1903-06-30

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 210) respecting the Nipissing and Ottawa Railway Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 213) to incorporate the Citizens' Bank of Canada.-Mr. Clarke.
Bill (No. 210) respecting the Midway and Vernon Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That the name of Mr. Wallace be added to the Select Standing Committees on Agriculture and Colonization and Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, to take the place of that of Mr. Edwards.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the laws respecting railways-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: On section 271,


Mr. CLARKE.: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways what provision is made iu this Bill to insure that the privileges now enjoyed by commercial travellers as to fares, shall be continued? There is apparently a misapprehension existing among these gentlemen respecting the effect which this Bill would have on their existing privileges.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That would come under section 275. These gentlemen sent a delegation to meet me and I had the opportunity of hearing them. I told them that when the Bill came before the committee I would propose an amendment in accordance with their wishes, and I purpose doing so when we reach that section.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is quite satisfactory. These gentlemen laboured under a misapprehension in regard to the matter, and that is why I brought it to the attention of the minister.	-


Mr. LENNOX.: The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) told me when he was leaving on Friday night that he had an understanding with the minister that this Bill would not be proceeded with. While the hon. gentleman did not ask me to do anything in the matter, I think it right to mention it to the minister.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) spoke to me concerning certain clauses of the Bill which have been left in abeyance ; particularly the cattle-guard clause. I tokl him I would not take up these clauses in his absence, and I do not propose doing so. I hope, however, to get along with some clauses that are not controversial, and if any clauses should be passed which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) wishes to deal with, I have no objection that they should be returned to.


Haughton Lennox: I have no doubt that that arrangement will be satisfactory. As regards this clause 27], I do not find that there is a precedent for it in any existing legislation, and I would submit with all due deference that the word ' reasonable ' can have no reasonable place in that clause.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The word ' reasonable ' occurs in the existing law, and practically the same provision as this has been in operation for a great many years and has caused no trouble or inconvenience.


Haughton Lennox: I would suggest to the minister that there should be a reference printed in the Bill to show whether or not these sections are in the existing law.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We could do that.


Haughton Lennox: If the word ' reasonable ' appeared in this enactment for the first time it would be necessary to give it very careful consideration.
On section 273-filing and publication of joint tariffs,


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: This section seems to introduce a new principle into the Act, that is, not allowing a company to charge lower rates than the rates approved of by the board. I think the companies ought to be allowed to charge lower rates provided they do not discriminate against individuals or places. If the company think it is to their interest, perhaps at a particular season of the year, when they are competing with water transportation, to charge lower rates than those fixed by the board, why should they not be allowed to do so ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS .: i.M) CANALS. In cases in which it is necessary that the company shall act promptly, that is to say, in all cases where the rates require to be fixed for competitive purposes, that is allowed. But where there is ample time, it has been deemed proper and reasonable that the company should prepare their tariff, notify the board, and give them a copy of the tariff. The board is thus put in possession of the intentions of the company. It is to enable the board to keep close supervision over, the railways, and to have always before them knowledge of what is going on, that this provision is made. There is ample opportunity in ordinary transactions for them to do this. In extraordinary and emergency cases there is not, and therefore we have made it permissible for the railway companies, under what they call the competitive tariff, to make their tariff on the instant; and all they have to do is to forward that tariff at once, so that it may be known to the board that such a tariff on a competitive basis has been made.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose a case like this occurs. Freight is being carried from the port of Buffalo on the American side to Montreal. The Canadian Pacific Railway has a line between these two points, on which the rate is fixed by the commission. Some time or other they may have to compete with the American route for the traffic. Is there any provision in the Bill which would allow them to do that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would be allowed on competitive business.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose the railway were competing with water transportation, it would be allowed to lower its rates. But fifty or sixty times in the year a foreign railway company, when they find that the rate's on our railways are fixed
between Buffalo and Montreal and that they could not charge any less without the consent of the board, might immediately lower their rates and take the whole of the freight from our railways. It seems to me that more elasticity should be allowed to the companies.	*


Mr. DAVIS.: 1 think that the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is perfectly right. In the United States that principle has been adopted. I notice that in one instance from Kansas city to Buffalo, while fixed rates were something like 12 cents, the actual rate charged was 5 cents per one hundred pounds. The same thing applied between Chicago and Buffalo. When the water rates come in, if you tied the railways up to a certain rate, they could not do anything at all. So long as they do not discriminate, I think you should allow them to cut rates as low as possible.


Mr. BARKER.: The difficulty I see about the principle which the hon. minister is trying to establish is this, that it virtually makes the board traffic manager of all the railways. They have to know everything that goes on from week to week, settle the rates, variable as those must be according to the exigencies of business. The hon. gentleman says that an emergency caii be met by the company acting upon it and afterwards giving reasonable explanation, but apart from emergency altogether, the traffic manager of a railway has from time to time to consider all the surroundings, and while lie cannot raise the tariff rates he may be forced, by circumstances beyond his control to carry for less than those rates. If the board must be consulted on all these occasions, they will be virtually traffic managers of the road and be given all the discretion that ought to be given the officials of a road carrying on a commercial business. The hon. gentleman has not shown ns the necessity for this. He has told us what he intends doing and why he thinks there is no difficulty, but how this will benefit the public he has not said, and I should think that there ought to be some very good reason indeed why a railway should not be allowed to charge as little as it likes, provided it charges everybody on the same scale.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman must see the importance, the absolute necessity of the board being advised of changes in rates, if it is to exercise proper supervision over these rates. No one imagines that any railway commission would lie averse to a railway company carrying its traffic at the lowest possible rate, and there will be no fault found with any tariff which a railway company may propose because the rates are too low unless it be a discriminatory tariff. But unless you have some sort of control over
56S3

tlie tariff which they make, how are you to juuge whether or not the company are discriminating ? The hoard will then he at a great loss to form a judgment and to deal with the question of discrimination in an efficient manner. If you are to allow a railway company, without the knowledge of the railway commission, to reduce tins rates, you will be undermining one of the safeguards provided in this Bill for the public protection. I have listened carefully to the objection made on behalf of the railways, but I do not see that I could abolish this principle in the Bill without greatly weakening and impairing the control of rates by the board. With these tariffs before it, the board will be able to see whether or not: rates are being lowered in one direction or another for the purpose of discrimination, One ol' the things that the people most complain of is discrimination, and wherever it exists it ought to be stopped, and we are moving in that direction.


Samuel Barker: I would like the hon. gentleman to consider whether he is not, by the method he is adopting, destroying in fact the competition between railway companies. I suppose he will concede that in a particular district, when the board settles the tariff, it will settle it for all railway companies. That being so, the board says to each railway company : Ton must carry at such a rate and no lower, but it is not uncommon that all the, railway companies in tlie same district will not have exactly the same opinion as to how low a rate they can charge. Take the Canadian Pacilic Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway may be of opinion that it could carry at a live cent rate and the Canadian Pacific Railway might be of the opinion that it would require a six cent rate. The board, by its decision, might deprive the public of the benefit of the lower late.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Where competition exists, each company may make its rates. There is nothing in this Act which suggests that a railway company may not charge lower rates than the tariff. On the contrary, the probability is recognized that that will be done. A railway company may make its rate as low as it pleases. All it has to do is to file its tariff and the board will not disallow it except where it is a discriminating tariff.


Samuel Barker: How would the hon. gentleman deal with the ease where one railway wanted to carry at the rate of five cents and the other wanted to charge six cents.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is talking about one railway now against another. But the question of discrimination does not arise in such a case. The question of discrimination. Mr. BLAIR.
tion arises when a railway company deals differently with its own customers.


Samuel Barker: I am speaking about tariffs which have been approved by the board. The tariff is binding on both companies. If one is willing to carry for less than that and the other is not, and you prevent one fr. m carrying at a less rate than that fixed by the tariff, you prevent competition.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not at all. I must have failed altogether to make my meaning clear. I defy my hon. friend to point to a single syllable that will prevent competition. On the contrary everything points to competition. We do not require a tariff to be filed before a competitive rate is made.


Samuel Barker: I am not talking about an emergency tariff.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Neither am I. The question is as to competition. Whenever a railway is offered competitive business, business which another railway could get, if they do not take it, they are authorized to make a rate of what they please and take the business. The only thing is that they must give the board notice by filing the memoran dum showing the tariff they made on the business. Then they justify the tariff by the fact that they are giving it to get the business. Is that calculated to discourage competition ? I think not.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister's explanation seems so entirely different from the section itself. The section is :
And upon any such joint tariff being so duly filed and published, and published as provided in section 274, the company or companies shall, unless such tariff is disallowed by the board, charge the toll or tolls as specified therein, but until such tariff is so duly filed and published. no such toll or tolls shall be charged by the company or companies.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman is not dealing with the question. The clause the hon. gentleman has read is not the only clause of the Bill bearing upon the general question of tariff. 'This is a clause relating to joint tariffs upon a continuous through-route business-where one railway hauls a part of the way and another must haul the rest, and they have a joint tariff. There are a great many branches and subdivisions of the tariff question, and it is very important not to confuse them, because it is impossible to discuss them intelligently if you do.


John Graham Haggart: Though this applies to joint tariffs, still fhe principle is there. A competitive tariff can be arranged where two roads must take part in the haul just the same as where the haul is altogether by one road.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certainly.


John Graham Haggart: The same principle applies to the joint tariff as to the other. My opinion is that under this clause the company should be allowed to charge anything under the amount of toll approved of by the board, without furnishing the department of the government with the information, provided they do not discriminate in a joint tariff against any individual or place.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How would it be possible to insure the possession by the board of such information as would enable them to determine whether there was discrimination or not, if you allow the companies to make such charge as they please without furnishing the information as to what charge they have made ?
Hon. Mr. HAGGART What possible object is it for the board to know. They only want to know whether there has been discrimination or not. But, if there has been no discrimination against an individual or against a place, what possible object is it for the board to know whether the tariff charged is lower than that allowed by the board or not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman starts out with the assumption-a very extraordinary thing for him to do-that there is no discrimination. I am trying to point out to him that somebody must determine whether there is discrimination or not and lie cannot determine that unless the rates are made known.


John Graham Haggart: And would the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Blair) be kind enough to tell me how the board could know from merely seeing the rate whether there was discrimination or not ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When they have the facts


Samuel Barker: The question of discrimination will only come up if there is a complaint raised. The person making the complaint would know whom to accuse of receiving the advantage, and that person could be brought before the board and made to give evidence as to the rate. The fact is that the hon. minister, to facilitate the trying of cases before the board, is destroying competition.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) is altogether mistaken.


Mr. KEMP.: The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has said that the effect of this was to destroy competition. It seems to me that is the pith of the whole argument. I would like to give a concrete illustration of something that came under my notice a year or two ago. It relates to the matter of fuel oil. When the Standard Oil Company came into Canada, they
raised the price of fuel oil to nearly double what it was before.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In what year ?


Albert Edward Kemp: About two or three years ago. The Canadian railways, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway, saw that by water competition they would be deprived of carrying a certain amount of refined oil such as they had carried previous to the time the Standard Oil Company came into Canada. The rates from the fields where the oil was produced were, for refined oil 15 cents per 100 pounds, and for fuel oil, which is a by-product of the other, 9 cents per 100 pounds. The two Canadian railways abandoned the rate of 9 cents on fuel oil, "which was worth about $1.50 a barrel against about $7 for refined oil, and allowed the fuel oil to come under the rate of freight on refined oil. So far as Toronto and every other town in Ontario east of Toronto was concerned, this rate held. But the Michigan Central has connection into Hamilton, and it refused to adopt the ruling of the other railways but went on carrying oil at 9 cents per 100 pounds as it had been carried for many years before. Now, under the provision proposed by the hon. minister with regard to this matter, that kind of competition will be destroyed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think it at all.


Albert Edward Kemp: If the railway cannot make traffic at a lower rate of freight than those filed with the government, it seems to me that destroys competition.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have passed a number of clauses dealing with the general subject of rates. We have passed clauses relating to the subject of reducing rates without a word of criticism, nor -would criticism have been justified. Read section 262. All this Act requires is that special freight tariffs and competitive tariffs shall be filed with the board, and such tariffs shall state the date when issued, and when to take effect. And the section says :
When any such tariff reduces any toll previously authorized to be charged under this Act

So, reductions are contemplated in plain and explicit terms. The company may reduce its tariff to zero if it will-
-the company shall file such tariff with the board.
And so on. Now, I say that is all, and that tariff, as well as other tariffs, may be disallowed, but disallowed for sufficient cause. It would be disallowed if proved to be a discriminating tariff within the meaning of this Act; if it was not discriminating, no one having any qualifications to be a member of the board would disallow it simply because it reduced the rates. The very point is to get the rates down to a

reasonable and proper basis, and when a railway company reduces, of its own motion, the rates which it charges, surely it is not to be assumed that the railway commission are going to disallow that tariff upon that ground alone. If there is any discrimination about it which will work unjustly to others, then of course the board may properly exercise the discretion with which the law invests them. Now, when we are dealing further along with other phases of the question of charges, of freight and tolls, when we come down to the joint tariff for practically foreign business, all that we provide is that these joint tariffs should be tiled. Now, where is there any possibility of injury to any interest in requiring that these should be filed, and where is the foundation for the suggestion lion, gentlemen have made that we are interfering with competition ? I venture to say it cannot be found in the provisions of this Bill.


Albert Edward Kemp: The minister will admit that any tariff has to be registered and filed with the commission. Any railroad knowing that its cut rate which is of advantage to the public, was going to be made known to other railroads, would not file. A man would not make the cut rate if lie knew his competitors were going to find it out immediately, and the public would not get the benefit of it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are providing that these should not be made public, they are for the private and personal knowledge of the commissioners alone.


Albert Edward Kemp: But they are bound to tile every cut rate.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, but they do not publish them, they are simply filed. That it seems to me, is a reasonable and proper precaution; the board should have knowledge of all the rates that are being imposed by the railway companies so that they may, having that knowledge, better decide as to whether or not there is any violation of the law in discriminating against other rights and interests.


John Graham Haggart: I thought that before any special rates took effect they had to be published. First of all, you have to file them with the board and then you have to publish them three days before they take effect.
When any such tariff reduces any toll previously authorized to he charged under this Act, the company shall file such tariff with the board and shall publish the same in the manner in section 274 in such case provided, at least three clear days previous to the date on which such tariff is intended to take effect.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That expressly excludes applications for competitive tariffs. That clause has been amended.


Hon. Mr. BLAIR.: 


Mr. SPROULE.: It seems to me you are abandoning the fundamental principle of the American law, which says that the great and beneficial effect of their board is publicity. You say here that you intend to keep it private.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I would like to be able to satisfy all my hon. friends opposite, but I do not see how I can do so. One says this is going to work unjustly because the competitive tariffs are going to be published; another condemns the Bill because he says that the great merit of the board is publicity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am merely drawing attention to that feature of the American law.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp) and the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) must harmonize their views if they are going to act as a compact force in hostility to this Bill.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am sure I am not acting in any hostile way towards this Bill. I think the Bill is a very good one, but I am not clear as to the difference between a competitive tariff and a special tariff. I do not see any place in the Bill where this point is covered. This tariff is not to be published, but the one mentioned in clause 202 is to be made public. Now, where is the clause that refers to special competitive tariffs that are not to be made public.


Samuel Barker: I suppose subsection 3 of 200 is the one.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You will find it in the amended subsection 4 of section 202. I admit that these are subjects of a technical character [DOT] which the ordinary man is not able to understand without devoting a good deal of attention and study to them. I think that lion, gentlemen opposite, if they desire to assist in putting through the Bill, as I think they do, will have to take for granted that some attention and some study have been given to these things so as to make a scheme workable, without doing any injury to the business of the country. I could hardly be compelled to make hon. gentlemen opposite understand all these provisions when there may be some that I do not clearly understand myself.


John Graham Haggart: But the trouble with me is that I do not see the difference between a special tariff and a competitive tariff. Would the minister tell me the difference ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman will read the Bill, and is able to understand it, he will see the difference. Differences exist in railway operations and traffic. The law has defined the difference. I presume the

hon. member will not ask me to go over it again and give a rgsumd of the whole definition and description of the whole classes of tariffs.


John Graham Haggart: No, I will not, particularly as I see that the hon. minister knows nothing about the difference. He has a very clever way of getting around the difficulty.
The MINISTER, OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. I do not know how the hon. gentleman can say that I do not know anything about it, because he is absolutely without any knowledge himself. I do not know how he will be competent to judge as to the competency of anybody else. This Bill provides for three different classes of freight tariffs. There is the standard freight tariff. That is the maximum. That is the tariff which is prepared by the companies and submitted to the board and if it receives the approval of the board it is the standard tariff that governs. Then, in special cases, in cases of special traffic and special classes of goods, this Bill contemplates that the companies may prepare and submit special freight tariffs. When these special freight tariffs are submitted they may go into operation and the company may make a tariff as low as it pleases as a special freight tariff. It has to be filed and this special freight tariff, if it is not competitive, the Act contemplates, shall be published. There is another class of tariff which is not intended by tlfe company to come within either of these two classes, standard freight or special freight tariff, which may come within the third class which is called the competitive class, and which is designed to encourage competition in the fullest possible degree. That class of tariff may be imposed by the company without the sanction of the board. The company may take shipments under that tariff and the tariff need not be published. It is communicated to the board for the private knowledge and information of the board, and why we require that it should be placed before file board is that the board may have under its hand the means of knowledge so that it can determine whether or not from among the classes of business the company was doing at a certain time it was unduly discriminating in its provisions contrary to the provisions of this Bill. I think it would be difficult to design any more effective means of protecting the public and guarding against improper discrimination and, at the same time affording the freest hand and the widest latitude to railway companies to go on with their business.


Albert Edward Kemp: Supposing that a railway company which did not make a competitive tariff was suspicious that a railway company which did make one was giving lower rates than authorized by the commission, if it applied to the commission or this competitive tariff, would the commission give it to that railway company ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is a matter, which, of course, would necessarily be in the discretion of the commission. If anybody who felt he had a grievance because some lower rate was given by the railway company to his neighbour than to himself came before the railway commission, the commission would say :	Well, what is your complaint,
what is it that you say the company has done for your neighbour ? If the information received from him should be such as to convince the board, or the member of the board that might be going into the matter at the moment, that there was ground to suspect discrimination was going on, it would not be necessary that the board should hand over a copy of this tariff to the complainant. They would be moved to have this thing further inquired into and such definite action taken as they thought proper to take against the company that was discriminating. The design is that this tariff shall not be made public so that opposing railways could know what , a neighbour railway was doing in offering cheap rates. I think it is very proper that such information should be withheld.


