1903-03-30

PETITIONS REJECTED.

Mr. SPEAKER.: Two of the petitions presented to the House this day asked aid in subsidies from the government. They are consequently contrary to Rule 80, and can not be received.
The petitions were rejected.



OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEBATES.

Mr.  L. N.@: CHAMPAGNE (Wright) presented the first report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the Official Report of the Debates of the House during the present session, as follows :-
Your committee recommend that their quo rum be reduced from eight to five members.



L. N. CHAMPAGNE,

[Stage Direction]
Chairman.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 50) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 51) to incorporate the North-west Bank of Canada.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 52) to incorporate the Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.-Mr. Demers (St. Jean-Iberville).

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 53) respecting Insolvency. He said :	I may say at
once to the House that this is the same Bill that was introduced in 1898 by Mr. Fortin, the former member for Laval, now judge of the Superior Court. At that time I took some interest in the measure, and was a member of the committee that was struck for the purpose of studying it and making a report upon it. I think it would be a pity that the measure should fall, for the reason principally that it was submitted to all the boards of trade of this country, and was approved by them all with the exception of the board of trade of Winnipeg, which for some reason or other refrained from giving the Bill its express approbation. Under these circumstances, the Bill, as framed at that time, met the requirements of all the different provinces of the Dominion. At the present moment there is a great demand for uniform legislation throughout the Dominion on this important subject, and it is with that view that 1 am re-introducing the Bill. I will give further explanations when it comes up for its second reading.


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

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: Mr. Speaker, before tlie Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I desire to direct the attention of the House to the present situation in Ontario ; and, in order that I may put myself within the rules of the House, I intend to conclude with a motion. In the Canada ' Gazette ' of Saturday, the following announcement occurs :
Department of the Secretary of State of
Canada.
His Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to make the following appointments. viz.:
March 26, 1903.
The Honourable Charles Moss, Chief Justice of Ontario, to be the administrator of the province of Ontario for the purpose of assenting to such bills as may be required during the present session of the legislature of Ontario, of assenting to the Bills passed by such legislature at the close of the session ; and of proroguing the present session of the legislative assembly of Ontario.
I take this opportunity of asking the right lion, gentleman who leads the House to state to whom has been assigned the other high duties that are attached to the office of Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, like all other lieutenant governors, exercises other prerogatives of the Crown than those mentioned in the ' Gazette,' and so far as we know, they are left to some one else. Now, I believe that the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario is very ill, and somebody must be discharging those other duties. Let me point out from one of the authorities what is included in the other duties of the lieutenaut governor. At page 30 of 'Confederation Law of Canada,' by Wheeler, it is stated :
The Executive Council of Ontario and of Quebec shall be composed of such persons as the Lieutenant Governor from time to time thinks fit.
and so on. A serious political crisis exists in the province of Ontario ; grave charges have been made against ministers of the Crown and are now under discussion in the Ontario legislature ; and in view of the fact that the government have confessed that the lieutenant governor is unable to discharge three of his duties, and have appointed somebody else to discharge them, I want to know who is discharging these other duties, and passing upon the fitness of the ministers of the Crown. Let me quote another authority, Mr. Goldwin Smith, who the other day made the following statement :
Mr. Ross, it has always been maintained in these columns, had much better after the general election have met without delay the legislature which he had called, taken a decisive vote, and thereupon made up his mind whether he was in a position to carry on the government. He preferred, as a matter of party tactics, to fight the battle out In tbe elec-


Mr. MONK.: tion courts, and in such by-elections as might ensue. He thereby manifestly exposed the province to a reign of intrigue and corruption, as well as to an extraordinary outburst of party rancour. He now sees the result. It is much worse for him than even a defeat upon an appeal to the legislature would have been. In that case he would at all events have retained the confidence and support of a united party. As it is, he is threatened with total wreck.
I am not raising a political question, but I want to show what Mr. Goldwin Smith's position is. He goes on to say :
The proper arbiter of the course to be taken by the ministers in such circumstances as these is the lieutenant governor. By him the ministers are appointed, and he is responsible to the province for their integrity. It is very unfortunate if, as is stated, he is incapacitated by sickness for the performance of his functions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have made out that the lieutenant governor has been considered by the Governor in Council here to he incompetent to discharge certain of his functions, and that there are other high functions which require to be discharged at this moment; and I take this opportunity of asking the right hon. First Minister whether these other functions have been assigned to any one. I have not the slightest intention to reflect on his honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I have the highest respect for him. I am rising here solely from a conception of my public duty. I think I speak for the people of Ontario, for constitutional practice, and for a majority of the members from Ontario of this House, without claiming to speak for them from a party point of view ; and I ask the Prime Minister to tell the House and the country what he is doing in connection with the present serious situation in the province of Ontario. I move that the House do now adjourn.


The PRIME MINISTER (lit. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Some few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, myi hon. friend sent me word that he intended to bring before the House the condition of the health of his honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. I would have much preferred that my hon. friend had agreed to the suggestion I made in reply, that he would defer doing so until tomorrow, on the motion to go into Committee of Supply. However, for reasons I shall not discuss, he did not see fit to accede to my request. One of the reasons which induced me ^o ask my hon. friend not to bring the question before the House at this moment was that if he had granted me the privilege I asked, I would have written at once to Sir Oliver Mowat for permission to read to the House a letter which I received from him, and which was the cause of the recommendation I made a few days ago to His Excellency to appoint an administrator for certain purposes. In the absence of such permission, there are in this letter some personal matters which I would

not like to bring before the House, but if I may speak of the general tenor of the letter, it was a request for the appointment by His Excellency the Governor General of an administrator, who would give the necessary sanction to certain Bills this session and who would also prorogue parliament. My hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) asked me who is administering the other duties of the Lieutenant Governor. It seems to me there was no need for him to put such a question. Sir Oliver Mowat is the Lieutenant Governor of the province, and is administering all the duties of the office except those which he himself has asked to be assigned to another person. The reason why Sir Oliver Mowat asks that an administrator be appointed to give the sanction of the Lieutenant Governor to the Bills passed during the session and prorogue the session, which is not expected to last very long, is that he has been incapacitated by an accident, which he met with some days ago, which confines him to his room. Otherwise he is in good health and qui^e able to discharge, and is now discharging, the duties of his office. My hon. friend says that Sir Oliver Mowat is not able to discharge the duties of his office, that his health has incapacitated him from doing so. That is the language which my hon. friend used a moment ago, and I suppose he still stands by it. Well, I have the word of Sir Oliver Mowat himself, for whom my hon. friend says he has very great respect, that he is quite able to discharge all the duties of his office except those I have stated, and the inability to perform which is due solely to physical incapacity. Sir Oliver says that he is otherwise in good health. My hon. friend has told us that- and; in this he voiced the opinion not only of the people of Ontario but of every Canadian that he has the greatest respect for Sir Oliver Mowat. We all have the same respect and when a man of the authority of Sir Oliver Mowat, when a man who commends to such a high degree the respect, confidence and admiration of the whole com munity, says he is quite able to administer all the duties of the office, it seems to me my hon. friend has in that statement an answer to the doubt he has expressed, and ought not to go any further, if indeed he has the respect for Sir Oliver Mowat which he professes to have. It seems to me that my hon. friend ought not to insist that Sir Oliver Mowat is not able to discharge the duties of his office, when he has the assurance of Sir Oliver himself that he considers himself quite able in every respect to discharge all the duties of his office except those which call for such physical exercise as to require him to move from one place to another.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Might I ask the date of that letter ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I really do not recollect, but it is within the last ten days. I am sorry that I have not the privilege of
bringing it to the attention of the House, but if I remember aright, it was written within the past ten days. Under the circumstances what more can be said ? Sir Oliver Mowat had, a fall on the stairs which injured his leg so that he cannot walk, and is therefore not in a condition to go to the House and sanction Bills or prorogue the House. That is why we appointed an administrator. Let me go further. This is the third time this matter lias been brought to the attention of the House. Sir Oliver Mowat is Lieutenant Governor by virtue of the commission issued to him on the proper authority, that of the Dominion government. He can be removed to-day at will, but until last November he could not be removed except for cause. Had we renewed his commission, he would be in the same position. My hon. friend need not go far back for a precedent to which no objection was taken. Some few years ago, we objected to lieutenant governors being kept in office year after year without any renewal of their commissions, but no fault waS ever found when a lieutenant governor was kept in office for some months longer than his actual term. Some few years ago, the late Sir Geocge Kirkpatrick was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. He was sworn in on the 13th of May, 1892, and his five years term expired on the 13th of May, 1897. But he remained in office during the term of his natural life, or some six or seven months after his commission had expired. He was in very poor health, had undergone an operation, and it was well known he could not live much longer, but we did not chose to disturb him and left him in the enjoyment of the office which he held with the concurrence and respect of everybody in the province of Ontario. I would like to know why a different rule should be applied to Sir Oliver Mowat. Does he not enjoy to as high an extent the confidence of the people of Ontario as did his predecessor ? For all these reasons it seems to me that my hon. friend is not playing the best part he could. If I judge rightly the trend of public opinion, I am warranted in saying that if there is a man in whom the people of Ontario, at this moment have confidence to guide them through the political crisis there existing, it is the man who has for so many years enjoyed to the fullest extent the confidence of that province.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: This side of the House, Mr. Speaker, as well as the other side, are extremely gratified to learn that the only reason for the appointment of an administrator for the province of Ontario are those assigned in the Canada * Gazette.' If an administrator be required on account of the physical condition of his honour the Lieutenant Governor, the government were perfectly justified in acceding to Sir Oliver Mowat's request. We are all glad to learn from the right hon. gentleman that the alarming reports as to the mental

and physical condition of his honour are incorrect and that he is only suffering at present from the physical disabilities which require the appointment of an administrator.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have just heard my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) say that my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) is playing a part in the representations he has thought fit to make to the House and the government. Well, I have listened to my hon. friend from East York each time he has referred to this matter, and I am not aware of any remark he has made that would justify the right hon leader of the House in claiming that in the language used by my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) there was the slightest tinge of disrespect to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. He took occasion to call attention to the inability of the Lieutenant Governor to fulfil the functions of his office at the present moment. On the last occasion, the Prime Minister contended that there was no such inability. But, as a matter of fact, all the remarks of my hon. friend from East York have been fully justified by the Order in Council which appeared in the Canada ' Gazette ' last Saturday. What the hon. gentleman stated was absolutely true ; it is impossible for the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, at this moment to fulfil some of the functions assigned to him, as shown by the fact that it has been found necessary to assign those functions to somebody else. Thus the stand taken by my hon. friend from East York is amply justified. What I wished particularly to point out, is this-that there seems to be, in my humble estimation, a mistake in this Order in Council. The government, if it had any authority for it's action, must find that authority in section 67 of the Confederation Act, which says :
The Governor General in Council may from time to time appoint an administrator to execute the office and functions as lieutenant governor during his absence, illness, or other inability.
Now, what I submit to you, Sir, is this- that under that section, which must be construed strictly, the only thing which the Governor General of the Dominion can do is to appoint some one to fulfil the office of lieutenant governor. This gives pertinence to the remarks of my hon. friend from East York. It is within the power of this government to appoint somebody to fulfil the office of lieutenant governor entirely, and I question very much if, having complied with that section, the lieutenant governor himself can proceed in the execution of any of the duties assigned to him. Once the government of the Dominion has judged that there is in the case of a lieutenant governor, illness, absence, or other inability, this government may appoint some body to fulfil the office; but nobody, I think, will contend that it was possible for this government to appoint somebody under Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
this section 67, which is the only one that applies, somebody, for instance, with power to dissolve the local legislature, of or somebody with power merely to give assent to Bills or to prorogue the legislature. Now, in this Order in Council, as I read it, there is an appointment made, not of somebody to fulfil the office of lieutenant governor in conformity of the terms of section 67, on account of the illness of the lieutenant governor, but there is only the appointment of somebody for the purpose of giving assent to Bills during the present session, of giving assent to Bills at the close of the session, and of proroguing of the present session. So that, really, the act of this government amounts to this-that the office of lieutenant governor is divided. There is a fragmentary authority left in the hands of the lieutenant governor and power is given to the chief justice to fulfil some of the functions of the lieutenant governor. I have not given the matter very careful consideration, but I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House that this action is, ultra vires of the government of the Dominion. The only power they have is, in three specified cases mentioned in section 67, to vest, so to speak the office of lieutenant governor in some other person. But they cannot give to another person a portion of the authority of the lieutenant governor and leave him with his other attributes. I think ample authority can be found for that; and I think it is clear, at first sight, that this government has exercised a power which it has not.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If I may be permitted, the point taken by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is one in which, I am bound to say there is some reason. But we were guided by the precedent created by Sir John Abbott in the case of Sir Alexander Campbell, who was incapacitated from performing certain duties. After communications between Sir John Abbott and Sir Oliver Mowat, then Prime Minister of Ontario, certain powers were given to administrators for certain limited purposes. We followed that precedent.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: With the indulgence of the House, I would say that I think my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is mistaken with regard to the case of Sir Alexander Campbell. In that case a very singular thing occurred ; a deputy was appointed by the provincial government. If the House will allow me, I will quote from Clement's Canadian Constitution, which says :
During the last illness of the late Lieutenant Governor Campbell, an Order in Council was passed appointing a deputy Lieutenant Governor, and this action on the part of the provincial government gave rise to considerable discussion. It is understood that the Attorney General of Ontario prepared a ' state paper ' in support of this action of his government, but this we have not seen. A lieutenant governor standing, as he does in the same relation

