1903-03-27

Mr. SPEAKER.: In regard to the petition of W. H. Rosevear, mayor of St. Lambert, and others of the counties of Vercheres and Chambly, praying that special subsidies be granted for the improvement of public highways. I beg to state that this petition is against Rules 85 and 86. In the first place it is not properly signed, and in the second place, as the petition asks for subsidies, it cannot be received. The same decision will apply to the petitions of the Rev. L. J. S. Sirois, and of the Rev. A. Audette, because they are asking for subsidies. A petition asking for subsidies is out of order.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 40) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the International Railway Appliance Company-Mr. Brock.
Bill (No. 41) respecting the Kootenay Central Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 43) to incorporate the Regina and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 44) respecting the Manitoba and North-western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. McCreary-by Mr. Morrison.
Bih (No. 45) respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 46) respecting the Kingston and Pembroke Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.
. Bill (No. 47) to incorporate the Nipissing and Pontiac Railway Company.-Mr. Mc-Cool.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I beg to lay on the Table of the House a return to an Address for copy of all coi'respondence since last session be-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
tween the Canadian government and the British authorities on the subject of the embargo on Canadian cattle. As some interest was manifested on the subject I beg to move :
That the Rule he suspended and that these papers be printed forthwith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. LEIGHTON  G.@: MCCARTHY (North Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 4S) to amend the General Inspection Act.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Explain.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: Last session I had the honour of introducing a similar Bill to this, and I explained it pretty fully at that time. It being late in the session, I explained that 1 would not press it to a finality that session, but that lion, members would have ah opportunity of circulating it through their ridings and ascertaining whether public .opinion was in favour of it. Since that time I have heard no complaints against the Bill. The explanation I gave last session is in Hansard. The Bill is for the purpose of obtaining a uniform inspection of hides, skins and leather in the cities mentioned in the Bill, to which only it is intended to apply. By that means the hides, it is expected, will be taken more carefully off the animals, and will thereby be increased in value.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved third reading of Bill (No. 12) to amend the Criminal Code, 1892.
Mr. J. E. E. LEONARD (Laval).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before this Bill is read a third time, I wish to move :
That, the said Bill be not now read a third time but that it be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole with instructions to make the following amendments thereto
1.	That the words ' or immoral ' be added to the words ' or obscene amusements ' in the fifth line of the first paragraph of Section 179a, as well as to the words ' obscene amusements ' in the fourth line of the second paragraph ;
2.	That the following paragraph be added :-
' 5. Will be considered immoral, for the purposes of the present Act, all representations, plays or scenes, and all theatricals that may ridicule the marriage tie or laws or the misfortune of a deceived spouse, or that may present in a favourable light concubinage, adultery, adulterous love, or the life of the debauchee, or of the girl of public character, who is kept up, or that may

picture, without censure, the \ife or the conduct of concubines, or of those who habitually live in a state of forbidden love, concubinage, or prostitution.'
If I understand aright the debate that took place in committee the other day, the reason why the hon. member for Pictou (Sir C. H. Tupper) objected to the Bill, was mainly on the ground that the meaning of the word 4 immoral ' was not clearly defined. With the amendment I am now moving and the definition which it embodies I think the hon. Minister cf Justice (Hon. C. Fitzpatrick), who has so willingly complied with the demand of the Quebec authorities, will not object to accepting this amendment as it . contains the definition of the word ' immoral.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: After having heard this definition read to the House, I need not say how very difficult it is to define such terms as immoral or impure. I think any attempt of that sort must fail, as this attempt fails. I would have preferred myself that the Bill had remained as it was introduced, with the words indecent or immoral continued. But I can quite appreciate the idea of those who suggested that the word obscene should, take the place of those words, because in the Criminal Code, which the Bill seeks to amend, the word obscene occurs ; and it is good legislation to use the same term as much as possible in the same paragraph or section of a code.
Amendment negatived, and Bill read the third time and passed.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on the following resolutions :
1. That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and to provide that if the period of service includes a fraction of a year less than one-half, the service shall be taken to be the number of years served, not including the fraction. And if the period of service includes a fraction equal to or greater than one-half, the fraction shall be deemed to be an entire year.
'2, Resolved, That it is expedient to confirm all superannuation allowances heretofore granted, calculated in the foregoing manner.-(The Minister of Finance).
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The resolutions before the Committee, on which a Bill is to be founded, are designed to remove a small difficulty which has been created by a recent ruling of the Auditor General, a ruling which is strictly in accordance with the law, but which nevertheless is at variance with the practice of the government and parliament for the long period of 32 years. The Superannuation Act passed in 1870 made provision for the retirement of officials upon pensions, which should be in proportion to the amount of their salaries and the length of
their services. Immediately after the passing of that Act, an Order in Council was passed as a regulation, making provision respecting fractions of a year. By that Order in Council it was determined that where an official on his retirement had a few months service beyond the year to his credit, if it was less than six months, it should not count in his superannuation, but if it was more than six months, it should count as a full year. That continued to be the practice of the government from 1870 down to a very recent date. Two or three months ago the Auditor General objected to a superannuation which was based upon that rule, and although we have been following that practice for 32 years, he raised a question as to the validity of these proceedings. Upon an appeal to the Department of Justice, it was decided that as a strict matter of law the Order in Council passed 32 years ago was void, inasmuch as it was beyond the authority of the Act. Still, I think the House will agree with me that the practice established in 1870, of dealing with a fraction of a year in the way I have described, was fair and equitable, though perhaps a little liberal towards the official. The object of this Bill will be to confirm the superannuations of the past as respects those fractions of a year, and to provide that henceforth the same rule shall apply and be a legal proceeding-practically confirming the Order in Council of 1870.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman, who is of course very familiar with the terms of the Act, whether or not there is any provision in it with regard to the repayment of amounts paid in on superannuation account by officers who have been dismissed from the service 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was no provision of that nature until the year 1897 or 1898, when I myself introduced a measure to amend the Superannuation Act by providing that where anl officer was dismissed for political partisanship, he should not suffer the loss of the money lie paid into the superannuation fund. As in such case, though he may have acted unwisely, there was no malfeasance or anything discreditable in a moral sense, I consider that he was punished enough by being deprived of his office and ought not to be further deprived of the money he had paid into the fund. Application has been made from time to time for a return of the superannuation money to parties dismissed for other causes, but although the Act is not restricted in its terms and we might be justified by the Act alone in returning the money, still as it was designed to apply only to cases of dismissal for political partisanship, we have not thought fit to interpret it as applying to other eases.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I have a case in point in which the inspector hap-

pened to see a collector of customs who did not appear to be attending to his duty at the time, and the inspector reported unfavourably, and the man was consequently . dismissed. This dismissed official has since reformed and is now as steady and temperate a man as there is in the Dominion, which is saying a good deal. I have been trying to have justice done to this man by having the money returned to him which he paid into the superannuation fund but have not succeeded. I think that something should be added to this Bill which would enable the government to deal justly with a case of this kind.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course it sometimes happens that a man is dismissed for what is alleged to be cause but really is not cause. Take a case in my own city, that of Capt. Stewart, who was dismissed ostensibly for cause but really for something else. No investigation was ever granted although Capt. Stewart was anxious to have one. In a case of that kind, an officer who has been long in the service receives back no portion of the money which he has paid to the superannuation fund. I am not so familiar perhaps with the practice of commercial institutions in this regard as some of the other lion, members, but I know that some institutions of this country which have created pension funds, repay to their employees, even when dismissed for cause, the amount contributed by them to the fund, and they do this because they think it is only fair and equitable. They do not think it fair to keep the money of these men even if they are dismissed for cause. I would like to know whether the lion. Minister of Finance lias considered the question in this aspect ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Superannuation Act as respects these matters is precisely in the same condition as it has been for many years. There is no provision which would enable repayment to be made in; a case such as my hon. friend has mentioned. The difficulty is if we once open the door, it will be impossible to draw any line. I have had cases brought to my attention, in which the wives represented that their husbands had been dismissed because of intemperance and other offences, and the dismissal of whom brought great hardship on their families. Such cases appeal forcibly to our sympathy, but once you begin to entertain claims of that kind it will be impossible to draw any line. We have been simply following the practice continued ever since the Act was passed some thirty years ago.


Mr. OSLER.: As regards banks, no clerk is dismissed, no matter from what cause, without having the money returned to him which he paid into the pension fund, and I think that is only fair.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Under what is called the Civil Service Retirement Mr, ROSS (Victoria, N.S.),
Act, which ha^ been passed in recent years, we return the money paid in. Under that Act the money contributed constituted a savings fund, and when an officer retires from the service he gets back his money with interest. This Act now takes the place of the old Superannuation Act as respects new officials.


Robert Laird Borden: Why should there be any difficulty in dealing with cases such as those brought to the attention of the hon. minister. Of course there may be cases of malfeasance in which it would not be desirable to return the money, but I think that the practice followed in commercial institutions should be followed by the government. I think that the practice [DOT] should be followed even in cases of malfeasance, but where there is no actual taking of money. It seems to me that there would be no difficulty in making a general rule.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a broad distinction between the Superannuation Act and the Civil Service Retirement Act. In the latter there is no charge on the public treasury at all. We simply return the money paid in with interest. But in the case of the Superannuation Act, there is a large drain on the public treasury. For every dollar paid into the superannuation fund, we pay out three or four dollars. If we were to accede to my hon. friend's request, we would have to pay out considerably more. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister reminds me that under the Superannuation Act, no matter how long and meritorious a man's services may have been, if his death occurs before superannuation, his family receive nothing. In the case of life insurance, a man must die to benefit by it, but in the ease of the Superannuation Act, a man must live to get any benefit from it. I may say that while the contributions to the superannuation fund under the Superannuation Act amount' to $60,000 a year, we pay out annually $330,000, and if we were to take the course suggested by my hon. friend, we would add considerably to the burden.


Robert Laird Borden: The same argument would apply in the case of corporations because the pension fund of a private corporation is not only built up by the contributions of the employees but is also supplemented to a large extent by the institution itself. Then so far as the cases of death are concerned, I think there is always a gratuity-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Only two months salary.


Robert Laird Borden: That might not be very much. But the fact that that seems, perhaps, a not altogether desirable state of affairs is no particular reason why the government should depart from what is the ordinary usage among commercial institutions

throughout the country. However, I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance, and have no desire to say more at present. I am not going to move an amendment, because I have not considered the matter sufficiently myself. But I think it a matter that the government might well take into consideration.


Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.: How would this affect the case of clerks who entered the service as temporary clerks but were afterwards appointed to the permanent service ? On their retirement, would they be entitled to have the retiring allowance based upon their whole time, including the time of temporary service ? The Act of 1871, I think, provided for temporary service, but it did not provide that a temporary clerk should contribute to the superannuation fund. In 1881, I think, an Order in Council-not an Act-was passed providing that a temporary clerk would have to contribute the same amount that he would have had to contribute had he been from the iirst a permanent clerk to entitle him to superannuation on his whole time. I would simply like to know how such cases would be affected by this measure.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would say to my hon. friend from Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) that this measure does not touch that point at all.
Resolutions reported and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 19) to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on the following resolution :
That it is expedient to amend the 32nd chapter 63-64 Vic., ' An Act respecting and restricting Chinese immigration,' by providing :
1st. That a tax of $500 shall be imposed on every person of Chinese origin entering Canada.
2nd. That the person in command of, or in charge of, any vessel or vehicle, bringing Chinese immigrants into Canada shall be personally liable to His Majesty, for the payment of the said tax, with respect to any such immigrant carried by such vessel or vehicle.-The Prime Minister.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Chairman, the House is aware that in the province of British Columbia there exists a very strong feeling against Asiatic immigration. This feeling is confined exclusively, in Canada to the province of British Columbia, and, as we are told, does not extend to other provinces of the Dominion, for the reason that there is no Asiatic immigration which is settled outside the province of British Columbia. As far back as twenty-five or thirty years
ago this feeling which exists in British Columbia commenced to manifest itself. In this regard, the province of British Columbia is not at all isolated from other portions of the world in which Asiatic or Mongolian immigration has settled. In California, in Australia, in -fact wherever the two races, Caucasian and Mongolian have come into contact, the same feeling has manifested itself. After giving it full consideration, every one who has looked into the matter must come to the conclusion that this antagonism is based upon ethnical considerations, the difference between the two races. It seems impossible to reconcile them, and the conclusion of all who have considered the matter seems to be that the amalgamation of the two is neither possible nor desirable, There are so many differences of character that it is supposed to be impossible to overcome them. At all events, in the province of British Columbia this feeling is very strong. In 1885, the government of Sir John Macdonald introduced a measure to impose a capitation tax of $50 on Chinese immigration coming into the Dominion. It was supposed that this tax would be sufficient to prevent, for the time being, the increase of this immigration; and for some years, it had that effect. But. of late years, the immigration has increased very rapidly, and a new agitation arose in the province, and representations were made to the government that there should be an increase in the capitation tax. In 1900. we doubled the capitation tax, making it $100. It was represented to us at that time by the members of British Columbia, whether they sat on this side of the House or the other, that the resolution then introduced would be inadequate to effect the purpose in view which was to check the immigration of Asiatic labourers into the country. We were aware that there was a good deal to be said in favour of the contention which was urged upon us. At all events we proceeded with our legislation and we then organized a commission to investigate the subject and report. The commission made its report. That report has been in the hands of hon. members of this House for eighteen months, and I presume that by this time it has become familar to all of us. The commissioners who, seem to have done their work very thoroughly, came to the conclusion that this kind of immigration ought to be prohibited. and that, if it was not absolutely prohibited the tax should be increased to such' a figure as to restrict the immigration to very narrow limits. I would call the attention of the House to the conclusion of the. commissioners which is found at page 279 of the report, as follows ;
4. In reference to the representations made by the people and legislature of British Columbia. wherein it is alleged :	.
That the province is flooded with an undesirable class of people, non-assimilative and most detrimental to the wage-earning classes of the people of the province, and that this ex-

