1903-07-20

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the day are called, I would like to bring to the attention of the government a telegram which I received late on Friday afternoon. It is as follows :
Fort Frances, Ont., July 16.
R. L. Borden,
Ottawa.
Canadian Northern has daily passenger trains east and west. Spite this, mail for Rainy River valley comes by freight and is practically suspended. People are using American mail, express boats to Rat Portage, and any available means to forward mail out, but have had only one mail in for past seven days. Business is paralyzed, and we can get no relief from Post Office Department. If this is economy, it means at a ruinous cost to a growing and ambitious district. Please help us.
W. J. KEATING, Mayor.
I know nothing of the circumstances, and the only course open to me was to bring this matter to the attention of the government at the earliest possible moment.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Muloclt).: With reference to the subject of mail service at Fort Frances, to which the hon. leader of the opposition, has alluded, when this subject was brought to my attention two or three days ago, I applied to the comptroller of the railway mail service for an explanation. He informed me that the service between Winnipeg and Fort Frances was performed by the Canadian Northern Railway, by their regular train service, which at that time was limited to three trains per week. I think the days were Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Without the consent of the department, the railway company decided to discontinue the running of that train service as heretofore regularly to Fort Frances, but to stop at same point west, and intended, in lieu thereof, to put on an express train. The express train as I am informed was not established for a few days after Friday, the last regular day of the local to which I have referred. Accordingly there was a hiatus cused by this change in the running of the train. The moment the matter was called to my attention, instructions were given to utilize all the trains, which is now being done. Of course it is the privilege of the mayor to write as he likes to a member of the House and for an hon. member to read his telegram, but it is quite an unfair way of presenting the case.
Mr, BORDEN (Halifax). I do not know whether my hon. friend intends to charge me with any unfairness.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If my hon. friend had submitted the telegram to me, I could have shown him that the- reasons assigned were without foundation.


Robert Laird Borden: When any communication of this kind comes to me, as a member of the House of Commons, I shall consider myself quite at liberty, if it relates to a public matter, to bring it to the attention of the government and obtain from

the leader of the government or the head of the department concerned, such explanation as he may think necessary to give.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to bring to the attention of the government the fact that the documents which have been printed, purporting to be a return to an address of the House of Commons dated the Ilth -May, 1902, for copies of all Orders in Council and other documents having reier-ence to the granting of provincial autonomy to the North-west Territories, are extremely defective, I had procured a number ut prints of these documents from Regina, and, doing the work of a clerk this morning, 1 compared them with the return which has been brought down, and I found that a very great number of the documents have not been brought down, or at least have not been priuteu. In order to show my right hon. friend how very incomplete is the return as printed, I will read a list of the documents which have not been included in it, some of which are of no great importance, but others of which are of the greatest possible importance for the purpose of an intelligent discussion of this question. I may say that one or two of the documents which I have included in the list, while not directly referring to the question of provincial autonomy, are nevertheless in answer to correspondence which does touch that question as well as the question of better financial terms ; and these, I think, ought to be brought down, because they are part of the consecutive correspondence dealing with these matters. The letters which have been omitted, which I had to take from a number of documents and therefore have uot them arranged in chronological order, are as follows :	January 31, 1903, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; February 11, 1903, Mr. Haultaiu to Air. Sifton ; February 9, 1903, Air. Me Gee to Air. Haultaiu ; February 10, 1903, Air. Keys to Air. Haultain ; Alarch 19, 1903, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; March 21, 1903, Air. Sifton to Air. Haultain ; April 15, 1903, Air. Haultaiu to Air. Sifton ; December 17, 1902, Air. A. L. Sifton to Air. Clifford Sifton ; February 5. 1903, Air. Sif-ton to Air. Haultain; February 11, 1903, Air. Haultaiu,to Air. Sifton; February 21, 1903, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; April 1C, 1903, Air. Fielding to All'. Haultain ; April 17, 1903, Air. Haultain to All'. Fielding ; April 20. 1903, Air. Fielding to Air. Haultaiu ; April 20, 1903, Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier to Air. Haultain ; April 20, 1903, Mr. Haultain to Air. Fielding ; April 21, 1903, Lieut.-Gov. Forget of the North-west Territories to the Secretary of State, inclosing an address ; June 2, 1903, Air. Haul-tain to Sir Wilfrid Laurier ; June 6, 1903. Mr. Fielding to Air. Haultain ; June 15. 1903. Air. Haultain to Air, Fielding ; July 25. 1903, Air. Pelletier, acting Under Secretary of


Robert Laird Borden: State to Lieut.-Gov. Forget; January 30, 1901, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; Alarch
21,	1901, Air. Sifton to Air. Haultain ; Alarch
30, 1901, Air.	Haultain	to Air. Sifton ;	April5, 1901,	Mr.	Sifton to	Air. Haultain ;	June4,	1901,	Air.	Haultain	to Air. Sifton ;	June5,	1901,	Mr.	Sifton to	Air. Haultain ;	August, 11, 1901, Mr. A. L. Sifton to Air. Clifford Sifton ; August 14, 1901, Air. Clifford Sifton to Air. A. L. Sifton ; January 11, 1902, A. L. Sifton to Sir Wilfrid Laurier ; January22,	1902, Sir Wilfrid Laurier to Air. A. L. Sifton ; Alarch 15, 1902, Mr. Haultain to Sir Wilfrid Laurier ; Alarch 18, 1902, Sir Wilfrid Laurier to Air. Haultain ; Alarch 27, 1902, Air. Sifton to Air. Haultain ; April 2, 1902, Air. Haultain to Air. Sifton ; April 29, 1903, Air. Pelletier, acting Under Secretary of State, to Lieut.-Gov. Forget. I thought it would be desirable to read this long list in order to indicate to my right hon. friend how very defective is the return which has been brought down and printed. I recollect that at the time the papers were first brought down, the right hon. gentleman mentioned to the House that there would be some other papers. Possibly these have not yet been prepared ; but might X be permitted to suggest that, in bringing down correspondence of this kind, it would greatly diminish the labour of members who desire to deal with important subjects of this character, if the documents could be printed in chronological order, begiuuing with the documents, of an earlier date. That has not been done in this case, and if we have another return printed, with the documents that I have mentioned, I am afraid that the matter will be in rather a confused condition. Possibly it would be advisable to nave these documents arranged in chronological order, if it would not take too long, and printed, so as to have them in an intelligible form before the House. The correspondence is quite voluminous, and it will be difficult to gather its bearings unless we have it in that form.


The AUNISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I think that some part of the difficulty arises from the fact ;aat my hon. friend's remarks dealt with two subjects, which probably the officials who prepared the return did not associate together, although they do in some respects touch each other. Aly hon. friend's remarks had relation to the question of provincial autonomy, and he has mentioned some correspondence which took place between Air. Haultain and myself which has not been brought down. I had no correspondence whatever with Air. Haultain on the question of provincial autonomy. I did have correspondence with him with respect to the grants to the North-west Territories, and I quite admit that the two questions touch each other, though they are distinct from each other, and I think that may be the explanation of the absence o? these documents.


Robert Laird Borden: That explains two or three of these documents, but not all. Two or three communications, principally telegrams, passed between Mr. Haultain and the Minister of Finance. I referred to those in mentioning that some of the documents contained no reference to provincial autonomy. But there are a great many other documents not brought down which refer to provincial autonomy, although they may refer principally to better terms. Some of those omitted relate entirely to the question of provincial autonomy.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: When I brought down this return I stated that something more would have to come. I note that some correspondence subsequent to the date of my bon. friend's motion is not included, but I will have this brought down. Would my hon. friend be kind enough to let me have the list he has just read ?


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid that it is not legible to any one but myself, but I will have a copy made.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will be in ' Hansard,' and can be got there.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior the fact that he promised to bring down a return which had been moved for by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche). I do not know whether it has been brought down or not, but I have not seen it. When we were proceeding with the estimates a few days ago, the hon. gentleman said that it would be brought down the next day or the day following. He said also that he would bring down certain information with regard to the lands still obtainable in the organized territories for homestead entries.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I gave instructions to have the return referred to by the hon. gentleman brought down and expected to have it this morning. It is. however, being attended to. As to the lands, I gave a statement, but my hon. friend was not here at the time. You will find it in ' Hansard.'


Mr. LANCASTER.: I desire to call the attention of the hon. the Minister of Marine to a return ordered the 1st of June for correspondence with regard to fishing rights in James Bay. When may we expect this return ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It must be in the hands of the Secretary of State, because I sent him the papers a long time ago.



THE COLUMBIA RIVER IMPROVEMENT COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order for :
The second reading of the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 150, to incorporate the Columbia River Improvement Company, Limited.
Mr. GALLIHER moved that the said amendment be amended by striking out the words ' section seven ' in the second amendment and inserting instead thereof 'sections seven and eight.' He said : It is Inexpedient to include section seven unless section eight is also included, as section eight covers waters not mentioned in section seven. The Senate, in section fourteen, proposed the following amendment : After the word ' operate,' in the first line, they wish to insert ' on the waters mentioned in section 7 hereof.' That would make the section read : ' The company may acquire and operate, on the waters mentioned in section 7 hereof, the works of any company having powers wholly or in part similar to the powers of the company.' Now, that would only give this company the privilege of acquiring the works of other companies at a point on the shores of Upper Arrow lake, or at a point on Upper Arrow lake where the Columbia river enters it, but would not give the powers which they require of acquiring works of other companies that might construct works upon the Columbia river above Upper Arrow lake or upon navigable tributaries of the Columbia river. Evidently the Senate did not notice that there were different points asked for as covered in section 7 and section 8. By inserting the words ' sections 7 and 8 ' we cover the waters mentioned In these sections, and the company would acquire what they really ask for* and what is necessary in their interest.
Robert Laird Borden: I understand, then, that in this section, as it was at first the provision was general, but the Senate has limited it to the point referred to in section 7. Section 8 is a companion section to section 7. and, if it is restricted, you should refer to both these sections.


Mr. GALLIHER.: " Yes, that is it.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. BLAIN asked :: How many schedules were filled in, either in the counties of Halton, Cardwell and Peel in whole or in part, by the census enumerators for 1891 ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: The number of schedules filled in, either in whole or in part

by the census enumerators for the counties of Halton, Cardwell and Peel in 1S91 were as follows: County of Halton, 1,724; county of Cardwell, 1,221 ; county of Peel, 1,215.


MR. L. J. LATOUR-LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
Richard Blain: 


Is Mr.  L. J.@: Latour still under leave of absence from his position of postmaster of the Department of Public Works ? How long has he been under such leave of absence ? What amount has been paid to his son ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Since 1st March, 1903.
3.	$366 up to 1st July.	.


MR. P. V. SAVARD, EX-M.P.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLAIN astted :
1.	Is Mr. P. V. Savard, ex-M.P., for Chicoutimi, in the employ of the government ?
2.	If so. what is the nature of his employment ?
3.	What salary is he receiving ?
4.	Has he made any report of his work ?
5.	And if so. what is the nature of that report ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine):: 1.	Yes.
2.	He is engaged by the Department of Marine and Fisheries to inquire into certain legal points connected with -conflicting claims of the federal and provincial governments and the Labrador Company to the right of fishery within the limits of that portion of the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, known as the Mingan Seigniory.
3.	No regular salary. He receives five dollars per day while engaged in the work.
4.	He has made the interim report; but a full report is awaited by the department.
5.	Answered by above.


ALNWICK BAND OF MISSIS8AGA INDIANS- CLAIM OF, FOR COMPENSATION.
Mr. McCOLI.: -by Mr. Calvert-asked :
Is it the intention of the government to take up and deal with the claim of the Alnwick Band of Mississaga Indians for compensation for the unextinguished Indian title to the territory claimed by them, lying south of Lake Nipissing, east of the Bobcaygeon road, and west of the Ottawa river, as having been formerly the hunting grounds of the Mississaga Indians ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: The claim is under consideration, but no conclusion lias been arrived at.


WINTER NAVIGATION OF NORTHUMBERLAND STRAITS.
Mr. HACICETT asked :: 1.	Has the government authorized the foliow-lng telegram, published in the Charlottetown Patriot ' of the 14th instant ?


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: 
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	On the recommendation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in the public interest.


DISMISSAL OF CAPTAIN BISHOP, ALBERT N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
Has Captain Bishop been dismissed from his post as harbour master of Albert, in Albert county, N.B. ? If so, when, and on wffiose recommendation, and for what cause ? When w-as Captain Bishop appointed to said office ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	On the 9th June, 1903. on the recommendation of the minister, and in the public interest.
3.	On the 22nd June, 1897.


FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 224) to amend the Fisheries Act, was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
The section substituted for section 6 of the Fisheries Act, chapter 95 of the revised statutes, by section 1 of chapter 51 of the statutes of 1894. is repealed, and -the following is substituted therefor :-
6.	Every one w-ho hunts or kills fish or marine animals of any kind, other than seals, porpoises, whales and walruses, by means of rockets, explosive materials, or explosive projectiles or shells, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three hundred dollars and costs, and, in default of payment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.
Robert Laird Borden: What change is effected in the law by this section ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine).: At the present time there is no pnwer in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to allow any of the animals here designated to lie killed with explosives. Under this amendment. permission may be given to hunt and kill seals, porpoises, whales and walruses with explosives, explosive projectiles and so on.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the rea. son of making that change ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Requests have been received that licenses be issued in certain parts of our waters to establish whaling stations; to be conducted on modern lines, that is to say, as they are conducted in other countries, with the use of explosives. The department thought the Canadian fishermen should be placed in the same position as the fishermen of other countries. So on the recommendation of the commissioner of fisheries it has been decided to ask for the necessary power to amend the law to that effect.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it the usual custom of fishermen in other countries to use explosives ?


Tlie MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: In other countries it is, but in this country, so far, it has not been allowed.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: This industry is largely engaged in Newfoundland. They use this method of throwing the harpoons and killing the whales.
On section 3,


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This is the result of the Investigation which has been held in British Columbia, and it has been recommended that we should allow purse seines to be used under special license in the waters of the Pacific coast. The question of traps has been left in abeyance in the meantime, so no mention is made in the Bill of traps. All we require at the present time is an amendment which will enable the department to allow special licenses to issue in British Columbia waters for the use of purse seines, in accordance with the almost unanimous opinion of those engaged in that industry.


Mr. KATJEBACH.: If persons are to be prohibited from this method of fishing in the Atlantic waters, why are they to be allowed in the Pacific waters ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is thought proper to allow it in British Columbia waters because the Americans are using the same mode of fishing. It has been established
by those who have studied the question that it is the best mode of catching fish in these waters, and it is the most profitable way of carrying on that industry alongside of our American cousins, who are practising it.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: When the same methods were employed in the Atlantic, they were found an injury to the fish, and when our government approached the United States government asking them to abolish that method they consented to do so. I think the same thing should be asked for in the Pacific waters, and I think it would be granted by the American government ; otherwise, in the course of a little while the fish will become extinct.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: For the information of the hon. member I may state that though this question is new to me, it is not new to the department, where it has been studied for the last three years. Voluminous correspondence has been had with the American authorities in the matter, and they have refused point blank to concede anything in the line of abolishing purse seines. They have gone further and they have established traps. At the same time they are taking so many salmon witli these traps that it has become a very serious question in British Columbia whether within a year or two we should not also allow traps as tlie Americans are using them. But some of the parties interested in tlie fishing industry were not ready to go so far as to use traps, and they unanimously recommended that purse seines should be allowed to be used. At present the industry is threatened with great injury, and is liable to be seriously diminished if the Department of Fisheries is not allowed to license purse seines.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) At present American seiners are frequenting the coast of Nova Scotia in the spring of the year with their purse seines, and take every opportunity of catching mackerel outside tlie three-mile limit, and inside the three-mile limit, unless our own steamers are there to prevent them. Now, it would be considered something of a hardship if our own fishermen within the three-mile limit were not able to use the same method of catching mackerel as the Americans enjoy outside the three-mile limit. If we could only get the American government to abolisli purse seines altogether, then it would be a mutual advantage to prevent entirely that method of catching mackerel. But at present the American fishermen will enjoy a privilege on our own coast that, by this Bill, will be denied to our own fishermen. I know of several merchants in Halifax who are in the possession of very expensive purse seines at present.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I was not aware that any privilege was allowed Americans on the shores of Nova Scotia inside the three mile limit.


William Ross: No.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I quite understand what the hon. member said, but i was not aware that they were permitted outside the three-mile limit, though it may be that they may have the seines on board clandestinely, and may catcli mackerel in that way. But if sucli is the case, I tuink it would be advisable for the government to communicate with the American government and ask them to abolish trap seines entirely, and to see that tneir fleet are not permitted to employ that metliou of fishing. I will go further and say that if the Americans persist in using purse seines in the waters of the Atlantic, then we should match them with a similar method. We did catch large quantities at one time with purse seines, hut we found that they destroyed the fish and we gave it up entirely. As I said before, the Americans consented to do the same.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They have not done so, I am informed.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Our government should approach the American government again and ask them to abolish that method of fishing.


The MINISTER OF MARINE FISHERIES.: Before issuing these licenses I may take the precaution of corresponding witli the American authorities in the matter. and informing them that we have now the power to license this method of fishing and intend to do so unless they will stop it on their side; if they do not, then we will proceed under this law.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am only referring to purse seines.


Mr. CLARKE.: Under what conditions do you propose to authorize the use of purse seines in Rritish Columbia waters?
The MINISTER	OF	MARINE	A.>D
FISHERIES. It will be the ordinary license surrounded with certain conditions that the department may deem fit to impose.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What	are the	pre-requisites that the department demand from any person applying for a license ?The MINISTER	OF	MARINE	A.\i)FISHERIES. Special regulations are made from time to time regarding licenses, according as circumstances may require. They are altered from time to time on the recommendation of	the	minister to the
Governor in Council.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Can you give us any information as to the regulations in force now ?


William Ross: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There are none at present as regards purse seines, because we have not licensed any, but before issuing a license we will prepare certain regulations, which will have to be approved by the Governor General in Council and published.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And all who comply with the regulations will be authorized to use purse seines ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Mr. KENDALL.: I think before the minister should take upon himself to interdict entirely the use of purse seines in our waters, on the erroneous grounds, ns I think, that they are seriously diminishing the mackerel, it would be well for the department to make an examination into the whole matter. I wish to tell the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, if he will turn to the report made to the London Fisheries Commission of 1883, by Prof Huxley, Sir John Lubbock, and another gentleman whose name I forget, he will learn that they lay it down that man is powerless practically to diminish deep sea fish by any means he may use to exterminate them. These professors came to this conclusion after a most complete examination of the conditions surrounding the fisheries of the North Sea and the German Ocean for from 50 to 200 years. It was pointed out that tlie mackerel will leave our coasts tinder certain conditions because the food they feed upon disappears, that the foot! disappears because certain vegetation disappears, and that the vegetation disappears because certain currents are changed. If that is so, I think it is scarcely worth while for the government to listen to folk lore in reference to this matter. It would be far better to examine into the matter scientifically and arrive at a conclusion that will have a solid basis before any action is taken. I have observed the fisheries on the Atlantic coast for some years. I know that in 1889 more mackerel re-appeared on the Nova Scotian coast than probably have ever been caught by mankind in the history of the world. The same thing occurred last year.


Robert Laird Borden: They reappeared in considerable numbers since then, did they not-in 1899, or thereabouts ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I do not know about 1S99, but they came in last year.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: They reappeared last year in larger numbers than usual. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) says that they appear every year, but not in such large numbers as they did last year. The main object of the prevention of the use of purse seines in Atlantic waters was that the Americans would come, together with some of our own vessels, and capture fish outside

of the three-mile limit, thus preventing those who fish in competition with them from the shore, from getting a catch at all, because, the moment purse seines are used outside of the three-mile limit, in deep water the fish will disappear altogether. They are driven away from the shore and they will not reappear again during the season. _
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I decidedly object to allowing the Americans a privilege on our coast that cannot be enjoyed by our own fishermen. The Ameri-' cans will come, as they did this spring, and take home large cargoes of mackerel caught off the coast of Nova Scotia in their purse seines. They will always take advantage of the opportunity of coming within the three-mile limit whenever there is not one of our own cruisers on the coast to prevent them. There is no doubt that they adopt that method of poaching whenever' they get the opportunity. Our own people have purse seines and they sometimes prosecute the mackerel fishery in that way. 1 do not think that there is any chance of any correspondence that may take place with the American government being effective as to the prohibition of the use of purse seines. They have too much interest and too much money invested in vessels and seines employed in the catching of fish to listen to anything that can be said by our government against their present method of catching mackerel. I think it is quite a hardship just now that we should prevent our own fishermen from adopting the same method that the Americans enjoy at the present time, because, I know that there are firms in Halifax which have purse seines and vessels to prosecute the fishery and it would be quite a hardship to adopt any law by which we should prevent them from enjoying the privilege which hitherto they have enjoyed.


