1903-07-15

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGES BALL (Nicolet) moved that that portion of the eighth report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, reporting the preamble of Bill (No. 36) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company not proven, be referred - back to the said" committee for further consideration.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Was not this motion disposed of yesterday ?


Mr. SPROULE.: That was another Bill.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think that was concerning the Ottawa Valley Railway.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not think any notice of motion was given, therefore I take the point of order.


Mr. BALL.: operated upon it. It was in good running order. From Yamaska to St. Francis the road was completed and all they had to do was to renew the ties. From Nicolet to St. Gregoire the road was in the same shape. The ties had to be renewed and at St. Gregoire a trestle had to be built. From St. Francis to Nicolet, eighteen miles, the dump was nearly all made and the right of way paid for. I suppose this will compensate for the 61 miles and the 6} miles of road where the ties had to be renewed; so, that you may say that there were twenty-four miles completed, leaving fifty-nine miles yet to be built, and taking the subsidy of $604,000 for that portion it makes about $10,500 per mile. One would think that this road would have been built but it has not. Let us go now to the Baie des Chaleurs. I suppose some of my friends are very anxious to see me go down there. Mr. Galyndez got a portion of the charter of the company revived permitting the construction of thirty miles of the road from Cap Lin to Paspebiac. The government did not grant any more aid because they had no faith in that gentleman. What becomes of the portion from Paspebiac to Gaspe Basin ? There is a company formed to obtain a charter for that part of the road, not with the intention of building it, but to sell to Mr. Galyndez, as they think he is a responsible man to build the road. The name of that company is the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company. Is this company more bona fide than the South Shoi-e Railway Company ? The Quebec, Atlantic and Western Company have a charter from the Quebec government which they allowed to lapse without even surveying a mile of the road, but this year they came here for a federal charter and the government was good 'enough to grant it. Now, Mr. Speaker, when you know the three companies that were granted subsidies you can easily judge which is the most meritorious. The South Shore Railway did not build an inch of the road, but deceived the government and deceived everybody else. Neither did the other company build the road, but Mr. Galyndez, between the summer of 1901 and the fall of 1902 completed his thirty miles of the road to the satisfaction of the government and to the satisfaction of the people of the vicinity as well. It is not asking too much that this charter should be revived. It may be said that this company owes a great deal of money to labourers. That Is true. But, Sir, these people, if they were not living happy were at any rate sleeping ail right. However, some time ago tlie member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) thought that they lived too happily, and so he put a sword in their hearts and twisted it so as. to shake them up. He created an agitation, called on them to file their accounts with the Dominion government and promised that they would be all paid. Well, Mr. BALL.
since that time these yeople are not sleeping so well. Sometimes they wake up with a great hope that they are going to be paid but the next day they are disgusted when they find they are not. The bon. gentleman (Mr. Marcil) promised them lots of honey and milk, but he has not been able to deliver the goods. He wants to prevent Mr. Galyndez from building the road, and so to kill the cow which gives them the milk, and as for the honey he is acting like the bumblebee, which makes a good deal of noise, but very little honey. If he wants to make his constituents happy I will give him a little bit of advice. The Quebec government owes the company $110,000, and if the hon. gentleman, with his great prestige and influence, brings it to bear upon the Quebec government and persuades them to pay this money to the poor people they will be as happy as possible. Some one wanted to murder the Bill on its second reading and I telegraphed to Montreal to find out tlie exact amount the Quebec government owes to this company. I got this reply from the president of the company, dated the 14th of April last :
Geo. Ball, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
By the Conversion Act of 1897, the Quebec legislature converted the Baie des Chaleurs deferred land grant of 800,000 acres at seventeen and a-half cents making $140,000 in cash. Under guarantee agreement company deposited this amount with the government to he repaid as work progressed. About $30,000 was paid on account ,of wages and the balance of $110,000 has never been paid by the government although the work has been done.
It was specially set, aside for payment of wages and help. Had the Quebec government carried out Its obligation no workman would have waited a day for his money. The government refused to pay and refuse to allow the company to use it.
Now listen to this and it is most important :
The Dominion government has never paid a dollar of subsidies to the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company.
This government never paid a dollar, although they grumble a good deal and ou tlie other hand they paid lots of money to the South Shore Railway Company without any grumbling.
"While the shareholders have paid up more than half a million of dollars.
The company presented a petition of right to the Quebec government on the 7th of August, 1900, but received an answer on the 16th that the fiat would not be granted to them. So they kept the $110,000 to make a surplus every year.
Now, I would call on the Liberal party to help me to pass this Bill through. I have heard that it is a very fair party. On the 4th of April last I happened to put my hand on a newspaper called ' Le Canada,' and I read on the fourth page of that paper

the programme of the Liberal party. I will read a part of that programme: (Translation.)
Faithful as we are to the traditions of the Liberal party which we represent, we disclaim any idea of enslavement. As stated not long ago, in the House by our leader, Sir Wilfird Laurier, it is not a principle with us Liberals that all minds must be cast in the same mould, that all wheals must revolve in the same groove that we must act like a flock of sheep, and wherever one jumps, the others must follow. That is not our standard of excellence.
Now, gentlemen, here is an opportunity for you to show that you are in earnest. We will see whether the hon. gentlemen are all going to pass through the gap made by the hon. member fur Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Le-mieux), who have jumped past the wall, so far as the proprieties and the rules of this House are concerned, in their attempt to kill this Bill in the embryo.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would ask the hon. gentleman to address the Chair.


Georges Ball: Now, Mr. Speaker, do you not think we deserve to have this Bill granted, after what this paper says about the Liberal party ? I would not sit down without saying a few words in regard to Mr. C. N. Armstrong. I am sure the House would not be pleased if I did not do so. I was here yesterday and heard the discussion, and I heard what some of the speakers said about that gentleman. I do not see what the Liberal party can have against Mr. Armstrong. He never says anything against them-never a word. All I know that he has done for the Liberal party has been that he gave $100,000 of the money of the Bale des Chaleurs Railway to Mr. Pacaud, of Quebec, to bring out the election in favour of the Liberal party ; that is to say, the most of it went there, and the balance went to pay some of his Liberal friends' notes ; and you would be very much surprised if I were to give you some of the names. My hon. friend here (Mr. E. F. Clarke) is afraid I will name some 'of them. He need not be afraid.


Mr. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure).: Mr. Speaker, I must object to this motion on the ground that this Bill came before the Railway Committee, was discussed at length there, and was thrown out both this year and the year before. I am sorry that the time of the House should be taken up again with this question ; but I am unable to allow the statements of the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Ball) to go down on ' Hansard ' without contradiction. I represent the constituency which is chiefly interested in this railway, though other constituencies are also Interested in it, and I would not like the hon. gentleman's statements to go unanswered and unchallenged. I have the greatest respect for the hon. gentleman. I
believe he himself is one of the victims of the gentleman he mentioned in his speech, and if I could assist him personally in any way, I would gladly do so. But we are now dealing with the public interests, and it is impossible for me to allow this Bill to go through, and to allow the charter of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company to be revived, for reasons which are best known to the country and the House. The Bill under consideration at present is for the purpose of extending for live' years the powers granted to the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company in 1S93-4, which expired in 1899 and were partially revived in 1901. This Bill (No. 3G), is to revive those powers, which gave the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company the right to build a road from Gaspe basin to Sault Ste. Marie. The report of the Railway Department says this was done by the company entering into an agreement with certain companies named for the purchase or lease of their railways, in whole or in part between the points named. Agreements were made by the company for the purchase of the Baie des Chaleurs Railway, for utilizing the bridge of the Montreal Bridge Company, for the purchase of the Great Eastern Railway between Yamaska and St. Gregoire, and for the purchase of the Ottawa Valley Railway between Lachute and St. Andrews, and ultimately extending to Sault Ste. Marie. This project has fallen to the ground years ago, the company has no legal existence, and the only railway that is operated is the old Baie des Chaleurs Railway. The Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company, in 1900, being unable to meet its obligations, unable to pay interest on the amount of money which had been advanced to it, transferred its road over to trustees represented by Mr. Galyndez, mentioned by the hon. member for Nicolet. These trustees have been operating the Baie des Chaleurs branch of the railway during the last three years. The rest of the railway never had any real existence. The Ottawa Valley portion was dealt with yesterday, the Montreal Bridge portion was dealt with by the House last year and was withdrawn from the Railway Committee this morning, so that the only portion of the road, which really has any existence, is the Baie des Chaleurs portion, and that is now transferred to trustees. In face of these facts, is it possible to revive ail the powers of the company from GaspS Basin to Sault Ste. Marie for five years, and to add to these powers the permission to this company to connect with the Grand Trunk Railway, the Jacques Cartier Union, the Grand Trunk Railway Pacific, the Cana-adian Northern Railway, the South Shore Railway, the Algoma Central, the Hudson Bay, the Central Counties Railway Company, the Guelph and Grenville and St. ChrysostOme Railway ? Here is a company, which is to all intents practically insolvent,

whose notes were sold last year, or the year before, in the city of Montreal at auction at five cents in the dollar, after having been negotiated at the Ville Marie Bank, and the negotiation of that paper brought about the failure of that bank and sent its cashier and the broker who negotiated the notes to the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary for seven years each. These people, represented by Mr. 0. N. Armstrong, who is the chief mover in this instance, are asking parliament to revive the charter. What have they done to entitle them to a revival ? Let me speak of the Baie des Chaleurs section, with which I am most conversant and in which I am primarily interested. They took over that company and gave it a new name. They constructed thirty miles, and the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals has to-day in his possession affidavits to the effect that $226,000 are due the people of Bonaventure for labour and material and right of way. This company has transferred the road to trustees. These trustees appealed to me after my election to try and induce the Dominion government to revive the subsidy on the thirty miles of road, which subsidy had not been paid, the Dominion government refusing to pay anything to Mr. Armstrong. Overlooking the fact that this company had been used as a political machine against me in the election, and looking solely to the interest of the county I have the honour to represent, I asked the government to revive that subsidy on the thirty miles of road. That was done, but it was especially stipulated that the payments should be made by the Railway Department, first, to the Hamilton Bridge Company for four bridges when erected; in the second place, to the trustees when they made proof of the work they had done; and the remainder to the labourers, according to their claims. These works have been completed as required by the engineer of the Railway Department. These trustees, without putting one dollar of their own money into this new work, secured an advance from the Banque Nationale and are now at the door of the Dominion treasury claiming $136,000 for the completion of this portion of the road, leaving but $1,6,000 to meet the $226,000 claims which I have mentioned. The hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Ball) appeals to this House on behalf of Mr. Galyndez. I must say that since Mr. Galyndez has operate^ the road, he has paid his labourers and train men, which was a thing unheard of under the regime of Mr. Armstrong. But Mr. Galyndez put none of his own money into the building of the thirty miles. The only work done has been done out of the subsidy voted-Chap. 26 of 1901. It was my duty to oppose this claim of $136,000, leaving only $16,000 for labour. I thought that that was not fair to the people who had built the road. The trustees ask for not only the complet0 subsidies but a double subsidy, when two-thirds of the original work done by the Mr. MARCIL (Boaaventure).
people remains unpaid. I know that there was an understanding with the trustees that they should be paid for the work performed on the last thirty miles, but, as far, as I understood it and as far as the government understood it, that work consisted in putting up four bridges and building two miles of road. These two miles between New Carlisle and Paspebiac are not operated by this company, and yet we see in their accounts a claim for $136,000. It would be unfair and unjust and unbusinesslike to take into consideration this Bill, which was very properly thrown out by the Railway Committee. Some days ago Mr. Galyndez was called to Montreal to testify as witness in the case of John Mason vs. C. N. Armstrong. Mr. Galyndez stated that during the last three years he advanced sums ranging from $3,000 to $8,500 per annum to Mr. C. N. Armstrong, so that Mr. Armstrong has drawn in the last three years out of the Baie des Chaleurs subsidy the sum of $10,000, when $226,000 remained unpaid to the labourers who built the road, the farmers who gave the right of way, the boarding-house keepers who boarded the men, and the merchants who furnished the supplies. I want to point out this fact that nine-tenths of all the claims against the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway are from Conservatives in Bonaventure, who trusted Mr. Armstrong and his company. The hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Ball) has said that no subsidy has been paid the Atlantic 'and Lake Superior Company. That is the case, because that company has no existence. But the various roads that go to make it up have received $1,643,644 from the Dominion and local governments. They have received from the federal government, $696,145; and from the local governmnt. $947,499; making a total of $1,643,644 for 100 miles; and $226,000 remain unpaid on thirty miles of that road alone. The claims on the seventy other miles I have never been able to induce the government to take up. The people of Bonaventure and Gaspe are anxious to have railway communications. The Conservative gbvernment of 1882 recognized tljat Gas-pdsia is entitled to railway communication and undertook to build the first twenty miles from Metapedia down to Gaspe, provided the cost should not exceed $300,000. No tender Tvas offered below $300,000, and the following year the administration was induced to give over the construction of these twenty miles to a company. That was the beginning of the misfortunes of the Gaspe peninsula and the inauguration of the series of scandals which have since then become a by-word of the railway history of Canada.
I stand to-day representing that const!-, tuency, and I know that the constituency of my hen. friend from Gaspe, which adjoins mine, will ask what I ask. I ask this House do decide that the time has at last come when this government should see to it

that the people of the peninsula of Gaspe, comprising the counties of Gaspe and Bona-venture, should have their fair share of justice, that some of the benefits that have been thrown so liberally, so generously to every nook and corner of this Dominion should be extended to that portion of Canada. The peninsula of Gaspg is inhabited by a hardy, worthy sea-faring people, whose ancestors were among the first to settle in Canada, the land having been discovered by Jacques Cartier himself. It is one of the oldest settled portions of Quebec and of the Dominion. The time has passed when that population should be left at the mercy of these railway schemers, railway promoters and all kinds of charter-mongers. I appeal now to the government to take up this question and to solve it once for all. The road has reached Paspebiac; let it be carried, to Gaspe Basin. That is one of the most beautiful ports in North America. It is open ten months in the year. It was visited in 1860 by our present sovereign, then Prince' of AVales. When ascending the St. Lawrence his ship and the accompanying fleet were caught in the storm, and they sought shelter in Gaspe Basin. Further up the coast we reach Paspebiac from which, during nine or ten months of every year, sailing vessels leave on trading voyages to the West Indies, South America, the Channel Islands and many other parts of the world. We have a magnificent soil; we. have splendid fisheries; we have a climate unsurpassed. The hardy and worthy people living there numbering fifty thousand souls have done their share to build up the Dominion of Canada, they have contributed to the construction of our railways and our . canals; and yet, in some of the remote parts of the peninsula of Gasp4, but for the mail carrier they would be altogether ignorant, so far as personal experience is concerned, of the very existence of this federal government. Is that the justice that should be meted out to these people ? I ask that this motion be thrown out and that the time of this parliament be no more taken up with schemes of this kind; I ask that this chapter in the history of the peninsula be closed; and I appeal to the members of this House to extend to the Gaspe peninsula the justice to which it is entitled.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Gaspg).: 1 heartily concur in the remarks made by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Mareil).
1 know that no more determined champion of our rights could be found, nor one more eloquent. He represents the sentiments and opinions of the vast majority of our electors. The county of GaspS has been denied with a portion of the county of Bonaventure, the benefits of railway communications. I believe the time has come at last when the Dominion government should give our electors the help toward the construction of railways that they require. But 208
the question before you, Mr. Speaker, is not the necessity of getting some help from the Dominion government for building said railway, because I am sure that my hon. friend (Mr. Mareil) and I can succeed in convincing the leader of the House and the next Minister of Railways and Canals that the Gaspfi Peninsula is entitled to its railway. But, Sir, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ball), who represents the county of Nicolet, my old friend, asks this House to refer back to the Committee on Railways and Canals a Bill which has already been thrown out three times by that committee. I think it would be a reflection on the Railway Committee if this Bill were referred to them again. This question was discussed in 1899, when Mr. C. N.' Armstrong, the chief mover in these railway schemes was present in the committee. I remember very well that Sir Charles Tupper, leader of the opposition at that time, was present. He did not know Mr. Armstrong, but he was simply humiliated on learning there and then the several nefarious schemes of Mr. Armstrong and nothing remained for him to do but to indignantly withdraw his support from him. Later on, Mi-. Armstrong came back to get his charter revived. It was again thrown out by the committee. This year, my hon. friend (Mr. Ball) who, I know, is quite disinterested in his attitude, because he himself has been one of Mr. Armstrong's victims, has tried once more to have this charter revived. The hon. gentleman did his very best to convince the committee that the charter should be revived, but he knows very well that he could not succeed, and even had to withdraw his Bill.


Georges Ball: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) permit me to ask him a question, in case he may not speak again ? Has he heard that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) resigned because he heard that Mr. Armstrong was interested in the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The question needsl no answer, Mr. Speaker. To proceed with my argument, I was saying that the principle involved in this Bill has, been voted down by the Railway Committee on three different occasions. I may say further, that the Baie des Chaleurs Railway question was settled by the electorate of the province of Quebec in the election of 1897. Would you believe it, the government of the province of Quebec, in 1897, while one of Mr. Armstrong's friends was Prime Minister-I refer to Mr. Flynn-gave Mr. Armstrong a guarantee of bonds to the amount of $8,000,000, to help him in reviving the very railway scheme that we are now discussing ? The province of Quebec was shocked-yes. it was simply shocked-at the intention of the Flynn government to guarantee such an amount for Mr. Armstrong. And I may say that the verdict of the month of May, 1897, was nothing else but a vote of censure



REVISED EDITION '6627 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
against the Quebec government for having dared to countenance such a scheme. Therefore, the sentiment of the electorate of my province is opposed to any railway scheme fathered by Mr. Armstrong or by any of his associates. The hon. gentleman has said that some other railway companies have been formed and intended to build the line from Paspebiac to Gaspd Basin. That is the case. When we saw that it was useless to expect anything from Mr. Armstrong, or from Mr. Galyndez, who has succeeded Mr. Armstrong, some of the gentlemen who are interested in the welfare of GaspS Peninsula formed a company and obtained a charter from the Quebec government. Owing to the unsavoury railway schemes which originated in that part of the country during the last twenty-five years, the Quebec government, the Parent government, inserted in the Bill, a clause which was very stringent. The present Act of incorporation was granted under the following ex-pi-ess conditions :
1.	That the works authorized by this Act shall be commenced in good talth within a delay of two years from the sanctioning of this Act, such commencement to be evidenced by the construction of at least ten miles of road.
2.	That the whole road shall be constructed within a delay of five years from the sanctioning of -this Act.
3.	In default of the accomplishment of either of these two conditions, such default shall, pleno jure, mean the forfeiture of all rights, powers and privileges granted by this. Act.
4.	This Act shall come into force by the proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council after the company has given evidence of their ability to carry out the works authorized by this Act.
The delay for the beginning of this construction expired at the end of March last. On account of the South African war, the capitalists interested in this railway company could not raise the funds on the other side, and they had to ask the revival of their chatter from the Quebec government. They went before the Lieutenant Governor I in Council, as provided by the last section | of the Act, and they gave him positive proof that the company was a bona tide one, and that they had the money necessary to construct the road. They deposited in the Bank of Montreal the sum of $50,000, which was quite sufficient for the preliminary works, and the proclamation issued. They went to work immediately, and I may say that during last winter they surveyed the whole line from Causapscal to Gaspe Basin. Then they came before this parliament in order to get a federal charter. To that federal charter was appended another condition, that not only this company should build in the interior of Gaspesia, but should build a branch line extending from Gaspe Basin to Paspebiac, following the shore. Therefore, this company has obtained from this parliament, with the help of my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and through our common efforts, legislation under which this Mr. LEMIEUX.
company will be obliged to build, not only in the interior, but also on the shore, thus giving to the people of the coast the link which was missing between Paspebiac and Gaspe Basin. But, Sir, as the hon. gentleman from Bonaventure has said, there are some difficulties in the way. The shore portion of the peninsula is a very difficult piece of work to construct, in the sense that it is very hard to build a line across so many rivers running into the Baie des Ohaleurs between Paspebiac and Gasp6 Basin. Therefore, the cost of construction, as will be shown by a report which has been prepared by a very intelligent surveyor and engineer, is very heavy. We intend to ask the government, and to insist, that this company be given a subsidy which will enable them to build that portion of the railway. In 1898, at my own request, the hon. the leader of the House inserted in the statute the ordinary subsidy given to railway companies, to be given to any company that would build that portion of the line extending between Paspebiac and Gasp6 Basin. Any company could have been formed and, within a delay of five years, could have taken that -subsidy. Well, no company was formed, because no company thought that the ordinary subsidy would build that line.
I hope this year that, after seeing the report which will be presented to the government, they will be disposed to be more liberal and give to that section of the country the relief promised for so many years. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that the Bill fathered by my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Ball) should not be referred back to the Railway Committee, but the hon. gentleman and his friends should unite their efforts with ours in order to obtain from this government the help to a bona fide company which will enable it to build the section from Paspebiac to Gaspe Basin.
Georges Ball: The member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has told a long story about all the Bills that were rejected. I do not want to follow him, but I may mention that none of these Bills were presented to this House by himself. As regards what the hon. member for Gasp6 (Mr. Lemieux) lias said about the guarantee that Mr. C. N. Armstrong got from the Quebec government, I can give some interesting details about it. The Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company at that time included Mr. PrSfontaine as a member, and Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Pre-fontaine made an arrangement with the Flynn government by which that government should guarantee the interest on $-S,-000,000, and they passed a deed of sale. But before the thing could be carried out, an election came on and the Flynn government was defeated. The company applied to the succeeding government to ratify the deed, but the government pretended that it was not legal, and they could not carry out an illegal contract of the late government.

So alter a year or so of hesitation, being compelled by their friends more than by the company to come to terms, the government decided to pass a Bill of reference and to refer the question to the court of appeal, with the promise that if the court of appeals declared the contract made by the late government legal they would consent to carry it out. The Bill was passed and the question was referred to the court of appeal. The late Mr. Duffy and Mr. Archambault, then Attorney General, were both ministers of the government, and they appeared on behalf of the government, while Mr. Flynn, the exPrime Minister of Quebec, took the other side. The court decided unanimously that the deed was legal, and that the government must carry it out. In spite of that they have shown no disposition to carry it out. The company, during the time that Mr. Prefon-taine was one of its directors, appealed for permission to sue the government and compel it to fulfil its contract, but they never could get a fiat from the Quebec government. That is the history of the scheme that hon. gentlemen are denouncing. I see that Mr. Armstrong is denounced. He was denounced yesterday by people who followed him as long as they could get something from him, but, now that they see that they cannot get anything more out of him, they will do nothing. I heard a list of railways read in which Mr. Armstrong was interested. I was very much surprised not to hear that he was in the Grand Trunk Pacific. It is only, I suppose, the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) who heard that.
Motion (Mi-. Ball) negatived.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Have the government .purchased the steamer ' Alaska,' of Morrisburg ?
2.	If so, when wa,s the money paid for same and what was the price ?
3.	When was said steamer built, and what is she to be used for ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine) :: 1.	Under consideration.
2.	Price asked for $3,000.
3.	Sweeping the channel and locating range lights, from Montreal to Kingston.