tensive immigration of orientals is also a menace to the health of the community ;
That there is probability of a great disturbance to the economic conditions in the province and of grave injury being caused to the working classes by the large influx of labourers from China, as the standard of living of the masses of the people in that country differs so widely from the standard prevailing in the province, thus enabling them to work for a much less wage ;
That it is in the interests of the empire that the Pacific province of the Dominion should be occupied by a large and thoroughly British population rather than by one in which the number of aliens would form a large proportion :
We find that these representations are substantially true and urgently call for a remedy.
We also find that the increase of the capitation tax from $50 to $100 is ineffective and inadequate.
Your commissioners are of opinion that the further immigration of Chinese labourers into Canada ought to be prohibited ;
That the most desirable and effective means of attaining this end is by treaty supported by suitable legislation ;
That in the meantime and until this can be obtained the capitation tax should be raised to $500.
The only point upon which your commissioners could not agree is the date when the capitation tax of $500 ought to come into effect. The chairman and commissioner Foley are of opinion that the capitation tax should be raised to $500 at once, while commissioner Munn is of opinion that $300 should be imposed for two years, and if a prohibitive treaty be not obtained within that period, that it be then raised to $500.	_
I may say that I entertain no hope in the present condition of China of having such a treaty as is here indicated ; therefore, we have taken the course of asking parliament to increase at once the capitation tax from $100 to $500 as here recommended. Now, with regard to Japanese immigration, the same prejudice, I am sorry to say, exists in British Columbia concerning the Japanese as the Chinese. I say I am sorry for it, because for my part I make a distinction between Japan and China. Japan is one of the rising nations of the present day. It has shown itself to be very progressive, it does not seem to me at all doubtful that within a short period Japan will have placed itself in the fore front among the civilized nations of the earth. But whatever may be my feelings in this matter, it is a matter of record for there can be no dispute that in British Columbia the feeling towards the Japanese is exactly the same as towards the Chinese. The Japanese is not looked upon as a desirable immigrant. But as I said a moment ago, though I am prejudiced in favour of the Japanese, I must confess that there is little probability that it will be possible to assimilate the Japanese immigrant to the standard of Canadian civilization. The ethnical differences are also of such a character as to make it very doubtful whether assimilation of the two races could ever take Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
place. But the problem has been solved so far as British Columbia is concerned by the Japanese government themselves, who have undertaken not only to restrict but absolutely to prohiibit Japanese immigration from that country to Canada. The report of the commissioners upon this point is also very pertinent. Some two or three years ago the Japanese government issued an order, I cannot say whether it was legislative or executive, but at ail events a legal order, absolutely to prohibit within certain limits, immigration from Japan into Canada. The report of the commissioners upon this point is to be found at page 399 :
Your commissioners fully appreciate the action taken by the government of Japan on August 2, 1900, whereby the governors of the prefectures of Japan were instructed to prohibit entirely for the time being the emigration of Japanese labourers for the Dominion of Canada. It is stated in a pamphlet purporting to be published by the Japanese consul at Vancouver : ' the principal reason for the measure thus taken was to avoid any friction that might occur by allowing them to come into British Columbia where their immigration was not desired by a certain element of that province,' and that ' the government of Japan wholly stopped the issuance of passports to any intending emigrants for Canada since the 1st of August last (1900), and still continues to do so, under a provision of the Immigration Protection Law. (Law No. 70, 1896).
The course adopted by the Japanese government, if we may without presumption be permitted to say so, is most opportune, eliminating all cause of friction and irritation between Canada and Japan, and so favouring a freer trade and intercourse between the countries than could otherwise obtain.
Nothing further is needed to settle this most difficult question upon a firm basis than some assurance that the action already taken by the government of Japan will not be revoked.
Your commissioners desire to express their earnest hope that in the continuance of this friendly policy, legislation on this subject by the Canadian government may he rendered unnecessary. Should, however, a change of policy be adopted in this regard by the Japanese government whereby Japanese labourers may again be permitted to emigrate to Canada, the welfare of the province of British Columbia imperatively demands that effective measures be adopted to take the place of the inhibition now imposed by the Japanese government.
Your commissioners recommend that, in that event, an Act be pased by the Dominion government on the lines of what is known as the Natal Act. made sufficiently stringent and effective to accomplish the desired result.
There is no necessity to go back to that, because the action of the imperial Japanese government is sufficient of itself to cover the ground. Under the action just taken by the Japanese government, three classes of persons only are allowed to leave the shores of Japan for Canada. First, those who hold both a passport and a certificate of the Japanese consul at Vancouver certifying that they are resident in Canada, and are only returning to this country ; second, those families of Japanese resident

in Canada coming out to join them upon approval of the Japanese consul at Vancouver ; third, merchants and students duly qualified. Within these bounds, even according to the most extreme views which may be entertained in British Columbia, no harm can come from Japanese immigration, because no Japanese immigration except what is here specified is possible ; therefore, it is not necessary at this time to pass any legislation to prohibit that class of immigrants. For these reasons we maintain that restriction only to Chinese and not to Japanese immigrants.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the right lion, gentleman on what the action of the government was based in disallowing the recent acts of the British Columbia legislature ? Perhaps he will be good enough to give us information as to what the acts were which were disallowed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I cannot at this moment, speaking from memory, state the nature of the Acts. Speaking in very general terms, the Acts which were disallowed were of a nature which prevented Japanese and Chinese working in the mines. We had had communication several times with the government of British Columbia to the effect that if they would restrict the operation of their Act to Chinese labourers only and exempt the Japanese labourers, we would not object and would not disallow the Act ; but if they were to continue to apply these restrictions to Japanese labourers as well as to Chinese, we thought such legislation would come into conflict with our views upon the obligations which rested on Canada as part of the British empire. Japan being an ally of Great Britain, we thought it extremely unadvisable to pass any Act which might cause friction between the empire of Japan and the British empire. Of course if the Japanese government had refused to take any action and had allowed the subjects of that empire to flood the British Columbia labour market, we would have been probably induced to reconsider our own views. Representations were made by our officials, at all events, I may say that verbal representations were made by myself to the Japanese consul. In view of the fact that the Japanese government had prohibited their own people from coming to Canada, we thought that there was no necessity for enacting such legislation, and therefore we took the action that we did. I have had further communication with my friend. Mr. Prior, the present premier of British Columbia on this subject, and I hope that in future any legislation that may be passed in British Columbia will be confined to Chinese labourers, and in that view we have notified the government of British Columbia that we see no cause to interfere.


Robert Laird Borden: Did the disallowance take place upon the initiative
of this government or was it upon representations of the imperial government ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have not looked at the correspondence for some time,
I am not aware that we have any correspondence upon the subject, but I think it was done upon our own initiative.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the right hon. gentleman consider that the statutes passed by the British Columbia legislature went beyond the provisions of the statutes which are now in force in other colonies, for example in the colony of Natal, and I think in some of the Australasian colonies ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Beyond its legislative powers.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman, is there any really good reason why the province of British Columbia should not have the same rights in regard to legislation of that kind-I am speaking from the standpoint of the empire, not from the Canadian standpoint alone-is there any good reason why British Columbia should not exercise the same rights in regard to legislation of that kind as are at present exercised by the colony of Natal ? My right hon. friend is aware of course, that the Act which is enforced is printed in this report and I understand that it goes very far indeed towards the exclusion of immigration, even to the prohibition of Asiatic labour. I would like to understand, if this disallowance took place from the imperial standpoint, and I would gather that from the right hon. gentleman's remarks, why it is. that these imperial concerns more directly touch the province of British Columbia than they do the colony of Natal or the Australasian colonies, to which I have referred. I am as ready as my right hon. friend would be to give all due weight to imperial interests in regard to legislation of that kind, but I have been unable to understand why these Interests would more directly concern the province of British Columbia than the colony of Natal or the Australasian colonies.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The reason seems to be a very obvious one. The action taken by the Canadian government in this matter was not dictated solely from the point of view of imperial interests, but solely from the point of view of Canadian interests. The geographical relation of Canada to Japan is very different from the geographical relsftiou of Japan to Natal. We intend to have a trade between Japan and Canada. We intend to bring about a development of the relations which exist between that progressive people and our own people. We have steamers plying to-day between this country and the orient, steamers which are subsidized by this government. We have at present in Japan exhibition commissioners who are trying to promote trade between Canada and Japan, un-

der such circumstances I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) whether it is not good policy to toy and promote friendly relations between Canada and Japan. The conditions would have been very much different if the Japanese government had not undertaken to act in a friendly manner towards the government of Canada. The Japanese government went out of their way to prohibit their own people coming to Canada. They did this as a friendly act towards Canada. They wanted to preserve the good relations that existed between us. Under these circumstances was it not good Canadian policy, not from considerations of imperial interest, but from considerations of Canadian interest, to take such action as was calculated to promote the best interests of Canada and not to irritate people who wanted to have friendly relations with us. What was the cause of irritation between us and Japan ? It was that there were Japanese subjects coming to Canada who were settling in British Columbia and working in competition with our own workingmen, where their presence is not welcome. They have undertaken to remove that cause of irritation by preventing their own people from coming into competition with our workingmen, and under such circumstances, it seems to me that the action of the British Columbia legislature was, to say the least, ill-advised, that it was not calculated to promote the best interests of Canada, or those friendly relations that ought to obtain between two neighbouring nations, such as Canada and Japan are, because, after all, we are neighbouring nations. For this reason we represented to the legislature of .British Columbia that if they were to restrict their action to Chinese immigration, that if they were to except Japanese immigrants from their legislation, we would not Interfere, leaving them to exercise their own will in regard to Chinese immigration. It did seem to us that it was an ill-advised action to still persist in giving a slap in tiie face to the imperial government of Japan by including Japanese labourers in their legislation. The action which we took was dictated not only from considerations of imperial interest but from considerations of Canadian interest.


Robert Laird Borden: It almost seems to me that the right hon. gentleman, in the attitude which he has taken, was constituting this government as a court of appeal from the British Columbia legislature. Assuming as we have right to assume, that this legislation was within the competence of the legislature of the province of British Columbia, my right hon. friend, nevertheless. suggests that because they did not really understand their own affairs, this government has the right to reverse their legislation. Upon what ground ? Because Japan is a neigbouring nation, and because we may expect to have some trade with that country in the future. Well, I thought Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
that my hon. friend was a more pronounced champion of provincial rights than to adopt an attitude of that kind. Here is the province of British Columbia acting admittedly within its legislative rights.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not admitted.