to the government of a province as the Governor General does in relation to the government of the Dominion-has vested in him the appointment of all subordinate executive officers throughout the province, hut we do not see how this could extend to authorize the appointment of a deputy.
The action of the Ontario government in the case of Sir Alexander Campbell has been criticised by all writers on our constitution. They question-and I think with a great deal of right-the power of the provincial government to appoint a deputy to the lieutenant governor, who is an officer of this government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I think my kon. friend's information is somewhat imperfect. Clement does not go far enough. He had not the facts before him when he made that note on section 67. This debate illustrates the inconvenience of springing questions of this kind on the House without notice. Speaking from memory, I think the deputy to Sir Alexander Campbell was appointed by the local authorities. Sir Oliver Mowat expressed approval of this course. Then the authorities here proceeded as we proceeded. That is, application was made to the federal government, and they did with respect to Sir Alexander Campbell what we did with respect to Sir Oliver Mowat-they confirmed the appointment. And that confirmation was given under the advice of, and after correspondence had been exchanged with, Sir Oliver Mowat, then premier of Ontario. And that is the precedent we have followed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: May I ask if there was an official act of the federal government in that case ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, an Order in Council passed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There was a commission issued to this person who took the place of Sir Alexander Campbell-a commission issued in the name of the local government.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have sent for the papers and will have them here in a few minutes.


Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe).: Section 67 of the British North America Act taken by itself, seems to be reasonably clear :
The Governor General in Council may from time to time appoint an administrator to execute the office and functions of lieutenant governor during his absence, illness or other inability.
Taking this section alone, I admit that it is certainly enough to raise a great doubt, at all events, as to whether the government has taken the right position in making this appointment, the meaning of the section apparently being that if the Governor General in Council appoint the lieutenant governor at all, they cannot divide his functions, but must delegate them in their entirety. But I do not think that we are driven to find
the meaning of the British North America Act on this point from this section alone. If we turn to a corresponding section with reference to the Governor General, I think we will see at once the great importance and great probability of the contention of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in the arguments that he put forward being correct. This section shows just what can be done, and shows that the functions in this case can be divided ; and when you find in the 14th section governing the action of the Governor General that the func: tions can be divided, there is much ground for the argument that the functions in the case of a lieutenant governor cannot be so divided. Section 14 says :
It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks fit, to authorize the Governor General from time to time to appoint any person or any persons jointly or severally, to be his deputy or deputies within any part or parts of Canada, and in that capacity to exercise during the pleasure of the Governor General such of the powers, authorities and functions of the Governor General as the Governor General deems it necessary or expedient to assign to him or them, subject to any limitations or directions expressed or given by the Queen ; but the appointment of such a deputy or deputies shall not affect the exercises by the Governor General himself of any power, authority or function.
Here we have expressly provided that the Governor General can appoint a person or persons in any part of Canada to exercise for the time being some or any of the functions of the Governor General, and in that way he reserves to himself the exercise of all the other functions, and in order that there should not be any doubt upon this important matter, it is made still clearer by the concluding part of the section, which provides :
But the appointment of such a deputy or deputies shall not affect the exercises by the Governor General himself of any power, authority or function.
So we see in this marked distinction between the two analogous positions, the cogency of the argument put forward on this side, and I hope the government will recognize, if they have not already done so, the important step they have taken in this matter, and the significance of the position in which they are placed. It has been well said that this is not the only ease in which Sir Oliver *Mowat lias been unable to exercise the functions of lieutenant governor. The government are aware that, speaking in the ordinary way. his term has expired. I am not one of those who are anxious to see that hon. gentleman removed from the position he occupies, and removed for the purpose of replacing him with another hon. gentleman who has long been looking forward to the position as the fruits of his labour. I think the House understands very well that I refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright! But there has been an argument put for-

ward by the leader of the government which I think tells the other way. He says that because of a crisis in the history of the province of Ontario, the present is an inopportune time to remove from the office of lieutenant governor a gentleman who has shown such conspicuous ability as Sir Oliver Mowat. I submit that this argument is not well taken; because if it is a fact that the government has had in view another gentleman for that position for a long time, and if it be a fact that Sir Oliver Mowat still retains to a large extent the brilliant faculties which he has possessed in the past, surely it is not a great compliment, coming from the First Minister, to the hon. gentleman who aspires to succeed him, to suggest that it would be dangerous now, when there is a crisis in Ontario, to commit to him the administration of the affairs of the province. I hope I am not carried away by any undue admiration for this hon. gentleman, but I do feel that having regard to his faithful public services in the past, having regard to certain promises made to him, it is a little unkind for the First Minister to suggest that it would be dangerous to put the administration of the affairs of Ontario into his hands.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: The First Minister has given us the pleasing assurance that he had a letter from Sir Oliver Mowat to the effect that he was physically and mentally in a fit condition to discharge the high functions of his office. I am not going to dispute that, but I am going to say that if the information be at all correct which has come to us from time to time, it is at variance with the statement of the right hon. gentleman. X desire to remind the House that we have a high medical opinion given with regard to the fiuestion of superannuation, that an individual is not always the best judge of his own mental and physical condition. I merely draw attention to that circumstance, without desiring to argue that there is anything incorrect in the statement of the right lion, gentleman.


Mr.  E. F. CLARICE@West Toronto: I understood the right hon. gentleman to say in reply to a statement made by my hoii. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), referring to the case of the late Sir George Kirkpatrick, that after the Liberal party came into power they allowed Sir George Kirkpatrick to remain in office until the time of his death. I think I am correct in saying that the' right hon. gentleman overlooked the fact that Sir George Kirkpatrick was not in office at the time of his death.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The commission of Sir George Kirkpatrick expired in the month of May, 1897, and his successor was appointed in November, 1897.


Mr. CLARKE.: Several months after Sir George died. Besides, there was no crisis Mr. LENNOX.
in Ontario at that time, such as exists at the present time.
Motion negatived.



PRIYATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. COSTIGAN moved the second reading of Bill (No. 26) to incorporate the Winding Ledges Power and Boom Company, and that it be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
John Graham Haggart: Should it go to the Private Bills Committee or to the Railway Committee ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In regard to the reference of this Bill I may say that a similar Bill was presented some years ago concerning the Grand Falls company, and it was referred to the Miscellaneous Private Bills Committee. I think this is in accordance with rule 59 which provides that Bills relating to railways, canals, telegraphs, canal and railway bridges, shall be referred to the Committee on Railways and that Bills not coming under these classes to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills. The Grand Falls Bill, which came up in 1895, and again in 1901, was quite similar to this and it was referred in both instances to the Private Bills Committee.


John Graham Haggart: I may be mistaken, but my recollection is that these Bills were sent to the Railway Committee.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No, I have looked into the question and I find that they were referred to the Private Bills Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK moved the second reading of Bill (No. 36) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved in amendment:
That Bill No. 36 respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company be not now read the second time hut that it be read the second time this day six months.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that not a very unusual course in this House ? I do not remember that we have ever refused to allow an ordinary railway bill to be read the second time and referred to the Railway Committee. We can, of course, deal with it very much better there than it is possible to do here with the limited information we have. We have no information at all in our possession in regard to this Bill.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: I will admit that this is rather an usual course, but

we have to deal with a very unusual subject. I believe the House will justify me in the course I have taken after hearing the observations I have to make.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not know there was any objection to this Bill passing this stage. I would suggest waiting until the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ball) who is promoting the Bill is here. I am not in a position to discuss the merits of the Bill. 1 merely offer that as a suggestion. Allow it to stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would it not be better that I should withdraw my motion ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Well, the order has been cfilled now.


Mr. INGRAM.: I think we could get over the difficulty by objecting to the Bill being read at all. It has not been printed in French.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I see that the objection is well taken and the motion will be declared out of order.
Order allowed to stand.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 37) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.- Mr. Champagne.
Bill (No. 38) respecting the Great Northwest Central Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 40) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the International Railway Appliance Company.-Mr. Brock.
Bill (No. 41) respecting the Kootenay Central Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 44) respecting the Manitoba and North-western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (NO. 45) respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 47) to incorporate the Nipissing and Pontiac Railway Company.-Mr. Mc-Cool.


[Stage Direction]
Mr.	LEMIEUX-for Mr. Gauvreauasked :
1.	Has the honourable the Minister of Marine and Fisheries received an application from the captains of the floating lighthouses of Ile-Rouge, Ile-Blanehe, and of the Traverse, asking for an increase in the amount of their contract for the supplying of the said floating lighthouses ?	j
2.	If so, is it the intention of the department to grant that which they ask, and the same during the present season of navigation ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine). I may say that applications have been received and that the matter is receiving the attention of the department.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Is the.government aware that the Montreal post office building is quite insufficient to properly meet the requirements of the service ?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to remedy this defect ?
3.	Will the building be enlarged during the present year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: Mr. Speaker, I may say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) that the department is satisfied that the post office building in Montreal is inadequate. The whole subject of meeting the requirements is now undergoing consideration.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-BONA VENTURE DEPOT.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Has the government paid any sum of money to the Grand Trunk Railway Company since the 30th June last, on account of the Intercolonial Railway, for improved terminal facilities, at Bonaventure Depot ?
2.	What is the total amount of such payment ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The government has paid a sum of money to the Grand Trunk Railway Company since 30th June last, for improved facilities at Bonaventure station, subject to a final decision as to liability of the department under the agreement to make such payment.
2.	Total amount of such payment is $274.67.


