give the British manufacturer a preference on woollen goods.


Mr. BROCK.: Yes, if we have a preference in return in the English market.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am glad to hear that my hon. friend from Toronto is prepared to sacrifice his woollens. I have heard him more than once complain that the preference we had given had killed the manufacture of woollens here.


Mr.   BROOK@: We get no preference in return.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friends opposite are in favour of a preference to Great Britain in words. Let us hope that they are in fact also.


William Rees Brock: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: must find, a common ground upon which both the people of Britain and the people of the colonies can stand, each side giving up some thing, and so bring Britain and the colonies to an agreement acceptable to all. My hon. friend says :	What are you going
to propose ? We will first listen to the propositions made to us by the British authorities I assume, from the statements I have in hand that the government of Great Britain has propositions to make to the colonies, upon this matter of commercial relations; for, if not, it would be worse than folly to ask us to discuss the matter. After we" have listened to the propositions made to us by the imperial government we can see whether we can accept them; and whether we can or can not accept them, we go there with the intention of trying, if possible, to secure preferential treatment for the goods of Canada in the British market. That is the object we have in view.
Now, Sir, my hon. friend told us a moment ago that he would be pleased if this House could pass a resolution unanimously. I am quite prepared to say that I should be glad to confer upon that subject with my hon friend. Since he has offered me this olive branch I am ready to meet him and to discuss a resolution or a proposition which we can put into such a shape that it can be adopted unanimously. That is the only answer which at this moment I am ready to make to my hon. friend. He wanted to have a candid answer from me upon the question that he has put to me. I think 1 am able to say that I have answered his question candidly in every point; I have answered candidly upon the military question, I have answered candidly upon the commercial question ; and if my hon. friend is disposed to continue to he conciliatory he will find that I should be only too glad to meet him half way in anything that he has to propose.


William Rees Brock: The right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister, in commencing his reply, if it can be called a reply, to the address that was delivered by the leader of the opposition, stated that it was to be regretted that the leader of the opposition had left this very important question, probably the most important question that could come before this House or this country, to be discussed so near the end of the session. I think, Sir, It was a great reflection upon the Prime Minister himself that he should have left, not only this House, but this whole country in positive ignorance and darkness as to the position he was going to take when going to England to discuss this question. I can say that at the present time, not only the eyes of this House and of this country, but I think the eyes of the whole empire are upon the Canadian government, wondering what position they will take at this critical time. The fact that the Prime Minister and his govern-Rir WILFRID LAURIE R.
ment have neglected to indicate what position they are going to take is a reflection upon the political acumen which the Prime Minister prides himself upon. The national, the political and the business position of this country at the present time is an object lesson as well as an object to the whole civilized world. This parliament representing the Dominion of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a land that is now being pointed to all over the world as a good land and a desirable land to occupy, this parliament has been here for nearly three months and we still have no indication of a definite and well defined policy-for no government is worthy of the name that has not a policy and a well defined policy. This country wants to know, and the British Empire wants to know what that defined policy is. This House has listened as usual with delight to the eloquent words of the leader of the government, and I defy any hon. gentleman to stand up in his place and say what is the policy that the government intend to carry out when they go to England. The Prime Minister says they are going to listen to what is being said by others. I contend that this government, with a Prime Minister with a reputation such as our Prime Minister has got, should go there to do something mere than listen, they should go there to lead. We are constantly told by the English parliament and statesmen that they look to us for guidance in matters of commerce.
But I think if we look into this matter we will find that some of the difficulties of the Prime Minister come from his own colleagues. They are hampered by the wild statements some of them made when they went before the people in 1896. The Prime Minister asks :	If we protect Canada for
Canadian goods, what have we to give to England ? I ask him to look across the border. The United States have protected up to the hilt everything they can manufacture in that country, and yet they are one of the largest importers of British goods on the face of the globe. They collect a very large amount of duty on British goods. Is this not an example for us ? Can we not protect our own industries and at the same time import an immense amount of English goods ? And we give English goods a preference over all the rest of the world. While we are importing at the present time German goods and paying full duty upon them, we are importing a much larger quantity of German goods surreptitiously into this country through England, through the supineness and weakness of the policy adopted when the Prime Minister was in England. After having secured the denunciation of the German and Belgium treaties, the Prime Minister asks what more can we do ? Germany and Belgium have placed us on the black list. Could we not have asked Great Britain to intercede for us, to avail herself of the great ability of her statesmen and

her great reputation, to ask Germany to recede from the position she has taken in consideration of Great Britain receiving German goods free ? I contend that when Lord Salisbury stated that he was doing this for the benefit of the empire he meant what he said. We know what the empire includes. Could he not, then, in the interest of the empire, have said to Germany, either give Canada the same duties you give the rest of the empire, or the empire will put a duty upon your goods coming into Great Britain. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, what that would mean ?. It would mean that one-third of the whole business of the German empire would be cut off. London is one of the greatest distributors of German goods and continental goods on the face of the earth. The Germans have their samples there, they have their market there, it is their greatest market. German goods come into England and are sold in England, and in many cases are carried in British bottoms to foreign countries. Therefore, I contend that Lord Salisbury meant what he said, and we know a British statesman always means what he says. We have some doubt in our own country as to what our statesmen mean when they speak, but we have no doubt about the word of British statesmen. When Lord Salisbury said that he meant this for the benefit of the empire, it was for the benefit of the British empire, and not for the detriment of this particular part of it. Therefore I contend that the position taken by the Prime Minister in England was one of the most unfortunate things that ever happened to the empire. He says that we want no return, that we did this out of good feeling and good will. These are very good sentiments, they would be good sentiments if we were a wealthy country and were able to give something for nothing. But we are inviting British immigrants, and immigrants from all parts of the world, to come into Canada, and I contend that the present is the time above all others when this matter should be settled. I desire to endorse the statement of my leader that the Prime Minister will not be hampered from this side of the House if he goes with a business proposition to the old country and not a sentimental one.
When the Prime Minister goes to England he will go, I have not the slightest doubt, with the very best intention in his heart to do what is best for Canada. I am proud to say that of him as a Canadian statesman. But he will go to England hampered by divided opinions, prompted on one side by a free trade wing and on another side by a protection wing. Even in his own cabinet he finds a difficulty in getting unanimity of opinion ; therefore it does not lie in his mouth to throw any reflections on this side of the House.
We are a united party ; we are where we have stood for the last quarter of a century
for the ascendancy of the British Empire, but Canada for the Canadians always. The Right Hon. Prime Minister cannot see where we can have Canada for the Canadians and go to England and ask for a preference in the English market. Is it not better for Great Britain to have a strong and vigorous dependency in Canada than to have a weakling ? Anything which Great Britain can do to increase the strength of her dependencies *she will do as she has done in the past. We have been invited to go to England and to discuss questions for the Improvement of the whole empire. We may not be able to agree, but I cannot see why that is any reason why the right hon. gentleman should not toe willing to discuss any suggestions which may toe made for the improvement of the defences of the empire. Is the defence of the empire of no consequence to Canada ? We have manfully undertaken to defend the empire in the past and we will do our best to defend the empire whenever we are called upon to do so. I know the difficulties which surround the right hon. gentleman. I know the great political strength he has in his own province of Quebec and I can see the difficulties arising day by day. We find now that one of the right hon. gentleman's strongest supporters during the last two or three elections, a gentleman with whom he has some difficulty at the present time, has acquired a newspaper. We find that Mr. Bourassa has acquired possession of a paper called, T think, the Pioneer. That is a menace to the right hon. gentleman because the right hon. gentleman wishes to get all the support he can from that hon. gentleman and from those people who endorse his opinions-I will not say disloyal opinions, tout who support these opinions in the province of Quebec very strongly, so that the party that sits on the other side of the House must not and cannot despise this hon. gentleman. These opinions carry great weight in the province of Quebec, -because they are in accord with the opinions, probably, not of the majority, but of a very respectable minority of the people in that province. These are the difficulties that the right hon. gentleman has and we sympathise with him under those circumstances. They are causing him great difficulty every day. As to discussing witli Great Britain the political relations of the empire I do not think there is any difficulty about that. The right hon. gentleman can go to England and discuss these political relations, he can hold his own opinions, and we can trust him to hold his own opinions in an argument with very great ability. But. he seems to express some doubt and difficulty : when he arrives there he may find that his opinions are not in accord with those of the representatives of the rest of the empire. Have we not found that out before ? When the right hon. gentleman meets the representatives of the other parts of the empire he should be very candid I in expressing the opinion of this country

and the opinion of this country is dcidedi.v 'in the direction of protection to our own industries. This is one thing upon which the country can stand as a unit and he can assert that fact with absolute confidence. [DOT]We have had some remarkable conversions to this House. Coming from North Norfolk, 'we have an hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) 'who has warned the right lion, the Prime 'Minister that the opinions of the people of this country are not changing but rather that the politicians who advocated free *trade are changing. We will have to change, the Prime Minister will have to change before we get from the empire that which *we think is our due. Therefore. I would urge upon the right hon. gentleman before *going to Great Britain upon this occasion to take counsel with the leader of the Opposition as he has asked him to do. I think [DOT]it is necessary that he should do so and if he will be guided by this side of the House >on this occasion it will cause him to be [DOT]more successful than when visiting England last.


John Charlton: 'My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) who has just taken his seat speaks very *truly when he says that the coming conference at London will be an event of very [DOT]great importance indeed. 1 can sympathise with the regret which the hon. gentleman *expressed that this important question has *not been made the subject of discussion in [DOT]this House at an earlier stage of the session for it certainly deserves an exhaustive discussion and I apprehend that the government will be pleased to hear a general expression of opinion from members of this House upon both sides of your Chair. The [DOT]criticisms in regard to the conduct of the [DOT]government and of the statements of the [DOT]government in the despatch to the Secretary of State for the Colonies as regards the subject of imperial defence are criticisms that I cannot fully accord with. I believe that [DOT]the interests of Canada should be a paramount consideration for every citizen of Canada, and I believe that Canada is guided by a spirit of loyalty, is prepared to do *its duty by the mother country, has done it [DOT]heretofore and will do it in the future, but I am not prepared to say, Sir, that bonds *should be laid on the country, that enactment should be agreed to and that we *should be subjected to hard and fast conditions as to the character of the support that we shall give to the mother country, as to *the amount of our contribution, as to the *number of men that we should furnish, but,
I believe, on the contrary that all these matters should be left to the voluntary choice of the people of this Dominion. We have been developing as a countrv for 140 *years and there has been during all that time a constant and regular tendency and progress towards self control. We had disturbances in 1837 which resulted in giving this country responsible government ; we en-


William Rees Brock: 
Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Rot.
Mr. CHARLTON-It might be rot. but it would be rot backed up by 80,000,000 people with all their prejudices and antipathies and animosities, and it would be the kind of rot we do not want to call down on our heads. Although it might be a most unjust and unreasonable position for the United States to take, yet I can foresee that such a position might" be taken, and I do not believe that under the circumstances it is worth while inviting the condition of things that would follow so far as that branch of the subject is concerned, we want to retain our autonomy. We want to retain our perfect self control. We want to give as we feel we should give and we will give as we ought to on every occasion. I do not believe we need anything more than the conditions as they exist to-day.
And now. Sir, with regard to the trade question. I declare myself to-night as I always have done, in favour of a preference for our natural products in the English market. I hope it will be obtained. I have said before, and I say to-night, that I do not believe that the preference that we gave to Great Britain of 33} per cent was a judicious act. although it had- the effect of reducing duties. It was a tariff reform in that sense and probably was adopted for that reason. Yet as a mere preference it was more than sentiment required. And when Great Britain imposed duties upon corn-a modified form of the corn laws- a few weeks ago, I looked for a preference to the extent of that duty in favour of Canada, which would have amounted to less than 5 per cent against the 331 per cent we gave. We did not get it, and I do not believe that the idea of getting a preference in the British market rests upon a very good foundation- that is a substantial, tangible preference- and if we cannot get a preference of at least 10 per cent the preference would not be a tangible and desirable one. We could offer to give a preference of 33} per



cent as we do now, for a 10 per cent preference. It would be a very good arrangement, but I doubt if we could ever get It.
I notice in the news of ito-nigh.t the very significant fact that the riding of Bury in England, in which a by-election has just been held, and which gave a Conservative majority of 849 at the last general election, has returned a Liberal toy 414, which is a reverse of 1,203 votes; and the issue in tha* election was the bread tax pure and simple. This election is an indication to my mind that it is not unlikely that upon this very policy which the present Imperial government have adopted, they will go down to defeat at the next general election. It is by no means certain that the policy adopted by the Conservative government indicates that we are to have a return of the corn laws in England, or that the policy of duties on natural products will be continued. 1 do not believe it will. I do not believe that we need build our hopes on a policy of that kind being accepted as a permanent one in England.
When we look at the trade returns of England, we cannot fail to be struck with the comparative insignificance of the trade of Canada as compared with the trade of the British possessions at large, and more especially as compared with the foreign trade of England. Last year England's total imports were .$2,(>00,000.000. Of this amount $547,000,000 were from British possessions, $108,000,00 from the Dominion of Canada. The total percentage of imports from Canada was 4-2 per cent, the proportion of imports from Canada as compared with foreign imports was 51 per cent, and the total percentage of the imports from British possessions was 20 per cent, while the foreign imports were 80 per cent. Now, is England likely to adopt a course which will Imperil that SO per cent of her import trade for the purpose of fostering a trade which now amounts to only 4 per cent ? I think It is very doubtful. And when we turn to England's exports, we find that the total amounted last year to $1,771,000,000. Of this amount $1,201,000,000 went to foreign countries, $510,000,000 to British possessions, $45,293,000 to the Dominion of Canada. These figures are taken from the British returns, the pound toeing converted into dollars by multiplying by five. The total exports from England to Canada amounted to 21 per cent of the whole, and tlielr proportion to the exports to foreign countries was 3} per cent, while the proportion of the exports which England sent to foreign countries to the total amount of her exports was 71 per cent Here is 71 per cent to foreign countries against 2-J per cent to Canada. These figures suggest to me that we are building upon a very narrow foundation indeed when we expect to induce the authorities in that country to adopt a policy which will imperil an import trade of SO per cent and an export trade of 71 per cent of her total trade. I do not believe it will