IRON AND STEEL BOUNTIES.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House will tomorrow go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to enact as follows
1.	The Governor in Council may authorize payment of the following bounties on the undermentioned articles manufactured in Canada from steel produced in Canada from ingredients 208}
of which not less than fifty per cent of the weight thereof consists of pig iron made in Canada, viz.:-
(a.) On rolled, round wire rods not over three-eights of an inch in diameter, when sold to wire manufacturers for use in making wire in their own factories in Canada, a bounty of six dollars per ton ;
,(b.) On rolled angles, tees, channels, beams, joints, girders, or bridge, building or structural rolled sections and on other rolled shapes not round, oval, square or flat, weighing not less than thirty-five pounds per lineal yard, and also on flat eye bar Wanks, when sold for consumption in Canada, a bounty of three dollars per ton ;
(,c.) On rolled plates not less than thirty Inches in width and not less than one-quarter of an inch in thickness, when sold for consumption in Canada for manufacturing purposes for which such plates are usually required and not to include plates sheared into plates of less width, a bounty of three dollars per ton.
2.	The Governor in Council may make regulations to carry out the intentions of the foregoing section.
3.	That chapter eight of the statutes of 1890 be so amended as to provide that the bounties on steel and iron authorized by chapter six of the statutes of 1897 shall be continued until the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and seven, and that the rates of such bounties shall be as follows :-
(a.) From the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and three, to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and four, both inclusive, the bounties shall be ninety per centum ,of the amount fixed by the said chapter six of the statutes of 1897 ;
(b.) From the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and four, to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and five, both inclusive, the bounties shall he seventy-five per centum of the amount fixed .by the said chapter ;
fc.l From the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and five, to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and six, both inclusive, the bounties shall be fifty-five per centum of the amount fixed by the said chapter;
(d.) From the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and six, to the thirtieth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and seven, both inclusive, the bounties shall be thirty-five per centum of the amount fixed by the said chapter.
He said :	I beg to state that His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of tills resolution recommends it to the consideration of the House.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are taken up, I wish to bring to the attention of this House an incident which occurred last Friday night during your absence in reference to the practice of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know that there is anything so very amusing as to tickle hon. members before they know what I am going to say or whether it gives evidence

of sapieney on their part to make such a demonstration in advance. I refer to the fact that when we reached the stage at which this House was about to adjourn, there was no Speaker or Deputy Speaker present, and the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who was then in charge of the House, instructed the Chairman of the committee of the House to take the Chair, and receive the report. Afterwards that hon. gentleman acted as Speaker, and adjourned the House. I am not aware that there is any authority either in law or practice which justifies that procedure. There is nothing so far as I know or can find either in the English rule or in our own giving authority to any member to adjourn the House other than the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. The practice in England, as also here, is and has been that:
When the hour of adjournment comes either the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker adjourns the House on motion of the senior minister present.
Apparently, therefore, so far as we find, the House cannot be adjourned unless one of the above ofiicials is present except as follows :
If the Speaker calls upon any member to take the Chair, the House being then sitting, and at a later stage the adjournment be moved such member shall have the power to adjourn the House in the usual -way.
Therefore, technically, I assume that the House did not adjourn on Friday night last, really sat during Saturday and Sunday without transacting any business until 3 p.m. on the following Monday. The mace, however, should have remained on the Table. I take up ' Bourinot's Parliamentary Practice ' and I find the following :
That the Speaker ' shall preside at all meetings of the House of Commons.' The 47th section makes provision for his absence for any reason from the Chair for forty-eight consecutive hours. In that case ' until the parliament of Canada otherwise provides the House may elect another of its members to act as speaker, and the member so elected shall, during the continuance of the absence of such speaker, have, and execute all the powers, privileges and duties of the Speaker.' The experience of the old Canada assembly showed the necessity of having such a provision in the Act, in case of the illness of the Speaker. For instance, on one occasion the House had to adjourn for some days, when the clerk had communicated to the House the fact of the Speaker's indisposition.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I suppose the bon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will conclude with a motion ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I had not intended to do so, but if necessary, I will do so.
Mr. SPEAKER, It would be more regular.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I shall move one.
The House of Commons had no deputy speaker before the session of 1885 ; but, in pursuance of a statute in that behalf, whenever the Speaker Mr. SPROULE.
from illness, or other cause, was obliged to leave the Chair, he called upon a member to take his place for the time being, and every order made and thing done under these circumstances was declared valid and effectual.
In 1885 the House adopted the English practice as far as possible with respect to the appointment of" a Deputy Speaker. The chairman of committees, appointed at the beginning of every session as hereinafter set forth, acts as Deputy Speaker in conformity with the provisions of a statute

That is chapter 20 of our statutes

-passed to provide authority for the appointment of a deputy speaker and to give validity to all proceedings while the officer in question is in the Chair.
That Act provided that:
Whenever the Speaker of the House of Commons. from illness or other cause, finds it necessary to leave the Chair during any part of the sittings of said House, on any day, he may call upon the chairman of committees, or, in his absence upon any member of this House, to take the Chair and to act as Deputy Speaker during the remainder of such day. unless the Speaker shall himself resume the Chair before the close of the sittings for that day.
2.	Whenever the House shall be informed by the clerk at the table of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, the chairman of committees, if present, shall take the Chair and shall perform the duties and exercise the authority of the Speaker in relation to all the proceedings of the House, as Deputy Speaker, until the meeting of the House on the next sitting day, and so on from day to day on the like information being given to the House until the House shall otherwise order : Provided,that if the House shall adjourn for more than twenty-four hours the Deputy Speaker shall continue to perform the duties and exercise the authority of Speaker for twenty-four hours only after such adjournment.
3.	If at any time during a session of parliament the Speaker shall he temporarily absent from the House, and a Deputy Speaker shall thereupon perform the duties and exercise the authority of Speaker as hereinbefore provided, or pursuant to the standing orders or other order or resolution of the House, every act done and proceeding taken in or by the House in the exercise of its powers and authority, shall be as valid and effectual as if the Speaker himself were in the Chair; and every act done and warrant, order, or other document issued, signed or published by such Deputy Speaker, In relation to any proceedings of the House of Commons, or which under any statute would be done, issued, signed or published by the Speaker if then able to act, shall have the same effect and validity as if the same had been done, issued, signed or published by the Speaker for the time being.
At six o'clock, p.m., on the first of May, 1885, in accordance- with the law, the Clerk informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker Kirkpatrick, on account of serious illness in his family, and Mr. Daly, Chairman of Committees, took the Chair, and adjourned the House. The Speaker was obliged to be absent for two more sittings, and the Clerk every .day informed the House of the fact as soon as it met, and the Deputy Speaker .took the Chair and read prayers,
When the Speaker enters or leaves the House, the sergeant-at-arnls precedes him with the

mace, which will lie on the Table whilst he is in the Chair, and the House is consequently in session.
Then, with regard to the duties of the Speaker :
It is the duty of the Speaker to preside over all the deliberations of the House, and to enforce its rules and orders of which he is the guardian. He announces the business of the House in the order in which it should be taken up. . . . He receives and puts to the House, all motions that may be proposed by members in accordance with the rules and usages of parliament. He receives messages from the Senate &c., &c.
I claim that in the absence of any specific provision in our rules there is no authority whereby any member of the House or any official can call another member to the Chair, and that there is no person charged with that duty except the Speaker himself, or the deputy speaker in the absence of the speaker. I claim that when a person is appointed as a Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, when he discharges such duties, he not being called to the Chair of the House, his authority ended there. It is said that where our rules do not specifically provide for carrying on the business of the House we may fall back upon the English rule bearing on the subject, but so far as I can find there is no English rule which would justify what has been done in this case. I desire to ask whether the Speaker has or has not the authority to delegate his powers to some one privately ? Even though that can be done by the Speaker, I draw attention to the fact that in this case it was not done by the Speaker but by a minister of the Crown, who certainly had no authority for doing so. I draw the attention of the Speaker and of the House to this matter so that we may know what is the rule, and so that we may not follow this as a precedent in the future. If it be necessary to make some provision for such a contingency, we should make the provision and not go on in this loose and irregular way. AS I have said, I can find no rule for this even in the' rules of the imperial House of Commons, and in doing what has been done we apparently have gone beyond the rule of the imperial parliament itself. The rule also says that that motion for adjournment having been made by the senior member of the government present, the Speaker shall put it from the Chair and declare it carried and the sergeant at arms shall precede the Speaker with the mace, which is the sign of authority, out of the chamber. That was not done in the present case because the Speaker was not present, and while the sergeant at arms carried the mace to the Speaker's quarters there was no Speaker to follow him as the member who occupied the Chair went off about his business.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Horrible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I draw attention to this so that we may not get into the habit of doing what we have no warrant for under the rules of this House. I beg to move the adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. HENRI BOTJRASSA (Babelle).: I am afraid that the motive of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) is not so much to preserve the integrity of our rules as to ventilate a grudge against us all because we did not go on sitting on Saturday and Sunday, for had we sat on Sunday morning he might have an opportunity to address this House on some religious question just as he instructs us on secular questions during all the week days.
I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the English rules have been embodied in our own rules and if he will look at the Revised Statutes of Canada, Chap. 14. he will find the following :
1. Whenever the Speaker of the House of Commons, from illness or other cause, finds it necessary to leave the Chair during any part of the sittings of the said House, on any day, he may call upon the chairman of committees, or, in his absence upon any member of this House, to take the Chair and to act as Deputy Speaker during the remainder of such day, unless the Speaker shall himself resume the Chair before the close of the sittings for that day.
There is no doubt ns to the right of the Speaker to call some one to the Chair, and as to the legality of any act done by the House under the presidency of the member who takes the place of the Speaker in his absence. Under rule 3, the Deputy Speaker has exactly the same right as the Speaker. The rule says that every act done by the Deputy Speaker is as valid as if it was done by the Speaker himself. Therefore, the Deputy Speaker has a perfect right to call any member of the House to take the Chair. The anomaly of the Deputy Speaker presiding over the Committee of the Whole and then acting as Speaker occurs every day. It is well understood that his personality changes for the time being, though happily it does not change entirely, and he has a perfect right to call any member of the House to act as chairman of the committee in presenting the report, and to take from that member the report of the committee while he acts as speaker of the House. Therefore, so far as that point is concerned, I think it is well settled.
Without being too personal, I would remind the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) that one who lives in a house of glass should not throw stones at his neighbour, even at the Speaker. If the hon. gentleman is so anxious to observe all the rules of the House, not only in the spirit, but in the letter, I would remind him of another rule which I confess is not observed by every member of the House. That is rule 18, which says :
Every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given him by the House.

I would remind the hon. gentleman that not even for the purpose of looking after the prosperity of the great order of whfch he is the grand master


Some hon. MEMBERS: Grand sovereign.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, yes. I have such republican tendencies that I always forget the bigger titles. Not even in order to preserve the prosperity of that valuable order is a member allowed to take leave of absence without permission of the House, and go to its convention, and there not merely give lessons to the Speaker of this House, but give lessons in politeness to the King. I regret that the hon. gentleman has not chosen another of his colleagues to raise the point of order and give lessons to the Speaker on the observance of the laws in these matters, and I hope that before he again undertakes to teach respect for the laws to the Speaker, he will not again give such an example of rebellion as he has given in the last few days, at the same time breaking a rule of this House.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, one thing, at all events, is certain with regard to the motion which has been made by my hon. friend, that whether the law has been observed or whether it has been violated, no harm has been done to anybody. My hon. friend has, I think, drawn the true conclusion upon the question, that if the House was not legally adjourned on Friday night, it continued in session until some time between 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock, Monday night or Tuesday morning. The House may have been in session, not only on Saturday, but on Sunday. Even if it was, no harm was done, althougn nobody was present, and the House was adjourned effectively, if not legally. My hon. friend himself, I think, was present on Friday night, when it was adjourned or pretended to be adjourned. At all events, if I understand my hon. friend, he was anxious himself to adjourn. He did not want the House to go on sitting. On the other side of the House the conclusion had been come to that the House had sat long enough, and that a recess should take place. What more could be done ? As I am informed, the only thing to be done was to send for the Speaker, who at that time was in his room ; but the messenger, not finding him immediately, went for the Deputy Speaker. Both came, but it was too late ; my hon. friend from West Huron was too quick for them, and the mace had left the Table. For my part, I acquit the Sergeant-at-arms of any intention of breaking the constitution when he removed from the Table ' that bauble ' as Cromwell styled it. I acquit also the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of not being in the House at the time, they being in their rooms and liable to be sent for at any moment. But let us go one step fur-Mr. BOURASSA.
ther, and let us suppose that both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker were unavoidably absent ; what was to be done under such circumstances ? Was the House to go on sifting for ever, though it wanted to adjourn, and was my hon. friend from East Grey himself to remain glued to his chair though he wanted to leave it ? I think myself that this is a case where necessity knows no law, and common sense must prevail. This is a case where common sense is law and law is common sense. If at any time during the session of the House it happens for any unavoidable cause that neither the Speaker nor the Deputy Speaker is in the House, then the House must go on sitting for ever-, or some means must be found for giving effect to the will of the majority of the members present. I will recall to my hon. friend a precedent to show that when the law is imperfect and insufficient to serve the ends of common sense, the common sense of the House will assert itself. I forget the year, but the incident is well known, and ought to be well remembered by every member of this House. I think it was about 1881 or 1882, when Mr. Parnell was carrying on a policy of obstruction. At that time the cloture did not exist in England. When the House had been in session forty hours or thereabouts, Mr. Speaker Brand took the law into his own hands and put the question to adjourn the House, though it was against the rules of the House as existing at that time, and the question was voted upon and the House was adjourned. I am not aware that his action was ever reprimanded ; on the contrary, I think it was approved of by common consent. There was at the time no law on the subject, but the will of parliament could not be baulked for ever ; so common sense asserted itself, and Mr. Speaker Brand took the law into his own hands. I am not prepared to say whether or not our laws should be amended to meet such a contingency as I have just referred to. I was glad to hear the remarks of my hon. friend, that he has no blame either for the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, but that he simply wanted to have a fair question answered. Whether or not under the circumstances the proceedings of the House were valid, and whether an adjournment could take place or not, is a matter which I do not consider of very great moment; but if the House considers that there is a question to be investigated, perhaps it would be well to have some expression of opinion upon it from members who take an interest in the question. For my part, I cannot see that any law hasj been violated. I think that under the circumstances the adjournment was perfectly legal. I may say, moreover, that I understand that Mr. Speaker has power to call a member to replace him in the Chair, and that this may take place not only immediately, but in an hour or two hours or three hours-that he can

say to a member, ' I want you to take my place at -9 o'clock or 10 o'clock,' as the case may be ; and I do not think there is any impropriety In his so doing.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Of course, the Speaker in the Chair is a very different individual, so far as his powers are concerned, from the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker as the Chairman of a Committee ; and while it is quite feasible, I suppose, for a Speaker to call a member to take his place and act as Speaker from that time till the adjournment of the House, it does not follow that the member of the House who has been called to take the chair of the committee as Deputy Speaker can proceed from the chair of the committee to the Speaker's chair, and fulfil all the functions which the Speaker could have fulfilled if in the chair. I think therefore my hon. friend from East Grey is quite right in bringing the matter to the attention of the House,. because it concerns the dignity of the House and the order of our proceedings that the rules should be observed.
There was no occasion at all for any of the jeers in which my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) indulged, because the matter was brought to the attention of the House in a very dignified and sensible manner by my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule). The construction placed upon the rule by my hon. friend from Rabelle is most absurd. He says that the rule forbidding members from leaving the service of the House without permission means that they are not to leave the precincts of the House. No one has ever supposed that the rule had ever any such interpretation.
The House was effectively adjourned, and no harm was done, but still it is right that such matters should be brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that we should have your ruling. No blame can be attached to you, Sir, or to your deputy because we have it, on the evidence of my hon. friend, that you were making all possible speed-he does not give the rate of speed, but it may have been a hundred yards in ten seconds-for the purpose of seeing that the House did not continue in session into the Sunday, as my hon. friend from Grey says it did.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: ' I understand that the hon. member for Grey did not express a desire to have any ruling, or that any action should be taken, but merely drew the attention of the House to the circumstance, so that what did happen, whether regular or irregular, will not be made a precedent. To that extent we all sympathize with the hon. gentleman, but I do not see any particular necessity for a ruling. We may rest content with the assurance that, as my hon, friend from Grey has drawn attention to what took place, there is no danger of its being made a precedent. The purpose which the hon.
member had in vjew has been accomplished, and I have no doubt that he is quite satisfied.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My intention was not to reflect on Mr. Speaker or on any body else, but simply to point out what did take place in order that a re-occurrence of the incident might be avoided.
Motion (Mr. Sproule) to adjourn, negatived.



TREADGOLD COMMISSION.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the right lion, the Prime Minister whether or not the personnel of the Treadgold commission has been completed by the acceptance of Chief Justice Killam, to whom he referred on a former occasion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, it has not.



THE TREADGOLD CONCESSION.

Robert Laird Borden: I brought to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, who is not in his sent at present, an inquiry addressed to me by means of a telegram from the Yukon, respecting the right of representation under the Treadgold concession. My hon. friend was good enough to say that he would give me an answer the next day, but evidently ihe matter has escaped his notice.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will take a note of it.



THE CRIMINAL CODE.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 215) further to amend the Criminal Code, 1892, was read the second time.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved that the House go into committee on the Bill.
Mr. TAYLOR.: I had a consultation with the hon. minister with reference to this Bill, and he said he would not proceed with it until the deputation, which I told him was coming, had waited on him. I was informed that the deputation would be here to-day or to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend has accurately stated what took place. There are, however, certain clauses of the Bill, which are merely amendments of no great importance. We might deal with them and allow the others to stand until I have had an opportunity of hearing the deputation. Or I will allow the whole Bill to stand over.


George Taylor: I was at a meeting of the wholesale hardware men last evening and they said that a deputation was coming with respect to another clause. There are practically only two contentious clauses, and it is hardly worth while to deal with any portion of the Bill until they are disposed of.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: There are some clauses affecting the questions of procedure which are not important and which must go through even if I have to drop the other two.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went Into committee on the Bill.
On section 2,
The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: The amendment here is to add the word ' everyone ' to the section as now drafted. The object is to remove certain doubts with respect to the applications to corporations of certain sections in which the words used are ' every one ' and ' every person.' Practically the word ' everyone ' includes corporations as well as individuals.
On schedule-75a and 75b :
75a. Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, on sumary conviction, to six months imprisonment, with or without hard labour, or to a fine not exceeding	, and not
less than	, or to both, who
wilfully-
(a.) deprives any other person of his employment, or
(b.) prevents any other person from being employed whether by himself or another, or
(c.) obstructs or annoys any other person, or his employer, in respect of the trade, business or employment of such other person, because such other person is an officer or man of the active militia ; or who dissuades any other person from enlisting in the active militia or any corps thereof, by threat of injury to him, in case he should so enlist, in respect of his trade, business or employment.
75b. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any association or corporation, constituted or organized for the purpose of promoting the success of the trade, business or employment of the members thereof, by its constitution or by any rule, by-law, resolution, vote or regulation, to discriminate against any person because he is an officer or man of the active militia, in respect of the eligibility of such person for membership in such association or corporation, or in respect of his right to remain a member thereof, and any person who aids or abets in the enforcement of any such provision against a member of the active militia with intent to discriminate against him because of such membership, is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for six months, with or without hard labour, or to a fine not exceeding	, and not less than	,
or to both.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think that these two sections, 75a and 75b might be read and considered together. They are an innovation so far as our criminal law is concerned. They are intended to afford adequate protection to our militia. It has been represented to me that, during strikes, threats are made sometimes by employers that if a man remains with the militia and turns out to assist in suppressing disorder during this strike he will be dismissed from his employer's service. It has been represented also that, on other occasions, employers of men have been threatened so as Mr. TAYLOR.
to induce them to prevent their men from joining the militia where their services might be utilized in case of a strike. These clauses have been adopted from the criminal code of the State of New York. I do not know that I want these two clauses to be adopted now. The Bill must remain in committee, and I would like it to remain so that we may have time to consider the penalty to be imposed under these clauses.


Mr. CLARKE.: Has the .lion, minister had any complaints or objections to these clauses ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have had one letter from a labour union in Montreal. But it was evident they did not understand the scope of the Bill at the time the letter was written. In answering it, I sent a copy of the Bill and have heard nothing further from them. But it is only fair, as this is an innovation and a new departure that the clauses should be allowed to remain over so that those who are interested may have an opportunity to make representation if they desire to do so.


Mr. MONK.: Does the hon. minister know of any legislation of this kind outside of Canada ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have just stated that I have adopted these sections from the Criminal Code of the State of New York.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My reason for asking is that section 75b seems to me a little vague. I do not know whether the present condition of affairs would draw the attention o.f the public to a matter which, perhaps it is better to leave to the judgment of the good citizens generally, because those who wish to evade the law, as the minister is aware, can find means of evading such a law as this. In fact it might be better to rely on public opinion than pass a law on this subject. At any rate I find sections 75a and 75b rather vague.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) will remark that the object of the section is to impose a penalty upon any person who deprives another of employment or prevents another from being employed either by himself or another or obstructs such person or his employer in respect to the trade, business, or employment of such other person, because such other person is an officer or man of the active militia.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the principle is right


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Better make that ' officer, non-commissioned officer or man.'


Robert Laird Borden: As to the scope of the sections, we shall have an opportunity of discussing them later. But, looking at the framing of them, we have subclause A,

subclause B and then comes subclause C. I suppose that the words * because such other person is an officer or man of the active militia,' are intended to qualify subclauses A and B as well as the preceding part of subclause C.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It must be so, or the clause would remain inoperative.


Robert Laird Borden: But tie remaining portion of the clause seems to me not in the same line-it seems disconnected. You have three clauses stating an offence, then a qualifying clause stating the purpose which must be expressed or otherwise the offence is not constituted, and then ' or who dissuades any other person from enlisting in the active militia or any corps thereof by threat of injury to him, in case he should so enlist, in respect of his trade, business or employment.' It seems to me, that if you could make another subsection


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It would be better drafting.


Robert Laird Borden: I think so.


Mr. BROCK.: There is a converse to this clause. I think, that should be taken notice of. A militiaman is called out by the authorities, say in the city of Toronto, to guard the property of the citizens in case of a strike. The soldier, having friends amongst the unions, immediately afterwards sends in his resignation because he refuses to serve. You would punish the employer because he refuses to engage a man of that kind, but is there any punishment for the militiaman who refuses to be called out on occasions of that kind or refuses to remain in the militia because he has friends in the unions whom he does not wish to oppose ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The lion. Minister of Militia is more familiar than 1 am with the law on that point. But my recollection is that a man joins the colours for three years, and if, during that time he refuses to serve, he becomes liable to a penalty under the Enlistment Act. And he cannot resign. That is my understanding of the Militia Act.


William Rees Brock: But I speak of something that actually took place. Immediately after the strike in Toronto some of the members of the militia who had been called out sent in their resignation. Whether they could do so legally or not, I do not know. Bui they declared their intention of not serving under the circumstances. But I believe there is no penalty for that.


Samuel Hughes: No officer should accept a man's resignation under such circumstances. A man has no authority to resign his position in the militia, and no officer is obliged to give him his discharge. A man enlists for three years and cannot leave the service during that time except
by the consent of his officer. A man may be dismissed, or lie is sometimes given his discharge for sufficient reasons, but he should not be given his discharge for such reasons as those mentioned by the hon. gentleman for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). I rather think the whole clause will do good in directing the attention of the employers of labour to the responsibility and duty resting upon them to encourage the militia. It is very common to find in cities and towns that militiamen employed by large firms are discouraged from remaining in the corps, instead of being encouraged, because the employers do not want to have anything to do with them in case they may be engaged in maintaining order or be called out to defend the country. The very men who will receive the most benefit from the protection that the militia affords we find not upholding the militia but trying to discourage their men from belonging to the corps.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As the hon. minister will admit, this is rather tentative legislation. But I think that the principle in 75a it would be made clearer by some modification of the section. I would make the suggestion to the Minister of Justice to stop at 75a for this year and leave out the other. I think that 75b is going a little far in declaring it unlawful for any association of any kind to discriminate against any of its members because they belong to the militia. I do not mean to say that it is not right to legislate in that sense, but it is entering upon a new field. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that he should leave out 75a and be satisfied with 75b for the present. It is possible that some associations will find it necessary to discriminate, or to provide that its members should not belong to the militia, and I would not like to say that such a circumstance would not occur.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am quite willing to consider the advisability of passing these sections which, as the hon. gentleman has properly said, are of a tentative character in legislation, but I do not think it would be proper for us to pass 75a and not pass 75b.	75a really imposes a penalty on the employer if he in any way interferes with the freedom of action of his employee with respect to joining the militia force; that is to say, it is a ' protection for the employee as against the employer. But on the other hand, if we impose penalties on the employer under these circumstances, is it quite fair to allow any combination of labour to discriminate against one of themselves because he happens to belong to the militia force ? Why do you distinguish between the two ? I am willing to allow the whole matter to be enlarged, because, as I said a moment ago, perhaps public opinion is not ripe for legislation of this sort. I thought it proper,

however, to draw the attention of the House to it; but if we legislate as against the employer, I cannot see any reason to justify us in allowing the trades unions to go absolutely free.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand the minister to say that his object in proposing legislation of this kind was to prevent employers from discharging men who perform militia duties from time to time. Has any case come under the notice of the minister in which employers of labour have actually dismissed their men because they belonged to the Canadian militia, when they were called out ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot say that such a case has come to my notice. But in connection with the recent troubles in Montreal, it has come to my notice that threats were made by employers against their employees because they were obliged to do service during the course of the strike. Representations were made to us in connection with these threats, and it was because of those representations that I have introduced these particular sections.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understood from the hon. gentleman that, having drawn public attention to this question, he did not feel it necessary to insist upon passing these sections. I think the hon. gentleman is extremely wise in taking that course.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am ill the hands of the House on that subject. It is a matter to which I would like to call the attention of the public, and if there is any strong opinion one way or the other expressed between this time, and when the Bill comes up again for consideration, we will take that into account. But I must say that, speaking for myself, any attempt to interfere with our militia force is a thing that I would endeavour to prevent. That is my own feeling.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Does the minister think that 75a covers the case entirely ? It seems to me it only applies when that relationship between employer and employee is already established. A considerable number of the largest employing concerns in the country insist upon men, before they become employees, signing an agreement that would probably keep them from joining the militia or any other institution that would be apt to take them away from their duties at any time. They insist on men, before becoming employees, signing an agreement that would debar them from either joining the militia or becoming municipal candidates, and that kind of thing, anything that would take them away from their duties at any specific times. Does 75a touch that matter at all ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not sure that the terms used are quite broad enough to meet the case put by the hon. gentleman. But while I may sympathize


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: with the employer who would endeavour to prevent his employee from taking part in a municipal contest, I would have no sympathy with him if he endeavoured to interfere with the desire of his employee to join the militia force. If the hon. gentleman speaks of his own personal knowledge and says that there are employers who force men, before becoming employees, to enter into a contract obliging them not to enter the militia, I would be glad to deal with these gentlemen also.


Arthur W. Puttee: I do not know that in any of these agreements the word " militia " is used, but I would think such a contract would apply to the militia or to any other institution that a man desired to join. As a matter of fact, when an employer places an agreement of this kind before a man, the latter feels that he must have employment in any case, and he signs one of these agreements, and I should imagine that it restricted his liberty to join the militia.


William Rees Brock: In a matter of this kind we must act with some fairness. If a merchant has some particular employment that requires the continuous time of a bookkeeper or a cashier, do you mean to tell me that if he said to that man, on entering his employment; I cannot give you this employment if you require to be absent for two weeks every year on the militia-do you mean to tell me that you would put that merchant into jail under those circumstances ? You would have half the merchants of Canada in jail, under certain circumstances. There are certain positions, not only in commercial companies, but in lawyers' offices and others, where at particular times it would mean the ruination of a man's business to take away some of his employees for weeks at a time. There are positions, I know in my own case there are positions, where it would be a serious loss if a clerk were to be called out at certain seasons of the year to drill. I think you would have to make some exceptions in cases of that kind.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are certainly two sides to this legislation. It may operate to the benefit of the militia force in Canada, and it may operate detrimentally; and it is because of the uncertainty in which I find myself that I do not insist upon pushing these sections through at the present time. I would like to have the benefit of some discussion on the subject, so as to see whether the object we have in view will be served by this legislation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It strikes me that the best plan would be to have a special police force to do this duty. It would be unfair, in that case mentioned by my colleague from Toronto (Mr. Brock) to deprive merchants of the services of their men under all circumstances. What we should have is a sufficient number of regular troops or police

in Canada which should be called upon to suppress cases of riot and cases of disorder.