CITY POST OFFICES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PUTTEE-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
Is the following statement of the revenue and expenditure of the city post offices correct :-
Revenue.
City.	1900-01.	1901-02.Toronto	$481,479	$700,806Montreal	491,351Winnipeg	
116,726	156,734Hamilton	
83,763	97,941Ottawa	95,301London 	85,416Halifax	
58,433	89,443St. John	
54,893	65,382Vancouver	
52,589	57,300Victoria	
47,247	50,172Quebec	
41,903	50,904
Clerks
City.	Expenditure. Letter and
Carriers. Mess'g'rs.
Toronto	$160,300	..	..Montreal	
150,672	..	..Ottawa	
65,375	49	52Hamilton	
57,229	47	35London	
36,133	36	17Quebec	
35,864	34	23St. John	
35,841	25	26Halifax	
34,729	23	24Winnipeg	
33,243	21	22
Are there any unusual conditions that cause the Winnipeg office to stand third in revenue, and ninth in expenditure ? If so, what are they ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: The statement of revenue is correct except that Montreal collected $100 less than the amount mentioned for 1901.
The statement as to expenditure is found to be for the year 1901, and is correct.
The expenditure for 1902 with the number of employees is as follows :
Clerks,
Letter Messengers,
City. Expenditure. Carriers. and
Porters.
Toronto	$166,327	..	..Montreal	
153,826	..	[DOT][DOT]Ottawa	
63,789	49	60


Hamilton .. ..: 58,340	44	35London	
37,022	34	21Quebec	
35,864	33	24St. John	
35,960	23	27Halifax	
34,901	24	23Winnipeg	
36,752	30	45
It will be observed that leaving out Toronto and Montreal, the Winnipeg post office has risen to third in rank as regards the number employed.
It might be explained that the Ottawa office handles all the government matter free, and that the revenue does not by any means represent the volume of business transacted.
Hamilton is the chief distributing point in western Ontario for matter from the United States, and there is a good deal of work performed which is not indicated by the revenue.
The staff at Winnipeg is much newer in point of service than in the older offices, where many have reached the maximum of the respective classes, so that the salaries paid in Winnipeg do not, on this account, aggregate as high as in the other offices.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LANDS- MANITOBA.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PUTTEE-by Mr. Sproule-asked :
What is the total number of acres of land in the province of Manitoba, held or reserved by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and claimed to be exempt from taxation, under the contract of 1881 ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: Approximately 165,000 acres.


Mr. PUTTEE.: 


POSTMASTER AT WHITNEY PIER, N.S. '
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) asked :: 1.	What is the salary of the present postmaster at Whitney Pier, in the county of Cape Breton ?
2.	What was the salary of the late postmaster ?	.
3.	How far did Mr. Carlin, the late postmaster, remove the post office at Whitney Pier?
4.	Is the department aware whether any other business is at present carried on by the present postmaster, in the building now used as post office, at Whitney Pier ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) :: 1.	and 2. The ex-postmaster was in receipt of a salary at the rate of $400 per annum, with a rent allowance of $40, and the present postmaster is paid on the same basis.
3.	A fourth of a mile.
4.	The department has no information upon the subject except a statement contained in a petition recently received to the effect that Mrs. Gallivan is engaged in the sale of liquor.


CATTLE-GUARD COMMISSION.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Has George Robertson, Esq., M.P.P., of St. John, New Brunswick, been appointed a commissioner to investigate and report on cattle-guards ?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, and what remuneration will he receive for his services ? Is he still engaged in the work, and how long will his duties continue ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Yes, he was appointed on August 22nd, 1902. Remuneration, $5 per day and actual reasonable travelling expenses. He is not now engaged in the work.


WELLAND CANAL-WATER POWER.
Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1.	Has the report been received from the engineer in regard to the petition of the corporation and Board of Trade of the city of St. Catharines, for the grant to the said corporation, for power purposes, of six thousand cubic feet of water per minute, from the old Welland Canal, referred to by the Minister of Railways and Canals, on the 26th March, 1902, as reported in ' Hansard,' on page 1860 of that year ?
2.	If so, when was such report received ?
3.	If not, why has it not been received ?
4.	Has the Order in Council, granting the said water to the said corporation, been passed ?
5.	If so, when was it passed ?
6.	If not, why has it not been passed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The report has not been received from the superintending engineer, but the chief engineer visited the locality and looked into the matter and orally reported to me that after the work on the regulating weir at

Port Colborne was completed, 6,000 cubic feet of water per minute was available for leasing without detriment to the navigation of the canal.
2.	Chief engineer's oral statement was received during last summer.
3.	Is answered by my reply to No. 2.
4.	No, the order in council has not passed.
5.	Is answered by my reply to No. 4.
6.	No conclusion has as yet been arrived at.
declined to publish the entire report and suggestions of the general officer commanding, in full ?
2.	Why has not the minister published the report of the general officer commanding, in full, as presented by that officer ?
3.	Will the minister lay upon the Table of this House that portion of the report of the general officer commanding which has not yet been published, and which the minister is credited in the press with having said he would not publish ?
4.	If not, why not ?


CATTLE-GUARD COMMISSION.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Has the cattle-guard commission reported to the government ?
2.	If not, why not ?
3.	If the commission has reported, when will the report be brought down to the House ?
4.	If the commission has reported, does it appear that a suitable and efficient cattle-guard is available ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	The cattle-guard commission has not yet reported to the government.
2.	Because there are a number of cattle-guards yet to be tested. The testing is still going on.
3.	Is answered by my reply to No. 1.
4.	Is answered by my reply to No. 1.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir F. W. Borden) :: 1.	It is not true that any misunderstanding exists between the general officer commanding and myself, as to the publication of the general's report, as it now appears as part of the annual Militia report for the past year.
2.	The general's annual report has been published in full, as part of the Militia report.
3.	As will be noticed on reference to the general's annual report published there has been a further special report by that officer to myself. It is not intended to publish this report.
4.	The unpublished report is of a confidential nature, just as was the report of the Defence Committee of 1898.


IMPORTATION OF COAL.
Edward Frederick Clarke: What quantity of hard and soft coal, respectively, was imported into the province of Ontario, from the 30th of June, 1901, to the 1st of March, 1902 ; and from the 30th June, 1902, to the 1st of March, 1903 ; specifying the quantity, in tons of each class ; and the kind cf coal imported in each period above named ?
The MINISTER OF ^CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson). The quantities and kinds of coal imported into the province of Ontario were as follows :
June 30, 1901 June 30, 1902 to	to
March 1, 1902. March 1,1903 Tons.	Tons.
Bituminous coal.. .. 1,885,836	2,257,230
Bituminous coal dust 279,067	336,789
Anthracite coal....	764,701	470,946


NEW MILITIA BILL.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: When will the Minister of Militia and Defence lay on the Table the new Militia Bill ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir F. W. Borden).: I hope to introduce the Bill within a few days; probably not later than next week.


REPORT OF GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Is the statement which has appeared in the press of Canada and Great Britain true, that the Minister of Militia and Defence has


ISLAND OF ORLEANS MAIL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CASGRAIN-by Mr. Monk-asked :
1.	How many times a week during the winter season are the mails carried to the Island of Orleans, in the county of Montmorency, from the city of Quebec ; and the latter city from the island ?
2.	How many times a week during the said season are the mails distributed in the island ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to have the mails distributed more frequently on the island ?
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: 1.	Six times a week between Quebec and St. Jean d'Orleans and three times a week between St. Jean d'Orleans and St Francois d'Orleans and between Beaulieu ana St. Famille going and returning.
2.	Answer to question (I) covers this.
0.	A new contract was entered into on 1st of February last, providing for an improved service to and from the Island of Orleans. The former service was daily in summer and tri-weekly only in winter to all parts of the island.


SALES OF DOMINION LANDS.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	What Dominion lands have been sold during the past two years ?
2.	For what purposes were such sold, i.e., mining, ranching, or farming ?
3.	What are the locations of the farming and ranching lands sold ?
4.	Who were the purchasers 1
5.	What sums per acre were realized ?

6.	Is the government now negotiating for the sale of any further areas ?
7.	Is ' cash scrip ' taken in payment of such lands ?
8.	What conditions are attached to the sale of such lands ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock).: 1.	200,151 acres.
2.	Mining, 52,493 acres; farming, 135.840 acres; ranching, 11,818 acres, total 200Y51 acres.
3.	Generally throughout Manitoba and the North-west Territories.
4.	Farming lands sold to settlers, chiefly in quarter sections.
5.	Ranching lands sold at $1.25 per acre under old agreement, whereby the twenty-one year leases were surrendered and one-tenth thereof sold at above price; farming lands at $3; coal lands, with surface rights, at $10; and coal only at $7.
6.	No.
7.	Yes.
8.	No conditions, except in lands sold for coal mining, a portion of which are subject to a royalty of 10 cents per ton of coal mined.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY-TRANSCONTINENTAL LINE.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Is it true, as currently reported, that the Grand Trunk Railway Company has concluded an agreement with the government, since the meeting of parliament, to build a transcontinental line, from North Bay to Port Simpson, for a subsidy of ?20,000,000 ?
2.	Is it a fact that some members of the government are urging the said Grand Trunk Company to purchase the Mann & McKenzie system ; and that the said Grand Trunk Company is asking for a large land grant, as a condition of said proposed purchase ?
3.	Has the government come to an agreement in regard to the building of said transcontinental line ?
4.	What is the cause of the delay in putting the measure for such new line, mentioned in the speech from the Throne, before the House ?
5.	Is it a fact that divisions in the cabinet are the sole cause of such delay ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: [DOT]
1.	I do not know that such a report as stated in the first question is current. If it is current it is not true.
2.	It is not a fact that members of the government are urging the Grand Trunk Company to purchase the McKenzie and Mann system, nor is the Grand Trunk Company asking for a large land grant as a condition for such a purpose.
3.	No.
4.	There is no mention in the speech from the Throne of the Grand Trunk Transcontinental line, and there is no delay in the matter.
5.	This is not a proper question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: And if it were a proper question; the answer would be :	There is not
the slightest foundation in fact for such a statement.


WOODSTOCK, N.B., POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HALE-by Mr. Borden (Halifax)- asked ;
1.	Were tenders called for the repairs of the post office at Woodstock, N.B., and for the building of a new retaining wall in connection therewith ?
2.	Who are the tenderers, and what is the amount of each respective tender ?
3.	Has the contractor finished building the re -taining wall, and has he received payment from the government for the same ; and if so, how much ?
4.	Are the repairs to the post office completed ? And if so, has the contractor been paid, and how much ?
5.	If the repairs to the post office*are not completed, when will they be completed ?
6.	If the new retaining wall is not completed, Tthen will it be completed ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes, for both.
2.	For retaining wall, J. S. Leighton $2,280, and Mr. A. Brown $2,476.50. For repairs : Ferris Bros., drain and plumbing, $177.55; A. E. Jones, wire service, $165; A. W. Fields, repairs, flooring, &c., $652.79.
3 No, wall not yet finished.
4.	Yes, as per tenders above.
5.	Repairs completed.
6.	Will be completed within a few weeks.


TRANS-CANADA RAILWAY.
Hon.   J.@: ISRAEL TARTE moved for :
Copies of all petitions correspondence, reports and Orders in Council, relating to the Trans-Canada Railway project.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I may inform my hon. friend that there are no reports on the subject and no Orders in Council. We have a petition from the Trans-Canada Company. We will bring down what papers we have.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  F. D.@: 
directors the need for obtaining from the proper authority the changes in the law which the public ca-11 for.
Now, there are in the county of Jacques Cartier a great number of dairymen, farmers and gardeners who come almost every day, and some of them twice a day, to Montreal. Exception is taken, and rightly so, to the condition of the road between Cote des Neiges and Cartierville. The earnings of the toll-gates are large. Why should this road which is travelled over by a large number of farmers and others, riding or driving on Sundays and week days, who reach C6te des Neiges by way of St. Laurent. why, I say, should this be the most neglected part of the highways under the control of the commission ? Why should other roads which are not so much travelled over, be kept, I do say in perfect order-for our roads are not as a rule properly maintained-but at any rate in better order than that road which leads from Montreal to St. Laurent ? If we had some effective legislation, if, for instance, the commissioners were compelled by law to lay before the public yearly a full account of the work carried on, we would find out what are the earnings of that body, and how they expend their revenue. The condition of the road is a source of great annoyance to the ratepayers who have to travel over it to reach Montreal and are obliged to pay the tolls. I call the attention of the Finance Minister more particularly to the condition of the road leading to St. Laurent, not only because farmers who live in that neighbourhood have reason to complain, but also because the people of Montreal who have to travel in that direction suffer from the impassable state of the road. I would like to give an instance of the strange way in which the affairs of this board are managed. There is in the county of Jacques Cartier, in the parish of Notre Dame de Graces, situated close to the Lachine canal, a small village called Turcot, inhabited by working people, who, to make a living, have to go to St. Henry, Ste. Cunegonde and Montreal. As a rule, these people cannot get their living in that village. Now, Turcot village, which no doubt the hon. the Prime Minister knows, is hemmed in by turnpikes put up by the commissioners, which are in the way of the people going to their work. The inhabitants of Turcot village, to get to Montreal from the village, or to get to the village from Montreal, travel over but a very small portion of the road maintained by the commissioners. Nevertheless, they are made to pay for using that insignificant bit of road. It is impossible for them to leave their village to go to Montreal, St. Henry or Ste. Cunegonde, without paying the toll. That is a grievance which calls for redress and to which I would drawr the attention of the hon. the Finance Minister. He has the right and the power to give instructions to his representatives on Mr. MONK.
the board, to those who are his agents as holder of the bonds, so as to put an end to this crying evil which the people of Turcot village are subjected to. I appeal to the government, if they have any sympathy for those who have to use that road, to remedy the present state of things, and also to bring their influence to bear to have the grievance redressed, under which the people of Turcot village now labour.