John Charlton: be done; and consequently I believe now- and I advanced the same view one year ago in a review of this question-that we are building our hopes in regard to preferential trade on a foundation which is narrow and insecure, and that these hopes will not be realized. That is my belief; but if they can be realized, I shall be very glad to see it done, and I agree with my hon. friend from Toronto that we can give England a preference without abandoning protection, or without abandoning a revenue tariff. We can give it by the adoption of a resolution which 1 had the honour of moving in tills House oil the 23rd of February, of this year -a resolution by which we would give to all countries that admitted Canadian natural products free of duty a preference of 40 per cent. We would put up our tariff so that with tlie preference of 40 per cent deducted from the nominal rates of the tariff, we would still have a decent degree of protection, and with the 40 per cent deducted we would still have a decent degree of protection, and with the 40 per cent added we would have a degree of protection that would be quite satisfactory as against any country which refused to admit our natural products free of duty.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know that we are under any very great obligation to England. I would be glad to be informed of any privilege we have in the English market that is not enjoyed by Russia and the United States and Germany and every other country in the world. We go to that market on a common level of free trade with all nations. We enjoy exactly the same treatment as other countries enjoy, even in tlie matter of the importation of our cattle. We give to England to-day a preference of 33| per cent, and when England puts on corn duties of 5 per cent, we do not get a cent of advantage. I think that when the premier goes to Great Britain, he will naturally take these things into consideration.
We bad better deal with this matter as a business question and dismiss to a certain extent sentiment. While I agree fully with the premier on the question of defence, while I do not believe that we need put that matter on a different basis from what it stands on at present, while I believe that Canada will do its full duty to the empire without entering into stipulations as to what it shall or shall not do. I believe outtrade relations with Great Britain can be improved. If we cannot secure preferential trade, we can adopt a policy which will give to the country that admits our natural products free of duty an advantage that is not enjoyed toy those countries which do not admit our natural products free of duty. Whatever course events may take, we want to deal with this question in a candid, businesslike, careful manner. It is not necessary to attempt to make party capital out of this question. I fully agree With my hon. friend from Toronto in his expression of the belief that the premier will go to Eng-

land as a Canadian sincerely desirous of advancing Canadian interests, and that he will do that to the utmost of his ability; and while we may criticise and properly criticise perhaps in this House, the courses that have been taken and the results that may ensue from the deliberations yet to come, yet it will be regretted if we deal with this matter from the low standpoint of mere party politics. Let us wish the premier and his associates in their mission to England abundant success, firmness to stand by Canadian rights, ability to resist the blandishments that will surround them there, and hope that they will come back from their mission with results of great advantage to their country.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make only a few remarks on the important question which is at present engaging the attention of the House. We received some time ago a communication from the Colonial Secretary asking us to send delegates to the Coronation to discuss certain questions. First of all he refers to the political relations between the empire and the colonies. That, I think, is the most important question likely to be discussed at that conference. Then next comes the defence of the empire. It is all very well for the right lion, gentleman to talk about what we would do in defence of this British colony, if called upon. It is all very well for him to declare that we will spend our last dollar and drop of blood defending Canada against any aggression. That is all talk. That is not intelligent fighting, as it is considered in the present day. We are part and parcel of the greatest empire on the face of the globe, and as a celebrated statesman said in England to Mr. Barton, who advocated the same views with regard to Australia, the other day as the right hon. gentleman holds with regard to Canada-who considered that the Australian fleet should be stationed in Australia and the defence of Australia be left entirely to Australian vessels and troops-why, was the reply, the defence or the retaining of Australia as part and portion of the British Empire might not be fought in Australian waters at all, but in the Mediterranean sea. Our defence of this colony, as part and portion of the British Empire to which we are so proud to belong, is not the defence we may make in Canada. The issue may be decided on the Atlantic or Pacific ocean. The nation which has the preponderance of fleet in both these oceans, may at any time, although this country should be overrun from one end to the other by hostile troops, make it a condition of settlement, when peace comes, that Canada shall remain a part and portion of the British Empire. On these two questions, the most important for us Anglo-Saxons who inhabit Canada, the right hon. gentleman has no definite jjolicy. " hy are we here in this portion of North 149J
America ? Why did our forefathers who left the British Isles settle on this part of the continent ? They might have gone to portions where there were better lands, easier cultivated, and a milder climate, but they chose to come to this portion of America, because it is under British laws and because they intended doing something for the betterance of the empire. And we, I believe, are actuated by the same sentiments and prepared to do what we can to build ujj still greater that empire which our forefathers made the mightiest on the face of the globe. The first object and hope of every British settler in the North American continent is that the defence of the empire shall be secured and that Canada shall remain a part and portion of that empire. Yet the right hon. gentleman tells us that our statesmen who go over to the Coronation, are not going in any way to discuss this question of Imperial defence, but that their discussion is to be restricted to the mere mercenary one of the commercial relations between this colony and the empire. Well, I maintain that the first question to be discussed at the colonial conference should be the political relations between the different colonies and the empire, and the second the question of Imperial defence. What policy has the right hon. gentleman or his colleagues in the cabinet on those questions ? The right hon. gentleman tells us that the Imperial ministers, when they summoned the colonial premiers of this continent, must have formulated a policy of some kind or other. Why does he not get that policy from them ? Surely he has a right to discuss it with his colleagues before going over and making any declaration on the other side. And as to the question of defence of the empire, and the different colonies, surely, as the right hon. gentleman has told us, there must be a policy formulated by the Imperial authorities, and the right hon. gentleman has the right to have that communicated to him now in order that he may discuss it with his colleagues before going across. He is equally entitled to have the Imperial views on the subject of our commercial relations. What is the policy of the government on all these matters ? They have no policy at all. They are not going to discuss the political relations between the empire and the different colonies, and as regards tire question of defence their position is this. They say : We will be bound by nothing, we will consider nothing, but we will spend our last dollar and our last drop of blood in the defence of Canada. That is not what we expected from the right hon. gentleman.
The hon. leader of the opposition and many of his supporters have taken the position that we should not be bound by any fixed hardbound policy. In that I agree. We have a right to consider from time to time, as the necessity arises, what should be our future relations with the empire and the different


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I do not think I would have said anything with regard to this matter this evening had it not been that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) was good enough to quote my utterances in England on various occasions upon this question of the preference. I accept his quotations fully, and I accept the responsibility for my utterances. I did, on several occasions in England, declare that we in Canada gave them a preference in our markets without asking any preference in return. That was the policy laid down by this government in 1897, which has been maintained until this time. And 1 venture to think that what we did lias borne good fruit, and that we have been justified in the action which we took. I say emphatically that, though we made no demand for a preference, we have actually had a preference in the English market for all our food products. I have been in England on two occasions since that time, and I have seen, over and over again, in shops and retail stores Canadian products marked as Canadian and the people appealed to by the dealers to buy these goods because they were Canadian. And they did that on the ground that Canada had given a preference to Great Britain in her markets and it was only fair that the people of Britain should give the first choice to Canadian goods.


William Rees Brock: Oil, no.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) denies this. But 1 can assure him that 1 'have seen it with my own eyes. And I had the assurance of those who had placed the notices in their shop windows that that was the reason for appealing to the people-that the people had a kindly feeling towards Canada because of the preference. But supposing that we had obtained that preference which lion, gentlemen opposite think we ought to have obtained-supposing that owing to the representations of the Canadian government and people, Great Britain had imposed a tax upon the food of her working people-is it conceivable that tTinse working people would have been favourably disposed towards those who had been tiie means of imposing that tax upon them V Is it conceivable that the breadwinners in the cities of Great Britain would have been disposed to buy the articles sent to them by the people who were the cause of increasing the price of their loaf ? I do not think it is conceivable. 1 believe that, on the contrary, the working people of the large industrial centres in England would have cursed the name of Canada, and would have tried their best to injure Canadian trade in Great Britain, instead of supporting and encouraging it. The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) a few moments ago, referred to a supposed change of public opinion in England in favour, of protection, and quoted the imposition of these taxes as evidence. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) has given the first result of the imposition of bread taxes upon the English electors by showing that in the city of Bury, one of the very centres in which Canadian products are received with favour, the electors, who, a few years ago, elected a supporter of the present government by a large majority, had rejected another supporter of that government by an almost equally large majority; and the battle was entirely fought ouit on the question of bread taxes, and the change amongst the electors was entirely due to the adoption of that policy by the government. Now, that is an expression of the feeling that exists amongst those people. Had we in Canada been responsible for the imposition of that bread tax, we should have antagonized the great industrial class of the mother country. 1 venture to say that not only would that be a great detriment to the trade in our food products, but it would have beeu one of the greatest hindrances to that movement for Imperial unity, one of the first steps in which was the preference that we granted to Great Britain. Had we adopted that plan, and had we obtained that result- which 1 do not for a moment think we could have obtained as a matter of fact- we would have brought about this condition of affairs-that the breadwinners of England would Have felt aggrieved against the colony and would have felt that the colonies had asked them to tax themselves for the benefit of colonial producers. Instead of having the people almost unanimously in favour of the colonies, w,e would 'have had them divided into two great camps, one opposed to everything colonial because of the sense of grievance against the colony, and the other the feeling that they were helped a little by the fact that the products of their farms had been increased in price by the imposition of these taxes. But to-day we are in an entirely different position. When" we adopted the preference we reduced the taxes upon our own people. That is a point that lion, gentlemen opposite do not consider. It is not part of their policy to think of reducing the burden upon the taxpayer. All they want to do is to pile on taxes for the purpose of protection. When we gave the preference, we relieved our people of a burden. When we wish to secure a preference in Great Britain, we wish also to'remove a part of the burden of taxation resting upon those people. The condition to-day is such that we can do that. My right hon. friend can go ** "d ask for the remission by Great Britain, so far as the colonies are concerned of the tax on breadstuffs in part or altogether. When we do that-we shall have the sympathy of the breadwinners of the old land, and they will feel that the colonies are acting in their favour. We shall have the support of these people, instead of their direct antagonism. It seems to me, therefore, that we are in a much better position to-day than we should have been had we tried in 1897 to make a bargain and had succeeded. We can make a bargain to-day, but we could not make one then without injuring a portion of our fellow subjects in the old laud. I do not wish Canada to occupy that position.
Now, Sir, I will say one word more in regard to the question in England. I am not going to say for one moment what should be tlxe policy of Great Britain. That is for them to decide, just as it is for the people of Canada to decide our policy. It would be unfortunate if we were to be hampered in the exercise of our independent right in deciding upon our own policy, and I wish to give the same freedom to the people of the old land, to the people of Australia, and to the people of all the other colonies. But I do believe that we cau do it off our own bat, if I may use the expression, in the interest of the rest of the empire, just as in 1897, we gave a preference to the people of Great Britain in our own markets without asking anything in return. Speaking for myself I venture to think that Sir Michael Hieks-Beaeh the other day when he introduced his corn duties, missed a great opportunity. If lie had then, without any consultation with the colonies, given them immediately a preference in that iinposi-

tion of the corn duties. I believe he would have done a great stroke of statesmansnip in the Interest of the empire, and in strengthening the bonds uniting the various portions of the empire. But if he did not desire tKn do that then, I believe he is still in a position to give a preference to colonial products which will help the situation, and do a great deal to strengthen the ties between the motherland and her colonies.
I want one thing to be noticed, that in all the discussions in the parliament of Great Britain, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach himself, Mr. Balfour, the leader of the House, and all the other speakers in support of the government, distinctly declared that this imposition of a bread tax, is in no sense a reversion to protection. So emphatically have they declared this that as a matter of fact in Great Britain to-day this tax is not looked upon as involving the issue between free trade and protection, although the Liberal party are rather disposed to bring it forward as a line of cleavage between the two parties on the issue of free trade and protection. But the accepted opinion in Great Britain is that this tax is not a protectionist tax but a revenue tax.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Did you not say that the election in Bury was run entirely on the question of free trade ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said it was run on the question of the corn tax. But it does not matter to my argument whether it is a question between free trade and protection, it would be a question of the antagonism of the people who suffer from the imposition of a bread duty if the colonies were the instrument of the imposition of that duty. It is not a question between free trade and protection, it is a question of whether the people who feel the incidence of the tax, think it has been brought about by the colonies or by the voluntary act of their own government. I do not wish them to think it was brought about by the colonies. I would be sorry to have them think that any preference had been given to Canada which would hurt the people of Great Britain to such an extent that they would feel aggrieved towards us. On the contrary, I wish, when any preference is given to Canada by Great Britain, that it shall come from the people of Great Britain just as freely as the preference which we gave to Great Britain, without any bargaining and without asking anything in return. That is the feeling I have always had in regard to this preference. I stated over and over again in Great Britain that Canada gave that preference freely without asking anything in return ; and I hope the time will come that Great Britain, now that she has put a food tax upon her people, will give a preference to the colonies and relieve her own people without imposing a duty upon them. I believe that such a preference would do more Hon. Mr. FISHER.
than any act looking towards military defence or affecting political relations, to strengthen the ties that bind the different parts of the empire together, and make the empire stronger to face the world when it becomes necessary for her to face me world.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fisher) feels himself in an awkward situation in view of what England has done lately. He said : When he was over there we did not want any preference, that what we had done we had done freely, generously and liberally. He said also that although we had made no demands for a preference we have practically a preference in the markets of the mother country. He did not offer any proof of his statement, nor did he show that our preference to the mother country had resulted in any advantage to us in the English market over what we have in the market of the United States or of other countries. If he looks up the trade returns since this preference was given, he will find that the whole argument is against his contention, for they show that we have not benefited in any material respect on account of that preference. He says the working people of England would look witli disfavour upon Canada if a tax was put upon their bread for the benefit of Canada. But it has been put on. If the hon. gentleman desires to get into the good graces of the working people of England the first thing he should do would be to try to relieve them of that tax by letting our wheat in free, by letting the grain of the colonies in free, and by that means supplying the nation with their breadstuff's. The colonies could readily supply all the breadstuffs of the English people in a short time. So if his argument is worth anything it can be turned against himself. The policy of the present government, he says, has not been to pile on the taxes. Who takes $10,000,000 of taxes more out of the people than their predecessors ? Is it not the present government ? Who raises a larger revenue if it is not the present government ? Who makes a larger expenditure if it is not the present government ? So I say that instead of not piling on more taxes the whole history of this administration is an argument to the contrary.
The hon. gentleman for North Norfolk (Mi'. Charlton) said that the result of an election in England adverse to the government was due to the bread tax imposed. He said that shows the sentiment of the British people. Then I say if he desires to have the sentiment of the British people in his favour let us tell the English labouring men that we desire to take off that bread tax and supply them with their bread free. That is one of the strongest arguments that could be addressed to the British people. The hon. member for North Norfolk goes on to say that we should not do this for fear of offend-