Samuel Hughes: 1 regret that I have to dissent absolutely from the view expressed that a regular soldier in any sense should be employed, or that Dominion policemen in any sense should be employed, to suppress disorder within the bounds of a municipality. It is all right enough in unorganized territories which are under the direct control of the Dominion government, to have a Dominion, force to preserve law and order; but in municipalities like Toronto and Montreal, I insist that no regular soldier should be called out, other than as a member of the militia force of Canada, to preserve law and order. The sooner we teach the municipalities and business men of this country that each municipality must preserve its own, law and order the better. In reference to the point made by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) that there are certain men who could not be spared to be called out with the militia, if that be so, then, the Militia Act is the place to have these men excepted. I can see no reason why a man occupying a position in a warehouse in Toronto should be exempted from serving his country. There are men exempted from military service, but I can see no reason why any man occupying any position in the city of Toronto should be exempted from serving his country when other people are obliged to do their duty and incur the odium and loss of time that necessarily falls to the lot of a man who becomes a member of the militia force. As a taxpayer of this country, I object to paying tlie .expense of a regular force to be kept up through the length and breadth of this country to suppress disorders in cities and towns amongst communities that are not capable of preserving law and order themselves. The proper plan in a democratic country like Canada is as far as possible to depends upon the tolerant spirit and respect for law and order to be found in all communities in this country. We should depend upon the militia force which is the people's force rather than to attempt to emulate the policy of continental Europe in having large standing armies, because we must rely upon each man in this country to recruit as a militiaman and do his duty in the ranks.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: It would certainly be a very great hardship if the farmers of this country were subject to fine and imprisonment if they demurred to allowing their hired men and sons to he called out. to perform military duties especially at this season of the year. Suppose they were called out now When the harvest is on, it would he a shame to punish a farmer by fine or imprisonment if he did not allow his hired man to go.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I ask the lion. Minister of Militia and Defence what has
become of the protest or petition sent from Montreal by tlie city council in regard to the expenditure incurred during the strikes in the month of May ? I understand an account was filed which the city council refused to pay, and that a protest or perhaps a deputation, was sent to the lion. Minister of Militia and Defence asking the government to pay. Was there anything of that kind ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There was a petition.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the answer, if I understand well, was that the city council should themselves pay these expenses ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Certainly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I did not hear the answer of the bon. minister.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The answer was that the city of Montreal should pay these bills itself.


Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The government has nothing to do with this matter.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: I am afraid that if we went as far as the gallant colonel who represents Victoria (Mr. Hughes) suggests, we should have conscription in this country and the people would be compelled to serve in the militia. There are some people in this country who do not believe that everybody should be a soldier. There are some of us who are merchants and I heartily sympathize with the views expressed by the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). For instance, while I am a merchant I am here attending to my duties as a member of parliament. I have managers and bookkeepers to do my business during my absence. If they should be military men and if they should' be obliged to leave their duties during two or three weeks while I was absent performing my duties as a member of parliament who is there to look after iny business ? I cannot conceive that the proposed law is in the interests of the people; or at all events, there should be some modification so that under certain circumstances only it would come into operation. I am certain that it is the sense of every hon. member of this House that if war were to break out we should leave our shops and fight for our country, but that is not going to take place, we hope, for many long years, and we pray, never.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


William Ross: I know that in times of peace we should prepare for war, but we should prepare for it in an intelligent manner.


Mr. LENNOX.: I have the greatest respect for the statements made by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), and the suggestion he makes may be perfectly

' correct, but it occurred to me, that, probably, although quite In a proper direction as regards having a sufficient police force to control all municipal difficulties in a particular city or town, the section of the Bill as regards military matters goes farther than that. The suggestion of the hon. member for West Toronto would probably not be capable of being worked out under this section. In reference to the remark just made by the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross) I may say that I am not a military man myself and I have no desire to leave my office except I receive more remuneration in some other field. I recognize the truth of the saying that * they also serve who only stand and wait.' I have been one of the waiters myself. It hardly meets the case to say that in the event of the country being invaded, or a great difficulty arising, we would then leave our shops and places of business and defend the country because there must be some preparation in the meantime. Raw recruits would not be very valuable in such a case as that, and although I recognize the importance of not interfering with the established avenues of trade and business any more than we can possibly avoid, still, there is the necessity of making some reasonable preparation in the meantime. We must also recognize that all of us must make more or less sacrifices in that direction. I do not know that this legislation should be passed at the present time. I think probably it is a matter that might very well be left over for a time until it has been considered. There are certain difficulties that have arisen in the past that it is designed to meet. I wish to direct attention to that point. I was told in reference to a certain organization by a man who is a member of the organization that the reason they did not want their men to join the militia force of the country, was that in case of a disturbance brethren would he called upon to fight against brethren. This is raising a very serious difficulty and probably the suggestion from the hon. member for West Toronto would meet that difficulty very effectually. Probably the difficulty that w'e meet at the present time as far as these organizations are concerned and their dread of having members of the same organization firing upon other members of the organization on the occasion of a strike would be eliminated by having a police force to control any difficulty that occurs throughout the country.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is very hard to expect that every municipality throughout the country should have a police force that would enable it to cope with difficulties in connection with riots. However. dealing with the matter we have in hand, I would like to point out to the committee the difficulty I have had because of the law that we have now in existence. Section 107 of the Militia Act provides that Mr. LENNOX.
every officer or man in the militia who refuses when called upon to come to the aid of the civil power is liable to a penalty of $100. A man may be called upon to join his regiment and he may be in the employ of some one Who would dismiss him if he did join. He has to face a fine in one hand and dismissal in the other.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He is between the devil and the deep sea.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He is between the hon. gentleman's friend and the deep sea.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I know of a case where a man belonging to one of the crack regiments in Montreal was actually threatened with dismissal-*-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was that the Cooke-Cole case ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, no. That case was as to a question of etiquette. It was not of much concern to the country at large, but only to the two individuals concerned. I have a letter from a member of a crack corps in Montreal who was called out to protect the property of the citizens on the wharfs recently, and who exposed himself personally to a great deal of inconvenience, but he was threatened with dismissal by his employer. If he did not serve with his regiment he would be fined $100, and if he did serve he would be dismissed. It seems to me that is anomo-lous and that we ought to find some remedy for it. Of course you can depend largely upon the good sense and the spirit of .patriotism of the merchants and employers of Toronto and Montreal and other great cities, but there are black sheep in every flock.


William Rees Brock: In all my experience I have never known a case of the kind of which the minister speaks of. Of course it is possible that it may occur, but on the other side it must be remembered that employers are for the most part glad to have their men serve their country, although it may put them to great inconvenience. I have had as many as twenty men called out of my establishment at the one time, and in Montreal I had thirteen serving in the militia recently. I suppose it is needless for me to say that I did not threaten them with dismissal.


Arthur W. Puttee: I am informed that during the recent trouble in Montreal, some of the very men who asked for the militia to be called out and whose property they were protecting, refused to allow their employees to join the militia. In view of such a case as that the consideration that we are giving to this question to-day is justifiable. I do not attach much weight to the objections of these gentlemen who complain that in some cases it works great hardship on them. The farmer and the small trader have to



IS, 1903

[Stage Direction]
allow their help to go and serve their country, and it is no greater hardship on the merchant who is obliged to part with his cashier for the time being. I believe in the principle that everybody in this country should be at perfect liberty to assume any public duty he wishes to ; I believe in leaving it to the judgment of the individual as to what he should or should not do under such circumstances.
Mr. OSLER.: By passing this law you cannot change the nature of some men who will be mean and unpatriotic, but I am glad to say that the evil we are trying to remedy is not very widespread. If a man is so lacking in his sense of duty to this country that he will not allow his men to serve in the militia, he will adopt some other means of getting rid of them if they do join the force. It is a good thing to have the attention of the country drawn to this matter, but I agree with the minister that perhaps it would be wise to let it remain over for another year. If it be then found necessary we can adopt this law.


Samuel Hughes: I can readily see that if an employer who wants to get rid of an employee for joining the militia he will find some other excuse for doing so, but however that may be, the fact that such a law as this will be on our statute-books will act as an object lesson and direct public attention against the employer who attempts to do such a thing. Any one who has ever undertaken to organize a regiment in a city or even in a rural municipality will And that sometimes employers object to their men being in the volunteer force. They take the purely selfish view of the case, but when their property is in danger they are very anxious to have the militia to protect it, or perhaps some of them would wish to have some other man's servants than their own in the force. As to what the hon. member for South Ontario said about wishing every one to be a soldier, I may say that I do not want every one to be a soldier, but I do want every soldier to-be a citizen of the country, and I want our military force to be made up of citizen soldiery. I shall not argue the question as to the value of a citizen soldiery as compared with regular forces, but I have pointed out in this House long before the Boer war, that wherever a militia force equally armed came into contact with a regular force, the militia force invariably won. The French revolution is a notable instance of that. More than one-half of the men who won Waterloo on the British side were not sixty days in training. The Heights of Alma were stormed by men who were only three or four months under drill. I object emphatically to regular troops being called in to maintain law and order. I object to the municipal authorities of this country getting the notion that whenever there is a little riot probably due to their own mismanagement, all they have to do is to call
out the regular troops. Let them feel that they must maintain law and order within their own border and there will be fewer riots and better spirit abroad among the people.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We may allow these sections to remain in suspense.
On section 174,
The MINISTER OF J * STICK. My opinion is that the whip should be applied for certain classes of offences and therefore we have introduced the words ' to be whipped ' in this section.


William Ross: I think the minister is quite right and I would go further and say for certain offences they should be whipped in public.


Haughton Lennox: The wording is that an offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for life and be whipped. I suppose it is during his life time he will be whipped.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The practice in the penitentiaries is that an offender will receive so many lashes on being admitted and then the other part of the punishment is given during different periods of his imprisonment. I think some of the whipping is done before the offender leaves the jail.


Haughton Lennox: In this case he is not to leave the penitentiary at all, because he is sentenced for life ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, he would be there for life.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this whipping to be administered by an official or by a convict ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I speak subject to correction, but I think it would be by an official. I think there would be no possible justification for employing a convict for any such purpose.
Section 205 as heretofore amended.-By adding at the end of subsection six thereof, as enacted by chapter 42 of the statutes, of 1901, the following paragraph :-
(c.) Any distribution by lot as prizes, among the members or ticket holders of any incorporated society established for the encouragement of art. of any paintings, drawings or other works of art : Provided always that such society has a license from the Secretary of State unrevoked and in full force permitting it to conduct such distributions, it being hereby enacted that the Secretary of State may grant such a license upon evidence to his satisfaction (1) that the society applying therefor is designed bona fide for the encouragement of art ; and (2) that under the constitution of the society the prizes to be distributed by it must consist solely of bona fide works of art, and must be themselves distributed by the society to the prize winners, and must not be repurchased by or on behalf of the society from the winers or from any person into whose hands they may come for money or other valuable consideration within two years after they are won ; and (3) that the constitution of the society

prohibits the distribution or gift by it in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, of prizes consisting of money or of any thing of value other than bona fide works of art as aforesaid ; and it being further enacted that such licenses shall continue in force for one year only from the date of issue, but may be renewed from year to year upon the application of the company, amid that it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State, whenever it shall appear to him that any such society is being perverted from its legitimate purposes, to revoke and cancel the license issued to any such society, and that any action so taken by the Secretary of State shall be final and shall not be called in question by any society affected thereby. And provided further that in connection with such distribution the society shall have strictly and bona fide observed such provisions of its constitution and in no way directly or indirectly violated the same or any of them, or by advertisement or otherwise undertaken or announced that it would do any -thing contrary to such provisions.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this something new ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes. My hon. friend will remember the inconvenience which was occasioned in Montreal from the application of the old subsection (c) of section 6 of the Criminal Code. There were a series of lotteries running wide open at various street corners, to the detriment of the youth and to the disadvantage of the city generally. That subsection was repealed ; but the result of the repeal was to interfere with the operations of the Art Union of London ; and this amendment is Introduced specially for the purpose of meeting that ease and at the same time to legitimatize honest attempts to deal with works of art. The section was drafted in view of the representations made to me by the directors of the Art Union of London. It is for the House to say whether I have covered the case sufficiently to limit the operation of the section to the proper distribution of art works.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. gentleman has covered it If he will provide that the Secretary of State shall pass an examination as to his knowledge of art.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There may be some special necessity for this legislation, and I do not claim to be able to say whether it meets the case of the London Art Union or not. But I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that this legislation will expose the Secretary of State to a great many applications which will appear to be bona fide in every respect; and if he sees fit to grant these applications, we shall have, I am afraid, a renewal in the city of Montreal of the evils to which the Minister of Justice has just referred. It is Impossible to estimate the amount of evil that is done In the city of Montreal by these lotteries. I have seen it myself, and so have, I am sure, other members of this House who are familiar with the conditions that existed in the city of Montreal ; and unless there is some Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK
absolute necessity for meeting the case of the London Art Union, I would strongly appeal to the Minister of Justice to hold this clause In abeyance, and see if it is not possible to dispense with it, for Che present at least. I know that parties will apply for the license referred to in this subsection, and give every apparent proof of good faith, and that those same parties will afterwards abuse that license ; and it is. almost impossible for the authorities to reacli them. That we should have a re-introduction into the city of Montreal of the lotteries that have desolated that city in the past, is Something almost too dreadful to contemplate ; and if it is possible to avoid it, even in this legislation, introduced, I have no doubt, with the best intention, 1 would strongly appeal to the Minister of Justice to defer it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will do with this section as I have agreed to do with respect to those relating to cigarettes, and preferential dealing-allow it to stand over in the hope that public attention may be called to the matter. I believe I have surrounded this section with all the safeguards it requires. However, I am willing to let it stand over in the hope that the people interested In the matter will consider it. At the same time, I think, speaking from the limited knowledge I have, that the Art Union of London has done very good work in this country, and if it were possible for us, without subjecting the public to the inconvenience resulting from the system of lotteries as we have had them heretofore, to come to the aid of the directors of the Art Union, I am extremely anxious to do it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It might perhaps be possible to do so by special legislation. Here you have an institution above suspicion, but any general legislation will open the door to abuse.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has said, we have had very serious and frequent complaints In Montreal about this evil of the lottery system. Until last year we have had many societies, which pretended to encourage art, but which were really gambling Institutions. We found out that the paintings which they distributed to the prize winners, they immediately brought hack. Last year, the good faith of the hon. the Secretary of State was taken advantage of, when he granted to a so-called colonization society of Montreal a charter by letters patent, which enabled them to sell some lots in the northern district of Montreal for colonization purposes. Under a clause in the letters patent, they subdivided the shares of the company and converted this so-called colonization society into an organized lottery. A charge was laid before the police magistrate of Montreal, and Mr. Justice Choquette sent one

of the accused to jail for one year and another for fifteen months. This was the death knell of all those lotteries in Montreal. If the proposed section were passed, it would, to my mind, cover the case very clearly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What my hon. friend from Gaspe says is quite correct, but at the same time this society to which he refers, succeeded, in spite of the lawsuits and the very great efforts made to suppress it, in carrying on its operations for a time and ruining many poor people-servant girls, employees and clerks-and I am afraid, in spite of what my hon. friend says, that if we adopt the proposed system, means will again be found of surprising the good faith of the hon. the Secretary of State, as was done in the instance I have referred to, and in which instance that hon. gentleman was not to blame in any way. These people will come to the government and say that if the London Art Union is given these privileges, they should be given like privileges, and they will succeed in wresting a license from the Secretary of State, and before the license can be cancelled, they will have got in their work and done great injury to the community.


William Rees Brock: Will the hon. minister say when it would be proper for me to move the amendments to the Criminal Code in connection with preventions to cruelty of animals, which he promised to consider ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend may move them now and we can let them stand until the Bill is in committee again.


William Rees Brock: I beg to move the following amendments :-
By inserting immediately after section 514 the following section :-
514 (a.) No cattle shall be carried in the same car. van, vehicle or vessel with larger cattle of another species, or with other cattle likely to attack or injure it, unless a suitable substantial partition, securely fastened in such car, van, vehicle or vessel, is placed and maintained therein, and is sufficiently strong to keep such first mentioned cattle securely separate from such larger or other cattle, or unless some other effectual means of keeping it so separate is provided, and any company or person owa-ing or operating or in charge of any such car, van. vehicle or vessel, who knowingly and wilfully carries therein any cattle contrary to the provisions of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding $100.
Section 514. -By repealing subsection five thereof and substituting the following subsection :-
5. Every railway company, and every such owner or master of a vessel, having cattle in transit as aforesaid, shall provide in the oar or vessel containing such cattle, sufficient, dry. and otherwise suitable bedding for such cattle ; and when such cattle are unladen from a car for rest, water and feeding, the railway company then having charge of such car shall, unless it is impracticable so to do by reason of
frost, clear the floor of such car and renew such bedding with clean material before reloading the car with cattle.
Section 515. By repealing subsection one thereof and substituting the following subsection :-
Any peace officer may, at any time, enter any premises or place where he has reasonable ground for believing that any car, van, or vehicle in respect of which any company or person has failed to comply with section 514, or section 514 (a) is to be found, or may enter any such car, van or vehicle, or any vessel In respect of which he has such reasonable ground for believing that any company or person has so failed, or may enter any premises or place whatsoever where he has reasonable ground for believing that any officer under this part is being or has been committed.
Amendments allowed to stand.


Mr. HENDERSON.: There is only a minute or two before six o'clock, but I hope the minister will not object to answer a question. In the province of Ontario we have a law just such as is provided in this section. There is also power in the Municipal Act to regulate the sale of cigarettes, and, in the village in which I live no person is allowed to sell cigarettes without first taking out a license and paying therefor $75. But it is a common practice for the news-agent on the railway train passing through the village to come upon the platform in the evening, and more especially on Sunday night, and sell cigarettes from the platform of the train. He claims he has a right to do so notwithstanding the by-law or any law, because he is selling these cigarettes from a car on the Grand Trunk Railway. Could there be any law which would give a person the privilege of selling cigarettes from a railway train in any municipality where the sale of them is prohibited, except under license or regardless of the provisions of this statute ? Is there any such provi-. sion in- the Railway Act or any other law ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no provision that I know of ; and I do not think that any persons who would make a sale in contravention of this would enjoy any immunity merely because he sold from the platform of a railway train.


Haughton Lennox: There is a little more in it than that. These people get a license for the sale of cigarettes, as I understand. The provincial government have power to delegate their authority to tho local municipality, hut they reserve the power also to give provincial licenses, and under those licenses the sale is carried on. If a pei'-son has the right to sell, it is easy to see the inconvenience of making that license depend upon municipal regulation. The newsagent does not know when he passes from one municipality to'the other. If the sale was prohibited, it would be a different matter.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 104) to incorporate the Broekville and Sault Ste Marie Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment.
George Taylor: This Bill with two other Bills, Nos. 67 and 89, was referred to a sub-committee to hear creditors, and to take into consideratfion the dourse that should be adopted in dealing with them. It came before the Railway Committee yesterday. I was unavoidably absent from the committee, and some of my friends asked that the Bill be allowed to stand until I was present, seeing that I had charge of one of the other Bills. The sub-committee, as I understand, did not all concur in the report which was made to the Railway Committee. The Railway Committee also have amended the Bill. This sub-committee heard a number of creditors, parties who were instrumental in building the Broekville and Westport Railway. This railway got into difficulties and was sold, being bought in by some Americans. The road was sold by an order of the court, but the question is now in litigation as to whether the court had full powers to authorize the sale. However, the committee thought it was their duty to report a Bill authorizing and confirming the sale so far as they had a right to do so, but granting additional powers. I understood the subcommittee were agreed on all that. But I see the Bill has been amended by granting powers to bond the road for $10,000 a mile.
* That matter was discussed by the sub-committee, and it was agreed, as I understood, by all of them that a clause should be in' serted in the Act providing that the proceeds of the sale of these bonds should be applied only for the betterment of the road. They have also amended the Bill by authorizing a stock capital of $500,000. The subcommittee discussed that also, and as I understood, some of them at least thought that the stock capital, if any was granted at all, should only amount to $160,000, the amount that was paid for the road, and that the company should not be capitalized for more than the road cost. Then some of the sub-committee-I do not see any of them present


Mr. GALLIHER.: I am here.


George Taylor: I mean of my friends. I see opposite two hon. gentlemen who concurred no doubt in this report The question was discussed as to the advisability of making some reference to the fact that there were claims on the road. Whether they were legal or not, was not the question. When this company came asking for addi-


Haughton Lennox: tional powers, the question was whether the sub-committee should not hear these creditors, among whom were those who had supplied the right of way, others who had supplied the material for building the road, others who were contractors, and so forth; their claims amouting to a large sum. But there is no mention of that in the report. However, it was discussed, and my object now is to ask that the Bill be not proceeded with to-night, as I intend to give notice that when the Bill is dealt with again I shall move amendments to it. 1 therefore ask that the Bill be allowed to stand until I give notice of the amendments and have the matter tested in the House. I am satisfied that when the House comes thoroughly to understand the situation they will do more than simply to confirm the purchase by these gentlemen for $160,000. The law says that when parties purchase a road they must come to parliament and get confirmatory legislation. I think we should confirm that but go no further. I do not think it is right to give further bonding privileges, or give them any more capital stock. It is the duty of this parliament to recognize the claims of the creditors. This company had a charter and received a subsidy of $3,200 a mile. That subsidy was assigned to the late James Cooper, of Montreal, for the payment of rails, plates and spikes to equip the track. Only a portion of the subsidy has been earned, and that went to Mr. Cooper. There remains a balance of some $38,000 that has not been paid because the government retained it till the completion of the road. The road has never been completed, and that subsidy has lapsed. No doubt when this company go on and build the road according to the requirements of the government, the government will give the subsidy. That subsidy has been assigned, and the government have approved of the assignment to pay the subsidy over to the estate of the late James Cooper. He appeared before the sub-committee and stated his case. He has since died, but his estate will have the claim on this subsidy when it is earned. I have no doubt the government will revote this lapsed subsidy when the money is earned. But this company, when they complete the road, will have by this Bill the right to that subsidy, but there is no reference made in the report of the committee or in the Bill as amended that there is any claim for it. I think there should be some reference made of this. My hon. friend opposite nods his head to the suggestion I make to allow the Bill to stand until I have an opportunity to discuss it with other members of the committee who did not concur in the report as it has been made to the House. I do not know that they made a minority report, but I know they did not concur in the final report, or in the amendments that now appear in the Bill.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: This Bill and

the matters connected with it received a great deal of consideration. They are somewhat complicated, and it was thought best by the committee to refer the Bill to a subcommittee so that parties could be heard. I understand that it received careful and full consideration, and the Bill was passed by the committee on the report of the subcommittee. However, the hon. gentleman requests the privilege of giving notice of amendments that he wishes to propose. I do not see any objection to allowing the Bill to stand until the next day that Private Bills are considered.
Bill (No. 210) respecting the Midway and Vernon Railway Company-(Amt ndedi.-Mr. Galliher.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Contingencies in Canada. Britain and foreign agencies and general immigration expenses, including salaries of extra clerks at head office $483,000.
['After the ministerial explanations, which are set down as a special government order, Supply will be moved, and the Minister of the Interior will resume his estimates.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) brought down the list he promised to give us of the agents?
On motion of Mr. Sproule, the debate was adjourned.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 205) respecting the Western Alberta Railway Company-(Reported).-Mr. Campbell.
List of Immigration
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: Yes, I have it here. Does the hon. gentleman desire that I should read it ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, it would be better. That is the only way we can get it on ' Hansard.'
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, The list is as follows :
Agents and Sub-Agents employed by the Dominion of Canada during the year ended June 30, 1902.
Name of Agent.	Where employed.	Salary paid, 1901-92.	Travelling Expenses.United States.	$ cts.	$ cts.*W. .T. White	2.500	00 1,800 00 900 00 1,200 00 900 00 1,200 00 1.500	00 900 00	M. V. Mclnnes	Detroit	1*378 88C. J. Broughton 	W. V. Bennett	734 61T. S. Crawford	T. O. Currie	B. Davies	J. C. Duncan	Jaa. Grieve	E. T. Holmes	1,200 00 000 00 1,200 00	1,222 75 983 20M. MacLachlan	Chas. Pilling	Grand Forks	(A. Laurier	W. H. Rogers 	1,200 00 1,500 00	C. O. Swanson	
....	Eastern States	H. M. Williams	Ohio	D. Gauthier	Eastern States	1,000 00	757 20A. Ribout	R. A. Burriss


Rev.   M.@: Blais	 			GOO 00 291 62 208 32 1,200 00	147 15


Rev.   M.@: 

List of Immigration Agents and Sub-Agents employed by the Dominion of Canada during the year ended
June 30, 1902-Concluded.
Name of Agent.	Where employed.	Salary paid, 1901-02.	Travelling Expenses.Continent.	$ cts.	$ ets.D. T. de Coeli... 	Belgium	-	1,200 00	804 10Sub-Agents.	_ ,, ,, ,	300 0047 68	111 8105 40J. H. M. Parker	
Z. Von Kajos	
Z. Clement.. . . 	300 00175 00150 00	157 40
Statement of amount paid to commission agents in the United States, for commission on settlers during the fiscal year 1901-1902.
Name.	Amount.
R. P. A-lgeo	
R.	D. Bag-nail....