Robert Laird Borden: I am dealing with the question in the light in which the Prime Minister has placed the matter before the committee. The ground that has been placed before the committee is that this legislation was properly disallowed, because it is ill-advised and not in the interests of Canada. 1 respectfully submit that the legislature of British Columbia is the judge of that, when it is acting within its jurisdiction. If we are to have another ground put forward, we will deal with that when it comes, but I am now dealing with the ground that has been taken up to the present time. If it is a good reason for disallowing such legislation that we are to have a trade with Japan that circumstance might also be a reason for asking the Japanese to revoke the restriction which they have made, and if the probability of trade is made a good ground for disallowing this legislation, why is it not a good ground for rejecting the legislation which the right hon. gentleman is introducing now, because,
I suppose we have as good reason for supposing that we will have a trade with China as with Japan ? I do not profess to be very familiar with trade questions in reference to these two countries, but I should imagine that perhaps we have as much trade with China as with Japan and possibly more. It does not seem, when looking at the question of the disallowance of the British Columbia legislation, that very valid reasons have been put forward by my right hon. friend. I would think that the considerations, if they are purely Canadian considerations, which lie has put forward, are not a sufficient justification for the action which he has taken, and if there are more than Canadian considerations, in questions, if there are imperial considerations in question, then, I repeat again, as I said before, that 1 know of no imperial interest which touches this legislation emanating from the province of British Columbia which does not equally touch the legislation which has been enacted in the colony of Natal and in certain of the Australasian colonies.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to draw the attention of my hon.-friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden. Halifax) to the fact that the first disallowance of British Columbia legislation of this character, as far as I recollect, took place in 1884. and I would like to read an extract from the report made at that time by Sir Alexander Campbell, then Minister of Justice.
itARCII 27, 1903
Having reference to the condition of Canada at the time of the union with the province the undersigned is of opinion : That the authority given by the 95th section of the British North America Act is an authority to regulate and promote immigration into the provinces and not an authority to prohibit immigration.
A law which prevents the people of any country from coming into the province cannot be said to be of a local or private nature. On the contrary it is one involving Dominion, and possibly imperial interests.
The measure was then referred to the imperial authorities and the result was that the Act was disallowed. That principle laid down by Sir Alexander Campbell at that time has been followed ever since with respect to British Columbia legislation on the subject of Chinese emigration.
As regards the Natal Act, I have not it before me and I do not like to speak from memory regarding it because this is a matter of very considerable importance, and I do not like to discuss the question without having the documents so as to be able to speak with accuracy. But my recollection of the Natal Act is this :	That the question at one time was considered as to whether or not, in British Columbia, it would be possible to adopt the Natal Act. The people of British Columbia said that the Natal Act did not go far enough. My hon. friend will bear in mind that the Natal Act has no reference to Chinese or Japanese immigration, but has reference to immigration generally. A person who cannot comply with certain conditions laid down in that Act with respect to the speaking of the English tongue and being able to read and write cannot settle in the colony of Natal. The Natal Act would be impossible of application here ; it would be impossible for us to allow the province of British Columbia to have such an Act governing immigration. It is necessary for us to have an Act which would be applicable to the whole of the Dominion of Canada and the Natal Act is impossible of application to the whole Dominion. I do not want to go any further at the present time. This question is one of considerable importance and it requires to be discussed with a present knowledge of all that has taken place. I say to my hon. friend, that the principle adopted, in so far as the disallowance of this Act is concerned by the Department of Justice on a recent date, is the principal laid down by Sir Alexander Campbell in 1884.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to have some information before the resolution is adopted, as to whether or not, as has been alleged in the press of British Columbia, it was suggested by the imperial government that the very Act which was disallowed might be passed by that legislature and would be regarded as satisfactory. No papers have been brought down to this House on this subject. Substantially this has been asserted in the press of j British Columbia. I do not know as to |
the truth of that, but I would like to have some information on the subject.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That despatch is in the report.


Robert Laird Borden: Could my right hon. friend refer me to the page.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I cannot at the moment.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the position which my hon. friend tlie Minister of Justice takes is : That this Act was beyond the powers of the legislature of British Columbia and therefore was disallowed. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, whether it is the practice of tlie Department of Justice to sit as a court of interpretation upon provincial statutes and deal with them all in that way ; disallowing all those that are possibly ultra vires-or is it the practice to leave that question to be determined by the courts in the usual way.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When a question comes before the Department of Justice for the purpose of settling as to whether or not a law is ultra vires of the provincial parliament ; representations in the first place are invariably made to the provincial government asking that as, a doubt has arisen it may be set at rest by subsequent legislation. If subsequent legislation is not passed and if in the opinion of the Department of Justice the legislation is clearly ultra vires, then disallowance takes place. If there is a doubt as to whether legislation is ultra vires or not, it is left then to its operation and to be settled by the courts. The course to be pursued with respect to Acts passed by the provincial legislatures was settled by an Order in Council passed 8th June, 1808.


Robert Laird Borden: What does my hon. friend mean by that ? Does he mean that in case the provincial authorities contend that their Act is within the competence of the povincial legislature, and the Department of Justice arrives at an opposite conclusion ; that in such case the department constitutes itself a judge instead of leaving the provincial authorities to have that question determined by the courts.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a door open under the statutes. If the question is one on which the provincial authorities want to have the matter referred to the courts and will say that they will have a case stated for the courts ; then the Department of Justice is always ready to meet them half way. That question has now arisen in the province of Ontario with respect to the rights on the rivers, and will be disposed of in that way.
Mi-. BORDEN (Halifax). I would consider that a fair way of dealing with the subject. The provincial authorities adhere to their view that the Act is within the legis-

lative competence of tlie provincial legislature, and desire to have the question referred to the courts, and the Department of Justice expresses itself ready and willing to do so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Was that option given to British Columbia in this case ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. As I have said, Sir Alexander Campbell stated in his report that the law was ultra vires, and he said it was contrary to imperial interests and he said in addition to that, that it was contrary to the general interests of Canada. My hon. friend is well aware that an Act may be perfectly ultra vires of the powers of a province, but if that Act is contrary to the general interests of the Dominion of Canada that is sufficient cause for disallowance.


Robert Laird Borden: I know ; but let us not revert to the other ground.
I was dealing with that a moment ago and my hon. friend raised the question of ultra vires ; let us not mix up the two things.
I want to know from my hon. friend this- I want to know whether or not the option to which he refers was extended to the executive of British Columbia ; whether or not they had an opportunity of having this question referred to the courts and determined by the courts instead of having it referred to and determined by the Department of Justice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not like to discuss the language of documents without having these documents before me. I read what Sir Alexander said and I shall read it again, and it is all that he said on that point.
Having reference to the condition of Canada at the time of the union with the province the undersigned is of opinion : That the authority given, by the 95th section of the British North America Act is an authority to regulate and promote immigration into the provinces and not an authority to prohibit immigration.
That is what the British Columbia authorities attempted to do at the time.
A law which prevents the people of any country from coming into the province cannot he said to be of a local or private nature. On the contrary, it is one involving Dominion, and possibly imperial interests.
By that rule we have been bound ever since.


Robert Laird Borden: Evidently I do not make myself clear to my hon. friend. Does he take the position, that the province of British Columbia, with respect to the Act passed last year or the year before-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There have been four or five Acts passed.


Robert Laird Borden: -is bound by what Sir Alexander Campbell said seventeen or twenty years ago.


Robert Laird Borden: 


The PRIME MINISTER.: The principle is the same.


Robert Laird Borden: The principle is not the same.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) pardon me a moment. The hon. gentleman speaks of an Act passed two or three or four years ago. There have been several Acts passed in that period of time, one was left to its operation and it came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a year ago. I would like my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) to be more precise and to specify which particular Act he refers to.


Robert Laird Borden: I am referring to the Acts which were disallowed ; I am trying to find out why they were disallowed. I am told by the right hon. gentleman that they were disallowed because they were considered not in accordance with Canadian interests and not in accordance with imperial interests. I discussed that matter very briefly. Then I was told by the Minister of Justice that they were considered ultra vires of the province of British Columbia.


Mr. RUSSELL.: And not in accordance with Canadian or imperial interests.


Robert Laird Borden: I will have my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Russell) to the rescue in a moment, but I hope he will pardon me until I finish and then I will give him an opportunity. Assuming now that they were disallowed on the ground that they were ultra vires, I want to know whether or not the province of British Columbia had an opportunity of having that question determined by the courts, and if not why it did not have that opportunity. I am told that it depends upon an opinion given by Sir Alexander Campbell in 1881. Well, Sir Alexander Campbell was not sitting as a court; Sir Alexander Campbell was Minister of Justice ; and the province of British Columbia if it is bound as my hon. friend the Minister of Justice seems to think it is bound by the decision of Sir Alexander Campbell in 1884, has had no opportunity of having the question settled by the courts. Therefore, I think that that advances the matter not very much further ; it still leaves it as it was before. If it be a fact, what is the reason that the province of British Columbia had not an opportunity of having this question determined by a proper court ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I thought I had made myself clear, but I wrill try once more to give the reason to my hon. friend. We considered first of all, that it was very doubtful whether or not it was within the power of the British Columbia legislature to enact such legislation. But, apart from that consideration, we had no doubt whatever that it was not in the interest of Canada. either from an imperial or Canadian standpoint. We did not give the opportu-

nity to the province to have the matter brought before the courts, because our conviction was too strong in that respect. From the days of Sir Alexander Campbell such legislation was thought to be contrary to imperial interests; we also thought it extremely contrary to the Interests of Canada; and for these two reasons we disallowed it. We intimated to the government of British Columbia that if their legislation had been confined to Chinese immigration and had exempted the Japanese, we would have left it. In the case of Japan, the Japanese government, acting from motives of friendship, has undertaken to prevent the emigration of Japanese to Canada, so that there was no reason for restriction on our part. But the Chinese government has never attempted to restrict or prevent Chinese emigration to Canada. That emigration is increasing; and, though in restricting it, we run the risk of injuring our trade with China, yet we felt that of two evils we should choose the less, and restrict the immigration even if it injured that trade. This is the reason we make the distinction between Chinese and Japanese immigration.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 think we have practically got back to the first ground again.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is the only ground.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice gave another ground.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, my hon. friend assumed that there was power.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Railways is now going to elucidate the situation. I regret that I require so much assistance ; I have no doubt it is my own fault. I will just make One or two further remarks in regard to what the right hon. gentleman has stated. It is from the standpoint of Canadian interests that this legislation was disallowed, I understand now.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Partially.


Robert Laird Borden: And for that reason the government were not willing to refer it to the courts.


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is one of the reasons.


Robert Laird Borden: Had it not been for that, I presume it would have been referred to the courts.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not say that at all.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend does not say yes or no to that. He has still some confidence in that opinion of Sir Alexander Campbell of 1884. I think, as the Minister of Justice stated frankly today, it ought to bo the rule, if a provincial government desires to have the question 20
of the validity of its statutes referred to the courts, it should be referred, unless some overpowering reason, apart from the question of ultra vires, makes it necessary that the Act should be disallowed. I think that would be in accord with the views expressed by my right hon. friend in the past with regard to provincial autonomy. Therefore I take for granted that the real reason which operated in the minds of the government in this case was the reason last assigned by my right hon. friend. Now, I would like to ask my right hon. friend in what respect he thought those statutes of the province of British Columbia conflicted with Canadian interests, and on what principle is it that a provincial legislature, being the only judge appointed by the constitution of matters which are within its competence should have its legislation overridden by the act of the executive at Ottawa.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I thought 1 had given that answer already at least four times ; but I am sorry to see that I have not made any impression on the mind of my hon. friend. I am afraid that whatever answer I give I shall not be any more successful. I would suggest, as the best way to get at a solution of the question, that he should move for the correspondence and the Act of disallowance, and he will find all the reasons tor our action.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: The absolute power of disallowance is given to us by the British North America Act when we choose to exercise it. It was held that this power should be exercised on some principle, and that principle is laid down in an Order in Council, in which the subjects, the reasons, and the distance we ought to go, are stated. Therefore I think the complete answer of the premier ought to be that we exercise that power in accordance with the British North America Act, and that the rules under which we exercise it arc laid down in an Order in Council.


Mr. PUTTEE.: As regards the Japanese, I wish to ask the right hon. first minister if any assurance has been sought or obtained that the action of the Japanese government, which was so timely so far as Canada is concerned, shall not be revoked.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No, we have no assurance to that effect.


Arthur W. Puttee: Does the right hon. gentleman not think it would be wise to get that assurance at this time, when there is no friction ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: So long as matters remain as they are, there is no necessity of invoking any trouble. Should the action of Japan be revoked, it would then be time for this government to take action.