The PRIME MINISTER (The Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the documents for which my hon. friend has moved, being brought down ; they will be laid forthwith on the Table of the House. But let me assure the hon. gentleman that I do not think the Dominion government have all the responsibility which he would fain saddle on them. Even should they have that responsibility, I may tell the hon. member that I would not be ready to take up and discuss the grievances referred to by him. He is much more familiar than I am with the localities and well informed as to whatever objections may exist against the management of the Turnpike Trust.
The government will call the attention of the trustees or commissioners, who represent the holders of bonds, to the grievances set forth to-day. We shall endeavour to get at the facts in order to be in a position to discuss the question in its proper time and place, when the papers have been brought down and the hon. member takes the matter up again before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved for :
1.	The total amount paid by the government of Canada for hay and oats, purchased for the imperial government, for shipment to South Africa, during the years 1900, 1901 and 1902.
2.	The names of the parties irom whom liay and oats were so purchased.
3.	The prices at which the said hay and oats were so furnished during the said periods, from each of the said parties.
4.	The total amount paid to each of the said parties, both for hay and oats.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). I think I am correct in stating that my hon. friend brought this matter before the House a year ago in the form of a question. And my hon. colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, said that it concerned only the imperial government, inasmuch as it did not affect the public moneys of Canada in any way, and therefore he was unable to supply the information asked for. I think that we ought to take the same position to-day. For all ex-

penditure of the public money of Canada, the ministers are accountable to this House and the House is entitled to every information, but this is an expenditure of imperial money for which this government is not accountable to this House.


Samuel Hughes: It is an export of the Dominion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But we do not show the exports made by particular individuals. We bring down returns of exports generally, but if my hon. friend wants a return of the exports in this particular case, let him ask it of the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson). This motion, however, does not deal with the question of exports, but of the expenditure of public money. If this were the public money of the Dominion, my hon. friend's motion would be a proper one, and we would be bound to bring down a return showing how it was expended. As however, it was imperial money, the expenditure of which was made through the friendly offices of a Minister of the Crown, at the request of the imperial government-which request was of course very cheerfully granted-the government of Canada have nothing whatever to do with it. The matter would be a proper one to be brought forward in the parliament of Great Britain but not in this House. I hope my hon. friend will see the reasonableness of this view and not press his motion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: By whose orders was the money dispersed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The money was provided by the imperial government and the transactions were managed largely, if not wholly, through the Minister of Agriculture. The imperial government asked for his advice and assistance and provided the money.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Under those circumstances, there is no valid reason why the hon. Minister of Agriculture should not bring down all the information asked for.


William Findlay Maclean: This is a new doctrine of responsible government. It seems to me that a minister must be held strictly accountable for everything he does as head of a department, and I will not sit here quietly and allow a new doctrine of responsibility, or rather lack of responsibility, to be submitted without repudiating it. A reason may be given for not bringing down the information asked for, but not the reason given just now.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Either the Minister of Agriculture was doing this as a Minister of the Crown or he was not. Was he doing it, as Mr. Sidney Fisher, providing his own clerks, and as a matter of private business between himself and the imperial government. If that be the case, 22*
we would not press the motion. But if he was doing this as a Minister of the Crown, and not as Mr. Sidney fisher, but because he held the position of Minister of Agriculture we do not see any reason why all the information should not be laid on the Table. I do not think the hon. Minister of Finance has suggested any. If I understand the position of the Minister of Agriculture, he was acting as a Minister of the Crown of Canada on behalf of the imperial government, using the officers under his control, who are paid out of the revenues of this country and therefore I cannot understand what objection there can be, from any reasonable standpoint, to bringing down the papers. It is not information that can prejudice the interests of the imperial government in any way. It is information which is in the possession of this government and ought to be in the possession of the House.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot admit for a moment that because the government has furnished the good offices of any of its officials to the British government, it is obliged to bring down all records of the transactions which may have occurred and in which only the money of the imperial government was used. As the money expended was not that of the people of Canada, there is no ground on which this government can be called to an account here for that expenditure.


Robert Laird Borden: On what principle can the money of the Canadian people be used in paying men who are employed in that way and the people's representatives refused information. What would prevent the government acting for the government of the United States or France or Germany or any other country, and then refusing to give the slightest information as to their proceedings in that respect.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: To the best of my knowledge and belief there was no expense incurred by the people of Canada. No additional officials were employed, and whatever officials were required for the purpose, their expenses were charged to the British government. If we loan the good offices of any of the officials of Canada, as we should in any matter in which the imperial government desires to make use of their services, I cannot admit that we thereby are liable to account to this House for any expenditure of imperial money which may happen to be made in that connection.


Samuel Hughes: The fair name of Canada is at stake. There are very serious scandals in connection, not only with these oats and hay purchases, but also the purchase of horses. I would like the hon. gentleman to understand that when our government gives instructions to its officers paid by the Canadian people, the people of

Canada are going to inquire into the actions of these men. I hope that the right hon. the Prime Minister will come off his high horse-not one of those horses which were bought for $40 and sold for $150-and give the information asked for.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) ought to be more careful than to use such language.


Samuel Hughes: I take the responsibility of my language and am prepared, if the government will give me a committee, to prove what I have said.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If the hon. gentleman has charges to make, he knows that there are ways and means of making them. This is not the way to make a charge.


Samuel Hughes: Would the right hon. gentleman give a committee of the House or a commission ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The hon. gentleman knows how to proceed if he has any charges to make, and if he has, it is his duty to make them. Although the money expended was not that of Canada, but of the imperial government, still if he has charges to make, if he thinks he can prove any scandals, it is his duty to make these charges and he should not have delayed so long. But he cannot expect the government to take notice of vain words thrown on the floor of parliament. There has been no charge, so far as I know, made, and the hon. gentleman has no warrant to speak as he has done. I believe that everything in this matter was done fairly and well. We have had no complaint from the British government, and I therefore see no reason why this House should inquire into the expenditure of money which does not concern it.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know whether the right hon. gentleman is willing or not to have these purchases ventilated in the Committee of Public Accounts, as they might be, if they were the expenditure of this country.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly not. My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) has no reason to speak in that way. The Committee on Public Accounts are bound to investigate the expenditure of the money of the Canadian people, not the expenditure of money by the imperial government. But, if my hon. friend or any one else has any charges to make that the government has behaved in the manner suggested, he can have all the investigation he desires-not before.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is because of the constant rumours


The PRIME MINISTER.: Oh, oh.


Samuel Hughes: 


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Rumours !


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I shall avail myself of my right, notwithstanding the Postmaster General or the Prime Minister, to express myself here as I see fit so long as I keep within the rules of parliamentary debate. I say that these constant rumours in circulation cause us to desire to get this information, in order to know whether they are or are not correct. But I rose particularly to ask the Minister of Finance one question. If this is the ground to be taken now, why was it that we had information given in this House with regard to the cost of horses sent out to supply the contingents ? That information was asked for and given.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am correct, for I asked the question myself, and got the information. Therefore, I know. If it were proper to give information with -regard to the purchase of horses, why is it not proper to give it with regard to the purchase of oats ? And if this information is not given, how is the imperial parliament to reach a conclusion as to whether that money was properly spent or not ? It does seem to me that this is a proper thing to endeavour to ascertain, for our government was acting on behalf of somebody, and our civil servants were acting as the employees of somebody. We paid for their time; and it does seem to me very proper that we should have some information along these lines.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not recall the question to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) refers. But, if such information as he refers to was given, I am bound to believe that the horses were purchased with the money of the Canadian people. There were expenditures of that nature made with the money of the people of Canada, and a refund made by the imperial government. Where the matter passed through the hands of the government of Canada and moneys were paid out of the public treasury, it would be eminently proper that information with regard to such expenditures should be given. With regard to horses purchased, a full inquiry was made by the imperial parliament, or by a commission authorized by parliament, and I am sure that if there was cause to suspect anything wrong in the case of the purchase of Canadian horses, that would be inquired into as carefully as anything else. But we draw a distinction between the expenditure of the money of the Canadian people, for which we are responsible, and the expenditure of money by the people of Great Britain, for which the imperial government are responsible. I am sure that the members of the imperial parliament would be pleased to get information that would enable them to make proper inquiry in that direction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were not the oats paid for with the cheques of the Dominion government and the money refunded ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have only such knowledge as comes from the department. I believe the money was paid to the credit of the people engaged in this work, particularly of the Hon. air. Fisher. Money of the imperial government was placed to his credit. The purchases were not paid for by cheque of the department, so far as I know. The position was that the friendly offices of the minister and his assistants were given to the imperial government in that way.


Mr.  A. B.@: INGRAai (East Elgin). Did the Department of Agriculture furnish the imperial authorities with the information in this department ?
The ailNISTER OF FINANCE. 1 cannot answer my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) from personal knowledge. But I have no doubt that all this information and much more was freely given. They have their auditors for the examination of these expenditures, and I have no doubt that every detail was furnished to the Imperial government.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to know if certain information was furnished by the imperial officers in South Africa to the Canadian government with respect to the way the horses from Canada were starved at the port of landing at South Africa.
I think the Canadian government ought to insist on the imperial authorities making a thorough investigation into the manner in which these horses were treated. If the statements circulated are true, the facts are a disgrace to the imperial authorities-to allow horses to be half starved before being set to the work they were called upon to do in South Africa. Not only that, but they endangered the lives of Canadians who were mounted on these horses. For that, if for no other reason, an investigation should be made.