Capt.   E.@: Barrett.. .. W. O. Bates	
S.	F. Boyd	
A.	B. Chamberlain..
G.	Cockburn	
A.	M. Ekland	
J. A. Flanagan	
R.	H. Grace	
H.	R. Gebler	
L.	,H. House	
Jas. Kelly	
G. W. Lincoln	
John Marth	
S.	S. Montgomery.. . ,T. A. McRae	 Nilson & N-ordlander
Wm. Ritchie	
J. W. Sims


Wr H.: Tlrornley.. ..
J. F. Turner	
G. F. West	
R. Price	
Tbo-s. Rattray	
B.	Allard	
E.	Barbeau	
N. Bartholomew.. .
Wm. Bo-ltion	
N. Campbell	
N.	P. Chamberlain..
M.	Conaton	
R. S. Elsworthy.. . J. H. Galliver	
B.	Green	
G. T. Grace	
M. C. Johnson	
J. C. Koehn	
A. G. Mackay	
W. Matheson	
J. A. McKay	
C.	J. Nelson	
A. B. Noble	
Wm. Ross	
W. C. Sutherland ..
O.	H. Todd	
F.	A. Wassman.. ,, J. H. M. Parker.. . Zoltan von Ra.1os.. .
.. $	67
..	14
..	30
..	21
..	6
..	17
..	3
..	15
..	28
..	67
..	3
..	3
..	155
..	6
..	83
..	108
..	14
..	3
..	1,896
..	35
..	12
..	3
..	667
..	46
..	33
..	18
..	5
..	1,979
..	5
..	130
..	9
..	5
..	96
..	8
..	9
..	12
..	17
..	1,096
..	88
..	55
..	123
..	7
12
464


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is that the whole list ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is the whole list of the salaried agents in Europe and the United States, with their salaries and expenses; also the commissions paid. It does not include the commissions paid on the continent or in Great Britain.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understood that there were 280 agents working on commission in the United States ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are a great many agents given authority to act from time to time, but if they do pot earn any commissions, their names do not appear on our books. There possibly may have been that number at one time, but during the past year the inspector removed the greater number of the commission agents on the ground that he did not think they were earning any money, and he has since re-arranged the list, so that at the present time I do not suppose that there are more than forty or fifty recognized by the department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There must be some record in the department of those who have been working on commission during the year.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My deputy minister informs me that in his evidence before the -Committee on Agriculture he put in the whole list.


Mr. WILSON.: I understand that two years ago there were 500 immigration agents on commission in the United States in the employ of Canada. Since that time the number has been reduced to 280, and the evidence brought down to the Co'mmittee on Agriculture showed that about fifty of them had earned something. I would like to know wliat is the use of keeping these people if they do nothing. I would like the minister to state what his policy is with regard to them for the future ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I fail to see what harm a man is doing who does not draw any money.


Rev.   M.@: 


Uriah Wilson: What good is he ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If he does not send us any immigrants today, he may do so to morrow, and if he does not send any he does not get any money.


Uriah Wilson: If a man does not send an immigrant to the country in a year, what is the use of keeping him ? I dare say that he is loaded up with stationery and other things that cost the department something. I do not believe in keeping a lot of people who are not of any use. Are these agents on commission each furnished with literature for distribution, and if so, what amount of literature have they distributed in the United States ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It would be quite impossible for me to tell the hon. gentleman the exact quantity of literature distributed by each of the agents of the department. I presume that we could ascertain by a laborious search.


Uriah Wilson: I asked if you furnish each agent with a certain amount of literature ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I could not say whether we do or not. The inspector distributes such literature as he thinks desirable and useful.


Uriah Wilson: I think this is information which we ought to have. The hon. gentleman's deputy is here, and I think he ought to be able to get it from him.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is quite impossible for the deputy minister or anybody else to state off-hand the exact amount of literature each agent has received from the department. If the members of the committee desire it, we will make an assiduous effort to procure that valuable information for my hon. friend, and bring it down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that we ought to be informed whether these agents who have sent no returns have been distributing the literature, whether it has beeu sent to them, and whether they incur any expense that has been paid by the department notwithstanding the fact that they have received no commission. The department surely has a record of what literature it distributes, and to whom it is distributed.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: All I can say is that literature is furnished under the direction of the inspectors to the salaried agents of the different states, and the salaried agents distribute the literature to the sub-agents whenever they think it call be usefully done. Whether we can get an exact record of what is sent to each subagent I am not at present able to say. Possibly it can be traced with a certain degree of accuracy. It would be quite a laborious operation, but if the committee desire that
information, we will make an honest effort to get it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The question of immigration is a very large one, and in view of the very large amount we are going to spend this year the amount asked for pnder this item being $150,000 more than was asked for last year, the matter is worthy of a little discussion, particularly after what was said yesterday. The hon. minister yesterday stated his policy with great frankness. He does not believe in helping the population of this part of the country in any way to move into the new territories, and he believes in filling up the North-west as quickly as possible, provided a suitable inspection is secured and proper agents are obtained; and he went so far as to say that he could not relax for a single moment. These agencies must be kept up, with the system of advertising, and all this great expense must be maintained, or else there would be a diminution in the flow of immigration to the North-west. The inspection is a most important point. That and some other points which were mentioned yesterday by my hon. friend from Lennox, ,the hon. gentleman has not approached to-night. The hon. member for Lennox yesterday pointed out some glaring discrepancies in this expenditure of $650,000 which we are making this current year. There were 6,000 Galicians came into Canada, and there are no homestead entries for Galicians. That is something which requires explanation. There were various other points mentioned by my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson), upon which we are entitled to an explanation before voting this large item. Is the inspection properly carried out ? There was an article published in one of our medical periodicals last year with regard to trachoma, that disease of the eyes which is being imported into this country by these immigrants. That article was written by Dr. Gordon Byers, an eye specialist of Montreal, who is a professor in McGill and are of the attending specialists at Victoria Hospital. In it he points out that trachoma is now implanted in our country and has been brought in by these immigrants. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Roche) took a very optimistic view of that disease, but I understand it to be incurable. I find in this evening's Montreal ' Star ' the following reference to the temporary officer whom the hon. gentleman has appointed in the city of Quebec to examine these immigrants, particularly as regards trachoma :
nr. Faber, charged with illegal practice keeps an immigration inspector at Quebec for steamship lines.
I do not know whether he is an appointee of my hon. friend or not, but this goes to show that the inspection is not carried on as it should be.
Quebec, July 15.-Dr. Faber, supervisor of immigration for the Canadian Pacific Railway

Atlantic line, has been proceeded against by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, charged with illegal practice of medicine.
Dr. Faber has been employed to care for those suffering from trachoma, &c., who have to he deported, during their stay here, instead of sending them to a hospital. The College of Physicians and Surgeons allege that he is not licensed to practice here, that he has no right to the title of doctor, and that he cannot receive remuneration for his services.
The doctor says that he is an American medical man in good standing, that he has not engaged in general practice and that he is acting as an expert on a salary. He is resisting the case and prominent legal counsel is employed on both sides.
X merely mention this point incidentally because X believe that this question of inspection, in view of the policy announced yesterday by my hon. friend, is a most important one. 1 had occasion to meet Dr. Byers, a few days ago in Montreal, and asked him if there were any changes in the conditions he had indicated in this article to which I have referred. He said there were not, that the disease was still existing, and that its importation had not been interrupted.
No doubt, under the system adopted by my hon. friend, there is a wholesale filling up, of the North-west, and it is very diffi-chit to. get over the argument presented so carefully yesterday by my hon. friend from Lennox, who pointed out that many of these people whom we are bringing over at our own cost to a large extent, go to the United States, and that many others are not desirable. I have heard an immigration agent in the province of Quebec, a man of great experience, declare that in order to secure a proper immigrant, you must go and get him in the country of origin, make sure that lie possesses all the necessary qualifications, physical, moral and mental, take him, upon his landing to this place of settlement, revisit him three or four or five times a year for three or four years, if you want to make a suitable settler out of him, such as we require in this country. And the experience of this gentleman, is corroborated by the experience of which we had a narration yesterday by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver). I listened with great attention to the speech of my hon. friend, who lives in the very place where many of these immigrants have settled, and everybody will admit that there is a great difference between the policy advocated by him and that followed by the department. My hon. friend from Alberta contends, judging by personal experience on the spot, that this system of crowding up the North-west with people from the old world in an indiscriminate fashion, is productive of social, political and economical problems of a very grave nature. My hon. friend from Alberta, who spoke advisedly, said that of course immigrants from the British isles, having all suitable qualifications, should be preferred, and that


Frederick Debartzch Monk: of course emigrants from this part of the country, Canadian settlers, filling up our North-west were the best we could desire. Emigrants from the United States were also very desirable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And from France.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am coming to that in a moment. What I wish to call attention to is this. There is a great distinction between what we call selected immigration and the system adopted by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior; and when we are going to set aside $800,000 for immigration purposes, it behooves us to consider whether it is not better for us to modify our course and follow the course adopted by the United States. It seems to me that it would be better to stop this system of paying so much per head. I find that my hon. friend paid last year in bonuses to agents for settlers from the United States $7,903. What kind of people where tliese that were sent into the country ? The earnings of these agents depend upon the number of settlers they send in-no matter what kind, whether they are affected with moral or political disease, if they are sent into the country, the agents get their commission. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sifton) spoke of the North Atlantic Trading Company. We paid that company $48,618 for 7,540 immigrants, on a basis, as my hon. friend stated yesterday-


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: It matters very little, the question is the system, the policy. These agents are paid so much per head. I question very much whether it is not time for us, for the reasons mentioned by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver), and for reasons which apply also in the province of Quebec and in the province of Ontario, to put a stop to this excessive expenditure and change the system. Instead of paying so much per head, we should proceed with a system of bringing immigrants here such as that proposed yesterday by my hon. friend from Alberta, and which I mentioned to the committee here as being the system recommended by an experienced agent in the province of Quebec with whom I have spoken much on this subject. The objection will be made that it is difficult to carry on the work of immigration upon that plan, that if you have to follow the immigrant from the time he leaves the country of or-itv]]j^ receive him on his landing ill this country, see that he meets with proper treatment where he settles, and then revisit him, it becomes a costly proceeding. But in the long run, it pays better, because the country acquires a better article, if I may use the expression, a better individual. And, as was pointed out to me, this settler, in turn, becomes himself an unpaid immi-

gration agent and secures for us from the country from which he comes the very best class of settlers. There is another point to which I wish to draw my hon. friend's attention, a point that, he will admit is a very important one when you come to the expenditure of such large sums. I have been through the older provinces, and I find that in Nova Scotia, judging from what the people there tell me, the best of their young men go to the United States. I have never had time to verify that, but I was told it by serious and responsible men. I inquired why the province of Prince Edward Island has not increased in population, and I was told that the young men, when they grow up, left there and went to the United States. The same thing was told me with regard to New Brunswick. In regard to the province of Quebec, I need not tell the committee that a very large mass of our population, and a very good element of that population, has strayed into the New England states. They have been attracted there in different ways. At a time when farming was bad, or at a time when manufactures in New England towns were prosperous they went to the United States. They went there in flocks. It is alleged that there are a million of our fellow-countrymen in New England. Of that million probably 300,000 are settled there in a permanent and absolute way. I doubt if there are so many who are thus permanently settled in the United States, for I have visited these towns and I know that many of these families look upon Canada as their country and have never taken out their naturalization papers, as they say, but work in the factories there in tlie hope of returning to Canada some day. So you have there about 700,000 people born in this country, British subjects, who only ask a favourable opportunity to return to their native country. With regard to Ontario, I am not quite so familiar, but I have been told that a great many Canadians born here have drifted over to the United States. Under these circumstances, is it right for my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior to lay it down as an absolute condition, as I heard him do yesterday, that, in spite of the government's large expenditure on immigration, they would not assist any of the eastern population to go and settle on the. plains of the North-west? I think that is a mistaken policy; and if my hon. friend pauses to think of the number of our own people who are living in the United States at the present moment or are preparing to migrate to that coiin-try, he will see the wisdom of diverting a great proportion of this money towards facilitating the establishment of our own people on these plains where there are opportunities for the production of incalculable wealth. If that money were expended in carrying on this work according to a proper system, the difficulty pointed out by my hon. friend from Alberta, a difficulty which
has struck many people who have visited this part of the country, would be removed. Now my hon. friend the minister will observe that in his department there is a very small, an almost infinitesimal sum set aside for the repatriation of these fellow countrymen of ours who are in the United States, and who ask for nothing better than to come and settle in the North-west. I was out, not through the North-west, but through a portion of Manitoba a year ago, and I found that in a place called St. Laurent, I believe, four or five men from the province of Quebec who had been in the United States, and who had suffered there, and were happy to have returned to Canada. Instead of settling in the province of Quebec, they have settled in Manitoba and they are rich farmers to-day, perfectly contented and happy. What has happened to these four or five individuals who I happened to meet might happen to many more. Their number might be increased ten thousandfold if, instead of reaching out to get these extraordinary types of people from the continent of Europe, my hon. friend devoted a part of the money to bringing in Canadians whether they may have left the province of Quebec, the maritime provinces or Ontario, by letting them know what the advantages are of settling in the North-west and offering them facilities, great facilities, for settling there. I find in the Auditor General's Report of last year a very large sum indeed devoted to agents in the western states. There are agents in Iowa, in Nebraska, in Illinois, in Kansas, in Missouri, in Wisconsin and many other western states; and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the expense of these agents, their salaries, their offices, and so on, would amount to about $70,000 or $80,000. On the other hand there is a sum of $1,800 paid to Mr. Brisson, the representative of La Societe Generale de Repatriment de la province de Quebec. Now I do not think this great expenditure of the department is properly appropriated. I think that a great deal of this large sum, which I place at between $70,000 and $80,000, is spent for agents who have no experience, though experience is one of the first qualities requisite for an immigration agent. I do not think that sum can give us an adequate return.
I know that, speaking particularly of the province of Quebec, some of our people who have emigrated to the United States and are now in the New England States, would be delighted to come back. I know that my hon. friend has supplemented that by a grant made since. I believe there is an agent or two who gets some $600. But what I wish specially to call the attention of the minister to is the belief I entertain that if the hon. gentleman would expend judiciously a little more money towards the repatriation of our own compatriots in the United States, men bom here, British sub-

jects, who after all have the first right to these rich conditions-if he would so expend one-hundredth part of that money he would reach better results, far more durable results, which would leave no fear for the future. Because there is no question that the danger indicated yesterday by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) is a real and grave danger. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Roche) may have seen these immigrants as they passed through that port, with beautifying glasses, t have seen them also, some of them have passed through Montreal, and some have remained there, and they are not as good as our own Canadians. very far from it. I desire therefore to call the minister's attention to this point. It may be that the same remark can be applied to the other provinces ; but speaking particularly of the conditions in the province of Quebec, you could recruit, at very little expense, in the New England States, a splendid agricultural class which you could settle in the North-west. Very likely if you brought these special advantages before those of our compatriots who have gone to the States, you would obtain the same results. I hope the hon. gentleman will accede to that proposition.
I only wish to emphasize one more point. We spent last year, according to the Auditor General's Report, what I call a fabulous sum in advertising. I question whether there is much wisdom in such an extraordinary expenditure. I think we have carried that altogether too far. We must make our country known in some dignified way. I can understand that we should make it known in Great Britain where we have authorized agents, and in France where we have authorized agents, and my hon. friend mentioned an agent that we have in Belgium. We should place every information possible, if you will, at, the disposal of intending emigrants. But if you look at these figures in the Auditor General's Report, it would seem as if this country was a perfect circus from the way it has been advertised. We have been paying thousands and thousands of dollars to be spent in Chicago in making maps to be circulated. I think that thing is carried too far. My hon. friend. ought also to control the statements made by Mr. Preston. Mr. Preston is the agent-general, having jurisdiction over all these numerous and expensive agencies that we have in Europe. He gets $3,000 a year, and all his expenses paid. With that remuneration, if he is a competent man, he ought to avoid falling into the errors which were pointed out yesterday, and of which I have heard a great deal myself.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: With regard to one point which has been spoken of, that is the curative treatment of trachoma. I wish to say that when the patients were examined for that disease by the doctors and were pronounced to be affected by it, they were *Mr. MONK.
afterwards examined by specialists, who reported that the disease was curable. They were subjected to the treatment of specialists for three weeks, and at the end of that time the specialists pronounced them cured. They were brought before the inspecting physician and before the American inspectors. The disease had disappeared, and they all pronounced them cured. That is sufficient for me. I know doctors differ. I know one will pronounce you to be affected by scarlet fever or small-pox, and another will say you have not got it. Rut when the same people pronounce a patient diseased and after treatment pronounce him cured, we accept that. My hon. friend's doctrine on political economy is about as valuable as his opinion on the subject of surgery or medicine. Whether it is an advisable proposition that the money of the country should be expended in transporting citizens from one portion of the country to another, has not yet, I think, been pronounced upon by political economists in the same line as the opinion of the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I think it is not proper to expend government money in transporting the inhabitants of one portion of the country where it is desirable they should remain, to another in order that they may obtain an easier living. It may be of advantage to the individuals, but it is of no profit to the state.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish to say that I did not pretend that trachoma was incurable. What I said was that I had information, and I believed very reliable information, to show that it was absolutely incurable, and that once a patient is afflicted with it he goes on gradually and becomes a burden upon the community. Personally I do not know anything about it. I did not pretend, either, that we should transport Canadians from one part of the country to another. But if the hon. gentleman will come down to the province of Quebec and see farmers who have eight, nine or ten sons, with a farm of perhaps one hundred or one hundred and twenty acres, he will agree with me that when these sons grow up and pay taxes to this government, some facilities should be afforded them to reach the plains of the North-west instead of trying to get people from the eastern part of Europe.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am bound to take exception entirely to the view advanced by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that it is the duty of the government of Canada to hold out inducements to draw away the population of the eastern provinces and take them out to the North-west. We are all interested in the great North-west, and our desire is that the increased population we get for that country shall come from foreign countries, those countries of course from which we are most likely to obtain desirable immigrants. But certainly at a time when the eastern provinces are not increasing as much

in population as we desire, it would not be wise policy for the government of Canada to make their disadvantage greater by holding out inducements to the young men of those provinces to leave their homes and go west. That view has repeatedly been advanced in the House by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I am obliged to take exception to it. If they have any cause of complaint at all in the east, and I do not think they have much, with regard to the immigration policy of the government, it is perhaps that we are giving too much attention to the west and not offering enough inducements to bring people from foreign countries to settle in the eastern provinces. There may be room for criticism in that direction, and if any suggestions could be offered to the Minister of the Interior whereby we could draw foreign immigrants, who are coming to the country, into the maritime provinces or into Quebec, he would be glad to do so. But, if we cannot get a new population into the eastern provinces from foreign countries let us, at all events, try to keep our own population and not offer inducements and use the money of the country generally to draw the young men of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec away from their own soil, where there is work for them to do, and where they are needed, and to carry them to even so good a land as the North-west.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I find myself in the rather unusual position of agreeing at the same time with the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I generally disagree with everybody, but this time I agree with everybody which is a happy change for me. What I mean is this : On general principles I entirely agree with the hon. Minister of Finance and I have taken occasion during previous sessions to disagree with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier upon this point. I do not think it is the duty of the country and I think it is the very opposite of the duty of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) to offer inducements to the people of the eastern provinces to settle in the west. But where I think the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is right is when he states that whenever young men from large farming families of the eastern provinces are induced to go to the United States, then, if there was in the eastern provinces some organization which would have the authority of the government or which would be upheld by the authority of the government that would try to prevent these young men from leaving this country and going to the United States, and persuaded them to go to the North-west, it *would be to the gain of this country.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that not what the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) said ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not exactly that. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier said that inducements should be given to our young men, particularly in the province of Quebec, to go to the North-west.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I understood the hon. gentleman that way. If not, I am glad to say that I still more agree with him than with the hon. Minister of Finance. But there is no doubt that if the government would appoint agents in Quebec who would have special charge of the work of inducing young men to go to the North-west rather than to the United States, and if they received close instructions they would, to show their zeal and good work for the government, insist on going further and induce young men to go to the west. I think the government should co-operate with the colonization societies of Montreal and Quebec to a larger degree than at present. Here are two societies that are organized by worthy people who are entirely disinterested, who have no political, financial, or personal interest whatever. These societies are organized by people who have no other view than to promote the settlement of the province of Quebec first and then the settlement of Canada at large. Their first object is to induce young men in Quebec to remain in the province, to go and take up new land in Quebec ; and to do this they offer facilities to induce them to become settlers and citizens of Quebec, which means, of course, citizens of Canada. But, at the same time when one family, or one set of youug men, make up their minds that they will not remain in the province of Quebec, then they would be disposed to help them to go to western Canada rather than to the neighbouring republic. If, instead of appointing paid agents in the eastern provinces who would certainly go too far in the direction of helping young people to go from the eastern provinces to the west, the hon. Minister of the Interior and the federal government would give more substantial help to the colonization societies that exist already in Quebec, I think the object of the hon. Minister of Finance and the object of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier would be met ; because these societies are composed of people who are entirely disassociated from polities or financial considerations, and they would certainly have as their first object the settlement of young men in the province of Quebec, and secondly inducing young men who did not care to remain in Quebec to go to the west rather than to go to the United States. I had the honour of accompanying a delegation from these societies on two or three occasions, and I must say that, although we were well received hy the government, yet, we did not receive from the government the encouragement which, I think, we were entitled to.

I see by the list that has been read by the hon. Minister of the Interior that out of our regularly paid agents in the United States, the total being twenty-three, with a total salary of $25,700, there are six French Canadians, from Quebec, with a total salary of $5,000. The list that is given to-night does not give the residences of these gentlemen, but I have here a list that was laid on the Table of the House at the beginning of the session at my request, and I find that out of these six French Canadian-agents, five are residing in Quebec and only one in the United States; while there are seventeen English speaking agents among the regularly paid agents. In the list that is given to-night of the commissioned agents, I find that out of forty-nine commissioned agents there are only two French Canadians in the United States. I make this point not to offer any reproach to the hon. Minister of the Interior on racial grounds, but I think I may fairly say, without making any comparison disadvantageous to any other race, that there is no better class of settlers that can be brought into Canada than the French Canadians resident in the United States, men who have left Quebec of late years, induced as they were by the attraction of the industrial centres of the United States, and who, being disappointed with the results of their life which do not come up to what they had expected, are ready and desirous of coming back to Canada. It may be said that they had no business to leave this country, but we may say that of all other parts of the population. We may say the same of the farmers who have left Ontario and the eastern provinces. The point I want to make is that we should have some agents in the United States coming into personal contact with the people there, knowing how to discriminate between an emigrated Canadian who desires to come back and one that should be left there. Take a Canadian who has been in the United States for twenty-five or thirty years, who is accustomed to the city life of the United States, and I do not think it would be the duty of the government to make any special effort to induce him to come back and become a farm settler. I think he would be disappointed and go back, and rather act as an emigration agent than as an immigration agent; because, the very best immigration agent you could have is a satisfied settler. The kind of men in the United States that we should make a special effort to secure are the men who have been born and brought up on the farm, who have gone to the United States because they were disappointed in their life here, who are fitted for farming life, and who are ready to come back. I hope the hon. minister will follow the advice that has been given to him by the repatriation and colonization societies of Quebec and Montreal. The request that has been laid before the hon. minister is Mr. BOURAS3A.
a most reasonable one. They ask for a very small increase in their allowance, being much less than is generally paid to our agents now. The work done by this society would be far more effectual and more valuable than what could be done by the paid agents of the government. I would like to insist upon this point. The agents that we have here in Canada,-I am especially referring to the French Canadian agents-may be well meaning, but it is a well known fact to those who have visited the French Canadian centres in the United States that most of these people are not prepared to come back at the request of a paid agent of the government of Canada who would go there simply for the purpose of asking them to come back. The best policy would be to choose some good citizens, clergymen, if possible, residing in the United States, knowing these people, living with them, who have no special interest in urging them to come back to Canada and who would choose the proper time at which to begin the movement and the proper people to work amongst.
For example, I happened to pass through Fall River and Lowell this spring during the big strike there, and if at that time we had a couple of good French Canadians who were known and trusted by the people there, I believe that quite a number of French Canadian families would have been induced to come back to Canada and would have made good settlers. I believe myself that at the proper time and with the proper means we could have induced several thousands of these people to return. But unfortunately we send agents there who do not know the people personally, who only meet them at large meetings when they speak about the advantages of Canada, but that is not the way in which the work should be done. Speaking for the French Canadian element I am quite sure that if the work had been left to the Colonization and Repatriation Society, much more effective work would have been done with much less expenditure. During the absence of the Minister of the Interior, the Colonization societies of Montreal and Quebec laid a statement before the department which was supported by several members from the province of Quebec, and I trust that the minister will give due consideration to that statement. I think it would meet the views of the Minister of Finance as well as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) if an effort were made to induce the French Canadians of Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois and the western states to settle in Manitoba and the North-west; while the French Canadians in the eastern states who mostly come from the province of Quebec might be induced to move back to Quebec and Ontario in which provinces they would make excellent settlers indeed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In reply to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), I wish to say

that I did not contend that -we should organize a movement among the population of the eastern provinces towards the west. If I announced any such proposition, I beg to withdraw it, because it is not at all what I meant. What I did mean to say was that where there were large families as there are in many instances in my own province, and where the farm is insufficient to support a whole family, a portion of that family who cannot reside on the paternal estate might settle in the North-west.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They could go to other parts of the province of Quebec.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have heard my hon. friend propound the theory in this House that we should not encourage emigration from our own province to the North-west Territories, and I differ from him there. He will agree with me that most of these surplus members of a family drift off to the United States, and it would be better for us to keep them in Canada whether it be in the west or in Quebec.


Mr. SCOTT.: Why do they go ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Because they cannot remain on their father's farm. They first come to the city of Montreal and then they are induced to go to the United States because they are told the conditions are better there.


Thomas Walter Scott: The real remedy for that is notl to be found in the Immigration Department giving assistance, but by creating such conditions in the North-west as will induce the people of the eastern provinces to go there instead of to the United States.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think a little of both would be useful. As an example I may state that I met in my constituency a few days ago a father and three sons who were going out to work by the day, aud they told me that if assistance was given them by the government they would go to the Northwest and settle on a farm. There are no opportunities now offered them by the government. There is no office in the city of Montreal where they could obtain tickets on favourable terms, or in fact where the terms offered to them would be as favourable as the terms given to these strangers.


Thomas Walter Scott: Do not the railway companies give reduced rates to Manitoba and the North-west during certain seasons of the year ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a harvest excursion in the fall, and I have noticed train after train filled with young men from Ontario going towards the west, but the people of our province for one reason or another have not availed themselves of these excursions.