Arthur W. Puttee: It seems to me it would be to late then. The commissioners re-



KEVI8ED EDITIOX COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
commend that assurance be sought from the Japanese government at this time. If they give an assurance that their action will not he revoked, it will he unnecessary to pass any legislation here; hut should they revoke their action, it would mean more agitation in this country, and perhaps more friction between this government and the imperial government, and Japan. All this could be avoided by getting an assurance from the Japanese government at this time, and I think it could be got if it were sought.
Mr. INGRAM.: If I remember rightly, a Bill was introduced last session to divide the capitation tax among the different provinces, I am not sure whether that is the law or not.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is the law.


Andrew B. Ingram: Now that it has been increased, is it still the intention of the government to divide it among the different provinces.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Certainly.


Mr. MORRISON.: I would like to ask the right hon. first minister, in the event of Japan receding from the position it has taken, say after the session of parliament, what machinery could be invoked to stop an influx of 8,000 or 9,000 Japs within a few weeks or months ? If that number were to go into British Columbia, it would have a most disastrous effect. It strikes me that before legislation could be passed, a great deal of harm would be done.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have to say to my hon. friend that he is contemplating a contingency which has not the slightest probability of taking place.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: It is not remote.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I consider it is not only remote but improbable, because all the negotiations we have had with the Japanese government-and our negotiations can only be through the Japanese Consul at Montreal-are of such a character as to assure us that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Japanese government of revoking its present orders with respect to emigration.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume this is the despatch to which the right hon. gentleman referred a moment ago. It is a despatch from the colonial office to the Governor General, dated 9th April, 1899. The first portion of the despatch up to and included in the 7th paragraph, is taken up with the reasons alleged against the passage of such legislation as was adopted by the British Columbia legislature. The 8th and 9th clauses are as follows :
8. Her Majesty's government earnestly trust that on consideration of these explanations the government of British Columbia will at once procure the repeal of the provisions complained Mr. PUTTEE.
of and the substitution of legislation on the lines indicated above.
9. If this is impossible, Her Majesty's government feel compelled, however reluctant they may be to cause inconvenience to the province, to press on your ministers the importance In the general interests of the empire of using the powers vested in them by the British North America Act, for cancelling these measures to which Her Majesty's government object on grounds both of principle and policy.
Is that the despatch to which the right hon. gentleman refers 1


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is.


Robert Laird Borden: That brings me to quote to my right hon. friend the language of one of the sections of the Natal Act:
The immigration into Natal, by land or sea, of any person of any of the classes defined in the following subsections, hereinafter called ' prohibited immigrants ' is prohibited namely :
Any person who, when asked to do so by an officer appointed under this Act, shall fail to write out and sign, in the characters of any language of Europe, an application to the colonial secretary in the form set out in schedule B to this Act.
This provision, it is needless to say, would absolutely prohibit any immigration from China or Japan into the colony of Natal. I think that provisions of a similar character have been passed by some of the Australian colonies. What I desire my right hon. friend to say is whether or not this legislation of British Columbia was disallowed in consequence of this despatch I have just read from the colonial office, and if so, in what respect was the legislation passed by the province of British Columbia more injurious to imperial interests than that passed and now in force in the colony of Natal ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have nothing to.add to what has been said. If ray hon. friend will move for the correspondence, he will there find the reasons given. I cannot say whether disallowance took place in consequence of this legislation, I do not think it did, but my hon. friend will find all the reasons set forth in the correspondence.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought everything was here that is of any importance.


The PRIME MINISTER.: With regard to the disallowance there is further correspondence, and I shall be very glad to take the opportunity of discussing the question from the standpoint of the disallowance of provincial legislation on some future occasion.
Progress reported.



EXPROPRIATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 8) to amend the Expropriation Act.-The Minister of Justice.
On section 2.
«13
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: When this Bill was last under consideration, it was suggested by the hon. member for Pictou (Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) that there was not sufficient provision made for the compensation of the owner of property who might have lost the opportunity of selling it to advantage through the fact that the government had given him notice of expropriation. In view of that objection, I decided to offer an amendment to section 3 of the Bill, which will make that section read as follows :
The fact of such abandonment or revestment shall be taken into account in connection with all the other circumstances of the case, in estimating or assessing the amount to be paid to any person claiming compensation for the land taken.
I put the objection raised to the deputy minister, who drafted the Act. He said that he thought the Act was broad enough to cover the case put by my hon. friend from Pictou, but in order to make the matter absolutely clear, I would move that after the word ' account ' in the second line of paragraph 3, the following words be inserted : ' in connection with all other circumstances of the case.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I would like to ask my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) whether he can quote any precedent for such legislation as this. I confess I cannot find any. The Crown assumes to take a man's property only temporarily, leaving him with a qualified interest at their sweet will, and they keep it or abandon it as they see fit. If you are going to adopt such a principle for the Crown, how are you going to prevent corporations and other institutions to which we are iu the habit of giving powers of expropriations claiming a similar power ? Surely my hon. friend must have some precedent, and is not going to take the responsibility of initiating a principle of this sort. It surely cannot be that the Crown, for ordinary public works-government railways or other such works though clothed with all the powers they now have, will demand something more than they are willing to grant to private interests similarly situated. I say it is a vicious and a wrong principle. If specific cases are to be dealt with, they can be shown and can always be dealt with by the Crown


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: How ?


David Tisdale: By a special Act or resolution. Why should parliament grant to the Crown powers that it will not grant to other institutions ? If my hon. friend has a precedent to quote, I will not say more at this time, for I do not wish to prolong the discussion. From the fact that he does not answer, I infer that he has no precedent for this measure. All the greater reason, then, why the dangerous character of this proposition should be pointed out.
20}
It is wrong in principle, especially wrong in view of the fact that the Crown has so many rights against the owners of property beyond what private individuals have against each other. And it is especially dangerous, because if you enact such a Bill, you establish a precedent in the case of the Crown for which corporations will clamour, and which you will find it difficult to deny them. Suppose that I am the owner of property, and the Crown wants that property. They have the same right to take it for the public service that a corporation would have. But the Crown say : We are not satisfied with that, we want to introduce a new principle ; we want to take your property for a time. But is it not plain that this involves the impossible proposition of making a fair comprehension of damages for the future ? It is impossible to foresee what the effect will be upon my rights in the property. It is contrary to all business principles. The law of damages is well understood. One must show direct damages, or he cannot claim compensation. This Bill involves a dangerous innovation upon an immemorial right, a right which is embodied in the old saying that a man who is in his house is in his castle. It is contrary to those rights of property which were particularly impressed upon me in my legal education, when it was made clear that the rights of property were the rights of individuals, and were the most sacred things that the law deals with, next only to personal liberty. Many wars have been waged to compel the recognition of these rights in the subject as against the Crown. Yet, here in this advanced age of the world and of legislation, we are to have a principle embodied in our laws for which there is no precedent-or if there were I would say it was a dangerous precedent, and it would be well	to be careful how
we acted upon it.	Why cannot the
Crown buy a man's property if they want it, and, if they cease to want it, sell it ? I can get a jury of my countrymen or a board of arbitrators to fairly say what my property is worth. I would not sit on an arbitration-and I am no prude and no poser-between the Crown and an Individual to say what was fair in the cases to be brought up under this Bill. I could not assess the damages fairly without knowing the future. It is so simple to me, the case is so unanswerable, the wrong is so patent, that I am bound to protest as strongly as I feel. Here is my farm, or my house, and you want to take it for public purposes. You can find plenty of men to say what is the value of the property. If you want it you can pay me for it as the governing authority in any free country does when it takes the property of an individual. But to say that the Crown may take a man's property and not pay for it is to attribute to the Crown a power against which the barons of England stood out firmly in

Magna Charta days. Under the existing law, which nobody finds fault with, you may take my farm and pay me for it; and when you are done with it you can sell it to some one else. But X deny that you have the right to take it from me for the time and hand it back to me when you please. It is impossible to say what compensation I should have in that case, for it is a question of the future and there is only one Being, and he is not in this world, who knows the future. This is a clear invasion of the individual rights of property. Then there is the other consideration, and second in importance only to the first-that, if parliament confers this right upon the Crown, this right of qualified expropriation, the corporations will demand the same, and trouble will commence the end of which no man can foresee. Do allow my protest to have some effect and go no further with legislation involving so vicious a principle and likely to arouse so undesirable a feeling.


Mr. HUGHES (North Victoria).: X would ask the hon. minister what necessity there is for passing this Bill ? Have any cases arisen which seem to make such a law as this necessary ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend from South Norfolk (Hon. Miv Tisdale) has spoken with a great deal of feeling. I apprehend that he has convinced himself that a grievous wrong would be perpetrated and some very obnoxious infraction of principle or some great iniquity result if this Bill should become law. My hon. friend must have been dwelling upon this until it has assumed a much greater magnitude and importance in his mind than the facts would justify. There is nothing alarming about the proposition which my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) has embodied in this Bill. There is nothing strange, there is nothing unusual about it. It is simply a moderate and reasonable extension of a principle already recognized, and which is practiced every day of our life. That principle is that whatever individual interests may be, they should be subordinate to the public requirements, awarding every possible compensation to the individual who may have suffered pecuniary injury. Now this Bill surely makes ample provisions for compensation to the man who is injured; and if it appears that in the public interest either the whole or the part of any man's property must be taken for public purposes, we provide that he shall be compensated therefor. Now my hon. friend seems to think that there is something outrageously wrong in the idea of expropriation itself ?


John Graham Haggart: No, I qualified it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not proposing to give power to any railway company by this legislation ; we are only proposing to give to the


David Tisdale: Crown power to make a qualified expropriation, just as you do when you give to a railway company power to take a portion of a man's farm, or to run through the middle of his farm. This legislation is qualified in the same way. My hon. friend thinks that we must not touch a man's property, that we must not even touch the hem of his property, unless we take the whole of it.


David Tisdale: No, I made no such argument.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am not professing to give his exact words, but in effect he argued as I have stated. It is no more a qualified expropriation to take part of a man's property, or to take it for a limited time, than it is to take it for all time. I, fail to see wherein the principle is different. As I tried to argue the other day, unless hon. members are of opinion that it is wholly impossible for any tribunal to make a just estimate of the amount of compensation a man ought to receive when you take a limited interest in his property, unless you are driven to that conclusion, there is nothing wrong in this Bill, because if you give him full and ample compensation what more can he expect ? It is not a desirable thing, I admit, to take a man's property away from him against his will. I do not like to do that any more than anybody else, but that principle is so imbedded in our law and jurisprudence, in our whole system of government, that it is altogether too late in the day to complain about it. You do it everywhere. You give that power to every kind of a public organization; you give it to cities and towns, to expropriate lands for the purpose of parks, groves and gardens. My hon. friend goes back to Magna Charta. Well, we are doing lots of things to-day that were not done in the days of Magna Charta.


Mr. CLANCY.: Is the question of limited expropriation a settled principle in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not exactly know what my hon. friend means, but if he means to ask if there is any established law to authorize it in Canada, I say there is not, certainly not as respects Dominion public works, because we have advanced beyond the conditions out of which grew the existing legislation, and we have advanced to a period when the extent and magnitude of our public works make it necessary that the Crown should be Invested with some additional power in order that these public works may be carried on at the least cost to the country.


James Clancy: The reason I asked the question was that the hon. gentleman based his whole argument upon the other principle, something that Is now In existence in' Canada, and well understood, namely, that pri-

vate interests must yield to public interests, under a general expropriation system as practised in Canada. Tlie bon. gentleman was basing his argument upon that, al-tho"ugh in his Bill he provides for a different state of things, namely, limited expropriation.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I take exception to the hon. gentleman's statement that this is the adoption of a new principle. It is not. The principle is the principle of expropriation, of giving power to the government to take a man's property for its use. Now, it is a mere extension, a mere enlargement, to say that when you require a man's property, if you do not require it all, or only require it for a limited time, you may make a limited use of that property. That is not the adoption of a new principle at all. He is mistaking the enlargement and extension in a moderate way of a principle for the principle itself. The principle is already laid down and established. Everybody admits that it would be impossible to carry on the government if you did not have that power. Therefore no one ought to oppose the provisions of this Bill unless he strikes out the basic principle itself. Now my hon. friend says that in the prosecution of public works it is often found in Canada wholly unnecessary to take the whole of a man's property or to take it permanently; all that is necessary in any instance is to take only a part of it, and for a limited period. Now upon what ground is it contended that while you can take the whole of a man's property for all time, you cannot take a portion of that property for a part of the time, even though you make him ample compensation.