Haughton Lennox: As I understand this matter, the imperial government requested this government through the Minister of Agriculture to act for them. They did not select Hon. Mr. Fisher as an individual; they selected him as the Minister of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada. It was well understood at the time-it was announced and not denied-that the government of Canada, through the Minister of Agriculture, were acting as the agent of the imperial government at that time. It is now said that the money spent was the money of the imperial government. But was not the honour of the parliament of Canada and the honour of the people of Canada pledged to the faithful administration of this trust ? What position should we have been in if any wrong had been done in connection with the matter, if there
had been any dishonesty or anything reflecting on the credit of the people of Canada ? Now, it is suggested-pretty freely suggested-that, if that has not occurred, at all events, there is ground for believing that some more light should be had upon the subject. I am afraid that the administration are about to make another mistake. They may say that we have no evidence that they have made any mistake. But I venture to say that, in treating the opposition in this House-and thus treating the people of Canada-in such a light and jaunty manner as they have done this afternoon, they are making a mistake. If there is any body of men to whom the people as a whole look to for the investigation of matters of this kind, it is necessarily the opposition of the House of Commons, which ever party that opposition may for the time being represent. It is not to be expected that the supporters of the government will be alert to ascertain the position of these matters ns they arise. To whom do the people look ? They look to an alert opposition to investigate these subjects. And I submit, that the Minister of Finance-yes, and the right hon. leader of the government-have not treated the opposition here, and so have not treated the people of the country, with the courtesy that should have been shown on this occasion. I am prepared to hear-I would be very glad to hear-that there is some good reason why, they should take the attitude they have taken and why this information should not be given. But, as yet, I submit, no good reason has been given why we should not have the information that has been asked for. If there is any better reason, if there is any valid reason at all, it is for the administration to give it. But, at present, I stand here on behalf of the people I represent and I say distinctly that I believe-and I intend to stand by that position-I am entitled to the information that has been asked for.
Hon. Sir CHARLES H1BBERT TUPPER (Pictou). It seems to me there is something on the very face of the government's position that shows that there is a desire on their part to conceal the facts in this case that, in ordinary course would be published, if there was no extraordinary reason against it. Now, the Prime Minister, it seems to me, has given the whole case away when he says that the government have no responsibility in connection with this expenditure, still, if charges are formulated with regard to it, then all the papers will be brought down. Now if the government's position is reasonable, how would the formulation of charges alter -their position ? Their answer might as well be :	We are not responsible to the Canadian parliament in regard to the expenditure of this money, we are only responsible to the British government. Now, it has been bruited about- I admit that is not a sufficient reason to call for an investigation-that Grit heelers

have enjoyed a great deal more of the money under this expenditure than they were entitled to, and that the British government, in paying that amount of money through this government, have been cheated to a large extent; and that, instead of the money going for hay and oats at a fair price, a large amount of it has gone for fodder for government support. Admitting, as I frankly do, that these rumours would not give us a right to a parliamentary inquiry in the nature of a commission, I still say that it is the right of this parliament to have these rumours set aside, and to be made acquainted with the actual facts, in broad daylight, as to how much money the government received, for what it was paid, how many bushels of oats and how many tons of hay, and so forth, were obtained for that money, so that the people can see whether the government have a clean record or a dirty record in this matter. Surely that concerns this parliament. Money distributed through the Department of Agriculture, through the officers of the Canadian government, is a matter we have to do with, whether it is our money or not. Supposing, for instance, we gave a grant of public money, as was given by some of the old parliaments before confederation, for a certain purpose, and that money was to be disbursed through the English House of Commons, such as a grant to the families of those who fell in the Crimea, and that thousands of pounds sterling were sent to the British government to be handed to these families, would it be pretended that the government of England would hesitate to give an account on the floor of the House of the way that money had been disbursed, in order that we might see whether the money going through their hands had reached the proper quarters. This is a matter affecting the fair fame of this country ns well as of this government, and the very fact that the government dare not make a simple statement-that could injure no one-if everything was honest and above board-the mere fact that they seek to hide themselves behind the subterfuge that they were disbursing the money of the people of England and not our money, suggests at once that these serious rumours are not merely rumours, and that the belief that many people hold that that money was not disbursed honestly, is well founded. I say the government owe it to themselves, as well as to this parliament and to the Canadian people, to make a clear, businesslike statement, one that they can easily make if there was no dishonesty, showing that they received so much money, that they bought so much hay and so much oats, then we can draw our own conclusions. If they gave double the prices that it was necessary to give, there would be a reflection on the government, but if they have given fair prices, their skirts would be clean. But it seems to me they are taking an ex-


Sir CHARLES HILBERT TUPPER.: traordinary attitude, for which no one will thank them, for the British government have no desire to be shielded in this matter ; it is extraordinary that they should say : We are not accountable to the people of this parliament because the money was not paid by this parliament. The money was expended by the servants of this country, that money was received by them because they were our servants, and we have every right to hold them to account as the servants of this House and of the Canadian people, and to know whether, called upon as they were on that occasion, they have discharged their duties, and discharged them not merely with honesty, but with business ability. It does seem to me that their position gives a great deal of force to the rumours that have been referred to, and to the suspicion that is now created, that they have an ulterior object not consistent with business-like administration, when they refuse to bring down the papers showing how much money they got, and to whom they paid it. Especially are we dissatisfied when the Prime Minister follows that up by saying :	Although we are not accountable, still if you make a charge that we did not spend that money properly, then we will give you all the information. Now, Sir. Speaker, I do not think we ought to be put in that position. If they are accountable to us when we charge fraud in regard to an expenditure of the money of the people of England, surely, as in ordinary cases, they are accountable for all the money that has gone through their hands. Surely this money-I merely mention this by way of debate, acknowledging that I have no right to enter into that question-surely this money passed through the public accounts at some time or other. It will not be pretended that when hundreds of thousands of pounds, or hundreds of thousands of dollars are remitted here to any department of the government and goes to the credit of one of the spending departments of this country, surely it will not be pretended that that money does not appear in the public accounts. That amount must appear in the public accounts of this country. I submit that the money covered by this resolution has gone
anything to do with it. The resolution in your hands contemplates a statement as to the moneys paid out by this government.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The answer is that there are none.


Hon.   S@: Then let this motion pass, let the government take the position that no moneys have been disbursed by the government. There could be no objection to that. Let this pass, and the return will show that there was none. But if my position is right that these moneys have passed through a regular department

of the government, the hon. gentleman cannot be correct in saying that there are no moneys to account for. All we argue is that the money has been paid by the government of Canada. In debate it is one thing to argue the contrary, but in a return to this House it is another thing to state that the government have paid nothing. The Minister of Finance argues that because the Minister of Agriculture was asked to do this thing for the English government, it is not a matter concerning this parliament. But if the Minister of Finance lias no statement, if the Prime Minister has no statement, that these moneys did not actually go through the hands of the Department of Agriculture-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have stated so.
counts and vouchers would not be in our possession ; there were no disbarsemeuts by the Canadian government, there was no liability by the Canadian government, no accountability to the imperial government, no legal obligation of any kind on the part of the Canadian government, or on the part of Canada.


Hon.   S@: Would the government let us have the request of the imperial government ? We could see then whether this is a government matter or not. This correspondence should be laid on the Table.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That should be the subject of another motion.


Hon.   S@: No, but on this motion.


Hon.   S@: Then if he states that in debate, let that resolution go, and we will see what the facts are when it comes, to comply with the order of the House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I just wish to observe that the hon. member for Pictou (Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) appears to argue this case on a wrong conception of the point in issue. After having received a statement from the Minister of Finance that a motion of this kind would be quite futiFe, inasmuch as the transaction never was officially recognized by the government, that it was simply an action of the Minister of Agriculture, who gave his friendly office, and after the Minister of Finance has stated that no money passed through the hands of the government, what is the use of the present motion ? The hon. gentleman can take nothing out of such a motion as that. He says that perhaps the minister has done this, or has done that, which he ought not to have done, suggesting that he may have done something affecting his honour as a minister of the Crown, That is a very different matter. How far parliament should intervene to sit in judgment on one of its members, as to what he should do outside of his representative capacity, is a fair subject for discussion. If the hon. gentleman has any suggestion to make that the Minister of Agriculture, in his dealings with the imperial government, although in a semi-private capacity, has done something derogatory to his position as the adviser of His Majesty in Canada, I am sure he will have the most ample opportunity to make good his suggestion. But instead of that, he goes back and argues that these moneys passed through the Canadian treasury.


Hon.   S@: Through the public accounts ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: How could anything be referred to the Public Accounts Committee if no money passed through the Canadian treasury ? The ac-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would ask to be permitted to add something to what I have already said. I am informed by Professor Robertson that he practically managed all this business and that these moneys were placed to the credit of the imperial government in what was called the imperial government hay account. The method by which the transaction was handled was that the imperial government cabled a request to give the prices at which they could purchase certain goods. Prices were cabled as an estimate as to what these goods could be probably purchased for in this country. Then the' money was forwarded and placed to the credit of the imperial hay account. And the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Sydney Fisher) and Professor Robertson were authorized to draw cheques against that account. I have the authority of Professor Robertson to use his name in saying that he managed the matter largely himself, and he authorizes me to say that the goods supplied were of the best quality and were furnished at reasonable prices.


Hon.   S@: Why do you not bring down the papers ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Because this is not a transaction which concerns the parliament of Canada. I have never heard of any such rumours affecting this transaction until I heard them here to-day. I may say that every person with the exception of the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Professor Robertson, who was assigned to duty in connection with the transaction ' had his services paid for by the imperial government, and therefore it did not cost this country one dollar. In regard to the suggestion that there is something wrong in this transaction, I am satisfied that the statement I now make on the authority of Professor Robertson that the goods were of first quality and fair and reasonable in price, is one that the people of this country will accept.


Hon.   S@: Will tlie hon. Minister of Finance permit me one question ? I understand the hon. gentleman to say that there has been no amount paid by the government of Canada.
If these words were added to the main motion :
And all correspondence between the imperial government and the Canadian government.
We would ascertain the position of the matter-correspondence which the hon. gentleman refers to and which he is bound under the rules of the House to lay on the Table.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not consider that I am.


Hon.   S@: That is the rule; at any rate, we will not stop to argue that now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If it were a state document concerning the people of Canada the rule might apply.


Hon.   S@: It is a communication passing between the two governments.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


Hon.   S@: It is not pretended that the communication was with Professor Robertson direct. The return might be made bringing down papers giving some colour to the statements made by the hon. Minister of Finance, that while the matter originally began by correspondence with the government, It ultimately assumed the personal character to which he refers.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think that amendment to the motion will meet the case. If the hon. gentleman brings forward another motion we will then consider it on its merits.


Mr. CLANCY.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the hon. Minister of Agriculture acted with the knowledge and concurrence of the government on this matter 7


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may answer frankly by saying that the fact that the lion. Minister of Agriculture was rendering that friendly service to the imperial government was known, but the matter never came before the government, and it was never treated as government business.
Hon. Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER, Did you buy hay or oats from a Conservative in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We may have made some mistake in that regard, but if the hay and oats were good, and the price fair, I do not think anybody would insist that we should inquire into the political colour of the persons from whom we bought them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very sorry that the government has not seen fit to give us the very simple and plain information asked for by this motion. There is not a country where irregularities of some kind do not occur in the furnishing of war supplies, and this is the only country I know of where an investigation into the manner of the furnishing of these supplies has been refused after the war. We have had investigations in England since the war, In France after the war of 1870, and in the United States. The reasons given by the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Postmaster General, and particularly by the hon. Postmaster General, seem to be very poor ones indeed. As a matter of fact, the public at large will not take the trouble to consider whether it was Mr. Sydney Fisher, or the hon. Minister of Agriculture, or Professor Robertson, or the government, who had to do with this transaction. Everybody knows throughout the country that it was the government that purchased these supplies for South Africa, and, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentlemen who sit on treasury benches knew what is being said in public since the war closed, about the manner in which supplies were furnished, they would be the first to call for the motion to lay this information on the Table of the House. What is it that is being said all over the country, at any rate, down in Montreal ? They say that hay was sold to the government of Canada for shipment to South Africa at an exorbitant price, that $14 a ton was paid for it when better hay than that could have been purchased at $11 a ton, and the fact that the British government had sought the [DOT]assistance of this government for the purchase of hay had been used by this government in order to allow speculators to get hold of that money, filling their own pockets with it and cheating the British government out of what was due to them. That is what was being said. I do not mean to say it is true, but it is being said very generally .