Mr. MORRISON.: Would the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) kindly repeat the last question which he put to the hon. minister ? I confess I did not quite grasp the point of it nor yet the answer of the hon. minister.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I wanted to learn from the hon. minister what would be the conditions under which licenses would be issued, and I understood from the hon. minister's reply that they would be issued under certain regulations prepared by the department here, and that all who applied under these regulations would without discrimination have licenses issued to them, that there would be no discrimination in the issue of licenses to all who complied with the regulations of the department. Am I correct in so understanding the hon. minister?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They would have to conform with the regulations. The regulations will
probably determine how many licenses will be issued for a certain space. We cannot pile them one upon another. It depends necessarily on what will be the recommendation of those who know exactly how this law will work out. Surely the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) does not expect the department to grant licenses at random. The regulations would have to provide for the territory where the applicants are allowed to fish. This is a special way of fishing and these purse seines are very large. The regulations would have to provide that so many purse seines may be used within a certain space.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the department propose to issue these purse seine licenses to a limited number of people and to discriminate against other people who may make application for them ? Do I understand that the hon. minister will determine from amongst the number of applicants for permission to use purse seines who shall be permitted to use them and who shall not be permitted to use them ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I never said anything of the kind.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is what the hon. minister has been saying all the time.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Then, I was misunderstood. I am not posted enough on the question to tell the committee what the regulations will be, but the regulations will be decided by the officers having regard to the practice in other countries where purse seines are authorized, and I suppose the regulations would provide for the use of so many purse seines within, say, a distance of fifty miles, because, it is impossible to have more than that number and, of course, those who apply first and who can fulfil the conditions will get the preference. I do not see how we could do otherwise. I suppose that one of the regulations which has been enforced by the department for a couple of years will be continued and that is the regulation providing that there shall be no speculation in licenses. Licenses cannot be transferred without the authority of the department. Otherwise, there might be cases where ten or twenty persons might club together, get the licenses for a certain space and sell them. It is not the intention to permit such speculation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 1 do not know enough about the methods of fishing on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to be able to form an opinion of much value, but it strikes me that if the hon. minister is authorized to issue these purse seine licenses to certain persons and to say who shall be permitted to use these purse seines that this proposition may be liable to grave abuse. If there are twenty persons engaged in fishing in a certain district and the hon. minister
69fi.fi

says that the territory is not wide enough to permit more than ten to prosecute the fishery, how will lie discriminate as between those who are to be allowed to fish with purse seines and those who are not allowed to fish with purse seines ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The same way as we determine how many lobster licenses shall be granted in a certain district.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who does determine who gets them ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND I 1 HERIES. The officer in charge. It has been the custom to give the preference to the one who used to own the license. Sometimes it has been decided to increase the number and sometimes to decrease it, but the people are notified and nobody is taken by surprise.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Some body is taken by surprise if twenty apply and only ten are granted licenses.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That, of course, is unavoidable.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am Inclined to think that the minister has taken quite a burden upon his shoulders, and lie will have difficulty in discriminating as to who are to receive licensfs and who are not.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is the same in all other wa ters.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: With regard to cur own waters I want to be understood as saying that if the Americans are allowed to operate with purse seines in the catch of mackerel or other fish, then our fishermen should be allowed to do likewise. Of course, if we could restrict the Americans from purse seining, I would wish to have some such arrangement made as was formerly in effect. My hon. friend from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) says that they do catch fish with purse seines inside the three-mile limit, which means that they poach. If that is the case, it is all the greater reason for the government to have more patrol vessels on the coast to prevent such poaching. It is a serious matter when the shore fishermen find Americans coining down with fifty and sixty in a fleet and depleting the waters of fish, while our Canadians inshore are unable in their small boats to capture any. Therefore, I would say that some arrangement should be made by which we could place ourselves in an equal position with the Americans as regards the capture of fisli.


Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.).: Is there anything in this Bill which prevents Canadian fishermen from fishing with purse seines outside the three-mile limit.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Nothing whatever.


James Joseph Hughes: Then, if that be the case, American fishermen have no privileges that Canadian fishermen do not enjoy. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbacli) appears to be under the impression that American fishermen have some privileges which our own fishermen have not.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Not at all. The hon. gentleman misunderstood me. We have no jurisdiction outside of the three mile limit.


James Joseph Hughes: We have the same rights that other fishermen have.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: We cannot control the Americans outside of that three mile limit, but what I complain of is that the Americans take the right to themselves inside the three mile limit.


James Joseph Hughes: That is poaching, and I would be glad to see the fishery protection service made as efficient as possible so as to stop that. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Kendall) referred to reports made by certain professors to the effect that no device yet known to man could diminish the number and quantity of fisli In the waters. Well, I hardly think that is correct even though celebrated professors are responsible for the statement. Fact is more important than theory, and the fact is that since purse seining was introduced the mackerel on our Atlantic coast in Canadian waters have been very greatly reduced and our fishermen do not now make the profits they formerly made. While fishing was done by hand-line, and before the days of purse seining, the industry was a very certain one. The fishermen fitted out their ships and boats and they were almost certain to return with a profitable fare, but since purse seining lias been introduced it has become a most precarious business, and the shore fishermen at least are most frequently doomed to failure. If any international arrangement could be made by which purse seining would be abolished, it would, in my opinion, be the very best thing that could be done. Of course, we cannot prevent the Americans from fishing outside of the three mile limit, and failing an International agreement, the only thing we Canadians can do is to protect the inshore fisheries in the best possible way. Purse seining is most destruc-11 \ e to fish life. The seine incloses a large quantity of small mackerel and other small fish which are thrown overboard to foul the bottom and frighten the fisli off the coast. The mackerel in some way are supposed to know when they are chased by seiners, and it is the opinion of men of long experience in the business that they abandon the coast when they are so pursued. As I have said, the best thing would be an international

arrangement to abolish purse seining, but failing that the next best thing is for us to protect our own fishermen as best we can within the three mile limit.


Mr. CLANCY.: Is this Bill intended to apply principally to British Columbia ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AN1>
FISHERIES. Yes.


James Clancy: Has the minister taken into consideration that the Americans are both using purse seining and trap nets along the great lakes and on the international rivers. It appears to me that the object of this Bill is rather to imitate the bad example of the Americans than to provide a solution for the difficulty. The trouble with regard to the great lakes and rivers that divide Canada from the United States is just as great as that which the minister endeavours to provide for in this Bill f r British Columbia. Do I understand that the minister will issue licenses under certain regulations for purse and trap net fishing on the great lakes, or whether the intention is to confine the provisions of this Bill entirely to British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This Bill applies only to the British Columbia waters. It is the result of several years of special study that has been made of the question out there, and the people have come to a unanimous co.u-clusion upon it. I do not think that the conditions are the same on the great lakes.


James Clancy: The Americans are using purse seines and trap nets on the great lakes.
The MINISTER OF MARINE ANI) FISHERIES. Trap nets are allowed.


Mr. INGRAM.: Do I understand the minister to say that his department issues regulations governing the number of licenses on the great lakes ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We have not done so as yet, but it might be opportune to do so.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that the Ontario government have the right to control the fisheries in the inland waters. That being true, they would have to say how many licenses shall be issued.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The Dominion government controls the regulations, and the licenses are issued by the Ontario government.


Andrew B. Ingram: Therefore, this government have no control over the number of licenses that are issued ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They might do so by regulations. They have not done so yet.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I think there is some misapprehension between the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) and the minister in regard to the regulation pertaining to provincial licenses for purse seines, as proposed to be issued. I do not understand the minister to say that so many of these licenses shall be issued for certain sections, say within twenty miles or within fifty miles.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is what the minister said.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I think the minister must have misunderstood the hon. gentleman. If he did say that, I think he must have had in his mind the recommendations of the superintendent of fisheries in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Babcock, -who, I believe, has recommended to the Department of Marine and Fisheries here that if the government ever issued purse seine licenses, they should be confined to certain designated districts. Speaking for myself, and I represent that part of the province of British Columbia which is perhaps most interested in the fisheries there-I think that there are the strongest and most cogent reasons why that should not be done, but that, if these licenses are Issued, say in New Westminster, the licensees should be permitted to go and fish in the waters of the Skeena river or in any other waters of British Columbia. Two years ago a commission was appointed, of which I was a member, to look into this matter and to make recommendations to the government, and one of its recommendations was that these purse seine licenses be issued. It deprecated the issue of licenses for traps.
I believe that the government decided not to issue licenses for traps, notwithstanding the rumours to the contrary, but that they decided to issue purse seine licenses, and with no restriction as to locality.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are we to understand, then, that all who comply with the regulations which may. from time to time, be adopted and published by the department may procure these purse seine licenses ?


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: That is certainly what I strongly advocate, and what I think, from my rather limited knowledge of these matters, though I have made some study of them, is the best policy to adopt ; though there will have to be regulations regulating those who get the licenses. There may be some to whom they would be worthless. Under a salmon license, for instance, which any man can get on paying $10, there are certain regulations which make it unlawful for one man to fish within a certain distance of another. That would limit the number of licenses issued for certain waters. But there would be no discrimination ; each one would have to take his chance. I think complications would be avoided if purse seine licenses were issued without restric-

tion as to the locality where the licensees might fish.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the mode of fishing with these purse seines 1 Is it done from a vessel ?


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: Not necessarily from the vessel ; they may be attached to the tug boat. They are not attached to the shore, and they are not permitted in what are known as closed waters-the estuaries of rivers, bays, runs, passes, and inlets of that kind. I understand that it is the intention, as it is the proper thing, to prohibit fishing in these narrow or closed waters. This step on the part of the government seems to be due to the methods adopted by the Americans, who fish south of the international line without any restriction whatever, every hour of the day, and every day of the week, and by every method they can invent, while immediately across the international boundary line the Dominion government imposes certain restrictions upon the licensees, such as forty-eight hours of close season.	4


Edward Frederick Clarke: As a result, the Canadian fishermen get the worst of it, do they not ?


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I think that complaint is not well founded. If Canadians were permitted to fish with traps in the outside waters where the salmon are, it is supposed that they would break up this trap fishing by the Americans ; but that is only a conjecture. An ordinary fisherman could not take advantage of a trap net; it is too cumbersome and involves too large an expenditure. But the purse seine is comparatively inexpensive, and two or three or half a dozen fishermen could club together and go out and invade the territory of these Americans w'ho are fishing by the trap methods, and relieve the difficulty in that respect. The people on the coast of British Columbia think that something should be done other than the gill-net method of fishing by the Canadians ; but they are not prepared to go to the extent of asking to have trap nets ; and this provision is a kind of compromise which may be very effective, and may conduce to the development of the fishing industry in British Columbia.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that the regulations of the department will not discriminate against anybody, but that all who comply with them will have licenses issued to them ?


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: That is What we strongly impressed on the minister, so that I suspect that the minister must have misunderstood the hon. member when he asked that question, and had in mind the strong recommendation made by the superintendent of fisheries in British Columbia. Although he is a very capable man, his experience has been on the south side of the line, and he is very anxious to see traps introduced,


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: which I think would be a most Improper and indefensible policy for the government to adopt. I rather think the minister must have had that in his mind.


Mr. FRASER.: 
Charles Edwin Kaulbach: When was that V


William Ross: This spring. I am only addressing the House to endorse the remarks of my hon. friend from Cape Breton. To say that the mackerel are going to be depleted by any method we can use to catch them is absurd. The quantity we take in fishing on the coast of Nova Scotia or Scotland is only a drop in the bucket, considering the quantity to be found in these waters year after year. 1 read an article recently on herring fishing on the coast of Scotland, in which this statement was made, that there are more herring destroyed and eaten by the gannets and other sea birds on the coast of Scotland during the year than are taken by the fishermen, and it is well known that the herring fishing on the coast of Scotland is the largest in the world. The fish follow the bait, and if they do not frequent our shores as usual from year to year, it is because they have not the bait there which they generally follow. The deep cod-fishing on the banks of Newfoundland and St. Pierre and all along there is increasing in spite of the catch from year to year, and in spite of the length of time these fisheries have been exploited. First the Portuguse, then the Spaniards, then the Frenchmen, and lastly our own people have prosecuted that industry, and whenever our fishermen are successful in getting the proper bait the fish is as abundant as ever. To say that we are going to destroy our fisheries by the quantity we are going to catch is an old woman's story.


Blr. WADE.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he would accept an amendment to make the meaning more clear of subsection 8, of section 8. The subsection reads 4 No one shall drift for salmon except in British Columbia ' and the amendment I would suggest is to strike out the words ' drift for salmon ' and insert instead ' catch salmon with drift-net.' The reason is that parties say that they are not drifting for salmon but for other fish, and if they catch salmon they cannot help it. They thus seek to evade the law although their object is to catch salmon. While on my feet. I would also like to draw attention to subsection 7 of section 14.	' No one shall
use drag-net, bag-net, trap-net, pound-net or fish-weir of any kind, without a special license, for the capture of deep sea fish, other than salmon.' I want to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the expression ' trap-net ' which has created great trouble in Nova Scotia. In some parts of the province, on the south, the fisheries officers are exacting a license fee for a certain net. which they claim to be a trap-net, but in other parts they are not because they say it is not a trap-net. The whole point of contention seems to be that one set of officers say that a net, in order to be a trap-net. must have a net floor, and that that
constitutes the distinction between a trap-net and another kind of net, whereas others contend that any net which operates as a trap to catch fish is a trap-net. It is important that an interpretation should be placed on the term ' trap-net.'
The fishermen on the shore in some localities, in days gone by, fished with a seine which they shot out from the shore around the school of mackerel. But, in later years, they put out a seine from the shore, and construct at the end of it what they call a bowl, which is in the shape of an arrowhead, or circular, with a leader from the mouth of said bowl. The mackerel coming down the shore strike the leaders and are led into the bowl where they are easily inclosed. Nets of that description, I believe, are without a floor in most localities. What was originally meant to come within the designation of a trap net within the Act was constructed on the principle of setting out stakes planted firmly on the bottom and nets strung along the stakes, and then a floor put in, so that there was no way the fish could get out at all. But it is unfortunate that the law as it stands at the present moment is in such a form that one judge may decide that a certain net is a trap-net and another may decide that it is not a trap-net. I think it would be well to have an interpretation. But for the present I would ask the minister to accept the amendment I have proposed.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: The hon. member's (Mr. Wade) amendment may involve a difficulty of interpretation. For instance, on the Fraser river


Fletcher Bath Wade: It does not apply to that.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: But it might apply to waters where the circumstances are similar. Obviously you could not have a drift-net except in a current. All these nets are regulated as to mesh, and there is no difference between a drift-net and another net except in the use of it. It is a drift-net because it is thrown into running water and it drifts. They may not tie it to the shore. Or it might be permanent and tied to the shore.


William Ross: That would be a drift-net.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I am not sure.


Fletcher Bath Wade: A drift-net is not a net attached to the shore or to a buoy.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: But the name applies to the method of fishing rather than to the net. You have a drift-net by virtue of the fact that you fish in running water, and that distinguishes that method of fishing from the permanent method of fishing.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the minister whether or not there has been a report of the committee with regard

to certain matters mentioned in this Bill V I think the hon. minister was good enough to say, when the Bill was introduced, that he would lay a copy of the report upon tiie Table, so that we might consider it when we came to discuss the Bill in committee.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I said I would give the substance of what the report purports to be. I do not know why it has not been laid on the Table. But the result of the investigation was, purely and simply to recommend what is in the Bill as respects purse seines.


Fletcher Bath Wade: To meet the suggestion of my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Matlie-son) I would change the form of my amendment to read ' no person shall drift for or catch salmon with a drift-net.' This will allow for the exception of British Columbia.


Mr. MATHESON.: I think it is possible to make too many laws. I have been connected with the fisheries for the last forty years, from a time when the government did not interfere with the fishing at all, except in the rivers. The catch of mackerel during the present season is as big as it was forty years ago. It is well enough to make laws to regulate the fisheries in rivers and inland waters, but, as to the fishing in the Atlantic, you may interfere with the subject, but you cannot interfere with the fish-not a bit. Providence furnishes too many fish for your little attempts to interfere with them. There is such a thing as governing people too much. To undertake to make regulations for the fishing in the Atlantic is entirely unnecessary. We might be better employed. And I may say that it does not seem to be thoroughly understood what a drift-net is. It ought to be considered the same here as in the old country. A fisherman goes out in his boat in the evening, ties a net to his boat and drifts all night, returning with his catch in the morning. That is not surrounding the fish, but simply giving the fish a chance to get into the net.


Robert Laird Borden: We seem to be dealing with two things at the same time.
I wish to confine myself to section 3, of the Bill. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) has apparently taken a different view of conditions that should be imposed from that which the Minister of Marine takes. The minister seems to be under the impression that there is to be a territorial limit to these purse seines. From what I have been able to gather and from what I previously knew as to the nature of the purse seines, I do not see how that is possible. The minister likens it to a license for a lobster factory. But the license for a purse seine is different; it is a license to take the purse seine and go out on the river or the ocean at the mouth of a river and use the purse seine to catch Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
fish. If I am not right in my understanding, perhaps my hon. friend will say so.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: Yes, with a variation.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, that is the way they are used in the Atlantic, they put them on board their vessels and take them out. If that is the case, how are you to regulate territorial limits where these purse seines are used on the Pacific coasts ? I would think with the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. Morrison) that you should give the license to any person who applies, subject perhaps to certain conditions in the way of user. For example, if some one is using a purse seine at the mouth of the Fraser river, another man must not run his purse seines across those of the first man, or do anything that would prevent a legitimate use of them by the man who was first occupying that position. No man should take up a territorial limit and be able to say, that belongs to me, to the exclusion o>f every one else. I do not see that the question of territory can have anything to do with it. I gathered from the minister that there would be some question of territorial limit with regard to the user.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There were recommendations to that effect, but we have come to no decision.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as I am concerned, I would be inclined to protest against any regulation of that kind. You may make a regulation as to the way in which a man should use his purse seines on the river, at the same time preventing him from doing detriment to any one else.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: He would use it in the open water, not at the mouth of the river.


Robert Laird Borden: The mouth of the river is twelve or fifteen miles wide, is it not ?


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: That would scarcely be called a river, but the point is to prevent them going into the estuaries or closed waters of any kind.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is more familiar with the circumstances than I am. But subject to that, I would repeat the view I have expressed, and what the member for New Westminster has said about it would emphasize my view, that you cannot have any question of territorial limit. The only regulations of any use would be those which prevented one man from interfering with the use of purse seines by another man. If the minister would give us a little more definite idea of what conditions he intends to impose, it would enable us to discuss the matter more intelligently.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is impossible at present to

say what the conditions will be, as we will require to study the matter carefully before framing regulations in order to make them fair and reasonable to all parties concerned. At present there is some disagreement between the parties interested, and we shall have to consult them before framing the regulations.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any intention to confine the issue of these licenses to political friends, and to withhold them from political opponents ?


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: There may be no political opponents out there.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Since I have been in the department so far, I have made no distinction on political grounds between applicants. They will all be treated fairly.


Fletcher Bath Wade: In view of the fact that the minister desires to have an opportunity further to consider my amendment to this Bill, I will not press it, but I will ask him to take the matter into consideration during the recess with the view of interpreting those words ' trap net.' Perhaps this session he will be able to introduce a further amendment to interpret those words. It is important to do so, because there is a great deal of litigation going on at the present time in consequence of doubt as to the meaning of those words, and that litigation is likely to increase.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will with pleasure look into it.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


SECURITY FOR DOMINION NOTES.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 222) respecting Dominion Notes, read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This Bill is .to give effect to the resolution which the House has already adopted in committee respecting the currency. We put it in the form of a revision of the Currency Act, but the material parts have already been dealt with by the committee.
On section 2,


Mr. BELL.: What is the meaning of these words ' and shall be legal tender in every part of Canada except at the offices at which they are redeemable ' ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is the language in the present Act. The explanation I think is that if my hon. friend should take a note of the Dominion to one of these offices for redemption, if it were a legal tender at that office he would get another note for it. but if it is not legal tender at that office he would get gold.
On section 5,


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a slight change in this section to conform to our modern practice with respect to loans. The Bill provides that the note issue shall be covered by Canadian debentures. We provide in this section that either by debentures, or by way of loan or in any other form in which we raise money we shall have the right to raise money to redeem the notes.
On section 7,	-


Andrew B. Ingram: What does that mean ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is the present Act. It means that in each province of the Dominion we shall have an office at which to redeem these notes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What provinces are there that have no offices now ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE, They all have them, but this is a re-enactment of the existing clause.
On section 8,


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There may be a few of these old provinces of Canada notes outstanding.


John William Bell: Are there any notes of the province of Nova Scotia outstanding yet ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a very small number. Once in a while we have a small number sent in.
On section 9,


Edward Frederick Clarke: I take the opportunity of drawing the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance to complaints which reach newspapers from time to time as to the continued circulation of filthy, greasy notes, and of asking if it is not possible to take some steps to curtail the circulation of these notes ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Does the hon. gentleman mean Dominion notes ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I had hoped that we had cured that complaint and I am bound to say I have not heard it for some time. We made an effort by Issuing a larger quantity of currency and by redeeming the notes more frequently to meet the public demand in that respect. It adds something to the cost of printing and engraving, but I think it is money well spent. We have given every encouragement to the banks, when their notes are no longer decent, to present them and get new notes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But what about the circulation of filthy, greasy notes of the chartered banks ? Can nothing be done to call in those notes ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid we will have to educate public opinion to make the banks do that.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would also like to mention to the hon. minister the subject of mutilated silver. While the Criminal Code deals with that question it does not seem to do so effectively. There is a large amount of mutilated silver in circulation, it is getting to be a regular nuisance, and I think some steps should be taken in reference to that also.
, The MINISTER OF FINANCE. My attention has occasionally been drawn to the ease of mutilated silver. We have been asked occasionally to redeem that silver, but if we make it a criminal act to mutilate the coin of the realm it hardly seems proper that we should put a premium upon the crime by redeeming the mutilated coin. There is another form of silver coin and that is the form which is not mutilated, but which is worn by use, and I think it is proper to redeem it, but we have not felt justified in undertaking to redeem mutilated coin.


Andrew B. Ingram: Suppose an announcement were made that mutilated coin should be redeemed after a certain date, I think it would be the means of calling a lot of it in.


The MINISTER OF .FINANCE.: It is dangerous.
Bill reported, read a third time, and passed.