James Clancy: The difference between the hon. gentleman and myself is not whether he should take the property, but the difficulty is to provide means by which a proper compensation would be given in each case.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friends have to admit that they are here. Is it Impossible, or is it improbable that the courts of the country cannot have such evidence and assistance given to them by the parties who are concerned in showing the value of an interest which has been taken as will enable them to name the sum which will safely and surely be sufficient compensation for the interest in the property taken 1 Take the case of any property that the Crown may want to occupy for four or five years. Take a farm ; if my hon. friend has a farm, or a dwelling house, if my hon. friend has a dwelling house, which the Crown would require to use for five or ten years-does he argue against the Bill upon the assumption that it would be impossible for any tribunal to say what the use and occupation of that farm for ten years would
be, or to arrive at the amount of compensation that he should receive for taking the property away from him during that time ?


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman seems to be reasoning backwards. He is putting up a case and he is asking :	Would any
person suppose it is possible to arrive at a fair compensation ? What we say is, that it should be reasonably possible to arrive at a fair consideration.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Why can you not be reasonably positive ? If you cannot be reasonably positive there is a difficulty as to the value, the price, or the accurate amount which a man ought to get, but there is not a tribunal which would deal with such a case, or which would be called upon to adjudicate upon It, which would not allow ample latitude so as to cover any possible contingency. We know that in our experience-the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) doubtless knows as the result of his experience in the department which he presided over for a number of years-that the Crown invariably gets the worst of it in all these cases. This has been referred to by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale). He knows that the disposition of every tribunal is to give to the individual claimant the benefit of every doubt, and to give against the government every advantage which it can give to the other side.


John Graham Haggart: We are not debating the question as to how the Crown is used, or whether it has been obliged to pay greater damages to individuals than it should have paid. It is the clause which is immediately before us that we are discussing. The question is :	What is the meaning of
the clause which is immediately before us 1 The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals asks if the court cannot fix the amount of the remuneration for a limited estate in any property. They can. They can describe a limited interest just as well as they can the value of a complete expropriation, but how are they to arrive at the compensation when the hon. Minister of Justice says that the Crown may use a property for one, two, or three years before payment of the compensation may take place !


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You have to name the time during which you require to use the property.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: You have to put that in the notice of expropriation.


John Graham Haggart: I am dealing with the clause immediately before us, and you have not to do anything of the kind. I will ask the hon. Minister of Justice if notice has been served at the present moment in regard to any land intended to be expropriated, and on which the amount of compensation for the expropriation is not paid, would not that clause apply in such a case ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You have to state just what term you want the property for; and you have to estimate the damage.


John Graham Haggart: I am asking the questions of the hon. Minister of Justice. If notice is given of the expropriation of any property that the Crown is in possession of at the present moment and has not paid the amount of the expropriation, if this clause passes, cannot you abandon the land, get the compensation fixed, and compel the owner to take the land back again ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Why should he not ?


John Graham Haggart: The difference between the two ministers is this : The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says the amount is to be fixed at first-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He never said anything of the kind.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART-before the partial interest in the limited estate is taken. There is a difference as I understand it between these two hon. gentlemen.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not if we are understood. We both say the same thing.


John Graham Haggart: I will admit for argument that if you fix the limited estate at first, or the interest in the land to be expropriated, if you fix it in your notice and serve it upon the party whom you take the land from, you can fix its value, but this clause goes a great deal farther than that. It goes so far that you can serve notice on the man whose land is to be expropriated, you need not pay him the amount of the expropriation, or any money, for the user of it till the time expires, and when the time expires you can fix the amount of the expropriation, or get the arbitration to fix the amount which is to be paid to the man for the mser, and the clause gives you power to do so and to hand back the land. Another reason why we object to a Bill such as this is, that it will have an ex post facto effect. It applies to lands which are at present under process of expropriation. Does it not do so ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It has no retroactive effect at all.
and to lands of which the Crown is at present exercising the user, or using the lands at the present moment, because the parties have not been able to settle with the Crown or to get their claims settled. By this plan the government will be able to say :	We
have used your property as long as we like, we will leave it to the court to fix the value of the expropriation for the user, and we will hand you back your property. This can be done under this Bill if it becomes law. I agree with my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) that there is no justification for any such action as that. There is no justification for the Crown, or any individual, taking from a person who owns a property a partial interest in the property for a small number of years. The law of eminent domain should apply solely to the absolute taking of the property, and as my hon. friend says, when you have taken a property for public purposes and when there is no more use for it for public purposes, you ought to put it up to auction and give it to the highest bidder. That is the only honest, fair way of doing. This is new legislation as the hon. Minister of Justice himself admits. He cannot show a precedent in any other country in the world for it. He knows it is the exercise of a right which is an extreme right. The taking of property from an individual is a right which most countries do not allow the government to exercise except under the strictest conditions, such as are provided, for instance, in the constitution of the United States. It is not for the state to determine, nor for the federal government to determine the reasons for which they may exercise the right of eminent domain ; it is fixed in the constitution. But here is an extreme right of absolutely taking property where it is necessary in the public interest, and when you have no further use you can sell it or give it back. I am afraid that under the law this right may be exercised in connection with suits which are pending.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


John Graham Haggart: If such be the case I object to the principle of the thing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As to the retroactivity of the law, I will take the opinion of the leader of the opposition, as to whether it is retroactive or not.


John Graham Haggart: Does it not apply to lands on which the government are at present working, and in regard to which they have not paid the amount of the expropriation ? Are there not hundreds of cases at present in the department that the Bill applies to where the Crown is in pos-ession of the land ? Certainly there are, and this Bill applies to them. It is intended to apply to them. It is intended to apply to some difficult eases of expropriation perhaps running, not for months, but for years, Hon, Mr. HAGGART.


Robert Laird Borden: If there are cases in the department where land has been expropriated and the compensation money not paid ; the statute would seem to have the effect which the ex-Minister of Railways states.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) say that.


Robert Laird Borden: It is at least open to question whether the language is not sufficiently comprehensive for that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If there is any doubt on the subject I will insert language that will remove that doubt.


Robert Laird Borden: That is perfectly fair. In this country, as in all other countries we have the power to take a man's land against his will because sometimes it is in the public interest to do so. It is an invasion of private rights and it is desirable it should be made as little oppressive as possible. The argument from this side is that you are making this more oppressive when you introduce complications of this kind. The Minister of Justice knows, that when the Minister of Railways talks about a tribunal absolutely determining the amount of compensation for land ; he does not mean that any tribunal can absolutely determine that with anything like certainty. What is the usual practice ? A number of expert witnesses, perhaps fifteen or twenty, are called on each side-in one province, I believe, the number has been reduced to five -and they give varying estimates as to value. In one case in which I was concerned the estimated value of a piece of land expropriated by the Crown varied from $15,000 to $90,000. The tribunal in the end must simply make a guess, and the objection to this legislation is that you are making the guess much more difficult, and you are imposing upon the owner of the land the duty of proving what his damages are.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think the burden of proof is on the expropriated party.


Robert Laird Borden: In an ordinary case in the Exchequer Court the proceeding is this :	The Crown proves that it has
taken the land and the party proves in the first place the amount of damages and the Crown gives evidence in rebuttal. That is the practice in the Exchequer Court in all cases in which I have been concerned.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The origin of the proceeding is notice, and the deposit of a certain amount.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Then the party to whom the money is offered determines whether or not he accepts, and if he declines the proceeding is taken in the Exchequer Court, and a deposit is made and the question is whether the amount is sufficient or not.


Robert Laird Borden: That is part of the issue ; but the real issue is : What is the value of the land. The expropriated party must prove the value of his land, and it comes to what I said at first. If he agrees to what the Crown offers of course there is no litigation, but if he does not agree the burden of proof as to value is upon him. Thus you are imposing a burden upon the claimant and you are making it much more difficult to determine the compensation. Is
it desirable in the public interest that that should be done. At present the court makes a mere guess formed upon the opinions of people who come to court and say : This land is worth so much or the detriment to this land by reason of taking part of it is so much. You might get a very extreme case under the provisions of this statute, and
1	would invite the attention of the Minister of Justice to a case of this kind. Suppose you take ninety feet from the middle of a farm to build a railway, and the owner sells the balance of his farm. After you have had that land for some time you come to the conclusion that you do not require it, and you file a document under section
2	of this Bill stating that you desire only a limited interest, namely, that you desire that land from the period of time which has elapsed from the time it was first taken up to the filing of the notice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That must be done at the inception. You must bear in mind that the preceding section is the origin of the proceeding.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the Minister of Justice mean that this section only applies to land taken for a limited interest in the first place. This section is general, is it not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is general in the first part ; in the second part it is limited.


Robert Laird Borden: The second part seems to make provision that the Crown may retrace its steps and say that land taken absolutely in the first instance should only be taken for a limited interest. Am I correct in that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, before the compensation money is actually paid.


Robert Laird Borden: I guarded myself in that. Then it is general in its terms. The Crown may file such a document as I mentioned, the result being that a piece of land ninety feet wide through that farm is handed back to the original owner who sold the rest of the farm, and the burden is cast upon him of determining what compensation shall be paid by the Crown to him for that:	Is not that a rather complicated
position, and is it desirable in the public interest that an obligation of that kind- and I have mentioned only one case out of hundreds that may arise-should be imposed on the property owners of this country. As has been said, the Crown has the remedy in its own hands. It takes a piece of property ; let it take it absolutely ; if it finds out afterwards that it does not need the whole of that property ; if it finds it only needs it for a limited interest; let it retain that interest and sell the balance of the property and every one's right is preserved by that. Is the Minister of Justice

familiar with the Land Clauses Act in Eagland-I have no doubt he is. And is it not a fact that courts iu England under that Act have the power of determining whether or not the whole of a man's land shall be taken where part is taken in the first instance. I have not refreshed my memory by recent examination, but I think there is some provision of that kind in the Land Clauses Act-does the Minister of Justice think there is not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No. I would not care to say anything about the Act. unless I had it before my eyes.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice is quite right iu regard to that, but I thought that perhaps in connection with these matters he would have frequent occasions to refer to that Act. That English law would seem more in consonance with what we should do. I think you are going far enough when you take part of a man's land, leaving on him to prove not only the value of the land, but the damage which is done by severance as it is called iu England-when you go beyond that, and take a man's land absolutely in the first place, or take it for a limited interest at first and hand back to him a portion of that limited interest, and in every case impose upon him the duty of proving his damages, it seems to me you are going very far and passing legislation for which there is no precedent.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Notwithstanding what the hon. Minister of Railways says, I think there is a very marked distinction between the powers given here and the powers given under an expropriation Act. The powers given here are the powers of expropriating an option, not buying the property. The government under this clause may virtually get an option on a quarry, hold it, and by increasing the amount they require from time to time, practically continue to hold that option on it for all time. Look at the power this would give, say the Minister of Railways. Suppose you have a contract to let in connection with railway bridges or canals, requiring a large amount of stone. The minister advertises for tenders. Say there are two tenderers. One man looks about, for a stone quarry. The other man, who is a friend of the government, has the promise of the minister that they will expropriate a quarry. That is open to happen under this Act. It puts a power into the hands of the government which might lead to corruption at any future time. It practically allows you to take a man's property and tie it up for an indefinite period; and in the end the government will only pay for the comparatively small amount that they use, or perhaps they will not use any at all. This is a power that should not be possessed by any government or corporation. It might lead to serious abuse, and probably would, if any contractors Mr. BORDEN f Halifax).
knew that the government had such power when they were tendering for a contract.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am at a loss to understand how it is that my hon. friend, when he enters into the discussion of any Bill or proposal emanating from the government, absolutely takes leave of his ordinary good, sound judgment and sense. It is the wildest distortion of language for my hon. friend to say that this Bill authorizes the Crown to take an option for an indefinite period on a man's property. What is the use of trying , to conduct an argument in such a fashion ?' Is he going to ask parliament to condemn this Bill because he asserts that the government are asking power to take an option on a man's property for an indefinite period ? I am amazed to hear my hon. friend address an argument of that kind to this committee. There is not the word option in the Bill from beginning to end. The very moment the notice is given, the property is vested in the Crown, and the moment the Crown takes charge of the property it has to pay for it. It has to pay for just what interest it declares it is taking ; and there cannot be any indefiniteness in it, because the notice must say what interest it is taking, and Cor what period its interest must go.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Let me ask the minister a question. Assuming that the Crown has served notice on the owner of a quarry adjoining a public work, and the government contractors are working on that quarry ; while they are working there, the quarry man cannot work. As I read this Bill, if the government expropriated a small amount of that quarry and used it for six months, they would have the power to expropriate a further amount for the next six months; and in that way they would be getting an option on the quarry ns fully as if it were in writing under seal of the government, and signed. No one else could work that quarry so long as the government were working it. Therefore, as a matter of fact, this Bill gives the government power to expropriate an option on a man's lot. Whether I am legally right or not, I am right technically, as to the effect of the Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has arrived at that conclusion without the slightest data, foundation or authority.