John Graham Haggart: After that explanation I do not see any difference yet between the special freight tariff and the competitive tariff except this; the company has to publish the special freight tariff for a certain number of days and let the public know what it is. The competitive tariff need not be published at all. But, the moment the tariff is approved by the board or filed with the board, the distinction between the competitive and special tariffs ceases.
On subsection (c), section 274-filing and publication of competitive tariffs,


John Graham Haggart: Here is a provision for a competitive tariff, and the distinction between that and the special tariff was that one was to be made public and the other not. Under this section the competitive tariff is obliged to be open for the inspection of the public.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The intention of this is that the board, when they know all the circumstances of the case, may have power to exempt this from publication.


John Graham Haggart: I see that ; but in some cases competitive tariffs are to be published unless the board specially exempts them. It appears to me that a special tariff may be a competitive tariff, and the two things are so closely joined that I cannot see the distinction yet.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will try to make my hon. friend see the difference between a special tariff

and a competitive tariff. The distinction between these two tariffs does not consist at all in the circumstance that one may be exempted by the board from publication and the other not. A special freight tariff is a tariff which in addition is based upon the rules that govern it and it is controlled by the law on the short haul principle, but the competitive tariff is not.


Albert Edward Kemp: Might I ask the minister if, under any circumstances, such a thing as a competitive tariff could exist between the city of Ottawa and Peterborough, Ontario, for instance ? There is no water competition.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would not be limited to water competition.


Albert Edward Kemp: The Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway go to Peterborough-could a competitive tariff exist between Ottawa and Peterborough ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There cannot be any possible objection to competition between railroads running between any two points in Canada that are reached by two roads.


Albert Edward Kemp: Before this section is adopted, I would like to draw the attention of the minister to a matter which I think lie has heard of before. How are the public to know when it is the intention of the committee to revise tariffs or classifications ? I think it was suggested to the minister that notice of all changes of tariff should be sent to certain boards of trade or other com-[DOT] mercial organizations. It has been the complaint of these organizations for a long time past that they have not known of these changes, and have not been able to present the. case of the public. Is there any way that the minister can suggest whereby notice of these changes could be made known to these organizations ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Certain boards of trade might be notified.


Albert Edward Kemp: Something like the following has been suggested :
The company shall file with the board as many copies of all proposed tariffs and freight classifications as the hoard may prescribe, and on receipt thereof the secretary of the board shall mail to each incorporated board of trade, chamber of commerce or commercial association in Canada a copy thereof, and shall send by mail a copy thereof to all other persons requiring the same.
I think fifty or sixty copies would be sufficient.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think we might make provision very easily ; but I would not advise as many copies as'that. There are only three Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
or four boards of trade that interest themselves in the subject. The Toronto Board of Trade is the only one with which I have had any communication on the subject.


Albert Edward Kemp: It represents pretty well the Ontario organizations.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think I would not be far astray if I said that one of our great railroads would have a thousand different tariffs in operation, and it would be a very serious matter to give notice of all these.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hoards of trade look upon it as a very important matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is true, and I think the case would be met sufficiently by providing that the boards of trade of Toronto and Montreal should be supplied. Tjiey are the great centres, and perhaps would be the only ones requiring to be informed.


Albert Edward Kemp: You might provide for sending to cities of over 200,000 population.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will look into the matter, and put something in the Bill.	[DOT]


Samuel Barker: If the minister adopts that clause or any modification of it, I would suggest that he would provide for sending to all cities where there are boards of trade.
On section 279, subsection 3,
3. Any person or any officer or ageht of any company who shall deliver goods for transportation to the company or for whom as consignor or consignee the company shall transport goods, who shall knowingly or wilfully, by false billing, false classification, false weighing, false representation of the contents of the package, or false report of weight, or by any other device or means, whether with or without the consent or connivance of the company, its agent or agents, obtain transportation for such goods at less than the regular tolls then authorized and in force on the railway shall for each offence be liable to a penalty of not exceeding one thousand dollars nor less than ore hundred dollars.


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not understand what the object is of making a double penalty for the shipper. The railway company, under the two preceding sections are liable to a flue of from $100 to $1,000. Under subsection 3, the shipper is liable to a similar penalty. But why put into the hands of the railway power practically to fine the shipper and hold his goods and confiscate them to pay the fine ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The object is to provide all necessary and proper, and possible guarantees that the law shall be enforced. In replying to what I understand to be the hon. member's (Mr. Kemp) view, I do not see why one of the parties should be subject to a penalty and the other, who may have wilfully incited or encouraged

the unlawful act, should escape. We make both liable and put both on the same basis.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think the hon. minister does not understand me. I agree that the shipper should be subject to the penalties which are prescribed in subsection 3, which are the same as those prescribed against the railway. But the hon. minister not only subjects the shipper, to the same fines as the railway company-to which I agree- but he allows the railway company to charge fifty per cent more if freight is not classified in the way prescribed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is the fifty per cent tariff the hon. gentleman objects to ?


Albert Edward Kemp: I object to the double fine against the shipper. I may refresh the hon. minister's memory by again calling his attention to something I spoke of in the House a few days ago. The railway companies issued a classification which was to take effect on the 1st of May. Under the law, that should be submitted to the Governor in Council and approved. This has not been done, but yet the railways are operating under it. It may be said that the classification is not more onerous to the shipper than the schedule of a previous time. I am not speaking of the classification itself, but of a rule inserted in the front of this classification. To this rule I drew attention before. It provides that if articles are shipped under false names to deceive the carrier or avoid the classification, the agent is to charge fifty per cent in addition to the rate that would have been charged had the property been correctly described. So, the hon. minister will see that the railways, while they occupy the same position as the shipper with regard to the penalty of from $100 to $1,000, they have asked-I take it-the hon. minister to empower them by legislation to inflict a double penalty upon the shipper. I take it that the attention of the hon. minister has not been drawn to the fact that the shipper is already subjected to the same penalty as the railways, and should not be subjected to the double penalty at the hands of the railways without coming before the commission.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If I understand what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) has in mind, I must say that I cannot agree with him. The1 penalties imposed under this clause are not because the shipper is trying to cheat the railways, but for the purpose of securing the observance of the law. When the fine is imposed, it does not go into the exchequer of the railway. In the other case where the extra rate of fifty jier cent in addition to the ordinary rate is allowed, that is for the protection of the railways. Suppose that a railway carries a cargo of grain the freight on which would be, for the
sake of illustration, $200, but stowed away in that grain are ten or fifteen thousand dollars worth of very high class, rich goods, which, if properly billed would pay very high rates, the hauling of these goods being very profitable to the railway. If a man is trying to have carried as grain, goods that should be charged four to twenty times as high it is reasonable not only that he should pay a penalty for his fault, but that he should pay a higher rate to the railway company than he would be called upon to pay under ordinary circumstances. It is not a very excessive penalty that is imposed in this way. He only pays one-half more freight than he would have paid if the railway company were carrying the article under its proper classification. There seems to be no reason why, when fraud is being practiced upon the company, and they discover it, the shipper should not pay additional freight. That, at all events, is the reason why this clause has been inserted. I have talked the matter over fully with the railway people, and they made cut a case that satisfied me this was a fair proposition.


Mr. MONK.: It seems to me there is not sufficient reason to make the distinction between the punishment provided in subsection 3 and the punishment provided in the other sections. The shipper who commits the fraud described in subsection 3 incurs a punishment similar to the punishment provided in the other subsections. He is liable to pay a sum of from $100 to $1,000, and he is punished for that offence. Why should he be punished twice ? There is no doubt that under the common law, if that fraud is discovered and he is convicted, the railway company has a claim against him for the full amount ; and if, as mentioned by the Minister of Railways, he has stored that grain or other articles, he might be subject to the full amount of his freight, I think the Minister of Railways will admit that, without the proposed amendment. The fraud has been discovered. We will suppose he has paid his fine, and he is subject to the full amount of his freight under the common law. Then why should we subject him to this 50 per cent additional ? I say that he has purged his fault by the payment of his fine. It seems to me that the railway companies are demanding a little too much when, after he has paid his fine, they wish him in addition to pay 50 per cent more. He becomes, under these circumstances^ liable to a double penalty. I think it would be better to leave it as it is.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know that I can add anything to what I have said. It still seems to me reasonable that a man who has been caught in the act of practising a fraud in getting his goods carried at a rate much below the proper rate, should, when discovered, be called upon to pay something in addition

to the price of that freight, because that is the only mode in which the company can protect itself. The railway company may perhaps, in the course of the year's business, carry a good deal of freight under those circumstances and in that way, without discovering the fraud, and after sustaining a loss. But when a man is caught operating in such a fashion, I do not think we are treating him unjustly when we say that, in addition to the proper rate of freight which he would have to pay, he should pay an additional sum to the company whom he may have defrauded in many instances. So far as the penalty is concerned, that is a separate proposition. But I do not see why we should feel any concern at all as respects the individual who is caught perpetrating such acts. He does not deserve any sympathy.


Albert Edward Kemp: This is another illustration of the plausible way the railways have of putting their case before the minister. I would like to ask the minister if the railways can cite a case where grain was ever carried in car-loads as silverware, or other expensive material ? I do not deny but that it might be done. A man who would do that would steal, he would do anything; and there ought to be a law to reach such individuals. But under the Act, as the minister had it originally drawn, that man is subject to a penalty of .$1,000 if he is discovered. Now, that is an extreme case, and it is another indication of the plausible and clever way the railways have of working. I venture to say that such a case never happened. But I wish to refer to the thousands and thousands of shipments that take place every day, from every warehouse in the country and from every factory in the country, which would be affected by this clause. Now, in that classification there are upwards of 3.000 different items. That classification is not carefully studied by the clerk in the employ of the manufacturer or the merchant : it is a most complicated document, and it is possible for a clerk to make a mistake. If he makes a wilful mistake, he can be punished. But this clause goes further, and as soon as the goods which are shipped reach the railway station they are subject to an inspection-by whom ? They are subject to the inspection of men appointed by the railways. These men sometimes know their business, but very frequently they know very little about what the goods are that are shipped. After making their inspection, they raise the billing of these goods, and they walk into the office of the billing clerk of the railway company and they say : Inflict a penalty on this man of 50 per cent over and above the freight of these goods, because they are wrongly billed. Who is to try the case ? The man is not asked. The railway people never go to the shipper and ask him why he did this, and get an explanation. Still they are just Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
as liable to be in the wrong as the shipper. They are more frequently in error than the shipper, in my experience, and I have had a good deal of experience with them. And to say that a man should be subject to a. penalty of $1,000 for committing such a mistake, and that his goods are liable to be confiscated by the railway with 50 per cent addition-I say it is an outrage, and the public of this country will consider it as such if it is persisted in. I would like to know where there is a precedent in Great Britain or the United States for such action. I say the dishonest shipper that will wrongfully classify his goods should be brought under the Criminal Code. I do not complain that he should be fined $1,000. even $2,000. Put him in jail if necessary ; but do not leave it in the hands of the railway to administer the criminal laws of this country.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not proposed that the railways shall administer the criminal law. They cannot even enforce any of these penalties under this Act without leave of the board. But this is a case where a man has wilfully committed a fraud. He is not, as the hon. gentleman has just pictured him, an innocent man who has made a mistake by reason of the great extent and variety of the classification which he has not been able to understand. This is the case of a man who wilfully perpetrates or attempts to perpetrate a fraud upon the company in the transportation of his goods. WThy should not that man be asked to pay more than the ordinary rate that he has tried to escape by getting freight carried for less ?


Albert Edward Kemp: Who is to say whether he did it wilfully or knowingly ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The court.


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not understand that the court would have to say it at all. The railway company would hold the man's goods, if the fraud is made plain under this classification. I am advised that the railway company could collect the fine as an extra charge and hold the man's goods until he paid it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The question is raised as to whether a man has done it wilfully and knowingly. The railway company cannot determine whether it has been done wilfully or knowingly, but if it were done wilfully and knowingly they would have the right, under this Bill, to insist upon the payment of the fine.


Samuel Barker: I think justice will be accomplished if the merchant were compelled to pay his proper rate without imposing a penalty of fifty per cent, because he is made to pay the company a penalty in addition of from $100 to $1,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He may or lie may not. He is subject to it.


Samuel Barker: This subsection contemplates that the railway company may commit an offence against the merchant. In that case the railway company has to pay a fine, but it has not to pay the merchant anything. If the merchant commits an offence he has not only to pay a fine, but he has to pay something to the railway company. I do not know that the penalty will do any good to the railway company. The punishment of this fine will deter the merchant from improperly representing his freight, and I think it will answer all the purposes if the hon. minister simply requires the merchant to pay the full rate he should have paid in addition to the fine. I think my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) is quite right in saying that you are dealing differently with the merchant from the way in which you are dealing with the railway company.


Albert Edward Kemp: I would like to ask the hon. minister how this penalty of 50 per cent in addition is to be collected ? It is an extra toll. The railway will hold that freight until it is paid. Does the hon. minister pretend to say that the freight in each case of the hundreds of thousands of cases that will occur will be held until this matter is brought to the attention of the commission sitting in Ottawa, or some place else, before it is decided ? You would take up all the time of the commission if that procedure had to be gone to. The 50 per cent extra is in the shape of a toll and it would be collected by the railways, and if the consignee refuses to pay it, the railways will have the same power they have now in reference to any toll, to realize upon the goods.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will consider this subsection, and in the meantime we will allow it to stand if hon. gentlemen think it is unduly favourable to the railway company.
On subsection 5, section 279,
Whenever the company files with the board and publishes any tariff, and such tariff comes into force and is not disallowed by the board, under this Act, or participates in any such tariff, the tolls in such tariff, while so in force, shall as against such company, its officers, agents or employees, in any prosecution under this Act, be conclusively deemed to be the legal tolls chargeable by such company, and any departure therefrom shall be an offence under this Act.


John Graham Haggart: Does that mean that they may file a lower or higher tariff than that which has been approved by the board ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This applies to any tariff. Of course, the company could not have any tariff higher than the standard tariff.


Haughton Lennox: I think the word ' disallowed ' is very dangerous. The theory of the Bill is that we are changing altogether the old system by which the railway company originated a tariff, put it in force, and the Railway Committee of the Privy Council would disallow it. Now a tariff is to be in effect only after it is allowed by the railway commission. It is quite true the company may originate it in the way of proposing it, but it gets its force and effect from the action of the board and from that alone. It has no force or effect until the board sactions it, and it is on that point that a difficulty may arise.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are certain tariffs which may be filed and which do not require to be allowed or disallowed.


Haughton Lennox: If the railway company conceives that a certain tariff ought not be submitted to the board, and they do not comply with these terms they are subject to all the penalties herein laid down. I think it is giving the railways a large and dangerous amount of control.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is the railways that are subject to these penalties.


Haughton Lennox: That does not alter the case, because I suppose the railway company has the same right as anybody else. I am not fighting for farmers or merchants or any particular class. I am calling the attention of the minister to the effect of this on the people, no matter who these people happen to be.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is not for but against the railway company.


Haughton Lennox: It is giving the railway company in the meantime an enormous control.
On subsection 6,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to add to subsection 6 the following
Provided that upon the hearing and determination of any application or complaint before the board in respect of any such infraction, the board may in addition to or in substitution of any other relief, award to any complaining parties so aggrieved such damages as it may find him to have sustained, and the payment of such award shall be in complete satisfaction of any claim for damages, including repayment of over charges which such party would otherwise have had by reason of such infraction or matters of complaint.


Haughton Lennox: What is the meaning of this ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This was in the Bill introduced last year, but on consideration we thought we had better drop it. However, this



clause is in the English Act and is worked by the English Board of Railway Commissioners, and we are led to believe that it has answered a very useful purpose. The railwav board having all the evidence before it, it would seem that they might very properly consider the question and make the award of damages to the person who suffered, and if dealt with in that way that is the end of the litigation. This law prevails in England and it has a good deal-to recommend it. It is not of course entirely free from doubt, but it would be a very easy matter if it is found not to achieve any good purpose, to eliminate it from the Bill at any time. We have the English experience for a number of years to justify us in trying the experiment.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Has it been construed in England as ousting the jurisdiction of the courts with respect to damages.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think so.


Haughton Lennox: Either this subsection 6 as originally printed should be allowed to stand without this addition, or if this addition be inserted then we had better remove the most of subsection 6. I submit that subsection 6 without this addition is quite plain enough in giving the right of action in an ordinary court of justice. It is not a question for the jurisdiction of the board at all. If it is fair that a company should be liable to make good in treble damages the amount of loss sustained, then this further provision should not be inserted to conflict with it.
In the first place, if the party aggrieved does not contemplate getting his whole remedy before the board, but contemplates bringing an action at law at a later date, he will not bring before the board evidence to show the full relief he is entitled to. Many cases will arise in the working out of this Act in which evidence will come before the board to put the board to some extent in possession of the facts. But where a suitor or party complaining does not intend to submit his rights to the board for determination of the damage lie shall sustain, I submit that it would be unfair to deprive him of the ordinary rights which are directly conferred upon him undef subsection 6 unless with his consent. If lie sees fit to consent to it, I do not see any great difficulty ; but I submit that if there is any such proviso put in, although I am [DOT]not in favour of it being put in at all, it should read that the board may, ' with the eonsent of the party complaining, but not otherwise,' do so and so. It is a case in which we are giving to the board controlling powers which I do not think are required in order to the efficient carrying out of the provisions of this Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am willing to insert the words,


Andrew George Blair: ' with the consent of the parties.' I do not think the board would act without their consent.


Robert Laird Borden: I am inclined to think that there must be some change made in the section, otherwise it would not work out very well. For example, suppose that a person who believes himself to be aggrieved has begun an action against a company in the courts. Under the section as printed, he would be entitled to recover from the railway company. While that action was pending, a similar application might be made to the board under the provisions of this statute; and unless this section were amended in some way, yon would have the court and the board both dealing with the same matter at the same time. It seems to me that some confusion would be likely to ensue unless you had some language to show where the jurisdiction of the board ceased and the jurisdiction of the court began.
THE MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. It would seem to me that even though the proceedings had been commenced, the adjudication would be made by the board.