STEAMBOAT INSPECTION ACT, 1898.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 225) to amend the Steamboat Inspection Act, 1898.-(The Minister of Marine and Fisheries), read the second time, and House went Into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon Raymond PrSfontaine).: I have already explained this Bill. It is very simple. It is to put into effect the resolution passed by this House as to the abolition of inspection fees and to allow the Governor in Council to re-establish these whenever it may be deemed necessary to do so. There is another clause recognizing the use of naphtha in small pleasure boats.
On section 1,


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there anything in this Bill respecting the employment of certified engineers?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Nothing in this Bill.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is the intention of the department to introduce legislation dealing with that matter ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is before the House a Bill to that effect presented by a private member, the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). We have not yet been able to come to an understanding about that Bill, but I hope we will be able to Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
do so. The Bill stands as a public Bill and up to the present we have not been able to meet a committee of the parties interested. If it is possible later on to agree as to the request without interfering too much with navigation, we will do so with pleasure.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the exact change in section 1 ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We sanction the decision of the House abolishing the dues for inspection, and we also recognize naphtha launches.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: I presume the word ' steamboat ' Includes a vessel propelled by electricity or gasolene ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, it is included.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: This inspection does not apply to steamers of less than three tons gross that are not used for hire.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not unless they carry passengers. By the first clause you abolish dues and fees, and by the second clause the Governor in Council may have power to impose them under certain conditions.
On section 5,


Robert Laird Borden: Section 37, as you have it, omits the provision contained in section 37, of the Act amended, which provides :
The owner or master of every passenger steamboat exceeding one hundred tons gross shall pay an inspection fee of $8 for each Inspection.
Then you retain in the amended section 37, and in section 43, in a modified form, the provision fixing the rate of duty to be paid. The original section 37 provided :
The owner or 'master of every steamboat in Canada shall pay, yearly and every year, a rate of duty fixed by the Governor in Council, and not exceeding ten cents for every ton gross which such steamboat measures.
The amended section 37 provides that:
The Governor in Council may fix a rate of duty to be paid yearly and every year by the owner or master of every steamboat registered in Canada, not exceeding ten cents for every gross ton which such steamboat measures.
A similar change is made in section 43, which deals, not with steamboats, but with barges and steam tugs. The only difference is that the original section 37 provides that the owner or master shall pay a rate to be fixed by the Governor in Council, whereas the amended section provides that the Governor in Council may fix the rate of duty. What is the reason of the change ? Is it to give the Governor in Council power

to fix the rate of duty or not, as they may think best in the public interest ? I cannot understand the reasons of public policy for such a change.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As the hon. gentleman is aware, it has been decided to abolish these inspection fees and dues for two years. In case the government should decide two years from now to re-impose them, the Act allows them to do so. That is all that it means.


Robert Laird Borden: So long as the Governor in Council did not fix any rate, it seems to me that the sections as they were originally enacted would accomplish the same result. I cannot see that very much is accomplished by this amendment. Possibly it may make a little plainer that there is an option on the part of the Governor in Council to fix a rate or not as he sees fit. Then I understand the policy of the department is to do away with these inspection fees for a period of two years 1


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is the policy of the government, and in submitting this Bill, I am simply carrying out that policy. The exemption that has been decided upon will last only two years, and then, without any new enactment, the Governor in Council may re-impose the dues and fees if they decide to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: There is nothing in the Act itself with regard to the period of two years.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, because the dues and fees were abolished, but that was a provision made at the time.
Bill, reported, read the third time, and passed.


CERTIFICATES TO MASTERS AND MATES OF SHIPS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 226) to amend the Act respecting certificates to masters and mates of ships, read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the meaning of this amendment ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It creates another class of masters and mates, in order to facilitate their examination for a home voyage, and render less costly the appointment of such men.
On section 3,


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It has been represented that in inland navigation, especially in British Columbia and the North-west Territories, 2174
and Manitoba, these temporary certificates are too limited. They are limited to ten ton vessels, and strong representations were made to extend them to twenty tons. They are only granted to persons who have passed a certain examination in the locality where they have to navigate and also for special reasons.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


SAFETY OF SHIPS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 179) to amend the Act respecting the safety of ships, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine).: In 1901 an amendment was made to the Act respecting the safety of ships, commonly referred to as the ' Deck Load Act,' and it was found the amending Act of 1901 was so very ambiguous in regard to the height of deck load allowed on open spaces on the upper deck, that it now becomes necessary to further amend the Act to remove the ambiguity and make the law clear on that point.
A deck load law has existed in Great Britain and in Canada since 1873, brought about by an agitation initiated by the late Mr. Plimsoll, a member of the imperial parliament; and up to the enactment of 1901 the legislation in the United Kingdom and in Canada were perfectly in accord.
In the Canadian Act it was provided that after a certain date in the fall no ships could clear from Canada with any cargo whatever on the open spaces in the upper deck to a height exceeding three feet.
It was enacted by imperial legislation that no vessel should arrive at ports on that side up to a certain date in April-15th-with cargo of any description in uncovered spaces on the upper deck to a height exceeding three (3) feet.
The Canadian enactment of 1901 is, however, so ambiguous, that it has been strongly contended that a ship can leave Canada during the prohibited period with a cargo on the open spaces on the upper deck, such as deals, scantling, boards, &c., to a height exceeding three feet, or in other words, to any height which the owner of the ship might consider proper.
The discrepancy between the Canadian enactment of 1901 and the provisions of the Imperial Act was brought by His Majesty's Board of Trade to the attention of His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, and in a despatch from the Right Honourable Mr. Chamberlain to the Governor General, dated the 3rd May, 1902, it is intimated that His Majesty would not be advised to disallow the Canadian Act of 1901, but requesting that the matter be brought to the attention of His Excellency's advisers.
The annexed Bill is therefore framed to obviate this ambiguity and to bring the

Canadian law into accord with the law regulating the loading of deck loads in the United Kingdom.
In the Canadian Act of 1901, paragraph (c) of subsection 1, it was enacted that the loading of ' any deals, battens, or other light wood goods of any description ' was prohibited ' to a height exceeding three feet above the deck in any spaces where the deck of such ship is closed in.' It is contended that this prohibition extends to the cargo only when loaded in covered in spaces, and does not extend to spaces on deck that are uncovered. I may mention that His Majesty's Board of Trade hold this view of the matter.
In the new annexed Bill, which amends the Act of 1901, the limitation contained in those words 'in any spaces where the deck of such ship is closed in,' has been struck out, and leaves the section to read : ' any deals, battens or other light wood goods of any description to a height exceeding three feet above the deck,' that is, above the upper deck.
In paragraph (a) of the same section, the words ' or any pitch, oak or elm planks, or any other heavy wood goods whatever ' are added, as it is considered the addition makes the Act more comprehensive.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: It appears to me that this is a very restrictive measure and interferes between the owner of the ship and the insurer. The matter should be left between these parties with no interference whatever. With regard to the height of three feet allowed, I may say that the rail is usually higher than three feet. Why should they not be allowed to have it flush with the rail at least, using that as the measure that would be required? Very often vessels going out from our ports for ports down south load far beyond the rail, and they make their voyages with perfect safety. But this Bill would interfere very materially with shippers from Canada to the ports referred to in the Bill. Is it because it is required on the other side that this should be the case?
The MINISTER OF MARINE Ai\D FISHERIES. Yes ; I read from the memorandum I had before me the recommendation made by the Home government on the matter in order to assimilate the two laws, and have them coincide.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: Would it not be well for the hon. minister to remonstrate with the Board of Trade on the other side ? They might allow conditions to be changed to meet the reasonable remark I have made in connection with the load line.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am afraid they would not find it reasonable, because the matter has been the subject of a very long correspondence, and the Board of Trade on the other side seem to insist that we should pass Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
this law. Up to the present time they have not proceeded against those who infringed the law as it is in Great Britain, but if we do not pass such a law as this, over there.	It	is in the interest	of	ourpeople who	do	not comply with	the	lavover there.	It	is in the interest	of	ourpeople to make this amendment to	the	law.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: The greater portion of the cargo going to the south would be that on deck. To restrict it to three feet would make it lower than the rail, which, I think, would be a very severe provision. Of course, it would only affect vessels leaving Canadian ports for certain ports on the other side of the Atlantic. But among these shipments are immense quantities of lumber of light material such as pine and spruce, and invariably seasoned, so that the weight would be small. I think it should be left at the height of the rail.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That representation has been made. But' the view taken by the hon. gentleman would not help the question at all. The ambiguity consisted in the fact that the three feet mentioned is inclosed according to the law of 1901. Now, it is proposed to strike out the provision as to its being inclosed and leave the three feet, the same as in the provision of the law enacted in 1901. So, there is no particular change except to make the law clearer on that point.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I only refer to it as a hardship on the shippers.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As I stated to the committee, the matter has been gone into very thoroughly and there is no help for it, if we want to protect our own people.


Robert Laird Borden: I remember that when the Bill of 1901 was before the House, there was some discussion as to the meaning of the words ' and during the voyage while'within Canadian jurisdiction.' I do not know whether the hon. gentleman can give us information as to the scope that these words have been held to have since the Act came into force. You will observe, Mr. Chairman, that the Bill says- I leave out the unnecessary words:-
No master .... on a voyage from any port or place in Canada to any port or place in the United Kingdom, or in the continent of Europe north of Cape Finisterre in Spain, not being a port or place within the Mediterranean sea, and during the voyage while within the. Canadian jurisdiction.
*-and so on. What is the scope or meaning of these last words ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We do not attempt to assert jurisdiction outside Canadian waters. The law is left just as it is, so far as that is concerned-it applies to Canadians in

Canadian waters. If we bad used words having a wider range, they might declare the Act ultra vires. We have no right to legislate so as to assume power outside of our own jurisdiction. The recommendation from the British authorities simply was that the point I have referred to was not made clear, and the object is to make it clear.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that I would exactly agree with the hon. gentleman's view of the law as to what we can do. But this law apparently means this-that when a master of a vessel gets three miles from shore he can pile up his spars or his deck-load in any way he thinks fit.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: But if he does so. he does it at his own risk. He takes the risk of having his cargo confiscated under the law when he reaches the other side.


Robert Laird Borden: That would be the case only if he were going to a point in the united Kingdom, but not if he were going to a port, not a Mediterranean port north of Cape Finisterre. The imperial statute would govern the case of a cargo going to the United Kingdom, but in the case of a cargo going to any of these other ports, there may be no law to control it after it leaves Canadian waters.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) ask us to legislate outside of Canadian jurisdiction? I do not think we have the right to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: In respect to Canadian vessels, I think we could.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have not studied the question, but it would seem to me at first sight that we would not. But I have only taken the law as it stands and amended it to meet the recommendations made on the other side.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT RAILWAY POLICY.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
["Possibly. My hon. friend had better assume that they may' be brought up. Perhaps there may be other business ahead, but if we do bring them up I would like my hon. friend to feel that he is not witnout notice."]
Robert Laird Borden: Before you leave the Chair, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is able to give us any more definite information than we had on Friday as to the date at which we may expect the proposed railway measure of the government. The right hon. gentleman was good enough to state that I had better remind him of it, and I see there is no notice on the Order paper of any resolution being brought
down. Possibly he may be in a better position to-day to give us exact information as to the date. I understood him on Friday to say that we would have it this week certainly, possibly early in the week. If he has anything to add to that to-day. I am sure the House will be glad to hear it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The measure will certainly be announced this week. I am sorry that I cannot give the exact date, except that it will be this week.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Department o£ the Interior-to pay the claim of Amos Barnes re the purchase of certain buildings on lands situated on river lots, Northwest Territories, $3,580.
['The measure will certainly be announced this week. I am sorry that I cannot give the exact date, except that it will be this week.']
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Last year I asked for an appropriation of a similar character, and explained the reasons for it. Some years ago an application was made by Sir William Van Horne to purchase a certain amount of land at Selkirk, near the old town site of east Selkirk, of which he wished to make a model farm. I called for a report from the officers of the department as to whether this land had already been applied for, and the report stated that it was available for sale. Subsequently, however, it turned out that squatters had already settled on the land. There were files in the department to show that these squatters were there and had made claims. I became aware that they were on the land after the land had been sold and patented. The facts of the case are these : In 1883, one John Grant squatted on land adjoining the right of way of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at east Selkirk, and on the 18th of September of the same year he conveyed the same to one Henry Nelson. Mr. Henry Nelson remained in possession until May, 1887, when he conveyed it to Mr. Arnos Barnes, who began erecting a hotel, but before completion of it. in June, 1887, Mr. Barnes sold out to one Frank McRae, who proceeded with the erection and completion of the same at a cost of some $2,500. Mr. McRae having died in January, 1S89, Mr. Barnes leased the place for some time, and in September, 1889. purchased it for the sum of $1,700, and he has been in possession ever since. At the time the hotel and adjacent buildings were erected these were well outside of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's right of way, which was then at this point only 100 feet wide. The Canadian Pacific Railway originally selected station grounds elsewhere, but having decided upon another location, they filed a plan which included Mr. Barnes' hotel, and upon this plan a patent was issued by the department to the railway company, on the 17tli of June, 1895. On this plan, within the limits applied for. I there appears an outline marked ' hotel,'

but nothing to connect it with the claim of Mr. Barnes, who had previously filed a claim for land as a squatter in the vicinity. It was not suspected that the hotel was anything else than the boarding house for the accommodation of the railway hands, and the patent was issued without regard to it. Since that time Mr. Barnes and the Canadian Pacific Railway have had some negotiations with respect to compensation for Barnes' improvements, but no result has been arrived at. In the beginning of January, 1901, the company entered a suit in ejectment to turn Mr. Barnes out of his own hotel, and he then moved those buildings off the railway land on to the other portion of the land occupied by his other buildings, which he had fenced and cultivated as a garden for upwards of fifteen years. At the time of moving these buildings back, Mr. Barnes appears to have been aware of the fact that the land had been patented to Sir William Van Home, but he appears also to have been under the impression that an arrangement had been made with Sir William Van Horne by which Sir William had agreed to convey to the several settlers the lands occupied by them, and it was in consequence of this that he removed from the railway land. The ground on which Mr. Barnes removed his house had been patented, as mentioned before, to Sir William Van Horne, and he in his turn has transferred the same it appears to another party who has instituted ejectment proceedings. This places Mr. Barnes in' a very serious position, and means for him the practical confiscation of his earnings of a life time. This is a case where the officers of the department have made a mistake, I think the department were wrong in issuing patents in the first place. The property has been valued. I asked for a similar vote last year to compensate another squatter, much in the same way.


Robert Laird Borden: This represents the value of the buildings erected by Mr. Barnes, does it ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The valuation was made by a well-known appraiser and valuator, Mr. Wm. Bryden, of Winnipeg, who is employed by an insurance company.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it held by the courts that the buildings themselves were the property of the grantee of the lands ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think the case has come to trial yet. I think it has been allowed to stand at the instance of the solicitors pending action by the government.


Robert Laird Borden: The item is simply for the value of the buildings, and it seems to me that Mr. Barnes might have a Hon. Mr SIFTON.
good right to remove them, although he might be ejected from the lands themselves.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think there will be no doubt that he will have the right to remove the buildings. I do not think there is anything to prevent him removing the buildings if he wants to. I think the parties will be willing to allow him to remove the buildings, but they are old frame buildings, and the real position of the matter is that he has no place to which to remove them. His is a hotel business which he has built up at that particular place, and there is no place in the neighbourhood where he can go. He might as well leave them where they are. I have had this claim before me for two or three years. I did not think at first it was a case in which I should ask parliament to pay it. but after considering the circumstances I thought we ought to pay it. I beg to move :
That the word ' North-west Territories ' be struck out and the word ' Manitoba ' be inserted in lieu thereof.


Robert Laird Borden: The reason that I made the observation was that the item purports to be for the purpose of paying for the buildings. It seems to me that you might have a different measure of damages altogether. You are not purporting in this item to pay for the loss of any land. You simply purport to be paying for the loss of the buildings, and I think that very likely he might have a good title to the buildings, and in that event, the department might be called upon to pay only the cost of the removal. If you are not paying damges for the land, it follows that you would not pay for a new site to which to remove the buildings.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I suppose that in reality what he is being paid for is compensation for being disturbed and put out. I finally said, after discussing the thing backward and forward, that I could not put a value on the disturbance of his business and good will, but that I was willing he should get enough to pay for his buildings. The valuation is possibly what it would cost to put up the buildings, allowing a reasonable amount for depreciation. I do not suppose the buildings are actually worth that much money in cash to-day. Rut these are the conclusions of the valuator. In regard to the other ease that we had up last year, we had several parties make a valuation of the property, we had the property valued four or five times, they all differed, and it was a difficult matter to get them to agree. In this case I said : We will have an independent man go out and give us the fair value of the buildings as they are. We did that, and I recommended this to be paid.


Mr.   BDAIN@: I would like to ask the hon. minister if there is any correspondence between the department and Mr. Barnes ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes, I have a recollection that there was a good deal.


Mr.   BEAIN@: Will the hon. minister lay it on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is no objection in the world.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any other claim ? There was one last year and there is one this. Is there any other claim of the same kind ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think so. There were several made, but these two were the only ones that were well founded.


Samuel Hughes: Supposing a squatter takes up a location on the Canadian Pacific Railway section and is living there and the company sells that laud, has the squatter a superior right to the railway company ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No ; if a man goes before the land is surveyed and it turns out that he is on an odd-numbered section, or a school section, or a Hudson's Bay section, he has no right to remain unless he pays for the land. , If he is on an even-numbered section, then he has the right to make a homestead entry.


Samuel Hughes: If it is unsurveyed, does he not hold the land ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: He has to take his chances.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose he happens to go upon an odd-numbered section, does he not hold the land ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, he has to buy it.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
To recoup the government of the North-west Territories, for- expenses connected with the protection of the bridge across the Bow river at Canmore. North-west Territories, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That represents the expenditure made upon a bridge in the Banff park by the Northwest territorial government. The bridge was erected by the government of the Northwest Territories just at the time that the limits of the park were enlarged by Act of this parliament, so as to include the locality in which the bridge is. On the 4th November I received a letter from the commissioner of works of the North-west Territories, in which the following statements are made :
I am informed by the engineer in charge of construction. Mr. John Stocks, our superintendent of bridges that owing to the large washouts along the bank of the river in close proximity to the site of the bridge, there is very grave danger of the new bridge being carried away, not owing to any fault in construction,
but owing to the fact that the river is making a new channel for itself practically around one side of the bridge, and that even if the bridge stood, which owing to its construction it is very liable to do. that the channel would leave its present location and render necessary the construction of another bridge practically as large, and that the only method of providing safety is to build protection works for a distance along the bank of the river where 'he wash out has taken place, the estimate of the cost of which is in the neighbourhood of $3,000.
In order to be safe it is necessary to do this work this fall, before the spring freshets get a chance to get in their work.
In view of the actual necessity of doing this work in order to prevent the destruction of the bridge, I was authorized by Order in Council dated December 5, 1902, to enter into arrangements with the government of the North-west Territories to take such steps as might be necessary to protect the new bridge at an expenditure of not more than $3,000. In pursuance of that Order in Council, this vote is to pay them the money.
To pay the Casca Transportation Company balance of account in connection with relief to miners in Liard river district, North-west Territories, $600.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: In 1899-1900 news came that a number of miners were in a starving condition in the Cassiar district and we authorized the Hudson Bay Company, bv telegraph, to afford relief. That cost us something like $30,000. The Casca Trading Company also afforded relief in the same district, and they presented vouchers, but they were not in proper shape and were referred back to the company, and in the meantime the amount lapsed.


Robert Laird Borden: Was this in British Columbia or the territories ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: There is an amendment that the phraseology of the item be changed by striking out the North-west Territories and inserting British Columbia.


Samuel Hughes: Is the Liard river district in British Columbia ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We will put in the words ' Cassiar district.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is not this a provincial matter ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It was to all intents and purposes a matter that arose in the territories. They were mining in the Liard river district in the territories and they straggled down by way of the Stikine river to British Columbia.


Samuel Hughes: Is this the party that went down the Mackenzie river to try and get up the Liard river ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: When we authorized the relief we did not 1 know how they got there. We just knew

that they were struggling back in a destitute condition.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Additional amount for museum building at Banff. North-west Territories, $1,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this for an addition to the building 1


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This vote is to complete the construction of the buildings for offices and museum. The total cost is, I think, besides this vote, $8,000.


Richard Blain: I notice that there are a good many private dwellings in that park, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have a large hotel there. Is there any revenue to the government from the park in that way ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is a small charge for the baths, and there are some small amounts from the rentals of lots. The hon. gentleman will find the details at page L-116 of the Auditor General's Report. The total for last year was $2,861.13.
Amount required to cover the expenditure connected with the opening up of a road from Teulon North, Manitoba, $15,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This is to cover an expenditure for cutting a road through the bush country north of Winnipeg in order to enable the swamp lands commissioners and the surveyors to reach the district where they had to work. The expenditure was by error charged to the swamp lands vote, whereas it should have been charged to the Dominion surveys account.


James Clancy: What is the precise location of the road and its length ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: One hundred and eighty miles altogether.


Mr. TAYLOR.: How much has been expended ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It has all been expended.


James Clancy: Was there a vote taken for that work ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There was not a vote taken for it. The swamp lands commissioners and surveyors went on -to cut these trails in the course of their work, and charged the cost to the swamp lands vote. The swamp lands, how-evef, are, when transferred, the property of the Manitoba government, and when we came to consider the matter, we concluded that the expenditure was not properly charged to that vote, and that the officers Hon. Mr SIFTON.
who carried it on should have applied to the head office for authority. They did not do so, but went on and made the expenditure, considering it part of their work. There is no doubt at all about the utility of the work. I have had it carefully examined by the inspector of surveys, and that is his report upon it. I am perfectly satisfied of the necessity of the work. The error was on the part of the officers in going on with it without advice from the department. If they had applied, I think the expenditure might have been properly charged to the survey vote ; but as the money had been expended, I thought it better to come before parliament and have the explanation made.


James Clancy: Under whose authority was the work carried on ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The work was done under the direction of Mr. Macdonnell, who was one of the swamp lands commissioners at that time.


James Clancy: Was there a vote taken to cover that service for the swamp land ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The swamp lands commissioners are paid out of provincial funds, but this item was not properly charged against those funds.


James Clancy: Under whose control are the swamp lands commission ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Under the control of my department.


James Clancy: Does it not seem extraordinary that they should take on themselves to make an expenditure of that kind unless they had unlimited power ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not approve of the way in which it was done, and, when this came to my attention I said at once that it was done irregularly and could not be charged against the swamp lands account. It was properly chargeable against the survey vote, and under the circumstances I thought that the proper way was to ask for a special vote.


James Clancy: What is the scope of the duties of the swamp lands commissioners V


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Under the settlement between the province of Manitoba and the Dominion it was provided that such public lands in Manitoba as should, upon examination, turn out to be swamp lands, to the satisfaction of this government, might be transferred to Manitoba and become its property, and commissioners were appointed for the purpose of making the selection. They report from time to time and their expenses are charged against the subsidy to the province of Manitoba.