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Who is saying it V


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the hon. Postmaster General will go down to the city of Montreal I will introduce him to a number of people who say that, and from all I hear it is being said elsewhere. At any rate it has been alleged, it has been printed, and what reasonable reason can this government have for not laying before us here, the representatives of the people, copies of the accounts which undoubtedly they have rendered to the British government and which are lying in the Department of Agriculture at the present moment. It is an outrage on the rights of this House to refuse us that information. We are here to judge of the accounts of the government. It concerns the treasury of Canada when the money of Canada has bebn spent and that is the reason why we should


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: hare that information. I venture to say that the government has travelled outside true constitutional principle because we have the right to judge its work upon all of its acts. Whether the government is the agent of the British government or the agent of any other government, it is responsible to this House for all of its acts. In addition to what is said about the price paid for oats it is alleged that the horses in South Africa were supplied with bad oats, and bundles of hay in the midst of which there was nothing but rottenness, and which were paid for at an exorbitant price. The government cannot fail to have heard some of these rumours but now they refuse to give us that information under the specious plea that it is not the money of the people of Canada that has been expended. We are interested in knowing, if the Canadian government, acting for the imperial government in this important matter, has charged the British government, in a critical moment, a price for hay which was not the price at which hay was selling for, and giving them bad hay at that. We are entitled to know if they have charged the British government an unjust and unfair price for oats at a time when oats was at a lower price here, a thing which is easy to prove. I would ask the members of the government to consider whether, apart from any little petty-fogging objections, it would not be in the interest of the government itself to give us a clear statement of what was paid, so that the public may know that there is( no truth in the current rumours. I venture to say that if the government refuses us this reasonable information, which we are entitled to get on constitutional ground, that rumour will receive confirmation and the public at large will believe that there have been dark and shameful dealings in regard to these matters.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: I would be ready to sympathize with my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) and to support his motion if he would enlarge it somewhat. The hon. gentleman has spoken of the rumours that were current in Montreal as to the cheating that the! British government was subjected to, but perhaps he has heard the rumours which were quite common as to the cheating that the Canadian shippers were subjected to by officers of the British government. We were told that goods which were sent to England were refused by the British representatives of the War office, aud that messages were sent to the Canadian shippers that it would be well to sell these goods at auction in England rather than bring them bock; that they were sold at auction in England, purchased by officers of the War office and then resold to the British government for a very fair price. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) takes so much to heart the wrongs of the British taxpayers, he might have thought also of
the wrongs inflicted on Canadian exporters by the British War office officials.


Mr. COCHRANE.: What has that to* do with it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It has this to do with it, that I will support the motion, if the hon. gentleman would make it apply to the-interests of Canadian taxpayers as well as to those of the British taxpayers.
Mr. HUGHES) (Victoria). Bring another motion yourself.
House divided on the motion (Mr. Monk).
YEAS : Messieurs
Alcorn,	LaRividre,
Barker,	Lefurgey,
Bell,	Lennox,
Blaine,	Maclean,
Borden (Halifax),	Monk,
Boyd,	Morin,
Brock,	Northrup,
Broder,	Porter,
Cargill,	Richardson,
Clancy,	Robinson (Elgin),
Clarke,	Roche (Marquette),
Cochrane,	Rosamond,
Earle,	Sproule,
Hackett,	Tisdale,
Haggart,	Vrooman,
Hughes (Victoria),	Ward,
Kidd, Lancaster,	Wilmot-35.
NAYS :	
Messieurs	
Beith,	Lewis.
Belcourt,	Logan,
Bernier,	MacKinnon,
Blair,	Maclaren (Huntingdon),
Borden (Sir Frederick),	Macpherson,
Bourassa,	McColl,
Bureau,	McCool,
Carroll, Champagne,	McGugan,
	Mclsaac,
Charlton,	McLennan,
Christie,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Copp,	Matheson,
Cowan,	Mignault,
Demers (St John),	Monet,
Emmerson,	Morrison,
Ethier,	Mulock (Sir William),
Fielding,	Paterson,
Fitzpatrick,	Puttee,
Fortier,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fraser,	Riley,
Gibson,	Roche (Halifax),
Girard,	Ross (Victoria),
Grant,	Russell,
Harwood,	Scott,
Holmes, Hughes (King's),	Smith (Vancouver),
	Stewart,
Johnston (Cape Breton),Sutherland (Essex),	
Kendall,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Lang,	Talbot,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tarte,
Lavergne,	Tolmie,
LeBlane,	Turgeon,
Lemieux,	Wright-66.

PAIRS : Messieurs
Calvert,
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck), Cartwright (Sir Ric'rd), Hyman,
Dyment,
Archambault,
Beland,
Bruneau,
Costigan,
Douglas,
Farquharson,
Gallery.
Guthrie,
Prefontaine,
Ross (Yukon),
Tobin,
Wade,
Law,
Mackie,
Parmelee,
Ross (Ontario),
Gould,
Harty,
Sifton,
McCreary,
Johnston (Lambton), Bazinet,
Bickerdike,
Campbell,
Davis,
Erb,
Malouin,
German,
Heyd,
Proulx,
Stephens,
Tucker,
Laurier (L'Assomption) Macdonald,
McEwen,
McCarthy,
Brown,
Fisher.
Motion negatived.
Taylor,
Ingram,
Tupper (Sir C. Hibbert), Gilmour, _ McCormick,
Leonard,
Pope,
McGowan,
Ball,
Wilson,
Robinson (Northumberland),
Roddick,
Clare,
Kemp,
Kendrey,
Pringle,
Hale,
Ganong,
Carseallen,
Casgrain,
Sherritt,
Thomson (North Grey), Reid (Grenville), MacLaren (Perth), Henderson,
Simmons,
Halliday,
Osier,
Bruce,
Calvin,
Tolton,
Avery,
Seagram,
Smith (Wentworth),
La veil,
Kaulbach,
Johnston (Cardwell), .Gourley,
Culbert,
Bennett,
Fowler,
Birkett,
McIntosh,


DOMINION SUBSIDIES TO PROVINCES- INCREASE.
Mr.   R.@: LEMIEUX (Gasp6)-(Translation) moved for :
Copy of the correspondence exchanged between the government and the various provincial legislatures on the subject of an increase in the subsidies paid to the provinces under the British North America Act.
Mr. Speaker, the object of this motion is to call the attention of this House to the proceedings of the interprovincial conference, which was held in the city of Quebec, in December last. This question of readjusting the federal subsidies paid to the provinces under the British North America Act, is apparently coming to a crisis. The present state of affairs call for a solution ; or failing that, the provinces henceforth will have to be satisfied with a less efficient administration of certain departments, to the great detriment of public affairs. Sir, these are growing times and an era Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
of unprecedented prosperity has been ushered in ; now, would it be fair for the provinces, I ask, to keep aloof from that general movement, when the whole world is progressing by leaps and bounds ?
The question of readjusting the Dominion subsidies to provinces is of no recent growth; and it is within the recollection of lion, gentlemen that, on several occasions, this very same question was threshed out in this House, but, I make bold to say here and now, without the least fear of contradiction, that in the province of Quebec, it is a matter which is irrespective of party affiliations.
As early as 1882, the treasurer of the Quebec government urged upon the Dominion authorities the desirability of a more liberal grant being secured by the provinces. In the year 1883, a similar demand for better terms was made by the provincial authorities. In 1884, the late Sir Adolphe Chap-leau brought to bear a pretty strong pressure upon his colleagues in order to engage the then government to take action in the matter and to increase by $250,000 the Dominion grant to the province. As all the hon. gentlemen know, the increase in subsidies applied for was to indemnify the province of Quebec for the considerable outlay it had incurred in building the North Shore Railway, which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had just bought. But it was only in 1887 that the question as to the readjustment of the federal subsidies assumed a more definite shape, through the increasing efforts and the indomitable energy of the late Honore Mercier. All the provinces of confederation, with the exception of British Columbia, then passed resolutions which will go down to history as the most remarkable statement and the most forcible plea ever made in favour of the cause of the provinces. I shall not weary the House with the extracts from the conclusions reached by the delegates to the convention of 1887 ; let it suffice to say that these resolutions constitute one of the historical documents which will ever be read with interest by those who are concerned with the question of provincial autonomy. From the many public actions with which Mr. Mercier's name remains identified, this conference will be handed down to posterity as the most important act of his political record.
For reasons which it would be idle to review at this remote period, the conference of 1887 was barren of immediate results : but, as I said, (he remoter the date of that event, the greater the importance of the resolutions then adopted.
The conference which was held in December, 1902, was but a partial revival of the proceedings of 1887 ; but, as I shall soon explain, the resolutions which were passed at that meeting of premiers are of the utmost importance.
I am happy to say that those two conventions held in 1887 and in 1902 met together,

owing to the action taken l>y the Quebec government It was according to the fitness of things that my native province which was the ' constituante ' of confederation, should take the lead of that movement in favour of provincial autonomy and should promote through temperate and well conducted debates, the establishment of relations, both more fair and more just, between tlie central power and the various provinces. The position taken by the government of the province of Quebec in December last is all the more justifiable as the two administrations which have succeeded each other in power since 1897, under the leadership of the regretted Mr. Marchand and under the present leadership of Mr. Parent, have administered public affairs with an eye to the most rigid economy. As a matter of fact, it is no idle boasting to say that, since 1897, owing to the generous cooperation of all concerned, in our province, we have succeeded in putting a stop to the era of deficits and effected an equilibrium between income and expenditure. Ever since that year, we have had surpluses to our credit, as shown by the following figures
1898-	1899	$22,556	221899-	1900	
23,198	571900-	1901	
71,339	731901-	1902	
44,837	72Total of surpluses	$161,933 25
i.ut, undeniable as the economy practised in the several brandies of the provincial administration is, as shown by those surpluses, it has necessarily brought about a halt which may ultimately result in checking the development of our resources. Now, is it good policy, I ask, to continue that state of things and should the provinces keep aloof from that era of progress which Canada is now enjoying ? I think it would be idle to look for a remedy to that state of things elsewhere than in a change in the federal constitution in connection with the financial question. In other words, it is absolutely necessary that the resources of the provinces should be increased, unless we want them to pine away and perish.
Under section 118 of the British North America Act, we receive grants of two different kinds : first, we get a specific grant of $70,000 ; secondly, we receive a grant of SO cents per head of the population as fixed by the census of 1861.
I profess the greatest respect for the fathers of confederation, as we affect to call them. I say that any man who takes the trouble of perusing the debates of 1867, must come to the conclusion that the lawmakers of the time ha'd but a very imperfect notion as to what the needs and requirements of the country would be after a growth of thirty-five years. I shall not weary the patience of the House by reading extracts from speeches, the more so as I have already, upon a former occasion, read
to the House expressions of opinion given in 1867, from Sir A. T. Galt, Sir John A. Macdonald, the Hon. George Brown and Sir George Etienne Cartier. These speeches show that these statesmen had neither foreseen the rapid growth which was to take place throughout all the provinces, nor the increase in the necessary outlay for their sound administration.
To give hut one instance, that of the province of Quebec, let me tell the House that its expenditure which was $1,183,238.44 in 1867-68, was $4,707,932.24 in 1900-1901, or an increase of $3,524,693.30.
The following table will show still more clearly the character of the expenditure, which, by the very force of circumstances and under the pressure of circumstances, and owing to fresh demands, have increased twofold, and in some cases threefold :
Civil government	i
Administration of justice	
Reformatory	
Legislation	
Education, &c	
Charitable institutions, hospitals, asylums.. .. Crown lands, public works, agriculture and
colonization	
Licenses, &c	
Public debt	
Inspection of manufacturing establishments Provincial Board of
Health	
Quebec Official 'Gazette'. Civil Service pensions.
1867-68	1900-01.
104,096.45 $ 278,307.42
300,442.63	618,296.88
26,964.40	60,000.00
109,144.06	235,596.09
275,605.27	465,589.68
125,256,53	397,895.75
226,678,82	678,806.83
15,050.28	72,769.65
	 1,617,344,06
	 12,000.00
	 17,625.03
	 13,000 00
&c	 45,321.47
Municipal fund	 180.00
Sale of property	 286.40
Railways	 123,310.10
Sundries	 71,592.83
$1,183,23844 $4,707,932.24 Let us take the administration of justice : now, on this head the expenditure has doubled. How is this fact to be accounted for if not from the increase in population in large cities like Montreal and Quebec '! Owing to their growth as seaports, these cities receive every year a large floating population, and this surplus of population necessarily involves additional expenditure in the administration of justice, and more particularly of the courts of criminal jurisdiction. It is still within the vivid recollection of old practitioners that, not so very long ago, there were only two sessions of the criminal court held in the cities of Quebec and Montreal every year. Now, men of my generation are aware that, as concerns Montreal, four sessions are actually required, and that the courts of inferior jurisdiction hold sittings from the first of January to the end of December, for the despatch of criminal cases. In both cases the courts have to enforce federal laws, and to this fact the considerable increase in the administration of justice is due.