ing our friends to the south. I have heard that argument addressed to this House for 24 years in succession, and it seems to me the most humiliating, the most debasing argument that could ever be addressed to a free people. Are we not here an independent and integral part of the British Empire with rights of our own, with duties of our own to perform 1 Have we not to look after the interest of our own people, and can we not do it without fear of offending any other nation in the world ? Why, we would be little better than slaves if we cringed before any other nation. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves as British freemen to say that because of the fear of offending the nation to the south of us we are afraid of doing what it is our duty to do as members of the Canadian parliament.
That lion, gentleman has always addressed that argument to the House and I think it is unworthy of him and unworthy of any British subject in the Dominion of Canada. Our great danger, he says, is a struggle that [DOT]some day may come with our American [DOT]friends to the south that may take every man and every dollar that we have and that then the result will be doubtful, and he gives that'as his reason why we should not do anything along the line of Imperial defence or even consider Imperial defence with the mother country. He is afraid that we may offend our neighbours to the south of us. Would that not be the strongest reason that we should prefer to do our part in the defence of the British Empire so that neither the United States nor any other country in the world would dare attack us either on the high seas or on the lakes ? Should it be a matter of offence to the American people ? Even if it should be a matter of offence we should be unworthy of ourselves if we regarded it as a reason why we should not join with the mother country in considering the question of Imperial defence. The hon. gentleman says that we should not be bound by hard and fast rules in regard to national defence. My answer is that it is not necessary. The hon. gentleman went on to say that we have done a great deal for national defence. Why did we build the Canadian Pacific Railway that will be available for the transport of troops from the east to the west and from the west to the east, and for bringing the forces from one pai*t of the empire to another ? Was it because of any hard and fast rules ? Not at all. I see no reason why we should be bound down by hard and fast rules, but we should work upon intelligent lines jointly with the mother country, and we should have an intelligent understanding as to what are the best lines to be adopted. We should not be bound down by hard and fast rules, but there is a strong reason why we should talk it over and come to an understanding as to what is best to be done on the part of the colonies and the mother country, so that we shall act upon intelligent lines and be able to benefit by the understanding arrived at in
time of need. Then the right hon. the leader of the government says : Formulate a resolution for us and we will see whether we can accept it; or in other words, make a policy for us. and if it is acceptable we will adopt it. The hon. gentlemen have been stealing our clothes too long and they are reform misfits up to the present. They want to do a little more of that same kind of thing. If we were to move a resolution he would call upon his supporters to vote it down, because it would be a motion of want of confidence. We have introduced this subject in the way in which it has been introduced so as to avoid that possibility and in order to secure the freest possible discussion ; yet, the right hon. gentleman says: Formulate a policy. We are asking the right hon. gentleman to say whether lie is prepared to discuss commercial and political relations along the lines that we have indicated. It is for the purpose of enabling the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues to understand what the sentiments of this House are that we have made the proposition we have to-night and we have done it in such a way as not to embarrass him, but for the purpose of having the freest discussion so that he may understand that he carries with him the sentiments of the Canadian parliament. He does not require us to formulate a policy for him, because if these hon. gentlemen are not fit to formulate a policy for themselves they should not be there. The Canadian people should put others in their places who are able to formulate a policy that will be suited to Canadian needs and interests. The Prime Minister says that they are going over there and for what purpose ?-To listen. He reminds me very much of a bashful maiden who wants to be wooed but will not make any proposals. He is the Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, one of the most important parts of the British empire. He goes to the conference and the representatives of the empire there say : Bet us have a free conference to see what we had better do. He says : I am not going to take part in the discussion but I am going to listen. He is like a shy maiden sitting in the corner, waiting to be coaxed out and to be asked, will you do this or not. He says : We will listen and if they propose something that meets our views we will accept it and if they do not we will come home practically with our fingers in our mouths. That is the sum and substance of what he is going to say and do there. Yet. as the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) says, here is a golden opportunity. Parliament is in session and he can get the views and the assistance of parliament to strengthen his hands in the negotiation, but he does not desire to have them. Now, we have not thought it necessary during this session to introduce a resolution. Why ? For the purpose of giving the right hon. gentleman an opportunity of asking parliament for its opinion in reference to these

questions. We expected that he would take advantage of the opportunity before parliament prorogued to ask an expression of opinion from the Canadian parliament as to what lie should do at the conference, upon what grounds lie should consider this question and ns to what he should be free to propose to the British people. But. the right hon. gentleman does not want anything from England. If Great Britain proposes preferential trade, he says, we will be prepared to consider whether we shall accept it. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) says -that it is not our place to ask it, but if Britain proposes it we will accept it. How under heaven is Great Britain likely to propose it if every member of the government who goes home tells the people there that we do not want it and that we do not look for it ? They say that such a policy is unsuitable for us and unsuitable for them and they say if England offers it we will consider it. Is England likely to offer it when the people there have been told that we do not want it ? Hon. gentlemen have already given England the strongest excuse for not proposing it. The right hon. gentleman says that wlmt was not possible in 1807 may be possible now. But he has told them that we do not want it whether if Is possible or not. Then the right hon. gentleman does not propose to discuss the question. He has told us that he is going over there to sit and listen and not to propose. Is England likely to propose what she has been told Canada does not want ? No. her statesmen are too astute and her diplomats know that a hint is as good as plain statement. Therefore the right hon. gentleman is not likely to get preferential trade. The free trade preferential tariff was a wonderful measure of tariff reform and it was based on the reform misfit principle, it does not tit Canada. It is of no use to Canada and of very little value to England, but it has done great harm to some of the most important industries in Canada. The right hon. gentleman says that we do not want to discuss the question of our political relations, and lie tells us that they are ajl right. He says that we do not want to discuss the question of Imperial defence, that we do not want to touch that. As the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) stated the British Empire may be attacked in any part of her colonies and it is the decisive battle there fought that will tell whether Canada is to be free and whether it is still to be Canada. The battle which is then being fought will be the battle of Canada as well as Britain. Canada must be prepared to take her part in the conflict and to give her assistance in defence of the British empire no matter where the battle may lie fought. But. why should we uot confer with the British empire as to what may be done along intelligent lines so that each integral part of the empire can come to this conflict in support of file empire prepared to do its part in the defence of that empire ?
If the Prime Minister carries out his in-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: tention not to discuss Imperial defence I can tell him that there is not an Anglo-Saxon in the British Empire who will not declare that he has done less than his duty. If he will not discuss the defences of the empire with the representatives of the other colonies he is-I was going to say, unworthy of the name of British and unworthy the position he occupies as Prime Minister of the first colony In the empire. We have been told over and over again in this House that our political relations cannot remain in the future as they have been In the past. The right hon, gentleman lias told us many a time that lie can foresee the day coming when we will have reached that ripe age that we shall become a nation ourselves. That Indicates that the right lion, gentleman believes that a change is going on in our political standing. The premier of the first British colony knowing that and telling the Canadian people that yet proclaims in the same breath that he will refuse to discuss our relationship with the empire with a view of continuing those ties which have bound us to the mother land in the past and strengthening them. But the right lion, gentleman says he will discuss our commercial relations. lie will sit in the corner and lie will say to the others :	Make your proposals and I will
consider them. He admits that we want to extend our trade and to open up new markets, but he says that he will have no proposals to make at the conference. He has not the genius of statesmanship to the extent of possessing enough initiative to enable him to make proposals as regards his own country to the representatives of the other colonies. He will not tell them what his own country requires, hut he will take chances on their knowing better than he does the needs of Canada, and when they tell him what Canada wants he will consider whether he will accept it or not. Why, Mr. Speaker, a man who is so reticent and bashful that at such a conference he cannot tell what his country wants is not the right man to represent Canada on such a mission. Our representative should be as free to make proposals in the interest of his country as would be tbe premier of any other colony, or the representatives of Great Britain. If the right hon. gentleman fails to place the needs of this country before that important body he will do less than the Canadian people expect of him. He is going over there to represent the executive of this government, but he does not want to represent the parliament of his country. That is evident from the fact that the right hon. gentleman declines to ask the advice of the Canadian parliament. Far from asking for such advice lie spurns it when tendered, and he refuses to be fortified by the strength which the Canadian parliament could lend to his efforts. Now is the time when he can obtain the opinion of parliament if he desires it. Parliament is ready to support him in


MAT 12. 1902
[Stage Direction]
making demands which would be for the welfare of Canada and of the British Empire, but to-night he rejects the assistance of parliament. He goes to that conference silently to represent the executive, his whole action is very much like unto the deal which that executive made In connection with the Yukon railway, in which case they found out afterwards that they were not in harmony with the sentiment of the country, and perhaps not in harmony with themselves. He tells us that the country wants preferential trade to-day. He ought to know that for he has been told it in a thousand ways. The boards of trade, the municipal corporations, the commercial and agricultural interests of the country have pronounced to him in favour of preferential trade. He admits that the conditions have changed. Formerly he told us that he would not ask for preferential trade from Great Britain because England would not grant it ns she would not abandon her free trade principles and tax her breadstuffs. But England has changed her policy, and now that there is an opportunity to get preferential trade the premier does not desire to ask for it. Well, the right lion, gentleman is practically going It blind. He is going to represent Canada at an important imperial conference and he is going without ascertaining the views of the Canadian people through their representatives in parliament. If parliament had not been in session for some months past I could perhaps understand the attitude of the right lion, gentleman, but the fact that he refuses to take the advantage of-parliament which he can now readily obtain is absolutely inexplicable. He keeps the country and parliament in the dark and lie apparently desires to be in the dark himself. He is treating Canada and the parliament of Canada with scant courtesy, hd refrains from disclosing to parliament what he intends to do and in view of his entire conduct we are justified in bringing this matter to his attention. And if, when the right lion, gentleman returns home we find he has disregarded the advice tendered from this side of the House he cannot blame us if we call him severely to task for his sins of omission as well as his sins of commission in connection with this matter.
Hon.   W.@: M- ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that it is not the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) who is going to represent the interests of Canada in England instead of the premier. If he would not by argument convince the Imperial government as to their duty, he might succeed better by scolding them, as he generally does in this House. I have not spoken much on this subject when it has been under discussion, and I do not intend to occupy much of the time of the House to-night. Hon. gentlemen opposite appear to take great consolation from the idea that there is a disturbing element in the government. Well, I think we on this side of the House have the confidence of the government at least as much as hon. gentlemen opposite, and we have not heard a hint of anything but the greatest unanimity of sentiment among our friends in the government, and we at least have the happy gssurance that there is unanimity on the part of their supporters to keep them in the position they at present occupy. Hon. gentlemen opposite appear to take great consolation from the position of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte). It appears that he made an after-dinner speech somewhere. Now, I do not know that any member of the government should be held responsible for an after-dinner speech. The only after-dinner speeches we hear of for which governments are to be held responsible are those made at the Lord Mayor's dinner in London at which the government announce their general policy and the relationship of the empire with other countries. But that was not the case witli my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. When you think of the horrible pit and the miry clay out of which he escaped when he left the party on the other side of the House and came over to this side, it is almost a miracle that he is as pure as he is. If there is any element of protection in his policy, it is because he has not been perfectly emancipated from the ideas that were once promulgated on that side of the House. To my hon. friend I would say, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees; do not take any advice from that side of the House, and if you will be guided by the advice of your friends, the supporters of the government, you will occupy a sure position and the country will sustain the government of which you are one of the brilliant members.
A good deal has been said about the condition of England and the curse that free trade has been to England. I think it was my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley) who dwelt upon Cobden and Bright as being the curse of England. But if you look at the condition of England since she adopted free trade, you will find that no country in the world has acquired such greatness or so extended her trade as Great Britain did under her free trade policy. The moment the present government adopt a protective policy, it will be sure to go down. I believe that to-day, if a general election took place in Great Britain, the present government would be defeated because of the small measure of protection they have adopted on wheat and bread.


Mr. GERMAN.: What about the election that took place yesterday ?
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I am going to speak of that. I have in my

hand a paper which, referring to the cotton trade of Great Britain, says
A recent issue of the ' Commercial Intelligencer ' published statistics which show that Great Britain has more than double the number of cotton spindles in operation that the United States has, and that, apart from the latter country, Great Britain has more spindles than all the rest of the world put together.
Then it goes on to say that Great Britain has 45,500,000 spindles manufacturing cotton, while the United States, which produces the raw material, has only about 20,000,000. Here is the article of cotton, carried in British ships from Egypt and from the Southern States, manufactured in England and sent to all parts of the world to compete with the rest of the world ; although cotton is a material England does not produce. No other country in the world could have succeeded in doing this, nor could England except under her free trade policy.
We have dwelt perhaps too much on what we have achieved in South Africa. I, for one, do not consider, and have not considered from the very outset, that Canada has done as much as we ought to have done in defence of the empire in South Africa. When you compare what Canada has done with what has been done by New Zealand and Australia, I hesitate to say that we have done our duty in that respect.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The very same thing.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) We have not the number of men in South Africa today that those other colonies have; but there is one thing certain, that Great Britain need not be afraid, if assistance is wanted, but that Canada will be prepared to do her duty both on land and on sea. When sailors are wanted to supply the navy, we shall be prepared to give our fishermen of Nova Scotia, and they will not be a month on board the ships before they will be just as active as the men who were there before them.
The friends of the government will send to England the premier and the other members of the government with him to discuss the trade policy; and we have the utmost confidence that they will protect the interests of Canada as far as they can be protected; but I do not think that they will be in a position, even supported by the premiers of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand, to dictate to the Imperial government what they shall do; and I have very serious doubts indeed that, with all the interests involved, you will find Great Britain agreeing to preferential trade in favour of the colonies as against the rest of the world. If they will, we will all rejoice. But I have great doubts that the empire will give a preference to Canadian products against the products of other countries. Every step this government takes should be a step, not towards Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).
protection, but towards reducing the duties lower and lower, and the lower you make the tariff the higher revenue you will get.
This question is being discussed in the Australian pa.peirs. Cable intelligence has been received in the ' Herald ' of late to the effect that in Australia public attention is directed to the fact that Canada is desirous of bringing about closer trade relations with Australia. The Canadian government proposed meeting the representatives of Australia and New Zealand in London for the purpose of taking various intercolonial matters into consideration, and the premier of the Commonwealth recently cabled our Prime Minister his consent to that proposal. I have some hopes that perhaps an arrangement for preferential trade or free trade may be established by this means between Canada and the other colonies. That is a practical subject and one that may to some extent be accomplished; but I do not think that, with all the influence which the premiers of the different colonies will bring to bear on the government of England, they will spcceed in convincing that government to give a preference in favour of the colonies against the rest of the world.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have been very free in giving advice to the government, but the government have been very cautious in accepting advice from their opponents. They would rather take advice from their friends. Well, their friends prefer that they should go home to London untrammelled by any advice, because we have full confidence in the Prime Minister and those associated with him. We believe that they will do everything possible in the interests of Canada, and prefer that they should go across untrammelled, and not limited even to the views that may be expressed by some of their own .supporters, because we know that they will do everything possible in the interests of this Dominion. The eyes of the whole Dominion will be on them, and the whole Dominion is satisfied that they will do all that can reasonably be expected and all that any men in their position could do. Should they fail in any particular, it will not be because they have not advocated the interests of Canada to the most of their ability. I had taken quite a number of notes, but at this hour I shall not delay the House longer, and I shall conclude by repeating that the right lion, the First Minister and the other members of the government, if they should require any advice, should rather seek it from their friends than accept it from their opponents.