James Clancy: I am unable to see what they have to do with constructing roads, if they are appointed merely to determine what are and what are not swamp lands.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The reason given by the commissioner was that it was impossible for him to get on the land to make a selection without making a road. While that is perfectly true, he should have advised the department and asked the department to build the road. Instead of that the commissioners incurred the expenses themselves. I had the matter looked into by the inspector of surveys, and am satisfied that the expenditure was necessary but was not incurred in the proper way.


James Clancy: Was there a demand made on the province of Manitoba to pay this sum ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No.


George Taylor: Was this road inspected before it was built or after ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It was inspected after it was built and as soon as the question was brought to my attention. The inspector advised me that the road was necessary.


James Clancy: The commissioner who ordered this road, Mr. Macdonnell, I understand, was formerly member for Selkirk V
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR Yes.


George Taylor: It appears that this gentleman controls the department instead of the department controlling him. He can spend $15,000 without consulting anybody. Will the hon. gentleman lay on the Table the items of the expenditure made by Mr. Macdonnell without authority ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The province will be the gainer ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No. Of course it will be $15,000 better off than if it had to pay, but it is our duty to do whatever is necessary in connection with the work except pay the actual expenses of the commission. I have no doubt that if It had been charged at the time against the survey vote it would have been regarded as a legitimate charge. But when it was done in the way it was, the money having been spent without express authority, I said I would bring it before parliament and ask the House for a special vote. Mr. Macdonnell is not now in the Swamps Lands commission.


George Taylor: He ought to lose his job after undertaking to spend $15,000 without authority. Amongst the items in the Auditor General's Report," I read one of about $5,000 for provisions and supplies, this out of a total of $14,000. Apparently they did nothing but eat up camp supplies.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The road had to be cut in swamp country, and the difficult^ of transportation of supplies is very considerable. The expense is only $63 a mile, which does not seem excessive.


Mr. TAYLOR  .@: Tust for cutting out the timber ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Cutting out the trail and doing whatever was necessary to make it passable.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR Itemized statement of expenditure incurred In connection with cutting road from Teulon North, during fiscal years 1901-02 and 1902-03.
Wages-
Paid labourers, teamsters, &c.. .. $7,528 85 Paid assistant engineer	 105 00

General Accounts-
Provisions and camp supplies..	..	$5,057	65Stationery	
46	10Tents	
229	90Travelling expenses	
194	00Wagon and sfleighs	
460	00Freight, express and telegrams..	..	64	63Small-pox quarantine	
859	60Surveying instruments	
361	85

The department has got full value for the money, but the expenditure was not made in the regular way. If it had been, I would not be asking fo* this vote. The only way to deal with it now is to make a special vote.


James Clancy: Is this road used by anybody but the surveyor and commissioners ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It has been most useful for settlers going into that part of the country. A large number of settlers could not have got in at all but for the cutting of this trail. But, of course, the fact does not relieve us of the necessity of having a special vote. I do not think Mr. Macdonnell is in fault as to the necessity of the work, but as to the way in which it was done. Perhaps a gentleman who has been for a long time a member of parliament has less exact ideas than ordinary officials as to the methods of departmental procedure.


George Taylor: My hon. friend from East
Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane), the other evening referred to some eider-down quilts and pillows bought by some officials in the Yukon country. But he did not inquire what became of them. Amongst the items in the Auditor General's Report I read of large amounts spent for tents, wagons, and so on. What became of all these ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will this sum be charged The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, back against the province of Manitoba ? I cannot give the inventory, but I am sure

that everything bought is in stock belonging to the department.


George Taylor: We are passing every night votes for expenditures of this kind. I found, for instance, an item of $14,000 for flags, but I have not seen anything about these flags having been sold. I do not know what becomes of any property that the government buys. Somebody must steal it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: What item was that ?


George Taylor: It was not in the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Sifton's) department. But what I speak of is the rule in all departments-money spent for supplies to be used for a month or two, and nothing to show what becomes of them.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: So far as my department is concerned, I am sure me lion, gentleman will not find anything lost track of. An inventory is made and the utmost care is taken of the goods. I sometimes think that more care is taken by the surveying parties in looking after the stuff than it is worth.


George Taylor: That is all right for the surveying party. But what became of the tents bought for Mr. Macdonnell's party ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have no doubt they are in stock at the present time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The province of Manitoba will be relieved of the payment of this sum ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The province of Manitoba will be chargeable with his salary and expense during the time he was engaged in this work. The inspector of surveys, Mr. Pearce, reported that it was a fair charge. The work was of sufficient value in connection with the swamp land inspection to justify the charge against the province. I took that basis, and so I ask to have it dealt with accordingly.
For expenses connected with the Alaska boundary commission (Governor General's warrant), $10,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The treaty for the Alaska boundary was signed some time in January, a short time before the opening of the session of parliament. It was necessary to do a certain amount of work and incur some expense before it would be possible to obtain an appropriation, and the Governor General's warrant was issued. Under the law it was necessary to revote the amount.
Amount required to cover the late Thomas W. Middleton's shortages in connection with the gold commissioner's office at Dawson, $5,243.14.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: This is one of two cases in which there Hon. Mr SIFTON.
have been defalcations, one case in which the money was stolen, and this, a case of shortage. I think we have as good a system as could be devised for the auditing of the revenue in that country. There are a considerable number of offices, in which a large amount is collected. For the purpose of avoiding any possibility of error, I secured, at the beginning, from the Finance Department, the nomination of an officer of the department to be sent there as general comptroller of the revenue. The officer chosen was Mr. Lithgow. I am not sure where he came from, but he has proved a very competent man. It is his duty to see that everything is done that is necessary to protect the revenue. Technically, Mr. Lithgow was responsible for this loss, but, in reality, it occurred when he was out of the country on leave of absence. He reports that this defalcation includes three returns from the Stewart river, those for September, October and November, 1901, some Hootalinquia returns and, in addition the officer took from the suspense account by making false entries. The defalcation was reduced by salary unpaid and other items, leaving it at the amount of this vote, $5,243.14.


Samuel Hughes: What became of this defalcating officer ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am informed by my deputy that he committed suicide. There was a change in the office of accountant. Mr. Mackay was appointed accountant and was placed under bonds. Mr. Middleton was appointed assistant accountant. There is where the mistake occurred. When Mr. Lithgow went away the work was divided between Mr. Mackay and the assistant accountant in such a way that the assistant accountant had it in his power to make these defalcations.


James Clancy: I would ask the minister how it was that Mr. Middleton was not under bonds ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The accountant was under bonds, and he ought to have been doing the work in such a way that the other man would not have power tk) steal this money without his knowing it. If it had been done with his knowledge, the guarantee company would have been liable; but in Mr. Lithgow's absence the method of doing the work was changed in such a way that the assistant accountant got power to handle the money for a short time.


James Clancy: Did Mr. Lithgow make that arrangement before he left about the division of the work 1


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I understand from his statements that it was after he left.


James Clancy: Is Mr. McKay responsible for making the new arrangement ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. McKay would be personally responsible to the government. We would have the right to say to him that he ought not to have made this arrangement.


James Clancy: Did Mr. Lithgow leave any instructions when he went upon Ills holidays ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am not quite clear as to that. As I understand from Mr. Lithgow's statement, the change was made after he left.


James Clancy: There ought to be some definite statement from both Mr. McKay and Mr. Lithgow.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If the committee desire, I will have all the correspondence brought down.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman ought to have it at hand now. It is an important matter that Mr. Lithgow should have neglected his duties in failing to give instructions that were proper, and in allowing this matter to occur. If, on the other hand, Mr. McKay was in authority, and without instructions took that course, then he ought to be held responsible. When was this defalcation first discovered ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
They were both working in the same office, and they did their work in such a way that one mail ought to have watched the other.
I felt myself that in reality, if anybody was to blame, it was Mr. Lithgow.


James Clancy: Has Mr. Lithgow made any statement regarding the matter ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Yes, he made a full report, which I have here. Mr. McKay did not make any statement.


James Clancy: Has Mr. McKay been called upon to make a statement ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
My recollection is that as soon as the matter came to my notice I at once asked Mr. Lithgow's version of it, as it was pointed out to me by my deputy that Mr. Lithgow was the responsible officer. I placed the blame upon Mr. Lithgow in not having the assistant under bonds.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How long was this going on ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Less than three months.


Mr. OSLER.: The report of the commission appointed to inquire into the defalcations in the Militia Department showed rather an extraordinary state of affairs, -and if that permeates all of the other departments, one cannot wonder that there are
defalcations. The report of this commission showed that there was no check on bank transactions and that any subordinate clerk in the office could have committed defalcations without being found out for a year. I hope that such a condition of affairs as that does not exist in the department which the hon. Minister of the Interior administers, because, when there are large sums of money coming in from such a distance, it is very difficult to keep a proper check on them, and unless men are appointed for their ability, and not for their political pull, you cannot avoid defalcations. The wonder is that they are not greater than they are, because the system exposed by the investigation of this commission was utterly bad.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I think the members of the committee will agree with me when I say that in view of the fact that we have officers scattered all over the Yukon Territory collecting vast sums of money, and that we have only lost altogether, out of the millions of money that have been collected, about $7,000, it is greatly to the credit of the officials there. This gentleman is one of the best officers we have, and his politics are those of my hon. friend (Mr. Osier).


Edward Frederick Clarke: That accounts for it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: He is one of the best officers we have, and the government are under a great obligation to him for the conscientious care he has exercised. He made a slip in this case.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You want a larger number of officers of the same stripe.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is a considerable number.


George Taylor: If they were all Conservatives, there would be no trouble.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is a considerable number, but I may say we do not give them the preference.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In regard to the observations the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier), if my hon. friend has read the report he is aware that the commissioners did not confine themselves to the Militia Department, but that they investigated the methods of all the departments, and they made a report which was eminently satisfactory. When we think, as the hon. Minister of the Interior very properly says, that only a small sum has gone astray out of the large sums that are received in the Yukon, and when we consider the vast transactions of the Dominion of Canada, we have reason to be proud of our civil service and to rejoice that there lias been very seldom an occasion that anything has gone astray ; and I think that in this respect the members of the committee will agree that the civil service of Canada can

compare favourably with that of any other country- You cannot make a man honest and honourable by any system of examination that you may adopt. At all events, I only wanted to remind my hon. friend that the report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the Martineau case, and who went through the various departments, was very satisfactory, and although they offered some suggestions, they concluded, as the report showed, that the safeguards and checks prevailing in the various departments were fair and reasonable.


James Clancy: The hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is perfectly aware that it is denied that the report is accurate in some respects in regard to the duties of the Auditor General, and in regard to the manner in which cheques come into his possession. It came under my notice that the Auditor General asked of the hon. Minister of Finance an opportunity of explaining that the commissioners had arrived at some very erroneous conclusions as to the exact circumstances under which cheques passed between the Auditor General's Department and the Department of Militia and Defence.
When the hon. gentleman says that the report is eminently satisfactory, I am not going to raise the question, but I simply think it is due to the Auditor General to say that I am informed that the Auditor General did ask the hon. Minister of Finance for an opportunity of explaining what to him seemed an inaccuracy in the conclusions at which they arrived.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) rather makes out the situation to be much better than I claim it to be, because the report made some reference to the Auditor General's manner of adjusting these things, and the Auditor General complained that the report possibly censured him a little. That does not prove anything wrong in the report, but it proves a difference of opinion between the Auditor General and the commissioners as to what may be the best method of conducting the affairs of the departments. As respects the desire of the Auditor General to make an explanation, I suppose the hon. gentleman refers to the fact that the Auditor General came before the Public Accounts Committee and desired to make an explanation. I offered no objection to his making it, but I suggested that as he was an officer of the House I thought the proper way would be to put his statement in the form of a report, which might be laid on the Table of the House. That is all the difference there was between us in regard to the explanation ; he would like to have made it before the committee, and I suggested that he should make it in a report to the House. I have no objection to him expressing any opinion or making any explanation which he desires to give.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: Ml-. CLARKE. What change has taken place in the system of audit ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: All cheques are now being sent direct from the bank to the Finance Department, and they pass from the Finance Department to the Auditor General. It has been suggested that they should go also to the department concerned, and that point is under consideration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When was that change made ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On the 1st July.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What changes were made in the system of checks and safeguards ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This change was made as the result of the commissioners' report.


Edward Frederick Clarke: So that the practice which prevailed prior to 1896 continued until the 1st of July ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was no change in the methods pursued by the prior government. They were precisely the same as those which prevailed before, but when the report of the commissioners was brought down the beginning of the fiscal year was deemed to be a very convenient time at which to change the system in regard to the handling of cheques.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether cheques are ever signed by stamp by any of the ministers ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly not to my knowledge.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I ask the question because I notice that very important letters issued by the ministers are signed by stamp, and I think it is a practice that should not be allowed to obtain for one minute. If cheques are signed by stamp i would like to know it. Any one can see what it may lead to. The stamp may be under the control of the deputy or of any clerk, who may be at liberty to sign important letters by stamp. I venture to say that the president, or secretary, or manager of a large financial or business concern, who is signing twenty times the number of letters or cheques that any one of the ministers has to sign, would never think of signing his name by stamp as ministers sign important letters.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: So far as my department is concerned, every cheque is signed by my deputy and the accountant in their own proper handwriting. If the deputy is away, the secretary of the department is authorized by Order in Council to sign.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is there an Order in Council allowing ministers to sign their letters and cheques by stamp ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think there is any Order in Council permitting that. There could he no such Order in Council authorizing the signing of cheques by stamps. As to the signing of letters, I suppose that is a matter of the personal taste of the minister. For myself I do not like it, and I have never used a stamp. It involves a little more labour if you have to sign your own letters, but I prefer to sign. I am aware that some of my colleagues use a stamp. I take it for granted that the stamp is only used after they have carefully read the letters. The use of the stamp is a matter of personal taste. As respects cheques I am quite sure they are not signed by stamps.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am glad to hear that, because judging by the loose manner in which the letters are sent out by the different ministers it is liable to be assumed that they might also sign the cheques by stamp. If that were done no better system could be devised to open the door to fraud and embezzlement.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The practice is simply adopted by some ministers who so sign their names to personal letters. Official documents are never signed by a stamp, although it involves a great deal of labour. Every patent, for instance, is signed by the proper signature of the officer.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I should hope that a patent is not signed by a stamp. I refer to official letters coming from some of the ministers.


George Taylor: Some of them are very lazy.


James Clancy: It must have come to the notice of the Minister of Finance especially, that the departmental audit is carried on in a very loose way, and I am afraid that this carelessness is not of recent years either. Any one who examines the departmental accounts before they go to the Auditor General must see evidence of gross neglect. That is especially the case where letters of credit are issued. There is a looseness in connection with the present practice which ought to be put an end to. As the country grows this evil will grow correspondingly. Some accounts came under my notice within the last few days which go to prove that the audit that takes place in the several departments is as a rule a perfect farce.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that those who have auy experience with the Auditor General are disposed to bear testimony that whatever faults he may have, he is pretty close in his audit, pretty careful and pretty rigid. So far as accounts which come within his scope are concerned there is very little room for complaint-


James Clancy: I have made no complaint against the Auditor General. I have pointed out that he is utterly hopeless to remedy the evil after the accounts have been paid by the department. There is no more diligent man in Canada than the Auditor Genera L


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I was proceeding to say that the Auditor General has not such full control over letters of credit as he has where a particular account is presented to him for approval. Still, in administering the affairs of a large territory, we cannot very well get along without the letter of credit system. If a department has a letter of credit the minister and his officers should realize their responsibility quite as fully as if they were dealing with individual accounts, but unless we abolish the system of letters of credit, I don't quite see how a remedy can be provided. I admit that where a minister obtains a letter of credit the Auditor General loses control over the expenditure until the accounts have been returned, but that is inevitable. If in any particular case a particular minister fails to have an adequate inquiry into the account before paying it, that is a proper matter for investigation and condemnation, but if my hon. friend wishes to abolish the letter of credit system, I would ask him to remember that it would be very difficult to substitute anything in its place in dealing with the business of a large country like this.


James Clancy: I think, Mr. Chairman


Peter Macdonald: This discussion is out of order.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think so.	%


Peter Macdonald: I think it is.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is dealing with the question of the loss of this money and that is a question of audit.


James Clancy: As the Minister of Finance knows, the departmental audit is very often of a very loose character. There are certain cases I think where there has been no letter of credit issued. I do not know that there was a letter of credit issued in connection with the Census Department because that money was not paid until the service had been rendered. I have no hesitation in saying that the census audit was a most scandalous one.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no hesitation in saying that the character of the audit by the Auditor General-


James Clancy: I have not referred to the Auditor General.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Who else is it if it is not the Auditor General ?


James Clancy: I refer to the audit in the department before it reaches the Auditor General.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If there is no letter of credit issued, then each individual account goes to the Auditor General and he has the opportunity of auditing it before he issues the cheque. In the case of the census, I assume that there must have been some arrangement under which these accounts were audited in the department and only came to the Auditor General afterwards. If so, each particular account will have to stand on its merits. Speaking generally, I think that the audit of the accounts of the Dominion is in the main very good and very rigid. If we have any fault to find with the Auditor General it is that perhaps we sometimes think that he is a little too rigid in small matters. I believe that the audit in the main is a good one and above criticism, and I say that not for the sake of the Auditor General alone, but for the credit of the Dominion.


James Clancy: No one is attacking the Auditor General.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman must be attacking some one.


James Clancy: 
Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister state why so large an amount is required in addition to the estimate of last year ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I would point out that before the spring opened, on account of the apparently large rush of immigration we had to decide what to do. We had to send the parties out early in the season, and we had to incur the responsibility of expending more money than we had appropriated. When we did that, we expected to have the appropriation long before this; but, for reasons with which my hon. friend is as well acquainted as I am, our estimates are late this year. The details of the surveys I gave on a previous occasion.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Whereabouts generally are these extra surveys being made ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I gave a detailed statement in my explanation of the main vote. It will be found on page 6759 of ' Hansard ' of this session. The greater portion are north of the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, between the western boundary of Manitoba Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
and the foot hills of the Rocky Mountains, in the fertile belt. There are surveys in other parts of the country, but that is where the vast bulk of the work is being done, because that is where the great demand for laud for settlement exists.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Are there any surveys being made of those large tracts of land which are being sold ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is a large amount of settlement going on in the land reserved for the Regina, Lonk Lake, and Saskatchewan Railway; and wherever there is a demand for land for settlement, we are carrying on surveys in different parts of that reserve, chiefly in the northern and eastern parts.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What lands are reserved for the Regina, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I could not tell my hon. friend without the map. The land extends from seventy or eighty miles north of Regina to Prince Albert.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That tract has not been extended at all 1


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It was slightly extended beyond the original reserve. When the dispute occurred between the trustees for the bondholders of the railway company and the government, the government had then offered to the representatives of the company to allow them to select any odd-numbered sections at the disposal of the government anywhere in the North-west Territories. I sent them a map, and gave them carte blanche to select anywhere in the territories. When the right of the company to the land grant was sold, I did not feel disposed, on account of the changed conditions in the North-west Territories, to allow that offer to remain open, and an order was made, or an Order in Council was passed, confirming their selection to the original reserve, with a few townships on one side, which, if I recollect rightly, included a tract which had been offered to the Saskatchewan and Western Railway Company, but was not accepted. That is the only change that was made.


Edmund Boyd Osler: How many townships ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I shall have to look that up. I do not remember exactly.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would the minister give us a map or a description of the lands ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I shall be very happy to bring down a marked map showing the old grant and the reserve that is passed, so that my hon. friend will have the exact information he wants.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Has the minister dealt with any of the even numbered sections in that district ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Nothing except the sale that was made to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company. With regard to that, the officers were examined before the Committee on Agriculture, and the full details are found in the evidence.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the evidence given before the Agricultural Committee is printed as yet, so that we are not very familiar with it. Was any portion of the land withdrawn from settlement and sold to this company ? If so, what were the reasons which induced the department to depart from the usual course ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The arrangement that was made was that we agreed to sell 250,000 acres of land in a certain specified territory at a dollar an acre, on condition that the company placed in each township thirty-two settlers, twenty of whom should be on homesteads, and the other twelve might be on land purchased by them, at their option. I may say that the greater portion of this land was rejected originally by the Qu'Appelle Railway Company as not being fit for settlement, and has been reported by the government inspector as unfit for settlement. The reports of my officers show that any efforts to settle these lands have been a failure. In any case the government would have got nothing in a financial way. The company have not fulfilled the conditions or put themselves in a position as yet to get any land patents.


Robert Laird Borden: Within what time were they to put in thirty-two settlers per township ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They had two years in which to fulfil the condition. The two years are not up yet, but will be in a few months. It is very doubtful if they will be in a condition to get anything.


Robert Laird Borden: If the lands are of no value, it is not very probable that they will be settled even by this company. Is it possible, under the law, to withdraw any lands whatever in the Northwest Territories, and sell them in this way to an incorporated company instead of retaining them for the purpose of homestead entries ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman give us a reference to the clauses or regulations under which this can be done ? It is a very important feature of the law and we ought to understand it thoroughly.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will have it looked up in a few minutes.


Robert Laird Borden: If it can be done with regard to these lands, it could l>e done with regard to every acre in the North-west. The Minister of the Interior or the Governor in Council could withdraw all the government lands in the Northwest Territories which are still unsettled and sell them to a land company.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The provision is that any particular tract may be withdrawn by Order in Council. Of course, the power is there for the purpose of being exercised in special cases.


Robert Laird Borden: It is rather a large power. The hon. gentleman was to have brought down certain papers in this connection.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I found that the motion made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LaRivi&re) included a lot of other things besides this, and I will endeavour to have thp return on the Table to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: Did Lie hon. gentleman mention the price at which the lands were sold per acre?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
This particular sale was at $1 per acre.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Order in Council will be brought down and the map showing the tract?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Yes.