Edmund Boyd Osler: May I ask the minister to answer my question, whether the govern ment under this Bill has the right to expropriate more than once on the same property ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think probably the government would have the right to expropriate for a further period, but it would have no more right to make the second expropria-

tion than it had the first; and if any man is working in the quarry at the time the expropriation takes place, he will get his compensation. Every time an expropriation was repeat^, it would be dealt with as a distinct and separate expropriation, and compensation would have to he awarded in respect of it. I say it is not a fair way to discuss the Bill at all. The Bill is plain, easily understood, and capable of oeing easily worked. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition saw a difficulty in determining as to the mode of doing justice to a man whose property had been cut in two by a right of way being taken or the construction of a railway. After that was done, the land might be turned back to the owner; but in the meantime lie might have sold the rest of his land, and that part would be of no value to him. If my hon. friend had read the section, he would have seen that that is a question that would have to be dealt with by a court.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUI  TER@: No.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, it would undoubtedly, and I will point out the reason why. After the expropriation notice is given, some little time must elapse before it would get to the tribunal. At all events before payment is made-and I presume that would have reference necessarily to the payment the Crown would offer in respect of their valuation- they would have to declare whether or not they were going to retain the whole or surrender any portion of the property. If they were going to surrender any portion, then the Act provides that sucl; abandonment shall be taken into account by the court, in assessing the amount to be paid as compensation for the land taken.


Robert Laird Borden: What would the claimant have to go into in the case I have suggested; in order to prove his claim ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: He would simply have to show that after these proceedings had been taken for expropriation, under which his property had been cut in two, he had parted with his interest in the property. Would it not be perfectly apparent to any court that to throw back on his hands ninety feet or whatever might be the extent of the right of way, would be the throwing back of property on his hands which would be of no value, and the court would have to take that fact into account ? He cannot suppose that any court could view the matter in any other light.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Suppose he did not sell his land until after the court had assessed the damage ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is not the case my bon. friend presents. If he had not sold his land, he would be getting it back just as it was originally, and there would be no strip
or right of way cut through his entire property.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend thinks he has settled the matter most satisfactorily. He says that in the case cited there would not be the slightest difficulty because the land handed back would have no value whatever. That would absolutely depend on the circumstances. I will tell him one case in which it might have a great deal of value. Suppose the land had been laid out in lots and a populous settlement created and a street laid out immediately along the line of the ninety feet taken ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It would depend upon circumstances.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It would depend upon the facts and it is for the courts to determine the meaning and effect of those facts.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and I am pointing out that the provision of this statute imposes. an oppressive burden on the claimant in proving his case.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is there any more difficulty in determining what the value of a two or three year's user of a man's property is than in determining the value of the whole property ?


Robert Laird Borden: Take the case I have referred to. What you would have to do would be to prove in the first place what damage was occasioned to the man who continued to own the farm. Then you would be met with the difficulty that the land was handed back to him after it had ceased to be of as much value as it would be if he had retained it. I would like to point out that sections 92, 93 and 94 of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act of the United Kingdom provide that in certain cases the whole of the land must be taken and a part cannot be taken.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Where a man is injuriously affected.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a different thing altogether.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: You would not take the land that was not affected by the appropriation at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that my hon. friend is possibly confusing two things. In England if you do not take any portion of a man's land at all, although his land may have been injuriously affected by your expropriation of adjoining property, the general rule is that he cannot recover damage.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the law! in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: But if you do take a portion of his land, you must con-

sider the injurious effect which that has on the remaining portion. If you take a portion of his land and leave only a certain portion on either side, the owner can call on you to take the whole property and give you a counter notice. I merely bring this to the notice of the Minister of Justice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is practically the same with us.


Robert Laird Borden: The power of expropriation should not be oppressively exercised.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Are these clauses to which the bon. gentleman is referring in the Consolidation Act of the United Kingdom, not limited to the cases of expropriation cases by railway companies ? The Crown is not included within the provisions of this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: What is a good principle in a case of expropriation by the Crown should be a good principle in the case of expropriation by an ordinary railway company ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know about that because the great public interests of the country are concerned in the one case in our not paying any unnecessary moneyi for the user we want. But in the other case, it is only the particular interest of a private company which is involved.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not the interests of a private company at all, but the public interest in every case, which is considered.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Minister of Justice referred me to my leader as to the interpretation of the clause we are considering-as to whether it had a retroactive effect and affected lis pendens. Let me give an illustration which I have received in a letter complaining particularly about this Act, and in which the opinion of a leading lawyer is given with reference to this particular clause.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the Peterborough case.
Hon. Mi-. HAGGART. Yes. In 1865 the government expropriated land at Lakefield. for the Trent canal. The land belonged to one John Hull, and was attached to a flour mill worth some $30,000. The land was taken on which were the store houses, sheds and other appurtenances of the mill. In this letter, after describing the litigation, the writer proceeds to say that the government has brought in this measure apparently with the view of defeating Hull, not on the merits, but by an Act of parliament of their own passing, while the case Is pending in appeal. The solicitor of Mr. Hull thinks that this Bill is intended to apply to Mr. Hull's case, litigation in which has been going on since 1865 to the present day.


Robert Laird Borden: While this Bill would not apply to actions settled, it certainly applies to action pending.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have read the letter to which my hon. friend refers and my opinion is not in any way affected by what the learned gentleman says. If the case of Hull is not proceeded with, the writer of that letter may probably inform my hon. friend the reason why. It is not due to any fault of the Crown. And, in any event, I give it as my opinion that there can be no doubt about it that this law will not have a retroactive effect. Legislation of this sort has never had such an effect. But, if there is any question about it, I am prepared to make it absolutely clear. There is no intention to make this Bill applicable to pending cases. When the Bill was introduced before.


John Graham Haggart: That is what r said-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When the Bill was introduced before, the hon. gentleman will see it was made applicable to pending cases, and it was largely because of that it was rejected by the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope the hon. gentleman does not mean that I said that this was retroactive in the ordinary sense. But if the Crown should file a document creating a limited interest in a man's property-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I seethe hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is wavering between his reputation as a lawyer and his desire to come to the assistance of his friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart).


Robert Laird Borden: By no means.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am willing to set the question at rest by accepting an amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: I will ask the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick's) opinion-as he seems to want opinions-on one point. Does he mean to say that it is plain that if the Crown file, under the provisions of the section, a document stating that it will take only a limited interest-
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE No.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I am talking about, and that is the case the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) was putting. I confined my remarks to that. I am prepared to stand by that and to say that it is open to serious question. It is not a desire to support my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) in an indefensible position that leads me to say this, but because I believe there is a grave question about it.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: The observations of the Hon. Minister of Rail-

ways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) seem to confirm the view I touched upon when this Bill was before the committee osi the lust occasion. That hon. gentleman hesitates to say that this would be a safe power to give to private corporations and draws a distinction between the exercise of this power by such corporation's and by the government. That hesitancy seems to confirm my idea for there being no similar provision in the legislation of other portions of the empire. I understand that it is conceded that this is a unique piece of legislation ; and I suggest for the consideration of the committee that the reason it does not obtain elsewhere is not merely that it is a dangerous and unfair power to put into the hands of a private corporation, but that it is an equally unfair and dangerous power to put into the hands of the government. To illustrate, let us apply the principle as in the case that the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) stated the other day when he was explaining the measure. Suppose the government want the temporary use of land for the erection of derricks in connection with the public works, and they want to get that right from the owner at a reasonable price.
They do not want to pay the amount that would be involved in taking the title in fee. Therefore, some such legislation as this is deemed desirable. It is desirable from the point of view of the government, there can be no doubt about that, for it will enable them to get what they want at a cheap rate. But there is something to be said also from the point of view of the owner of the property, and it is because of that, I believe, that other legislatures hesitate before passing such a law as this. The result of the Bill will be that the government can drive a hard and small bargain every time it wishes to use the land of a private owner for temporary purposes. They can get the use of the land at, perhaps, $150 or $300 less than the real value. And for this reason-the owner, let us say is a farmer ; he has a strong belief that the temporary use of his property is worth a certain sum, but he is face to face with the fact that he may be drawn into a contest with the government, and must retain counsel and be put to expense. He may be well advised by cautious counsel that, though there is good reason to believe he is entitled to so many hundred dollars, it is impossible to say what the tribunal will fix, for the evidence has to be threshed out, and if he appeals, be will be mulct in costs as a result of the contest with the government. The result may be that he will sacrifice so many hundred dollars, as represented by the Minister of Justice, and will accept the proposition of the government. I do not think that is putting it as an extreme view, as in the ordinary run of cases, that would be the result.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Assume that the case is one of the permanent expropriation of property.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: There is always the difference in value-in that case you get into bigger figures. As I understand, the hon. minister based his plea on the fact that he is dealing with insignificant figures and does not want to pay a big sum. The smaller the amount involved the less likely the individual will be to engage in a contest with the government. It may be an evil that the government cannot drive a cheap bargain when it wants to, but the very fact that the government hesitates to give this power to private corporations is good reason why we should hesitate to give it to the government, as it may be a detriment to the farmer.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see the force of that argument-that because some hesitation is felt in giving this power to railway corporations, therefore, parliament cannot safely confer it upon the government. It seems to me the arguments would be all the other way. Parliament can safely confer this power upon the government, but we may well pause and consider very carefully whether we should give the same power to railway companies. The argument of my hon. friend (Sir Charles Hibbert Tup-per) is against all expropriations where only small values are involved. It would apply to every case of expropriation in which the value did not represent such an amount as would make it worth while to the owner to employ counsel. We are expropriating small properties every day in the week.
At six o'clock, the House took recess. After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MacKINNON moved the second reading of Bill (No. 26) to incorporate the Winding Ledges Power and Boom Company.-Mr. Costigan.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it the pleasure of the House that this Bill be read the second time, and that it be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills ?


John Costigan: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Bill should go in the usual way to the Committee on Railways and Canals, where all similar Bills have, up to the present, gone. I merely make the suggestion as I know that Bills of that character have heretofore gone to this committee.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Has it been the practice to refer Bills of this nature to the Railway and Canals Committee ? There can be no objection, but I do not think it is* the custom.


John Costigan: I am only speaking from what I understand has been the practice. I know that the Bill of the Grand Falls Power Company, asking the right to build a dam and to construct booms at Grand Falls was sent to the Committee on Railways and Canals and that when an extension of power was asked by the company the Bill went to that same committee which discussed it very fully. These Bills asking for certain powers under the Railway Act have always gone to that committee, I know.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask if this is the Bill a very large deputation is coming from New Brunswick to oppose ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I object to the Bill going through until it is printed in English and French.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We established the rule last year in regard to Private Bills that if they are not printed in French and if there is an objection to their being proceeded with, we must observe the rule requiring them to stand. In regard to this Bill the point of order is well taken. The Bill stands.
Order allowed to stand.



THE ATLANTIC AND LAKE SUPERIOR RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for :
Second reading of Bill (No. 36) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company. -Mr. Ball.
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prfifontaine).: Mr. Speaker, I object to this Bill as it has not been printed in French.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Stands.
Order allowed to stand.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 25) respecting the Eastern Townships Bank.-Mr. McIntosh.
Bill (No. 27) respecting the Canada National Railway and Transport Company.- Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 28) respecting the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Lemieux.
Bill (No. 29) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Geof-frlon.
Bill (No. 30) to incorporate the Federal Oil Company.-Mr. Belcourt.
John Costigan: Bill (No. 31) respecting the Canadian Order of the Woodmen of the World.-Mr. Calvert.
Billi (No. 32) to incoiTJorate the Dominion Institute of Amalgamated Engineering.-Mr. Morrison".
Bill (No. 33) to incorporate the Kootenay, Cariboo and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 34) to incorporate the Edmonton and Peace River Railway Qpmpanv.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 35) to incorporate the Coast Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. Macpherson.