Robert Laird Borden: Curiously enough I had almost the very case I refer to. The hon. gentleman may remember that there used to be a board of arbitrators in connection with the government railway. An action was commenced by an individual whose land was taken, against the .officers of the government on the ground that the statute was not complied with before the land was entered upon. A line exceeding one mile in length on the Dartmouth branch had been commenced without an Order in Council being issued, though it could only be done by virtue of an Order in Council. While that action was pending, the O'-der in Council was passed, and proceedings were taken before the arbitrators, and the damages, being the value of the land, were assessed. Then the question arose whether or not that could be pleaded as a good matter arising after the action commenced. Tlir court held that it could not. Perhaps it would be advisable to be pretty definite in regard to these two branches of the section otherwise you might have considerable litigation as to whether or not the application had been answered.
Subsection 6 allowed to stand.
On section 284-traffic agreements.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move that this section be amended by adding at the end of subsection 1 the following words :
Provided that the board may by order or regulation, exempt the company from complying with any of the foregoing conditions with respect to any such agreement or arrangement made or entered into by the company for the transaction of the usual and ordinary business
[DOT]5701

of the company, and where such consent of the shareholders may be deemed by the board to be unnecessary.


Hon.   S@: This seems to be a very sweeping exception.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What is intended to be covered is any ordinary traffic agreement which may be made between two tariff officers, and which it is not necessary to have formally ratified by the shareholders. To go through all this formality with regard to a mere arrangement for an interchange of freight would be unnecessary.


Samuel Barker: But might not this refer to agreements entered into for a term of years, for example. I should think it would be very dangerous to allow agreements to be entered into for a term of years without the consent of the shareholders.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But agreements may be entered into for a week or a month-a mere part of the ordinary business. The board is empowered to dispense with the formalities in that case.


Samuel Barker: But this clause has been in the Railway Act for twenty years and has never interfered with the ordinary interchange of traffic between companies.


The MINISTER OF RAIDWAYS AND CANALS.: They have simply disregarded it.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Hecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY-EXCISE DUTIES ON TOBACCO.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['All right.']
Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: Mr. Speaker, in this morning's * Globe ' I see an article headed :



[Stage Direction]
Excise Largely Increased on the Foreign Leaf. New Regulations Cause a Flurry in the Trade in Toronto-Users of Plug Tobacco Will Feel Increase.
I cannot understand, nor can many hon. members of the House understand, by what authority this additional excise duty has been imposed so suddenly upon the people of this country. The hon. Minister of Finance is in his place and in the absence of the lion. Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) I would ask for the information of the House by what authority this has been done ?
179*
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would prefer that the hon. gentleman would be good enough to allow the matter to stand until the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue is present.


David Henderson: All right.



SUPPLY-THE MILITIA FORCE.

['Well, perhaps in a short time we will get through it.']
Mr. A. T. THOMPSON (Haldimand and Monck).: Mr. Speaker. Before this motion is passed, I desire to make a few remarks concerning the present condition of the Canadian militia, its wants and the best way of meeting them. I have not spoken this session on this subject, nor will I now treat of it at great length. Fully aware as I am of the difficulty of getting the ear of this House at any time, and more especially at this late season of the session, I bespeak the attention of the honourable members, for I feel that I have matter of importance to lay before them. When his main estimates were under discussion, the Minister of Militia stated that later on, when he brought down the supplementaries, he would make a full statement as to militia affairs in general. I am purposely anticipating this because I wish to give him an opportunity of hearing in advance what I have to say, so that if he sees fit he may later comment upon it, having had plenty of time to verify my facts and figures iii the meantime. I am sorry indeed that he is not present, but I can delay my remarks no longer, since I am momentarily expecting a telegram which may call me away from Ottawa for a indefinite time ; what I say, however, will appear in Hansard, and so be available to him. I may remark that while I do not claim to have a mandate from the militiamen of Canada, I have talked with scores of them since our camps of last fall, have studied the subject as carefully as possible, and am prepared to give an earnest opinion even though a few may be found to differ with it. I am encouraged to proceed in this matter by the feeling that only a few members of this House are absolutely indifferent to our militia, while the number of those actually antagonistic to it is insignificant indeed. We have had encouraging and sympathetic speeches from the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who most certainly will not be accused of a-tendency towards militarism, from the member, the independent member, for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) who will certainly not be accused of extravagance, from the members of His Majesty's truely styled ' Loyal Opposition,' and from a number of others on your right, Sir. But encouraging as all this undoubtedly is, it is as nothing compared with my feeling of satisfaction when I read the memo, of August 11, 1902, presented by our ministers in London to the British ministers there on the subject of imperial defence at the time of the colonial conference last summer. I would very

gladly read that admirable document in toto, Sir, but for fear of wearying the patience of the House, none too robust in weather such as this, and I feel constrained to quote portions of it since upon it in very large measure, I rest my case. First, then, in regretfully declining to meet the suggestions of Mr. St. John Broderick, suggestions which in my opinion, apart altogether from questions of self-government, involved a much heavier expense than that hon. gentleman, unacquainted apparently with our wage market here, had imagined, an expense for which the people of Canada might not have been willing to stand, our ministers state that their objections arise 'not so much from the expense involved,' &c. I note this implied expression of willingness to spend a reasonable sum, for future use in this speech, and proceed with my extracts from the memo :
They fully appreciate the duty of the Dominion, as it advances in population and wealth to make more liberal outlay for those necessary preparations of self defence which every country has to assume and bear.
Further on, in saying a good word for our force, attention is called with pride to * the fact that:
Annual drill in camps of instruction for the rural corps, and at Battalion Headquarters for the city corps, has been carried out each year for the past six years.
Proceeding the ministers say that they are far from claiming that perfection has been attained:
If defects exist

Say they :
-there is every desire on the part of the Canadian government to remove them, and for this purpose the advice and assistance of experienced imperial officers will be welcomed and all reasonable efforts made to secure an efficient system.
Apart from this special memo., on page 32 of the report, we read an account of the discussion of the proposal of Mr. St. John Broderick for a colonial reserve; * a special body of troops, earmarked for imperial service',' the part of which germane to my remarks runs as follows :
The representatives of Canada and Australia were of opinion that the best course to pursue was to endeavour to raise the standard of training for the general body of their forces, to organize the departmental services, and equipment required for the mobilization of a field force, leaving it to the colony, when the need arose to determine how-, and to what extent it should render assistance.
Taking all these quotations together, we find an absolute pledge given by our representatives for militia betterment, a pledge given on an occasion of grave importance, reduced to writing, mistake or misunderstanding an impossibility. Let me recall for a moment the personnel of our representatives on that occasion. There was the Mr. THOMPSON CHaldimand).
Right Hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), wTho has honoured our force by becoming the honorary lieutenant colonel of that smart French Canadian corps, the 9th Yoltigeurs de Quebec ; there wTas the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who so constantly and carefully guards the treasury from leakage, there was the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), not a warlike man, it is true, but an eminently good business one, little likely to be carried away by the showy, side of imperialism, whose department in large part furnishes the funds, a part of which I crave for our necessities ; there was the hon. Minister of Militia (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) whose knowledge of and warm interest in the force which he directs is too well known to require commendation at my hands, and there was that shrewd and economical administrator the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock). Of him let me say a special word. Again and again have I heard him described as unfriendly to the militia. A more unfair charge was never put upon a public man. True, he has spoken out both manfully and well against militarism, but militarism implies a large standing force with a heavy expenditure, it is the very antithesis of a citizen soldiery, and as unpopular with our men to-day as with any other class in the community. His views, embodied in the memo, from which I have quoted give the lie to his slanderers, and enable us to claim him as one of our most valued friends.
Now, Sir, to come from generalities to particulars, from the foundation to the superstructure. While not one of those imperial officers from across the sea whose advice and assistance is to be welcomed as stated in one of the numerous quotations above given, the door is surely wide open also for the advice and assistance of ' one of the native born.' Am I not justified then in supposing that if I can convince this House that the Canadian army is in serious danger of disintegration in one of its very most important parts, relief will be granted, even though that may entail expense ? Am 1 not justified still further in the assumption that once let the cabinet be convinced that the militia is not even stationary but actually retrogressing, this cabinet pledged to Britain for improvement, and it must and will gladly meet the situation and destroy the danger ?
Well Sir, in all seriousness, after due consideration and recognizing the importance of the assertion, I say here to-day in my place in parliament that the militia, so far as the rural part thereof is concerned, is in infinitely worse plight to-day than it was two years ago, and that in my opinion another year under present conditions will utterly demoralize it.
The reason is not far to seek-it lies in the fifty cent daily wage. The time has come, Sir, to double that amount. For many

years the militia struggled on for half a dollar a day, never satisfactorily progressing, ever calling for sacrifice on the part of officers and men. With the increased prosperity of the country, and the higher wages obtainable, the system has broken down. I do not blame this government and its predecessor for getting a fairly good article as cheaply as possible, but since we still require the fairly good article, and can no longer get it at the bargain counter, we must pay whatever higher price is necessary to procure it.
X shall not Sir, make mere empty statements, but I shall substantiate them by facts and figures. Let us see what happened at the recent camps in districts one and two, held respectively at London and at Niagara-on-the-Lake, I think I may say without fear of contradiction two of the best militia districts we have in Canada, but first, for the benefit of the large number of members not acquainted with the technical details, just a word as to the basis on which our force is established. Let me take a company of infantry for example. Our authorized strength for such is three officers, six non-commissioned officers, and thirty-six men. This is on. a peace footing. On a war footing the number of officers and non-commissioned officers would remain precisely the same, but the number of men would be increased to 119, bringing a company exclusive of officers up to a strength of 125, thus making an eight company regiment, 1,000 strong.
Of course the idea was to give us the requisite number of trained officers and noncommissioned officers, with a fair sprinkling of drilled men in the ranks, hoping and believing that under such circumstances the infusion of new blood could be readily absorbed and controlled. This is known as the skeleton system, and considering our resources in men and money would answer very well if adhered to every year. Unfortunately this is not being done. Last year only the non-commissioned officers with one officer per company, and a small number of men. the latter for fatigue work only, and not for drill, were called out. This year all officers and non-commissioned officers, with twenty-one men per company, as against an establishment of thirty-six men, have been called out in the case of most regiments, though some have been left at home entirely. Well Sir, this means that starting as a sekeleton we have been called upon to parade as the skeleton of a skeleton. But worse is yet to follow. The number this year called out would mean about 253 for an eight company infantry regiment, while the figures which I shall presently submit prove that we have been unable to supply even this small quota, not a single regiment that I know of having turned out a full ISO out of the 253 required with the exception of the 30th Wellington rifles, which is a ten company corps. I have shown that
we were called upon to furnish the skeleton of a skeleton, I now state that we have actually turned out the shadow of a skeleton of a skeleton. Can anything so ghost-like be longer called a militia force. True the officers and non-commissioned officers, the most important part, showed up in very fair numbers, but this will not continue. Men must have a pride in their unit or they will cease to act. I know the case of one company which this year had two officers and six non-commissioned officers to command two men, one of whom was the cook. The captain of that company, Captain Rolston, is one of the best militiamen I know, enthusiastic and able. Never before has he failed to bring out a full company of excellent physique. He told me that he had worked harder than usual at recruiting this year, with this disheartening result, and I believe that one more such experience will drive him from the force. The trouble works both up and down. A non-commissioned officer with no men to command loses interest in his work, and the colonel of a regiment which has dwindled to the size of a fair, company loses heart and keenness, which I know to my sorrow.
And now for the figures In No. 1 district there is an establishment of cavalry, infantry, and army medical corps, of 3,611 officers and men, exclusive of the city corps, and of these only 1,248 attended camp; just barely one-third. In No. 2 district there is an infantry strength of 3,677 officers and men, exclusive of the city corps, and of these only 1,570, far less than half found their way to camp. Startling as these figures are they do not represent the full significance of the case, for not only are we reduced to a minimum in numbers, but the physique of those whom we do get out is anything but satisfactory. Those going to camp under present conditions may be roughly divided into two classes-the enthusiasts, than whom it would be hard to find a better lot, and a large residue who may fairly be described as the fifty cent men, a class not worth even that pittance, men who break the hearts of the good soldiers with whom they are associated, and who are brought out by captains in sheer despair to maintain even the semblance of a company. And here Sir, I cannot refrain from telling of an amusing incident closely connected with the physique of the men which occurred recently at camp Niagara. The inspecting officer was going round a company, and he found fault as to the age of several veterans whose Fenian Raid medals and leathery mahogany skin betokened advanced years. Reaching the other flank of the company he happened on a number of downy youths who must have barely escaped the nursery to be present, and again his strictures broke forth. The captain of the company listened in respectful silence till his superior officer was through, and then remarked, " what

you say is no doubt all true sir, but the average age would be about right." Now Sir, I have given you the figures of these two districts, all that are at present available to me, but inasmuch as these are always much above the average, it is fair to argue that this lamentable state of affairs will be reproduced throughout the Dominion. It may be said that inasmuch as only parts of companies were called out the figures I have quoted are hardly fair, because, had the full numbers been summoned, the total turn out would have been much larger. This cannot, however, be the case. If on calling out but a fraction we have been unable to furnish even that part, then to call out more would produce no more. Having, as I firmly believe, established the danger beyond perad-venture, I now come to the remedy, which in my opinion is an increase of fifty cents a day for every man in the force, exclusive of officers, and an annual drill for the whole establishment. At first blush this may seem a rather ambitious scheme, but the expense between the present and the proposed rate is nothing like as great as many imthis House imagine. The total number of the militia, exclusive of the permanent force, of which I shall speak hereafter, is only 40,151, and figuring the officers at about eight per cent of the whole, or 3,212, we have 36,946 rank and file to whom my proposition applies. To give to each of these an increase of fifty cents a day for the twelve days during which the militia is annually under pay would be six dollars per man, or a total increase of $221,673, just four cents per head of the population of Canada. It is contended by some that a further allowance of 50 cents a day should be made for the horses of the cavalry and field artillery. I have not the exact number of horses to which this increase would apply, but I know that the amount involved added to the $221,673 would still total less than a quarter of a million, which is less than the annual expense of the Halifax garrison maintained for about three years, which has just recently been disbanded, and the saving arising from which may very well be applied to this necessary object. And to whom would the money go ? Not to great corporations or to railway or manufacturing kings, but to thirty-six thousand odd of the young men of Canada-to men who for years have been keeping up a necessary part of the government of this country at an actual loss to themselves. This matter has been quite misunderstood by many honourable members of this House. I have heard it stated this very session in this very place that to increase the pay meant to double the militia vote. The militia vote this year on the main estimates is $1,777,308, and so far from doubling it we require but an eighth of an increase. If, however, the government thinks this increase for drill too great, I have a further Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).
proposition to make, w-hich is to let the increase apply to country corps only. I make this proposition out of no disregard for the city corps, which have my admiration and respect. I served my time in the ranks of a city regiment, the Queen's Own Rifles, of Toronto, and my memories of those days are such as to keep my heart very warm towards the city boys; but conditions are different in their case. The country soldier leaves home for twelve days, and is during that time entirely dissociated from his usual avocation. The city soldier does his drill at night, after his day's wage has been earned, and at no loss and but little inconvenience. The country soldier on his return home gets no further privilege or profit from his association with the militia. The city soldier is the year round furnished with a commodious club yclept an armoury. Recognizing these facts, the city soldier in almost every ease does not touch a cent of his pay, but turns it all in to the regimental fund. The question of pay, then, does not seriously affect him. The city corps are not suffering from low pay, but from liability to strike service, which I will discuss briefly later on. Even with the countryman at a dollar a day and.the city man at fifty cents, I believe the former would cost the exchequer slightly less than the latter. Say that the armoury at Halifax cost $300,000, though as a fact I understand it cost quite largely in excess of that amount, and charge that up at six per cent for interest, repairs, and sinking fund-though here again I err by underestimate, for six per cent is not enough. Leaving it at that, however, the annual cost is $18,000. The establishment of the garrison using that armoury is 1,492; therefore each member of it costs for armoury accommodation for the twelve days per annum the sum of one dollar, which, added to his fifty cents, makes a total of $1.50. The armoury of my own regiment is an old frame building somewhat repaired of late, but which could be entirely rebuilt for $2,000. The number of men using that drill shed-it is very properly called a shed and not an armoury-is 367. Figuring on the same basis as that of the Halifax armoury, we find an annual charge of $120, and so each member of the 37th costs for armoury accommodation a little less than three cents a day. Add this to the dollar I propose should be given, and the country soldier costs $1.03 a day as against $1.50(^ for the city man drawing 50-eent pay, in both cases eliminating the cost of clothing/ and equipment, which should be practically the same. In this calculation, Sir, I may have chosen the extremes for comparison. I believe I have, but you will notice that there is the large difference of forty-seven cents per man per day still to play upon. Let me take a less marked case. The Armoury at Brockville cost $40,000. and is used by 277 men. These cost then 72 cents per day for armoury accommodation while

under pay, and adding 50 cents for pay the total daily cost per man is $1.22. Next imagine a country drill shed costing $10,000, and a strong flight of imagination is indeed necessary, for I never knew of one approaching that in cost. It would be used by an 8 company regiment, 367 men. On the same basis of calculation the cost for armoury accommodation would be 16 cents per day, which added to the dollar I propose for the countryman would make his total cost $1.16 per day as against $1.22 for the Brock-ville man. If then we take the average cost of city armouries and country drill sheds, and work them out on the same basis as above, I feel sure that the country soldier at a dollar a day is still costing less than the city soldier at fifty cents a day. Wherefore again I say, if there be not enough to go round, raise the pay of the countryman, and no unfairness is done his neighbour. I have already stated that an increase of fifty cents per day per man would amount to $221,673. But suppose we let the pay of the city corps stand as at present. They number 15,757 men; and deducting this from the total strength, we see that to give the rural corps numbering 22,443, without officers, the increase, I propose, would mean a cost of only $134,658, or less than two and one-half cents per head of our population. It is true that two years ago I advocated increased pay on a graded scale. That might have done then, but since that time conditions have entirely changed, and it will not do at all now. It is too slow. Men drawing pay for twelve days in the 365 are not greatly elated at the prospect of getting ten cents per day more for the drill of the year following. An increase of that amount in the North-west Mounted Police or the permanent force amounts to something at the end of the year, but to the twelve-day soldier it has no drawing power.
While on this question of pay, let me once more say a word for the regimental chaplain, even if my advocacy' of his case subjects me to some mild ridicule, as it did in 1901. The chaplain is undoubtedly a great aid to recruiting. Religion has not yet gone out of fashion in rural Canada, and the erroneous idea that camp is a Godless and wicked place has caused many a parent to keep his willing boy at home. To such people the assurance that a chaplain is going along removes the prejudice, and with it the prohibition. And yet the regimental chaplain is treated as an unwelcome guest. He is given no tent accommodation, and has to rely? on the good nature of some brother officer for the very' canvass over his head. He draws not one cent of pay, but, for all that, has his messing to pay for, as also his uniform. I think he should receive a fair allowance, say two dollars a day, and the total would be a mere bagatelle.
Thus far I have been treating of the pay of the non-permanent militia, but now I wish to refer to the permanent force. This body
is not large enough to form a garrison in Canada, nor was it ever intended that it should. It is the teacher, the faculty, so to speak, of the militia. To this end, we require in its ranks good officers and good men as instructors. With regard to the former, we may consider ourselves fortunate considering the moderate inducements offered, but as to the latter we find that every branch is now far under strength, nor can this be otherwise when the men draw per day rather less than a plumber gets an hour. To my mind, the pay of the regulars must be iucreased. To what extent I shall not attempt to say, feeling less familiar with details here than in the case of the country corps, but the amount could be easily found out by inquiry from the proper sources.
Even with the increased pay, our force will not be on a proper footing unless we drill, as we used to do, every man every year. As I said before, the importance of this is freely admitted by our ministers, who point with pride to the fact that for the six years up to the time that they presented their memorandum to the British government, there had been annual drill for all. If you restrict us to a twelve-day camp, and I believe a longer period, because of the difficulty of getting away from ordinary employment, would be a detriment rather than an advantage, you must not reduce that to six days a year by making it twelve days every other year.
A great deal of unnecessary trouble was caused this year by withholding notice for camp until within from three weeks to ten days of the time ordered. Knowing that some regiments were not to be called out, a feeling of uncertainty pervaded the whole, and I can assure you that recruiting is too unpleasant a job to be undertaken on chances. When the summons did come, it was found that some of the best regiments had been overlooked. Of these some few were afterwards added to the list of the fortunate, but at so late a date as to give them totally inadequate time for preparation. One colonel of a belated regiment arrived in camp with seven out of eight companies, and he informed me that his eighth captain did not know yet that the regiment had been ordered out. Still another regiment, knowing itself to be amongst the most efficient, was preparing for camp as a matter of course, when the list of those chosen appeared and its name was not there. Subsequently, but at the last moment, it was added. Had it not been, I have it on good authority, that every officer in the corps would have sent in his resignation. Why are we put to these unnecessary inconveniences, when our burdens are already so heavy to bear ? We are told that parliament had not voted the money. Then let parliament hereafter vote it in time to give every one concerned not less than three months' notice. Better still, let it be the pronounced policy of the government to drill every man