Thomas Walter Scott: Home seekers excusions were run during two or three months of the present year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is done on the initiative of the railway companies and not of the government. I cannot agree with my
hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) that a parish priesit in the United States is the best agent, because I should think he would rather be disposed to keep his flock with him. I may however, tell the Minister of the Interior that I know of one clergyman-I do not remember his name at present-whom he has appointed as an agent and he is a very competent man, and I think that if his labours were extended upon a larger scale they would be productive of very good results.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I agree in part with what has been said by the hon. membei; for Babelle (Mr. Bourassa) and by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I must say that the department presided over by the Minister of the Interior is well administered, but I believe that more should be done to repatriate the vast number of French Canadians who have taken up their abode in the United States. Last year I presented to the House a tabulated statement published in the American newspapers which shows the number of French Canadians living in the United States and with the permission of the House I shall read that statement again :
Maine	 85,000
New Hampshire	 95,000
Vermont	 70,000
(Massachusetts	  310,000
Rhode Island	 80,000
Connecticut	 60,000
New York	 130,000
New Jersey	 3,000
Pennsylvania..	.. ,. .. s. ..[DOT]	4,000
Illinois	 50,000
Ohio	    8,000
Michigan	 140,000
Wisconsin	 50,000
Minnesota	 60,000
Kansas	 8,000
Dakota, north and south.. ..	15,000
Washington	 7,000
Montana._	 8,000
Washington	 7,000
Oregon	  5,000
California.. .		 10,000
Other states and territories.. 30,000
Total for the United States.. 1,228,000' Now, Sir, would it not be possible for the Department of the Interior to have a greater number of agents in the United States than they have at present ? I feel confident that if good sterling agents were sent to the States, they would succeed in repatriating a number of these French Cana-adians and inducing them to settle in both our eastern and western provinces. We have two colonization societies in the province of Quebec, one known as La Socffite Colonisation de Montreal, the other as La Society de Colonisation du Lac St.-Jean. These two societies with limited means, have done wonders in the province of Quebec. I have here the report of the Lake St Johns Colonization and Repatriation Society, and I find that last year, that society brought from the United States 1,129 settlers. I am sure that if those societies were given

' the help they claim from the Department of the Interior, they would succeed in repatriating a much larger number.
I agree with my hon. friend from Labelle, that the Department of the Interior should induce the Roman Catholic clergymen belonging to the French Canadian race, to become agents for the Dominion of Canada in various towns and cities of the United States. I must say that there are no better Canadians in the Dominion of Canada to-day than the French Canadians who have been obliged to go to the United States. They live and earn their living under another flag; and yet, when we visit them, as it has been my happy lot, during the last ten or fifteen years, we find that they are as good Canadians as those who live in Canada. If the Department of the Interior would make arrangements with the clergymen, who I am pleased to say are always respected and have the full confidence of their flocks, and who are as good Canadians as they were before they emigrated, the country "would greatly benefit by it.
I am happy to say that whenever we have made representations to the hon. the minister or to his deputy minister, Mr. Smart, we have been well received and have been well listened to.
Since we are speaking of French Canadian repatriation, I may just as well say a word about the movement which is set on foot to promote French immigration into Canada. Sir, no man is prouder than your humble servant, to see the immense concourse of people coming today from the British isles to the Dominion of Canada. I am pleased to see that people from Ireland, from Scotland, and from England are coming to this country, because I consider them the best class of settlers in any civilized land in the world. That they are coming in such vast numbers is due to the fact that this country has been well advertised on the other side for the last ten or fifteen years. It is due to the intelligent work done in England last year and the year previous by Mr. Smart, the deputy minister of the Interior, that we have this year thousands of immigrants coming from the British Isles. You have seen in the papers lately, thank God, that there is an Anglo-French entente cor-diale. You have witnessed the visit of the President of the French Republic to England, and I am sure you have been pleased to learn how well the King of England was received in France. There is nothing that pleases us more than to see this entente cordiale between these wto great nations from where our ancestors came. Well, Sir, if we do so much to bring into this country English immigrants, Scotch immigrants and Irish immigrants, let us do something to attract here that good immigrant from France, who is very economical, very industrious and very hard working. We Mr. LEMIEUX.
have a few French colonies in the province of Quebec; and the other day, speaking with one of the western members, my hon. friend the member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) he told me that the two most flourishing parishes in his constituency were parishes peopled by French colonies. But these people must be induced to come to this country. Some say that the French do not emigrate, that they are so happy to live in France that they do not care to go elsewhere. Well, Sir, reading the papers published in France, I find that every year thousands and thousands of Frenchmen emigrate to Madagascar, to the Argentine Republic, to Algeria, to Louisiana, and if they knew Canada, I am sure that they would come here in numbers. Do you not think something should be done to stimulate French immigration into Canada ? Frenchmen, as you are aware, have special reasons to settle in this country. I believe, for instance, that if there were a French line established between France and Canada, it would be a great aid in promoting immigration. If literature were spread throughout northern and southern France, and an intelligent movement set on foot to stimulate immigration from that country, I am positive that the best class of Frenchmen would come to Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is Mr. Fabre doing there ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Fabre is getting old. He is residing in Paris, and he receives, I must say a very poor salary. Besides, Mr. Fabre is alone, and one man cannot do what ten or fifteen men can do. Yet, with limited means at his disposal, he has been an efficient representative of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He has not applied for any assistance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Several times he lias ; he has applied for assistance during many years, and he has not received the help he should have. At all events, I think another system should be established. Mr. Fabre is a semi-ambassador in Paris, but he has not the time nor the means to go into what is called the province to stimulate emigration there. I think we should have in every department of France an intelligent agent, well au fait with the conditions in Canada, and I am sure that with proper inducements and proper literature distributed throughout that country, we could secure a good French immigration. I therefore hope the hon. minister will take into serious consideration the remarks Which have been made this evening in reference to the French Canadian repatriation and French immigration. I am glad to be able to state that Mr. Smart, after visiting France and England last year, has come to the conclusion that the best immigrants Canada can have are the British and the French.


Samuel Hughes: I have listened with a great deal of pleasure, to the remarks which have just fallen from the lips of the various gentlemen who have preceded me. I can heartily endorse the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Gasp 6 (Mr. Lemieux), the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), that our French Canadians make excellent settlers in the North-west. I do not know however, that our French Canadian friends can complain of lack of attention to their compatriots in the North-west. As the hon. member from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) well knows, starting from Edmonton and traversing the magnificent region for upwards of thirty miles in almost every direction, especially the northern, one comes to home after home, planted by this magnificent people. Passing along the entire north Saskatchewan, one comes across a settlement of French Canadians. At St. Paul de Metis, away north-west of Fort Pitt, there is a magnificent settlement of four counties, established through the energy of the Rev. Father Lacombe, and through the efforts of the clergy, settlers are coming in there of French Canadians from Minnesota and other western states. This district far beyond the region of active settlement, is already becoming well populated. During my visit I found they had a saw-mill and grist-mill and sufficient grain in store to last them a year or so.


An hon. MEMBER.: When was that ?


Samuel Hughes: Last year. The question of inducing people, who have left Canada, to return, is one on which I differ materially from many of those who have preceded me. The duty of this government is not to coax people to come back but to place before those who wish to better their conditions the advantages of Canada. No young man who has ever lived in Canada should require to be told of its advantages. Therefore I think the department is justified in not spending time and money in sending agents among those who were formerly Canadians. Whether they went from French Canada to the New England states or from Ontario and the maritime provinces to the eastern and western states. These people correspond with their friends in Canada, they know the advantages of Canada, and if they do not choose to take advantage of them, of their own accord, no effort of ours is likely to make them do so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the hon. gentleman any knowledge of the approximate number of our Canadian people who have immigrated to the United States ? Is there any tabulated statement to that effect ?


Samuel Hughes: Chicago alone has upwards of 100,000 from Ontario and Boston has 200,000 from the maritime provinces. I understand that the number of Canadian born in the United States is over a million.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: About 1,250,000 Canadians in the United States.


Samuel Hughes: Canadian born. There is no need to spend any money in making them acquainted with the advantages of Canada as a home to which they may return at any time, and the efforts of the department should be exerted in endeavouring to bring in immigrants from England, France and Germany, but especially from Great Britain and Ireland. We should bring in emigrants who do not now know the advantages of Canada, and I must commend the Department of the Interior for its exertions along that line. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. minister to an aspect of the immigration policy, in which I am more or less interested, and to a suggestion I took 'the liberty of making him some years ago, and which I believe has received some attention from his department. Those who have studied the history of the Dominion know that Canada was saved to Britain in the war of 1812 by those who had formerly been British soldiers or were the descendants of British soldiers. In 1837 Canada was undoubtedly saved by those who were either British veterans or their descendants. The same class came to the front in 1867, 1870 and 1885, and went to South Africa in the recent war. The men from Canada who took part in all these wars were largely men who had seen service in the imperial army or who were the descendants of imperial soldiers. Such men make good citizens. Some years ago I suggested to the hon. minister that a number of homesteads should be set apart for these men in the North-west. Upon each of these a little cottage with an outfit should be pla'ced and the honourably discharged British soldier should be given this homestead, subject to the cost of the cottage and outfit as a lien upon it. I do not know that I would even ask to have the whole cost paid back, or possibly he might pay the capital back without interest, and an industrious man would be able to pay it back by the end of ten years. If such a policy were carried out, it would have the effect of bringing excellent settlers into the country. I happened to be in Winnipeg this spring when a number of immigrants were going through. There were some very well to do families among them, but many had only from thirty to fifty pounds in their pockets. They were beset on every side by the agents of land companies and the agents of farmers wanting hired men. The latter had the pull, but with all due deference to those who think that an Englishman should undergo an apprenticeship to a Canadian farmer, I think that as soon as possible he should be

put on his own little farm. A few little printed sheets distributed amongst these men, instructing them how and when to put in their crops is all that is necessary to teach them how to begin. If these men had been taken out by the Interior Department, placed on homesteads, and each furnished with a little cottage ready to put up and the necessary furniture-the whole thing would not cost more than from $350 to $400, which would rest as a lien on the homestead-in a few years, we would have our North-west peopled with a class who would make the country prosperous and progressive beyond measure.


Thomas Walter Scott: How would the hon. gentleman settle the farm labour problem ?


Samuel Hughes: Let them meet it any way they choose. That is another point-I do not think this country is called upon to meet the farm labour problem. This country is called upon to deal with the homesteader, to get men to come in take up our lands and establish their homes. Let the farm labourer come along at his leisure.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: I have been for a few years one of the honorary presidents of the Quebec and Lake St. John Colonization Company. During the years 1 lived in Quebec, I happened to pay frequent visits to the Lake St. John district. I know that district well. It is one of the most fertile belts in this country. The population of that district is about 40,000 souls. A few years ago, it was a wilderness. During the last two years we applied to the Department of the Interior for further assistance. The colonization company has received $3,000 a year for the last three or four years. We asked for $6,000 a year. I am very sorry to say that our request was not acceded to. Our colonization company is composed of 700 people, amongst whom are 500 priests. Every member pays one dollar. These people are working for love, if I may say so : they are engaged in a labour of love and do not charge anything for their expenses or for the work they are doing in the interest of the country. I am sorry we have been refused the further assistance we have asked. During the years from 3897 to 1902, the Quebec and Lake St. John Colonization Company have located in the Lake St. John district 2,228 families. That is a large number of people. Had we been fortunate enough to receive more assistance, I think we might have doubled the number of people who have settled in that district. The greater number of people settled there are repatriated French Canadians. There are some foreigners, people from Belgium and France, and a very few Englishmen. Of course, some of these French Canadians who came back from the United States for the purpose of settling in the Lake St. John district went away again, as is the case in every part of the country. But the greater Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
part of them remained, and as I said 2,228 families have located there during the last five years. The Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company and the colonization company have incurred an expenditure of $119,000, and they have received from the government of $54,000. So, excess of expenditure over what we received from the government is about $65,000. In my capacity as one of the honorary presidents of the colonization company, I had the honour of having some correspondence with the members of the government, with the Prime Minister and others, and also with the Department of the Interior. We were requested to double our subscription if we wanted to have more money. In reply- as will be shown by the correspondence, which will be brought down, I hope-I distinctly stated that it was unfair to ask that from us. for the reason that in the North-west nobody is asked to form colonization companies and contribute money to bring in immigrants to this country. I think it was a very unfair answer that we received. I say again that we were requested to double our subscription if we wanted to receive more aid


Rodolphe Lemieux: When was that ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Last year. I have the letters in my possession, if they are not brought down. I hope that answer will be changed. I have no objection whatever- and in this I think X speak the mind of all the French Canadian members of this parliament-to every encouragement being offered to immigration to the great Northwest. We are represented out there ; we have about twenty-five thousand of our own race who were the first settlers there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The pioneers of the west.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes, the first settlers. It seems to me that parts of the country outside of the North-west where there are fertile lands should not be forgotten. I make these remarks in a friendly spirit, and hope they will be accepted as I offer them. There are other parts of the country that deserve the same treatment at the hands of the government that the Northwest receives. I believe that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior was not here when the correspondence to which I have alluded took place, and I take this opportunity of placing the facts before hjm and before the country. I have received myself, personally, answers which contributed, perhaps, to a certain extent, to send me into private life-to a certain extent at any rate. Reference has been made to the repatriation of the French Canadians, I happen to have visited the French Canadian centres in the United States on several occasions. I have no great confidence in the policy of repatriating the French Canadians-if I may so put it-in a violent manner. The French Canadians that are in the United States
668!

know Canada well. The most of them are subscribers to Canadian newspapers and follow the news of Canada pretty closely. A great many of them, I am glad to say, are in good circumstances. Many of them settled in the United States long ago, when we had no industrial establishments worthy of the name. I have no hesitation in saying, and public men who have followed the course of things will share my views, X am sure, that if we had more industries in the past, we should not have seen so many of the children of the soil leaving us to settle on the other side of the line. I would say also that if we had had a better agricultural policy we should have retained within the limits of our country many people who have left us. X am very much afraid that the local governments have not always done their duty, and are not doing their duty today. Speaking for the province of Quebec-, I say without hesitation that for years and years-I do not speak in any party spirit- we have not practiced the proper policy of colonization. And we are not doing it today. Things are going on which should not take place. The provincial governments could do a great deal to promote colonization. If we want to encourage immigration and colonization in the provinces where the lands are covered with timber and the distances are long, we must have colonization roads. The provincial governments must do their share. If the two governments, federal and local, will work harmoniously together, I think we will have a larger immigration into all the provinces than we are having now. It is good news indeed that the Minister of the Interior gave us yesterday, when be said that he expects this year 125,000 immigrants will settle in Canada. That is good news, but we must not forget that immigration on a much larger scale is pouring into the United States. The immigration into the United States will be over 600,000 people. Last year it was about 500,000.


Uriah Wilson: 730,000 last year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I saw the figures a few days) ago, perhaps I am wrong, but I think it was 650,000. It seems to me the time has come when we must put forth determined efforts to settle this country, not one portion alone, but every portion where there are available lands.
Referring to the Lake St. John district, three years ago the Dominion government gave a subsidy to the Lake St. John Railway to continue that road sixty miles from Roberval towards James' Bay. * I think it would be good-policy for the government to supplement that subsidy this; year. Of course we do not know yet what the government intends to do with reference to their railway policy. If the big projects that are now under discussion in the newspapers materialize, that is to say, if the Grand Trunk Pacific traverses that part
of the province of Quebec which was going to be traversed by the railway to which we gave a subsidy in 1899, so much the better; but if not, then I would suggest to the government the propriety, the importance, of adding to the distance that was subsidized in 1899.
My hon. friend from Gasp-e (Mr. Lemieux) has spoken of French immigration, of which we have received very little. If I am not mistaken, about 70,000 people emigrate from France every year. A good many of them have been going to the Argentine Republic; but of late years the French government has encouraged emigration to its colonies, to Algeria, to Tonquin, to Madagascar, &c.
I think, however, that we might get some immigration from France, some good immigration.
The hon. gentleman has also alluded to the establishment of a direct line of steamers between France and this country. We have made so many unsuccessful efforts in that direction in the past that I am beginning to despair of any appreciable results. I trust, however, that if the government is now negotiating with any parties, they will take good care to avoid dealings with schemers and promoters. We have had a lot of them in the past that have simply disgraced the name and credit of this country. I say this deliberately. I hope that my former colleagues will take good care not to fall into the hands of people who will disgrace the name of Canada, and lead to another unsuccessful effort. I do not mean to say that those who have been trying to establish a line between France and Canada in the past have done anything improper, tout they were not strong enough financially, and consequently they did not succeed. I hope, without making any personal allusion, that if the government deal with any company or any parties, they will take good care to deal only with those who have sufficient financial ability to carry out the enterprise, for which parliament has voted a large sum of money. I have nothing more to add except that I beg to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the request that has been made by the Lake St. John Colonization Company. I think if the grant of $3,000 that has been made in the past was doubled, the number of people who have settled in that district would also be doubled.


Samuel Hughes: 1 asked the Minister of the Interior if any steps had been taken to bring out honourably discharged British soldiers to Canada as settlers, and he has not answered that question. While he is on his feet, I would also like him to give us a little synopsis of the plans that have been made to entertain the British members of parliament who are coming out to visit this country. I may point out to the minister that last year a number of newspaper men came out to Canada from the old country, and some of them

complained after they went home that they did not see the agricultural part of Canada, that is those parts to which settlers were going. They saw, as one of them stated in the newspaper article, the immigrants arriving at Halifax, they saw them en route on the trains, but they did not see them in the sections of the country to which they were being taken, in their homes. In other words, the newspaper men were kept along the lines of railway and did not go out into the country. Now, what plans have been made for showing this country to the English members of parliament when they come here ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No steps have been taken to procure the immigration of discharged British soldiers as distinct from others. As to the second question of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes), I can only say that when lately, in England I was seen by a couple of gentlemen who were promoting the visit of members of the British parliament, and I had some discussion with them with regard to the trip which they proposed to take. The arrangements, however, have not yet taken a very definite shape. Dr. Lunn, that is the name of the gentleman who I think is looking after the itinerary, was here a short time ago; and although we have agreed so far as certain features of the itinerary are concerned, which is to be left largely to officers of the Department of the Interior, the details of the plan are not settled: yet. The Commissioner of Immigration is coming with them, they specially requested that Mr. Preston should come with them, and I consented to that being done. But as to the large details, so far as my department is concerned with them, they have not yet been settled. While I am on that point 1 may say to my hon. friend that if he had the same experience as I have had in trying to get people who come into this country to go where I think they ought to go, he would have learned that it is not always possible to send people just where you want them to gto. People come here, especially English people, with the notion that they know just where they want to go and it is rather difficult to change their views upon that subject. The party of English journalists was composed of very estimable gentlemen as far as I am aware. We endeavoured to guide them as wisely and gently as it was possible for us to do, but some little difficulty occurred when they were here in regard to the itinerary and the places where they should go, but we found it quite impossible to absolutely direct the movements of this party. They occasionally developed ideas that they wanted to go to places where we knew that it was no use for them to go. The only way to convince them was to allow them to go and see for themselves. Of course in that way time was wasted. Upon the whole, I think the gentlemen who were endeavouring to direct Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
them did as well as they could do under the circumstances. I am satisfied that they could not have done any better if it had to be done over again now.


William Rees Brock: This question of immigration is probably the most important question that can engage the attention of this parliament or country. A great many questions are involved in it. We have been told this evening that no less than 1,200,000 French Canadians have left this country and have gone to another country, and the first thing that would strike us would be to ask the question : Why do they go ? Why do they leave this country ? The next one is : Where do they go to ? That being the case, we come back to the question and ask ourselves : What inducements do we offer these people to stay here ? I wish to ask the attention of the committee for a few minutes to this subject, and to put it plainly to hon. members who have been discussing matters here for many years, that, if, when we find level headed, sensible, educated people leaving this country year after year, and day after day, it is not natural for us to ask ourselves :	Why do people
leave this country ? They must go somewhere, and where do they go to ? I would ask : Do they go to a free trade country ? Why do they leave this country ? They leave this country to better their condition, and they think they do better their condition. In looking at the statistics, I find that between 600,000 and 700,000 of these people have gone to the manufacturing states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and New York. They do not go there to farm. You know as well as I do that the French Canadians who leave the province of Quebec to go to Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont do not go there to farm. They go there because they find manufacturing industries that are highly protected. The manufacturing industries of the United States have their own country lor a market sure and solid. The United States keeps the United States for American manufacturers. Therefore, they go there with some assurance of success. The hon. member for St. Mary's, Montreal (Hon. Mr. Tarte) pointed out to us that efforts had been made to bring them back to this country, to parts of lower Canada where there are no manufacturing industries. They have held out very great inducements because they do not come back to farm. These men who have been employed in the factories will not go back to the farm. If they come back it will be because the same inducements are held out to them that are held out by the United States and the principle of these inducements is that we are going to have the trade of Canada for our own manufacturers.


Joseph Israël Tarte: A certain number of them who have been farmers in the past may be induced to come back.


William Rees Brock: That I am perfectly well satisfied of.


Joseph Israël Tarte: But my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) is right as to the main point.


William Rees Brock: I am speaking of the great question that is agitating this country at the present time. I am quite well aware that a great many people who have been farmers will come back and I am also well aware that we offer magnificent inducements to them to come back and farm, but these large families in Quebec who have left their small farms disgusted with the poor results that they have achieved there and who have gone to the United States, and have made a great success of it will not come back to Canada, because they find that the conditions are different, that our wages are small, that we have not our own markets, that the government of this country are receiving enormous sums from import duties on goods imported into the country that should be manufactured here, and X give these people credit for having a great deal of sense. As the hon. member for Montreal, St, Mary's, has pointed out, they all read the newspapers. They find out that the Minister of Finance of this country tells the manufacturers that if they cannot do with their present duties they had better let their factories go. These men will not turn to this country under such circumstances. A man who has the energy, the pluck and the courage to go to the United1 States is not going to come back unless he can find that the conditions are going to be somewhat similar to the conditions in the United States.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: How does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) account for the 45,000 American farmers who have come to our country within the last few years ?


William Rees Brock: These 45,000 American farmers made their farms valuable because they had the home market for their products, and that is the way they are going to tell the government of this country that they are going to have the markets of this country for their products.


Joseph Israël Tarte: They are protectionists, every one of them.


William Rees Brock: Every one is a protectionist.	,


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman's inference in regard to these farmers is that they have not read the newspapers, and that they are not aware of the conditions of this country.
Mr. BROCIv. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) mean to tell me that the farmers coming from the United States are men who have no common sense and they do not read ? They come because they know that in a short time they will have the privilege of becoming Canadian citizens,
and when they do so they are going to vote for protection as they had it in the United States.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) tells us that the French Canadians do not come back to Canada because they are intelligent people who read the newspapers and that they are aware of the conditions in Canada. But, the 45,000 farmers came and the inference from the hon. gentleman's remarks is that they do not read the newspapers.


William Rees Brock: ' The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is arguing backwards. The people who have left their farms in this country have gone to the factories in the United States, and they have made a success of it. They know that the reason why they have made a success of it is that the United States retains its own market for its own manufacturers. Do you know any manufacturers in this country exporting goods to the United States ? I am a manufacturer,
I may say, in a small way. Not a dollar's worth of goods leave a single factory in this country to go to the United States. In this country we have had seventeen woollen mills burned down within the last six years. How many of them have been rebuilt ? Not one.


William Ross: They are building two new factories in Nova Scotia.


William Rees Brock: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


William Rees Brock: Yes, and I can tell these gentlemen opposite that a cheap country to
66S7

live in is not a good country to live in. They tails about the cheap loaf in England ; why, one of the strongest arguments against them there is that there are millions of people in England who, after fifty years of free trade, have only a very narrow line between them and starvation. It is one of the strongest arraignments against the free trade party in England that they are wanting to know what to do with seven millions of people who are on the verge of starvation after fifty years of free trade. It is not so in the United States. There they are not talking about millions of starving people. Quite the contrary ; they are inviting healthy immigration from all parts of the world, and incidentally they are dumping upon Canada the idiots and the rest of them that are not able to support themselves. I would like that gentlemen on the other side of the House should consider the interests of this country-not the interests of their party, because I know that the interests of their party are not the interests of this country- I would like gentlemen opposite for a few moments to consider the interests of this country. Are not the interests of this country upon the lines I am indicating, namely, that we should have the market of this country for the Canadian people ; and if we have, then we can hold out inducements to these 1,200,000 French Canadians who are amongst the best and most productive citizens of the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. DAVIS.: Will the hon. gentleman tell us when they went out of this country ?


William Rees Brock: I regret to say that they have been going out of the country all my life.


Mr. MONET.: And most of them during the national policy.


William Rees Brock: Are you bringing them back?


Dominique Monet: Dots of them.


Thomas Osborne Davis: You would have nobody here at all if you kept on your national policy.


William Rees Brock: It appears to me that the members from the North-west who come down here do not seem to think, or to know, or to acknowledge, that there is any part of Canada but the particular part they represent. I am quite willing to admit that they represent it well, but I want these hon. gentlemen to broaden out a little bit. We have a great Dominion here, and they must not forget that there is another part of Canada besides the west. I can tell you that we in this part of Canada are always thinking of them. We know of their great success, and we are willing to acknowledge it ; but they should be large enough to broaden out and acknowledge that there are other interests than those which they are advocating. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are told by some agencies who are making themselves Mr. BROCK.
well known in England and the United States, that there is no room for iron workers, wool workers, cotton workers and wood workers in this country. I am able to speak with authority, and I say that we at the present time are wanting at any rate 10,000 mechanics in this country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Hear, hear.
Mr. BROCK, We can give them employment-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: We can give them employment if the government will give us the protection that they have in the Unfted States.	.


An hon. MEMBER,: Will they cheer on the other side now ?