Mr. II. LENNOX (South Sirncoe).: The hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Ross) tells us that when the right bon. the First Minister and his colleagues go to Great Britain, the eyes of Canada will be upon them. In that opinion I quite agree. Not only wiill that he the case then, but the eye's of Canada are upon the government to-night, and have been since the beginning

of this session, and their ears have been open to ascertain whether the government were going to take the country into their . confidence or not. This is a momentous time in the history of Canada. It is a momentous time in the history of the empire. Two terms are, to a great extent, concurrent and synoinous, because the prosperity of Canada is inevitably wrapped up in the destiny of Britain. In these months that have gone by, I think I am right in saying that the people of Canada dad expect, and had a right to expect, that at such a momentous time, when such great issues are involved, both to Canada and the empire, the government would have regarded it as their duty not to wait for the opposition, not to wait for anybody, but of their own initiative to bring before this House a resolution for discussion covering the various matters which must come up for discussion at the colonial conference to be held during the Coronation ceremonies-in Britain I would rather be wrong than diliy dally and 1 want to lay down as my view, whether right or wrong, that it is of the essence of constitutional government that when a great question of this kind arises, the administration should take the representatives of the people into their confidence and discuss in parliament the questions that arc to be submitted at that conference. Instead of that, tiie government, although invited from time to time-and I was one of those who suggested it to the government during this session-the government although frequently urged to lay some broad proposition before parliament for public discussion and ventilation, have seen fit to adopt the policy of silence. And I charge, on behalf of the people of Canada, that the government lias been recreant tolls duty with regard to this great question. We have to-night a discussion which transcends, I believe, in humiliating the administration before tiie people of Canada, even those discussions we have had previously in this session-and this session has not been unmarked by humiliating positions for the government of this country. What have we had ? I will refer to the statement! made by the hon. leader of the government a little later on, hut we have had a statement from tiie hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), and if the fitness of the administration of the government of this country is to be measured by the utterances of that hon. minister upon this great occasion, I must say that the people of Canada will not form a very high estimate of our present administration. Why, a weak defence is worse than none. And if this was not a weak defence, if it was not pitiably destitute of argument:, then I must be singularly unable to appreciat'e the statement of the hon. gentleman. But his remarks have gone into cold print and the country will be able to estimate them at what they are worth. The hon. gentleman asks would the English workingmen be favourably disposed to Canada, if Canada
was the means of increasing the price of food in Great Britain. But these hon. gentlemen opposite were teaching us during eighteen years they were In opposition-true they have dropped it pretty well in the last four or five years since they have got into power-but during eighteen years previous they kept telling us that the consumer pays the duty. Well, what do we propose ? We propose that such a duty should be placed upon foreign goods by Great Britain as would exclude from the British market foreign products and allow Canadian products to enter free. What then will the British artisan and workman buy V He will buy the produce of the Canadian farm, and he will buy it free of duty. So that it is most idle for the hon. gentleman to advance that argument, because the argument inevitably defeats itself.
But he says, as an argument to support, if he can, this frail and tottering edifice of a one-sided preference, that it was a step towards Imperial unity. Sir, words in favour of Imperial unity do not come very well from my hon. friend. What progress is the government making in the direction of Imperial unity when they send back that de-sp- T'-hich, prematurely and unwisely as I say. refuses to discuss the question of Imperial defence and the unity of the empire. In what regard will the hon. Minister of Agriculture tell us are they advancing Imperial unity when they utterly refuse to even consider the question of Imperial defence ? He also tells ns-and it is a pity that these hon. gentlemen cannot have a little more consideration for our home affairs and not travel so far afield-that Sir Michael Hicks-Beneli missed the chance of his life when he introduced tiie change in his tariff and did not declare (without being asked and without being solicited, of course) that he would take off entirely the duty from the produce of Canada. When such a statement is made. I would like to ask the right hon. premier and the members of the government if they were taken by surprise when that change was made in the British tariff ? Did not they know that that change was to he brought about ? Were they the only people in the whole civilized world who did not realize that that change was coming ? Why, I, as one of the youngest members of this House and the most modest, told them what was coming, told them that Great Britain would have to change its trade policy and that the stability of the British Empire depended upon the conbined policy of Great Britain and her colonies with regard to trade. In speaking thus, I was not speaking on my own authority, but on the authority of the greatest of British statesmen, Mr. Chamberlain, who said : If you ask me what will be the destiny of Great Britain for the future. I answer that it will depend on the attitude taken by the great colonies of Great Britain. When all the world knew that this change was to be brought about, I must assume that this government was not

altogether asleep and that they knew something about it. But. if they did know about it, what did they do before that policy was announced to secure a preference for Canada in Great Britain such as the Minister of Agriculture says Sir Michael Hieks-Beach should have inaugurated at that time ? I say that a more completely condemnatory statement could not have been made by the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite then was made by the premier's own lieutenant, the Minister of Agriculture. Except that it introduces something that I wish to lead up to. I need hardly trouble very much about the speech of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). He wanders from post to pillar, but he always comes back to his first love. He gave ns a very nice review of many steps in the history of Canada. jT do not think he went back quite to the visit of Columbus, but he did go over most of the important steps in the history of the country for the last fifty years. And it is significant that every one of these steps was a step marking the progress of the Conservative party.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And he opposed them.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, those steps were opposed by the hon. gentlemen who are now in and of the government. And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) tells us- and it is a very nice moral sentiment-that the only great thing to consider is what is best in the interests of Canada, and that tiiis should be our guiding star. That comes well indeed from the hon. member for North Norkolk. who. according to his own declaration in this House-and I am sorry he is not present-though lie knew in lS7(i. 1877 and 187.8 that the true policy for Canada was the protective policy advocated by Sir John Macdonald, yet, in company with the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) for eighteen years-aye, for twenty-five years and more-kept his mouth shut, so far as saying a word in favour of that policy. On the contrary, he went up and down the country denouncing the policy which he knew to be in the best interests of Canada. And yet lie comes here to give us a moral lesson and tell us what to do in the best interests of the Dominion. Of course he is supported by the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser) who speaks of him as the gentleman who is responsible for ' the sanctity of the Sabbath and the chastity of the home.' But 1 object to these bon. gentlemen giving us moral advice. I object at least, to taking it. until, as tlie hon. member for Victoria suggests. 1 find that their conduct is consistent with their utterances. Now, tdie lion, gentleman (Mr. Charlton) says that there will probably be many wars in which Canada will not be concerned. I do not join witli him in that view. I contend that the position we must take in this colony is that Whatever war affects


Mr LENNOX.: Great Britain, must affect us. Our destiny is inseparably bound up with that of Great Britain and I thank God it is so ; for that is where I want my destiny to be. We bear of. ' Little Englanders.' Let us not have any narrow Canadians who think there can be prosperity for Canada when the prestige of Great Britain begins to decline. I believe that prestige never will decline, but that, with the unity of the empire,.of which the Minister of Agriculture speaks so eloquently. Great Britain, witli her colonies surrounding her, will go on and prosper, and. in years to come, will become greater and grander than she has ever been in the past.
Now, the hon. member for North Norfolk has given us advice. He says it is to be a go-as-you-please affair, that we are just to give what we like, and therefore Britain is not to count on anything. What would the hon. gentleman say if. in the case of Canada being attacked by tlie United States Britain were to say, Ob. you need not count on our defence, you need not be sure we will defend you with men or arms or ships. But what Britain says, and what Britain has verified, is this : In the remotest part of our dependencies, whenever a British subject is attacked, the whole strength of the British army will be put forth in liis defence, in vindication of British justice and British rights. That is tlie position that we have to reciprocate. It is not a question of money alone, but it is a question of the enemies of Britain knowing that the whole empire is united as one man for tlie defence of every part of it.
Now, the member for North Norfolk says we may run up against the Munroe doctrine. Sir, I think it is unfortunate that matters of this kind should be aired in this way in the parliament of a British country! The hon. gentleman was discussing a proposal to formulate a scheme of universal defence of the empire, and he says if we do that we may run up against tlie Munroe doctrine. Now what position are we in ? Hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to understand the proposition. The premier and his colleagues are going to Britain where they want something in tlie nature of a contribution to a defence fund from every colony of tile empire, some basis agreed upon by which each part of the empire will voluntarily contribute for the pur-p se of raising a defence fund available for tlie whole empire. It has nothing to jlo with the wars of Britain in Europe, but it is a proposition that each part of the whole shall contribute voluntarily to a fund for the defence of the empire. Yet when it is proposed to do this the hon.member for North Norfolk says we will run up against the Monroe doctrine: Has it come to this, that with all the strength of the empire, united as it would be if any part were attacked, we are to live in fear and trembling of tlie Monroe doctrine? In the first place, I have no faith in tlie hon. gentleman's argument; in the second place. I am not prepared to take

[DOT]4762
that cowardly attitude, even if I believed in the suggestion of the bon. gentleman.
Now I come to what is. after all, of more interest to the country, and that is the attitude taken by the hon. gentleman who leads this government. He began his speecli with what I may call a left-handed compliment to the leader of the opposition. 1 think he was not as generous as he might have been, I think he was not as just as lie might have been. I think it hardly did credit to the accustomed politeness of the leader of the government. I.et me make a comparison. I may be a little partial, I may not lie the best judge, but 1 have endeavoured to listen dispassionately to the arguments that have been advanced, and I would like to have some unprejudiced person who lias listened to the magnificent argument-I would call it so if the hon. gentleman himself was not present-presented by the leader of the opposition, and contrast it witli the speech of any member of the government, or any supporter of the government delivered to-night upon this question. I acknowledge that in some lines of eloquence I do not think I will be speaking disparagingly of our honoured leader if I say he does not hold a candle to the leader of the government. I am told, and I believe the story is true, that among the very numerous admirers of the leader of the government, a countryman of his own came here from a long distance down in the province of Quebec, to hear the hon. gentleman speak. After listening to him in rapt attention, he went out. and was asked what he thought of the Prime Minister, and he said : ' Sir Wilfrid Laurier, he speak long. Sir Wilfrid I.aurier, he speak well. Sir Wilfrid I.aurier, he say nothing.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Haughton Lennox: Hon. gentlemen may say oh just as much as they like, but we will have the judgment of the country upon this question.


Some hon. MEMBER.: You had that before.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, but that is not the final judgment, as hon. gentlemen know. They pretend to be very happy for the present, and some hon. gentlemen who look very happy are not so. I see one hon. gentleman who is trying to smile, and his smile has just about as much relation to mirth as the grin of a jackass eating thistles. Now, I was going to say that when the leader of this government discussed this question to-night he failed to rise to its importance. and avoided it at almost every point. Although the little incident that I have related was perhaps somewhat exaggerated in expression, still we know that in the matter of talking without committing himself to anything definite, the hon. leader of the government transcendentl.v surpasses anybody upon either side of the House. We are told by the leader of the
government that the suggestion put forward by the leader of the opposition, although good in substance, comes too late, that we have waited too long. What has the government done in that regard ? Is it not their duty rather than the duty of the opposition to formulate a policy in this matter, to take the country into their confidence, and to ascertain the opinion of the country as a guide to the Prime Minister and his colleagues when they go to that conference ? They would then be in a far better position to make suggestions to the other gentlemen appearing at that conference than they will be under present circumstances.
Now, although the conduct of the government has been marked by conspicuous silence in regard to many great questions that have been suggested on this side of the House, although the government have adopted a hesitating, vacillating policy in many cases where it would have been well that they should have declared themselves, yet in this one point I charge that silence would have been golden and that it would have been more prudent, and statesmanlike, if the government were not able to agree in that measure of Imperial defence to have kept quiet, at all events, at that juncture upon this point. There was no necessity- for making a declaration upon the matter one way or the other. It was at a time when the South African war was still raging and it was all important that in the eyes of the world Great Britain should be seen with her colonies rallied around her and that there should be no suggestion that they were faltering in their defence. Therefore, I charge that it was weak, unwise and unstatesmanlike on the part of the right hon. leader of the government and his cabinet to send that message to Great Britain at the time. It has had a bad effect in Australia. Mr. Chamberlain said that the Australian Commonwealth was following in the wake of Canada, that Canada had set the example and that as Canada was the stepping stone, the Commonwealth of Australia was in that way a stepping stone toward the greater unity of the British Empire. But we are setting a bad example this time. The example of the right hon. gentleman is an incentive to the premier of Australia and he has announced his antagonism to the scheme. What is the principle which he announces ? He announces that they will have an independent defence, that they will defend their own commonwealth. Hoes Canada want to take that attitude ? Canada cannot take that attitude and there is no destiny for Canada as a British colony except she accepts some reasonable scheme for the general defence of the empire.
The right hon. leader of the government, when in London, told the people of Great Britain that Canada gave this preference out of generosity and out of a sense of appreciation of the many obligations that Can-

a da was under to Great Britain. In Toronto, as lias been pointed out, lie takes a different jiosition and it is bad enough when these two speeches conflict with each other. But the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) is again an unwise friend in coming to the defence of the government, like the lion. Minister of Agriculture ujOH. Mr. Fisher), because he brings confusion to the ranks. He contends that Canada owes nothing to Great Britain that with the consumption of the Canadian Pacific Railway, Canada wiped out every obligation that she owed to Great Britain for protection in the past. Which of these hon. gentlemen is right ? But. the right hon. gentleman said in London that we wanted nothing and that he was ready to give this preference as a free gift. That is not the position that Mr. Chamberlain takes in regard to the same matter. Mr. Chamberlain, I think, hon. gentlemen opposite will admit, is a practical statesman, and in discussing this very matter of closer trade relations and closer relations generally between Great Britain and her colonies, and particularly Canada, he said :
But my first point is that in the proposal and the suggestion which has hitherto been made there is no sufficient quid pro quo, the advantage offered is not enough to induce this country to take the certain loss and the possible risk which would be involved in revising altogether its present commercial policy.
In other words, Mr. Chamberlain takes the only statesmanlike attitude that can be taken when he says :	When I represent
my own goods I can be generous, but when I represent the people of Great Britain I can only be just. AVhen I give anything I must have a quid pro quo. That is the position that the statesmen of Canada must take if they wish to meet the views or the people of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Dredging-Dredge vessels, repairs, Manitoba,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many dredges nave you in Manitoba now ?
The MINISTER Or PUBLIC WORKS. Two. There is the old dredge at Winnipeg and the tug Sir Hector which are in need of repairs.