every year, and the uncertainty will entirely disappear.
Recruiting has still further been injured by leaving the regimental bands at home. Nothing is more attractive to the average individual than good band music, and with the soldier this is especially the case. The great armies of Europe have not eliminated the band-the sword may have to go, but the big drum, never. The strength of a band is limited to three men per company, and as these have to put in their rifle practice with the rest, and take part in all marches as well, we can see that they are not a mere luxury, but soldiers like the rest. When next year we go out, as I am sure we shall once more in full strength, let the band head our columns as of yore.
I shall now take up the danger threatening our city corps from their frequent employment for the protection of property during strikes. When a large strike is on it almost always follows that lawlessness results, and while I would be far from asserting that any large percentage of our labouring classes are bent, under such circumstances, upon destruction, the fact remains that there are always some who put in danger valuable property. To meet these men the militia is invariably invoked. Now, the young man who enters the militia does so from patriotic motives, to defend his country in case of war, perhaps with the hope of seeing active service far afleld in the empire's cause, but for one thing he certainly dees not join, that is to be a cheap policeman. Take, on the one hand, the average office man called out for several days to protect property. If his employer does not actually dismiss him at the time, he gives him a fair warning that he will certainly do so if it ever occurs again. Nor is it quite fair to rise in righteous indignation and attack the employer who takes this course as a grasping man and an unpatriotic citizen. It not infrequently happens that a number of men in a large office belong to some military organization ; *fti'tknt case, or even where one belongs, if he be the trusted man in some particular line of the business, disorganization, with its attendant heavy loss, is sure to follow, and we are all alike very anxious to avoid the least injury to that very tender part of our anatomy-the pocket. This being the case, how can we expect any employer to submit without complaint to inconvenience and loss entailed in the suppression of some strike, a matter which excites no man's patriotism, a matter in which sympathy may even be with the strikers themselves.
Next take the case of the other main source of strength to city corps, the artisan, and in what a position does he And himself when called out on strike duty, in many cases directly opposed to his personal chums, to the members of Iiis own union. The result of all this is that recruiting is becoming increasingly difficult


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: in the cities, and some other means must be devised to meet the case.
A solution has been suggested in the employment of the permanent force, at least in all cases where the strikes are prolonged. The idea is not without merit, but must for all that be greatly modified if fairness to the men is to be maintained. To take permanent soldiers from place to place on strike duty under existing conditions would be unfair in the extreme. In their case too the men enlisted to be soldiers, and not a reserve for the police. They should not be asked to do such duty for their current rate of pay, whether in the future that be increased or not, but when doing policeman's work they should get constable's pay, or at .east near it. In this case surely we can afford to be generous, since the city employing llieni would have to foot the bill, and so there would be no increase in the militia burdens of the country. I think I know Tommy Atkins quite well enough to assert that if tills special pay were forthcoming he would be only too glad to serve as often as called on. More than that I am satisfied that the same amount of work could be done by a much smaller force of permanent soldiers. Their presence would overawe a mob more than ten times the number of volunteers every second man of whom was known personally by the rioters. Their discipline would be fully equal to any call made upon it, and knowing this the crowd would not go to such lengths as with their fellow-citizens for the time being fitted out in soldier's clothes.
With regard to the rifle clubs organized within the past few years, I would like to speak shortly. The membership in these now amounts to about 20,000. As many of these clubs are, however, military, and as in many of the civilian clubs, several members also belong to the active militia, we must greatly reduce this number if we would get at the value of the asset as a source of reinforcement in time of war. I do not think we would be placing it too low if we stated the number of rifle club men outside the force at about 10,000. There is undoubtedly cause of congratulation in this good beginning, but I must say we have no right to look upon it as anything but a beginning. That a proportion of 1 in 550 of our population is enrolled in these organizations is hardly sufficient. I have already explained the skeleton system on which our militia is organized. To fill the various corps up to war strength we would require about 80,000 men, and as these, even if trained rifle shots, would still be very green for the purpose of soldiering, surely they should not be more unfit still by knowing nothing of the rifle. Of the members of the clubs moreover many would be physically unfit for service, so that to get our 80,000 we should have at least a total of 100,000 to choose from or just ten times the number now enrolled. I think that there

is plenty of willingness in all parts of Canada to join rifle clubs, but what we lack in many localities is leaders to undertake the organization required in forming nil association. When business organizations seek to extend their operations they send men on the road to solicit customers. 1 think this is entirely a business proposition, and it seems to me that we could not spend a few thousand dollars better than in putting from ten to twenty smart young fellows from the permanent corps out to work up clubs of this kind. These emissaries could have a proper knowledge too of the suitability of certain localities for ranges, and could make reports on the same. The cost to the country for each member of a club is so insignificant, that we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to increase our resisting strength while adding but little to our tax burdens.
A cognate subject is that of cadet corps. Their spread is very gratifying, and I congratulate the minister on the assistance he is giving them. Here again we can get a great deal at little expense. A boy learns quickly, and what he learns in boyhood lie remembers. The school teacher simply adds drill to the subjects in which he gives instruction, and no expense is incurred on his part. The amount -to arm and equip the boys is not very great, and the practice with miniature ball cartridge teacnes a great deal at a minimum of cost. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said that he fears we are encouraging overmuch the military spirit of the youth of our country. I cannot agree with him. I am satisfied that for half a century to come the opportunities in civil life in Canada will be so great as compared with anything a soldier can hope for, that the whole difficulty will be as it is at present, getting a reasonable amount of military duty done, not in a rage for militarism. More than that I believe that drill in our schools is an excellent thing for the boys, both physically and morally. As to the former, it makes the youths stand up straight and relieves them from the student's hump that is so destructive to the proper development of the organs of the chest, and as to the latter the discipline develops good manners and clean living. I am quite aware that education is a matter for the provinces, and that it is only by co-operation with them that anything along the line of a general introduction of drilling in the schools can be achieved, but I understand that in most cases they are willing to meet the federal government half-way, and, in fact, they have already done so in numerous instances. The Minister of Militia is certainly to be congratulated upon the progress he is making in the formation of the various departmental services, of which a few years ago we had absolutely none.
The army medical staff and corps are fast reaching an efficiency which is most gratifying to us all. It does seem, Sir, that
when medical men put their shoulder to the wheel they do so with a will, and this has been no exception to the rule. Some of the brightest doctors and surgeons have cast in their lot with this branch of the service, and in case of trouble the sick and wounded would be looked after under the very best modern conditions. Then we take the engineers. Many of us had an oppor-tuity of seeing the splendid work done by the Toronto company at the recent horse show there, and were delighted with it all. Perhaps the best feature of that unit is that It is composed of School of Practical Science men. These, after their course, scatter all over Canada, and each in turn becomes, if necessary, an instructor, with the apt Cana-dain handy-man as a pupil. The body is of incalculably more value for this very reason, than if composed of city men only, who would for the most part live and die in that particular locality.
The latest notable addition to our militia is the army service corps. In campaigning the handling of stores is a good half the battle, and we are now getting in a position to use the splendid natural resources we have in farmers' horses and wagons, &c. Under the superintendence of that hard working and excellent officer, Lieutenant Colonel Bigger, the organization is advancing rapidly. In our last camp we had the army service corps with us for the first time. They slaughtered our cattle for us, and never before did our men enjoy such good meat rations. Next camp, I understand, all the baking of bread will also be done by these all round handy fellows. While on the subject of rations, I wish to say a word of thanks on behalf of the men for thf new scale, the greater variety it supplies, &c. The food in camp all round this year was excellent, and if, as we expect, the present standard be kept up, one of the main grievances which deterred fellows from going into camp will be removed.
Then there is now being organized an intelligence department and corps of guides, a most useful and necessary body, but on none of these matters will I enlarge, as the minister will no doubt give us a full account at a later date. The school of musketry, however, must not be passed over. I hear it very favourably spoken of far and near, and only a few days ago an officer who had served twice in South Africa told me that on returning to Canada he had taken the course, and found it most useful. He spoke of the indefatigable work being done by Colonel Cartwright, and pronounced this whole thing as the most useful move that had been made for years in the militia.
The very creation, however, of all these subsidiary services, if I may so call them, calls for the continuation of the main body whose handmaidens they are. In times past we had the men and not the equipment, arms, and services, are we now to find our-

selves with gcod services organized, with plentiful arms and clothing, and without the men ? Or has the time not come, this time so ably described by the Minister of Finance as the times of prosperous Canadian finance, when we can afford to have both men and their complement at one and the same time in reasonable number ?
Sir, I have finished my remarks. I have striven to give credit where credit was due, and to point out dangers where they, In my opinion, existed. I have carefully kept politics out of my speech as I trust other gentlemen will do when treating of militia subjects, and which I always propose to do unless forced Into another course by dissimilar conduct on their part. I believe that better days are yet in store for us, and that this government will yet spend the moderate sums I have mentioned to preserve to Canada the main part of her fine militia force.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that speech is too good, and the subject too important and too well presented, not to require some observations from the ministerial benches. I do not say this as a military man, because that is not in my line, and it may be considered presumptuous on my part to say anything on the subject, even at the risk of being unpopular. I must compliment the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) on the very clear and able way he has presented his case, because I think he has made out a very good and a very strong case. But I must draw attention to the fact that I think he was a little remiss in not giving notice that he intended to bring this question before the House, so that some more members of the government might have been present, especially the Minister of Militia, to hear this able speech. I noticed that during the greater part of his speech there were only two Ministers of the Crown present), supplemented by another one who came in towards the close. I think it was too good a speech not to reach them, but I am afraid they are so busy with the affairs of state that they will hardly take time to read it in ' Hansard.'


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: If they get no summer holidays.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He drew a painful picture of what our boasted militia have come to during all these years while the present government have been endeavouring to improve it in every direction and to make it what we all desire it should be. I do not think it is creditable to the government, or creditable to the militia either. If we hope to keep up a force in Canada that will be of any service to the country or of any value to the British empire, we must do much better than we have been doing heretofore. There was one thing I asked myself while the hon. member was speaking.' When he Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).
gave us his description of what the present militia force was, he said it was ' fast crumbling into disintegration, and decay, and disorganization,' 'that it was only a shadow of a skeleton to-day.' That seems to be very much like the similia similibus c-urantur morbi species of practice, that is infinitesimal doses. I was going to say that it has degenerated down to homeopathy. It is said that Halmemam, the celebrated practitioner who first described the homeopathic treatment of disease, decided that you must reduce medicine to about the sixtieth dilution to get the most beneficial effects possible for the human body when diseased. Now, if that be the case, I must say that the Minister of Militia seems to be a patron of that idea, for he has endeavoured to dilute the militia down to that extent that it is to-day only a shadow of a skeleton. It was said in describing what homeopathic soup is that you take a chicken that has starved to death, you drive a stake in the ground, and you hang the chicken up in such a position in the open air that the shadow of the stake can shine on the boiling pot, and after boiling it for half an hour in that way you have homeopathic soup. I should think the government have been feeding the militia on homeopathic doses, and treating them to about the same regimen for the last two or three years, otherwise it could not have degenerated into the shadow of a skeleton, as the hon. member admits it has to-day. While he was speaking I was wondering whether the hon. member's county had voted twenty-five cents a day as additional pay for militia men for the present year.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: My county did not, and I never asked my county to do so, and I never will. It is not their place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I agree with him there. But we know that many counties do that, and because the government do not provide sufficient pay, they supplement it by the paltry sum of twenty-five cents a day. I do not think any county should be compelled to do that, I think this country is wealthy enough to pay the men reasonably well without county councils being obliged to supplement the pay by a further amount. I notice that the amount voted in the militia estimates this year is $1,766,000. Now, it was stated that the men, instead of getting fifty cents a day, ought to get $1 a day, and I confess that I think they should. I do not think that any young man should be expected to go out and put in his time on drill unless he got at least $1 a day. There may be something in his enthusiasm and in his desire to have an outing, but all that is short of what is required to induce young men to take that interest in the militia force which they should take. An additional fifty cents a day, as I figure it up-I think they usually put in fifteen days drill.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Twelve.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To give that additional amount it would require $200,000. Surely this country can afford to give $200,000 more, and particularly to the rural corps because they appear to be poorly paid. There is not that excitement or enthusiasm associated with the rural corps which surrounds the city corps or the eclat that attends military life in cities and there is not the same inspiration or stimulus to the young men of the country as there is to the young men of the cities. I think the government might give that additional amount and pay these young men what they should be paid. I, for one, though not a military man, have never objected to this. I have always said that I believed that the proper thing to do was to pay our young men reasonably well, because if they ever hope to make them of any value they must be kept up to the highest standard of excellence and you cannot do that when you starve them iu pay and rations. I am glad to hear that there has been some improvement in the rations. I think the government might go one better and improve their pay as well. I regret the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) is not present to hear what has been said to-night. We have a general officer commanding to give us advice as to what should be done and we have advice coming from various sources, but I think one of the most important things to be done in the interest of the militia is to see that the pay is increased beyond the amount at which it is placed at the present time.


Mr. S. E. GOURLEY (Colchester).: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words upon this question. I only heard the latter part of the remarks of the hon. member for Haldimand and Monck (Mr. Thompson), but if the first part of his speech was as good as the last, I am sorry to have missed any of it. The hon. gentleman's speech is different from the speeches that used to be heard in this parliament ten or fifteen years ago. The hon. member for Haldimand represents young Canadians who will in a few years dominate the public opinion of Canada. I see it growing on every hand, and it is the public opinion that should have dominated Canada thirty years ago. But, were Conservative ministers of militia met in the past ? Every vote that was brought down was opposed by narrow men who never looked an inch beyond their noses. In that way the whole public life of Canada has been narrowed and degraded. How differently we now treat hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. Here I am in the interest of Canada doing all I can to strengthen the public opinion of this country. I am willing to do it and then I am willing to take the chance of going out into the country and beating hon. gentlemen opposite, because, I say, we are more
liberal-minded than they and we can out-Herod them in the game of broad politics.
I want to say one word about militarism. We hear an hon. gentleman in a high position in this country going around and talking about militarism. It is said that a country that is caught by catch words is a very ignorant country. The masses of the United States used to be caught by such a cry as ' Tippecanoe and Tyler too.' Some cry like that would elect a president of the United States against the most logical argument that could be advanced, because, at that time the people of the United States were untrained to think, untrained to understand the issue of public life and of public policy. To the people of England, of Germany and of France, such a catch cry as ' a cheaploaf,' or some nonsense like that, will appeal more forcibly than the most logical argument that could be adduced. Any hon. gentleman who undertakes to talk militarism in this country is simply stamping himself as a demagogue. There is no room for militarism in Canada. You must have a besotted and ignorant population before you can have militarism. You must have an army taken from the masses of the people who are ignorant. Then, you must have these ignorant people controlled day by day and you must have them under surveillance because they are unable to govern themselves. The people of Canada are a self-governing people. The people of Canada pursue occupations which make men of them. Every Canadian is more or less of a soldier in the civilized life of the country. A man is called to be a banker in the morning, he is required to be a constitutional lawyer in the afternoon, he is required to be a parliamentarian, he is required perhaps to be a mechanic, an agriculturist or a gardener ; in short, he embraces all the qualities that go to make a well-trained man. His mind is trained, his intellect is alert, his body is alert and the result is that all we want in this country is a fortnight or three weeks training. There is nothing the men of Canada want more than a month's training to be more than equal to holding our owu against the trained bands of Europe. When any man gets up in this country and talks about militarism he fancies that the people are uncultivated and ignorant and that a catchword of that kind will take the place of a sound argument. We do not want militarism in this country, but what we do want is an undaunted martial spirit, the spirit of a brave people and you only can get that by having something of chivalry in the military life of the country. Every people that have dominated the world have been a martial people, an undaunted people, a people of pride and martial feeling will not only bear us triumphant in every war, but it will make us triumphant in manufactures and the arts of peace. Therefore, I was pleased to hear the speech that was made by the hon. mem-

ber for Haldimand and Monck and to know that a just sum of money would be voted for the militia of this country in order that a martial spirit may prevail. I am proud every time the militia go out in my county. We have a splendid day in Colchester wThen the militia are called out. When the band strikes up our boys run out to see their neighbour boys going out to be trained. The day is looked upon as a gala day and it stimulates that feeling of self-reliance, courage and pluck that makes men assume the duty of being soldiers and of being trained to protect their country in time of need. Consequently, I am pleased with the state of affairs presented here to-night and I simply rose to say that what we want is a martial spirit in this country and I hope ministers of the Crown on the other side will not go around talking about militarism, because it is a degradation of public life to hear a minister engaging in any such nonsense.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: 
Robert Laird Borden: I merely want to say one or two words in regard to what has fallen from my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson), who has presented the subject to the House to-night in a very clear and interesting way. At the commencement of his observations the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thompson) was somewhat enthusiastic about these w'ords which appear in the memorandum presented by the Canadian ministers at the colonial conference, concerning defence. He cited the words :
If defects exist there is every desire on the part of the Canadian government to remove them and for this purpose the advice and assistance of experienced imperial officers will be welcome in all reasonable efforts made to secure an efficient system.
I would hardly be prepared to join in the enthusiasm of my hon. friend with regard to that expression, because I do not know exactly what else the government could have said :
If defects exist there is every desire on the part of the Canadian government to remove them.
I would look upon that as a remarkably guarded phrase, and I should be inclined to think that the government could adopt any policy it saw fit after having used language of that kind, which excited so much the commendation of my hon. friend from Haldimand.
However, the speech of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thompson) must be regarded as a very severe arraignment of the government with regard to its militia policy. There is no possible reason for attaching any other import to them. The position of matters is, that SI.000.000 was voted for militia purposes in 1890 and during the present year we have a vote of one and three quarter millions nearly ; yet my hon. friend, on his responsibility as a member of this House, and as an officer of the very highest rank in Canada, tells us that if the demoralization and disorganization which have been going on for the past two years shall continue for a very short time longer, the militia force in Canada will be practically non-existent. My hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) referred to this language, but he hardly did justice to it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No body could do justice to it.	-