William Rees Brock: I am glad to see the Minister of Finance smiling and approving of that, but I can tell him that one of the great troubles to-day is the feeling of uncertainty there is. The government of Canada propounds a policy of protection under the form of bounties, but I can tell them that it is only a sneaking way of getting out of it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question ?


William Rees Brock: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He says we would want those additional workmen if increased protection were granted.


William Rees Brock: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Did he not, as a member of the Manufacturers' Association, issue a circular saying that we want these people now, and without any reference to protection ? I am advised that the circular of the Manufacturers' Association stated that they could not get workmen enough in Canada to-day ; not 10,000, but 30,000 they wanted ; and they did not say that these extra men would only be necessary if they got increased protection.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: Wait a minute. I am proud to say that we ha^e got in the Dominion of Canada the most progressive and most energetic manufacturers that are on the face of the earth.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: They are willing to stake their capital and all they have upon the industries in which they are engaged. Does the Minister of Finance tell me, or will he tell you gentlemen back of him there, that all the industries in this country are successful ? It is one thing having lots of work, and it is another thing to be able to do it at a profit. We cannot make any money by

running our factories lialf time or with half the number of hands. The government, I know, are playing into the hands of certain elements of this country who are spreading the statement broadcast that we have more men here than we want. As a Conservative,
I want to see people coming into this country and filling it up. To do that we must hold out the inducement to these people to come here, that we are going to give them work under as good conditions as the people living to the south of us, or otherwise' you will land people here from the steamers and , the next day you will find them in the \ United States.
'-. The MINISTER OF FINANCE. That is rtae old way ; it is changed now.
3Jr. BROCK. I beg your pardon, it is not changed now, and you cannot show by sta-tistiajs that it is.
Mr. NjSCOTT. Oh, yes, we can.


William Rees Brock: I wish to make no representations that cannot be borne out by facts.
I have made the statement in this House, and I have made it elsewhere, that many of the factories in this country are working up to their full; capacity so far as the hands are concerned, but the great majority of these factories are working without profit. We have got to compete with the cheaper labour in England ; we have got to compete with the cheaper labour on the European continent, and being a small population we are invaded from Germany, from England, from France, from the United States, and we have no foreign market. Give us our home market, as the United States kept their own market, and having that they are able to invade the markets of other countries.


William Ross: The r^wn markets, too.


William Rees Brock: That kind of interruption may do for the hon. gentleman from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross), who does not know what markets Canada wants. We want to be able to go to the markets of the world, and I commend to the gentlemen on the treasury benches their venerable and venerated friend from Victoria, who is their leader and guide in political and trade matters.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Within a month I was speaking to a prominent officer of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and I complained to him that they | had not taken full advantage of the recent steamship service established between Canada and South Africa.


William Rees Brock: Yes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend agrees with me that they have not taken advantage of that service ?


William Rees Brock: Yes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Other nations are taking advantage of the trade that is offering in South Africa. The reason 210
this officer gave me for the Canadian manufacturers not stepping into that market was because they had a much more profitable market in Canada to-day, and that they could not supply it, much less a foreign market.


William Rees Brock: That just proves my argument. I say our great market, our profitable market, is the home market. This is the market we want first of all, and we have not got it. We have to compete in this market with Germany and England and the United States. When we go into this market we find English goods and American goods selling at jobbing prices; and the Postmaster General would be perfectly satisfied to allow our Canadians to work without a profit, while contending against a country like the United States, who keep their own market to themselves, in which we cannot sell a dollar's worth of manufactured goods. I cannot understand it. Probably I should not urge the matter too strongly, because the hon. gentleman has been more taken up with law than with business. But as a business man I cannot understand that kind of thing.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He is the Minister of Labour.


William Rees Brock: Mr. Chairman, this is a business question. The right hon. Prime Minister, when he was on this side of the House, pleading with the people of Canada to place him in power, said that he would surround himself with a body of business, men who would carry on the affairs of this country on business principles. I contend that the policy propounded by this government, more particularly by the Minister of Finance, is not a business policy for this country, but is a policy to help foreign countries against this country. I do not believe he intends it; it is altogether due to his absolute ignorance of business matters. My genial friend, the Minister of Customs, who occasionally in candid moments expresses himself on the other side, who knows something about business, who knows that the Canadian market is the best market, who would not like this market to be invaded unfairly in lines in which he himself is engaged, should know better. I am astonished ; but so the world goes. I would ask the hon. Postmaster General to I get into confidential conversation with my hon. friend the Minister of Customs and take some advice from him, and he will find that the market we have in this country is a market which we should retain for Canada ; and if we are going to induce people to come to this country who are worth having-I mean people who think and act for themselves-we must make the conditions such that when they make a comparison between this country and the United States and consider which is the best country to move to, they will decide in favour of Canada.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman says that the people who come to this country should be people worth having. Does he mean to say that the people who are coming are not worth having ?


William Rees Brock: I think the hon. gentleman is lowering the average of the west by asking such a nonsensical question. No one is more anxious than I am that we should get a good class of settlers in this country. I am anxious that Canada should stand well with the people of other countries. I am anxious that our government should stand well with the people of other countries ; that they should stand with a united front, and not be disunited; that the government of this country should be one in policy ; not that people should come to the country and find 'a government who do not know what their opinions are, who find out first what the public sentiment is. and take advantage of the opportunity to slide to the left or the right. Let us have some solidity here. But first, as a Canadian citizen who is in business in this country, I want to have this market for Canadians. Next, we want to be encouraged to such an extent that we can employ all the people who come here, whether they are mechanics or farmers, and that *we can employ them to such advantage that after a time we shall have a surplus to export, as the United States have. When we have that, the hon. minister will not find any difficulty with the steamships going empty, for we shall have plenty of stuff to sell to South Africa and Australia. In the meantime our market is limited in all directions by the policy of the present government. Under these circumstances, you must not find fault if our steamships have to go empty to South Africa and Australia. We cannot find markets in those countries because we have not even our home market.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If you have not a home market, how is it that you are asking for more employees to help you to manufacture more manufactured snoods ?


William Rees Brock: Under the late government we started an immense amount of machinery in this country, hoping that we were going to have the market to ourselves. The present government gave us to understand that they were not going to go back on that policy. But they have done all they could to take that market from us. They have given to England a preference of 33J per cent. Do you think that has had no effect on the industries of this country ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It has helped England and it has helped Canada.


William Rees Brock: The hon. gentleman had better stick to his last. He is talking of something he does hot know much about. Look at woollen goods alone.


William Rees Brock: 


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You cannot draw the wool over our eyes.
Mx\ BROCK. I am talking about what I know, and if the hon. gentleman would only talk about what he knows-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You are talking about a good many things you do not know much about.


William Rees Brock: I may make mistakes like other people ; I am not infallible ; but I am here to express my opinions. I express them not for a political purpose, but because I feel them. Mr. Chairman, this is a discussion that should do good. It/ must impress the people of this country. We find it permeating not only this sufie of the House, but the other side.' Gen/tle-men on that side are getting up and urging protection for different industries, f The government find them out when they propose to make changes. I would urge them to consider this matter, even in these last days, when they are on their last/legs.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh. oh.


William Rees Brock: 
William Ross: After the lecture by our hon. friend, I think it is fitting that we should condole with the Minister of Customs and the Postmaster General for their gross ignorance of business matters. We might then give our attention to the estimates of the Minister of the Interior, and I must say, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me you are not performing your

duty in allowing tlie discussion to take tlie range it has, because if we are going to debate free trade and protection, we will be here until winter. We had better stick to our text. As for the hon. gentleman for Toronto (Mr. Brcck) he might, like the prophets of old, exclaim: ' They have all gone astray and I alone am left.' But even the prophet was mistaken, for there were seven thousand people left, and there are still several millions of free traders in this country who will never bow tneir knee to the baal of protection. It seems to me that we had better go on with our work and pass our estimates and close this useless discussion.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. member for Toronto has made the statement that a great many people are leaving this country at present, and that overflow he says is on account of the policy of our government. But If lie would look at tlie figures, he would find that when the party he is so proud of were in power years ago, more than double the number of people that are leaving now were leaving then.


William Rees Brock: How much wheat did wt grow in the west then, and how much now


Thomas Osborne Davis: That has nothing at all to do with the question. If the policy the hon. gentleman advocates, and which was then in force, was so good, what became of the million immigrants, which the official returns say were brought in, at the cost of a vast sum of money ? Where did those people go ? They did not remain in this country. 1 know that the hon. gentleman is a sort of a political Van Winkle. He has been asleep so long that he does not know what is taking place ; but I will just point out two lilies of figures for his satisfaction. Does he know that in 1890 when his friends were in power and the national policy was flourishing, the exports of manufactured goods from this country amounted to $9,522,000, and that in this year of grace, 1903, these exports have increased, under the policy of the Liberal party, to $22,000,000 or 140 per cent. Yet, still the hon. gentleman cannot see that the country is doing very well. The hon. gentleman is president of several woollen industries and mills in this country, and I quite sympathize with him. He would like no doubt to put a few more sheckels into his pockets and make more returns to the shareholders, but the balance of our people do not feel like letting the hon. gentleman pluck all the feathers off them for his own benefit, especially when his mills are running night and day and even then he cannot fill all the orders. One of the reasons why our mills are not shipping to South Africa is because they cannot fill the orders they have in this country. The manufacturers of clothing were not able to get the goods they required, and finally had to send to the old country for them. The 210i
hon. gentleman has treated us to a lecture, but I think we had better stick to the passing of the estimates which deal with immigration. Some one stated to-night that the
125,000	immigrants we got last year were nothing compared to what they got in the United States. But let those gentlemen take up the figures for the last year when they were in power. All they got was 5,000 emigrants, while the Americans were getting 700,000.


William Rees Brock: Hear, hear.


Thomas Osborne Davis: What then have they to complain about ? We have run our immigration up from 5,000 to 125,000 and the Americans are not getting so many to-day as they did then. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman should be very well satisfied with the work done by the Department of the Interior. Whenever he chooses to take up the question of free trade, we will be prepared to meet him and will not leave him a leg to stand on.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My honT friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) drew my attention to three or four matters to which he thought I should refer. He referred to the statements made by the hon. member for Lennox that the records show 7,000 Galicians entered the country and there is no record of their homestead entries. If the hon. gentleman will turn up the departmental report 1901-2, page 12, he will find that under the name of Austro-Hungarians, which included the Galicians, there were 1,321 homestead entries.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That does not explain, because on page four we have the Hungarians 1,048 and the Galicians 6,550 and in the homestead entries we have only the Hungarians.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: You have Galicians 6,550, Hungarians 1,048, and Austrians 620. I have no doubt that the term ' Austro-Hungarian,' used on page twelve is intended to apply to those three cases.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is impossible, because the Hungarians are given separately. There were 1,048.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They are given separately at page 4 :	Galicians, 6,550; Hungarians, 1,048; Austrians, 320. And at .page XII, where the homestead entries are given, the hon. gentlemen will see :	Austro-Hungarians, 1,321. I
have no doubt that the officials who made up the list put these three classes together under the title ' Austro-Hungarians.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The report of the superintendent of immigration shows that of Scandinavians, 2,451 came in.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: They are in a different class.

669S


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But there are no Scandinavians homesteaders.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If my hon. friend will turn to page XII, he will find in the list of homestead entries : Swedo-Norwegians, 229; Danes, 40. These seem to be all the entries of Scandinavians. But my hon. friend will understand that the numbers given at page 4 are of families, not of individuals.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But making allowance for all that, the hon. minister will see that the figures do not correspond at all. It would be better, in future reports, to put the column together so that we can see what the actual results .are.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) to ask what the explanation was, and I am endeavouring to give it to him. I am not aware of the reason why the officials who compiled the table made a change this year. It was not called to my attention. It is quite impossible, as my hon. friend is aware, that I should personally supervise every table prepared by the officers of the department. I am giving the explanation of the facts from which he will see that there is no real discrepancy, that the hotne-isteads do in fact correspond with the number of people reported to have come.
My hon. friend called attention to certain statements with regard to a form of disease which has been considerably spoken of in connection with the medical inspection of immigrants-trachoma. The hon. gentleman spoke at some length on the subject, and I understood him to express the opinion that this disease.was incurable. I do not profess to be able to give an opinion upbn this, purely medical question, but I may say that the medical inspector of our department advises the department that this is not an incurable disease; and also that the matter having been referred to the director general of public health, an officer of the Department of Agriculture, he gives a similar opinion. These officers tell us that trachoma can be rapidly and somewhat easily cured under proper conditions. Then, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) called attention to the fact that a gentleman named Faber was reported in one of the newspaper as a physician in charge of the work of inspecting immigrants and it was said he had been subject to a penalty-found to be unlicensed or something of that kind. All I have to say is that he is not an officer of my department. He may be employed by one of thie steamship companies but tfe is not employed by us.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not pretend that he was employed by the department; but I would ask the hon. minister how it comes that this officer is charged with the care of patients afflicted with trachoma, who arrive in Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We have no record on that subject. It may be that he is acting on behalf of one of the steamship companies.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who pays the cost of the maintenance of these sick Immigrants ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It is the duty of the steamship companies to provide medical treatment for them, and it.is the duty of our officers to see that they are cured of the disease before they are permitted to become permanent residents of Canada.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And are these sick immigrants -the guests of the steamship companies during the time they are being attended by Canadian medical officers ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The medical officers are officers of the steamship companies, and the immigrants are maintained at the charge of the steamship companies.
Mr. CLARK!). There is no charge upon the Canadian people except the charge of our medical officers ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is all.
ill-. FOWLER. How many of the Barr colonists were there altogether, men, women and children ?
The MINISTER OF THE, INTERIOR. I will give the hon. gentleman that information a little later on. I remember that the number of homestead entries made by the Barr colonists was 1,821.


Mr. FOWLER.: The hon. gentleman can give me the information as to the number of colonists later on to-night ?
The MINISTER OF THE' INTERIOR.
I cannot give the total number now. I desire to say a word or two with regard to some matters that have been brought to the attention of the committee and in respect to which a word or two may not be amiss. In the first place, so far as that phase of the immigration question is concerned to which my attention has been drawn by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Boura'ssa), tiie hon. member for Gasp6 (Mr. Lemieux) and the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte), I may say that we have, at the present time, for the purpose, of conducting the repatriation of French, Canadians, three agents who are clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church, and I believe, all French Canadians, and we have, in addition, a lay agent.


Dominique Monet: Where are these agents ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend from Labelle referred to the fact that these agents were stationed in the province of Quebec, and suggested that it would be better if they were stationed ii?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON.: [DOT]certain portions of the United States. That point, though apparently well taken, is not, I think, a real objection to the plan that is being followed. These gentlemen during certain periods of the year leave their parishes, where they are permanently located as clergymen, and go to the eastern states and labour among the French Canadian people. 1 am in doubt as to whether it would be a better plan to endeavour to employ clergymen of the church who are actually stationed In the United States. We do know that the gentlemen who are engaged in this work at the present time are sincere and active in the promotion of thie work. We know further that their work is fairly successful. Whether we could depend upon the work being done in the same way and with the same zieal and earnestness if we employed clergymen residing permanently In the United States, is a question with regard to which I think there is room fotf a difference of opinion. So far it has appeared that the best plan to1 follow is the one we have adopted, of employing clergymen whose permanent location was in the province of Quebec, giving them a small additional stipend and thus assisting them in carrying on their work. We have in addition to that, an agent stationed at Mattawa. for a district to which a number of our French Canadian people are going, to assist them, in their location when they arrive. "He sometimes travels in the United States as well. In addition to that, we give a grant to a colonization society which has its headquarters in the city of Montreal, and to another colonization society whose headquarters is in the city of Quebec. We have been giving each of these societies ?3,-
000	for the last two years.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these societies incorporated under the laws of Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1	am not sure, but I think they are. The question of increasing these grants has been under the consideration of the government during the present year. It was especially brought to the attention of my hon. friend the Postmaster General when he was acting for me in my absence, and it has been brought to my attention by him since my return. In addition to these expenditures, we give to the Lake St. John Railway Company, and have been giving for the last six years, a sum of 38,000 a year. This company expends this sum of $S,000 and a sum considerably in excess of that, I believe, in colonizing the district which the railway serves. They present a report every year showing the nature of the work which they have been able to accomplish. For my own part I am free to say that I do not think there is any more really effective and valuable immigration work being done than is being accomplished by the expenditure of these sums to which I refer ; and I have no objection at all to assenting to the view .
which has been expressed by a number of members from the province of Quebec that a more liberal assistance should be given for this work. I am glad to hear from the members from the province of Quebec who have spoken on the subject, that they approve of what has been done, and that they would approve of some further assistance being given in the same direction.


Samuel Hughes: I suppose no selection is made of these immigrants on creed lines ? They are all brought in here irrespective of what church they belong to ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
We know of no distinction,


Dominique Monet: French Canadians are all Catholics.
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I think my hon. friend will acquit me of any religious prejudice in regard to the immigrants that are brought in, as they belong to almost every creed.


Samuel Hughes: The minister says he is giving assistance to colonization societies. I presume they are Roman Catholic societies ?
The	MINISTER	OF	THE	INTERIOR.
I think they are wholly non-sectarian societies.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No doubt they are mixed.


Dominique Monet: What I mean by my remark is this :	The hon. gentleman spoke
of repatriating French Canadians from the United States, and I meant to say that in regard	to the question of	religion, the
French Canadians are all Roman Catholics.


Samuel Hughes: Not by any means.


Dominique Monet: Ninety-nine out of every hundred.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I was about to say that the work in connection with the movement of French Canadians back to Canada has been of slow growth, and has only been developed by very constant and persistent work. It has not been at all an easy thing to accomplish, and I think the gentlemen who have been doing that work are entitled to very great credit for the success which has attended their efforts. In the discussions which have taken place, some hon. gentlemen have referred with emphasis to the fact that the immigration to the United States Was something over 600,000 last year ; and figures are given-I do not know whether such was the intention in the present debate-apparently for the purpose of indicating that we are not getting our share of people that come from the older countries, and that the success which has attended our efforts is the result rather of a general movement of population than of any special efforts on

our part. I do not think we need to disturb ourselves by a comparison between the volume of immigration to the United States and the volume to Canada. If our friends will undertake to make an analysis of the figures, they will find that out of a total immigration to the United States last year of 648,743, there were only 8.168 farmers, and 80,562 farm labourers. Practically all the rest were mechanics and labourers of the common class, people who congregate in cities, and cannot in any sense of the word be held to be persons who will become producers and citizens of a valuable class.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Does the bon. gentleman know how many homesteads were taken up in the United States last year ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have not got the figures by me, but I believe a very large number. But if my hon. friend will look at the records he will see that while it is quite true that a large number of homesteads have been taken up in the United States during the last year, they were nearly all taken by natives of the United States, or by persons who were residents of the United States for some years, not by persons who have come in during late years as immigrants.


Mr. COCHRANE.: How does the minister know that ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 1 know it from an examination of the facts I made some time ago. But hon. gentlemen understand that I will not undertake to give exact details from memory at this moment. While I am discussing this point, let me call attention to the fact that out of this total of 648,000 people who went to the United States last year, no less than 178,375 were Italians. Members of the committee who follow these matters at all understand well to what class of people these
178,000	Italians belong. I may say that for myself I have taken special pains that our agents should understand that this particular class of immigration shall not be encouraged to come to Canada. These people are unskilled labourers, a class of people wli >
will not become agriculturists, $nd who will not live anywhere permanently except in cities. They do rough labour at times, but they drift back to the cities and reside there permanently. If an examination of the returns of the United States is made it will be seen that there is no reason at all that the Dominion of Canada should feel uneasy on account of that comparison.
Turning to our own immigration we find that we have had altogether, according to our exact returns, a total immigration of 121,631 people, and when some miscellaneous returns from outlying districts that have not yet been received come in, they will give a total of 125,000 people. Of these


Clifford Sifton: 41,787 were British, 37,S91 miscellaneous nationalities, and 41,953 came from the United States. In round numbers we received 125,000 people; and our records show that during the last year, during the twelve months within which we received that
125,000	people, we recorded .over 31,000 homestead entries, showing that if the same proportion as last year be maintained in regard to the number of entries made, by Canadians as compared with new immigrants we would have about 22,000 homestead entries made by immigrants as compared with 125,000 immigrants of all classes, during the year. It will be seen that 22,000 entries made for farms by new settlers in a year is a large proportion for 125,000 souls. It is a very considerable proportion especially when we remember that there are certain classes of these immigrants who do not take up homesteads at all, but who have come here for the purpose of farming on a large scale and who, in many cases, purchase land upon which they intend to reside. It will be seen that our position in that respect is not unsatisfactory.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the hon. gentleman any tables or statistical statements showing the percentage of illiteracy of those coming ?	'


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: No, I do not think we have that information.


Joseph Israël Tarte: They are keeping track of that carefully in the United States.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They keep a record of that in the United States. The hon. minister was making comparisons of the quality of the immigration we are receiving in Canada with that which is going into the United States. The United States officials make very elaborate tabulated statements as to illiteracy, nationality and so on. I want to know if the hon. minister is following that practice.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not think there is any record kept in regard to the question of the literacy or illiteracy of the immigrants coming in. As far as I am aware there has never been a record kept of these facts.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In view of the large amount of foreign immigration coming in would it not be well in future to keep a record showing the percentage of illiterates and the different nationalities ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It might be. It is quite worthy of consideration. A point has been made in the discussion in regard to which I desire to say a word or two respecting the necessity or desirability of doing immigration work in the older parts , of the Dominion. I expressed my views last night upon the question pretty clearly, but there is one phase of it to which I did not refer and in regard to which possibly a word or two may not be amiss. I am per-

feetly well satisfied myself that a large amount of valuable immigration work could be done, work which would be of the most valuable character, in the older provinces of the Dominion if the provincial governments would form organizations for assisting it and promoting it. The general work of the Department of the Interior could not, without very great expense, be developed in such a way as to enable that particular class of work to be handled. It would be most difficult to carry it out effectually, because difficulties would arise in the different provinces in regard to the work that is being done, and in addition to that our officers would lack that direct local knowledge, that contact with the people which is necessary to make that kind of work a success. What I mean is this :	If the
different provincial governments would form organizations for the purpose of placing well-to-do settlers upon improved farms I am satisfied that with the efforts of the Department of the Interior (considerable numbers of these well-to-do settlers could be placed in communication with such provincial organizations, but it is quite out of the question with our organization to endeavour to handle these people and place them upon improved farms in the various provinces. It would be quite impossible for us to do it, because it could not be successfully done unless through the provincial governments. In so far as I have been asked to do so I have very willingly assisted in movements of that kind, but they have not amounted to very much as yet, because I may say that the provincial governments have not taken it up with any great degree of activity.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. Minister of the Interior now referring to the settlement of immigrants on farms in the older provinces ?	*


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes. I am satisfied that if the provincial governments would furnish the organization for the purpose of taking hold of these people, who are in many cases very valuable and well-to-do people and who would desire to settle upon improved farms in the older provinces, we could turn them over to them. The only provincial organization which has amounted to anything as far as I know is that of New Brunswick. The agent of New Brunswick in the city of London is a very active geiftleman and has done a great deal of work in that direction, and I believe his work has been of a very successful character. We have in his case, as in other cases, furnished literature and given such assistance as it has been possible to give, but until the provincial governments take hold of the matter and assume the duty of locating these people and looking after them when they get here, I do not think the work wTill assume very large dimensions.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and one or two other members of the committee have intimated that there ought to be some distinct statement as to what the policy of the government is going to be in future in connection with the subject of immigration, and I quite agree that the committee are entitled to a complete, distinct and emphatic statement upon that subject. I should find it difficult, I think, to state a policy that would satisfy all the members of the committee, because, as I said last night, khrdly two members of the committee agree in their views as to what the policy of the department ought to be. We shall therefore have to pursue a policy which we believe will commend itself to the majority of the members of this House. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) expressed the idea that the government ought to have a policy and know what it is.
I can satisfy my hon. friend on that point so far as the policy of immigration is concerned, because I am perfectly clear in my opinion as to that policy, and so long as I am at the head of the department I will carry it out.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I recognize the necessity for making the medical inspection as thorough and as careful as possible. I find no fault with any hon. member calling my attention to any alleged defects in the system of inspection. It is quite impossible that I or my deputy minister can do the inspection ourselves. All we can do is to provide for an effective system of inspection, and in view of the increased number of immigrants we apopinted a permanent medical inspector of the department in the person of Dr. Ellis, of St. John, whose business it is to see that a complete medical inspection shall be made of all immigrants landing at Canadian seaports.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When was he appointed ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: He entered upon his duties in the month of December last. The instructions to Dr. Ellis are full and explicit and if he is not performing his duty I shall be glad to have my attention called to that fact, in order that the medical inspection may be perfected in every possible way. If my friends opposite are of opinion that the inspection is not as thorough as it should be, I will do the best I can to have a complete examination of the whole matter made. Therefore, there is no difference of opinion on that point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is this difference of opinion, that we have been pressing this upon the attention of the minister for two or three years, and it is only within seven months that he has appointed an inspector.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Then my hon. friend ought congratulate me

on taking his advice. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) does not seem to approve of that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Oh, yes.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: A discussion took place on the matter once or twice In the House, and after looking into it we appointed an inspector. Judging by the pained expression of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), he does not seem to be lost in admiration at that; he appears to be rather sorry, because it has removed one of his grievances. There may be a difference of opinion as to whether the principle of inspection is effectively carried out or not, and I am afraid I will never be able, under any circumstances, to fuliy satisfy my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) , any more than I should hope to satisfy my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) on the question of fiscal policy. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) credited me with the statement that I was in favour of filling up the North-west as rapidly as possible. I confess that is the policy I intend to pursue so long as I am in charge of the department.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am in favour of filling up the vacant lands of the North-west as fast as possible, so long as we can fill them up with the class of immigrants which we are getting at the present time, and which is as good a class as we can possibly expect, take them man for man all the way through.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I do not believe that under any system of selection or searching for immigrants we will get, on the whole, a better class of immigrants than we are getting now. I am in favour of continuing that policy. I am in favour of increasing the number from 125,000 to 150,000 per year, and I am in favour of carrying that out as rapidly as it is possible for us to do so. So long as I have the honour of directing the policy of the department in that respect, that is the policy which my hon. friends may expect to see me follow.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am not able to agree that the only thing that is necessary in order to secure a large number of desirable immigrants is to increase the customs duties and alter the fiscal policy of the country as indicated by my hon. friend (Mr.. Brock). If that were all that is necessary, it is obvious that our friends who were in power for eighteen years, increasing the duties practically almost every time anybody asked them to do so, did not succeed in getting large numbers of desirable people to settle upon our vacant Hon. Mr. SIFTON.
lands in the North-west. While the Conservatives were in power, and the policy which my hon. friend advocates with such force and sincerity was being followed, the people were going out of the North-west instead of going in. That experience shows that something more is necessary than simply increasing the duties in order to bring about successful settlement.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: However, my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) probably stated his views in that respect a little more strongly than he intended.