Mr. MONK.: Where is this dredging going to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The dredging that is going on now is at the mouth of the Red river, between the Red river and Lake Winnipeg.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there to be any dredging to be done this year at Sault Ste. Marie ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. We have asked for tenders which we Mr. LENNOX.
have received but I have not disposed of them as yet.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What amount will be spent in dredging there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say, but there is a large amount of work to be done there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know if the minister is fully aware that there is a great need of dredging there. I have been there quite recently and I can testify to the fact that while we have on the Canadian side a canal in certain respects superior to the American canal there is a very serious defect in the approaches to the Canadian side. They have asked for dredging there frequently and although that dredging is extremely urgent it has not been attended to during the last three years. I may add that there are no docking facilities at Sault St. Marie. There is a government dock but the water is so low that large steamers cannot come up to it, and in fact the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers are obliged to resort to the American channel. Although Sault Ste. Marie is the twelfth port of entry in the Dominion, yet the custom house is kept in a leased building, and the post office is quite out of proportion to the importance of the place. When I say that 2S,000,000 tons a year pass through the Sault canal; 20,000,000 tons more than through the Suez canal and that the facilities on the Canadian canal are inferior to those on the American canal, it will be recognized that is a humiliating condition of things which calls for immediate remedy. I would urge upon the Minister of Public Works to improve the approaches to the Canadian canal and also the docking facilities.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I concur in what the hon. gentleman has said. There is not enough water on the Canadian side and our ships are obliged to go on the other side. I was there a year ag'o and I know that. I appreciate it to such an extent that we have this year in the estimates a pretty large sum of money to go on with the work. As to the public buildings I may tell my bon. friend that we have also "in the estimates a sum to provide for them and a site has been bought. We have therefore looked after the interest of that town, much more than the hon. gentleman would think.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the amount voted for dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not pretend to be an expert, but from information I have gathered, I should think that $25,000 will scarcely do anything towards the improvements which I have mentioned. I under-

stand that the necessary dredging to prevent the humiliating spectacle of Canadian ships having to use the American canal would cost about $300,000.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very glad that one of the leaders of the opposition has at last gone to Sault Ste. Marie. I may repeat here what I said elsewhere :	Wait till next year, and when I
ask for money then I will not be accused by the opposition of spending too much. I know I am not asking enough to carry on - the whole work, but I believe I have asked enough to give a contract that will be completed in another year.


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has just come from Sault Ste. Marie having been up there with the leader of the opposition in the province of Ontario, and I apprehend that he has learned considerable of the existing conditions. I quite agree with him that the government needs to expend a very considerable sum of money in deepening the channel to the Canadian lock, but I would like the hon. gentleman to understand that for many years that lock was existing as it is now under a Conservative government and they never even thought of appropriating any money to deepen the channel. You can search in vain through ' Hansard ' for a suggestion from a Conservative member up to the present date, that money should be expended in deepening the Canadian channel. The Canadian lock was built under a Conservative government, and as any engineer will admit the channel was defective originally and is defective now. This government is spending money to deepen the channel so as to allow the Canadian Pacific Railway boats and all other boats to navigate through the Canadian channel. The Canadian Pacific Railway boats never have gone there, not because of there not being sufficient water but because of the fact that they get their supplies from the American side. There is water enough for them to go through the Canadian channel, but they go to the American lock because they get their supplies there, and if the hon. gentleman had not been quite so anxious to make a point in the interest of the Conservative party in the province he would have endeavoured to understand the exact situation. I know the situation and I know that there is water enough on the Canadian side for the large boats to navigate the Canadian lock.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And to reach the wharfs.


William Manley German: There is really no use of their reaching the wharfs because there is nothing there at present for them. But the Canadian Sault is growing. We hear just to-day that Mr. Clergue is turning out steel rails and he is doing that by reason of the
bonus granted and the vim that has been put into that country on account of the concessions granted by the Liberal government in the province of Ontario. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) wants to make any political capital out of the situation we are prepared to argue that point out with him. Perhaps this is not the place to do it, but whatever credit there is for giving a channel for safe navigation through the Canadian lock is due to the present Liberal government which is providing the money to do the work there. The Conservative government never did that when they were in power.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 1 am bound to say that 1 do not look upon this question as a question of politics, and I do not wish to make a point against this government or for the Conservative party. I consider that a man who has the honour of a seat in this House and who visits the country and finds things that he thinks might be improved upon, is bound to mention these things in the proper place. As to the information which my hon. friend has vouchsafed to me and the House to-night, I have been only two days in Sault Ste. Marie, and I am sure that his information is very defective. I would take, for instance, the point raised by my hon. friend that the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers do not come to the Canadiau side because they get their supplies on the American side. That may be so; but it is absolutely contrary to the information given to me there by competent men, far more competent than my hon. friend, and knowing a great deal more than he does about the subject. As to the suggestion that they wished to make a point against this government, I can assure the hon. Minister of Public Works that such an idea did not enter their minds. As a matter of fact, the reason given by business men in the Sault why the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers got their supplies on the American side was that they could not come to the Canadian side. It is true, the lock there was built by the Conservative government, but it is in the right place. Nobody complains of the location of the lock, and in some respects it is far better than the American lock. It moves much more quickly, and is therefore sought by men who want to get their vessels through quickly; but I believe this government finished that lock.


William Manley German: No. The Conservative government gave Messrs. Ryan & Haney $90,OCX) to finish the lock before their time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That may be. At any rate, it was finished about the time there was a change of government.


William Manley German: Before that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: However, what is retarding progress there is the need of dredging on a considerable scale. Competent men told me that it was a matter of somej $400,000.

The figure surprised me, and probably the dredging could be done for u less sum; but there Is no doubt that it will require a far greater amount than the amount mentioned by the minister, to place that port on a proper tooting. On the American side they have all the conveniences and facilities that are required, and the vessels go there preferably to coming to our side. On our side there is a wharf, but the water near it is not deep enough for large vessels.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two wharfs.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is oidy one government wharf. The other wharf was built by private enterprise. I think it is right, irrespective of politics, for si man who knows these facts and has visited the place, to rise in his seat in this House and mention them without being criticised in the small picayune spirit the hon. gentleman has shown.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Chairman


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I cannot find anything in this item in regard to the Sault canal, and I must insist on the committee keeping to the item under discussion; otherwise we cannot make any progress. I understand from the Minister of Public Works that there are items in the supplementary estimates yet to come In reference to that very question, and that is the proper place to discuss It.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question is a question of dredging, and 1 understand that there is dredging to be done at file Sault canal.


Peter Macdonald: I rule it out of order, and I hope the committee will support me. The item is dredge vessels repairs, Manitoba, $12,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the objection had been taken at the commencement of the discussion 1 think it would have been reasonable.


Peter Macdonald: We have to stop at some place-curried.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not carried by any means. I want you to understand, Mr. Chairman, that I am on my feet, and until I sit down it is not carried. I can talk on that question as welL as on any other, and I am not going to be put down in that way. I understand that there are two dredges in Manitoba, but I am told that they, are not very suitable for the dredging to be done. I understand that one is engaged at the St. Andrew's rapids. Is this merely for r<;-pairing the old dredge, or is the purpose to build another for the work there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The sum of money 1 am asking is to make repairs to the old dredge, which is doing Mr. MONK.
fairly good work, but which needs to be put in better shape. The next item is to provide a new dredge. That will make three.
Dredging-Man., self-propelling snag boat,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the beginning of the new dredge '-because $10,000 is a small amount to put on a dredge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This $10,000 is to build a snag boat, similar to what the Americans have on the Red river on their side. These snag boats are not expensive. I think with these three dredges we shall have all we require to do the work.


Mr. McCREARY.: Before this item passes 1 wish to thank the hon. Minister of Public Works for the action he has taken this year in assisting the people who own boats on the Assiniboine and Red rivers. The dredge which was built in 1881 and is now to be repaired has been used to dredge out the mouth of the Red river where it empties into Lake Winnipeg. The dredge is entirely out of repair, and it was running last year at great loss. It is not being, used in St. Andrew's rapids, but at the mouth of the river. The necessity of renewing the dredge has been brought before the minister for the last two or three years, and I beg to thank him for taking the matter up in a thoroughly businesslike manner. I said some time ago that I thought the word Manitoba was never mentioned in this House by the lion. Minister of Public Works -that he had apparently forgotten it. I wish to take back that statement. With regard to the snag boat, I may say that in the Red river, both above and below the St. Andrew's rapids there are many boulders and sunken logs, so that vessels cannot navigate the river. The steamer ' Gertie PI.' went up the river, and has been niue days above the rapids, and cannot get back owing to tlie boulders and snags in the way. 1 was at a meeting last fall of the board of trade which is composed largely of friends of hon. gentlemen opposite-in fact almost entirely. A very large deputation came to that board, and the board very strongly recommended that a dredge be purchased to remove those boulders and other impediments in the river. I am sure that the board of trade, composed of gentlemen on both sides of politics, as well as the citizens of Winnipeg, generally, will thank the hon. Minister of rublic Works for having put these sums in the estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this the full cost of the dredge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When will it be available for work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Next season.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are you building it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Probably on Lake Winnipeg.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you building it by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: I do not know yet. I will take the best means.
Bryon Island to Anticosti, cable, &c., connection, $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. minister explain this item of $25,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend perhaps will allow me to lay on the Table a map, which will make the whole thing clear to those who take an interest in the question. I want to connect Anticosti Island, which is connected with our north shore, with the Magdalen Islands, which are connected with Cape Breton. Then we will have a complete connection with the cable at Canso and Sydney and a complete Canadian telegraphic system on Canadian shore.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the object of the cable to Anticosti ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Anticosti Island is connected with the north shore by a cable telegraph system on the north shore. We have reached St. Paul's Bay, and my idea is that we should have a complete system of telegraphs on our own soil, and my ambition is to take that system of telegraphs to Montreal as soon ns possible. To reach Quebec it would cost about $13,000 to $15,000 because we have already a telegraph system at Grosse Isle. I do not see why, now that we expect the Marconi system will work well, we should not have a telegraph system of our own instead of relying on New York for our commercial news. Montreal and Toronto should be made, and will be made, Canadian centres of distribution for all news, commercial and other. When I have completed those lines to Sydney and Canso our Canadian telegraph system will have communication with all the cables, American, English and French. We have only a very small sum to spend this year to have that complete telegraph system.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these cables open to use by the public ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AArORKS. Yes, it is a regular telegraph system.
For extBnsion of the Magdalen Islands telegraph system to Bryon Island by means of submarine cable, $9,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the distance from Magdalen to Bryon Island ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AArORKS. 14 knots. From Anticosti to the north shore, 104 knots.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Any tenders asked ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: No, we have had a cable ship. We are asking quotations in Germany and England for cables and wires. We have cabled the best firms in England and Germany, and as we have a cable ship ready, we will do the work ourselves.
Mabou to Port Ha'vkesbury, $5,600.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any telegraph line between these points now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, we are in the hands of the Anglo-American Company, which I want to get rid of.
St. Peter's to Louisbourg and Scatari Island- extension, Gabarus to North Sydney, $4,900.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the same is true in this case-there is already a telegraph line there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: No, there is none. We want to reach the lighthouse there, which is now isolated.


Robert Laird Borden: Surely there is telegraphic communication between Louisbourg and St. Peter's ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: I was speaking of Scatari Island, to which there is no communication. My deputy tells me there is a line of telegraph along the railway from St. Peter's to Louisbourg, but there is none on the coast.


Robert Laird Borden: But a person in St. Peter's can telegraph to another in Louisbourg ? The object of this vote must be to establish a system of government telegraphs throughout the country ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is surely a beginning in that part of the country. But my main object is to have direct communication with the cables at Sydney and Canso, and then take the system up to the city of Montreal, and-well, further up if the country desires.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to be a quiet way of undermining the Postmaster General.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Oh, no, the Postmaster General is too strong for that.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, perhaps not completely undermining him, but undermining him so far as this telegraph service is concerned. How many miles of this telegraph open for the use of the public service does the government now own outside of the Yukon ?	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Outside of the Yukon we have about 4,400 miles. AVith these extensions we shall have about 4,700 miles, and, in the Yukon 2,135 miles.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there auy substantial revenue from these lines ?
The MINISTER OF I>UBLIC WORKS. Yes, that will be found in my report. I may say, in passing, that the Yukon line is doing very well. The revenue for April was about $11,500.


Robert Laird Borden: After deducting expenses, or gross ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Gross.


Mr. EARLE.: Did the minister ascertain, according to the understanding of some days ago, what portion of the business on the Yukon line was government business ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During March, the departmental telegrams amounted to about $1,100. I suppose it will run about $1,000 a month. If lion, gentlemen will refer to my report, page 11 of the telegraph report, they will see that the revenue last year outside of the Yukon was about $15,000, and the expenditure about $60,000.. I may explain that when these lines are completed we hope to do better. And the House must not lose sight of the fact that these lines are built where private companies would not build them. Take, for instance, the North Shore line-there is no appreciable revenue from it, and no company would build a line there.


Mr. WILSON.: Aside from the cost of building, it cost $60,000 to run these telegraphs, and the revenue was $15,000. That revenue included government business, I suppose ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, but we do scarcely any business except on the Yukon line. But, as I say, all the lines have been built where private companies would not build them. The North Shore line, for instance, was built in the interest of navigation and trade.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the construction of lines between points already served by lines owned by private companies is concerned, it does not seem to me that it is justifiable unless the government is preparing to establish a system of government telegraphs throughout the country. I cannot see any other principle, upon which it can be justifiable. It must be very much more expensive to the country to construct a line for its own use than to pay for the amount of business usually done at the regular prices of the established lines. Perhaps I may be mistaken in my deductions, but that is what I would suppose. So I can only regard this as the initiation of a system of government telegraphs throughout the country. Is that the policy?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not say more than I have already


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: said. I have not been authorized by my colleagues to say more. My object in asking for this money is to connect our system with the different cables at Sydney and Canso. We have given $80,000 to the Marconi Company to establish a station in Cape Breton. If that system works well, we shall have a means of communicating with the other side of the ocean besides the cable. But we shall have also the cable to rely upon. Speaking for myself, I believe that the cable will be, for some time to come, the safest means of communicating. I hope that Mr. Marconi will be able more and more to improve his system. We have tested it, and are testing it every day between Belle Isle and the North Shore. There are two stations in charge of my department. When the atmosphere is dry and the conditions favourable, the system works well; but when the atmosphere is damp and high winds prevail, it does not work well. It is a very difficult thing to maintain regular communications between the two stations when the conditions are unfavourable. The distance between Belle Isle and the North Shore is twenty-two miles.


Robert Laird Borden: Are not many of these points where the hon. gentleman now proposes to build cables, points well suited for working the Marconi system, assuming that system can be effectively worked, and if so, would it not be better to learn whether that system would be practicable before expending so large an amount of money in the construction of a cable ? For example, between Louisbourg and Seatari, if I remember the geographical conditions accurately, I would suppose that would be a proper place for the establishment of this system.


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, but it is so unsafe now I would not trust it for commercial purposes. It works when the weather is fine, and it does not work when the weather is damp. On different occasions last winter I asked news from our agents, and they answered that the instrument was sticking. I may say that we have not the best receivers, although they have been installed by Mr. Marconi's agents. Mr. Marconi told me these receivers were not the best. Since then we have put in new receivers, and I understand with better results. But I am quite sure the cables will be required for service for some time to come.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I would like to know whether the minister has taken hold of this Marconi system merely as an experiment, or whether he found out before taking hold of it that it would be of some practical use. From his last remarks I would infer that he does not know whether this $80,000 is going to be of any substantial benefit to the Dominion. If stations are to be established

at Glace Bay for communication across the Atlantic, I cannot understand why we are establishing cable lines along very much shorter distances, from Anticosti to the Magdalen islands, and from Scatari to Louisbourg. I cannot understand how it is going to operate across the Atlantic when it will not operate between nearer points. I . would like to know whether the government is going to establish an experimental station to aid people in scientific investigations, or is he going into this large expenditure to save money to the government on submarine cables ? If that is the case, I would suggest that a very suitable point for the development of the system for a short distance would be from Gape Tormentine to Cape Traverse, where people are suffering a gross injustice by reason of an ineffective service by submarine cable operated unjustly by a private company.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As the minister of telegraphs I arranged for the establishment of two Marconi systems last fall. I thought it was only fair to try it, as it did not cost much. We are paying a royalty of $500 a year for these two stations between the North Shore and Belle Isle. The station at Glace Bay is a government station. I am asking nothing for it in my estimates. It is a government question altogether, so much so that it is not placed in my estimates as Minister of Public Works and of Telegraphs. I am responsible for the establishment of that station, of course, but I did not make a bargain myself. I hope the Marconi system will be worked between ocean and ocean. But I say again that, after lia\ ing read a good many things that have been written on ,..e Marconi system and all the other wireless systems, I have come to the conclusion that it will take some years before these wireless systems can be worked safely for commercial purposes. Mr. Marconi and others are all the time improving their system, but I am afraid no country will rely on these wireless systems. I would rather rely for safe communication on cables that I know and have tested. Still, the Marconi, the Slaby and other systems are making great progress.