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Haldimand has told us that the militia force as called out is not even the skeleton of a skeleton, but merely the shadow of the skeleton of a skeleton. As he himself said, it would be impossible to use any stronger language as to our militia force. If there is every desire on the part of the Canadian

government to remove defects, and if this disorganization and demoralization liave been going on for two years, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thompson) says, it does seem to me that some reply should be made by the government at a very early date to the charge which is brought against it in this respect. 1 appreciate the fact that the Minister of Militia is necessarily absent to-night, and that my hon. friend the Minister' of Finance cannot be expected to deal with a matter which is not concerned with his own department- particularly in view of the fact that the duties of his department are very onerous-but I do think that the presentment of this case by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thompson) calls for the earliest answer on the part of the government. And in view of the statements made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Thompson) I do not know how a very satisfactory explanation or answer can be given by the government. If the militia force of Canada can be brought up to an efficient standard by increasing the pay as the hon. gentleman suggests, I do not think that there is any man in this House who would not be prepared to support such a measure, if it really would accomplish the results which he hopes for. But possibly there may be some question as to that. My hon. friend (Mr. Thompson) has adverted to the fact that the wages are very high at the present time, that men are busy in other occupations, and as I understood his remarks, he attributes the falling off of recruiting to these facts. However, there may be some question as to whether the remedy which he proposes would be sufficient to bring our militia up to the standard which he thinks is a sufficient one. But if the House could be persuaded that the proper strength could be obtained by a measure of that kind, I do not think that many hon. gentlemen in the House would be prepared to say that the government would not be justified in adopting the course which the hon. gentleman has suggested. I agree entirely with my hon. friend when he says that -we do not want any spirit of militarism in this country


Mr. BOURASSA.: The member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) wall not allow such a declaration.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Gourley) in an entirely different sense from that which seems to have impressed itself on my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). My hon. friend (Mr. Gourley) said that he for one would be opposed to the spirit of militarism in Canada, and he thought it was absolutely impossible that such a spirit should exist in this country.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: What my hon. friend (Mr. Gourley) said was that he did
desire to see in Canada a martial spirit; that is a spirit of courage, a spirit which would induce us to resist any oppression from a foreign country. In fact I think he might have used the motto of the volunteers in England fifty years ago : Defence not defiance. It was in that way I understood the remarks of my hon, friend (Mr. Gourley).


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Hear, hear ; they could not be misunderstood.


Robert Laird Borden: It is perhaps to be regretted that my hon. friend from Haldimand (Sir. Thompson) had not the opportunity of bringing up this matter when there was a larger attendance in the House, and when the Minister of Militia would be present. I have no doubt that when the minister returns and when those military gentlemen are present, there may be an opportunity to discuss this matter more fully. I have merely risen at the present time to say that the hon. member for Haldimand is to be congratulated on the very clear way in which he has presented his case to the House to-night, and I think that the case he has presented is one which demands a very early answer indeed from the administration, because the case made out-if the statements are to be taken as correct-is certainly one which is not complimentary to the government.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: At the risk of falling short of the standard of patriotism which has been determined by the member for Colchester, I must say that I entirely disagree with the position which has been placed before us by the member for Haldimand. I do not dispute that the hon. gentleman is, of course, well versed on the subject of the state of the militia, which I am not; but I say that if with the present expenditure on militia matters, our militia is not in good condition, then the only remedy which I see for it is that the strength of our militia force should be reduced, and not the expenditure increased.


Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) reduce the force below the shadow of the skeleton of a skeleton ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: When I see such military men as my hon. friend (Mr. Thompson) and other members of this House who do not at all look like the skeleton of a skeleton, I am inclined to think that the metaphor is altogether too strong. It would appear, however, that the chief defect in the organization is as to numbers. I was not here when the hon. member (Mr. Thompson) spoke, but I understand that he quoted me as an authority, and said that I was in favour of an increase in the expenditure on militia.


Mr.   THOMTSON@Haldimand: If I may be allowed a word in explanation, I may say that I did use the hon. gentleman's name

in his absence. I said I felt much encouraged by the sentiments to which he had given utterance. As a matter of fact, it was in his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, in which he said he would like to see the militia put on a proper basis, and for one he was quite willing to take over the defence of Halifax and Esquimalt, which I may state would cost ten times as much as X am asking to put the militia on a proper basis.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: It is not so much the figure that I am criticising, as the spirit and the prinicple of the suggestion. I am not in favour of inducing the young men of this country to enter the militia. For those who have a taste and vocation to enter the militia, well and good. Let them enter the militia, and take it as it is. If the present pay is not sufficient to induce a sufficient number of good men to enter the militia, then I repeat, let the number be reduced and the pay be increased. If it is a good thing to develop the martial spirit in this country, it is also a good thing to keep our common sense, and it is perfectly foolish for any common-sense citizen to suppose that by increasing our militia by 20,000 or 50,000 men, we would improve our military position. It is perfectly ridiculous to have more men than are required to keep order in this country. Sly hon. friend resented the suggestion that our militia should be called on to do police work in this country. Those who attended the coronation did not like it very well when the British authorities called upon them to do police work in the streets of London, but I do not see why they should resent having to do police work in Canada for the purpose of making the laws of Canada respected after being called to do police work in London to keep the rowdies at a distance from the English aristocracy. But so far as external defence is concerned, I repeat that we should not lose our heads. To prepare for withstanding an attack from a European country is out of the question.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The new navy will protect us on the seaport.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not much more enthusiastic for the navy under the control of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine than I am for an army under the control of the absent Minister of Militia. If we are ever called upon to organize this country upon a military footing, it will only be required by our situation in America. So long as we are situated as at present-perhaps this opinion may not correspond to the martial spirit to which my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley) has appealed-but I think our greatest and only safeguard against foreign invasion from any European country is the neighbourhood of the United States-much more than any defence from our own forces-much more even than any defence from the British empire.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: 


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Oh, hold on.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I admit that this is not satisfactory to the high spirit of my hon. friend from Colchester. But we have to take the facts as they are, and this has been stated and acknowledged up to the last few years, before we grew to be such big people, especially in military matters. But so long as we are not a big people in poxmlation and in wealth, I do not think we should aim too much to be a big people in other things; it will not lead to much result. So far as attacks from the United States are concerned, as long as the hon. member for Colchester and his family are there, he has promised us that he will resist these attacks and even go to Washington. But the existence of the hon. member for Colchester is not eternal, and it may be that many Canadians are not willing to go to the trenches and even to Washington. The average people of this country, who have their own conception of patriotism, think it is foolish for the people of Canada to imagine that they can organize upon a military footing to resist a nation of SO,000,000 people in our neighbourhood. Therefore, so long as we are not in a position to organize to withstand an attack from the United States, I think it is perfectly foolish to increase our military expenditure. I must beg pardon of the House if I refer to a past debate; but since the hon. member for Haldimand has done it, I repeat what I said at the beginning of this session, let our militia be in number just what is necessary to maintain order in the different provinces of Canada, and let it be organized on a proper basis. Let our officers be properly trained, and let our soldiers be properly drilled, but no increase in the pay should take place until the number is reduced to what it should be. I have heard members of this House who are interested in military matters defend the policy of the British government and of this government in inducing young men who come from our military college at Kingston to enter the British army. I have already protested, and I still protest against that policy. If we want to have a proper militia force and a proper permanent force in Canada, I think it is foolish on our part to let the British authorities come here and offer commissions to the best young men who graduate from our military school, and deprive our militia and our permanent force of their services. We have organized a military school at Kingston for the benefit of the people of Canada, to train officers for the Canadian military force; and it is perfectly ridiculous to speak of the defence of Canada when we allow a foreign government-and in this respect the English government is a foreign government-to take the pick of our young men after they have been educated at the expense of the people of Canada, and place them in the British army. If we are going to have a Canadian militia, let it be Cana-

dian ; let it be what is required for this country, and nothing more. It is all very well to speak of a martial spirit and all that, but it is equally well to keep our common sense.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM (Bast Elgin).: I regret not having been present when the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) addressed the House on military matters. I regard that hon. gentleman, from his wide experience, as being able to speak intelligently on this subject. As one who has listened to military discussions in this House for fourteen sessions, I must admit that the militia of this country has suffered in consequence of the inexperience in militia matters of members who have discussed subjects of that character; and I am bound to say that a few of us who have taken more interest in military matters than others- though I regret to say that I am not a military man myself-are placed at a disadvantage by reason of the course pursued by the Minister of Militia during this session. First we had in the speech from the Throne an announcement of the intention of the government to introduce a Militia Act. That is abandoned, I understand, and the wrongs and weaknesses of our present Militia Act are still to continue, though many of those wrongs and weaknesses have been pointed out from time to time to the Minister of Militia. It has been customary for the heads of the various departments when submitting their estimates, to lay before this House their policy. We find that course not pursued on this occasion in militia matters. We find the minister deferring his statement until he brings down his supplementary estimates. That is placing many of us at a great disadvantage, and is besides a slap in the face to the officer commanding the militia, because I find in his report that he had submitted another and a special report to the Minister of Militia containing certain proposals which, if adopted, would add to the efficiency of the militia. If my hon. friend from Haldimand is correct, our militia are fast falling into a condition of decay, which makes it all the more necessary that these proposals, which the major general recommends for the purpose of improving our militia, should be before the House. But we. are told that we cannot have this special report, but must wait until the dying days of the session, when the hon. minister chooses to make his statement. My hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) suggests that we should increase the pay of the rural corps, which would involve an expenditure in the neighbourhood of a quarter million dollars. We have something like $1,166,000 asked for in the main estimates, and the hon. minister proposes to bring down a very large item in his supplementaries, so that it will be seen that our expenditure on militia is by no means inconsiderable ; and such being the case, we are entitled to all the information
possible which will enable us to intelligently discuss this question.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa), who never misses an opportunity to criticise and disparage our militia force, referred, in a sneering manner, to the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) as being one of our Canadian bulwarks, and one who would resent an attack by the United States. Well, Mi'. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Colchester would, even if he were the only man to do so, resist any attack from the neighbouring republic, but I regret to say that I am not able to pay the same compliment to the hon. member for Labelle. In fact, I believe that he would rather defend an attack than resist it.
I do not think that in times of peace we should neglect putting our militia forces on the best possible basis. The time of peace is the proper time to prepare for war. If you have a good defence, that will go a long way to prevent any attack. I have no desire to say anything more than to strongly condemn the course followed by the Minister of Militia in not furnishing this House with all the information necessary to enable us to intelligently discuss the militia estimates.


Mr. JEAN BAPTISTE MORIN (Dorchester).: I do not agree, Mr. Speaker, at all with the hon. member for Haldfmand (Mr. Thompson). I do not share in the ideas he has expressed. In my opinion, if the government were to follow his advice, the result would be the ruin of our government and our country. I do not think I can better make clear my point than by taking a homely illustration. A man, for instance, has a son to whom, when he reaches a certain age, he makes the gift of a colt. The colt is broken in, and then requires a harness and a buggy and a whip. Then it will not do to leave that colt idling in the stable, but the young man must drive it out, and as he drives out he meets other young men on the road in other rigs, and occasionally he will stop at a hotel and have a drink with his friends, and leave the colt standing while he is enjoying himself inside. The result is that both the colt and the young man are ruined. The same thing would happen if we were to raise an army such as the hon. member for Haldimand speaks of. Here is a country to the south of us with a population of eighty million people. In the two states of New York and Pennsylvania there are more people than in this whole Dominion. That country is the only one we have to fear, and I say frankly that if the United States should take the notion of invading Canada, they will do so in spite of Canada and all England.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Yes, they will. Suppose you were to raise an army here of 30,000 or 40,000 men, what would that be against

the United States ? It would not be a drop in the bucket. Whenever the Americans take it into their heads to come over, they will come in spite of anybody and everybody. If we raise an army, we will be like the young man with his colt. We will have to make use of our soldiers just to see how good they are, just to show the world how well they can fight, and the result will be that we will be wiped out, and that is all we will get for all our expenditure. I say let well enough alone. Go through this country from house to house, and you will scarcely see a gun or a rifle or a revolver, but travel through the states, and evex-ywhere you go you will hardly find a family which has not two or three guns in the house. I have been in their houses, especially in the rebel states, and in many of these houses, where they had no bread, I have seen three guns hanging from the wall. I am talking from experience, and I would like to know what we could do if we fell into the hands of such a people. We have quite enough soldiers, and my advice is to let well enough alone. To have more soldiers would entail more expense, and we are spending quite enough already on the militia.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Thompson), not so much on the clever manner in which he pi'esented his case, as on his courage in presenting it. It requires some courage on the part of a private member to offer what may be considered a criticism of the administration which he supports. That is not a frequent occurrence in the House, and that makes it all the more creditable to the hon. gentleman who takes this course. It is right and proper that a member of this parliament, on whatever side he may be, should offer criticism from his place when he finds it necessary ; and I regret that in this instance, instead of my hon. friend being supported in the position he takes by the other side of the House, instead of tlie debate being pursued from the strictly non-partisan standpoint from which he spoke, his criticisms are at once made use of for party attack. Let me say that the government is not so open to attack on this point as is the opposition, whose duty it is to criticise and to put before the country the shoi'tcomings of the government where-ever any exist. There is a certain condition of affairs existing in regard to the'militia force. The hon. member for Haldimand says the pay is too low. The pay is the same as it was ten or fifteen years ago, no more and no less. If it is not enough to-day -and certainly I, for one, say it is not enough, and I am glad we have the endorsa-tion of members of the opposition to the same effect


Edward Frederick Clarke: The members of the opposition are not making it a political matter are they ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: 


Frank Oliver: Not to that extent-I give them credit for that.


Robert Laird Borden: In what respect are they ?
Mi\ OLIVER. They-well, give me leave to finish my remai'ks. The pay being the same now as it was fifteen or twenty years ago, the l'eason that it is not enough now, when it was enough then, is that the conditions of the country have changed. Now that may not be placed to the credit of the government-it will certainly not be by our friends of the opposition-but I hope they will not blame the government for that change of conditions. As the general question has been discussed let me take the opportunity of offering to the House the views which I hold in regard to military matters and militarism. A voluntary organization, such as we have and hope to maintain, is the very opposite of militarism, as I understand the word. A system whereby the citizens of the country voluntarily band themselves together for the purpose of fitting themselves to defend the country in time of danger is entirely different from the system under which they are forced to take service and play the part of soldiers in such proportion to the population as to constitute a backbreaking burden upon the country. That is what I understand as militarism-the condition which prevails in European countries, where the whole population is levied upon, willing or unwilling, and the burden is so great as to cripple the state, financially, commercially and industi-ially. Now it would be a good thing if there was no necessity for soldiers. There may come a time in the history of earth when soldiers will not be necessary. I believe we are taught something to that effect in Sunday school. But the fact is that that time has not arrived. The fact is also that if we would play our part as men, as a nation and as a part of the empire, we must be prepared to hold what we have, even if we have to hold it as soldiers. There is only one way of doing it. As long as we are in the world, we cannot escape responsibilities of human beings. And the history of the world is this-the man or the nation who will not defend their own rights or their own honour very soon are brought into a position of being obliged to defend somebody else's rights and somebody else's honour. We cannot escape from that position and it is our part, as men, to support our place, if God has given us a place, and to support that place with ci'edit and dignity. It has been said that there is no use in our organizing a military force in this country, that we are a small country and a weak country, and that we cannot provide a military force that would be adequate for our purposes. We are about six millions of people and our country is one of the

largest countries in tlie world. We have interests to defend. Then in God's name, what else are we to do but defend those interests 1 And, although in Canada we are only; five or six millions of people, we surely do not forget that we belong to, or, more properly, we are part of, an empire which stretches around the world, and which contains hundreds of millions of loyal subjects who are prepared to shed their blood in all parts of the empire and in all places of the world for the maintenance of what they believe to be their best interests under the empire's flag. If the native of India, a man who is not of the same race or the same religion as ourselves, who knows nothing of our language, if that man, the black man, if you like, is ready to shed his blood for the flag of Britain, surely, we men of Canada of British birth or British descent-or, if you like, of French birth or descent, for I would not say anything so discreditable to a man of the noble race of Fra nee as to say that he would not fight for what he believed to be his rights-it is not for us, surely, to say that we will not take our part as soldiers or as taxpayers in maintaining the integrity of the British empire, which can only be maintained by defending it wherever it may be attacked, be it near or far. I should say, certainly, it would be better to have a smaller number of soldiers and have them better paid, than to have a larger number of soldiers more poorly paid. I do not pretend for an instant that this country can offer to those who are its citizen soldiers an adequate monetary inducement ; but we can certainly offer them an indemnity that will show at least our good will and that will not make an invidious distinction between these men who, when called upon to serve by putting in their drill as volunteers, are ready thus to show their patriotism, and those who stay at home and do not thus show their patriotism. We cannot all turn out and drill as volunteers. Possibly we all don't want to. Some of us are not very ardent military men in our own persons, and of those, I admit, I am one. But I hope I am not such a poltroon, such a coward. I trust 1 am not so unfit to be a citizen of a free country that X am not prepared to pay reasonably and honourably to the man who does sacrifice his time and thereby display his patriotism.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 1 should not have i-isen, but that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) who has just taken his seat, charged that in the discussion which has taken place since we had the pleasure of listening to the admirable speech of the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson), gentlemen on this side of the House who have taken part in the discussion have endeavoured to gain party advantage from some of the statements made by that hon. gentleman. I think that such an expression is much to be regretted. I re-180
pudiate the assertion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) and 1 invite him to make good the statement he has made that an attempt has been made by hon. gentlemen on this side to seek party advantage or make party capital out of what has been said. I was under the impression that a more sympathetic hearing could not have been given to any hon. gentleman than that which was given by hon. gentlemen who sit on this side to the speech, the splendid speech, the speech so full of information, delivered by the hon. member for Haldimand.
The hon. leader of the opposition took the opportunity of stating that he was in sympathy with the proposition of the hon. member for Haldimand, that if it were necessary to make the militia force efficient, an increase in the pay of militia-men should be given. That does not look as if any party capital was attempted to be made by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House; that rather looks as if they were prepared to anticipate the action of the government in supporting the proposition of the hon. member for Haldimand, and in endorsing his views, as the leader of the opposition did, ill advance of a declaration from the gov-be increased. I take it that when a re-ernment, that the pay of the militia should sponsible member of this House makes the statements that the member for Haldimand has made, that the members of this House would be derelict in their duty, no matter what the consequences might be, if they did not draw attention to them and emphasize these statements as best they could.
The hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) said that when the present government came into office the pay of the militia was only fifty cents a day. That is the sum they are receiving now. But, he says, conditions have changed. So they have; and what we find fault with in the administration of militia affairs is that those who are responsible for it do not seem to appreciate that fact, for they have permitted the militia force to remain in the same condition, and they are still receiving the mere pittance of fifty cents a. day that they did eight or ten years ago. I am sure the minister cannot escape responsibility for that action. I should be very sorry indeed, when in a nonpolitical way the member for Haldimand discussed the militia question, if it should afterwards be discussed from a party standpoint. His speech was not delivered in a partisan spirit; it was delivered rather with the idea of presenting, as the hon. gentleman did present, a faithful and truthful picture of the condition of the active militia of this country at the present time. If that picture has not been overdrawn, if that picture is true to life, as we must believe it is, in view of the statements he has made, may I ask my hon. friend from Alberta. who is an independent supporter of the government, can he congratulate himself upon the condition of things which exists



at the present time in that important department of the government ? Can any member of this House congratulate himself upon the statement made by the hon. member for Haldimand, that the force is fast crumbling into disorganization and decay 7