As to asylums and hospitals, what Is the reason the relative expenditure involved by their maintenance has increased threefold, but that their population has considerably increased and that the treatment of the insane and the poor should keep pace with the progress of science ?
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. R. LEMIEUX (Gaspe).: Before you left the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I was explaining the cause of the increase in some expenditures incurred for some branches of provincial administration. I wish now to call the attention of the House to the glaring disproportion between the revenue derived from the federal treasury and the revenue which the province itself has levied for the administration of public affairs. The following figures show that in that respect, the provinces have done their large share. Of course, I am referring here to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. In 1870, Quebec was drawing from the Dominion treasury a grant of $859,626. In 1901-02, that subsidy amounted to $1,279,105, or an increase of $419,479.
Let us now take the revenue which has been created by the province itself, as the revenue derived from the Crown lands. In 1870 the revenue derived from the land sales was $501,478, while in 1902, it was $1,291,111, or an increase of $788,633. The licenses which in 1870 yielded $98,050, gave $681,229 in 1902. As will be seen, the revenue from this source has increased fivefold since that time, other sources of revenue have been created in order to meet the requirements of the provincial administration. The taxation levied on commercial corporations which did not exist prior to 1870 has yielded $231,695 in 1902, and the duties on successions $222,763. In other words, whereas the Dominion grant has increased from 1870 to 1902 by $419,479, on the other hand, the revenue which the province has derived from its own resources has increased by $4,827,261.
Let us now take the case of the province of Ontario. The figures which I am giving *here are borrowed from a most exhaustive memorandum recently prepared by the Hon. Mr. Ross, Prime Minister of the great sister province. The total revenue of the province of Ontario is $4,466,043. The Dominion grant is $1,339,287. The revenue derived from provincial sources reach $3,126,756.
Now, in the face of such figures, can it be denied that the provinces have done their large share outside of any aid received from the 'Dominion government 7 Can it be denied that the provinces, by means of contributions levied upon the taxpayers, have drawn from local sources, enormous sums of money to meet the expenditure of their Mr. LEMIEUX (Gaspe).
administration ? Have they not unmercifully taxed themselves to meet their engagements ? Of course the expenditure has considerably increased. In 1870 the grants to public education in the province of Quebec, amounted to $279,972, while in 1902, they reached $469,184. Whereas the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture amounted to $49,863 in 1870, it rose to $119,683 in 1902. For the same departments in the province of Ontario, the outlay for public education was $247,192 in 1801, and $782,193 in 1901, whereas for agriculture, the expenditure was $56,211 in 1861, and $209,258 in 1901. Now, I appeal to the hon. gentlemen who sit on both sides of the House, whether there is a single man who would dare to hold, at this stage of our history, that we should apply the brakes to such cases as public education and agriculture, instead of giving them a new impetus, and such remarkable development as is seen nowadays in other parts of the world ? Why, Sir, does it not stand to reason that these are outlays which are bound to increase in proportion to the very growth of population ? In these modern days, public education, as we all know, is becoming more and more expensive. Our institutions insist upon higher salaries being paid, and rightly so ; and competition makes it necessary for arts and manufactures to be up to the standard of modern science. Again, the new conditions of agriculture require more skill and greater technical knowledge. To recoil from an increased expenditure would be tantamount to saying that provinces must remain at a standstill.
But, Sir, whereas on the one hand, the grant which we receive from the Dominion exchequer is fixed and unalterable, on the other hand, the sources of revenue which the provinces have handed over to the Dominion have trebled in value. Let us take the customs and the excise. In 1867-68, the income from those sources was $11,580,968.25, whereas in 1901, it reached $38,245,223, or an increase of $26,664,254.75. Now, in 1867, the total subsidies received from the Dominion government by the provinces amounted to $2,753,966, or 24 per cent of the revenue of which they had divested themselves, whereas in 1901, the subsidies jiaid over to the provinces were $4,250,607, or 11 per cent only of the same revenue. Moreover, there is this remarkable anomaly, that the increase of population in the various provinces involves the creation of fresh sources of expenditure, which are beyond the control of the men of power, whereas from that same cause the Dominion government derives a fresh source of revenue which cannot fail to develop more and more. The question is, how is this anomalous position to be remedied, which impresses every thoughtful man who is anxious about the lawful claims of the provinces ? For my part I am of opinion

that in the demands set forth by the interprovincial conference in December last, is to be found the true and practical remedy to the existing difficulties. The wording of those resolutions is very clear and very explicit:
Instead of the amounts now paid, the sums hereafter payable yearly by Canada to the several provinces for the support of their governments and legislatures, to be according to population, as follows :-
(a)	Where the population is under
150.000		$100,000
(b)	Where the population is 150,000 but
does not exceed 200,000	 150,000
(e) Where the population is 200,00, but
does not exceed 400,000	 180,000
(d)	Where the population is 400,000, but
does not exceed 800,000	 190,000
(e)	Where the population is 800,000, but
does not exceed 1,500,000	 220,000
(f)	Where the population exceeds 1,
500.000		 240,000
Instead of an annual grant per head of population now allowed, the annual payment hereafter to be at the same rate of eighty cents per head, but on the population of the province as ascertained from time to time by the last decennial census, until such population exceeds 2,500,000 ; and at the rate of sixty cents per head for so much of said population as may exceed 2,500,000.
As I said a little while ago, such a demand seems fair and reasonable. The provinces, of their own accord, did delegate certain powers to the central government and did hand over to them the best of their revenue. Is it reasonable to believe that the idea of the fathers of confederation should have been that such a renunciation of powers and such a transfer of revenue should work to the detriment of the provinces, by placing them for ever in straitened circumstances, bordering upon poverty ?
The federalists think that the remedy to that state of affairs is to be found in the power of self-taxation and in the borrowing power, which the provinces have preserved. But such an argument no longer holds, in view of the enormous burdens shouldered by the provinces since 1867. The people in the province of Quebec at least, are opposed to dircet taxation and to any further loans. Moreover, as to the parcelling out of the public domain, that is a policy which all right-minded people, all patriotic men antagonize. It is our children's patrimony and their future is intimately linked to it. It would be unfair to deprive our fellow countrymen of the public lands and the natural resources they contain, for the benefit of aliens and speculators who have no permanent interests in this country.
We do not want the provinces to be a mere geographical expression in this Dominion of ours. Any attempt to build up the central power at the expense of the provinces ought to be discountenanced. To call this demand for better terms a raid on the federal treasury is no argument at all. When the federal government grants every
year to powerful corporations subsidies amounting to millions of dollars, do not they feel that the position of the provinces is growing more and more humiliating '! Why should the provinces have to play the part of paupers, when they represent in this country interests far more important than the interests of the great corporations referred to 1 Do you not think it would be a better policy to settle once for all, by means of a mutual understanding, the financial status of the provincial legislatures, so as to put a stop, for the future, to repeated demands for better terms ? A sad spectacle this House has been a witness to, within the last twenty-five years. Of course, to quote a sensible saying, it is the people who pay ; but it is also the same people who contribute millions to an overflowing public exchequer. It is no use quibbling here. The taxpayers in the various provinces are also the taxpayers of the central government. The additional sums which will be paid to the provinces by the Dominion government will be expended on agriculture, colonization and public education ; and after all, it is Canada that will benefit by them. An increase in the Dominion subsidies to the provinces is necessary, I may even say, it is imperative. From the very inception of confederation, a progressive increase in the revenue of the provinces should have been provided for, on the basis of a subsidy adjustable to the increase of [DOT]population. Suppose that the population of the province of Quebec should receive an increase of one million within the next twenty years ; will any man, in his sober senses, pretend that the federal subsidy should continue for all time to come, to be determined on the original basis of the population of 1861 ? The question admits of no doubt. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be a fairer redistribution of income and expenditure. Let us bear in mind that the conditions in Canada have greatly changed since 1867. From the necessity of keeping pace with modern progress, from the development of our resources and the new needs of the country as well as the requirements of competition, fresh duties have devolved upon provincial governments which it would be idle to postpone any longer. As to the charges of extravagance brought against the provinces, I may say that they are worthless ; because, it stands to reason that when the provinces have aided in the building of great railway lines, and have opened up to settlement tracts of uncultivated lands, they have thereby notably contributed to the increase of population ; they have also increased tenfold the volume of general trade, and promoted, to a large extent, the development of the whole country. It would be, indeed, a very poor policy, quite at variance with sound political economy, to add to the embarrassed circumstances of the provinces, in proportion to the general development of the

country. Take away from the provinces the assistance they are entitled to, and you thereby deprive them of the best incentive to self-development. As I said last year, the'provinces exist, true enough, but they barely live under the present condition of affairs. They are entitled to something more than a bare existence ; they have a right to live.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.   A.@: MCLENNAN (Inverness) moved for:	*
Copies of all correspondence, Orders in Council, and other papers, in connection with the prosecution, by the Customs Department, for the scuttling of the schooner ' Euxine,' of Mar-garee Island, while reported on a smuggling expedition, from St. Pierre, Miquelon.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Win. Paterson).: With regard to the motion, 1 do not know exactly what action the department took in the matter and how the case actually stands. It seems that all the [DOT] papers are not available, but whatever papers can be had will be brought down. This is a case which occurred under the late government.


Mr. McLENNAN.: It did occur some years ago, under the regime of the late administration, and seems to have hung fire somewhere between the departments and the-courts. For some years nothing was done and the case stood in abeyance until a repetition of this species of illicit traffic in recent years caused public opinion to become alive to the importance of stamping it down. The proximity of the island of St. Pierre, Miquelon to Cape Breton has facilitated smuggling operations between the two places, and it is therefore of great urgency that offenders should be taught to respect the law. In order to' do this, it is considered advisable to start in with the original offender and have this case pushed to the end. Hence it is that I call for the papers at present. The prosecution was entered into by the Customs Department under the late government, but it would seem that a very important witness on that occasion conveniently disappeared, which for the time set the case at rest, but it appears that in recent years evidence has become available which is calculated to throw some light upon this mysterious matter, and public opinion calls for a further probing of the case. I believe that important evidence which was not available on the first occasion is available now, and I hope that the department will take the case up where it seems to have dropped. When last heard of. I believe it was in the hands of the agent of the Department of Justice at that time in Halifax. Who that gentleman is I cannot recall, but the papers are in that office now and should be available. While I agree with the lion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: minister that all the papers may not be available in his department, I shall be glad, if all those which are, should be brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHARLTON moved that Order No. 13, House again in Committee on Bill (No. 2) to amend chapter 8 of the Statutes of 1900 authorizing the grant of railway subsidies,, be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to the Committee on Railways, Telegraph and Telephone Lines.
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN (East York) moved second reading of Bill (No. 4) respecting telephone companies. He said:	This Bill
is. substantially the Bill introduced last session and it is of great public interest. I have discussed it very fully on previous occasions both in the House and in the Committee. And it is a Bill that demands passage now more than ever. It is altogether in the public interest, and will go a long way to promote commerce and communication. I do not intend, at the present time, to discuss it very fully, but I expect from the government to-night a statement of their intention with regard to the matter. Last session, when I introduced the Bill, the Minister of Justice, on behalf of the government, said it was the intention of the government to introduce a Bill dealing with the question. And he did introduce a Bill which came before the committee; and then the statement was made in the committee that the questions involved were of such a character that it would take a year to consider them fully. That year has elapsed. I have asked the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if it was the intention of the government to redeem its pledge and bring in a Bill this session. So far, I have not had an answer to that question. I am quite willing to give the leader of the House (Hon. Sir William Mulock) an opportunity to say now whether it is the intention of the government to bring in that Bill.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I was going to make a suggestion. Whether or not the government brings in a Bill, that circumstance would not be a good reason for not inviting the attention to this question. It is a very large question. The Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines is a large committee, comprising about three-fifths or, perhaps, three-quarters of the members of the House, and perhaps a better plan would be to let this go to the committee and have a thorough discussion there. The government and the House will then be better able to give an opinion on the subject.