Robert Laird Borden: The curious feature of the Situation seems to me that we are spending about $70,000 here in cables for short distances which certainly could be supplied by the Marconi system much more easily, if that system can be established across the Atlantic. The Marconi system has either arrived at a stage ai. which it is likely to be in some measure successful or it has not. Most people think it has, the government evidently thinks that it has, because they are voting $80,000 for the purpose of assisting that gentleman and his system. It certainly has been successful in England over much greater distances than those covered by some of 150$
these cables, if we are to believe all we read in the public press. It has been established over distances very much longer than between Louisbourg and Scatari.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WOlLvo. In all kinds of weather ?


Robert Laird Borden: So I understood.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I say no, I am sure of that.


Robert Laird Borden: Then he should not have permitted this sum of $80,000 to be put in the estimates for the purpose of cabling across the Atlantic. He seems to want to relieve himself from the responsibility for that particular vote. If it can be used at all in all weathers and under all conditions for any distance, then it certainly can be used between Louisbourg and Seat-terie. How far is it between these two points ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About three or four miles.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: About 15 miles.


Robert Laird Borden: From Louisbourg to Scatterie ?


Alexander Johnston: From Louisbourg to Scatterie is about 15 miles.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I would have supposed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is by land, but the channel is not more than three or four miles across.


Alexander Johnston: Not that much.


Robert Laird Borden: Surely, if this system can be used for a distance of that kind, would it not be the proper course to delay proceedings a little before spending a great deal of money on these cables ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The experience that I have had of the Marconi system between the North Shore and Belle Isle is such that I would not like to tell the commercial community that they could rely at all times on it. Last winter I asked for reports between the North Shore and Belle Isle, and I could not get them. This system works well in a dry temperature; that is our own experience. But Marconi and other scientists are working on the wireless system and improving it every day. There is no doubt that Marconi has been ahead of everybody else, but I would not take the responsibility of saying that the commercial community couid rely upon the wireless system at ail times and that is the reason why we have these cables.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: You want to doubletrack the system.


Tiie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: X Lave no doubt as to the usefulness of the Marconi system, because improvements will be made in the future. To-day they are communicating at very long distances, but, I am sure, that at the present time it cannot replace the cable.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there an officer in the department who is specially charged with reporting upon the system ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who is the expert ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Keeley, our superintendent general, who is a very capable man.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has he recommended this additional laying of cable between the Magdalen Islands and Anticosti ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this has his full approval.


Uriah Wilson: I think it would be well perhaps if the hon. minister would make some explanation as to how far he has gone with the bargain with Marconi under which tire government pay $80,000, or whether this is only the start and whether we are going to spend larger sums of money on that system ?


Peter Macdonald: We have an item, No. 92-


Uriah Wilson: That has been discussed by every hon. member of the committee who lias spoken, and I want a little information with respect to this particular item.


Peter Macdonald: We have an item, No. 92, which deals with this question.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the discussion is perfectly regular. We are considering whether or not we will spend money on cables. It is a perfectly proper thing to consider this matter and to point out that this expenditure may be unnecessary because you can have communication by means of the Marconi system. I do not think the discussion has gone beyond the range of what is proper on this item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This $80,000 will be all.


Uriah Wilson: How many instruments have you ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As to that I do not know.


Uriah Wilson: If it is regular, I might ns well find out whether you expect to use this system to communicate with the other side of the Atlantic.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The instruments which the hon. Minister of Public Works holds have no relation to the Mar-Mr. LEFURGEY.
coni contract. These were obtained before we made the Marconi contract. The contract simply is that we shall expend $80,000 to aid Mr. Marconi in putting up a station in the hope that it will be a success. If It is a failure we have specu-. lated in science and have not got much for our money, but if it is a success we gain by the fact that the Atlantic rates are to be decreased.


Uriah Wilson: And you have the instruments besides, which you have bought ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These instruments bought by the Public Works Department are outside the contract. The contract-also provides that for our own purposes we shall be able to get the instruments at cost price free from royalty, but the hon. Minister of Public Works had purchased these instruments before Mr. Marconi came here.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The instruments that are under my care cost $2,000.


Uriah Wilson: You do not know how many you have ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have two stations under my care.


Uriah Wilson: Did they cost $2,000 apiece ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, $2,000 for the two stations. We have one at Belle Isle and one on the north shore. This summer we will give them a fair trial and I think they will work well.


Uriah Wilson: It does seem a pity that before laying this cable you had not made a fair trial with this system.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My own personal conviction is, that, useful as the wireless system may be, cables will always be necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If cables will always be necessary, would it not be the part of wisdom to allow Mr. Marconi to go on with his experimenting and risk the cables until such time as he has perfected the system '!


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Governor in Council has decided otherwise.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Public Works dissenting.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if the arrangement made with Mr. Marconi includes any improvements made in the future on the system ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, I am perfectly free to make any other arrangement with any other company. I have only instruments for two sta-

tions. If they work well I will be very thankful indeed. If they do not I will change them. I have not paid much for them. As to the hon. gentleman's question, the government have made their experiment and, as the lion. Minister of Finance says, if it works well we will have the bene-fitj and if it does not, we will lose.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That is not the question I wished to ask at all. I wished to know if any future improvements on the Marconi system were Included in the present arrangement ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We pay 880,000 towards the construction of these stations, which will be completed, I expect within a few weeks or a few months. Be-vond that the Marconi Company stipulate that they will give us the instruments for the purposes of our lighthouse service and for the purposes of navigation, &c., but not for commercial purposes, and that will naturally include improvements at fair prices and without royalties. Anything of that kind which we require they must supply at a fair price without regard to royalty.


Uriah Wilson: I thought you said we got it for nothing.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It means that we get them at manufacturer's prices without any cost for royalty. They must not charge us for royalty which is the chief cost in those things.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Have you purchased the future improvements that might be made in the Marconi system ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would not say that. [DOT]


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will the minister tell us the position exactly that we are in ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Our main contract had relation to the creation of this station, and the other part was rather incidental to the arrangement and no great importance was attached to it. It provides whatever instruments we need for our lighthouses and for the safety of life and property, but not for general commercial purposes. we are entitled to get at a fair price without having to pay a royalty.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Then we are absolutely in the hands of the Marconi Company as regards any improvements they may make upon their system, and after this expenditure of $80,000 we will still have to pay the piper for any improvements they may make.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Justice has sent for the contract and it will speak for Itself. We are paying the $80,000 mainly for the station, and Marconi will be interested in making his system as perfect ns possible. We are getting the benefit in the shape of reduced rates which
is the only way we get our compensation. The Minister of Justice thinks the word ' improvement ' is mentioned in the contract.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It appears that we are in a rather precarious position in regard to this matter. We have the Minister of rub-lie Works saying that he has no faith in the system.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say that.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Well, he says that he has no absolute faith in the system. We are spending therefore $80,000 merely on an experiment, and I do not think we are justified tn paying $80,000 out of the public funds to assist an experiment on behalf of any person. The minister himself says that he is not sure that it can be used over a space of ten miles. If we are not entitled to the improvements which may be made in the Marconi system, our money is absolutely wasted and we are simply putting ourselves in the hands of any speculator that may come along.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I differ from my hon. friend as to the experiment, because I believe that whether it succeeds or fails it was a good thing for us to take hold of Marconi and give him a helping hand in a matter which was attracting world wide interest. Whether it succeeds or fails there is no question but that the public opinion of Canada has fully justified the government in taking the step it did. If it succeeds we will get our compensation in the shape of a ten cent rate instead of a twenty-five cent rate, and that is worth risking something for. Like Mark Twain's uncle who took the pork contract, we will be serving our country and making a nice thing out of it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the minister a written report about those cables from Mr. Keeley ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Prepared by Mr. Keeley ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I differ from the Min-ter of Finance, for I do not believe that the government of Canada should set itself up as an experimental station of any sort. Scientific investigations have gone on in this world for a great many years and I do not know of any government having assisted mere experiments. There are experiments on flying machines and other things, and the first thing we know the Minister of Finance and his colleagues will be making experiments in this line. We can very well allow such experiments to be carried on by the parties interested, and when completed we can reap the advantage of them. I notice that the government has not yet taken up the experiment'of the fast line of steamers across

the Atlantic, which is a very desirable experiment for the government to make in the interest of the country, and on which $80,000 could be much more wisely spent than on this wireless telegraphy which the minister himself does not know will be a success.
Telegraph lines, British Columbia-Branch from Port Simpson-Hazel ton main line to Aberdeen, $J,500.	,


Thomas Earle: Is this under contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not yet, but it will be carried on immediately. There is a large cannery there.


Thomas Earle: I was going to ask if it would be completed in time to be of use this season ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes; instructions will be given immediately.
Telegraph lines, British Columbia-ISO Mile House to Quesnel Forks and Horse Fly, $7,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask what brand of cigars they will use in the construction of this line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope they will not use any cigars.


Thomas Earle: Is this to be constructed by the same party who constructed the Dawson line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, we are going to carry out this work by contract.
Establishment of timber creosoting plant to treat timber required l'or general repairs to wharfs and breakwaters, $40,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where is that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not yet made up my mind as to the best location. It will be necessary to be in the maritime provinces, where that kind of timber is more required. I have really no place in my -mind at present.


Uriah Wilson: How does the minister know how much to ask ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I strongly advise the minister to hesitate before he enters upon this work, because the sum mentioned for the establishing of a creosoting plant is quite Insufficient.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, It is quite sufficient.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the minister any estimate or report from experts showing that with this sum he can establish a creosote plant ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIG WORKS.: Yes.
. Mr. MONK. Where is that report ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sure the hou. gentleman does not expect me to carry to the House all the re-Mr. LEFURGEY.
ports which I have in the department. When I say I have reports, it does not always mean that I have written reports. In this case, my late chief engineer, Mr. Coste, investigated that matter for years, and Mr. Laflenr, my present chief engineer, shares the views of his late chief. We purchase every year about $40,000 of timber which we have to get creosoted in the States, because we have no establishment here. My officers have investigated the cost of these plants on the spot, and they tell me that a plant will not cost more than $40,000. It is not a very expensive plant; it is a question of large tubes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am only putting the minister on his guard. I am surprised to hear that he has been getting bis wood creosoted in tlie States, when we have a considerable establishment in this country. There is one in my own county.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For long pieces of timber ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Both long and short. My hon. friend knows the establishment-that of Mr. St. George.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is not creosoted timber at all. It is not the same thing. The worms would eat it as quick as a flash.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They do both. I can tell the hon. minister, from what I have heard of the cost of that plant, that he will not get the establishment -for $40,000. It seems to me that when he asks the House to grant the government $40,000 to start a new business of that kind, we ought to have something in writing before us showing plainly what the establishment will cost, and where it will be placed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have here a -list of the articles necessary for the establishment, and they make up the amount of $40,000. This 'is the estimate of my officers, and I cannot give more than that.
Surveys and inspections, $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that a usual vote V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it is an -additional vote.


Robert Laird Borden: Why do you want an additional vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because I have a great many more surveys than I ever had before, and, moreover, it has become necessary to make a complete survey o-f the St. Clair river and the St. Mary's river. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) called my attention to the fact that our American friends had been dredging in our waters, and I want to make a complete -survey of these upper rivers, so as to know how the matter stands.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think the hon. minister will readily ask the committee to vote a sum of $40,000 on that kind of an estimate V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member is very difficult to please. I have discussed the matter with my most competent officers, and what more can I do V


Haughton Lennox: At this point I think there ought to be an understanding. We are asked from time to time to vote large sums of money -for matters which members of parliament necessarily know very little about. The hon. minister does not profess to thoroughly understand this matter himself. I think that before we are asked to vote this money, we should have the best information on the subject that it is possible to obtain. That information should be laid before the House in writing, and without something of the kind it is unfair to ask the representatives of the people to vote the money. I am not speaking of this item in particular but of the system, and I certainly think that in -the case of any considerable item, a definite statement of the estimated total expenditure involved should be submitted to the House. It is not a question of $40,000 alone, but the larger question of our spending large sums of money without really knowing what the expenditure is for. When we vote this $40,000, we have no proper means of knowing whether that is anything like the ultimate amount we will be asked to vote.


Thomas Earle: I ho-pe that will be done at an early date.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: To-morrow morning the rates will be reduced $3 instead of $4.50.


Thomas Earle: How will be the rates from the Skeena river to the coast ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Our present rate is 50 cents per 100 miles. I do not know how many miles it is to the coast, but I will make a deduction all through. I will try it for a month or two. The reduction will be specially between Dawson and Ashcroft.
Slides and booms, Gatineau river-compensation to Messrs. Oilmour & Hngheon for use of their retaining booms at the Cascades, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Instead of building booms ourselves, we have used those of Messrs. Gilmour & Hughson and of course we have to pay for them.
St. Maurice district-working expenses, additional amount, $20,COO.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This year there will be four million logs to pass through our booms, we expect, and we anticipate a good incoming revenue.
Civil government-Department of Railways and Canals-To provide for the promotion of F. A. Dixon to the rank of chief clerk, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,-$00.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection to give all the information I have at hand. I fully recognize tlie right of hon. members -to ask for every possible information, and I have never refused to give them any information I have. My hon. friend would like to have a written report on every item. Really I would not like to undertake to do that. I believe that when a minister of the Crown says he has a report from his officers, his word -should he taken. I do not profess to be an expert on every item. I am not a builder or -an architect or an engineer, and must necessarily rely on the -competent heads of the different branches of the Department of Public Works. 1 inform myself the best I can, and more than that I cannot be expected to do.


Thomas Earle: Will that complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My officers Inform me that it will.
Yukon system- of telegraph lines comprising the Ash croft-Dawson line and branches^worlc-ing expenses, additional amount, $33,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have in the estimates $S0,000 for the working* of our Yukon line and we are asking this addition. I am going to reduce the rates very soon.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no difference in this gentleman's salary. The salary is voted in the main estimates, but on the basis of his being a first-class clerk. He is now made a chief clerk, his salary as chief clerk being the same as the highest salary attained by a first-class clerk.