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Just one word. I said the country force, the rural militia.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have always supposed, and I have no reason to change my opinion, that the country part of the force was as much to be relied upon, was just as stalwart as any other part of the force; that it was an important and integral part of the force, the most numerous part of the force ; and if that integral part of the force is in the condition the hon. gentleman states, surely we cannot be charged with taking party advantage of the fact if we draw the attention of the responsible minister to that condition of affairs, and suggest that he should do something to remedy it ? That, I think, has been the head and front of the offending of which hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have been guilty. And was it not germane to the discussion which has taken place that the hon. member for East Elgin should draw attention to the report of the major general commanding the force 7 He was sent out here, I believe, to endeavour to make the militia force more efficient than it was, and it appears from the statements made by the hon. member for Haldimand that he was not sent out here any too soon. The Major General says in his report that he has forwarded another document to the Minister of Militia, drawing his attention to the condition of the militia force and making suggestions as to its improvement. Have the opposition not also the right to complain that, in a matter of so much importance, both sides of the House have been kept in the dark 7
While I do not wish to encourage a military spirit, I think we would be a spiritless people if, in a country like Canada, we did not establish and maintain an efficient militia force that would enable us at all times and under all circumstances to maintain the integrity of this country. AVe are not living here on sufferance, notwithstanding what has been said by hon. gentlemen on the other side. We are here, and we are here to stay, and we are going to maintain the integrity of this country at all times and at all hazards. And when we are told that the militia force of this country is only the shadow of a skeleton, I think it is high time we paid more attention to the administration of militia affairs than we have been doing during the past three or four years. Sir, it is a most regrettable thing to hear the statement made in this House that if, unfortunately, the integrity of Canada should be attacked, if our territory should be assailed from Europe, or by a European force, we Mr. CLARKE.
would have to look to the United States for protection. I hope never to live to see the day when that situation will present itself, when Canadians will have to depend upon the good offices of their cousins in the United States for the protection of the soil of Canada. We value too highly our connection with the great empire of which we form a part, we appreciate the privileges of a connection with that empire too highly, we realize too deeply the value we derive from that connection, to have any sympathy with such a view ; and we believe that if Canadians are not able to defend their own territory they have only to make an appeal, and that appeal will be responded to by men of all classes and races who comprise the empire, which is world-wide, and which has the strength, the power, the ability and the willingness to assist Canadians when Canadians are unjustly or unfairly assailed.
May I be permitted to point out, without indulging in any attempt to make party capital, that in view of the condition of militia affairs in this country, we ought not to embark on a scheme of naval defence unless we first make our militia force efficient. I regret exceedingly that we have not had a larger representation of the members of the cabinet here to-night to listen to the remarks of the member for Haldimand. I sincerely hope that those remarks will not have fallen upon deaf ears, and that before this session closes the suggestions which he has made will be taken up and acted upon, and that a reasonable sum will be placed in the estimates to give effect partially or wholly, to the views enunciated by the hon. member for Haldimand. I am satisfied that if that is done that the hon. member for Alberta and every hon. member on the other side of the House will find that, true to its traditions, the Conservative party will be willing, in days to come, as it has been in days gone by. to treat in a non-partisan way all matters affecting the welfare of the militia of Canada and pertaining to the defence of this country. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is practically wasting a million and three-quarters of dollars annually, the sum now voted for the militia force, if we cannot obtain better results than those which have been presented to us to-night. It would be better to adopt the suggestion of the member for Haldimand, and spend another quarter of a million dollars, making the total expenditure two millions, if, as a result of that additional expenditure, the militia force could be brought up to that state of efficiency which the hon. gentleman says would be the case if the pay of the men serving in the rural battalions were increased.


Mr. R. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: I am glad that the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson! has made this proposal to

raise the pay of the volunteer force in Canada. It has been a great annoyance to the counties throughout the province of Ontario for many years that no sooner have the county councils got together in the month of June than the captains of the volunteer companies come before them and ask for twenty-five cents a day for the volunteers from that county. These counties who give the twenty-five cents extra, have not only to pay for their own volunteers, but they have also to bear the burden of general taxation to pay the volunteers of other counties. It is for the defence of the Dominion of Canada, and the whole Dominion of Canada has a right to support that defence.
I believe fifty cents a day is not enough for our militiamen and that it should be doubled The county which produces no volunteers has a perfect right to pay the taxes in support of the volunteers belonging to a county that produces volunteers and gives them twenty-five cents extra. I know that there will be no attempt on this side of the House to try to make political capital out of this question and I am surprised that a so-called independent member, when such a thing was not mentioned on this side of the House, should try to make it appear that we are finding fault with the government when it was an lion, member on their own side of the House who found fault with them. I have nothing more to say except to express the hope that this House will be unanimous in declaring that our [DOT] volunteers shall receive fair pay and that it will see that instead of leaving it to the county that produces the volunteers to produce the twenty-five cents extra as well that the Dominion of Canada shall be taxed to pay the volunteers.



Albert Edward Kemp: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to break in upon this important debate, but if no other lion, member wishes to address the House on the question of our militia, I would like to bring to the attention of the House another matter. I wish, however, before doing so, to congratulate the hon. member for Haldi-mand and Monck (Mr. Thompson) on his very able and very timely address with which I heartily sympathize. I regret that more of the ministers were not present in their places and 1 particularly regret that the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) was not here, but I am glad that the hon. Minister of Fiffance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) has intimated that he has undertaken to see that he shall read in ' Hansard ' and shall digest everything that has been said. I hope the hon. Minister of Finance will also get the other nine or ten ministers who are absent to read the address in ' Hansard.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) get the opposition to read it too ?


Albert Edward Kemp: I think it is more important for the ministers to read it than it is for the members of the opposition. However,
I shall do all I can to get members of the opposition who are not present to read the hon. gentleman's address -in ' Hansard ' if the hon. Minister of Finance will undertake to do the same on behalf of the government.
I wish to draw the attention of the government and the House to an article which appeared in this evening's Ottawa 'Journal ' in regard to the railway policy of the government. It is a short article and I will read it.


TO GUARANTEE THE BONDS.
[Stage Direction]
Government's Decision Now Reached.
The Grank Trunk Pacific is Satisfied and the Road Will he Built.
C. M. Hays and Wm. Wainwright of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company had an interview last night with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Wm. Muloek and Hon. Clifford Sifton in regard to the question of aid to be granted to the pro-pdsed transcontinental line. It was stated after the meeting was over that a final arrangement had been reached between the representatives of the government and the company, to enable the line to be proceeded with. In other words the aid which the government had offered has been accepted by the company as satisfactory to permit the undertaking to be proceeded with. There are some details of the agreement to be worked out and it will be two or three days probably before the official announcement is made, but the main question has been disposed of. and that is that assistance is to be given by the government, and that it is considered by the company sufficient. The government aid will take the line of a guarantee of the bonds of the company, with a clause in the agreement, giving the government power to purchase at the end of thirty years. A first mortgage will be taken as security. As already said all the details are not complete, but the government assistance will take this shape, which the company, it is said, regard as satisfactory to float the project.	.
Wbat I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, is whether that is the whole truth and nothing but the truth or whether part of that is fiction, and if so, what part ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I shall have to ask my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) to be content with the assurance that if any such arrangements are made they will be communicated to parliament in a proper manner and at the earliest possible moment.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the government the fact that a certain return which I mentioned some few

weeks ago has not yet been brought down. That is a return in respect to a public building in Woodstock. When I brought the matter to the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) he sent a memorandum across the floor of the House to the effect that the return had been brought down. I investigated the matter and before the House adjourned I pointed out that the return that had been brought down was in regard to the drill hall and that it was not in compliance with the motion for the return to which I had referred on the Orders of the Day being called. If the matter is brought to the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works I will be glad, because there has been very great delay when there is no reason for it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am very sorry to find that the return has not been brought down. I will immediately communicate with the hon. Minister of Public Works about it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation, $322,000.
Mr. BENNETT.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries if
any new lighthouses are to be constructed on the lower portion of Georgian bay.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine).: 
Robert Laird Borden: The following is the Estimate for Construction, 1903-4.
Place.	Description of Aid.	Amount.	Total.Quebec-Con.	$ cts.	$ cts.Barre a Boulard	Back tower	1,200 00 20,000 00	/Improvements in lighting	Belle Isle	1 Additional gas buoys	20.000 00 18,000 00	Ontario.	223,200 00
Slate Islands			8,000 00 6,000 00 1.400	00 1,200 00 2.500	00 1,300 00 1.500	00 2.400	00	
Port Colborne				
Pte. aux Pins				
Pt. Edward				
Cove Island


Saugeen ..: . 				
Parry Sound					
Narrow Island				
			24,300 00
British Columbia.			
Fraser Ki ver			000 00 300 00 5.000	00 6.000	00	
Dock Island				
Pine Island				
At a point north to be selected.	ir 				
Lennard Island			15,000 00 1,500 00 300 00 300 00	
Comox				
Danger Reef				
Coffin Island					
	Total			29,000 00 353,500 00


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understood from the minister that the contract for the lightship at Anticosti was given last year and that there is still a balance due on that of $95,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I wish to know from the minister what improvements in lighthouses -he intends making on the Lower St. Lawrence this year, and which are included in this vote of $322,000 ? I wish also to know whether he has taken into consideration the recommendations made by the shippers of Montreal as to the construction of these lighthouses ? It was contended that the present lighthouses too much resemble the ordinary houses on the coast. Is it the intention of the minister to adopt a different style of building for the lighthouses ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: All these lighthouses and aids to navigation which I have mentioned between Montreal and Quebec and between Quebec and the sea, have been recommended by those connected with navigation. I am informed by the chief engineer that every consideration has been given to the representations made as to the structure of the lighthouses. As to the colour of the lighthouses and as to the sloping roofs, all these have been considered by the department with a view to giving entire satisfaction to the shippers, and experiments are now being made. I may say that the Halifax Board of Trade has congratulated us on the fact that we have carried out their suggestions, and the only point now left for consideration is as to whether the improvements already effected will be sufficient without going to the further expenditure of $150,000 for establishing a lightship there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not a satisfactory explanation to say that the recommendation of the shipping people have been considered and that some people in Halifax have approved of certain aids to navigation established there. The committee will recollect that the shipping people of Montreal went to the trouble of holding a thorough investigation into this matter, and without asking the government in any way to contribute towards its expense. A volume containing the evidence of ail the captains and others interested in the navigation of the St. Lawrence was distributed amongst the members of the House last year, and there was also a compendium of that evidence distributed, and also the recommendations made by those gentlemen. There were suggestions with regard to the lighthouses on the St. Lawrence route; that route which at the present time is so heavily penalized,

I think unjustly, by the English underwriters. X did not know that we were going to take up this evening the subject of lighthouses; but I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, has not failed, either by himself or by the officers of his department, to take cognizance of the suggestions made by the shipping interests of Montreal after that investigation as to lighthouses, and I would like my hon. friend to tell us precisely where he is going to put these lighthouses this year.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The map shows.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My, hon. friend or his officers will recollect that the shipping interests of Montreal condemned our system of lighthouses as being inadequate aud the lighthouses as being inferior to those of any other country; reflecting glasses were of an inferior quality, the lighthouses were not built as they should be, and there was not a sufficient number. It is therefore a question of great public interest, when we are called on to vote this money, to know where this sum is going to be spent. Has an estimate been made of the cost of each one of these lighthouses, and is it going to be provided with all modern improvements 1


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I thought I had answered that question. I am perfectly aware of what took place two years ago, when the shipping interest held the investigation which the hon. gentleman has mentioned. I had something to do indirectly with it, because I was then representing the city of Montreal aud was mayor of Montreal and a member of the harbour commissioners. I had cognizance of the representations made by the shipping interests, and I accompanied the other members of the harbour commissioners to Ottawa to make representations to the Department of Marine and Fisheries under Sir Louis Davies and the present chief engineer, Col. Anderson. I remember what the hon. gentleman states, that many improvements were suggested, and the members of the harbour board pressed on the government to accede to the demand of the shipping interest. The whole matter was gone over. I had not in my mind exactly what the report of the chief engineer was at the time; but last year $220,000 was expended in doing part of the work. This year we are completing the work. I may state that since that time a few representations have been made, not of very great importance, and they have been listened to by the department. If the hon. gentleman will look at the map of the proposed improvements to be made between Montreal and Quebec in the years 1902-03, he will see the exact points where these improvements are to be made. The sites are those suggested by the shipping interest, and all that have been installed thus far, whether buoys, or Mr. MONK.
lighthouses have received the approval of the shipping men. They have at different times come to the department, where the door has always been open to them, and where they have always been listened to. As regards the instruments used in the lighthouses, the lamps, the reflectors, the fog alarms, the whistles, and so on, all these have been studied carefully by the chief engineer-, and the best instruments that could be procured in the world have been procured. When I arrived in the department, I found that instructions had been given to the chief engineer in that sense, and I concurred entirely in what had been done.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. minister will remember that when we were discussing the item of construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation it was agreed that any other subject in the Marine and Fisheries Department was to be discussable under this item, and be promised that he would bring down information with respect to Mr. Hurley and with respect to the sale of the steamer [DOT] Bayfield.' I would like to ask him if he has brought down that information, and if he has, will he lay it on the Table of the House ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: As regards the old - Bayfield,' I may say that as far back as 1900 there was a question of putting, a new engine in the steamer. This is the report of Mr Evans, on the steamer, made in 1900 :
If the department decides to fix up the engine now in her, I would suggest that a new foundation be put in and all bad frames under it and in that vicinity renewed, also some new beams forward of the boiler.
But if you decide to put in a new and modern engine I then would suggest that all ceiling be renewed and every bad or old timber be taken out and new work connected to the work that was done in 1896 at Port Dalhousie,' this will also include deck and deck frame and bottom plank.	.	, .	. ... ,
As regards my own opinion I do not thina the steamer in her present condition is worth putting a new engine of the modern type in, and I agree with Mr. Stewart on this point, as I am aware that there are many pa.rts^ of her that were put in the boat when first built.
I am also of the opinion that if the engine now in her can be made right, that it will be all right to fix her as I have described on that basis, and her ground tackle and out-fit are in
good condition.
(Sgd.) WM. EVANS.
This report of Mr. Evans was made after a report from Mr. Stewart, which was as follows ;
The [DOT] Bayfield,' Southampton, July 15, 1900.
Sir,-In forwarding Mr. Nisbet's report upon the information he obtained from the dismantling of his engine last week I can state I saw the worn out bolt and the weakened flange.
It is a difficult thing to suggest the best remedy for the present unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The engine and wooden boat are thirty-eight years old : for the first twenty years of their

lives they had the hardest kind of work in towing. Since we purchased the vessel nothing has been spent upon the machinery except for repairs that became absolutely necessary.
The cylinder has been bored out several times to make it true, but that cannot be done again, as the limit has been more than reached.
The bed plate of the engine is badly broken through the main bearing and is not worth the costly repairs necessary.
Then the boat is so old, a new engine could be used in her only a couple of years when it would have to be sold second hand, for a small sum. no matter in how a good repair it might be.
The boat is not large enough to temporarily accommodate an engine of size suitable for a larger boat, even if our old boiler could supply the necessary steam.
The boiler is now eighteen years old and can carry only eighty pounds steam. Our smokestack will have to be renewed in another year.
The present engine is a very extravagant one, she uses a ton of hard coal to steam twenty to twenty-five miles at. eight and a-half miles per hour, when a modern engine will easily steam thirty to thirty-five miles on a ton of soft coal at eleven and a-half miles per hour.
If the present engine frame could stand the extra power I should recommend steeple compounding, with of course a new cylinder, but it would be dangerous as the connections are not fit. When this engine was built, fifty pounds of steam was a large amount and the frame was probably built, for that, but it has been worked for years with a pressure of eighty to one hundred. The boat is too old for a new engine, the boiler has about lived its life and the engine is not worth the extensive repairs, the engineer says are necessary.
Should r be caught in heavy weather it is difficult to say what may happen.
I am. sir.
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) H'M. J. STEWART.
In 1901 there was another report, as follows :-
The repairs now being made to the hull of the ' Bayfield ' are of such a nature that she will probably last as long as her boiler, say four or five years.
In the Interest of greater economy and efficiency I would therefore strongly recommend that the old engine (now on the dock at Owon Sound) be replaced by a modern compound of greater power. The old engine was built in 1863. when the act of engine building, for economy, was not as well understood as it is at present. It consumes 300 tons hard coal per season, 100 of which ($500) could be saved by a properly constructed modern engine When under weigh now, the single crank causes a great deal of vibration and it is impossible even to write on board so that a. lot of time is lost. Most of this trouble would be removed bv a compound engine. With increased power there is no reason the steamer should not travel faster than seven and a-half knots, her present speed.
Should the department desire to sell the boat she would bring a small price in her present state, as a private party would have to compound the engine in order to run on a paying basis. With proper machinery in the now, rebuilt hull she would he much more valuable.