William Rees Brock: Not a bit.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Let me tell my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) that while in 1S9G there were only 1,857 homestead entries, last year there were 31,000, and that means that instead of having 1,857 farmers going upon lands in one year and becoming producers, last year 31,000 more farmers became producers. And let me remind the hon. gentleman that they are becoming producers in a part of the country in which, by the bounty of nature, the average individual can produce very much more largely, so far as money's worth is concerned, than he could in any other part of Canada. The result is that in addition to having 31,000 more producers upon a large scale, we have the consumers in the factories which my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) is so anxious to see prosperous.


William Rees Brock: We are paying an enormous amount of duty on goods coming into this country. They are becoming consumers of German,. English, American and other foreign goods instead of Canadian.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend says they are becoming consumers of foreign goods. Does my hon. friend deny that they arte also becoming consumers of Canadian goods to a very large extent ?
Mr. BROCK!. Necessarily, of course.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Will my hon. friend deny that .Canadian trade is increasing in Manitoba and the North-west Territories ?


William Rees Brock: No, I do not deny it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: 
William Rees Brock: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My hon. friend and I agree in that. My hon. friend1 thinks the duties should be raised for that purpose, and on that point I am afraid we cannot agree. But I think that he and I will agree that you must put the people on the producing land before you can have a market which will furnish the means of subsistence to a large and prosperous manufacturing community. My view therefore is that it is a wise policy for Canada to expend this money for immigration purposes. I am quite prepared to admit that my hon. friends, in going through the expenditure of $500,000 or $600,000, necessarily made under the supervision of a large number of agents in Europe, in the British isles, in Canada, and in the United States, will here and therd find points for criticism, to which my attention ought possibly to be directed, with the object of making changes or improvements. I do not think it would be possible for so large a sum of money to be expended without there being points where criticism could be made. All I can say is that we have as good a system of inspection and examination and audit as it is possible for us to devise, with the knowledge we have of the matter at the present time; and whenever our attention is directed to any defects, we are anxious to remove them wherever it is possible to do so. But with all the defects that may be found in matters of detail from time to time, as there must be in cases of this kind, I take the ground that the general policy we are following is a wise policy, and that the general results attained have been satisfactory.


Dominique Monet: Before the minister concludes his remarks, will he tell me where the repatriation agents are located ? Are they in the province of Quebec, and are they charged by the government to look after the repatriation of Canadians, more especially in one province ? '


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The especial work is in the eastern states, to bring them back, if possible, to the province of Quebec.


David Henderson: The hon. minister does not seem to have any special anxiety to-night to pass his estimates, taking advantage of the opportunity to make what we may call a purely political speech, in fact drifting atVay into the question of the tariff. I do not think the hon. minister was quite fair to the hon. member for Centre Toronto; when the Minister of Customs prompted him he said that by bringing in immigration he was increasing the number of consumers. He is spending a very large amount every year for the purpose of getting more consumers, but consumers of what ? Consumers of Canadian manufactured goods ? Why. the policy of the government is diametrically opposed to that. Its policy is to force us to expend large sums of money every year in order to bring people into Canada to consume foreign goods and for the purpose of enabling foreign goods to come in-the goods that might be made in this country just as well as in Europe. These goods are allowed to come in at a low rate of duty in opposition to our own productions, and to supply the demands of people whom it costs us over $600,000 to bring into Canada. We are simply spending our money to bring people into the country to make a market for the goods, manufactured in the old country. The Minister of the Interior says that what the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) wants, is an increase in our duties. I would like to ask him if he knows how much the government has decreased the duties,. When he went through Manitoba in 1900, lie told the people that they were to have free binder twine, free barbwire, free coal oil and free clothing. They were going to get practically everything free, and he was bringing people from the old country, at a very large expense, into Canada in order that they might have those free goods. I wonder does the hon. minister know that the government has not practically reduced taxation one fraction of a cent. I am sure the Minister of Customs knows it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No.


David Henderson: Then I am afraid he does not know the first principles of his own department, because there can be no question about the fact that the average rate of duty on goods dutiable and free has not been decreased, since the Liberal party came into power.


Mr. HEYD.: Nonsense.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman is only showing his ignorance. He can never have investigated the matter.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about binder twine ?


Dominique Monet: 


David Henderson: Binder twine is made free, but the duty is put up on something else. Only two years ago the hon. the Minister of" Finance told us that he never intended to reduce taxation. There seems to be a division in the government. One member says a reduction has been made ; another says he never intended to make a reduction. But any man who has investigated the figures will find that the Minister of Finance has carried out his policy literally and has not reduced taxation.


Thomas Walter Scott: The hon. gentleman then disagrees with his leader ?


David Henderson: My hon. friend can speak after I sit down and I will listen to him with the greatest of pleasure. I maintain that as high a rate of taxation is in force to-day as in the last five or six years of the Conservative regime.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: That is nonsense.


David Henderson: The bon. member for Brant may say that is nonsense, but he is only giving evidence of how little he knows. The government adopted the system of reducing the duty on one article but taking care to make good the revenue by raising the duty on another article. They reduced the duties on the articles we can make, which wTe have the machinery and the labour to make, and then turned around and increased the duties on what we could not produce, thus compelling the people to pay a heavy tax on what we cannot produce and making it more difficult for the people to produce what we can. The policy is entirely wrong.


Dominique Monet: I rise to a point of order. We are not on the budget debate.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Some hon. members have drifted far away from the estimates. To a certain extent the tariff may be discussed, for instance as a reason why we are not getting people to come in and remain with us, but I hope that hon. gentlemen will not go into the details of the tariff and discuss how much duty was taken off or put on various articles.


David Henderson: I am perfectly willing to submit to your ruling, Sir, but whether I was in order or not I was following the example of the hon. the Minister of the Interior, and he should have been called to account first. I shall not proceed further than to emphasize what I have said. If I had not told some unpalatable truths to hon. gentlemen on that side they would not have interjected so many interruptions, but they felt that there was too much force in what I did say and took this means to try and weaken it. As you have ruled. Sir, that it is the estimates we are discussing, and not the fiscal policy of the country, I hope the hon. minister will not endeavour to interject a political discussion on the tariff Where you think it is not called for.


Robert Laird Borden: Especially is that the case when my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior couples a somewhat free-trade speech with the presence of two resolutions on the Order paper, by means of which the government are proposing to adopt the most extreme form of protection you can possibly get in this country-absolutely the most extreme form of protection, as any ordinary text-book will show my hon. friend, if he will consult it. When the hon. gentleman says in one breath that it is absolutely impossible to get people to return to agriculture and after they have abandoned it and gone to other pursuits, and when he assigns that as a reason for not getting people who are leaving the eastern privinces to go to the North-west and when, in the next breath, hie tells us that he has three emigration agents appointed to get that very class of people to come back from the United States, he is taking up a contradictory position. People from the maritime provinces are going to the United States Almost as fast as they ever were.


William Ross: No.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will be good enough to consult the census returns of the United States and the state of Massachusetts, he will find that in the five years since this government came into power, nearly 50.000 Canadians went to the state of Massachusetts alone.


William Ross: I kDow that quite a number have come back.


Robert Laird Borden: I am talking of those who have gone.


Thomas Osborne Davis: How many went in the five years before?


Robert Laird Borden: A large proportion of Canadians went to Massachusetts during the five years this government has been in power, as well as during the five years preceding. If my hon. friend from Saskatchewan will look into the reports he will find that to be the case.


Thomas Walter Scott: They were too poor to move before.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a very valuable remark no doubt, but speaking for the people of the maritime provinces-I am not prepared to speak for the people of the west-I do not think they were too poor to move in the five years before this government came into power.


Thomas Walter Scott: Many in the west were.


William Ross: My hon. friend knows about that. I was not speaking of the people of the west, my remarks were directed to the condition of affairs in the maritime provinces, and. however valuable my hon. friend's interjections may be when they are in point, they are not exactly in point in this case. I was dealing
with the question of emigration from the province of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces, a territory with which l am, perhaps, as familiar as is my hon. friend from Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). I say that statement has been made in this House and not challenged, but verified by the figures of the census records of the United States and the state of Massachusetts. My hon. friend speaks of the people of Canada as being too poor to move. That remark is not exactly consistent with the statements reiterated over and over again by him and some of his friends, that these people did move out during the period before this government came into power.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: May I ask the hon. gentleman, is there a yearly census taken from which these figures are compiled ?


Robert Laird Borden: The United States take their census every ten years, and Massachusetts takes its census every ten years at intermediate times between two censuses of the United States. That is the United States takes its census in 1890 or 1891-1 have forgotten exactly the year- and the state of Massachusetts would take its census in 1895 or 1896. In this way it is shown that in the year 1900 or 1901, there were about fifty thousand more Canadians in the state of Massachusetts than there were in the year 1895 or 1896.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There were state enumerators in one case


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and United States enumerators in the other. I stated that when I made the comparison. The Minister of the Interior has referred to the gratification which every one feels at the increased immigration into the North-west Territories. But when the hon. minister says :	We have increased the number of
homestead entries; we have increased the immigration, might I venture to point out one thing which I think he will admit, and that is that one splendid crop in the Northwest Territory does more to bring this immigration into Canada than all that the Department of the Interior could do in ten years. I think he will not be prepared to dispute that. And the two good crops we have had in the North-west Territories in the past two years, which may be attributed by some enthusiastic friends of the minister to the efforts of the government


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We had these good crops during the period when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power.


Robert Laird Borden: I say that these two good crops that we have had in the North-west Territories have done more to bring settlers into the North-west Territories than anything the Department of the Interior has done. And, no doubt, when there were good crops under the previous

administration-the hon. gentleman knows more about that than I do-there was a somewhat similar effect in stimulating immigration. But, of course, my hon. friend knows that there is another circumstance which has had a great effect in turning population from the United States of America to the North-west Territories. The high price of lands in the United States and the cheapness of land in Canada and the fact that our cheap lands are advertised by the splendid crops that we have had-these things account to a very great extent for the immigration coming into Canada to-day, and at which we all so much rejoice. But I rose mainly for the purpose of asking my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior whether or not, in addition to the record we keep of immigrants coming into Canada, the Department of the Interior keeps any record of emigration from Canada ? It is very desirable that these figures should be kept. I think, notwithstanding what my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has urged, that if we can go to the United States of America and bring back into the province of Quebec men who have left agricultural pursuits there and gone into the factories of New England, if he could successfully accomplish that-and the hon. minister seems to think he can


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I was not referring to the movement from the province of Quebec, but to the movement from other provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. minister said he had agents at the present time employed in endeavouring to repatriate these people. Of course, he knows the conditions better than I do; but I should imagine that the people who have gone to the United States were engaged, for the most part, in agricultural pursuits in the province of Quebec, and that they are engaged now in industrial pursuits, and it is for us to bring them back from these industrial pursuits, repartiate them in Quebec and let them engage once more in agriculture. If that is possible, is it not possible to divert some portion of the population which is still flowing-still flowing, I tell my hon friend-into the United States from the maritime provinces, and direct it into the North-west Territories ? Because, however excellent may be the quality of the population we are getting from the United States and from the British Islands to-day,
I say you cannot get a better quality of population than that which is going from the maritime provinces to the United States of America. And if any portion of the very considerable sum now being expended by the Department of the Interior could be used to divert these people to the Northwest Territories, I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior would be willing to adopt that course and would rejoice as much as we would in diverting that Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
movement of population into that great western country, which would flourish even more than at present if that could be accomplished. For that reason it seems to me it might be desirable for the Department of the Interior to endeavour to get some statistics, some information to lay before this House with regard to the movement of population from the province of Quebec, if there be any, and from the maritime provinces to the United States, to compare it with the movement of population to the North-west and see if some portion of the funds of the government could not be used with effect in making this a movement of population within our own country. I know that the industries in Sydney, Nova Scotia, have possibly kept at home people in the maritime provinces, particularly within the last two or three years. Yet, I am quite convinced that there is a distinct movement of population in Nova Scotia, and, no doubt in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, to the United States. And naturally so. These provinces are surrounded by water and they have means of cheap communication with the United States of America. There are great industrial centres within twelve, fifteen or twenty hours of the homes of these people, and which they can reach very cheaply. You would naturally expect, under ordinary circumstances, some movement of population to result from this condition, and that movement does take place. If we could do something to change this and send that population to the North-west Territories, none would rejoice more than I should, and I am sure the Minister of the Interior would be glad if his department could be the means of effecting this change.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We have at the present time a record, fairly accurate, I think, of the movement of population from Manitoba and the Northwest Territories into the States. It is of trivial extent. But we have no officers to keep a like record in any other part of Canada. The only record of any kind that would furnish an indication of the extent of the movement year after year, would be found in the Trade and Navigation Returns of the settlers' effects that are exported from Canada. They would not give any accurate figures, and as my hon. friend will see, it would require a very elaborate and expensive system to check the number of people going out of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it be possible to obtain the information from the United States returns, or from any information in the possession of the immigration officials of the United States ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There are such United States returns, but I doubt if they are very reliable. They have been quoted from in former years, and have been used in newspaper discus-

sions, blit there has been a good deal of doubt thrown ypon their authenticity. My own belief is that they are not very reliable. In the United States official returns will be found reports from the consular agencies in different countries, giving the numbers of people who have gone into the United States. But I venture the opinion that they are very much exaggerated.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. the leader of the opposition has drawn attention to a state of affairs in the maritime provinces which no doubt is regrettable. It is very curious that while a certain proportion of people are leaving the maritime provinces and going to the industrial centres of the United States, especially the New England states, there is a demand in the industrial centres of Canada for just such people. The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) has alluded to tne fact, if not this evening, at any rate on a former occasion, that the great industrial centre of Toronto, and other parts of Canada, cannot find people enough to do their work to the extent that they would like to do it. That is well known in the maritime provinces, and it is well understood wherever our people are going from the country to the city, and yet it is an unfortunate fact that in many cases our people, instead of going to the industrial centres of Canada, go to the industrial centres of the United States.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Because wages are higher there.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Tes, and the expense of living is proportionately higher. The result is that people do not live more cheaply there than they do in our own industrial centres. But the facilities of travel are greater and connections are more intimate between certain New England states and certain parts of our maritime provinces, than between the maritime provinces and the great industrial centres of Canada.


William Rees Brock: The government should rectify that.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: X find these figures. In the state of Massachusetts the Canadian-born population between I860 and 1890 rose from 119.302 to 207,601, or an increase of S8.299 ; from 1890 to 1900, it rose from 207,601 to 293,169, an increase of S5,56S. But, according to the records of the Massachusetts state census, during the period from 1890 to 1895, the number of Canadians in the state of Massachusetts increased from 207,601 to 251,346. an increase of 43,745. From 1895 to 1900, the Canadians in the state of Massachusetts increased from 251,346 to 293,169. In other words, the Canadian-born population in the state of Massachusetts increased, in the first five years of the last decade, 43,743, and in the last five years 41,823, or just about 2,000 more of an increase in the first five years when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, than in the last five years when we were in power.
I venture to make this correction, because I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to mislead the committee by making a statement that is incorrect. He stated that the statement of the hon. member for Pictou had not been refuted or denied, and I wish to correct him and let him know that it was refuted and denied.


Robert Laird Borden: The lion. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) has entirely missed the point of my remarks and he absolutely corroborates the point I was malting. I remarked as a mere incident -it did not touch upon wliat I was dealing with-that it liad been said by the hon. member for Pictou that- mure pe: pie went into the State of Massachusetts from Canada in the first five years of the decennial period than during the last five years, and I stated that it was in the vicinity of 50.000 people. My hon. friend lias given the exact figures and fie has shown, that, while there was something over 43.000 people during the first five years, during the second five years, since this government has been in power and during the time when they were saying that emigration had absolutely ceased


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


Robert Laird Borden: That statement has been repeated over and over in this House within my hearing-during the second five years, according to the census returns there went to the single state of Massachusetts 41,823 Canadians, and yet my hon. friend thinks he has made a point in bringing that to the attention of the committee. Well, he has made a point, but it is not the point that he thought he was making. I would bring to the attention of the lion. Minister of the Interior the warning and the caution that his hon. colleague has just given him. His colleague has brought to his attention the fact that to the single state of Massachusetts in five years nearly 42,000 Canadians have gone.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: We have brought 41,000 Americans into the North-west in one year.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that, but we are dealing with a single state.


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: We are at a very different period of our development from that of the United States.


Thomas Osborne Davis: They may have gone from some other state into Massachusetts.


Robert Laird Borden: That is quite possible. The observation of the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) is quite true. Some of these may possibly have gone from some other state instead of from Canada, but in any case we would expect to be able to turn to the records of some other state and the hon. Minister of Agriculture witli his usual industry would no doubt have brought that to the attention of the committee, but as he did not do so, I think we may rest satisfied that such cannot be shown to be the case. But, it only emphasizes what I was bringing to the attention of the hon. Minister of the Interior in the sincere hope that he might see whether or not something could he done by his department to direct the continued flow of immigration from the maritime provinces towards our own North-west instead of to the United States.


Tiie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think it is necessary for the hon. Minister of the Interior to do anything to turn people away from the maritime provinces. I can assure my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that the class of young men who go away from the maritime provinces are young people who know all about the Northwest and they do not need any coaxing to go there. I am quite satisfied that we do not need to start any Immigration agencies down there to turn people to the Northwest or anywhere else. My hon. friend bases a part of his statement upon the assumption, because it is merely an assumption, that somebody had said that emigration from Canada has absolutely ceased. I venture to say that nobody ever said that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well if anybody ever made such a statement, it was a foolish statement. I believe we will never reacli the point when there will not be some movement of population from the maritime provinces. The people of the maritime provinces are a very enterprising, progressive, energetic people, they are an adventurous people, and they will try to see the world. It has been so in the past, and it will be so in the future. I do not expect the time will ever come when there will not be a considerable exodus from the maritime provinces. But when my hon. friend says, I have no doubt in good faith, that he ijs satisfied that the exodus from the maritime provinces is as great as it ever was, all I can say to my hon. friend is that I entirely dissent from him and I believe his statement will be dissented from by anybody who understands the condition of affairs in Nova Scotia. There are some things in which

you need statistics, but there are some thiugs you do not need statistics to prove. There are some things that you know from your general knowledge and observation of what is going on around you, and I venture to say that every hon. member from Nova Scotia will testify that during the last few years the demand for labour in Nova Scotia has been greater than in any corresponding period in the history of that province, and when there is a demand for labour, people do not go abroad, except that adventurous class that will move anyhow. There is something in the conditions that facilitates the movement of the people down there. They have easy communication by water with the United States and naturally they go to the United States more largely than they would go elsewhere. From my observation I am satisfied that a less number of people go from the maritime provinces now than in any period during the last ten years. A very considerable portion of those who go to the United States do not go to engage in industrial pursuits at all. A very considerable percentage of them are fishermen who leave the coast of Nova Scotia and go to Massachusetts and whenever, unfortunately, you see a description of the loss of a Gloucester fishing vessel, you will be surprised at the number of Nova Scotians whose names are mentioned as forming the crew of that Gloucester vessel. These people do not go to engage in the factories, but they go to follow the same line of pursuit they are following at home, and even as respects that class of emigration it is less than it was before. I know from general observation and information that the demand for labour in al! branches of industry in the maritime provinces, and I speak more particularly of Nova Scotia, during the past few years has been remarkably good, not merely in the Sydney Industries, but in various parts of the country. Altogether apart from the Sydney interests, the demand for labour has been larger than usual, and if there is a demand for labour, people are not going to go abroad, but they are going to stay at home. X think my hon. friend is mistaken. I do not mean to say that there are not some people going to the United States, but, I dissent emphatically from his statement that there are as many going there now ns went in previous times.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not recollect making such a statement as that. I say there is still a very considerable movement of population. I was referring to what had been stated by the hon. member for Pictou, and if the hon. Minister of Finance thinks he can minimize this movement of population by any words he utters to the committee he is mistaken. It is not of precisely the character that he refers to. As far as the fishermen are concerned, I do not regard them as emigrants at all. They may go to Gloucester during the summer
and come back and spend the winter in Nova Scotia.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not always.


Robert Laird Borden: A great many of them do. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbacli) can tell us that along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, as well as along the northern coast of the Bay of Fundy one can see houses and long rows of cottages which are the property of men who go to Gloucester and fish out of Gloucester during the summer season.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And they all appear in the J-assachusetts census.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what warrant the hon. gentleman has for that statement. I do not know if those men who go there are included at all in the Massachusetts census.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If they are there they must be included.


Robert Laird Borden: They have no domicile in the state of Massachusetts. They hire as seamen or masters on American vessels and, sail out of the port of Gloucester or other ports of Massachusetts for a few months in the year. They have their domicile in Nova Scotia where their wives and families remain, and where they are themselves when they are not engaged on these vessels. These are not the emigrants of whom I have been speaking. Neither do I agree with the Minister of Finance when he says that it is absolutely useless for the government to attempt to turn these people towards the North-west. He dismisses that with a wave of his hand and he says :	Oh, these men know all
about the North-west. I say they do not know everything about the North-west. I say that no man knows all about that Northwest until he has gone there, and seen it, and spent some months in it. I say that the people of the maritime provinces do not understand the opportunities there may be for them in the North-west. It is useless for the Minister of Finance to deprecate any effort by the government to turn this emigration movement into our own country. The government might at least attempt it, and if they fail then it would be time enough for the Minister of Finance to wave his hand and to say : It is no use. Until the government makes honest and earnest efforts in that direction I cannot agree in the opinion of which the Minister of Finance has expressed.


Mr. FRASER.: I come from a county
in which there is a very large number of fishermen and I wish to say that I cannot agree with the leader of the opposition. In former years a large number of Nova Scotia fishermen went to Massachusetts and remained there, and there is now only a small proportion who engage in fishing in that

state and who return to Nova Scotia. The majority of them went there years ago and they have remained there. It is only three years ago that so high an authority as the ' Mail and Empire ' stated that emigration from Canada to the United States had ceased.


Mr. BENNETT.: Nonsense !	[DOT]


William Rees Brock: You do not mean that.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Yes, I am glad to admit that sometimes the ' Mail and Empire ' is right.


William Rees Brock: The Minister of Agriculture says to the contrary.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The Minister of Agriculture did not say so. The reference of the leader of the opposition to Lunenburg is most unfortunate because there are very few of these men who leave Lunenburg now.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not referring to the county of Lunenburg; I was referring to the south shore of Nova Scotia, the counties of Shelburne, Queen's and Yarmouth, and I mentioned the hon. gentleman from Lunenburg because his county adjoins these.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: With the exception of Yarmouth and to some extent Shelburne, not one-half the number' of people now leave for the United States that formerly emigrated there. I am proud to say that there is no county in Nova Scotia that has so increased the number of ships owned by its people as has the county of Lunenburg, and the people are staying at home. In my own county they are purchasing larger boats and engaging more extensively in fishing than ever before. Guysborough is perhaps the second largest fishing county in Nova Scotia, and during the last decade its population increased by 1,500. I admit that quite a number of them went to Sydney, but as a rule they are finding profitable occupation within the confines of the county. In the town of New Glasgow it is very difficult to get carpenters or masons if you want to build a house, and as regards the farmers every man of them is busy. I do not attribute all that to the present government being in power, but I do say that a great improvement has taken place within the last ten years. When times are good the people stay at home and that is what is occurring now. The Nova Scotians are not a roving people, but they are an energetic and enterprising people and they are anxious to seek new fields for their energy^ and enterprise so as to increase their wealth.' The leader of the opposition will perhaps be surprised to know that in eastern Nova Scotia there is more fishing done between the months of October 'and March than ever before. They used to be engaged in the salt fish industry, but now you will find them going out in November, December, January Mr. FRASER.
and sometimes in February, beginning again in April or the last of March, and they can sell their fish fresh instead of salting it as formerly. To say that the people are leaving Nova Scotia at the present time is not a fact.