Robert Laird Borden: But you have the money voted already, and this should be struck out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But the other amount cannot be paid to him, as it was voted to him as first-class clerk, and the object is to promote lilm to the rank of chief clerk.


Robert Laird Borden: But you should not have the amount voted twice.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When we come to the item in concurrence, if the House thinks it desirable, it can be struck out; but, as I say, tlie salary previously voted to him could not be paid to him in any case.


Robert Laird Borden: I know, but I cannot see any sense in, or justification for, this way of doing it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The salary will only be paid once.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The salary we are now voting is the same exactly as the siwn already voted, but it is to be voted for a first-class clerk instead of a chief clerkship. There will be no objection to striking the item out on concurrence, but we cannot deal with it here.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we were giving Mr. Dixon a larger salary it would be necessary only to vote the difference. But where .the salary is the same and only the rank is different it must be voted as it is here.


John Graham Haggart: But the money is voted twice, the first time for a first-class clerk. That means that the minister has a first-class clerkship to dispose of.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But I understand the Minister of Railways and Canals to say that he does not intend to pay two salaries.


John Graham Haggart: We can strike if ou!t on concurrence.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: By adding up all these votes on capital account, hon. members will see that about $800,000 of it is made up of revotes. In this item all but about $42,wi is a revote. This is to pay a balance of $6,750 on locomotives that were not sufficiently estimated for and for two shunting engines estimated at $35,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount expended on rolling stock last year7


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We had a vote for rolling stock of $2,000,000. At the end of the current year we wiill have expended that amount less about $200,000.


John Graham Haggart: I do not quite understand this item. If I remember rightly there is an estimate in the next year of $500,000. Then, in the supplementary estimates for the current year there is $70,000 to cover an expenditure Which the minister seems to have made in excess of his estimates. What, then, is the revote for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We got an appropriation of $2,000,000 for the current year, and we got a supplementary vote of $70,000 for this year. This makes a total of $2,070,000. We will have expended, at the end of the present fiscal year, say $1,800,000 in round figures. We have contracts pending which wil not toe executed in time


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: for the rolling stock to be received and paid for during the current year, to the amount of $30,000 in round figures, and we are providing for a couple of shunting engines, as I have said.


John Graham Haggart: But the hon. gentleman asked for a supplementary vote for the year ending 30th of June, 1002, of $70,000. Tha t must have been for a deficiency in the vote of that year. But he has not explained why he wants this $70,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: At the time the supplementary votes for the current year were made up we had reason to believe that this rolling stock would be delivered before the current year, and, in order to cover that we required $70,000, and we put it in the supplementary item. Now, we find from the latesit reports that the stock will not be delivered to the extent of about $300,000 in round figures, and, iu order to pay for that, we have to get a supplementary revote for the year to come.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister had a vote of $2,000,000. And about a week ago he brought down a supplementary estimate for 1902, amounting to $70,000. Now, he finds lie has made a mistake to the extent of $303,000. There must be most extraordinary book-keeping iu his department.


Mr. BARKER.: Does the hon. minister ask for this $70,000 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
Mr. BARKER, But the hon. minister lias not spent it, and virtually he is asking for $373,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We got $2,070,000. If the contracts we have given were filled we would require that sum. But there will be about $300,000 which we cannot pay this year, and that we will have to pay next year.


Samuel Barker: As I understand the hon. gentleman, he has only paid about $1,700,000. He has paid less than his estimate by over $300,000. That means that he pays up to the 30tli of June $1,700,000. He has taken $2,070,000 to pay $1,700,000.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. I put it very clear as a revote, there can be nothing more explicit.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman propose to cancel that $70,000 ?
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. No, T do not.
Mr.	BARKER.	Well, it is a fictitious
item, there is no such item.
The	MINISTER	OF	RAILWAYS	AND
CANALS. There is an item passed.


Samuel Barker: I know it is in the estimates, but there is no such item in the hon.

gentleman's books. He has not spent his 82,000,000 by $300,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Well, that Is a fact.


Samuel Barker: It is a fictitious fact.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, it is an actual fact.


Samuel Barker: But there is no such thing as that $70,000 when he explains the matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, there is a vote for $70,000.


John Graham Haggart: What amount have you expended last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We consider now that we will require by the end of the year-we have not expended it all yet-$1,767,000 to pay for rolling stock which we shall receive.


John Graham Haggart: That would leave $303,000 for a revote. He has $2,070,000 voted already and he expects to spend by the end of the year $1,767,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That will leave $303,000, and that amount I am asking to be revoted.


John Graham Haggart: Does not the minister see that he should have a better system of book keeping ? He came down here ten days ago asking for a supplementary vote of $70,000 to his $2,000,000, then he comes here a few days after with another supplementary estimate and asks us for $303,000 of that as a revote for next year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot 'see any question of book keeping in it all. The estimates are presented to the officers of our department, and I say to them : What amounts win be required for the supplementary estimates for the current year ? They, with the knowledge which they possess, say they will require $70,000 for rolling stock to cover contracts we have already made. They find out after we have received that and after the estimate has been brought down that they are not going to be able to secure the completion of the contract by the first day of July to the extent of the whole amount which they have contracted for, and they fall short by $300,000 ; and in order that we may possess the means to pay the articles when we receive them next year, we ask a revote for $300,000.


John Graham Haggart: Ten days ago the department virtually tells the House that they want, for the purpose of balancing their accounts last year, $2,070,000. Now, they find out they were mistaken by $303,000 which the hon. gentleman asks to be revoted for next year.
Engine house, &c., at Ciiaudi&re Junction, $63,000.


John Graham Haggart: That is an enormous sum for an engine house.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The new round house, which will contain eighteen stalls, will cost $37,3u0. Then there are machine shops, a boiler building, building for repairing stores, turntable. foundation for stationary boiler plant, water service and heating the different buildings. All this will be done by contract that can be so done. You cannot put down a turntable by contract.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART  .@: Will that build the whole ? Was there any vote in the main estimates for that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: This is the total amount required for Chaudi&re Junction ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is what is estimated will finish it.


Samuel Barker: You buy your turntable from a bridge builder ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, but we put it down by our own people. We allow $4,000 for a turntable and foundation.
Increased accommodation at St. John, $90,300.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is to provide for tools, machinery and car shop. $7,000 ; electric lighting, $5,500 ; apparatus for providing and storing compressed air. $1,000 ; stationary engine and boilers, $5,600 ; building for stores and offices, $5,500, making $25,500. We then complete a new engine house, a new turntable and a new machine shop for $35,000 ; to complete the filling of the new yard, laying tracks and furnishing water supply, $30,000, which makes in all $90,500.


Samuel Barker: Does that include the new sidings at St. John ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND Yes, that is included. The whole item for fijling the new yard, bridging the creek, laying these tracks and furnishing the water supply, is $30,000.


John Graham Haggart: Why does the hon. gentleman ask for that vote when I understood in the Public Accounts Committee that he was charging the greater part of that as an expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We did not charge any portion of it. All that was charged was the rails. We have the rails ready to lay down.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount now expended at St. John for terminal facilities with this vote ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That will include the amount that was paid for the land which the hon. gentleman had a hand in, all the Hands property which the hon. gentleman may have heard of.


John Graham Haggart: No, I mean the whole of the terminal facilities at St. John. The minister must have it under his eye.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not know I had it here, but I have found it. The total amount expended and estimated to be expended is $2,500,000.


John Graham Haggart: For one yard ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman does not mean to say he is making a correct statement when he says it is for one yard ?


Samuel Barker: One station yard at St. John.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is at St. John, but it is not one station yard. This is the amount which has been expended from the beginning.


Samuel Barker: Yes, but it was on one station yard.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, but it includes the whole thing from beginning to end.


William Manley German: How much did the Harris property cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Over $200,000, and if the other property had cost as much as the Harris property it would have been over the $10,000,000.


John Graham Haggart: Does that item include the land bought from the Gilberts?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: How many acres were bought at that time ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Thirty-seven.


Uriah Wilson: How much has been expended during the last five years at St. John ? The hon. minister must have particulars. We heard him speak about the Harris property that was purchased during the time of the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart), and if lie could give us the particulars of this purchase we should know something of what he has done since he took office.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is some excuse for knowing about the Harris property, because we Hon. Mr. CLAJR.
have heard a good deal about it. It struck everybody as a somewhat paralyzing purchase.


John Graham Haggart: When we purchased the Harris property we were accused of having more property than was necessary at St. John for terminal facilities, but it seems we have not enough by 37 acres.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman bought a little bit of land alongside the station which very possibly will be three-quarters of an acre or an acre in extent. With that quantity of laud we could not make very much of a railway yard.
Increased accommodation at Stellarlon, $17,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the work you have done at Stellarton ? There is another vote already I think of $15,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is necessary for the purpose of completing the works there. Stellar-ton being a divisional point has to be equipped as a divisional point. It is a divisional point between Truro and Mulgrave, and we require that all engines shall take water, besides which considerable yards are required to accommodate the cars which go to the miues, and so on. We have to handle a good deal of coal traffic at that point. We intend to put up a two-story building for the accommodation of the engine men, register rooms and foremen's office, master mechanic's office, train engineers lunch room and oil room, which will cost $6,500; heating offices and building, $1,000; new electric lighting plant, $2,000; office furniture, $1,000; building for storing wrecking car, $1,500; tracks and laying tracks, $5,000,-which makes a total-of $l7,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount expended at Stellarton ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 


Samuel Barker: I do not understand why it is that these estimates are brought forward in this way. The hon. gentleman prepares his estimates for the year, and no doubt his officers know what will be required at a particular station. In his original estimates he wanted $15,000 for improvement at Stellarton. How does it come that these extra works are now to be undertaken which were overlooked a few months ago ? Did the hon. gentleman's officers overlook these things or does somebody else suggest that they would like to have these works carried out ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They are not overlooked and nobody suggests them to the officers. There are a great many things that the officers think are necessary and they send forward their recommendation that they should be done.


John Graham Haggart: We are talking about the estimates for 1903, and this is for the same year.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am talking of the estimates of 1903. We do not, as a matter of preference, always insert in our main estimates every dollar of any one expenditure that may be made.


Samuel Barker: I think that if the hon. minister's engineer would do that with an ordinary railway company he would be allowed to retire from the service. The engineer is supposed to make up his estimate of what is required on the line. He comes to his chief and says that a number of improvements are wanted at a particular station during the year. If he were to come back in six weeks and say that he wanted double the amount that he had originally asked for he would not remain in the service.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We do not want to be too harsh.


Uriah Wilson: I think it is because there will be a thin House, and everybody will be anxious to get away, that they keep these estimates from us until this late period of the session. I remember that when hon. gentlemen opposite occupied seats on this side of the House they took this objection very strongly. I do not see any reason why these amounts do not come down in the original estimates. I think this is done for a purpose that it is hard to defend.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Tlie hon. gentleman .would not defend anything he could help.


Uriah Wilson: I think the hon. minister ought to have some reasou better than the one he has given to justify acts of this kind. His party took strong grounds when they were sitting on this side of the House on this question, but he, fortunately or unfortunately for himself, has spent most of his public life in office and as a matter of course he has not had to do much in criticising, and in the province that he came from, I understand, that he did about as he liked.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was always very careful to do what I thought the country would like.
To increase accommodation at Sydney (revote), $50,000.


John Graham Haggart: Some information is required here.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a revote.


John Graham Haggart: You have $70,000 odd in the main estimates, and how is it that when you were preparing your main
estimates you overlooked the fact that you would have a revote of $50,000?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When the estimates came up our officers did not anticipate but that they would be able to complete the work. They are satisfied now that they will not be able to do it.	[DOT]


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount expended at Sydney ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The total estimated cost of Sydney works will be about $390,000.


John Graham Haggart: Is this going to finish it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
Increased accommodation at Halifax (revote $00,000), $143,000.


Mr. BOYD.: The committee should rise now. We have been here since 11 o'clock this morning and it is not fair to go on voting large sums of money in this way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have made no progress.


Nathaniel Boyd: But we have been doing public business. I appeal to the Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we had been doing any business I would not object.


Thomas Earle: We have been here day in and day out from 11 o'clock in the morning for more than a week past, and you should not ask us to stay up after two o'clock. We have been criticising the estimates very moderately, and I think we should adjouru.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not one whit worse on us than it is on the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Earle: Oh, yes it is. You can go away when you get through your estimates but the few of us here have to remain to do the business.


John Graham Haggart: What is the minister doing with this $143,000 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We had a vote last year of $14G,-000 and in that was an item of $120,000 under the heading of increased accommodation at Halifax; dredging and blasting work at Halifax, $20,000. Out of the $120,000 we only expect to spend $45,000 up to the end of the current fiscal year which would leave $75,000 out of the $120,000 for which provision has to be made. I explained that this $75,000 was made up as follows :
New works and improvements at North street station $30,000-


John Graham Haggart: Give tlie expenditure and the estimated amount so that we will get it in ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am reading the items showing the amount that was not expended and there cannot have been any expenditure.' The $75,000 that remained unexpended out of the $120,000 consist of new works and improvements at North street station, $30,uo0 ; guard retaining wall, Richmond, $20,000 ; grading behind guards, $2,000 ; alterations to buildings, $15,000 ; making the $75,000.


John Graham Haggart: How do you get the rest of the $90,000 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You have to add to that, dredging and blasting of rock at Halifax which was in last year's estimates.


John Graham Haggart: Under what heading ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Under the heading of increased accommodation at Halifax and dredging, $142,000. For dredging and blasting there will only be expended up to the end of this year $11,000, which will leave the $15,000. That makes the $90,000.


John Graham Haggart: Will this finish it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I mentioned that there was an engine-house at Richmond, which amounts to $53,000, and if to that you -add the $90,000 revote, you will have $143,000 for the current .vote.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister tell us what is the total amount, including this, expended for terminal facilities at Halifax ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 


Uriah Wilson: Could the hon. minister tell us how much of that has been expended within the last five years ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot tell that off-hand.


Uriah Wilson: Will the hon. minister give us that, with the expenditure at St. John, to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will with pleasure


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any scheme for taking the land between Lock-man street and Water street south of the present station ?


The SIINISTER OF RAILSVAYS AND CANALS.: I have to confess to my hon. friend that we have not taken that subject up yet.


Robert Laird Borden: I brought it to the hon. gentleman's attention last year.
Hon. Mr. BL\IR.


The SIINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman did, and if these other matters had not been very pressing, we would have turned our attention to that.


Robert Laird Borden: SYnat I suggested to the hon. minister last year was that if that were done, a great deal of the rock blasting and other work might be dispensed with. It is highly probable that the land will have to be taken some time, and it might be better to take it now than at some future date. However, I trust that the hon. gentleman will take that into consideration.
To strengthen bridges (revote), (50,000.


Hon.   S@: Will this finish the work ? If not, what is the total amount which it is expected will be required to finish it ?