EXPROPRIATION ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 8) to amend the Expropriation Act.-The Minister of Justice.
On section 2,
Mr. RICHARDSON.: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with very close attention this afternoon to the debate which was very largely confined to the legal gentlemen in this House. It had more the character of a legal argument than that of an ordinary parliamentary debate, and I may feel some little fear of being classed with those individuals who sometimes step in where angels fear to tread in venturing upon a legal argument. However, I paid as close attention as I could and listened very closely for one argument which I thought was very esseutial to be advanced by the promoters of this Bill, and which I listened for in vain and that was the reason why legislation of this character was called for, to what extent, where and when the public interests had been so seriously prejudiced for lack of the extension of the expropriation powers which are asked for in this Bill. It is true that the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) presented a very strong, voluble and vigorous argument in defence of the powers of expropriation exercised by the government, a principle that is conceded and which is weli understood in this country, one that we all understand to be the law of the Country and which we believe is a very great concession by the people who are willing to subserve their own private interests for the public welfare, and I think the sense of the House will concede that this ought to be enough, that it is sufficient and ought to be sufficient and as much as should be asked for by this government or any government. But, when they are asked to make such a large extension of it as is asked for in this Bill, we must call a halt and we must call upon ourselves and the government to step cautiously and carefully before arousing a strong public sentiment, a public prejudice in a matter of this kind. I said just now that we conceded the right of the government to expropriate property if the public interest demands it, but so far the promoters of this Bill have failed to show to any extent

that the public interests are prejudiced for lack of this extension of the expropriation powers. During this afternoon the Minister of Railways repudiated the expression used by my hon. friend from Toronto with respect to the term ' option,' saying that the government were asking for power to expropriate options on private property. One of the strong arguments that he used was that the word ' option ' did not occur in the Bill. Now, I am not a lawyer, and may not understand an argument of this kind, but it seems to me there was no necessity for using the word * option ' in order to express the principle. If I offer to my neighbour a piece of property and say : ' You may have this property for a certain sum of money any time within the next thirty days.' I do not think it is necessary for me to put into that offer the word ' option ' in order to convey the idea that it is essentially an option that has been given to him. There is nothing in the position taken by the Minister of Railways that the power of expropriating options in private property is not contained in the Bill, because the Bill certainly does contain that principle.
Now, as I have already said, the hon. gentleman and his friends have failed to show to what extent, if any, the public interests are prejudiced by the lack of these extended powers. I think this proposition is a very serious invasion of private rights, and one that is likely, if put into practice, to lead to interminable litigation, vexatious in character and unsatisfactory to the public at large. More than that, it is one that is capable of very extensive abuse by the agents of any government that may be in power. I think it has been clearly established during this debate that the public interests are very well served and protected by the law as it now stands, and that the invasion of private rights to any further extent in this direction would arouse a good deal of feeling in this country. If it became known that any man's farm, any man's homestead, whether in town or country, was liable to be invaded in consequence of this Bill, certainly it would arouse a grave feeling of disquiet, anu create uncertainty in the tenure of real estate of any kind. All the requirements of the public interest are sufficiently served by the law we now have. It does appear to some persons that this Bill is not being promoted in the public interest, but it is brought in to benefit some private individuals, and the promoters of the Bill have not had sufficient candour to state their object plainly to the House. But if such is not the object, I see no sufficient reason in the public interest to grant these extended powers to the government that are asked for in this Bill.
3. The fact of such abandonment or revesting should he taken Into account in estimating or assessing the amount to he paid to any person claiming compensation for the land taken.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved to insert after the word ' account ' the words ' in connection with the other circumstances of the case.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved that another clause be added as clause 6, to read as follows :
That nothing herein contained should affect any pending interest or claim.
He said : This is to make it absolutely clear that the Bill will not be retroactive, as I promised to do before recess.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved :
That Bill (No. 7) to amend chapter 138 of the revised statutes with respect to retiring allowances of judges be dropped from the order paper.
He said :	It is intended to bring this
Bill up in another form.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 11) to amend the Act respecting the publication of the statutes (the Minister of Justice), read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On Section 1.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Under the law as it exists, when you apply for a copy of a Bill to the clerk of parliament, you are obliged to pay 10 cents per folio of 100 words. In the case of a long Bill like the Bill to amend the Railway Act, or the Criminal Code, this charge becomes excessive. The amendment provides that after you pay $2 to the clerk for his certificate, then yon have to pay the actual cost of printing and no more.


Mr. SPROULE.: Will there be any saving in the case of short Bills when you have to pay the $2 anyway.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This Bill is introduced at the suggestion of the clerk himself, who finds that the charge has been excessive, and that many persons who apply for Bills have complained.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I always thought that when the Bill was signed by the King's printer there could be no stronger certificate as to its accuracy.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The law is that you have to apply to the clerk for a certificate that that is the Bill introduced 1 which was in parliament.

635


Mr. LANCASTER.: It could be left optional with the applicant whether he wanted the certificate or not.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are dozens of Bills that can be had for nothing, but it is only in case he requires the certificate of the clerk that he pays for it. The law is so very old that I do not wish to change it.
Bill reported ; read the third time and passed.



DOMINION CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 13) to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. He said : This is intended merely to arrange for the place of trial. At the present time the trial of an election petition may take place either in the electoral district in which it arises or in the chef-lieu of the district or vice versa, and there are times when that may become convenient. The second amendment proposes that the judges shall have the right to issue a bench warrant for a witness to appear. At the present time the only proceeding is by way of contempt and it is very unsatisfactory. What is wanted is that the witness should be compelled to attend.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill.
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to study this Bill a little before it goes through the committee stage. Has there been any suggestion from the judges with regard to this.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes ; from the chief justice of Manitoba. It is for the convenience of the judges and the witnesses. It enables the judges to move to where the witnesses are instead of bringing the witnesses to the place provided for the trial at present.


Robert Laird Borden: I realize the force of that, but I wish an opportunity to consider whether it may not operate as a hardship some times. Of course I know we must leave a good deal to the judges in that regard.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It was represented that it was intended for convenience and for the purpose of reducing expenses.
The House resolved itself into Committee on the Bill and then rose and reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['When he comes in.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.', 'Monday, March 30, 1903.']
Hop. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Dominion public buildings, Ontario-renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $12,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: This vote is to carry out works of repairs and renewals not covered by the general appropriation made by parliament and undertaken in the fiscal year 1903-4. I do not suppose my hon. friends will want me to read the whole list.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You might read it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Most of the items are very small. The largest are : Belleville, $2,170; Berlin, $178; Brampton, $14; Brockville, $604; Chatham, $704-something in connection with the water pipes.


James Clancy: Who is the person in charge at Chatham ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the work was let by contract. I forget the name.


Mr. WILSON.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works whether his attention has been called to the state of the new Railway Committee room ? The ceiling has been discoloured, I suppose because the roof leaks. It is a pity that a fine room like that should be spoiled because of a leaky roof.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My attention has not been called to it. I shall be glad to make inquiries.
Fort William public building, $22,300.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the public building being erected at Fort William. The contract was let on the 22ud of July last. The amount of the contract was $20,400. $5,000 has been voted before. The total expenditure estimated by the architect is $27,551.01.


James Clancy: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the contract was considerably less than the sum voted. What is the balance for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The balance is for the fittings and furnishings, including the letter boxes, $3,500; tiie heating, $1,400; the wiring and electric light fixtures, $500; incidental and travelling expenses, $200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did you get the site for nothing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, a site free of cost to the Crown was given by the city corporation.


Mr. BROCK.: Is the fitting up of the letter boxes not usually done by the postmaster!, who receives the revenue from them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It depends on the size of the office. Pro-

babl.y in an office of this size the receipts would be divided.
Mr. SrUOULE. What rule do you follow in regard to fitting up these offices or leaving tlie postmasters to fit them up ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have never known a case of a post office being built and the postmaster lifting it up. In an office of this kind, I think the postmaster will receive 50 per cent of the revenue.
Of course it is as broad as it is long. The postmaster's salary is fixed on the percentage of the revenue and in some cases a percentage is allowed him on receipts from the boxes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In all cases where the postmaster furnishes the boxes himself, he gets all the revenue from them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: Where there is a public building, does the postmaster not get salary instead of percentage ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that where the post office is declared to be a city office the postmaster gets a salary. In other cases he gets a percentage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who is the contractor, and was the contract given to the lowest tenderer ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contractor is Robert Campbell, of Almonte, and his was the lowest tender.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was any application made to the department by the town to furnish a site ? Or did they voluntarily offer the site ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That happened some considerable time before I was in the department. The building is on ground belonging to the corporation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In some cases the town furnishes the site and in other cases the government pays for the site. It seems to me that all places should be treated alike. Where an application is made for a post office, the town should be called on to furnish the site. It is not fair that in one case the government should pay for a site and in another the town should furnish it.
Guelph-public building, addition to, $21,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For many years the accommodation for the public has been altogether too small. I asked the chief architect to visit Guelph himself and look carefully into the present requirements and-a little to the future, so that we might not be called upon to again make any additions. He found that the lowest estimate he could make would come
to something over $21,000. I found that to make a temporary addition would not give the public satisfaction and that we should soon be called upon to make further improvements, so that the report of the chief architect was adopted. It will cost us this amount to complete the work. This expenditure is very well warranted from the revenues received from the government at that city. The postal revenue is $25,000, and the customs over $113,000.


David Henderson: Is the inland revenue office in the same building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not prepared to answer that question as my officer has not put into this memorandum the revenue from inland revenue.


David Henderson: Have tenders been called for or has the contract been let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think the contract has been let, but tenders have been called for.


David Henderson: It is understood there Mr. Kennedy has the contract.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Now that my hon. friend mentions the name, I believe that Mr. Kennedy was the lowest tenderer.
Mr, SPROULE. What will the building cost in full ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the cost of the original building. That was begun in 1874 and completed in 1877.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will the present addition cost ?
. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. It will cost $30,000. Nine thousand dollars were spent last year, and $21,000 are required this year, which makes $30,000. The contract is not yet let. We advertised for tenders, and I remember that the tenders came before the deputy minister and myself, and the amount was something over $27,000.


David Henderson: Did the government own the site on which the addition is being erected ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Public works-chargeable to income, public buildings, Ontario-Kingston military buildings, stable accommodation tor field battery, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote has been taken several times, I believe. A demand was made a number of years ago for suitable accommodation for the field battery, Royal Canadian Artillery. They want a stable for forty horses. There has been great difficulty about the site, but that has now been purchased at $5,000, which is represented to us as a very reasonable price. Later on I intend to ask the House for a vote for the erection of the

stahle. The plans have been drawn for a wooden building one story high and about 150 feet long by 25 feet wide.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This has no connection with the military college ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, this is for the field battery, Royal Canadian Artillery.


Mr. CLARKE.: Part of the permanent force ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. The conclusion of the inquiry made was that if we were to maintain this force, we must have stables for the horses. The present conditions are very unsatisfactory.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the whole expected to cost ? There was a vote of $5,000 last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was voted several years, I believe, but it was not used. The difficulty was to procure a suitable site. One has been secured at $5,000 which is satisfactory to the military college, the citizens and the permanent corps. It was originally held at $8,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the size if it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot give the exact size, but it is a good big piece of land.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From whom wiRs jit purchased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think from a widow, a Mrs. Garvin.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This does not look to be exactly a business like way of doing it. It is usual, when the House is to be committed to an expenditure to give us the means of judging what the whole is likely to be, and not call upon us year after year for several small sums.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) but the circumstances in this case are peculiar, the work having been delayed owing to the difficulty of procuring a site. But I have given the nature of the building and I should think it could be built for about $6,000. That is an estimate of my own. But I think the chief architect would agree with me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose in the absence of better information we must take what we get.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Carried.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before we go on with the next item I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the Cobourg armoury, for which $8,000 was voted last night just as we were about to adjourn, but with the understanding that further questions might be asked with regard to it. I wish to know Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
whether the government is buying that site or whether the town is giving it; and, if the government is buying it, what is the price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand we have a drill hall there which is not satisfactory as to site. It is the intention of Uie government to dispose of that property and build in a more suitable place. The site has been bought for $4,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The town is not doing anything towards a site ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will the Cobourg armoury cost when completed ? With this vote, you will have $20,000 at your disposal.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The original estimate was $15,000 but since that time the headquarters of the Durham Field Battery have moved to Cobourg. This makes it necessary to provide more accommodation in the armoury. But the amount voted we expect will complete the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And give accommodation to the battery as well as-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As well as to the 40th battalion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the old armoury been sold ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the reason of the changing of the site ? Surely, in a town like Cobourg, the question of a site is not so important as to make it advisable to put up a new building. What is the reason for buying a new site when the government has the old one ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because the old one was not suitable for the purpose either in location or in size.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But in a town like Cobourg, surely there is not such great difference between one site and another.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there not something behind that ? I think there was some discussion about this last year, and I thought then there was a nigger in the fence somewhere. I think we ought to get some further information about this, and I suggest that it be allowed to stand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The request was made to the Department of Public Works by the Department of Militia. I am aware that the local officers were a long time asking for the accommodation. I have no knowledge of any local differences of any kind, or that there is any objection to a settlement. I understand from the Militia Department that everything is satisfactorily settled.