Mr. LENNOX.: Is there anything in the department to show the value of the land?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.It has all been examined by reason of the fact that it was in a reserve which had been set apart for a land grant to the Qu'-Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway, better known as the Regina and Long Lake	Railway. The	railway company
had it examined, and rejected almost all tiie land. It was then examined by the government inspector. He reported that about CO per cent was wholly unfit for settlement. I would have had no idea that the company would succeed in colonizing it had it not been for the suggestion they made that they purposed putting on it a large number of farmers who were accustomed to growing flax on arid ground. For the ordinary farmer it was considered of no use at ail.
'Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). I understand that the company had issued a "prospectus in which these lands were described in very glowing terms?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am not responsible for the advertisements of land companies.


Robert Laird Borden: Possibly, but If the lands are of the character described It would be almost the duty of the department to warn people against being misled by misrepresentations. I have not seen the prospectus myself, but I understand these lands are described in very glowing terms as worth a very considerable amount of money.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They have not put themselves in a position to get an acre yet.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand it, when they have placed thirty-two settlers on a township they are entitled to take out a patent


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: By townships.


Robert Laird Borden: They have not yet settled a sufficient number on any township, so far as the department is aware ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They did apply some time ago for some of the land, but they failed to put in the necessary proof. They put up .$50,000 as a guarantee that the contract would be carried out.


Haughton Lennox: They have certain rights to get the land at $1 an acre for a length of time. What time are they allowed to comply with the conditions and become entitled to the land ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: When I bring down the Order in Council I will have a memorandum made embodying as much information as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there any discrimination made between the even and the odd sections ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It was a sale of even sections. It was in the reserve. The odd sections they bought from the railawy companies, and they have a right to select what they have purchased from the companies.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The even sections sold were in the territory of the reserve ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Were they between the rivers ? Were they north of Saskatoon ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am not familiar enough with the geography to say.
Mr. OSLER, The minister would know whether they were north of Saskatoon and Prince Albert and westward.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am informed they were all south of Saskatoon.


James Clancy: Have the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company made any selection of lands other than those they purchased from the railway company ? Did the railway company allot their lands before making the sales ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The position was as follows : The government was under contract to give the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company something less than a million acres of land. A large tract of land had been reserved, out of which the company was entitled to select the odd sections to the extent of about a million acres. The reserve within which they had the right to select was about three and a half million acres in extent. The company caused the greater part of the land to lie examined, and they declared to the government that they could not find a million acres of land fairly tit for settlement within the tract. This was one of the first subjects to come under my attention when I took office in 1896. Protracted negotiations went on between the government and the solicitor for the company, or he may have been solicitor for the bondholders of the railway company who. I believe, had security upon these lands. The solicitor for the bondholders or the company, finally took the position that they could not find within the tract the amount of land fairly fit for settlement that they were entitled to. I then informed them that they might take their land anywhere in the North-west Territories where the government owned the odd sections. I gave them the whole country to select from.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I would like the hon. minister to produce the letter in which the offer was made.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is no difficulty about that. But the company still refused. There were interviews between myself and the solicitor, when the offer I had made was again discussed verbally. Then, the condition of affairs in the North-west began to change, immigration became more rapid and the demand for land increased. A wet season occurred, and as hon. gentlemen know, this arid land presents a better appearance in a wet than in a dry season. From a combination of causes the land became more desirable. The railway company negotiated a sale to the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company, the terms of which I do not know.


James Clancy: Was the sale made upon the strength of the hon. minister's letter that they might make a selection in any part of the North-west Territories ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If so, it was never brought to my attention. The proposition was a proposition from the


Hon. Mr. SIFTON.: railway company, and when the sale was made by the railway company, we restricted the purchasers to a certain specified area to which my hon. friend from west Toronto (Mr. Osier) has referred and which will be shown on the map which I shall bring down.


James Clancy: Within the area first indicated ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Restricting the area, not exactly to the original limit, but adding somewhat to it, a few townships.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Then the minister will bring down that map.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
Yes.


James Clancy: How many settlers have been put upon these lands by the Saskatchewan Land Company	.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
We have not yet got a return. We must get a return for each township. But they have not proved that they have complied with the conditions in the case of any township yet.


James Clancy: Mr. Turriff, who I believe is a land commissioner, stated, speaking of the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company :
I am not prepared to say just how many have Eone in on their grant last summer, but there were over 300 homesteads made in that part.
That was last year. [DOT]


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Of course they have sent in a considerable number. I recollect now they applied to get some patents, and they filed some information with regard to settlers. But the evidence which they filed did not prove that they had complied with the conditions, and consequently we did not give them the land.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax. Will there be another opportunity of discussing this matter ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My deputy informs me there is a small vote for Dominion lands coming down in the supplementaries for 1903-4, which will afford an opportunity of discussing this matter at any length hon. gentlemen may desire. My hon. friend is also aware that he can discuss any resolution on concurrence, with all the information before him.


Robert Laird Borden: We are a little handicapped in discussing it at present on account of the absence of the documents which have been referred to. Will the hon. gentleman have any objection to letting this item stand, say, until to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend will understand that these are the supplementary estimates for the last year, and it is very embarrassing if 218
we have not got the money available before a certain time. The matter can be discussed just as well and just as fully on other items that will come up.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister made a remark that some gentleman on this side of the House knew why the estimates had not been brought down. I hope he does not accuse the opposition in delaying the estimates. I think the opposition have great cause of complaint that the estimates have been so long delayed.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I merely stated the fact, I did not find any fault.
Government of the North-west Territories- additional grant required for schools, clerical assistance, printing, &c., $250,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: As the leader of the opposition is aware, this is the item that will enable us to pay the deficit of the last six months in the government of the North-west Territories. In the supplementary estimates for the coming year we are going to ask for $250,000 more to add to the subsidy of the Northwest Territories, and I would ask my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to defer the full discussion of the financial state of the North-west Territories until that vote comes up, on account of the absence of some of my hon. friends from the North-west Territories who desire to be present when it takes place. Several of the western members are absent. I will then make a full statement. This $250,000 we desire to pay at once to the North-west government to cover their deficit for the last year. They have expended the full amount of their vote, and we cannot give them any more until this vote is passed. The $250,000 that we are going to ask for will be in addition to the subsidy for the last year.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total amount including this ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This makes it about $700,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The amount last year was $457,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no objection to pursuing the course the hon. gentleman has suggested so far as making a statement is concerned. I think it important to have the documents we were speaking of this afternoon, printed and in an intelligible shape, and placed before the members of the House before that vote comes up. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman was in the House when I drew attention to some documents which have not been brought down in connection with the returns respecting provincial autonomy.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I was away when the motion for the return
ItEVISED EDITION

was passed. I think a large number of these letters refer to financial matters and say nothing about provincial autonomy.


Mr BORDEN (Halifax).: There are perhaps four or five documents which I enumerated in the House to-day which come within this description, but many of them deal for the most part with financial matters, and shortly also with the question of provincial autonomy. It would be well to have the whole situation placed before the House, because the documents will be required in order to enable the House to Judge whether this vote should be passed. They might as well be printed in one pamphlet.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We will have the return made up, including all the correspondence.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to expedite that, because it wrould be important to have it a week or ten days before the vote comes up.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There will be no loss of time. Most of the returns ordered by parliament are prepared now, and we can get a special staff and get this report out in two or three days.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman does not quite understand me. I said it would be very desirable to have this return in the hands of hon. members a week or ten days before the vote comes up because this correspondence is rather voluminous, and we want time to study the question.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I will undertake to have it down so that the House can order it to be printed this week.


James Clancy: I have no doubt that the particular claim that is being made by the territorial government is a proper one. I am not prepared to question that. I believe the hon. minister is coming to their assistance to relieve them of a deficit that arose from expenditures that were really forced upon them in the interests of the country. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will explain in detail this vote of $250,000.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Briefly, they got a subsidy of $457,000 ; they spent it all, they were $250,000 short at the end of the year, and we propose to give them $250,000 to supply the deficit.


James Clancy: I suppose that they gave the hon. gentleman some details as to how the expenditure was made ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The correspondence which my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has asked for, and which is very lengthy, goes fully into the financial situation in the North-west Territories, and the different items are covered very fully by it. In order to explain the expenditure I would have practically to read the public accounts of the North-west Territories for the last year. They explain the expenditure of last year as having been urgently necessary,-and as a justification for passing beyond the amount of money that has been voted to the territorial government, they state the fact that there was a very great destruction of their public works by reason of the unusual floods which took place all over the country during the year. The largest item of expenditure, I think equally large with the school expenditure, if not larger, is that which is made on roads and bridges, and the general expenditure on highways, and owing to the excessive floods and the vast amount of damage done they had to incur a great deal of expenditure in repairing the damage. As this was in the nature of urgent expenditure, they felt justified in going on and expending the money. They were the parties responsible for the work and we are not disposed to say that they were wrong and we ask parliament to vote this $250.000. I do not put this forward as a full and detailed explanation, because I will make that in detail when the vote comes down in connection with the supplementary estimates. As the hon. leader of the opposition has been good enough to agree that the full discussion shall be deferred until then. In the meantime I am going to bring down all the correspondence, in which my hon. friend will find the details of the expenditure, and an explanation given of the causes of the shortage and everything necessary to put the House in possession of the fullest information that we have ourselves.


Robert Laird Borden: I think they also claim that the immigration going into the country has made it necessary to establish a great many school sections and also that where settlements are made in new districts it has been necessary to provide roads and bridges to a greater extent than existed before. There are a great many items of this kind on which they base their claim." However, we will have a full statement from the hon. minister when he comes to the estimates for the coming year. In the meantime, would the hon. minister l>e good enough to tell us the position of the litigation between one of the municipalities in the North-west Territories and the Canadian Pacific Railway in regard to the question of taxation ? If I remember correctly, there were two suits instituted, really on behalf of the government, but nominally by municipalities. One of these municipalities wras in the North-west Territories and another one in the province of Manitoba, and if I remember correctly the decisions in the two cases were somewhat different. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could give us a brief statement, because I


Hon.   M@: know nothing about the matter beyond what I saw iu the newspapers, of what the courts did actually decide, and what is the present position of this litigation.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Does my hon. friend ask me to do that now ?


Robert Laird Borden: Just very briefly.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend will understand that although the matter arises in a sense in my own department, I do not follow all the details of the litigation as closely as the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick), whose business it is to do so. I understand the present position is this : In the North-west Territories the court held that the tax could be collected on Canadian Pacific Railway lands, and that in the province of Manitoba it was held that it could not be collected. I believe that no notice of appeal has been given by the railway company as yet. I say that subject to correction. As my hon. friend has called attention to it, I will have a proper statement of the exact position of affairs from the Department of Justice, and I will give it later on.
Grant to recoup the local council of the Yukon Territory for expenditure incurred in connection with Eldorado Gusher, $50,000.


Robert Laird Borden: If it were anticipated that the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) would be better here at an early date perhaps it would be better to have this stand.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: As my hon. friend suggests that we should allow this to stand until the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) is here, I would be happy to agree.
# Item allowed to stand.
Military properties-paving streets in front of barracks, Winnipeg, $9,434.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I move to strike that item out. I will put it in the supplementary estimates for the current year.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is no use this year ; the elections are over.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: My hon. friend is quite mistaken. It was expected that this item would have been passed some time ago, and that possibly the work could be done before the end of the fiscal year. I intend to put the item in the estimates for the current year.
To pay for land adjoining Hamilton Drill Hall,


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: It will be necessary to extend the Hamilton drill hall, and this land was 218}
offered at a very reasonable price and approved of by the colonel of the regiment. I think the hon. member for the city of Hamilton will agree with what I am saying.


Mr. BARKER.: I am very glad to be able to confirm what the minister says. There was an opportunity of getting this land very cheap and the price was considered so reasonable that the officers of the regiment got an option to buy it, and it was taken over by the Crown.
Coronation contingent-.further amount required, $13,000.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: After the contingent reached London the unfortunate illness of the King occurred, and the contingent returned home about the date it was originally expected it would return. Later on, when the coronation did come off, the King himself expressed a desire that a certain number of men selected from the different colonies should form a body guard, and we sent from Canada a number of 'men commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Turner, V.C. This amount was largely used for that purpose.
To reimburse Lieut.-Col. Cole his costs in Cooke vs. Cole, $1,351.43.


Mr. MONK.: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: This item grew out of the suit which took place as the result of an order by Lieutenant Colonel Cole for the arrest of Lieutenant Colonel Cooke, in Montreal, on a charge of insubordination in refusing to obey orders. Lieutenant Colonel Cole was in command at the time of the Montreal district, owing to the absence of the district officer commanding at the Valleyfield riots. I do not know that it is necessary that I should go into all the details, but as a result of this arrest, Colonel Cooke took legal action against Colonel Cole, and obtained a verdict for a small amount of money. A good deal of expenditure was involved, and Lieutenant Colonel Cole lost this amount. In view of the fact that Lieutenant Colonel Cole was discharging his duty, as he believed, as the senior officer in the district at that time, it seemed to me only fair that he should be reimbursed. It is a question of law, which I believe had never before been brought before the courts, and Lieutenant Colonel Cole was acting upon a construction of the law which had been placed upon it for years, and which was placed upon it by the general officer commanding at the time, General O'Grady-Haly. That is the reason this vote is asked.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister approved of the course of the officer ?


Tne MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there any appeal to the superior officers in connection with it ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes, and the superior officer approved of Lieut-Colonel Cole's action.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: From what I know of the circumstances, it seems only fair that we should reimburse Colonel Cole. How is the sum made up ? Is this the taxed costs, or is there any thing beyond them ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No. I may say that I submitted the claim of Lieut-Colonel Cole to the Justice Department, and the Deputy Minister of Justice went carefully into the question, and sent me a memorandum fixing the amount at $1,351.43 as the proper amount to pay, being the amount actually disbursed.


Robert Laird Borden: Should not this case involve some amendment to the law ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes. The Deputy Minister of Justice wns engaged on the matter when he went away, but I am not able to say that he completed it. I had hoped to have the amendment to introduce as a part of the new Militia Bill which I had hoped to bring down this session. That has been postponed, and perhaps the public will not suffer if the two are allowed to go over for another session.


Robert Laird Borden: The idea, I suppose, is to place the law in such a position that an officer acting in that way would be justified not only by his superior officer, but by any action in the civil courts that might be taken against him.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Quite so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this going to be paid to Colonel Cole himself ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.
Additional unforeseen expenses, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The usual vote for unforeseen expenses is $20,000, at which it has stood for a number of years. But it is really too small, and we have to consider the necessity of enlarging it. The special need of this additional vote arises from the fact that the gratuities to the widows and families of deceased officials are charged to this fund, and there have recently been several large additions to it. There are gratuities to the families of two judges and one lieutenant governor, amounting to a considerable sum. There is also the sum of $692 which was paid for expenses in connection with the visit of the Boer delegates to this country.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: Are not these gratuities in some eases brought down in special votes ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Where they come under the Civil Service, they are included in this vote ; but when there is no provision for them, we take a special vote.
To pay the Canadian Pacific Railway for expenses in connection with the visit of Sir Edmund Barton, Prime Minister of Australia, $1,020.59.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When Sir Edmund Barton was in England last year, he was invited to return by way of Canada, and the government extended to him their hospitality, and they ask this vote to pay his transportation expenses.
To provide for the payment of all services under the Naturalization Act of 1902, according to the schedule of rates established by Order in Council, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to provide for certain payments which arise under the Naturalization Act, not only as respects the future, but as respects the past, for which returns are to be made, covering a period of years.


Robert Laird Borden: I moved some time ago for a copy of these returns. I do not know -whether or not there is any difficulty in bringing them down. I think I had some communication stating that they were somewhat lengthy, but I hope the government will be able to bring them down before the end of the session ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I remember my hon. friend's request. I will take a note of his suggestion, and will see that the attention of the Secretary of State is called to it.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the nature of the returns ? Are they by officers of the courts of the North-west Territories ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, by the clerks of the courts, and they go back for a number of years.


Robert Laird Borden: Are they made to any particular department ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: To the Secretary of State.


Robert Laird Borden: What use is to be made of them ? Are they to be tabulated or published ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know that I can answer that. They are required under the Act. I have no doubt they would be tabulated, but I have no personal knowledge of the matter. They would not be of much value unless they were put in such a shape as to be available for public information.


Robert Laird Borden: How is it that they happen to cover a number of years ? Has the work been neglected by the officers in the past ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think they are made under a new Act. which is retroactive. Some of them, I think, go as far back as 1853.


James Clancy: Was any vote taken for that service last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, this is the first vote.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the Naturalization Act of 1902 applicable to the whole of Canada in this respect ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It must be, because the memorandum alludes to some returns which are to be obtained from Montreal as far back as 1853.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: From the clerks of the court there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the Act require that we should go back as far as 1853 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Apparently. I have not the Act in my hand, but I am reading from the memorandum furnished by the Secretary of State.
To repay Petersen, Tate & Company, the amount of their deposit with interest at three per cent, $56,940.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This
was deposited some years ago by Petersen, Tate & Company as security for their fast line contract; and while we have a legal right to forfeit this money, we think we should repay the deposit with 3 per cent interest. We have no reason to doubt that these gentlemen made every effort possible to carry out their contract, and undoubtedly lost a lot of money. They acted in good faith, and I think the committee will agree that this money should be returned.


Robert Laird Borden: There was security by way of deposit and also security by way of bank guarantee. What amount did they cover ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The bank guarantee was given up some time ago. There were some negotiations respecting a change in the form of contract, and my recollection is that the bank guarantee was then given up.


Robert Laird Borden: This represents the end of the bottle neck service too I suppose. If we look back to the debates of 1897 or 1898, we will see that this deposit was pointed to as an indication of the absolute success of the undertaking. We know that in the discussion which then took place, many references were made to this by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We were
referred not only to this deposit of $50,000, but to the bank guarantee ; and when we criticised the action of the government in refusing to carry out the contract made by the government of Sir Charles Tupper, we not only had the pleasure of hearing about this bank guarantee and the deposit of $50,000, but were also taunted with the boast that this government had made a bargain so much more in the interest of the country than that which had been made by its predecessors. I think the difference was said to be a quarter of a million dollars annually. That was paraded, not only in this House, but throughout the country, as an indication of the great business abilities of this government. They were able to make so much a better bargain than the Conservative government, and the service was absolutely assured. There could be no doubt about that. Not only was that boast made in this House, but, on the public platform. In Toronto the rigfit lion, the first minister produced a telegram before a delighted audience, and assured them there was no further question about the fast Atlantic service being an accomplished fact. We asked some questions in the House from time to time, and after a while the treasury benches were not quite so sure, and eventually they got down to telling us that there was no further news on the subject. After a while it was difficult to get any reply at all. Eventually, however, I asked the lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce about these two guarantees, and he told us, some three or four years ago that while it was not intended to enforce tile bank guarantee, nevertheless the government did propose to retain this deposit of $50,000, for the present at least. Now this deposit is not only handed back but we are paying interest on it at the rate of 3 per cent. This would perhaps be a good opportunity for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to tell this House something about the prospects of tlie fast Atlantic service at present. This government came into power in 189G with a contract which it could have carried out and which would have been very much more in the interest of the country than any it is able to make at present. From what knowledge I have been able to gather, it would not be possible for the government now to make a contract so advantageous to the country as the one entered into by the Tupper administration. We were told by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, some weeks ago, that it was not the intention of the government to accept either of the tenders which have been put in recently, but that these tenders might serve as a basis for further negotiations, indicating that further negotiations were being carried on. The service which the government called for, and for which tenders were sent in, was rather of an extraordinary character. They called for boats of sixteen knots and boats of twenty-one knots alternately.

The government does not propose to accept any of the tenders put in.' Is there any probability at all that this fast Atlantic service, over which the government has been working industriously but vainly for some seven years, will be realized during the next seven years ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My recollection of the so-called contract made by the government of Sir Charles Tupper, is that it was one-sided. It bound the government to do certain things and gave the other party the option of doing some things if it suited their convenience. It was not a contract which could be enforced against the contractors. There were privileges and options given them; certain things were contingent on certain other things, so that practically it was not such a contract as my hon. friend describes. As to the deposit, the object of the securities we asked from Petersen, Tate & Company was to give assurance of good faith. No doubt the bargain with them, if it could have been carried out, was an excellent one. It assured us a good service at a much less sum of money than any previous proposition. The fact that it was not ultimately carried out is a cause of regret, but they gave every evidence of good faith. They were a firm of reputable standing, and they furnished, besides this money, a bank guarantee, which was afterwards given up. They gave us every evidence of good faith you could ask of any contractor. They were not able to go ahead, and eventually lost a good deal of money by the transaction.
As to the present position of negotiations I am afraid I can hardly add anything to what my right hon. friend (Sir Richard Cartwright) stated). The government invited tenders for a service of twenty-one knots and sixteen knots. A sixteen knot service in comparison with a twenty-one knot service may seem very moderate; but sixteen knots would be a very substantial improvement on any service the Dominion has ever had. And, if we could get a sixteen knot service fortnightly, combined with a twenty-one knot service fortnightly, we should be in a very excellent position indeed. The right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce laid the tenders on the Table and stated that they were not regarded as satisfactory, because he thought the sums that were asked for the service were larger than we ought to pay. Practically nothing has happened since. We have not abandoned the question and are still free to receive proposals. Occasionally, gentlemen come to us and say the matter is engaging their attention, and that they will probably submit propositions to us. However, we have nothing to offer the House, and all that we can say is that the matter is still under consideration. We are prepared to make a contract with substantial people. But if they do not come, we can hardly create them. I


Robert Laird Borden: do not know what further information we can give.