William Findlay Maclean: But a government must redeem its pledges.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Oil, no.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, some of us. take tliat view. A solemn pledge lias been given to tbe people that we shall have a Telephone Bill this session. Deputations have been here and interviewed the government. The Minister of Justice said that he was giving all the attention he could to the constitutional question that had arisen. And I expect that Bill, and the country expects it. But the leader of the House tells us that he lias no policy to announce and does not know what the intention of the government is


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not say anything of the kind.


William Findlay Maclean: Well, the hon. gentleman was not in a posit ion to give any information on the matter. In all fairness, in view of the large issues that come up in connection with the question, a public statement ought to he made by the government with regard to it . But I am in the hands of the government, and I must go to the Committee with the Bill, fight it out there and then come back to the House, if necessary. There is only one change in my Bill from last session. While a number have raised the issue in this House that the Bill I introduced interfered with municipal rights, I never admitted that it did so, as at first drafted; but, to provide for that point, I have inserted a clause that any rights gi'anted to the telephone companies under the charter of this Act are subject to the rights of municipalities. But I am not dealing with the constitutional question I am dealing with a practical public grievance. A telephone monopoly exists in this country, and ail I ask is that the telephone business be put on a competitive basis, that anybody and everbody may go into telephone business and that the well known principles of the law be applied to telephone business as to any other. So I have made the necessary provision regarding municipal rights. I intend to go on with the Bill. I am ready to go to the Committee; and. with that understanding, I move the second reading and that the Bill be sent to the Committee.


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

Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN (East York) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 5) to amend the Railway Act. He said : This is a very short Bill. It deals with one phase of the telephone grievance in this country. That grievance has developed since last session. When a year's grace was given to the Bell
Telephone Company they went out and made contracts with all the railway companies in Canada, and so they secured a telephone monopoly in all the railroad stations in the country. I contend that this is against public policy. The railroads of this country should be given facilities with regard to telephones, as they are compelled by the Railway Act to give equal facilities in their transportation of freight. This Bill is a very short amendment to secure that end. I should like to see the hon. member (Mr. Dyment) who represents Fort William and Port Arthur in his place to-night that he might tell us what is going on in those two progressive towns. The people in these towns have organized a municipal telephone service for the two towns. They are giving the people a better telephone service than the Bell Telephone Company gave, and charging only half its price. But they find, under this invidious agreement between the telephone companies and the railways, that the public telephone systems of these towns are debarred from entering the Canadian Pacific Railway station. And representatives of the people of Port Arthur and Fort William are here to-day in Ottawa to ask that the amendment that I now propose or some similar amendment may pass. In my riding of East York, the farmers-and I hope the farming members of the House will listen to me, and I hope the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) who comes from that county is listening to me, and I hope the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross) is in his place and listening to me-the farmers of East York, and of Pickering in South Ontario, could not get telephone connection. They implored the Bell Telephone Company to give it to them. An immense price was demanded. I have to pay $180 a year for my telephone service in the township of York. I find the service useful, and I have to pay the price. A veterinary half a mile away was asked $1G0 for a telephone service. But he cannot pay it, and is not able to answer his calls. This, of course, is a great inconvenience. All the doctors there were held up in the same way. But the farmers had enough spirit to organize an independent telephone system. They organized it on the basis of each man paying $40 as an initial payment; and an annual contribution of $5. On this basis they made first-class telephone service which they own and control themselves. Eighteen went into the first line. But they wished to have connection with the Locust Hill station of the Canadian Pacific Railway. But when they went there, they were told:	Gentlemen, we cannot let the farmers' line into the station because of the exclusive agreement we gave to the Bell Telephone Company last year. I wired to Sir Thomas Shaughnessy about it, and he was willing to give the farmers the service if he could get out of his agreement with the Bell Telephone Company. Who were

these farmers who applied to get access by telephone to the station ? Every one of them was a customer of the Canadian Pacific Railway and all they wished was the privilege of being able to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway agent whether the trains were on time, whether their freight had arrived, and questions of that character which the railway' people are only too pleased to answer, if you knock at their door-but if you wish to get in through a hole in the wall by a telephone wire, you have to ask the consent of the Bell Telephone Company. This is an iniquitous state of affairs, contrary to public policy. It is contrary to the political principles of both parties, and is a thing that ought to be stopped. All that my Bill does is to insist on every railway company giving equal telephone facilities to every one who asks for them. I would like to know where the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) is to-night and whether he is prepared to make a statement on this subject. Here are two Bills relating to the branch of affairs Which he is supposed to administer, and he is not here to give us an answer to our questions. The hon. member for Victoria,N.S., spoke about the sessional gaieties the other evening. Apparently the sessional gaieties are taking up the time of the ministers, for they are not here to state the policy of the government on public questions. The farmers of Canada, from one end to the other are watching this little Bill, and they expect some kind of declaration with regard to it. I suppose that all the information I shall get is that I must go to the Committee. But what is the intention of the government ?
Now, I would not have spoken so warmly on this point if I had not had a large experience of being jollied, as the term is, in committees in regard to these public Bills that I have introduced. I intend now to insist on some kind of fair treatment of these measures and some kind of statement from the government as to what they intend to do. They need not answer me if they don't wish to, but I will try the best way I know how to take care of these Bills and get a full discussion of them. I trust the House to-night will send this Bill on to the committee, and I trust further, in view of all the agitation in the country, and in view of the interest the farmers are taking on this question, that I will have the assistance of the government in passing both these Bills, especially this very short one. I am not exceeding my right in expecting that the ministers having charge of these important questions should be in their places and prepared to state the policy of the government in regard to them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
William Findlay Maclean: 


DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. JAMES CLANCY (Bothwell) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 15) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900. He said : This is the same Bill I introduced on two former occasions. The object of the Bill is to amend the Dominion Elections Act so as to prevent what is now a most insidious and dangerous form of intimidation. I regret that I have to say it, and I say it with a feeling of shame, that in the province of Ontario we have not a secret ballot, and that is well known from one end of the province to the other. Though we have a secret ballot in the Dominion Act, it is well understood by those who know anything about these matters that when an election comes on men are intimidated and are told that the Dominion ballot is not secret, and they had better be very careful how they vote because it will be discovered. The object of this Bill is to make such a threat an offence against the Election Act, and to make it punishable and liable to the penalties that attend the usual acts of corruption. I do not think that I need spend any more time in urging the necessity of a Bill of this kind.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I think there is some misunderstanding. The Minister of Justice, who has these matters in charge, is not here tonight, and I would be glad if the hon. gentleman would allow his Bill to stand over. The minister had an impression that these Bills would not be reached to-night, otherwise he would have made some arrangement about them. So if the hon. gentleman has no objection to let it stand over, it will come up on the first order the next day.


James Clancy: I may inform the Minister of Finance that the Minister of Justice has already had that stand over on two occasions in order that he might take it to the block and use his hatchet. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that it is just as well that he should know my position. I do not intend that the Minister of Justice shall dispose of that Bill at this session without a vote of this House. I will accept the proposition made by the Minister of Finance on the understanding that the Bill shall not lose its place, and shall become the first order of the day.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When I say the first order-there are very few orders ahead of it. I do not make the suggestion with any intention of preventing a vote. There are only two or three motions ahead of it. and as we are at the beginning of the session, there is not the least danger that the matter will not come up again at an early date.
Motion withdrawn.


MAKCH 30, 1903 INTERPRETATION ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On the order for :
Second reading of Bill (No. 18) to amend the Interpretation Act.-Mr. Monk.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Does my hon. friend intend to ask that his Bill be referred to a committee ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, it is not necessary. It is a short Bill, and I do not think there can be much objection to it. Is the hon. gentleman ready to go on with it to-night ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the absence of the Minister of Justice, I would prefer that the hon. gentleman should let it stand, unless it goes to one of the main committees.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to get it advanced one stage to-night. The hon. gentleman will recollect that I brought that Bill in last year, and put it off several times. It failed to become law last year. I do not think there can be any objection whatever to its taking a second reading to-night. I would like it to be advanced one stage, and when it comes to be discussed in Committee of the Whole, if there are any objections to it, they can be urged then. Otherwise I would like to go on with it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The second reading would be admitting the principle.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It does, as a general rule.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The practice is to refer such Bills to a committee where they can be threshed out. Otherwise I would prefer if the hon. gentleman would let it stand until the Minister of Justice is in his seat.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Unless he wants it to go to a committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no necessity for its going to any committee. There is no committee to send it to.
Order allowed to stand.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Copies of all plans and specifications submitted for approval by the Montreal Subway Company ; copies of the Order in Council, if any, approving of such plans. Also, of any report of the progress of the work ; statement showing the amount of money spent on the undertaking ; the amount of the deposit made by the company ; and all papers or correspondence relating to the enterprise.-Hon. Mr. Tarte.
Copies of all papers, letters, telegrams, contracts, specifications, and correspondence of every description whatever, between the Minister of Public Works, or any other member of the government, and the contractors, sub-contractors, and other parties, in connection with the repairs to the post office, and the building of a new retaining wall, in connection with the post office, in the town of Woodstock, N.B. - Mr. Hale.
Copies of all Orders in Council, correspondence, despatches and documents, relating to the disallowance by the Governor in Council of statutes of the province of British Columbia, during the past five years.-Mr. Borden (Halifax).
Statement of all moneys paid by the Government, or on its behalf, to any newspapers in the Yukon District, since June 30 last, giving the names of said newspapers.-Mr. Monk.
Statement showing in detail amounts of money paid to newspapers, newspaper companies, newspaper owners, or agents of publicity, in the United Kingdom, France, or the United States, since June 30 last.-Mr. Monk.
Statement showing
1.	The total amount paid to date by the Government to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, for a lease of line from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal.
2.	Total amount paid to date by the same to the same, for crossing facilities over the Victoria Bridge.
3.	Total amount paid from the same to the same, as the Government's share of improved terminal facilities at Bonaventure Depot.-Mr. Monk.
Copies of all Orders in Council, and of all other documents, and correspondence, relating to the appointment of a Commission instructed to secure a site for a dry dock in the port of Montreal ; likewise of the instructions given regarding that subject, the reports that may have been made, &c.-Hon. Mr. Tarte.
Copy of the contract made with Poupore & Malone, for the construction of the wharf at the foot of St. Mary's Current, in the port of Montreal ; and of any agreements modifying the original terms of said contract.-Hon. Mr. Monk.
Copies of tenders asked for and received for Quebec Harbour improvements, during the last ten months ; of reports to Cauncil, correspondence, and plans prepared by the Department of Public Works in reference to such works.- Hon. Mr. Tarte.
Return of all sales of School Lands in Manitoba and the North-west Territories since 1896, showing :-
1.	Date of sale.
2.	Place where the sale occurred.
3.	Name of auctioneer.
4.	Total amount of purchase money in each case.
5.	Total amount paid at time of sale in each ease.
6.	Total amount paid since time of sale in each case.
7.	Total amount still due for principal and interest, respectively, in each case.
8.	Total amount of sale by each auctioneer.
9.	Total amount paid to each auctioneer for his service.-Mr. Roche (Marquette).
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 9.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 31, 1903.