The SIINISTER OF RAILSVAYS AND CANALS.: I have no data here, but I stated the other day that the estimate which was given at the time we started on this work was that it would probably cost in the neighbourhood of $000,000 or $700,000 altogether. Perhaps that would be a fair estimate yet, although I have not had any recent estimate on the subject.


Uriah Wilson: Will the hon. minister tell us liow many bridges there are ?


The SIINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are a great many. I had the data here when we were going through the main estimates, and I think I furnished the House with it; but I have not got these particulars here now.


Sir.   SVILSON@: The hon. minister might bring that to-morrow.


Hon.   S@: That makes $225,000 which the hon. minister is taking for strengthening the bridges this year.
To provide additional siding room- and increase accommodation, and facilities along the line (revote), $135,000.


Hon.   S@: Can you explain how it is you ask this ? Did you expect to spend that much up to the 1st of July this year ?


The SIINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We did certainly expect that when we took the estimate last year.


Hon.   S@: But this year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILSVAYS AND CANALS.: I have received no information which would lead me to any different conclusion. SVe found as the season was advancing that it would be impossible for us to carry on the work to the extent originally contemplated.


Hon.   S@: If I understand rightly, there was $150,000 odd voted for increased accommodation for the third year, and you have not expended that by $135,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was $300,000 odd.


Hou. Mr. IIA GO  ART@: I am afraid that if it takes all night we must ask the minister at what places he intends to expend that money all along the line ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If tile lion, gentleman will look it up, he will find that when that item of $330,000 was obtained last year, I made a statement of how and where we proposed to spend that money.


John Graham Haggart: If the hon. minister has not the information with reference to this item, I will ask him to put in a written statement to-morrow of how he intends to expend this money.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not sufficient for my hon. friend to be told that once or apparently even twice. I told him when the item in the main estimates was going through for the next year, and I told him when the item for $330,000 was passed last year. I did not come provided with a duplicate statement of the same thing to repeat it to-night. 1 did not anticipate that.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister has not told us where he is going to spend the $50,000 lie has in the main estimates. Will he tell us now ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot undertake to furnish information on the estimates that we disposed of some weeks ago. as to which I had the explanations, and if they were asked they will be found in ' Hansard.'


John Graham Haggart: It is absolutely necessary that we should know where this large expenditure is to be made, and the expenditure on every part of the work. There are only a few items ; the hon. minister can easily get the information from his department; and we want it on ' Hansard '-where he spent the money last year, and where the amount that remains unexpended is to be expended. The hon. minister says that of the $330,000 he voted last year he expended all but this $135,000. The House would like to know where he expended the vote of last year and where he intends to spend this revote.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not got the statement before me. but I will bring all these statements if the hon. gentleman would give me delay.


Robert Laird Borden: It is only reasonable that they should be furnished. The hon. minister cannot expect to get through his estimates by referring us to last year's ' Hansard.'


Mr.  C. A.@: We want an explanation of where this balance of $135,000 is to be expended. If the hon. gentleman
lias not got it at hand, let him give it to us lief ore the next item passes. While on these items, let me ask him has he the information I asked for with reference to a number of votes ?
The AllNLITER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I have that information.


Mr.  C. A.@: This item may be adopted on the understanding that the hon. minister will furnish the information required.
To change car couplers on passenger cars (revote), $3,000.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister took a vote last year of $20,000. How is it there were only $12,000 of that spent ?


The AIINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The quantity of repairs required is very considerable and the car shops are very limited in their capacity and found it impossible to get through the work.


Samuel Barker: Is it not rather because the hou. gentleman bought new cars, instead of repairing the old ones ?


The AIINISTER OF RAILAVAYS AND CANALS.: Not at ail.


Samuel Barker: It seems extraordinary that he estimated last year expending five times the amount he really did.
To provide new superstructure lor six spans of Miramichi bridge (revote), $60,000.


Mr.  C. A.@: How is it this is not expended ?


The MINISTER OF RAILAVAYS AND CANALS.: The bridge companies could uot get the steel and were not able to build the bridges, and will not be able before the 30tli .7 line.


Mr.  C. A.@: AVlio has the contract ?
The AIINISTER OF RAILAVAYS AND [DOT]CANALS. AVe have contracts with all the bridge companies.


Mr.  C. A.@: Did you call for tenders ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Mr.  C. A.@: What will be required to complete ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will require $50,000 to complete.


Mr.  C. A.@: Will that $50,000 with tills re-vote complete them ?


The AIINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I think so.


John Graham Haggart: What will be the total amount of the whole at Aliramichi V


The AIINISTER OF RAILAVAYS AND CANALS.: One hundred and thirty-three

thousand dollars Is the total amount, less the value of the old span, $60,000, making $70,000.
To raOe Sydney and Louisbourg bridge over Intercolonial Railway at Sydney (revote, $3,300), $4,300.


John Graham Haggart: Why should we have to do this ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not headway enough.


John Graham Haggart: Is it your bridge ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a bridge of the Sydney and Louisbourg Railway Company. We have been trying to come to some arrangement with the company, but have not yet been able, and we have to provide for this expenditure in the next year.


John Graham Haggart: How much was expended last year ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Nothing at all.


John Graham Haggart: On what principle do you do this for the railway company ?


Robert Laird Borden: The railway was built first and the Intercolonial Railway afterwards, and the land of the company had to be expropriated for the purpose.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, we could not compel them to rebuild the bridge for our purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: This railway was built under the Sydney and Louisbourg Railway, and it ran along a trestle.
Increaed accommodation at Pictou (revote, $15,000), $70,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The appropriation for 1901-02 was $45,000. We expect to be able to expend by the end of the year $30,000. This leaves $15,000 for the re-vote. The reason for the delay was that the creosote ties were not delivered us in time to allow the contractor to complete his contract. The railway tracks on the wharf cost $3,000. A special gangway for steamers, $500. Approach, $3,250. Engineers' inspection, $2,000. Another item, $800, making $8,550. We require additional amount for land for station yard, a new station building and covered platform, and an addition to the baggage room. We have to make an approach to the station, we have to double the track on part of the approach to the station and the town, .and that will make up the additional $46,000.


John Graham Haggart: Why did not the minister bring down this $55,000 in the main estimates ?
Tl*e MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I am quite sure it is no fault of the engineer that it did not come down.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: 


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount expended on terminal facilities at Pictou ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: One hundred and five thousand dollars.


John Graham Haggart: Including the
$70,000 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
Station at Nicolet (revote), $2,500.


John Graham Haggart: What amount have you expended there ?


Tihe MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have made no expenditure yet. This item is expected to cover the whole cost.
Station and freight house at Eel river (revote), $3,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This will cover the cost.
Improvements at North Sydney, $40,000.


Tile MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is for the extension of the Intercolonial wharf 200 feet and to put up
sheds, &c.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the connection with Newfoundland.


Robert Laird Borden: A pretty ample amount for a wharf.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is a large pier. The extension will cost $17,000; then you have dredging to do of about the same amount and freight sheds and tracks $6,000. There is a good deal of business developing there.


Alexander Johnston: This is not half enough.
Building a spur line of railway from Intercolonial Railway station at Riviere Ouelle to the wharf on the St. Lawrence, $43,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is this ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is for a spur line we are running down from the River Ouelle six or seven miles to secure a share of the traffic on the north side of the St. Lawrence. This is opposite places that are becoming great summer resorts. Murray Bay and adjacent places. We think it would be of material advantage to our business to have a spur line to that point.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the cost ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is expected to be covered by this vote.


John Graham Haggart: Where do the passengers come from to these places ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: From every part of Canada, and from every part of the United States.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Murray Bay, Ste. Irdnde, Baie St. Paul- these have become summer resorts which are largely frequented.


John Graham Haggart: Is this spur opposite Murray Bay ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, there will be a ferry there. I suppose that in the summer months Murray Bay has a population of four or five thousand people. Americans are swarming in there, invading the province of Quebec-and spending their money freelr.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In this $43,000 is included the cost of the right of way, which we do not think will be very large.
To increase accommodation at Moncton (revote, $32,000), $156,700.


John Graham Haggart: We would like to know about this.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are extending the machine shop to meet the very imperative demand made upon us by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) which will cost $11,000, in addition to the amount we estimated last year. We intend to build a store house and this is for the store department and the mechanical department, and we propose to equip this with electric light and steam heating. For this building we estimated $50,000. We put in steam boilers, foundation under the building with power, heating and lighting, $30,000. Steam engine, electric generators and compressed ail-apparatus ore estimated at $28,000. Then, hot air, hoisting apparatus and other items, $7,000. These improvements are all designed for the purpose ot' enabling us to build, repair and handle the large locomotives.


John Graham Haggart: When did the hon. gentleman get the estimate for this work ? 1 think there is only $lh,000 and $25,000 in the main estimates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will give the hon. gentleman a statement on that point. The estimates for these items were received from our officers before the opening of parliament. In point of fact they were received before I became ill and unable to attend to the department. The estimates went in but, in my absence, many of the items were coolly cut out. I was not there to stand by them, so they did not stay in. It was not the fault of the engineers in any way.


Uriah Wilson: Will the hon. minister bring down what has been spent at Moncton for the last five years ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
Improvements at Rockingham, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is for addition to the stations and enlargement of the freight shed.


John Graham Haggart: Now, I think we can quit. There is another item for the Prince Edward Island Railway, but we want to discuss the contract on the Prince Edward Island line.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This item for the Prince Edward Island Railway is $30,000 to build a new station at Charlottetown, and we are proposing to use the old one for freight and storage purposes.


John Graham Haggart: But I want this item to stand so as to afford an opportunity to discuss the Murray Bay extension and the Prince Edward Island road. It will take some time to do it.


The MINISTER OF BTNANCE.: Item 28 is a canal item.


Robert Laird Borden: You are not going on with any more ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is an hon. gentleman who has been waiting all night for this canal item, as he wishes to make a few statesmanlike observations with regard to it, I think we might take that up.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital- canals-Welland canal-
To deepen portions of long level between Port Colborne and Thorold.. .$50,000 00 To remove obstructions in the canal
from Tort Colborne down to Welland	 95,000 00


John Graham Haggart: I asked the minister the other day if he was lowering the mitre sill of the lock at the entrance to Port Colborne. I thought there was a necessity for deepening the whole reach, but me minister said there was no necessity for it. I did not know how he would utilize the canal without deepening it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am surprised to hear my hon. friend make this statement, when I said distinctly that we were dredging and deepening all along. There were places where the canal had silted in, and where the water was shallow.
To remove obstructions in the canal from Port Colborne down to Welland, $95,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is a mistake in the wording, that should be ' towards Thorold ' instead of Welland. I will state what the obstructions are. A good many of these bridges across the canal are turned upon a a pier which is in the centre of the canal.

To put the Welland in proper shape for navigation all these obstructions require to be removed. We intend to appropriate a portion of this amount for the purpose of removing these obstructions and erecting new bridges. We propose that the swing bridge piers shall be on the side, the same as in all new canals.
Hon. Mr. HAGGAItT. What is the total amount required for bridghig from Port Ool-borne down to Welland, and for changing the piers ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The chief engineer tells me it will cost in the neighbourhood of half a million- dollars.


John Graham Haggart: We want to know the particulars of the two branches of work, what each will cost.


William Manley German: The one difficulty in the Welland canal for a full sized canal boat drawing 14 feet of water, 2(55 feet long, carrying 75,000 or 80,000 bushels of grain, is that when the boat comes to a unuge pier, the pier being built in the centre of the canal, it forms an obstruction to the passage of a full sized canal boat. As the hon. gentleman well knows, eoery pivot pier is in the centre of the canal. There is 45 feet of navigation on each side of the pier. The locks are, it is true, only 45 feet in width, but here is the difficulty. When these large boats come to a bridge the current, which is of considerable rapidity in the canal now by reason of all the water powers that are taken from the canal, is split at the bridge pier. One of these boats has only about 10 to 12 inches of water under her keel, and it is somewhat difficult to manage, money is being voted now to deepen that level to some extent, making it a clean 16 feet. That is what they need to have, that is what the Welland aqueduct has, that was built under the administration of the hon. member for Lanark. When these big boats come to the centre piers the current" is split, and they have to turn out of their natural course, and may either go into the bank or strike a pier. That does not often happen, but it does sometimes, and the danger of its happening drives vessels away from the Welland canal. If it happens once to a boat it destroys that boat as a money-making commodity. They have to send off for tugs to straighten them around, and they will probably break a portion of the pier. It destroys the earning value of that cargo, and perhaps of every cargo that it will take through the canal that season. Moreover it cauues delay, and the charge of navigation by reason of that is so great that these boats will not pass tnrough the canal when the pier is in the centre. The Hamilton and North-western Navigation Company bought two boats from Glasgow, the ' Strathcona ' and the ' Donaeona,' full canal size, which navigated the canal last Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
summer. They had to take the boats off the canal and they absolutely refused to put them on again as long as these centre piers existed. Mr. Wolvin, an American from Duluth, one of the biggest ship owners and biggest shipping men in the United States, is desirous of establishing a line of ships to run from Buffalo to Montreal or Quebec. His chief captain, Mr. Norcross, who comes from our section, captain of one of his biggest boats, was down here interviewing the government to get them to remove the centre piers. They appreciate the danger and Mr. Wolvin is willing to put on a line of ships if the government will take out the centre piers. The superintending engineer two years ago, I think it was, recommended to the department,*if I am rightly advised, to put a sum in the estimates to remove the centre piers. The government did not see fit to do so then, but they have now come to the conclusion that it is the proper thing to do. I think the estimate of half a million is very much more than it will ever cost.


John Graham Haggart: How many bridges are there from Port Colborne to Welland ?


William Manley German: One of them is on the lock. There is one question that has arisen as to whether or not the government or the railway companies are responsible for rebuilding the railway bridges. For instance, there is the Air Line bridge and there is the Michigan Central bridge. There are three highway bridges between Port Colborne and Welland costing $20,000 apiece


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: One will cost $30,000.


William Manley German: Well, one, say $30,000. Below Welland there is one, exactly at the town of Welland there is one and then there are four or five .between that and the locks. When you come to the locks it will not be necessary to remove the bridges, because they all swing on the. locks themselves. One might ask :	Why is it necessary to have
the channel where the bridge is any wider than the channel where the lock is ? When you come to the lock you have the current going into the lock and a boat, with the speed slowed down, will float right into it straight so that there is no splitting of the current, and the difficulty so far as the other bridges are concerned is that the piers stand in the centre of the canal and the split current is liable to (turn the nose of the boat against the shore or against the pier. That is one reason why we have not more boats running through the canal at the present time. Navigators do not want to take small boats through and they will not go through with full sized boats so long as these centre piers are there. I think this is a wise expenditure.
Wetland canal-To build a concrete centre pier and steel swing span for Montrose briuge over Chippewa river, $9,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the reason for building that bridge ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The present bridge requires to toe rebuilt and a swing bridge is necessary.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 2.55 a.m., Tuesday.

Tuesday, May 13, 1902.