Robert Laird Borden: The government, apparently, is in the position of Mr. Micawber, waiting for something to turn up. I am very glad indeed that the government have not abandoned the question. They have abandoned the bank guarantee, and they are abandoning the deposit. It must be extremely satisfactory to the public that they have not abandoned the question also, but that they still have it under consideration.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Am I to understand that the deposit of $50,000 was remitted ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is what we are proposing; that is the purpose of the vote now under consideration.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I agree that, probably under all the circumstances, it is the proper thing to return the deposit; and I think we are getting out of the proposed bargain for these bottle necked ships cheaply. I think we should have been in a bad way if these gentlemen had fulfilled their bargain. The government went into the scheme quite ignorant of what they were contracting for, undertaking a very large expenditure on an experimental ship which has not turned out to be a success for that class of navigation. We are burying one of the attempted bad bargains of the government at very small expense when we return this deposit.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot agree that it was a bad bargain. I respectfully submit that it was nothing of the kind. If carried out it would have been advantageous to the government, in fact, it was so good for the government that the financial men did not find anything in it for them, and they were compelled to give it up.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But if the bargain had been gone on with, as the ships have not proved a commercial success, the service must have been a failure,


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think this ship has been proved a failure. Very eminent naval architects have certified that the ships would serve the purpose for which they were designed. The difficulty was not in the class of ships, the difficulty was the financial one. The financial men were not making so much money out of it as they thought they ought to make, and could not go ahead.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) aware that there are some claims against Mr. Petersen about that deposit ? Are there not some claims filed in the department ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no recollection of them. I must not contradict my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) but I do not remember any.

Mr: LEMIEUX. Mr. Petersen employed | attorneys and refused to pay them and they filed claims. I was asked to warn the hon. minister not to pay Mr. Petersen until these payments were settled.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will inquire Into it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would file a claim for one gentleman


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the claim has not already been filed, I am afraid, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) will find it too late.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: I think some were filed.


James Clancy: It is said to be a very bad case that has no redeeming feature, and a very sad case where there is no consolation. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has pointed out that, if we have not the fast Atlantic service, at least we have been saved from making a very bad bargain. It certainly is better to return this deposit than to have made the bargain that gentlemen opposite have proposed. A contract was made by the government of Sir Charles Tupper and was left to be dealt with by the present government. Uut it was rejected solely on the ground that a cheaper service could be had. But hon. gentlemen opposite were grasping at shadows. They endeavoured to make a bargain upon the basis of a scheme that had not been developed, and that no financial concern would look at. The Finance Minister is not candid enough to acknowledge that a great opportunity has been lost to Canada, that it would be impossible to enter upon a contract now such as that made in 1896 which these hon. gentlemen refused to carry out. It is only another addition to the procession of blunders that the present government have been guilty of since they came into office. Now the Finance Minister himself comes down and tells us that the scheme was a visionary one and that financial men would not look at it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that.


James Clancy: No, the hon. minister was not candid enough to say that, but that is the substance of his admission. And now he is waiting for somebody to come along and offer him a bargain. These hon. gentlemen evidently thought they had a bargain day arranged' for and rejected the contract of the former government to make another arrangement, no matter what it might be. It was pointed out at the time that their scheme they proposed would be a failure. The scheme arranged for by Sir Charles Tupper's government at a cost of $750,000 to get a cheap service. And now we have
the result-Canada still, after all these years, without a fast Atlantic service.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: Will the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) be kind enough to tell me if there was a contract entered into by Sir Charles Tupper's government ? And what was the defect of the scheme which was contracted for by the present government ?


James Clancy: No doubt the Minister of Finance will give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche, Halifax) his answer.


William Roche: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) said there was a contract entered into by Sir Charles Tupper.


James Clancy: I may inform the hon. gentleman from Halifax, if he has not heard of it before, that there was a contract ready for signature, and that this government, when they came into power, tore it up or made some other disposition of it in order to enter into a contract with Messrs. Petersen, Tate & Company, which has resulted as has been stated here /to-night. No doubt the minister will tell him that there was a contract ready for execution on the part of the government of Canada, which contract they did not execute.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have already stated-I do not know whether the hon. member for Bothwell was in his place ,at the moment-that my recollection of the document, which I have not looked up for some time, was that it was not, in the best sense of the word, a contract at all. It gave the contracting parties an option which practically took away the character of a contract. However, the document will speak for itself.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I understood the member for Bothwell to say there had been a contract signed, and subsequently he explained that it had not been signed by the government. Could the hon. gentleman say why the government did not execute it ?


James Clancy: Iam not in the seertts of the government, and the hon. gentleman has not been kind enough to tell us the reason himself. He is a member of that government, and it is an extraordinary thing for him to ask a member of the opposition the reason why he and his colleagues refused to sign the contract.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I congratulate the hon. gentleman on his ingenuity in evading the question. He knows well that I was alluding to the government which he said had prepared this contract. He said the government of Sir Charles Tupper had secured a contract.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, the ! hon. gentleman said that. He was compar-

mg the contract which he said the former government had secured with the service we were trying to secure ; and in answer to the inquiry of the junior member for Halifax, he said that if the contract was not signed it was there awaiting signature, that is, awaiting the signature of Sir Charles Tupper's government. Now, I understand that document was prepared during the regime of the Tupper government, and was left unsigned by the Tupper government. My question was, why it was left unsigned by the Tupper government.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that matters of that kind may have been going on after the parliament of Canada had expired. These things cannot be done in a day. The question was never raised in the House from that time to this that there was any indisposition on the part of the then government of Canada to enter into the contract that is now spoken of. The hon. gentleman knows that the life of the then existing parliament expired by effluxion of time, and everything ceased at that moment. Those were the ordinary reasons why the document was not signed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The government to which the hon. gentleman refers as having expired had been in existence, along with its lineal ancestors, for eighteen years. This question did not begin the last month or two of the existence of that gov-* eminent, but it had been discussed for years, and we were told that a contract had been secured that they were anxious to have carried out, and I want to know why they did not sigii it. If it was so good a thing, why did the government of that day not sign the contract 5


Samuel Hughes: And vote the money.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They did not require to vote the money. The member for Botkwell says the parliament had expired, that is true. The hon. gentleman says the contract was made by the Tupifcr government. If, after parliament expired, it is true that the Tupper government had secured the contract, why did they not sign that contract ? That is what we have not yet heard explained to the House.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that after Sir Charles Tupper went out of office he went to his successors and specially requested them to carry out that contract. That statement was made in this House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why did they not do it ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that the general elections came on, and while I am not in possession of the reasons, if any reasons existed for the contract not Sir WILLIAM MtTLOCK.
having been signed, it is plain that the question was never raised once inside or outside of this House that there was any doubt in the minds of the government of Canada that the contract should be exs ecuted.


Tlie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why did they not execute it ?


James Clancy: Let me ask my hon. friend why they have been dallying for seven years with another scheme ? Will the hon. gentleman tell me now why we have been told year after year that Petersen, Tate & Company have failed ? Why have we been told year after year that the government were negotiating and were likely to execute a contract at some time for a fast Atlantic service ? Why has this been going on from year to year ? I suppose the hon. gentlemen have some very substantial reasons for it ; and yet the hon. gentleman is totally oblivious to any conditions that might obtain during the short period that Sir Charles Tupper was Prime Minister of Canada, why a certain contract was not executed within a few months. The hon. gentleman as minister knows that these things are delayed probably for reasons that might be very valid. Delays will occur, though there may have been no intention of delaying.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will answer the hon. gentleman's Inquiry why this government has not signed the contract with Petersen & Tate. It is because we have never yet had an opportunity of signing a contract that we deemed satisfactory and in the interest of Canada. When such a contract is presented to us for signature it will undoubtedly be signed. But the hon. gentleman says that they had a contract that was a most excellent one, and that for seven years the government and people of Canada have lost the advantage of a most excellent contract. Now we have reason for it, namely, because the Dominion government, by negligence, omitted to sign that contract.


James Clancy: I did not say that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the contract was lying there awaiting signature, and if it was a contract of such infinite advantage to the people of Canada, why did not the Tupper government sign it ? That is a question I want to have answered.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman know now at just what period the negotiations had closed before signing that contract ? Is the hon. gentleman prepared to say that it was not months or even weeks before Sir Charles Tupper went out of office ? There were negotiations upon which that contract was based. Does the hon. gentleman say that there were not negotiations upon which that contract was based occurring within perhaps a week or two of

the time Sir Charles Tupper went out of office. The hon. gentleman is assuming that there were no negotiations for six or seven years, as in his own case. I warn the hon. gentleman that I do not undertake to give any reasons, I am merely pointing out what might be probable reasons. I ask him now if he is prepared to state that he knows that this matter had been a subject of negotiations for any considerable time before the government of Sir Charles Tupper went, out of office, or whether it was a matter that came of negotiations immediately prior to the time of his going out of office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I presume the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has told us all lie knows upon the subject, just as lion, gentlemen opposite have told the country over and over again that Sir Charles Tupper, after his government was formed, had secured a contract.


James Clancy: When ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: His government was formed on the 26th April, and it lasted for sixty days. Both on the floor of this House and all over the country the hon. gentleman and his party have boasted of his having, during that period, secured a most advantageous contract, and that that contract was executed, but now he tells us that-


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman must not put words in my mouth. I never said it was executed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then there was no contract. The hon. gentleman stated in the course of his remarks first of all that there had been a contract secured by the Tupper government. However, he desires, and I accept his explan-nation, to say that there was no signed contract, signed by the government. I presume it was signed by the other party. Was it signed by the other party? If so, why was it not signed by the government of that day ? Why did they not clinch the bargain that was awaiting their signature ? The hon. gentleman asks why we, in parliament, did not do our duty in seeing that it was signed. Sir Charles Tupper had an opportunity of signing it after the dissolution and before we came into office. There was no sitting of parliament while the contract was awaiting the signature of Sir Charles Tupper. Since the hon. gentleman cannot give the information as to why they did not sign it, T think the country will come to the conclusion that it was a very improvident bargain, that it was a one-sided affair, and that the conditions were such as to rob it of its value. I have not seen it for several years-I think a copy was laid on the Table of the House at the time-but I think it was a proposition that no business government would for one moment dream
of accepting. It contained conditions liberating the contractors for all sorts of reasons. The ordinary perils of the sea were nothing to the conditions that were introduced here. They might take their ships off for this reason, for' that reason and the other reason, and the pay was to go on. A great deal of discretion was left entirely in the hands of the contractors. It was not such a contract as the hon. gentleman represents it to be. It was not such a contract as would stand criticism before the House and the country. It was entirely a one-sided contract, and even taking the view that it contemplated a high rate of speed, the details robbed it of its value, and therefore Sir Charles Tupper did not see fit, I presume, in the interests of the country, to sign so unilateral an agreement, and left it unsigned. It was not the contract that the hon. gentleman boasts of, because if it had been, it would not have been left an unexecuted document and used for an electioneering campaign and nothing more.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is not my recollection of what took place in 1896.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In 1896 ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I hear for the first time the hon. Postmaster General criticising the details of the contract. My recollection of it was that the negotiations between the comjjany and the government of Sir Charles Tupper were completed, that everything that his cabinet could do had been done, and that all that was required was the approval of the Governor General. That is my recollection, and I think my recollection is as correct as that of the hon. Postmaster General. It required the approval of the executive, and as soon as Sir Charles Tupper went out of power he wrote to this government urging them to obtain the sole element which was wanting to make a binding contract, because, as far as he was concerned, he had done everything that was in his power.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Wrote to the Premier ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He wrote to the Premier, and during the late autumn session in 189*), immediately after the election of the 23rd June, Sir Charles Tupper repeatedly called the attention of the government to the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but previous to that and during the election campaign he stated that the contract was signed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It was, as far as the government was concerned, perfect, but it required the approval of the Governor Gen-ral. That is my recollection of it. and His Excellency at that time did not see his way clear to give that approbation. As regards the details of the contract, it was

not a one-sided contract, and it was never criticised as a one-sided contract by this government, because it was not. It provided for certain contingencies.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: A great many.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The criticism of my bon. friend related to the amount. We were to pay $750,000 and that amount was scouted by my hon. friend himself as an excessive amount, because the government of the day pretended that they eou'd obtain just as good a service, or a better one, for a much smaller amount. That is my recollection of it, and I am quite prepared to admit that we should refund this amount to Petersen, Tate & Co., although I confess I do not think we should refund the interest, I think it would be quite sufficient to return the amount to them, but that is a question of detail. If the hon. Postmaster General says that there was no contract, he must know he was mistaken. There was a contract, and it was completed by the then'government as far as it was in their power to complete it. It was withheld by the head of the executive: Sir Charles Tupper called the attention of the government to the fact that there was this complete and binding contract, but the government never carried it out because they pretended that they could get the service performed for a smaller amount.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know whether it was waiting or whether it was sent to the Governor General for execution or not. If that is the case, and if there was an Order in Council passed and the necessary signatures added, and it only remained for His Excellency's approval, it would, of course, rob my remarks of the force which otherwise would attach to them. My hon. friend's recollection may be quite correct on that point, but when the hon. member for Bothwel! (Mr. Clancy) stated that it was an unsigned contract it naturally occurred to me to ask why it was unsigned.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman ha< put words into my mouth that I did not utter. I never said anything about a onesided contract, I spoke of a contract. The hon. gentleman became hypercritical, and he wanted to know why it was not signed. I did not say whether it was signed or not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


James Clancy: My hon. friend is quite mistaken. It was he who said that, and not myself. The hon. gentleman asked me why it was not signed. I frankly admitted that I knew no reason, and did not attempt to give a reason, but I would like to ask the hon. minister why he at one time opposed the Pacific cable and why he went up to his own constituents and told them that the Pacific cable would bear upon Mr. MONK.
the farmers of Canada, that the Australian farmers would become their competitors in the British markets, that the farmers of Canada would have to bear tbe brunt and burden of the Pacific cable when it was laid, and I would like to know if he has received knighthood for his services in connection with that important work, after telling his own constituents that the burden would have to be borne by the farmers because the Australians would become their confpetitors in the British market ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Oh, I think the hon. gentleman is imagining a good deal.


William Roche: If I understand the language of the hon. member for Both-well (Mr. Clancy), he said there was a contract, and then he went on to argue that the fault on the part of this government was that they had not carried out the contract. I would like to know whether there was a contract or whether there was not a contract. I would ask my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) to say whether there was a contract or whether there was not a contract. Lawyers, of course, understand what these things are, but it would be better for the intelligence of plain persons if some one would say whether there was a contract or whether there was not a contract.


Robert Laird Borden: It is to be regretted that my hon. colleague from Halifax (Mr. Roche) has to pass over the government, wh,o should know something about this matter, and ask for information from the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). However, I do not deny that he is perfectly right in doing so.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: The Postmaster General has made the rather remarkable statement that the contract with Petersen, Tate & Company never was signed by this government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Did he say that ?


Robert Laird Borden: I understood him to say that distinctly. He said that when the proper contract was brought forward the government would sign it, but up to the present time the government had not signed it. In looking up the records of the debate in ' Hansard,' I find he has entirely different information as to that, from the information announced to the House by his colleague. As far back as the 12th of April, in 1897, Sir Charles Tupper said :
I would like to ask whether the statement published in the newspapers as to Mr. Chamberlain, the colonial minister's declaration on the floor of the House of Commons in England that a contract had been signed by the government of Canada and the contractors for a fast service is well founded.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes. Mr. Chamberlain's statement was well founded and the matter is now under the consideration of the imperial authorities.
It was signed, and it was brought down to this House for approval, and parliament passed it, and, therefore, the Postmaster General is not very well informed as to that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, I am quite well informed.


William Roche: My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier said it was the Governor General.


Robert Laird Borden: We were talking about the contract between this government and Petersen, Tate & Company, and my hon. colleague from Halifax is talking about something else. Perhaps I ought to apologize to my hon. friend the Postmaster General and say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a misstatement to the House in April, 1897. We will talk to the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he next comes to the House about that misstatement, and ascertain the reasons which induced him to deceive the House in that way. Sir Charles Tupper explained the situation of this contract in April, 1897. In ' Hansard ' for 1897, page 923, he says :
Under these circumstances, negotiations were entered into with the Messrs. Allan and the colonial office, and we arrived at a point which enabled us to agree upon a provisional contract; and all that was necessary, so far as the government of Canada was concerned, was the signature of His Excellency the Governor General. Honourable gentlemen opposite know that an Order in Council was prepared authorizing the government to make the provisional contract with the Messrs. Allan, subject to the approval of the House when it should meet, and so much importance did I attach to this work being carried rapidly and completely to completion, that I took the liberty, when leaving office, of writing a letter to the hon. gentleman who succeeded me, suggesting that if the assent of the Governor General to this provisional contract were obtained, a year would probably be saved. It requires something like two years to construct, with due regard to economy, ships suitable for so great and important a service ; and as soon as the assent of His Excellency was obtained to the proposal, it could be submitted for the approval of Her Majesty's government.
It appears plain that the provisional contract was drawn up between his government and Messrs. Allan. The only thing that was necessary was the assent of the Governor General to the Order in Council, which was not obtained before Sir Charles Tupper's government went out of power. When his government did go out of power, Sir Charles Tupper wrote to the present Prime Minister urging upon him that that provisional contract jshould foe executed; That should leave no doubt in the mind of the committee as to what was the real reason why the contract with the Allans was not carried out. As a matter of fact, it was not carried out by this government
because they distinctly stated to the House that they could make a better contract with (Petersen, Tate & Company. They laughed at Sir Charles Tupper's government because it proposed to give more money for this service than it was necessary, and members of the government of the day whose utterances I have in my hand, threw the taunt across the floor that the government of Sir Charles Tupper were paying altogether too much for this service and that an efficient and equally good service would be provided by this government under the contract with Petersen, Tate & Company at a saving to this country of $250,000 a year. We have had that saving for all these years it is true ; in fact we have had a saving of the whole amount, but in the meantime, we have no fast Atlantic service and according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, there is no immediate prospect that we shall have any fast Atlantic service.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I da not think the country has suffered much by the absence of a fast Atlantic service for thfo last seven years. There are some people who think it is not an advisable service at all. Public opinion is more or less divided on it yet. There are those who favour it; the government would favour a satisfactory service on reasonable terms. But I doubt if any one can point to any injury the country has sustained by reason of not having a service up to the present date. Moreover, it would seem to me- though it is not a considered opinion-that the great development of Canada that has taken place in the last seven years, and the greater development that awaits her in the future, show that the time for securing a satisfactory fast line, so far as the interest of the country is concerned, is rather in the future than it has been in the past.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why are you advertis-' ing for tenders ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Trying the feeling ; seeing what we can get.


Haughton Lennox: The Postmaster General has hardly weighed the statement which he made to the House. He endeavoured to cross-examine the hon. member for Both-vvell (Mr. Clancy) and figuring the time he took to do this at $28 a minute, the result has hardly been satisfactory to the House. It is very easy for a distinguished lawyer such as the Postmaster General is to bother and badger an ordinary member of parliament, but I am glad to say that in this instance the hon. gentleman for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) was quite able to hold his own even against this distinguished lawyer and equally distinguished member of the government. The Postmaster General was one of the cabinet who ought to know in what position things were when they came

into power-above all men, at least above all outside of the cabinet, he ought to know exactly in what condition that matter then stood. It does not reflect much credit upon the Postmaster General that lie quibbled for so long a time to-night in order to lead us away from such facts as are important in this connection. The hon. gentleman is always on the alert and in his place in this House if any member of the government is, and he ought to know what takes place, and he must have known of the statement made by Sir Charles Tupper in this House. He knew what was taking place. He knew perfectly well that up to to-night no minister of the Crown had ever dared to say that the question was as to the particular terms of the contract other than the amount of money that was to be paid, under that contract, as proposed by Sir Charles Tupper. But to-night, the hon. Postmaster General Imagining for the moment that perhaps some of us did not recollect the true terms of the contract, and the position in which it was at the time the former ministry went out of power, is so forgetful of his responsibility as a minister of the Crown that he tries to mislead the committee and in that way to mislead the country as to the ti-ue points at issue. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that the question is not a quibble as to whether the contract was signed or not. The particular point is this, that there appeared to be a satisfactory basis of contract arrived at; that Sir Charles Tupper, in going out of office, requested this government to adopt that contract and have it examined and completed in the interests of the country ; that this government professed that they could obtain a contract on better terms and for less money ; that for seven years they have been going through the country proclaiming that they were obtaining a better contract, and leading the people to believe from time to time, that in a few weeks the matter would be concluded ; and that to-day they come down with the statement that they have utterly failed to obtain a contract. The hon. Postmaster General tells us that perhaps after all the country has not lost much ; that he is not sure that, if they had made a contract, it would not have been a loss to the country ; that he is not sure that the bargain which this administration was entering into was not a bad and foolish bargain ; and so he says to the country in the alternative, perhaps we have to congratulate ourselves after all that there has been no contract for a fast Atlantic service. Dees the hon. gentleman forget the speeches he has made in North York, and in other parts of the country in reference to this fast Atlantic service ? Does he forget the speech he made in Toronto at the banquet of the board of trade not very long ago in reference to the vast advantages that were to flow to Canada from the negotiations for transpor-Mr. LENNOX.
tation, the fast Atlantic service included, that were being entered into by this government ? He wants us to understand, tonight that perhaps after all the country is to be congratulated oil the fact that there has been a failure, and that there is no immediate prospects at all events of this government securing a contract. I think the hon. gentleman has hardly done himself justice in expending this long time, at $28 a minute, which he so often refers to, in employing his great skill as an advocate and his great ability as a minister of the Crown, to quibble about a matter which was entirely within his own knowledge, and which, if he did not know it, he should be slow to confess he was ignorant of, having regard for his responsible position as a minister in the administration succeeding the administration which had the contract before it.
Mr. CLaNCY. It would be unfair to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr Roche) to
allow this item to pass without at least recognizing his great thirst for information. The hon. gentleman had the following question on the Order Paper to day :
1.	Did the present government find in 1896, on assuming office, in any of the public departments, a contract signed by the government, or any minister on its behalf, and the Messrs. Allan. f*r, a twenty or twenty-one knot steamship service between Canada and Great Britain, for a subsidy of $750,000 by Canada, and $375,000 by the imperial government, annually. or for any other sum ?
2.	Did the present government find any bona
fide, definite offer to provide the above-named service for the sums .stated above, without any modification or reservation ?	*
3.	What were the reservations, if any, stated in the tender ?
The business government to-day asked that that question be allowed to stand. Is it any wonder that the hon. gentleman should show such undue zeal to-night to ask from this side of the House the very question which the government refused' to answer him to-day ? The committee will no doubt now see why the hon. gentleman's anxiety has been so great. The ministers whom he so religiously supports through thick and thin, were unable or unwilling to answer his question, because they were playing the role of the Postmaster General, a very capable and ingenious gentleman, wlio was filled with information and kept it back for the purpose of a victory. The hon. gentleman has a high position in this House, and it hardly becomes him to talk for victory rather than the truth. That was a small victory, in professing not to believe that the government had all the means of knowing, and questioning those who had no means of knowing, as to the existence of a contract, and basing an argument upon it. I think the hon. Postmaster General lias had a chance to repent, and I hope he has repented. I shall now turn to

the hon. member for Halifax and ask him to press the government for the information that he is asking from this side of the House. It is a most extraordinary thing for a member of the House to ask a question of the government, and the government to request it to stand, and then for the hon. gentleman to ask this side of the House for the information. It is certainly becoming to the methods and understandings of the hon. gentlemen opposite and of this business government, who are always ready to supply not only their own friends, but the country, with information. This is a splendid instance of the business capability of this government, and the plight hon. gentlemen are placed in who are giving them so solid a support.