WM. J. STEWART.
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa. January 9, 1901.
Attached to this report is the following recommendation by Mr. Adams, chairman of the board of examiners
Extract of report of chairman of the board of steamboat Inspection relating to supplying a new engine for ' Bayfield.'
I would not recommend the expense of a new compound engine in the hull of that steamer, and the saving of fuel for the work she has to do would not pay the interest on the money and it is doubtful if the department were willing to dispose of the steamer if we could get fifty per cent on that outlay.

[Stage Direction]
January 11, 1901.
Mr. Stewart wrote to me that he could not go on with the work on I.ake Superior with the ' Bayfield,' even if repaired, as he would nut risk his life and the lives of his men on such a boat. He was instructed to see whether it was possible to dispose of it, and on the 12tli March, 1903, he addressed me the following letter :-
Owen Sound, March 12, 1903. The Hon. R. Prefontaine,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Honourable Sir,-With further reference to the purchase of the steamer ' Bayfield ' would say. we have decided that for immediate acceptance we will pay the sum of $3,250 cash for the ' Bayfield ' and outfit belonging to the steamer. In outfit we would include such articles as were used for that accommodation of the crew and in the sailing of the vessel, but not anything which would be considered ns belonging to the surveying operations, and we were willing that you should appoint any person you might see fit, to decide what shall he considered a part of the vessel's outfit and what should not, and herewith bind ourselves to abide by this agreement. As in the event of your not accepting this offer we must make ether arrangements, we ask that you give this your early consideration.
Thanking you for your kind attention to this, We remain,
Yours respectfully,
JOHN HARRISON & SONS CO.
E. P. Harrison, President.
I recommend that this offer he accepted except that I am to keep the articles of gear and furniture that I can make use of. One compass to go with the vessel.

[Stage Direction]
I certify that this is a correct copy of the letter of John Harrison & Sons Co., and a correct copy of Wm. Stewart's recommendation.

William Humphrey Bennett: The matter is exactly where it was last night. The facts of the case are these:	The department had on
hand, this valuable boat. Some strong party friends-these Harrison people of Owen Sound-made application for the boat. They knew what had been done b,v the hon. gentleman in the case of the ' Dolphin.' They knew that party friends were practically made a present of that boat, and tbey desired to be treated in like manner. As far as Mr. Stewart is concerned, while he certainly had experience in sailing the boat, he

had tiot a single idea as to what its real value was. He was not a ship carpenter or steamboat engineer, and I have no doubt that there is in the hon. gentleman's department, in his private drawers, correspondence from these gentlemen, and probably from prominent Liberals In the riding, and in all probability from the defeated candidate, strongly urging that the boat must be handed over to the Harrisons without any competition. I repeat that if the hon. minister had spent $5 in advertising in the Owen Sound, Midland and Collingwood newspapers the fact that this boat was for sale, the department would have got 55,000 more than it did. These people were simply made a present of it, and are now using it in the business of towing logs. If the hon. gentleman proposes to conduct his department in the way this affair is being managed, he will not receive the commendation of people who wish to see the public funds and property properly administered.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There is no correspondence whatever in the department from the late candidate in the riding of any sort. And the transaction was perfectly fair and above board. Mr. Stewart wanted to dispose of the boat, and the officials of the department recommended that it be sold. The boat had been bought in 1884 for $14,000. It was thirty-eight years old, and the certificates I have laid on the Table show clearly to any business man that it was not fit for the service. As regards its sale for $3,250, I concluded to sell her at that price to Harrison & Sons, who were recommended to me as people able to pay the amount, and because it was considered by those competent to advise that the department would do well to sell it at that price. The boat was not delivered until the amount was paid.


George Taylor: Where is the correspondence leading up to the letter of Harrison & Sons ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have none.


George Taylor: The letter you have just read refers to correspondence or previous negotiations.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister will refer to the letter of Harrison & Son, he will see that it evidently refers to some other document or some previous correspondence.
- Mr. THOMSON (Grey). It is all the more remarkable that this course is pursued in the case of this vessel, because, two or three years ago a discussion was "aised in this House over the sale of the ' Dolphin ' under somewhat similar circumstances. She was sold without tender, and it was said that she was practically given away. The question was raised at that time, and the government was condemned for the course they pursued. Yet th_>y have dis-Mr. BENNETT.
posed of this more valuable vessel, the ' Bayfield,' in a similar manner. 1 am told that the fittings in connection with this vessel were worth about $1,700. And about a year ago the department spent about $3,000 in repairs, fitting her up with the most expensive quartered oak wainscotting, in fact she was fitted up in a most palatial manner. Yet we find the hon. minister disposing of this vessel, without tender, for a sum just about enough to pay for the repairs of the year before. There is something wrong about this transaction. I have had letters from Owen Sound, and I must say that it is news to the people there that this valuable vessel has practically been given away.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is considered a joke.


Mr. THOMSON (Grey).: What they feel most keenly is that this valuable vessel should have been practically given away in the very face of what had been said in this House in regard to the sale of tlm ' Dolphin.' I must say that the explanation given by the hon. minister is very unsatisfactory.


William Humphrey Bennett: What was the other correspondence referred to in these letters V Had Messrs Harrison & Son seen the minister personally or had some of his colleagues from Ontario seen him personally with regard to this matter 1


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed that there had been a conversation between Messrs. Harrison & Son and the deputy about the sale of this vessel. Mr. Stewart had been trying to sell her not only for this year, but for the year previous.


William Humphrey Bennett: Do I understand that Mr. Harrison came to Ottawa ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: From the information I received from my officers I suppose that he did. He had an interview with Mr. Stewart and the deputy about the matter, and the result of the conversation tyas that he went home and wrote that letter, dated March 12th. For my part, I do not know Mr. Harrison and never saw him to my knowledge. Nobody approached me as regards Mr. Harrison.


William Humphrey Bennett: It was a fortunate thing for the government that this matter was treated in this artful way-not to have the correspondence speak for itself, but to have the negotiations partly in the form of a conversation. Once again I tell the minister that, having spoken to men who know this vessel and the value of it, I feel sure that this country has lost, by this transaction of the minister, from $3,000 to $5,000. I can tell the hon. gentleman also that if he wishes to retain any reputation for himself in the disposition of any property belonging to the people, he will sell it here-

after in a public manner, and not in this clandestine way.
The MINISTER OF alARINE AND FISHERIES. The only answer I can give to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) is that I am ready to take lessons and learn by experience. But the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite are not ready to go before the Public Accounts Committee and sift this matter, is a proof that, after all, this discussion is for the purpose of making more pages in ' Hansard ' and nothing else.


Mr. COCHRANE.: The hon. minister speaks of a business department and a business government. Wbat an absurdity it is to take up the time of the House with such nonsense. [DOT] He tells us the government were trying for two years to sell this vessel. Is not this a fine statement to make to intelligent men. when the government did not post up a bill or put an advertisement in a paper, as they might have done for five dollars, to let everybody know that the vessel was for sale ? The department, it appears, have been stewing and fretting about selling this vessel, after having spent about $3,000 in fitting her up in fine oak wain-scotting. And to explain the low price obtained for the steamer, the hon. minister says the vessel was condemned. Now, I would ask you, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Macdonald, Huron)-you know how you criticised transactions of the government when you were on this side-would any business department spend so much money on a vessel that was useless ? Why, it is the height of folly-and I would like to speak of it in stronger terms, but I refrain in view of the mild way in which you, Mr. Chairman, used to speak about such things. Then the hon. minister wants to know why we do not take the matter before the Public Accounts Committee. Why, what good would that do ? The documents are not there. The transaction was arranged partly in whispers and conversations that are not on record. If we attempted to make an investigation, no doubt, we should be treated as we have been treated in the Public Accounts Committee before. When a witness is asked a question that would incriminate a minister, he is told that he need not answer the* question. Why do we not take it before the Public Accounts Committee ? We do not need to. It is before the public of Canada, and they will realize quite handily, the absurdity of the defence submitted by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to this committee to-night.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would like to ask if Mr. Stewart, who recommended the sale of the ' Dolphin ' for $700, is the same agent who recommended the expenditure of this $3,000 for refitting the ' Bayfield ' in palatial style, and also the same gentleman who recommended the sale of the ' Bayfield' to Messrs. Harrison & Son for $3,250 ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the information.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. minister could tell how much was spent on the boat for say, three years before the sale.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have given that twice- within six years about $0,000 was spent.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: And a year ago, about $3,000 was spent.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, no such sum was spent in any one year. [DOT]


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister will refer to the Auditor General's accounts he will find it there. I quoted it in a previous discussion.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed by the chief engineer that that represents the repairs of two seasons.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the organization of the department is so poor that the accounts of two years appear in one year, the hon. minister had better change it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is not our fault-we have nothing to do with the Auditor General.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The Auditor General never combined two years' accounts in one in the world.


Robert Laird Borden: But why spend $3,000 in two years on a boat that was so utterly worthless ? Who recommended that ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The chief engineer of the department, I suppose-he does all these things.


Robert Laird Borden: Who is the gentleman that recommended the sale for $3,200 ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. W. J. Stewart. He is the gentleman in charge of the hydrographic survey, and he had charge of the boat. He has been in the employ of the department since 1884, he began with the boat.


Robert Laird Borden: He might be in the employ of the department for fifty years and not know much about the value of vessels. I was talking about his experience and his knowledge of the value of vessels.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Stewart's recommendation was agreed to by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper.


Robert Laird Borden: Does Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper say that Mr. Stewart is an expert in the value of vessels ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Mr. Stewart is one of the best engineers in the country.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not talking about his ability as an engineer, but about his experience and knowledge of the value of vessels. He might be the best engineer in the world and not be capable of putting a value upon vessels. I have examined engineers in court dozens of times, when an attempt has been made to ascertain their knowledge of the value of vessels, and they either said they bad no knowledge or the court has excluded their evidence because they were uot supposed to be capable of forming an opinion. What I inquired was whether, in addition to his eminent ability as an engineer, he has any practical knowledge of the value of steamers of this character-because that is the whole question. Did the government obtain sufficient data from a competent person as to the value of this vessel before disposing of her ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That boat was bought in 1884 at a cost of $14,000, and surely an engineer who has been on board that boat year after year and season after season, without knowing the value of the boat, would not be tit to be employed in the department, even as an engineer on the hydrographic survey. He was surely intelligent enough to learn, in the space of twenty years, the value of the boat on which he was employed. Year after year he knew what repairs were necessary on that boat, and recommended them. I have laid before the House certificates, letters and correspondence of the chief engineer as regards that boat. It appears by Mr. Stewart's report that I have laid on the Table, that he made a report when it was necessary to spend $3,000 to replace an old engine with a new one, showing that he knew what he was talking about. I do not know that any other opinion has been advanced against his own. A boat that has been in use for twenty years and been frequently repaired, could not be worth many thousands of dollars at the end of twenty years. Hon. gentlemen can go on talking about it and trying to make campaign literature, but I do not believe many people will take much stock in it, especially when they cannot show that there has been anything crooked in the matter. Why do they not go to the Public Accounts Committee if they want to show that there were favours granted to any particular individual, that it was a preconcerted arrangement to dispose of this boat by private sale ? If they cannot prove any of these things, I do not think they will be able to make much political capital.


Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman does not appear to know the functions of the Public Accounts Committee, because it is perfectly evident from his oft-repeated statement, that he thinks we can investigate in the Public Accounts Committee the necessity of advertising the sale of government property before disposing of it by private sale.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I never said we could investigate it in the Public Accounts Committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He has said two or three times this evening that if we had any investigation to make into the circumstances under which this steamer ' Bayfield ' was sold, we can go and make it before the Public Accounts Committee. He does not know the functions of that commitee, because he ought to know that its functions are confined to looking into the expenditure of the past year, and are strictly limited to that by his own friends. We do not require any other campaign literature than the statement made by the hon. gentleman himself, that, after spending $3,000 in repairs upon this boat, it was disposer. of at private sale, without calling for tenders, for the sum of $3,200. I think that statement will be sufficient to show the public in what way matters are going on in his department.


George Taylor: In the correspondence that the hon. gentleman read, I did not hear him read anything from Mr. Stewart recommending these repairs. Has the minister Mr. Stewart's recommendation on that point ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have not, but I will be able to find it.


George Taylor: He has brought down the correspondence that suited his own convenience. We find that over $3,000 was spent, and we wish to know on whose recommendation it was spent.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: On the recommendation of the engineer ?


George Taylor: Would that be in writing 7


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: What I have here is a report of the chief engineer of the 3rd of April, 1001:
The next time I have to do work with the minister I will suggest that we talk over together the question of providing a new steamer for the hydrographic surveys for the next year. It appears to me that the 'Bayfield' cannot he used after this year, as Lake Huron will be finished, and she certainly is not fit to go on to Lake Superior.
(Sgd.) W. P. A.
Chief Engineer.


George Taylor: It was after that, that $3,000 was spent.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We had to keep her afloat, because we wanted her for the service, and we could not uo otherwise than keep her in repair.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The hou. gentleman says that he purchased this steamer in 1884 for $14,000. Now, vessels on the Georgian bay which have been in the service for a longer period, are still in good repair.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The boat was already an old boat when we bought her, she was already over twenty years old.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: But the rougher parts were all built over again, and altogether about $15,000 had been spent to keep her in repair. These government vessels are all kept in first class order, like the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers, deteriorating very little each year. The fact remains that the minister disposed of this vessel with about $1,700 worth of instruments, after $3,000 worth of repairs were put on the year previous with her engines, boilers and all the outfit, for the sum of $3,250, by private sale.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman is under a wrong impression. There were no instruments whatever, the boat was stripped, with .lust the necessary furniture left for the crew and nothing else. All the other instruments were taken away and they are in use now on the new ' Bayfield.'


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Who was it that induced Harrison & Son to come down here in connection with the purchase of that steamer ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not know.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The hon. minister does not mean to say that there was not some inducement given theni to come down and purchase that boat ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They must have known that it was for sale. Mr. Stewart had been instructed to find a purchaser and I suppose it was on account of that they came here.


William Humphrey Bennett: The other night I called the attention of the hon. minister to another matter. I asked him if he intended to make a present of the valuable water front to some party friends of his in the town of Midland named Pratt & Co. Has he decided that he is going to give that water frontage to these people ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The matter is under consideration.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has he seen any parties within the last three or four days about it?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I do not know the parties even by name and I have not seen them.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the hon. minister not been interviewed about that water front at Midland within the last three or four days ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have seen nobody about it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there anything in writing in the hon. minister's department in reference to a grant to the Midland Coal Company of a portion of the water frontage that was sold to the town of Midland and handed over by it and upon which those parties have built a dock ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There may be, but I do not remember.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the hou. minister to ask his deputy if there is ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed by my deputy that he does not know.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has there been any communication with the hon. minister himself by these parties as to this water frontage at Midland being granted to them ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not to my knowledge.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well all I can say is that this seems to be a most extraordinary thing. Here was a most valuable piece of water frontage in Midland. It was vested in the Crown. It had not been deeded to any person. The town of Midland made an arrangement with the government, or with the Department of Public Works, that they would purchase this water frontage and hand it over to the Dominion government for the Dominion of Canada and in return for handing it over, they having paid $10,000 for the property, they were to have a dock erected upon it. A valuable portion of the property that the town thought they were to have, has been built upon by private individuals. They have built a most extensive dock upon it and the Department of Public Works has been dredging around it. Yet the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries tells the committee now that these parties have gone to work and constructed this $20,000 dock on Dominion government property and that they have not asked him anything about it. Is that a fact ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It is a fact. I know nothing whatever about it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, that seems to be a most extraordinary proceeding. Here is a piece of water front which was not vested in these parties. They had no more title

to it than I had, and I had no title to it whatever, and yet they have gone on and built this dock and X am told by men who are familiar with the transaction in the town that they have the assurance of the department that they are to have the property. Does the hon. minister ask me to believe that these people would think of building a dock upon this property without consulting his department as to whether they could have it or not ? It is nothing short of a scandal In that town and it will be a bigger scandal when I tell the people that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries says that there has been no representation made to him about it, and that the parties have gone on and built that dock without consulting his department. If they have not consulted the hon. minister I say it is high time that the hon. minister put a notice on that property warning people that they should not trespass upon it by building docks upon it. Does the hon. minister propose to allow these parties to have it for nothing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) must be altogether mistaken in the statements he has made in regard to the property transferred to the Crown by the municipality of Midland. I think probably my hon. friend the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Pr6-fortaine) Is not responsible for anything that was done in regard to it. The transaction commenced some considerable time ago- probably a year or more ago. There was a long negotiation. The council had to pass a by-law to acquire some property which they were to transfer to the Crown op certain conditions.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not say that these parties have built a dock on all of the property that the Dominion government has had handed over to it by the town, but, there was a large wedge-shaped piece that the town had the assurance they were to have, and which was to become part of the property on which a public dock was to be built. On this portion which was never deeded by the Crown to any private individual, this dock has in part been built.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not agree with the hon. gentleman. When the papers are brought down I think they would show that my recollection of the matter is correct. A very considerable time elapsed before the by-law was voted upon and carried and the town was prepared to pay the owners of the property that was to be transferred. I think the hon. gentleman's firm were acting as solicitors for the corporation. There was a considerable correspondence with the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or perhaps the Department of Justice, in regard to the title and the description of the property. I feel safe in saying, that no pro-