William Rees Brock: You are contradicting the Finance Minister.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I agree absolutely with the Finance Minister, and I will add that the people of Nova Scotia are more energetic than the people of Ontario or any other province.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If they can better their position they will go to the United States,, but they have a yearning for home because they know that the latch string is always waiting for their return. I can tell the leader of the opposition that the Nova Scotians read, and they are perfectly well acquainted with the conditions in the Northwest. I know a number of young men who have gone to the North-west, but to talk of sending agents down there to induce them, to move out to -the prairies would be simply like swapping kniv-es. Let us try and keep our young Nova Scotians at home and improve -their condition, rather than transplant them to the west. Let us get men from other countries -who will make good citizens to igo to the North-west. We will then have the population of Nova Scotia increasing because the people will stay there, and we will have new blood brought into the North-west. It is neither gotod political economy nor good sense to say that the mutation of population from one province to another is in the interest of the Dominion-In Nova Scotia we are fairly successful. I venture to say that never -before in the history of Nova Scotia has there been anything like the accumulation of wealth or the number of people employed that there has been for the last seven or eight years. Why, not long ago men had to be brought from the old country to work in the Cape Breton collieries, and I venture to say that any man who is building a railway in that province now will find it more difficult than ever before to find men to work at fair wages. I remember the time myshlf when you would have a dozen men looking after one job. whereas now the jobs are so plentiful that the men have their selection in their own hands, saying what they will do. In the last eight or ten years there have been more improvements, more wealth and better houses along the shores in the counties of Digby and Yarmouth, owned by the men who ' have retired from their fishing, than you will see in almost any other part of this Dominion. If there is a family of boys where the farm is too small for them all, and if any of them wish to leave the farm to go elsewhere, I always tell them to go to the North-west. But I want them to stay in

Nora Scotia, if riossible. I bear tbe strongest evidence, so far as my own county is concerned, that there is not one leaving today to seek employment elsewhere to five who left ten years ago. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton would say the same thing. It may be said that the works at Sydney have done that; but I will make the same remark of any county in Nova Scotia with which I am acquainted. I will say it of Pictou, which has perhaps sent more men abroad than any other county in the Dominion of Canada. Not one man is leaving now where five left before, and a large number are returning. I will say with the Minister of Finance, that you will never keep every man at home; I would not if I could. The fact of young men going abroad to see the world is good for them. But there is a yearning to come home again, and many of them do come home. The exodus from Nova Scotia began twenty or thirty years ago. It was largely due to the fact that we tried to build up a mushroom prosperity on an artificial basis; and when the dream was over many came back. Our young women, too, go to the United States to study in the various schools and colleges; some of them go to study nursing. I know a number of people who did not have to leave, but who went owing to the natural disposition of Nova Scotians to better their position. These are put down as part of the exodus. Many of them have remained in the United States. They are handsome and brilliant, and marry there. But the exodus from Nova Scotia is nothing to-day to what it used to be. That being the case, I do not think it would be well for the government to employ agents in Nova Scotia to induce the people to go to the North-west. If they wish to engage in farming, let us persuade them to go to the North-west instead of to the United States. Let us show them that we have a better and a richer country. That information is there already. Now, I hope that we shall understand that no belittling of the immigration policy of the government, although it may not be perfect, is going to help immigration to this country. I think hon. gentlemen opposite are as anxious as we are that this country should be built up ; but I submit that carping criticism as to the character of the men who come in, so long as they behave .themselves, should not be indulged in. Let us be thankful that so many people are coming to find homes in Canada. Let us believe that the immigrants from any country, the moment they come in contact with Canadians, become improved. If we are going to be particular to wait for a high-class, an educated class, of immigrants who will be equal to the very best we have in Canada, we shall not get them. Thank God we are increasing the immigration into this Dominion, and they are all finding employment. There are railroads being built in 211
Nova Scotia. Before many days there will be railroad building in the county I represent, and it is going to be wy difficult to get men to work at reasonable prices. I remember when the Intercolonial Railway was being built, men sometimes walked on foot 30 or 40 or even 100 miles to get work on it. It is not that way at present. I am not taking credit to the government for this ; but it is the state of things that exists in Canada, and I think hon. gentlemen opposite ought to be thankful for it, and give the government a chance when they are trying to make things better than they are.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Guysborough has, I think, misunderstood some of my remarks. I was not saying anything about inducing the fishermen to leave the counties of Digby, Annapolis, Yarmouth or Guysborough. I was pointing out that the fishermen who go from these counties do not go as immigrants to the United States at all. My hon. friend unintentionally, I suppose, represented me as desiring to transfer the population of Nova Scotia to the North-west. What 1 was pointing out to the Minister of the Interior was this, that as some people are admittedly going from Nova Scotia, an effort might be made to get them to go to the North-west instead of to the United States, and I should have thought that the hon. member for Guysborough would have coincided in a policy of that kind.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I did.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not gather it from his remarks. If he does, we are at one on that point. I want the people of Nova Scotia to stay in their native province ; but if they will not stay, then I want to see them go to the North-west and not to the United States. I do not agree with the hon. member for Guysborough when he says that we should only make efforts with regard to those who propose to go to the United States and engage in farming. We should endeavour to tell our young men that it is better for them to go to the North-west and develop that country and engage in agricultural pursuits than to go to the United States and work in factories.
' Mr. FRASER. Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: When my hon. friend agrees with that, I do not think we are at cross purposes at all.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I am glad the hon. gentleman is converted to my view.


Mr. KAULBACH.: I cannot exactly agree with my hon. friend from Guysborough in the remarks he made a few moments ago. He may know more of the county of Guysborough than I do ; but I speak of my own county-Lunenburg-which is possessed of a population not migratory. They are



satisfied to remain at home, because we have an enterprising people, who give them employment. We cultivate the industry of fishing and the industry of shipbuilding as far as we possibly can, giving them material which will enable them to plant their feet on crafts on which they can feel as safe at sea as on land. They can then feel satisfied that they are able to find employment from January to December on board these vessels and obtain a good living. With regard to the county of Guysborough, we can have no better record than is to be found in the fact that the majority of the crews of the Gloucester vessels 'tHien wrecked on the shores of Nova Scotia or Newfoundland are from Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. Whether they are permanently employed on board these vessels or not, I am unable to judge, but I think I may safely say that they are only temporarily employed. They work on these vessels in the suinmei and in the winter return to their respective homes and enjoy the fruits of their labours. As regards the counties of Queen's and Shelburne, a different state of affairs exists. My hon. friend the Finance Minister will bear me out, when I say that a large number of our fishermen engaged in the deep-sea fishing man the vessels at Gloucester and other ports of the United States and seek their living in that way. Those engaged in the shore-fishing are less liable to migrate. In my opinion, the government should give greater encouragement to the fishing industry in the way of larger bounties as an inducement to have them remain in Canada. In years gone by there wras very little risk of our fishermen meeting with non-success, but of late years circumstances have changed, and there are difficulties in the way which did not prevail to anything like the same extent formerly. A certain description of fish that in past years only frequented the shores of Nova Scotia and the gulf in shallow water are now found in the deep waters of the gulf as well as on the banks. I refer to the dog-fish, which causes great ravages among the merchantable fish, but I shall not discuss that question now. Let me say to my hon friend the member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) that when the late government were in power he was wont to decry the policy of protection and advocate complete free trade. He was fond of putting the questions like this. Where are these tall chimneys which the Conservative party, when they came into power in 187S, were going to erect in all parts of the country ? Where, he would ask, are the tall chimneys in the county of Lunenburg ? My hon. friend visited that county on several occasions.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I was never there but once.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I think I saw the hon. gentleman there twice. At all events, I now invite him to come there again, because I Mr. KAULBACH.
never had a bigger majority than when he honoured us with his presence in Lunenburg. Let me ask him what became of the tall chimney of the factory at Pictou, right in sight of his own office, which was erected for the purpose of manufacturing glass ? That factory was giving excellent employment to numbers of persons in that vicinity, but there happened to be a similar Industry at Montreal, the managers of which thought it a good idea to incorporate with their industry the one at Pictou and form a combine.


Peter Macdonald: We are nowgetting down to the details of the national policy.


Mn KAULBAOH.: The story is very short, and as you, Sir, allowed a certain amount of indulgence to others, I hope you will not cut me off. This industry in the town of Pictou was manufacturing glass of a very fine character and finding a market for it in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and part of Quebec. Montreal men having a glass factory also thought they might make a little more money by merging that industry with their own, and I think that the hon. member for Guysborough w-as interested in accomplishing their combine.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Hear, hear.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: However he consented to allow that indstry in the count}7 of Pictou to amalgamate on the condition that it was to be run in the town of New Glasgow, but the contract was so drawn that no length of time was stipulated in which it w-as to run in New Glasgow, and very shortly it was closed down. Why did not the hon. member 'for Guysborough allow that industry to be continued in the town of New Glasgow ?


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman's story appears to me very long, and it is utterly out of order.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: That tall chimney has ceased to smoke in consequence of the course taken by the hon. member for Guysborough, who preferred an 8 per cent on his capital to a 6 per cent dividend.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, I must rule that we cannot have our time taken up in this manner. It is not reasonable to expect us to sit here eight hours and then discuss, everything else but the estimates. That* would test the patience of Job.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: You have been very good natured, Sir, but I do not know that I am the only trespasser. Those who preceded me were greater sinners, not excepting my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior.


William Humphrey Bennett: Finish the story.


Peter Macdonald: 
Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I will confine myself to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. If any person will go to the town of Yarmouth and watch the steamships leaving for Boston, or if. in the spring he will go to the city of St. John, he will see that the tide of* emigration now is, I think quite as great-I would not say greater-than it had been previous to the time when the present government took ; office. Consequently my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) is not correct when he says that emigration from Nova Scotia has ceased in a measure. While it may have lessened, I think I am speaking correctly, when 1 say that it has lessened but slightly and not to the extent that our friends opposite would have us believe.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Permit me a word


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I hope. Mr. Chairman, you will not permit the hon. member (Mr. Fraser) to refer to the glass matter.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Certainly. If a wrong-question is asked in court, there may be cross examination upon it. So far as this matter is concerned^ I knew nothing except that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) was a director. They came from Montreal, they promised to make their product, of which I knew nothing, in New Glasgow, and they were to make six per cent. And, of $1,200 that I put in thinking it was a good thing, I succeeded in getting back $200. And they closed up the works in New Glasgow. All this happened before the present government came into power.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I think hon. gentlemen opposite are needlessly obstructing the estimates of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) and are seeking to pervert the arguments of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) in a manner not justified by his remarks. The hon. leader of the opposition pointed out to the Minister of the Interior that a large percentage of the population was leaving the maritime provinces for the United States, and suggested to the minister that some plan should be devised to divert this population to the North-west. Some hon. gentlemen opposite seek to deny that there is a large percentage of our population leaving our provinces for the United States. But I think that if we look at the census returns of the Minister of Agriculture and comparing the late census with the one of ten years ago, we shall find that the maritime provinces have been sending, in some cases, more than their natural increase, so that there has been an actual decrease of population. Where have these people been going to V Not to the North-west. In Prince Edward Island the place with which I am most familiar, many of our brightest young men have been going to the United States, and they are still going, According to the census of 1890 the population of Prince Edward Island was 109,(X10. According to 211$
the last census the population is 103,000 an actual decrease of 6,000. If we allow for the natural increase, which would be about ten per cent, this would mean that upwards of 16,000 people have left the shores of Prince Edward Island. And nobody would pretend that they have gone to the Northwest. If we take the figures for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, we find the same condition of affairs. The natural increase of Nova Scotia would be upwards of 45,000, whereas the increase is only 9,000.
I do not think the statistics of the Minister of the Interior can show that these people have gone to the North-west. They have gone to the United States.


William Alfred Galliher: About 25,000 in British Columbia, and good citizens too.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am glad to say that during the last few years owing to favourable reports in the North-west a scattering few of our young men are going to that country. But many of our young men do not know the attractions of the North-west. Take the young men going to the Maine woods from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, they do not know of the resources in the North-west, and many of the lower class going to the manufacturing centres of the United States know little of that new country of ours. This is a matter of education, giving people the opportunities to know the advantages offered by our own country so as to divert this emigration to the North-west. If a small part of the energy expended by the Department of the Interior in getting Douk-hobors and Galicians into the west were devoted to calling the attention of the young people of the maritime provinces who are bound to leave the provinces, and naturally wish to improve their fortunes, to the at- -tractions of that North-west, I think we should have a great deal better results for that expenditure. If you take Prince Edward Island, there are a number of young men, who, as they grow up are pushed off the farm, for that province is more thickly populated than any other part of the Dominion, and it is a natural result that they leave that province. If we attracted the attention of these young men to the Northwest and the advantages and privileges they would have there, we should be spending money wisely.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I trust hon. gentlemen will not think that I intend to inflict a speech upon the committee at this time of the morning. The hon. minister has given me his assurance that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question of immigration once or twice more before the session ends, as there will be items in the supplementary estimates upon which the discussion will arise. I may advise the minister that there is another matter I intend to bring up when an opportunity presents itself, and that is the particular functions

expected to be discharged by the immigration agents in the old country-whether they are expected to interfere in disputes on this side of the ocean between employers and employed, whether they are expected to inform workmen that a strike is on in Canada and that they should not come ; or. on the other hand, to induce workmen to come to Canada to take the place of those who have struck. It is not my intention to enter into that now. But I think the hon. minister is familiar with the facts. I have had a great deal of correspondence sent to me about it.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Does that relate to the case of Mr. Murray ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes. I intend to read a lot of correspondence, but, of course, not now. I am sure that, as I have been so considerate of the feelings of hon. gentlemen opposite, they will allow me to say a few words more before I resume my seat. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) has placed hon. members on both sides under a debt of gratitude to him. We have been affirming, as the hon. minister knows, that the optimistic statements made from time to time during the past five years by hon. gentlemen opposite respecting the cessation of the exodus were not founded upon facts, and that unfortunately, the exodus still continues.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture, in the argument he has presented to us, and in the figures he has quoted, has dispelled the opinion which was entertained by his own political friends, and he has completely discounted the statements they have made in this House and elsewhere. It must be within the recollection of the Minister of Agriculture that only a few years ago there was put into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General, in his speech from the Throne, a statement to the effect that there was almost a total cessation of the considerable exodus of our population which at one time was a regrettable feature of our affairs. This statement was made in 1899 ; yet the Minister of Agriculture has quoted to us to-night a comparison of two five year periods, from 1890 to 1895, and from 1895 to 1900. of the emigration into one state of the Union. He has succeeded in establishing the fact to his own satisfaction, and to ours, that notwithstanding the fact that he was making a comparison between a five-year period of unusual depression and a five-year period of very gratifying prosperity, there was only a diminution, in the emigration from Canada to that one state, of less than 2,000. He has admitted the. fact that there was an emigration of 41.823 Canadians in the five years from 1895 to 1900. as compared with 43.000 in the previous five years. That surely establishes our contention that the boast which these hon. gentlemen made


Edward Frederick Clarke: from platform to platform and in this House-and which we wish had been true- that the exodus had practically ceased, was not the fact, and cannot be substantiated. Prior to 1896. hon. gentlemen opposite quoted again and again, to the immense satisfaction of their friends, the figures supplied by the United States customs returns. They used to roll them under their tongue, they used to give them to us as irrefragable evidence that this country was going to the dogs. They used to quote statistics supplied by the United States customs authorities as to the value of settlers' effects going into that country from Canada ; but now the Minister of the Interior says these statistics are of very little value. Let me draw his attention to what these returns do show. In 1897 the value of settlers' effects going from Canada to the United States was 81,275,000, while last year it was .$1,278,000.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Tell us how many came in from the States.


Edward Frederick Clarke: At this late hour of the night I will not deal with that part of the subject, but at another time I will give the hon. gentleman the information. But while we are all gratified at the increasing number of immigrants coming into this country, let me remind the committee that we are spending more than five times as much, and did spend five times as much in 1902, to promote immigration into Canada as we did in 1896. Now I will give the committee two quotations with regard to this exodus question. One of them is taken from a paper printed in that part of Quebec from which the Minister of Agriculture hails, the Stanstead ' Journal.' I presume the hon gentleman knows that paper, I believe it is an old established paper in that part of the Eastern Townships. In its issue of April 16th, it says :
Boston and Maine officials report that the rush of spring travel between Canada and the factory towns of New England has begun unusually early this spring. The tide of emigration from the Quebec central district and the lower St. Lawrence still continues. The United States immigration agents, both on the Boston and Maine and the Grand Trunk Railway, are having a lively time in their efforts to enforce the recent immigration laws pased by the States.
The last statement I will quote is made by the gentleman who occupies the position of secretary of the Ontario Bureau of Labour. That gentleman is a political friend of the hon. gentlemen opposite, and occupies a prominent position in connection with the industrial statistics of the province of Ontario. In an interview to the Toronto ' Star,' the junior Liberal organ in the city of Toronto, on Friday, March 6, 1903, I find this statement :
Mr. Robert Glockling, secretary of the Ontario Bureau of Labour, stated to-day that he had not heard of any great scarcity of iron workers as was complained of by the deputation of em-

ployers yesterday. He says that one reason of a scarcity here is that the workmen are going to the States, not, as was stated by one of the deputation, because they can get higher wages there so much as because they are not given a chance to work under as fair conditions here.
I wish the Minister of Labour were present to hear what the secretary of the Ontario Bureau of Labour has to say with regard to these conditions.
Mr. Glockling added that he knew one Ontario city where there were forty or fifty ' skilled mechanics ' walking the streets because they were not being given a chance to work under what they considered fair conditions.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What does that mean ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: It means that the conditions under which they live at the present time are so unfavourable, in their estimation, that they prefer either not to work, or to go to the United States for better conditions.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What are the conditions under which they live V


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentlemen when they came into office, declared they would make this a cheap country to live in, but they have increased the cost of living substantially to these men, the burden of taxation which has -been placed upon them is very much heavier, as the hon. gentleman knows.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And the hon. gentleman wants to increase it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I gave him the figures two or three weeks ago in connection with that matter. But I leave'it to the hon. gentleman to settle with Mr. Glockling, his political friend ; and I wish the Minister of Finance would communicate with him and ask for the reasons why our workmen still continue to go to the United States, and why the conditions under which they labour are not as favourable as they are in the neighbouring republic.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understood my hon. friend to say it was not a question of wages. He says they go away because the cost of living is greater here.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am quoting from Mr. Glockling. It is Mr. Glockling who says it is not a question of wages, but it is the unfair conditions under which they labour. I have shown by these extracts that the exodus has not by any means ceased, but I hope to live to see the day when it will be completely stopped, or almost completely stopped. I hope to live to see the day when the policy of Canada for Canadians will be accepted throughout the Dominion. But that can only be done, I think, by giving our manufacturers an adequate protection, such as they do not receive at the present time. I think if abundant employment is found in Canada to-day for our
workingmen, it is due to the fact that the minister and his associates did not have the courage of their convictions, but that when they came into office, realizing their responsibilities, they determined to leave the protective policy which they found on the statute-book, practically as it was. I believe that if there was a readjustment of the tariff, instead of bringing in annually $80,000,000 or $100,000,000 of manufactured goods, the product of foreign workshops, into this country we would be able to manufacture the bulk of those articles, and find employment for a larger number of workmen many of whom now go to the United States and the conditions of life would be improved because our manufacturers would have control of the home market.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will have to make allowances for the hon. gentleman at this late hour indulging in such a discussion because he finds that the conditions are vary embarrassing to him. He is trying to persuade himself that there is something in the condition of the industries of the country that requires improvement, but he forgets that never in the history of Canada have the industries been so prosperous,, that never has labour been so much in demand, that never have wages been so high and that never has the condition of the workmen been so good. With that fact before the eyes- of every main in the Dominion we will leave the question.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would be glad to leave it except for this fact that the hon.1 Min(-ister of Finance knows as well as any member of this committee or anybody in Canada that since the hon. gentleman came into office the denunciation of protection as the policy of this country has practically ceased, that the hon. gentleman's colleagues gave an assurance to the manufacturers of Canada on the eve of the election of 1896 that if the Liberal party were returned to power there would be no change made in the tariff inimical to their interests, and if these manufacturing industries are prosperous it is because those managing them have been given the assurance that the Liberal party for eighteen years had been preaching a doctrine that they did not intend to carry out, that they had been saying what they did mot mean and that as a result of their refraining from carrying out their policy those who had capital to invest invested it more freely than in 1896 when every manufacturer in Canada had to fight for his life.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If that be the condition why does the hon. gentleman want to change it ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Because we think the conditions could be made much better.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The conditions undoubtedly could be changed if we went back to the dark days of the so-called

national policy and if tliat policy were brought into operation hon. gentlemen could not present the magnificent statement that my hon. friend the hon. Minister of the Interior is aide to present here in regard to immigration coming into the country. They could go back to the conditions that then prevailed when there was stagnation in the North-west Territories in comparison with the conditions that are prevailing to-day. Those conditions might be brought back, but the public opinion of Canada would take good care that they are not brought back by putting again in power the men under whose policy and government those conditions existed'.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was under' the policy of this government that the steel industry was developed While under the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite its condition was such that it was unable to pay any dividends. That was tbe condition of tbe industry under the national policy.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has brought down a policy of blountiesl to the steel industry which since 1887 he and his friends have denounced through the length and breadth of the country ; and if it is necessary the quotations of some of these utterances can be got and given to him.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And if necessary some quotations can be given from the utterances of the hon. leader of the opposition about that time. No great profit would come from our consideration of these things.


Robert Laird Borden: I challenge my hon. friend now or at any time to produce one single line to the effect that he has mentioned, and he can take his time to look up the quotations and bring them down because to bring them down is impossible.


Uriah Wilson: I have been listening very attentively to the speeches that have been made.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


An hon. MEMBER.: We do not want any more.


Uriah Wilson: I will speak just as long as I like. I suppose I have the same rights as anybody else in this House and when I want information to get up and ask for it. I would like to ask the hon. minister if a successor lias been appointed to Mr. Devlin in Dublin and if there is wh'at bis salary is to be and whether he is to be furnished with a house as Mr. Devlin was. I should like to know why a house was furnished, to the agent in Dublin and not to the agent at London. Then, I see that we have Mr. G. B. Smart, inspector of pauper children at a salary of $1,400 ai year. I do>
not know what his duties are. I do not know where the pauper Children come from. Then, I see that there is Mr. Corry


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If the hon. gentleman wants these questions answered he will have to ask one at a time as my memory is short.


Uriah Wilson: Has there been a successor appointed to Mr. Devlin, if so at what salary and is there to be a free house furnished him ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The position of agent at Dublin is now being filled by Mr. W. Webster, who was formerly in the service, with a salary of $1,500. He was formerly Mr. Devlin's assistant. He is now in the same place and no. successor has been appointed to Mr. Devlin.


Uriah Wilson: Would the hon. minister tell us what Mr. Smart's duties are ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is an arrangement under which pauper children who from time to time are sent out under the direction of the board of trade are inspected and the board of trade pays the cost of the inspection. The board of trade asks us to provide an inspector who shall go from place to place and see the children who are placed with farmers in different parts of Canada. The inspection is required to be a personal and careful examination, so that the inspector goes there, sees the child and ascertains bow he is getting along. It is the business of this inspector to make this inspection.


Uriah Wilson: Does the board of trade pay him ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The report goes to the board of trade and the expense are paid by it.


Mr. WTLSON.: Well then there is Mr. Corry, inspector with a salary of $2,400.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. Corry is not an officer of the Immigration Department.


Uriah Wilson: Is Mr. White ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Yes. Mr. White is travelling inspector of agencies in the United States.


Uriah Wilson: Mr. W. J. White drew a salary of $2,200 ; for board and lodging, $807 ; for railway fare, $614 ; for pullman cars, $403 ; and we appear to have paid $14.75 for his washing. Why should we pay for his washing ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. White is travelling inspector of agencies in the western states, and he is practically on the road all the time. He puts in his bill and he expects it to be paid. The expenses are audited and we have no reason to think that they are excessive.


Uriah Wilson: Do you pay the laundry bills of all your agents ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The rule is that we pay all expenses that are incurred when the officers are away from home. I do not know what the rule is about the laundry, but if the hon. gentleman desires I will bring down that information to-morrow.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to have that because there is another gentleman here with a laundry bill of $31.40, and we do not seem to pay the laundry bills of all these officers. The annual report of the department for 1902 shows that there came from the United States 26,388 immigrants, and Mr. Smart brought down to the Committee on Agriculture a report showing that the salaried agents sent to this country 23,781 immigrants, and that the agents on commission sent 3,822 immigrants which would make a total of 27,543 from the United States, or 1,155 more than the annual report shows. What is the explanation of that discrepancy ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: My deputy informs me that he was asked to make out a statement showing the number of persons that were sent by each agent and he compiled that from the reports of the agents. The number stated in the annual report is the number reported by the immigration commissioner at Winnipeg. The number counted by the officers on the trains would naturally be slightly different from the approximate statement made from the agents' reports. The hon. gentleman must understand that difference without any explanation.


Uriah Wilson: The hon. gentleman should give an explanation of the discrepancy. The figures furnished by his deputy ought to be reliable.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I have given the explanation.


Uriah Wilson: It is not very satisfactory.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Nothing more accurate could be presented. The Committee on Agriculture asked the deputy minister to give as nearly as he
could the number of persons sent by the different agents, and he made up a statement from their reports. The agents handle a large number of people and send them along, so that they cannot in the nature of things make a report that is absolutely accurate, because some of the people may not come to Canada. On the other hand the agents on the trains who count the people reported in Canada, must get pretty near to the exact number, but it would be absolutely impossible that there should not be a discrepancy between the two.


Mr. POPE.: I appreciate how tired you are, Mr. Chairman, after having worked eight hours, and consequently I shall be brief. But you are not the only tired man in political life to-day. The cabinet, cr so much as remains of it, has been working overtime for the last twenty-four hours, and they must be also somewhat fatigued.
The hon.- member for Lennox has complained that the figures given by the Minister of the Interior and those given by his officers do not agree. That is not strange. The cabinet do not agree, and why should we expect figures to agree which emanate from a body of men who do not agree ? I can understand that immigration is a touching question for hon. gentlemen opposite at this moment. There has been a serious emigration from the cabinet in the last twenty-four hours, and it is a subject which they naturally would not wish to discuss at present. As we shall be called upon to discuss that question at a later hour to-day, it is not necessary that I should dwell further upon It. But I wish to assure the members of the cabinet who are here to-night of my sympathy for them in the great loss they have sustained ; and I think, having had such an exhaustive discussion on this question and after the assurance of the hon. Minister of the Interior that we shall have three times as much discussion upon it as we have had this evening, we might now, with the permission of the leader of the opposition, pass this item.
Some resolutions reported.


COMMITTEE ON THE ELECTION LAWS.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain) was placed on the committee in connection with the Bill relating to the elec* tion laws, and as he is absent, the suggestion has been made that the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler) be appointed on the committee in his place. If agreeable, I will make a motion to that effect, so that the hon. member may be able to attend the meeting of the committee which takes place to-morrow.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to state what business we may expect to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: After the ministerial explanations, which are set down as a special government order, Supply will be moved, and the Minister of the Interior will resume his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.40 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 16, 1903.