William Roche: As my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) has been kind enough to allude to me, I would take the liberty of making a reply. I have heard in the press or elsewhere that the business government which preceded the present one had made a contract with the Allans for a twenty-one or twenty knot service on the most favourable terms, and that this unbusinesslike government had cancelled that contract. My hon. friend from Bothwell alluded to that as a contract, took for granted that it was a contract, argued from it as a contract, and drew his conclusions that that contract had been nullified by this unbusiness like government. I asked the question on that point this afternoon. Either it was a contract, according to my hon. friend from Bothwell, or it was not, according to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I ask these gentlemen, who have a knowledge of the subject, or else they ought not to have talked about it, whether this was or was not a contract ? If it remains to be signed or authenticated by the Governor General or any other power it was not a contract.


Richard Blain: I would like to draw the attention of the government to some words spoken by the right hon. the Prime Minister in the debate on this subject. Discussing the Atlantic Fast Line service on May 10, 1898, he said :-
The hon. gentleman referred tio the fact that on a certain occasion I had read a telegram received from the Minister of Finance who was then in England, stating that Mr. Petersen had made a deposit which had been stipulated in the contract. That is so, I read that telegram and the telegram correctly stated that Mr. Petersen had made the required deposit and the money is now in deposit. My hon. friend asks what it is for, if it is simply an ornament. He asks if the deposit has been forfeited. No it has not been forfeited for the reason that it cannot be forfeited. We have no power to forfeit it.


Mr. WILSON.: I have not heard yet why the interest should be paid on this deposit. The depositor was given as a guarantee that
the contractors would carry out their contract.. When they have not done that, it seems to me that they should lose the interest on the money. If they get back the principle they ought to be well satisfied.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The general rule with regard to contractors security is that when you return them you return them with the savings bank interest.


Uriah Wilson: Why should they be returned at all ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is a matter of opinion. These people have lost a great deal of money. The hon. gentleman says that at least they should suffer the penalty of losing the interest, but they have lost a good deal more. If we do this as an act of grace, we should not spoil it by keeping back the interest.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As the government have lost the interest on this fast Atlantic line these people might reasonably be expected to lose the interest on their deposit.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In this case the government are holding strongly to the principle.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is every reason to return the interest after the disclosure made to us by the hon. Postmaster General. He has told us that the prosperity of the country and the general trend of trade have led the government and himself to the conclusion that the time was not opportune


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not say the government.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That the time was not rife for a fast Atlantic service.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I expressly stated that I was not expressing the opinion of the government. I said speaking for myself.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, the hon. gentleman may have spoken for himself, but he did not qualify his statement in that way.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I said, speaking for myself.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, even so, but when a gentleman occupying the very strong position, the dual position, which my hon. friend occupies in the present administration, takes the House into his confidence and tells us positively that the time is not yet ripe for a fast Atlantic service, we are naturally led to ask him why the government advertised for tenders for such a service. For a long time I have suspected that the cause of 'the delay is to be found in the fact that the hon. gentleman does not believe in a fast Atlantic set-vied for the country at present. Under the circumstances. I am not surprised at; the government returning not only the deposit but the interest. But

we are entitled to know wliy the government, after refusing to carry out the contract made by Sir Charles Tupper, has been continuously holding out to the public the delusion that it was seeking, month after month and year after year, to obtain a fast Atlantic service. We were led to believe that what was preventing the government from giving this country a fast service, was the difficulty of finding somebody capable of complying with the required conditions. But now we have the real reason from the Postmaster General. He tells us that he does not believe in a fast Atlantic service and that it may take some time yet before he himself, if not his government, will come to the conclusion that the time is ripe for carrying into execution the project which has been during the past seven years before this government. Under the circumstances, the frank statement of the hon. gentleman deserves to be taken note of.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend is entitled to a great deal of credit for the ingenuity he displayed in twisting words and giving to them a meaning other than what was intended. I have often had occasion to admire the ingenious manner in which my hon. friend has managed to extract from a phrase a meaning different from that which people of common intelligence and sense would give to it. In this particular instance perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to recall the substance of what I said. I said, speaking for myself, and not for the government


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, well, well.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Will the hon. gentleman have patience ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I cannot have patience with that at all.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What I said was that I doubted if the country had sustained any loss to speak of, because of that fast line not having been already established, and the reason I gave was that the commercial prosperity and growth of the country in the past seven years have been such, that I cannot see how they could have been any greater, and I am confident that in the future more satisfactory results will be obtained than would have been accomplished had we followed the policy advocated by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend spoke about the future, and it seems that in his opinion the time for establishing the fast line has not yet come.


Robert Laird Borden: We have been years hearing what a great thing this fast Atlantic service was going to be when hon. gentlemen thought they were going to carry through this contract with Petersen, Tate & Company, but now, when that contract amounts to nothing, we have the Postmaster Mr. MONK.
General, after having boasted all over the country of the government's great feats in this matter, saying it was a very good thing that we had not succeeded in the last seven years in establishing that service, and I suppose, applying the argument of the Postmaster General, we must conclude that it would be just as advantageous for us to be without his service another seven years. The hon. gentleman asks us to wait until the country is making no progress, and says that so long as it is being developed commercially, it is not worth while having this fast Atlantic service. The hon. gentleman's remarks throws considerable light on the past seven years. We supposed the government were doing the best they could. We were fully aware that the best they could did not amount to very much, but we did suppose it was the best they could.
Now, it appears, according to the view of my hon. friend the Postmaster General, that it was not the best they could do, that they really believed all the time that it was not very much in the interest of the country that we should have a fast Atlantic service during these six or seven years. This enables us better to appreciate the position of the government with regard to this matter ; and the House and the country ought to be very much obliged to the Postmaster General for the frankness with which he lias expressed his opinion with regard to the very important subject.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If the explanation had not been given, I certainly would have left this House with the idea that the government were satisfied that the negotiations for the fast Atlantic service had failed. The Postmaster General, with his important position in the cabinet, must have great weight, he has expressed so freely the opinion that it is as well for the country that the fast line negotiations have failed, that I think it would be well for us to know where he is going to stand on this question, for it is a very important question, and one that will involve a very large expenditure if it is to be gone on with. And I think we should know whether his colleagues agree with him on that point, for I believe the country regard it as a very important matter. And I am much mistaken if there will not be a great feeling of disappointment in the country when it is found that this government, instead of being in earnest on the question of a fast Atlantic line, have all the time been playing false, have all the time been fooling the country. I remember being present at a banquet in Toronto, and I think the Postmaster General was there also. A cable came, timed to the moment, just when the Prime Minister was speaking. It was from the Minister of Finance, then in England, and stated that the contract had been concluded for the fast Atlantic service, the deposit secured and everything completed.
[ If I mistake not, the Postmaster General was among those who applauded


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, I was not there, nor did I applaud.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. However, I believe that that applause represented the feeling of tlie country-that there was general delight that the fast Atlantic service had been secured. I think the discussion we have had to-night shows that, to all intents and purposes a contract had been	made with the
Allans which would have given to this country a fast Atlantic service, and that this government, when they came Into power, threw the contract aside. I was in the House during the discussion on the reasons for throwing it aside, and my. recollection is that the only reason given-at all events, the only reason that had any weight-was the extravagance of the contract. I do not think it is well now to try to get out of the responsibility for *cancelling that contract by pleading a mere side issue in the conditions, particularly as the government made no attempt to renew the negotiations with Messrs. Allan, but at once set about making a new contract with *other people on the plea of economy. The contract with Mr. Petersen failed, as all men who had experience with mercantile business knew it would fail, for it was not entered into on a business basis, but purely on an experimental basis. I say this government had no business to enter into a contract of an experimental nature on. such a subject. The Petersen contract having failed, and the deposit being the only thing that keeps in mind this great failure, I throughly agree to the return of that deposit. and I agree with the minister in thinking that if the deposit is paid back, interest at 3 per cent should be paid. And I shall be glad to see the end of the Petersen contract.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I sup-Xiose that gentlemen who attend great banquets In Toronto where the proceedings are marked with great enthusiasm should not be held too closely to their recollection of what occurred. I suppose, we shall have to forgive my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) if he depends upon a naturally fertile imagination, cultivated under very pleasant circumstances, in reporting statements coming by cable from the Minister of Finance, rather than upon any record of the facts. The hon. gentleman says that a cable was handed in, timed to the moment, stating that the contract had been concluded, the deposit had been made and all sorts of arrangements completed. The only foundation for the statement was that a telegram was read on that occasion from the Minister of Finance, not stating that the contract had been concluded, for it had been concluded months before, not stating that all arrangements had been made, but simply that the deposit had been made. That was the fact. The deposit had
been made. The cablegram stated the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But on the basis of the telegram, speaking from memory, all that I have stated was set forth. It was stated that this telegram marked the conclusion of these negotiations, that practically the transaction was completed, and the fast Atlantic service secured. I have been quite within the mark and have been speaking without exaggeration in the statements I have made.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) stated that all these things were set forth in the telegram from the Minister of Finance.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That was a mere detail.


An hon. MEMBER.: What difference does it make ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, when anything is quoted as having come from me, I like to be correctly quoted.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think I misrepresented my hon. friend the Postmaster General in the view he took of the fast Atlantic service 1 He has admitted that the past attempts to secure that service have been fruitless. I think he went further, and stated that the country at the present moment did not require that service.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not make any such statement.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That will be borne out by ' Hansard.'


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not at all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that as this is essentially a government of individual opinion. We are entitled to know the opinion of the hon. gentleman's colleagues. We have here the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), who is interested in the fast service. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine). I think that, under the circumstances, we are entitled to an individual expression of opinion from these gentlemen as to whether they coincide in the rather scornful expression of opinion we have heard from the Postmaster General as to this very important matter.


James Clancy: I am very glad to say that I can now furnish the Postmaster General with the information he pressed so strongly for. He wanted to know why the contract, if any, had not been executed. I frankly admitted that I was not prepared to offer any reasons.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) gave several reasons.


James Clancy: That is the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Sir William Mulock) language, not mine. The hon. gentleman pressed me very hard, because he wished the committee to believe that there was some substantial reason why that contract, if not executed, was delayed. That was the hon. gentleman's object, if he had any. There was no other object apparent from the course the hon. gentleman took. The reasons I gave were that posibly there was not time. Now I am going to read from a return that was brought down in connection with the fast Atlantic service. Here is what Mr. W. G. Parmalee, deputy minister, has to say :
Sealed tenders addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, care of the High Commissioner in London or to the undersigned, marked on the outside ' Tenders for steamship service, Canada and Great Britain,' will be received at the office of the High Commissioner in London, or at the Department of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada, up to and including Wednesday, June 10th, 1896.
That was the first time tenders had been asked for, and these tenders were to be received up to and including 10th June, 1896. AVe have a report here from the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, the late hon. W. B. Ives, dated 30th of June, 1890, of which I will read the first paragraph :
The undersigned, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has the honour to submit for the consideration of His Excellency the Governor General in Council the following :
Under the authority of an Order in Council of date the 6th of May, an advertisement was inserted in various Canadian and English papers asking for tenders for a ' fast Atlantic service,' under certain terms and conditions, copies of which, as hereto attached, were distributed to various steamship companies and to parties asking for the same. There were, within the time specified, three documents handed in at the office of the High Commissioner in London, endorsed ' tenders for steamship service, Canada and Great Britain,' and one was handed in at the Department of Trade and Commerce. I
I shall not read further than that. It is evident that the reasons I gave, while not the real reasons, were perfectly true and obvious, namely, that possibly there was not time. The hon. gentlemen will see from what I have read that in the first place tenders were asked for on the 6th of May, 1896, and the last day for receiving such tenders (was the 10th June, 1896. The elections took place on the 23rd of June, and this report made on the 30th of June by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, set forth that these tenders had been asked for, and asked practically the assent of the Governor General in Council to the contract, and the government resigned on the 11th of July following. Now,
I would ask the hon. gentleman, in face of the return that has been brought down, and of which I have made a slight quota-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK-.
tion, if it was not a fair suggestion to say that possibly there was not time to execute the contract.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I agree with the hon. gentleman In his last statement that when tenders were only received on the 10th of June, it was not unreasonable that the government should not have signed the contract on the 30th of June. I should be surprised if a contract of that magnitude could be dealt with in twenty days. The hon. gentleman has thrown some light on the subject by giving dates. But at the same time he does not dispose of the question. His party had been 18 years in office, and had had ample time to formulate a policy and carry it into effect if they desired. Why did they delay signing the contract until after they were defeated ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I would ask if the penalties attached to this contract with Petersen & Tate were ever called for by the government ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not recollect what penalties there were other than the deposit of the security in cash and the bank guarantee. The bank guarantee was given up several years ago in connection with the readjustment of the contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
Andrew B. Ingram: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What is the date of the Toronto meeting ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: 6th of October.


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not the same time, nor anywhere near it.


Andrew B. Ingram: This agreement was made on the 22nd of March, 1897.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is farther away yet from the October telegram.


Andrew B. Ingram: This was on the 22nd of March in the spring and the meeting in Toronto was in October.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend said that it was about the time of the Toronto meeting and he finds it was far away. *


Andrew B. Ingram: It was near enough to suit the purpose of the right hon. Prime Minister in reading such a telegram with the object of influencing the electors. There is no question about the penalties attached. If the company did not build their vessels after a certain time, if they did not do certain things at a certain time there are penalties mentioned in this contract.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the deposit and the guarantee. These are the penalties.


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, but in addition to that here is one of them :
Subject to the conditions hereinafter contained.. there shall be paid to Her Majesty as liquidated damages agreed to by the contractors :-
(a.) The sum of five hundred pounds on each occasion when the contractors fail to provide at the appointed Canadian or British port a mail ship in accordance with contract, ready to put to sea at the appointed time, or when such mail ship shall not actually put to sea and proceed on her voyage at the appointed time.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They would be very poor If we enforced that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why is it that these contractors were to be allowed 3i per cent and the hon. gentleman is now only allowing them 3 per cent. I think the government should not allow them any interest at all. I think they are doing very well to get their $50,000 back and this government have been lax in the performance of their duty in not demanding the payment of the forfeit by this company for failing to enter into this contract. It is well known that prior to 1890 one of the strongest supporters in the fast Atlantic service was Sir Charles Tupper. He came to this country in 1896, he became the premier of Canada, he acted in that capacity for sixty days and during that short period of time, as is conclusively shown by the Blue-book, the government of which he was the head were fully alive to this important question. As the result of advertisements asking for tenders to be closed on the 10th June, they had a contract prepared, signed by the government, and agaiting the signature of the Governor General. So, I say it does not lie in the 219
mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite to charge the government of that day with laxity in their duty to try and bring about this fast Atlantic service. But, this is in line with the policy of the Liberal party since 1890. They have no policy upon any particular question. They are simply opportunists. Even after they have' agreed on measures in Council and before bringing them down to this House, if popular opinion is against them they are prepared to revoke their measure and come down with a different policy next day to meet public clamour. When the government of the Conservative party ruled this country and when the hon. gentlemen then occupying seats on the opposite side of the House asked the government of the day where they stood on any particular question, the Conservative leader of the government rose up and declared their policy. If the opposition of that day asked any question concerning the policy of the government in any particular line the Conservative party were ready to state their policy.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They were great on policy.


Andrew B. Ingram: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They were better on policy than performance.


Andrew B. Ingram: They were a constructive party while hon. gentlemen opposite are a destructive party. That is the difference between the two parties. The Conservative party in opposition are not afraid to declare their policy. They are prepared to declare their policy on any line in regard to the government of this country, while the government lucks stamina and backbone enough to state what they think upon any question, and especially what their policy is in respect to the railway question. People have come to the conclusion, especially since what transpired here the other day, that the government are not prepared to announce themselves on any important or serious question. In addition to what I have said I desire to add that I think it is a crying shame that the business of the session should be in the position we find it to-day. When the speech from the Throne was brought down over four months ago, I want to know if the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurler) had it in view then to keep this House in session and to keep this opposition waiting for over four months for its policy to be presented on the transportation question. Did he have that in view at the time he came down with the declaration which was put in the mouth of the Governor General ? If he did not have that in view, how does it come that we have been kept here for four and a half months and that the government are not prepared to state to the opposition and to the country what their policy is upon the transportation ques1



tion ? It is a crying shame and I want to repudiate the assertion that is often made by hon. gentlemen on the other side of * the House that the opposition are to be charged with obstructing the business of the House. We are adopting the only legal and proper course that is open to the opposition, namely, to call the government to account for having failed to bring down important legislation that was promised to this House months ago. When the right hon. Prime Minister said the other day that it required courage and boldness to introduce a question of that kind a broad smile spread over the countenances of members of the opposition because we did not expect from the leader of a great party that it required boldness or stamina to come down and proclaim his policy.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: We are getting a little out of the track of the fast Atlantic line ?


Andrew B. Ingram: It is a little out of the track, but I think it is a good thing to remind hon. gentlemen of their shortcomings.


Samuel Hughes: Is it not congenial ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, very.


Andrew B. Ingram: The sooner hon. gentlemen proclaim their great measures which they propose to bring down to this House the sooner we will get through. In the meantime, as a humble member of this House, I want to deny that any hon. member on the opposite side of the House has any right to accuse any hon. gentlemen on this side with obstructing legislation?


Edmund Boyd Osler: To show that I did not exaggerate in the statement I made as to the effect of the celebrated cable, in regard to which, as the hon. Minister of Finance said, I was quoting from memory, I shall quote the ' Globe ' report of the banquet, which will show how" genuinely in earnest apparently the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues were at that time. This is from the ' Globe ' of the 7th October, 1897, and the banquet was on the 6th October :
If I find anything good in the programme of my predecessors-I hope Sir Frank Smith will not accuse me of any theft if 1 say so-(laughter). I am quite willing to put on the clothes of Sir Frank Smith, and they would be a good fit. I am sure. (Laughter). The government of which Sir Frank Smith was an honoured member had determined to have the fast Atlantic service, that is to say, the service to carry passengers especially, and to carry the mails. But, you know. I must say, though it be in the presence of Sir Frank Smith, that we are above all things an economical government. (Laughter).
What roars of laughter there would be if the right hon. Prime Minister had said that at a banquet at the present time !


Andrew B. Ingram: That is a compliment which I cannot pay to the government of which Sir Frank Smith was a member. (Laughter). I wish I could ; but the truth, you know, must be the truth upon all occasions. (Laughter). Sir Frank Smith's government had undertaken to give to that service a bonus, a subsidy, of $750,000 a year. We thought it was too much. We thought we could do it for less, and we succeeded in making a contract with a firm for a subsidy of $500,000, saving to the country therefore the sum of $250,000. We contracted with the firm of Petersen Tate & Co., a Newcastle firm, a firm composed as we ascertained, of men of the highest honour, of the highest integrity, and the highest competency in their profession. Mr. Petersen and Mr. Tate have had a good many obstacles to overcome, [DOT] as is always the case with men who launch a new idea into the world.
Here the Prime Minister acknowledges the truth of what I said, that it was a new idea and an experiment, and It turned out to be a fad.
Their idea was a new one, and therefore it met with objections and with discouragement from more than one class of people ; and not later than a few weeks ago, or a few days ago only, it was stated that the scheme of Mr. Petersen had fallen down, that it must be considered as absolutely a thing of the past. Mr. Petersen and Mr. Tate were at work. They work as men always work when they want to succeed. They said nothing ; they answered no accusations ; but to-day I have a telegram from my friend and colleague, Mr. Fielding, the Minister of Finance, to this effect : ' Petersen has made to-day the deposit required by the contract.' (Loud cheering and great enthusiasm).
The contract was signed and the deposit was paid. I was quite mild when I quoted the enthusiastic manner in which the Prime Minister elaborated on this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was the enthusiastic manner in which the telegram was worded.
Mr. OSLER, Well, I was quite right anyway.
It is with joy indeed that I welcome this explosion of satisfaction at the announcement that this scheme has not failed, but that it is to be carried through. I know that in some quarters this idea of having this passenger traffic amongst us was not popular ; but, sir, let me say to you that if there is a patriotic idea in the land it is the idea that we should not only carry the freight, but carry the' passengers between America and Europe. (Hear, hear, and applause). We can do it, we ought to do it, and now it is no longer in doubt.
What will the Prime Minister say to the Postmaster General's doubting to-night.
This line of steamers shall be floated probably within two years, certainly within three years ; and when we have this class of steamers afloat on the ocean I have no hesitation in saying, such is my confidence in the scheme-and it is a confidence which must be borne by every man who has looked into the subject-that we shall have the great bulk not only of Canadian traffic, but of American traffic as well, Sir, remember this, what I say is no idle boasting. Remember that the St. Lawrence route is the shortest of all routes. Now, as you know, all | men have an aversion to the sea-I know I have

-(laughter)-and my experience is not txcep-tional in this respect ; all men have a terror of the sea ; but when tourists know and are aware that upon the Canadian line, with a class of steamers having a speed of twenty knot3 an hour, equal in comfort to the best afloat on the ocean, there will be no more than four days between land and land-(applause)- the Canadian line will be patronized as no other. (Great cheering). What will be the case when this line is in operation ? The case will be this : that a passenger taking the steamer at Moville. say, if Moville is to be the Irish port, within less than four days will be in the strait of Belle Isle, and then within less than one day, or twenty-four hours, will be in the harbour of Quebec, and one day's sailing on the beautiful St. Lawrence with its magic scenery and free from all discomforts of the sea. (Applause). When we have this line with us we shall not only have the entire Canadian traffic, but we must as a necessity have the larger proportions of the American traffic. This that I say may perhaps seem presumptuous. It is not. At all events, if it is, I have such an unbounded faith in my ceuntry that I believe every word that I say now and I am sure it will come (.ut to be true also.
I do not think I can be accused of having exaggerated.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Who made that speech.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Why, that was the Prime Minister before an audience in Toronto.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When.