William Humphrey Bennett: perty which was deeded to the Crown has been taken with the authority of the department by private individuals. It seems impossible that such a thing could have taken place.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. Minister of Public Works misunderstands my point. There was a wedge-shaped portion, a very valuable piece of water frontage which was under the Crown, and which had never been deeded to any private party. Two different parties were contending for it. One of the parties who made a claim for it was the party who was selling to the town and when the town was buying from this private party it was -well understood that the department would not deed that to the other party. Instead of it being reserved for the Crown some political friends of hon. gentlemen opposite have erected a dock upon it. May I ask the hon. Minister of Public Works, as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows nothing about it, if it has been arranged that any part of the water frontage which had not been deeded to any person is to be handed over to this coal company ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My recollection of the matter which came before the department a year or so ago was that there was a dispute as to who had the title from the provincial government, when the provincial government were supposed to have the right to give a title to these water fronts, and it was claimed by the clients of the hon. gentleman and also by another party. I remember the matter was under consideration when I went to the department, and after very carefully hearing all parties and their solicitors, I think I came to the conclusion that it was right that the grant should be made to the parties who had purchased that portion of the water front from the original owners who had received the grant from the provincial government. At the time, it was contested by the parties and their solicitors, but I have never heard that that was not a fair decision in the interest of all parties concerned. I am not sure whether that grant was consummated to the parties that we decided were entitled to it as a matter of justice and right. I am perfectly satisfied that when the property was transferred to the Crown by the town of Midland, no part of that property has been transferred to any person. The hon. gentleman will remember that we had a good deal of trouble about the description and that engineers were sent there and the description amended. I believe that everything was done to protect the interest of the Crown and to do what was right by the parties. It does not follow that because the minister and the officers of the department decided on the claim of one party as against the claim of another, that any injustice was done. It would have to be clearly shown

that a mistake had been made before they could have been accused of such a thing. I am perfectly satisfied that when the plans and titles are examined, it will be found that no part of the property transferred to the Crown by the town of Midland has been interfered with or is occupied by any person else. If so, it is without authority. As this is under the joint jurisdiction of the Marine Department and the Department of Public Works I was particularly careful to have a report from the chief engineer before permission was given to the people who owned the water lots to build, in order that it should not interfere with navigation and the prospect of improvement there, which I believe will be great. I personally felt that it was desirable in the public interest that we should be careful in giving permission for the erection of docks, and any action that was taken was taken after careful investigation and report by the chief engineer. I do not think that any mistake has been made. Everything that was done was done by the officers of the department in what they understood to be the public interest. There was no political influence or favouritism about it. Nor do I know that the minister or the officers knew particularly who were interested in these works. The parties were represented by solicitors and we had a great contest over the ownership. I feel satisfied that the papers will show that the public interest has been carefully protected and that no favouritism has been shown to one party or the other. I think my hon. friend will admit that so far as political friends or clients are concerned, I showed no partisanship in the matter and that there was no public favouritism in it. It was desirable that we should undertake very substantial improvements at once which in the near future we hope to very greatly extend. If any mistake has been made, it was not because of political feeling, because everything was done under the advice of the officers of the department, after careful investigation.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister is mistaken in saying that I was acting professionally for either of the parties. When I saw the minister I represented the town, because it was particularly asked by the town that in view of the fact that they were giving this large sum of 810,000 for the water frontage they should have this wedge-shaped piece as well. The town was buying the adjoining piece for $10,000, to hand over to the government, and the wedgeshaped piece was to be reserved by the Crown. It now turns out that it has been granted to these gentlemen without any consideration, and it goes without saying that they are strong political friends of the government. Had the people of the town understood that they were not to have the property that this dock had been built upon, the by-law for $10,000 would never have been
carried. It was clearly understood that the town was to have it in addition to the property they were buying from Burton Bros., who were represented, I think, by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)- because when the minister showed me the file, the correspondence was between the member for North Simcoe and the department. I was not acting for either party. On the one hand Burton Bros, were claiming the wedge-shaped piece ; and a gentleman named Jeffrey was claiming it also, and the town was asking that as they were buying the Burton property, for the large sum of $10,000, and as the wedge-shaped piece was in the Crown, that the Crown should not give it to any person, but should let it go with the other property. It now turns out, to the surprise of every one in Midland, that instead of the government reserving this wedge-shaped piece, and adding that to the property handed over to the Crown, the Crown have given it to another party. That action is going to interfere very materially with the prospect of the dock being of general utility to the public.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman has referred to the application made in the name of Mrs. Jeffery.


William Humphrey Bennett: I referred to her husband.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not know that Mr. Jeffery was in the matter. I remember distinctly that the previous owners to whom the Burton Bros, were heirs had sold the water lot, described by metes and bounds. The statement they made to me was that they had not sold it to the deep water, but they wanted the Crown to transfer to them the front of the lot on which the people had built the dock, so that practically they could not use the dock. It seemed to me a most unfair and unjust proposition. When they sold the water lot it was fully intended that it should go to deep water, and the parties had no right in law or justice to anything between the dock that the people had built on the lot they bought and paid for, and deep water. They had sold that piece of property upon which these people had expended their money, and then they wanted to deprive them of the use of it. The dock would be no use if you were to take the water, and that water did not belong to them anyway, but to the Crown. In my opinion they had no right to it at all, and it would be an injustice to deprive the others of it. As to the effect upon the harbour from the public standpoint, there is a difference of opinion between my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) and the officers of the department. I am not personally responsible for that, except in so far as I took the advice of the officers of the department after careful consideration. I believe that the permission given by the Department of Public Works

will not interfere with navigation or with the use of the harbour from a public point of view.


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister has misunderstood me. What I say is that by reason of their encroaching upon this property, when the department builds their docks there they will be very much limited in space and it will be very detrimental to the harbour. However, we can discuss the matter on the Public Works estimates.


George Taylor: The minister is to get the papers which he promised in reference to Mr. Hurley's report.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I did not promise any papers.
I read the report of the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries containing the verbal reports which he had taken from Mr. Hurley.


George Taylor: I want some information with reference to tjie duties of Mr. Hurley and the work he has done.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have no other report than what was contained in the report of the deputy minister.


George Taylor: Then the hon. gentleman is paying a man $1,200 a year, and he has not a scratch of a pen to show what he has done for his money, what lakes he has visited or anything else. I want to know what waters Mr. Hurley has visited, and what work he has done. That report is simply a report made by the deputy minister ; there is nothing from Mr. Hurley in it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The deputy minister has reported on the work done by Mr. Hurley. That is all I have.


David Henderson: I assume that the committee is still considering the item of $322,000 for the construction of lighthouses. Early in the session I took the liberty of calling the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a matter in my own county, not knowing at that time, in the somewhat disturbed condition of affairs, whether the construction of lighthouses would be under the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I was directed by the Minister of Public Works to let the matter stand until the Minister of Marine and Fisheries brought down his estimates. What I referred to was an old standing promise made by some one in the year 1900 that a lighthouse would be erected on the new dock that was being built by the government at the port of Bronte, in the county of Halton. This was freely referred to during the election of 1900, and the people there were assured that one of the advantages of electing my opponent would be that they would secure a lighthouse at this point. What I wish to ask the minister now is to


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: .see that that assurance, on which the votes of the electors were obtained, shall be carried out. I need not tell the minister that a lighthouse at that point would be a very desirable thing-not so much perhaps for the purpose of guiding vessels passing in and out of the port, because there is not a great deal of traffic, particularly in the night, in that part of Lake Ontario. But this port is a fishing station, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is interested in fisheries as well as in marine matters. The town of Bronte is the chief seat of the cisco herring fisheries. There are a considerable number of fishermen living there, who have a considerable quantity of plant, vessels and nets, and they have occasion to go out for a distance of ten or fifteen miles to set their nets and obtain their catch. These people are frequently caught out at night at some distance, espeeialy in the autumn, in stormy weather in the open lake, with nothing to guide them back to port. For the purpose of indicating to these men where to return to, a lighthouse would certainly be a very desirable thing, and I feel very much like the gentleman who promised that a lighthouse would be erected there, in pressing it upon the attention of the government although possibly not for the same reason that he may have ha^l. I do not know whether the attention of the minister has been drawn to this matter by the gentleman who exercises the patronage of that county. I do not claim to exercise it. It is possible that he has not been allowed to forget the-promise he made at that time ; but I regret very much to have noticed, when the hon. minister read the items of expenditure throughout the province of Ontario for the erection of lighthouses, that the important port of Bronte was overlooked entirely. I do not know whether it will appear in the supplementary estimates or not : but as it does not appear in the main estimates, I trust that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will not forget this important port, and will place in the supplementary estimates a sufficient sum to construct a lighthouse at this point. I am quite sure that if he knew all the circumstances, his generosity, his good nature and his desire to meet the views of his political friends, if nothing else, would induce him to do something for the relief of those people, who will appreciate any kindness in that direction which he can accord to them. I hope and trust, if the minister's attention has not been drawn to it before, that now that I have mentioned it, possibly for the third time, he will take a note of it. and that before another session passes over the people of Bronte will be delighted to have something which will guide them in the open lake in the dark nights to their homes.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Will the hon. gentleman tell me who made the promise and when it was made ?


David Henderson: I do not like to mention the name of the gentleman who made the promise, but common rumour said it was made by the candidate who opposed me at the last general election. Whether he made it on his own responsibility or on the assurance of the government, I am not able to say, but I think that the hon. minister has sufficient ingenuity to divine, just as well as X can, the reason why the promise was made. Perhaps it was because I was elected that the lighthouse was not built, but it seems to me that when a promise is made to the electors it should be carried out. The people of Bronte, believing, no doubt, that this promise would be implemented by the government, gave a very strong support to my opponent, and on that ground are fully entitled to consideration even though their candidate was not elected. Hon. members know who my opponent was and the circumstances under which the promise was given. It is one of those promises that should be implemented by the governmnt and these people should not be disappointed.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The chief engineer of the department tells me that there is no correspondence whatever with regard to the establishment of a light at Bronte. If a demand be made, it will be examined on its merits by the engineer and a rexiort duly made. If the light be required-and the hon. gentleman has made out a very good case in favour of these poor fishermen-no doubt the department will furnish it, but at present no action can be taken because there is no record of any demand being made for a light at that place.


David Henderson: I trust the hon. minister will pardon me if I very humbly and meekly made the demand.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The bon. gentleman had better make it in writing.


David Henderson: I shall be very happy to do so if the hon. minister will give me any assurance that my request will receive the consideration of the government. No doubt the hou. gentleman has heard what I have said, and even though I should not communicate with him directly, his officers will learn from * Hansard ' the representations I have made, but I am quite willing to remind the hon. gentleman of what I have said and what the people would like very much to have, and I can assure him that they would be very grateful to the new minister if he should see fit to grant their request.


George Taylor: Has the hon. minister the papers with regard to Mr. Mullens ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I beg to lay on the Table the tenders and articles of agreement between the department and Mr. Cornelius Mullens, of Belleville. One is dated 1st July, 1902, and the other 25th April, 1899.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: These two maps which the hon. minister has laid on the Table are very confusing. In view of the importance of the question of improvement which we are discussing, we are entitled to have something which would show us the present state of improvements on the St. Lawrence route. Evidently this map was prepared before June, 1902.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Whatever is marked ill black has been done and wliat is marked in red is to be done. It was brought up to date.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think I heard the hon.
gentleman refer to the lightship at Anticosti, has that been terminated ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. No, it will be on the 1st of September.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have the steel rails been erected which are contemplated at Isle aux Raisins.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Almost completed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a gas buoy in the centre of Lake St. Peter.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	ANDFISHERIES. That	is	placed. It	was
on the 13th of this month.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are the gas buoys between Longueuil and Contrecoeur jilaced ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Some have not been delivered, but they have all been ordered. They are bought from the Pintscli Company, in Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Something was said last year .about experimenting with acetylene gas. What has been the result ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Some of the acetylene lights have been successful and others have not. What we are using is mostly the Pintscli gas.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In the lighthouses, is acetylene gas used ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There are six acetylene gas lights in the lighthouses.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Wliat did it cost to iustal this carbide apparatus in a lighthouse ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. From $300 to $1,000.
Mr.	MONK. Are they purchased by
tender ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. They are prepared by our own officers. The machinery is ordered by the piece and the pieces are put together by our officers and are looked after by our officers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are they all purchased from the same person ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. From different persons. They are built at different places. We have been more or less experimenting with acetylene gas as yet.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Taking this section between Montreal and Quebec, what is the amount the hon. gentleman expected to spend upon gas buoys and what upon lighthouses during the coming season ? I see there is exactly the same estimate as last year.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Twenty thousand dollars on each.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And in the section below Quebec-Quebec to the gulf ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: About $180,000, including $95,000 for the light-ship at Anticosti.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What remains now to be carried out of the suggestions made by the shipping interests ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: All that is in red on the map shown to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk).


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Perhaps it would be better if the hon. minister would mention in a general way what they are.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I read the list.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman read a list of what he intended to do. I asked what remains to be done to carry out the suggestion of the shipping interests, which he has told us he intended to carry out.
The SIINISTER OF S1ARINE AND FISHERIES. This will carry out practically all the suggestions of the shipping interests. I must say that that will not be all the improvements contemplated. For instance, the lighting between Sorel and Quebec cannot be completed, as it will be completed during the present season between Sorel and Montreal, until the channel is widened and so improved that it can be navigated at night without danger. We Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
expect to have the lighting of the channel between Sorel and Montreal, forty-five miles, completed by the first of August. Vessels will then be able to navigate that part of the channel safely, day or night.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is that with the improvements mentioned in this map ?
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then, with the improvements mentioned in this map, there will be night navigation between Montreal and Sorel '!	.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. There will be safe navigation day and night between Montreal and Sorel.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the hon. minister will see Alie advantage in future, in bringing down an estimate of this importance, of giving to us in a little clearer way on the maps, if he chooses to place maps on the Table, exactly what improvements are intended.
The	MINISTER	OF	MARINE	AND
FISHERIES. If the hon. member (Mr. Monk) would suggest in what way it could he made clearer. I should be glad to carry out his ideas. I am here to learn.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: According to the map. all the gas buoys between Montreal and Sorel are to be established. But the hon. gentleman tells us that half of them have been established. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee in this way. Of course, I might put the hon. minister upon examination, and he will turn to his assistant for information and then will tell me that these are being carried out. The map does not show what is completed and what is contemplated.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) leaves my estimates pending for three months, with the work going on during that time, I can hardly keep the information up to date in the form he wishes. I cannot make a new map every day. I have stated that one of these lights was installed as lately as the 18th of this month. If the channel is to be completely lighted between Montreal and Sorel before the 1st of August, the hon. gentleman must suppose that the work is going on.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I see from the map that at Cape Race a syren and quick flashing light have been recommended. Has that been carried out ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It will be done this year but has not been completed yet.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A syren has been recommended for Cape Pine.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: That is a matter to be considered with the imperial government.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not wish to take up my hon. friend's (Hon. Mr. Prdfontaine) time in this matter. I can only say that I do not think he has taken as great an interest in transportation as he pretends to have done.


George Taylor: The hon. minister has brought down the papers in reference to Mr. Mullens, and I must say that they go to corroborate the statement of my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid). In 1899, the former Minister of Marine and Fisheries Sir Louis Davies, called for tenders for this work for three years. The tenders came iu and that of Mr. Mullens was accepted. His contract expired in March, 1902, and without a word, so far as the correspondence shows, that contract was renewed for three years. This was evidence on the face of it that the contract was renewed for a consideration. And that consideration was what my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Porter) says-that Mr. Hurley was to secure that contractor a renewal of his contract if he would sign the protest. If that were not the case, no doubt there would Ije correspondence to show it.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed by the officers of the department that it has been the invariable practice to renew a contract of this kind if the work was properly performed. That course was pursued in this case, and Mr. Hurley had nothing whatever to do with it.


Mr. BLAIN.: Has there been any reduction in insurance rates on the St. Lawrence route during last year ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I am informed that the new Canadian Pacific Railway fleet have been granted better rates than those charged in former years. The reason given was that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, having acquired the Elder-Dempster and some other boats, were offering more guarantee, it was said, than other companies before them, and also that the insurers believed the representations made to them that the channel was very much improved, and these reductions could be safely made.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When a lighthouse is constructed, is the contract given for the house only ? Is the lighting part installed by the department itself ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If it is a lighthouse in the water; when a pier has to be constructed, we make a contract for the construction of a pier, or, sometimes, if we think it cheaper, having our own men, we build the pier ourselves. If the superstructure is in wood, 181
it is given by contract. If there are a number to be built and the superstructure is iron or steel, a general contract is 'given for these, tenders being asked for. The lanterns are bought by the department from the best makers in England, and are bought at the market prices which are published in the newspapers.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: What explanation would the minister give of the term ' guaranteed ' there ? What guarantee were they offered ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Proper equipment, I suppose, and better boats, better captains.


Richard Blain: When this item was up for consideration last year the minister stated that the large increase in the expenditure for lighting the St. Lawrence would result iu a reduction of the insurance rates. Has the minister any information that because of that large expenditure on the lighting system of the St. Lawrence route, reductions have; been made in insurance rates during the past year ? I may say that it is not possible that those would apply only to the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I reason on this matter as any business man would from the facts. The facts are that the shipping interests for many years have been complaining that the St. Lawrence route was not safe, and that they were charged too high insurance rates. They approached the government four or five years ago, and represented that they could get no reduction in rates unless there were improvements in the lighting and buoying of the St. Lawrence. The government undertook to make improvements, which have been going on since then, and now we find that the navigation companies are satisfied, that the shipping interests are satisfied. We know that the government have made' great efforts to improve the St. Lawrence-route and to put it in proper shape. All these facts of course are reported to the insurance companies daily, and we are justified in concluding that the rates will diminish. The; underwriters will no longer be able to urge that the channel is in a bad condition, that the lighting is insufficient. All these facts tend to convince the underwriters that they should reduce tlieir rates.


Richard Blain: The fact is that there has been no reduction in insurance rates up to the present moment.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It has been reported, I do not know it officially, that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had obtained better rates than other companies. Now the fact that the shipping companies are not complaining, but on the contrary are expressing their satisfaction about the channel, would seem to indicate that these rates are reduced.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: To return a moment to the repairs on the steamer ' Bay-held ' I was surprised to hear the minister state that the repairs were much less than stated in the Auditor General's Report. I had not the Auditor General's Report before me at the moment, and was unable to put the figures before the House. In the meantime I have procured the Auditor General's Report for 1901. I can inform the hon. gentleman that in 1901 over $3,300 were expended for repairs on the * Bayfield,' and thati sum does not include the salary paid to the carpenter, which was over $300. In 1902, there were spent over $1,300 on the 'Bayfield.' In 1902, the carpenter was paid $472. So that altogether, in 1901 and 1902. $4,633 were expended in repairs on this boat. If you add the carpenters salary we have a total of $5,405. I find in the amount a compass bought in Glasgow for $219. I would like to know if the compass went with the vessel.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER GF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the hon. Minister of Finance give us the order of business for the day after to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The right hon. Prime Minister, in answer to a question yesterday, I think, stated that the business would be the Railway Bill.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: All day ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, perhaps in a short time we will get through it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 2, 1903.