Edmund Boyd Osler: In October, 1897.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think I was quite right: when I suggested that the cablegram was in beautiful time. I have no doubt it had been waiting in the office for a considerable time and it was brought out and its date altered so as to make it opportune, and it was received with tremendous applause. It was the key note of the meeting; that the government had succeeded in securing a fast Atlantic service equal to the best on the continent; that they had repudiated the contract that had been made .with the Allans; that as an economic government should, they would save the country $250,000 a year, and that in two or three years at the outside the most magnificent fleet of boats on the ocean would be sailing from Quebec to Europe. This was a very poetic vision, but when it came to fulfilment the government were entirely unable to get any futlier than the initiatory stage, and the Minister of Finance had the deposit and he has held it at a rather high rate of interest for the benefit of the country ever since.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hour is late but I beg to rise to say that I am troubled about the speech of the Postmaster General. I feel a great deal of anxiety for him. He says he has been speaking for himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
219*


Mr. COCHRANE.: He will be out tomorrow.


Samuel Hughes: He is the master of the administration now.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think that the rule has been laid down very clearly that a Minister of the Crown in this country of ours has no right to speak for himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In England they have such a right, but England is a small country and the constitutional rule is not well known nor well understood. In Canada a Minister of the Crown has no right to speak for himself. Now, the Postmaster General has either spoken for himself or he has spoken of somebody else. If he has spoken for himself he has violated the constitution.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am very much afraid that he will be punished and his punishment will be severe indeed if he is punished as he deserves to be punished.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If the Postmaster General has spoken for the government he has no right to say that he was speaking for himself. We are in a difficult position. We have the right to know, when a minister of the Crown speaks in parliament, whether he speaks for the government or whether he speaks for nobody at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: He has no right to speak for himself and if he does not speak for his colleagues he speaks for nobody. I am anxious to know where we stand tonight. We have heard a great deal about the fast line. The Postmaster General has reproached one of our friends with the statement that he was off the track. I would like to see the track of that fast line.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If there is any track to that fast line at all I want to know where that track is.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) To Halifax.


Joseph Israël Tarte: In the winter months Halifax is the right track, but I would like to know what track the government intends to take in the summer months. One member of the government said that it was premature to expect that the contract should be awarded now. I have some experience in awarding contracts and, when tenders are asked it is an evidence that the plans are matured and that the tenders are to be decided upon. When those tenders were asked the government had a policy and the country has a right to know when the government will adjudicate upon the tenders.

Parliament is sitting and in my liumlile judgment I think it is the proper time to decide upon this very important matter. We have been years and years trying to arrange for the fast line. I am not prepared to say that the government have not done the best they could, but that best has not been much. I am very sorry to say so, but perhaps it is just as well that we have not decided sooner. However, it seems to me that now that the government have asked for tenders, and having told the country that they were ready for the question, they should take the House into their confidence and decide one way or the other. Rut. again. I am very much afraid my hon. friend the Postmaster General is swimming in deep water.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, Mr. Chairman, I must pay my hon. friend the courtesy of recognizing his remarks ; I quite understand the tenor in which they are expressed. He is quite aware of the efforts made by the government to secure the fast line ; it is all a question of terms. It' the people of New York desired a line, they could have one, as that city affords such attractions on very satisfactory terms. Our own Canadian ports are coming to the front, and becoming more and more attractive to shipping, and as the days go by, we shall be able to make better terms. The government, ever since it was formed, has been prepared to enter into a contract if satisfactory terms could be secured; and I think, with the progress the country has made, is making, and is sure to make, that a satisfactory contract may be looked for in the near future. It is, however, a question dependent on the amount the country is prepared to pay, and the cost in turn depends on the attractiveness of the route itself. If Canada were a sufficiently populous and wealthy country, we would not have to pay a subsidy; we would have fast lines coming here because it paid them to come. But all things go by comparison. My hon. friend is quite aware that we are as anxious as the opposition to have a fast line when it can be obtained on terms which will be deemed to be satisfactory.


William Ross: I think it is a fortunate thing that no contract has been entered into, and I am surprised to hear hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House speaking of this as a fast line. It is no such thing ; it is a slow line. With the progress which Canada is making, and with the intelligence of the people, I think we must one of these days have a fast line that will be worthy of the name. Of course, the selection of the route is a question for the future to decide ; but when we find ourselves so many knots below what is the case elsewhere, we are very far behind the times if we speak of this as a fast line. I am well pleased that no contract


Joseph Israël Tarte: has been entered into, because we would be only the laughing stock of other nations if we dared to call what Canada has a fast line.
Amount required to meet the expenses of the royal commission appointed to make inquiry into recent industrial disputes in the province of British Columbia (Including payments not exceeding $5 each per day to members of the civil service for services in connection with this commission, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act), $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the position of the work of that commission at the present time ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This commission was appointed this spring to make an inquiry into the clauses of the industrial disturbances in the province of British Columbia, which have been more or less frequent for some time. This spring there were strikes in the city of Vancouver, and at the Union and Extension coal mines. The inquiry was conducted by two gentlemen, Chief Justice Hunter and Mr. Elliott Rowe.


Samuel Hughes: What is Mr. Rowe's occupation or profession


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 
Joseph Israël Tarte: Are all the strikes over in British Columbia now ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think that is the ease. The strikes at the coal mines and on the railway are settled now. Calgary is not in British Columbia, but there was a carpenters' strike there which paralyzed many other industries. That strike, which had been in existence for many months, has now been declared off. These men have resumed work and requested the deputy to arrange for a standing agreement between the men and their masters for the settlement of the future disputes so as to avoid strikes. My deputy informs me that the employers have agreed to that arrangement and have even gone further. They have entered into its spirit and since the men have consented that there shall be no strike without an appeal being made first to arbitration, they, in a like manner, bind themselves not to lock out without first referring the dispute equally to the standing board of arbitrators for Calgary. The coal mine strikes at Union and Extension mines had been in existence for several months and was due to causes which will be made quite clear when the report is presented to parliament.


Andrew B. Ingram: How many days was this commission sitting altogether ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The commission issued towards the end of April and lasted continuously. I fixed a date within which the work was to be completed so that there might be no delay. The deputy told me that the report of the commission alone covers about 150 pages of type written foolscap and that the evidence is most voluminous. It was taken in public meeting, the court-house being thronged, and the questions fought out well on both sides by counsel.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who were the counsel ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There may have been different counsel at different places, but, I recollect the names of some that my deputy gave me. One of the counsels was Mr. Wilson, a member of the British Columbia government, another was Mr. E. P. Davis, a leading counsel in the city of Vancouver. There may have been others whose names I have not heard. I think flint Messrs. Wilson and Davis were representing the employees. Mr. Bodwell may have been engaged in the case as well, but that I do not know.


Andrew B. Ingram: I notice that this item is for $10,000. Were there any other charges?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: None whatever. This is the total amount.


Andrew B. Ingram: What pay do the commissioners receive ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There were two members of the civil service on that commission. One was Mr. King the Deputy Minister of Labour, and the other a short hand writer in the Labour Department. The item of $5 per day each is for those two.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Were they getting this over and above their own salary ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, and it was very reasonable that they should have it. It is quite impossible for people travelling to make up 'for themselves their legitimate disbursements. There are many small items of disbursement, which are not strictly taxable in their living expenses, but which they have to pay.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Their expenses were paid, apart from this $5.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The $5 was to cover any expenses over and above living expenses.


Andrew B. Ingram: What was the pay of the commissioners per day ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think the Chief Justice was paid $40 per day. I do not remember what the others were paid. There will be some printing to pay for too.


Samuel Hughes: Did the hon. gentleman not pay a substitute for Rev. Mr. Rowe ? While he was away, who looked after the spiritual wants of liis people ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know that he has any charge.


Richard Blain: What demand was there for the appointment of this commission ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What does the hon. gentleman mean ?


Richard Blain: I remember the hon. gentleman making the statement that the Labour Department were now ready to cope with strikes in the different parts of the country. He instanced Vnlleyfield, and sent his deputy to Rossland to look after a gold strike. I would like to know whether the hon. gen-


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman give us the information later ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes; of course these items will appear in the Auditor General's Report.

698S
tleman has found his department unable to cope with these strikes, and for that reason has appointed a commission.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The object of this commission was to take evidence. It was a semi-judicial tribunal, clothed with the power to take evidence and examine witnesses under oath. The chief justice is eminently qualified to weigh evidence and draw conclusions. That commission has rendered great public service. I have already heard from British Columbia satisfactory expressions of opinion as to the good it has accomplished, and my hon. friend will put himself and his friend in a false position in the eyes of the people of that province, if he should assume an attitude of hostility to that commission. The commissioners were men of eminent standing and knowledge and had the confidence of both parties. It has restored harmony and brought to light circumstances which were hidden and will be most interesting and valuable to the industrial world.


Andrew B. Ingram: Two or three years ago serious difficulty arose in the mining districts in British Columbia. The hon. minister sent his deputy out there for the purpose of bringing about a settlement; and I think that both sides were dissatisfied with his ruling. I suppose the state of feeling was such there that those who had invested capital and those employed in the mines thought it was as well a commission should sit for the purpose of inquiring and placing the facts before-the House, so that members could find out where the cause of the trouble lay. I presume that the hon, gentleman from the North-west Territories who introduced the Bill in another portion of this legislature for the purpose of preventing foreigners coming into this country to agitate strikes was largely prompted by the difficulties that occurred in British Columbia. If we have the information that this commission have to-day, it may be useful for us, and if the hon. minister will lay it before the House before some of the Bills now coming up for consideration are passed, it may assist in the discussion of those Bills.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I requested the deputy to-day to have the report printed with all despatch, and I have no doubt he already has placed it in the hands of the printer. He only arrived to-day. My hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) is entirely misinformed as to the supposed state of feeling in Rossland and of the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Labour. The Deputy Minister of Labour was invited to Rossland to deal with troubles between employers and employees in the mining districts. There was a strike-


Andrew B. Ingram: A couple of years ago.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not so long ago as that, I should think. He -went


Richard Blain: there and investigated the cause of the strike and made his report. I do not wish to be bound by what I say now, because my recollection of the facts may be astray. But, as I remember it, this report was to the effect that the strike ought not to have taken place. His verdict was against the strikers. It is hardly likely that both parties would be satisfied with the verdict, but I have reason to believe that some of the strikers have come to the conclusion that they were in the wrong, and that the report was justified. I think probably the report of the commission may incidentally explain the causes that led to the strike in Rossland. It was not necessary to go to Rossland, because peace had been restored, the parties were at work again, and a united effort was being made by both sides to revive the mining industry.' The commissioners thought that, under the circumstances it would be better not to go there and inquire into the causes of the trouble in Rossland. That was the decision of the commissioners in their wisdom, and I agree with it; it was not in the public interest to revive the feeling that existed so long between the parties.


Richard Blain: That was the reason I asked the question. The Postmaster General has stated that when the strike took place in Rossland an invitation was extended to his department to send the deputy minister there, and he agreed to the request and sent the deputy minister. But what I wanted to know was why, when a strike took place in another part of the province, he did not send the deputy minister there rather than appoint a very expensive commission ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have given my explanation.


Richard Blain: Did the hon. minister find that his department was unable to cope with the strike and the labour trouble? in British Columbia, and for that reason he was compelled to appoint this commission? While I am on myr feet, I wotilcl ask the hon. gentleman to answer the question where the request came from for the appointment of this commissison to investigate the labour troubles in British Columbia ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Macpherson) discusssed the subject with me and favoured the appointment of commissioners. Sc did Senator Templeman, a member of the government And they doubtless voiced the opinion of British Columbia to a considerable extent. I think my hon. friend from Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Gallilier) also pressed it upon the consideration of the government, and, in fact, my recollection is that all the members from British Colum-

bia supporting the government expressed the same opinion.


Samuel Hughes: And did not all the members opposing the government do the same ?
The rOSTMASTER GENERAL. I have no doubt my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes)-speaking now in all seriousness- if he has followed the reports in the press of the doings of this commission-will approve of the work that has been done, and will regard the commission as a very good thing for the province of British Columbia.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Postmaster General did not answer the question put to him as to whether this commission was asked for by anybody. What strikes me is this : The Department of Labour costs us about $40,000 a year, and the amount of this vote is about one-third of that amount. Mr. King, I think, about doubled his salary for a considerable amount of time by this commission.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: How ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: His salary, I believe, is $2,500. And on this commission he gets $5 a day and all expenses besides. I think that about amounts to doubling his salary.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Is that a fair statement?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it is. If it was necessary to take evidence to place before the House and the country in reference to the industrial position in British Columbia, it might have been done with far less expenditure. In fact, I do not see why Mr. King, if he is competent to till the position of Deputy Minister of Labour, could not have proceeded there. Commisssions of that kind have been issued and have taken evidence without so much expense to the country.


Samuel Hughes: What instructions did the hon. minister give to the commissioners ? Did he direct what questions to ask ?


William Alfred Galliher: J may say to my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), also to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr Monk) and my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes), who have spoken, that, living as I do in British Columbia and in the mining districts where a number of these strikes have occurrred. in the coal mines, the gold mines and others, I may be permitted to say something on the necessity for such a commission as this. If these hon. gentlemen lived there as I do, and understood the conditions as I do, I do not think they would for a moment cavil at the government having appointed this commission rather than attempt to carry out the work by any single officer. This commission was given a very wide scope as to the taking of evidence and inquiry generally ; and, if
I may anticipate what the report of the commimssioners will be, I think members of the House will regard the appointment of the commission as in the interest of public peace generally and in the interest of trade generally, and will be thankful to the go\-ernment for appointing that commission to bring out these facts. I do not think that there is any way in which the work could have been so successfully done as by the means adopted by the government.
With regard to the strike in Rossland, some two years ago, I was in Nelson, not far from there, at the time Mr. King came out, and I may say that Mr. King did everything possible to bring about an understanding between the different parties. He met with some difficulty at the hands of the unions, and in fact was at first refused the privilege of interviewing the men generally upon the question. When it was afterwards suggested that they should discuss the matter and come to an arrangement, I am informed that the unions would not agree to be bound by any decision that was come to ; that while they were willing to submit the difficulty to investigation, they would not bind themselves to accept a verdict. Therefore, no fault could be found with Mr. King, because he did his duty as far as he was permitted to do it. A similar result might have occurred in the present case had that course been adopted. But as I say, the commission that has just sat were in a position to get at the root of the whole evil. I trust they have done so, and from the personnel of the men who compose that board of commissioners, I am satisfied they did do so. I think when their report is brought down a state of facts will be disclosed which will show that it was necessary to inquire into the power, if any, exercised by the western federation of miners or other organizations of the United States, over our unions in Canada. That certainly is a matter about which the people of Canada should have something to say, and in relation to which they should be in possession of the facts. If such power is detrimental to the interests of trade and the relations that should subsist between employer and employee in this country, the sooner the western federation of miners are cut off from exercising any control over our unions in Canada, the better for all concerned in Canada.


Andrew B. Ingram: My hon. friend seems to find fault with us, and says that we are cavilling at the committee.


Mr GALLIHER.: Not at all. I did not mean that. I think it is perfectly proper for members of the opposition to make themselves familiar with the reasons for the actions of the government, and they can only do so by questioning the minister.


Andrew B. Ingram: We are not as well posted as the ministers, and we have to ask

for information in this way. But the hon. gentleman has gone too far when 'lie says that no fault was found with Mr. King, because fault was found with him.


William Alfred Galliher: By whom was the fault found ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister has said by the union.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Some of the men, I do not know whether it was the union.


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister has referred to the committee not sitting in Ross-land. That may have been a proper move for the commission to take. Rossland is certainly one of the most troublesome points in British Columbia as regards labour troubles.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: All is quiet there now.


Andrew B. Ingram: Here is a commission appointed for which the country has to pay, supposed to be composed of good sensible and competent men, and surely those interested in a matter of so much importance would find no fault in the commission sitting in Rossland to investigate the difficulties there because if they had gone to Rossland they would probably be in a better position to get evidence affecting the strikes in the past, and be able possibly to prevent them occurring in the future. However, I do not want to anticipate. I am willing to wait until the report is brought down, when we will have an opportunity of criticising the department and condemning it, if it deserves condemnation.
Amount required to meet expenses in connection with the commission to inquire into the Martineau defalcations. $1,100.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The three commissioners were Mr. Courtney, the deputy minister; Mr. Burn and Mr. Kent. The deputy minister receives no compensation. The report has been brought down.


Richard Blain: Referring to the preceding item, did the minister say that the government instructed the commissioners where they were to hold their sittings, and that they were not to go to Rossland ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) asked what instructions were given to the commissioners. Their instructions were contained in the Order in Council appointing them, and required the commissioners to investigate the causes of the industrial and transportation troubles that have taken place in British Columbia. I think the commissioners were requested to sit at certain places, but well on towards the close of their sittings, the secretary of I Mr. INGRAM.
the commission telegraphed me to the effect that the commissioners thought it inexpedient in the public interest to go to Rossland, and left the matter in my hands to decide. I concurred with them in that view, and relieved them from going to Rossland. I do not think it would have been in the public interest to do so under the circumstances.


Richard Blain: Would the minister give his reasons why he thought it was not in the interest of capital and labour that they should not sit at Rossland ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Among the reasons set forth in the communication sent to me, one was that peace had been restored, and that it was not deemed expedient to bring the two parties, who had so recently been in hostility, into court again. There had been a long strike between employer and employee, and a great deal of trouble had been occasioned, loss of money, people had gone away, industry had suffered, and people were heartily sick of the trouble and wanted peace. It was thought that to bring these two hostile parties together again and inquire into the causes of their quarrel in the past, would have a bad effect, and would disturb the harmony that had been restored.
Grant to the Canadian South African Memorial Association, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The object of this is to assist this association in marking the graves of Canadian soldiers who lost their lives in South Africa. The work has been undertaken by an association one of the chief members of which is Lady Minto. The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) is also one of its members, and I think that the military people generally are associated with it. They have raised by private subscription between $6,000 and $7,000 and they have askedl that the government should ' contribute. I am inclined to think that the government can do the work better in this way by co-operating with the association than ir we were to undertake it independently. The military people are giving a great deal of attention to the work, they have the cooperation of the military authorities in South Africa and as a result of this fund there will not be a grave of a Canadian soldier who lost his life in South Africa that will not be marked by a suitable monument.


Samuel Hughes: The Dominion government assumes no control ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, we give them this grant the same as we would give it to any other organization.
To cover unprovided items, 1901-2, as per Auditor General's Report, page C-4, $200,635.65.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a formal item which the Auditor General desires to have passed at the end of the year to square his accounts. Where an appropriation is made for a department it sometimes happens that in one branch the appropriation is over expended, whereas in another branch there is an amount that is unused. Of course, the grants unused are greatly in excess of the over expenditures. The Auditor General likes to have this vote put into the Supply Bill. It is not really a vote of money, but it is rather a formal confirmation of the small over expenditures that have occurred during the year.


Robert Laird Borden: I was merely going to observe that it would have the effect of increasing the appropriation for a particular item.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As to a particular item it may be so, but the documents show that there are very large sums that are unused. Here aud there it is found impossible to keep the expenditure to the exact sum appropriated, and in sum cases by transfers from. one branch to another a readjustment takes place. This is not properly a vote of money, but it is simply to enable the Auditor General to square his accounts at the end of the year. I confess that for some years I had some difficulty in understanding why this was necessary, but it has been the practice of parliament for some years to vote an item of this character.
Scientific institutions and hydrographic surveys-amount required for time ball at Halifax N.S.. $1,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This time ball is erected at tlie request of the board of trade and the shipping interest at Halifax to give the mariners the time. The same thing exists at every ocean port. There is one at Montreal and also one at Quebec, maintained by the harbour commissioners. This is a new one and it is being erected under the supervision of Prof. Stupart, of the meteorological service.
Gratuity to Capt. A. M. MacGregor, late master of the surveying steamer ' Bayfield,' on his retirement (one year's salary), $1,050.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Captain MacGregor, who is 75 years of age, has been 18 years in the service. He is now too old for the service and this is the ordinary gratuity of one year's salary.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is this Captain MacGregor who used to sail on Lake Huron and Lake Superior ?
THE MINISTER OF MARINE' AND FISHERIES. Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Thomson) wanted to say a word or two in regard to this*item not with the idea of objecting to it but he was rather inclined to think that some more liberal allowance should be made to this gentleman, who, I understand, has been twenty-seven years in the service of the country.
THE MINISTER OF MARINE AVD FISHERIES. Captain MacGregor is perfectly satisfied with this, and this is the ordinary gratuity.


Robert Laird Borden: I know nothing of the circumstances beyond what was mentioned to me by my hon. friend from North Grey. If the captain himself is perfectly satisfied with the allowance I would have nothing to say about it.


Samuel Hughes: Is there not some rule that a month's salary shall be given for every year's service ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That comes under the Superannuation Act. This Is not under the Superannuation Act.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Captain MacGregor is perfectly satisfied.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What will be the order of business for to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Several of the Bills and resolutions on the Paper may be reached, but we will move supply, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) resuming consideration of his estimates. There are a number of scattered items yet which, if opportunity offers, will be brought forward. I would like myself to invite attention to the .supplementary estimates of the Railway Department, and if I can find time to-morrow to get the information they may be brought forward, but I doubt if I will have the time.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it the intention to take the resolutions with regard to bounties.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Possibly. My hon. friend had better assume that they may' be brought up. Perhaps there may be other business ahead, but if we do bring them up I would like my hon. friend to feel that he is not witnout notice.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12,55 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, July 21, 1903.