London drill hall and armoury, $60,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The site has been purchased and is 252 feet on Dundas street, and 120 feet on Grenville street. It is to be constructed of brick, with stone dressing on a stone basis.
Department are considering a policy of providing accommodation on plans that will call for very much less money than we tire expending now.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Toronto paid $150,000 for the site.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is there a drill hall there now ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The deputy minister informs me that he doesn't think there is.


Edmund Boyd Osler: You do not know; but supposing there is one.


Mr. HYMAN.: There was a drill hall constructed" in 1872, which got out of repair and became practically useless. Besides, the site of the old hall was not conveniently situated, and was altogether too small.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: From whom was the site bought ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I fancy the site was bought from eight or ten different people who owned different portions of this land.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have a memorandum that the site was purchased from seven different parties, and I will give the hon. gentleman the names : The Dominion Savings and Loan Company, Mr. Caravella, Mr. McKellar, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Crouch and Miss Durkin. The total cost was $5,507. The total cost estimated to complete is $175,000 to $180,000, including the site.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think a city like London ought to have a good drill shed, and if the old site was not large enough the new one should be larger. In the case of Toronto, we paid a large amount towards buying the site before we could get the governments to entertain the idea of building a drill shed. I think the same rule ought to apply to all cities. The Toronto building! is in proportion to the size of the city, still I do not think it cost as much as it is proposed to spend in London. I.am inclined to be very liberal with ail these expenditures for drill halls, but I think the same principle ought to apply to all the cities. I do not begrudge the expenditure at all, but I want to see all treated alike.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it would be good policy on the part of the country to build these drill sheds on a somewhat less costly plan, and have good headquarters in all the counties for the militia. It is true that in the large cities they require a great deal of accommodation, and the buildings are expensive. I think the building in Toronto cost between $300,000 andl $400,000. Even yet I know from applications I have received lately from the Militia Department that the local corps complain that they have not all the accommodation that they require. I believe the Militia 21


David Henderson: 1 fail to see any reason why municipalities should be called upon to furnish the site for public buildings of this character. To my mind it is the duty of the government not only to furnish the building but the site. As a rule, I have no sympathy with the idea that municipalities should tax themselves to furnish the site of any public building. In the present case I have a pretty fair recollection that when this building was first proposed to be erected we had strong assurances "from the Minister of Public Works that the cost would not exceed $100,000, and quite a lengthy debate took place at the time the first vote was given. I see that some $14,000 were expended prior to the 1st'of July last, some $10,000 were voted last year, which I presume will be expended before the 30th of .Tune coming. Now we are asked for an additional $60,000. Those sums alone would be somewhere within the estimate given us by the( Minister of Public Works when he first asked for an appropriation for this building. I confess I am astonished now to find that the architect was so far wide of the mark in his first estimate that he now tells us he will want from $160,000 to $175,000, about $75,000 more than the original estimate. But this is not the only occasion that similar mistakes have been made. From year to year this House is led to vote money for public buildings on the assurance that the cost will be limited to a certain amount. But, before these buildings are completed, we find that in many instances the construction of the buildings costs from 50 to 100 per cent more than was originally contemplated. Now, the objection I take to it is this : I am not so particular whether that building costs $150,000 or $175,000

the country can afford it-but I do protest against this principle of engineers and deputy ministers spending the money of this country contrary to the wishes of this House. We are the men who should say how much money should be expended. We are, as a matter of fact, not the men. It is the officials of the government, not the ministers-they do not control it-but tliev allow their officials to control the whole ol' this expenditure and I say the sooner we stop that system the better. I do not believe in coming here and taking the res ponsibility for the expenditure of money in this country year after year when practically the entire expenditure on these public buildings is brought about, not by the minister who is supposed to be responsible to parliament, but by his deputy or by his other officials. I think the ministers should



draw the line, and when they come and say to this House tiiat a building is not going to cost more than a certain sum their officers should be instructed to make an estimate within tint amount. That was the tenor of the discussion which took place two years ago when this building was first spoken of and it was the distinct understanding at that time that ihe engineer should get his instructions that the building should be erected and completed for a sum not to exceed $100/100. Who is responsible for this over-expenditure ? Is it the minister, or is it the department, or is it the chief engineer, or some other official of the government ? I say that the time lias come when wo should protest and I intend to protest against it in every instance when the officials of any department undertake to spend the money of this country and compel parliament to vote it. If we are to be responsible for the expenditure of money then I say let us have the fixing of the amount' and not the officials of the government as has been the practice year after year. I enter this protest and I intend to repeat it in every case where the same thing occurs. So long as the minister has assumed the responsibility himself and has the responsibility I have not much to say, but when I know, as in tins cash, it is the officials of the department and not the minister, then I say, we ought to enter a strong protest against it and see that a stop is put to it.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Chairman, I may say that I am in full sympathy with the position taken by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). I hope lie will not have on many occasions to protest as far as I am concerned. In this particular case I am satisfied that the minister was perfectly fraalc and candid in his figures as to the cost. So that no member of the committee would have reason to complain when asking for this vote for $00,000. I requested the chief architect to make a complete estimate so far as possible so that I might announce to the committee what the entire cost of this building will be. My hon. friend knows that it has beeu the practice to ask for a vote for a portion of the money required and then to come hack to parliament and get more to complete the work. It is not my intention to do that in this case so far as I can avoid it. It is my intention to do What tlie hon. member suggests ; that is to ask the engineer, or the architect of the department to give me a carefully prepared estimate and to announce this to the House. I can quite understand that in many of these cases it is unnecessary to vote the full amount of the money required in one session for the simple reason that we all know and well know that it sometimes takes two or three years, even when reasonable progress is made by the contractor, to complete the work. But, I agree with the Mr. HENDERSON.
hon. gentleman that if there is one thing that parliament is entitled to, it is that when work is undertaken a fair, and straightforward estimate of tlie total cost should be given. So far as I am concerned I intend to carry out that policy.


David Henderson: I am obliged, indeed to the hon. minister for his very
frank statement and I presume that he will endeavour to carry out that principle, but be has missed my main point. I have a very distinct recollection, and I think it is the recollection of the other members of tlie committee, that we were assured that this building would not exceed in cost $100,000.


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I admit that.
Mr. HENDERSON, i want to know how in the world it is going to cost $175,000. Who is responsible for that ? I do not think that the cost of material, or the cost of labour has increased In any such ratio as 75 per cent in all. I fear very much that tlie officers of the department have full liberty to draw such plans as they think fit and that they are the men, and not tlie ministers, who actually fix the price to be paid for the completion of a building. We have no control over it because we have no control over these officers. If the minister allows his officers to go on and draw plans of a building that wi1! cost 75 per cent more than parliament is given to understand it would cost, how are we going to put a stop to it ? We cannot say now : Let us stop the construction of this building. It has been started on that principle, and will have to be completed on that principle, but I do trust that a closer watch will he kept and that when a pledge is given to parliament in regard to the cost of the building the minister will see that his engineer, his architect, and those who seem to me to have control of the expenditure will not o', erstep reasonable bounds and will keep somewhere near the limit fixed by parliament.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman allow me one word of explanation ? It was out of my desire to give tlie full cost that the amount stated appears to be more than it should. The building itself will cost $13.j,000. It was in carrying out the very policy that the hon. gentleman advocated, and of which I am in favour, that I insisted that tlie architect should give full details as to the amount that would be required to complete everything in connection with the building and I am giving the committee now the full and complete cost including fittings, furniture, boilers, ventilation, fencing, electric wiring, and everything connected therewith. I am giving the committee, as far as the architect has prepared under my instruction, the full amount required. Of course i am not asking for the full amount

for all these purposes now because hon. gentlemen know that the balance will have to be asked for later, but to arrive at what may be considered a complete estimate I have brought this further information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to say that this is another illustration of what we have over and over again here. When it was contemplated to put up this building had the House been told that it was going to cost $1SJ,000, I have no doubt the House would have hesitated before consenting to authorize this expenditure, but on the ground that it would only cost $100,000 the House somewhat reluctantly and after a lengthy debate consented to it. That was the commencement of an expenditure which at the outsat was said to be $100,000. We had scarcely get into the work wlieu the expenditure began to creep up and within two years it nad almost doubled. Are there not reasonable grounds for complaint that there is something wrong with the architect, with the government, or with somebody. Would this House have consented to going on with this building if it knew in tlie first place that it would ultimately cost $181,000-1 am not talking here for pastime or for the purpose of obstructing; 1 am protesting against a growing evil and I third; tne Minister of Public Works should give me his attention instead of speaking to his friends around him.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I beg your pardon, I was speaking to the deputy minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is only when the House knows what the total cost to complete will be that it can intelligently pledge the resources of the country for a vote of this kind. This building will cost twice as much as was intended originally and we find the same thing over and over again with regard to these public works and public buildings. It is an improper system and should be put an end to. I am obliged to disagree to some extent with my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) as to the propriety of towns and cities paying a share of the cost in the way of furnishing a site or paying portion of the cost of a site for these buildings. Public buildings embellish a town or city and confer a benefit on it, and I do not think there is any injustice done if the town or city is asked to pay a fair share of the cost. But whether that principle is right or not, the fact that Toronto contributes $150,000 for a building which costs $300,000, and that London does not pay a cent towards the building which is to cost $181,000, seems to he very unfair towards Toronto. There should be some fixed principle. Let it be either that nothing should be contributed or that each place should contribute a certain proportion. All should be served alike. As my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) has pointed out, Toronto has just grounds 21i
for complaint at this discrimination. I am not complaining of the present Minister of Public Works, because I think he shows a commendable desire to give all the information he can, but I do say that when he asks an initial vote for a public work he should be able to tell the House what the entire cost of it will be so that the House may form a correct judgment on it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I agree with my colleague from Toronto that when an armoury is to be erected In a town a good building should be put up. I find no fault with the expenditure of a reasonable sum for this purpose in the city of London. The objection taken on this side is, that so to speak, the House has been hypnotized into approving of this building by the inaccurate statement made at first as to what the ultimate cost would be. We are not holding the present Minister of Public Works responsible for that. The principle laid down by the hon. members for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is one that cannot be controverted. Those who pay the piper should be able to choose the music. It is not fair to the House that it should be told a building will cost $75,000 or $100,000 when the fact is that it will take double that amount to complete. Now, I want to draw the attention of the minister to the oft told tale that while the city of Toronto contributed $150,000 to purchase the site for the Toronto drill shed, that drill shed is not yet completed. Representations have been made again and again to the department. I have myself raised my voice in my own humble way in this House to urge upon the minister in all fairness that the additional drill hall accommodation required in Toronto should be provided. I commend the matter to the serious consideration of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). It is not unreasonable to ask that the armoury should be completed. I would remind the minister that in addition to what else we have done, the city of Toronto has provided accommodation for the military stores. The city will be ready to give accommodation for any of tbe military stores in any of the municipal buildings, but surely a drill shed is the proper place for these stores. A last word to the minister. I hope that he will bring down in the supplementary estimates a vote to complete the original plan of the drill shed in order to give the needed accommodation to the garrison at Toronto.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tlie matter has not been brought to my attention before, and I am not familiar with the details of it. but I have made a memorandum and will look into it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the contract for the London building let by tender.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was let to the lowest tenderer for $133,-

S97. I am afraid I will have to retort to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) and complain that he is talking to the hon. gentleman behind him while I am giving this information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When is the building going to be finished ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: December, 1904, is in the contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any danger that the price will be increased between now and then.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I explained to the House that this is a carefully prepared estimate, including everything that would be required for the building.
R'deau Hall-drainage, $3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the Minister of Public Works ever thought of building a new hall, or will he keep on for ever repairing the old building ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I must say that officially I have not given the matter any attention. I do wish something could be done to stop these large expenditures from year to year. But this I am given to understand is a very necessary work. The drain at present empties into the Ottawa river. It was choked up, and the odour from it was very offensive.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where does it empty now ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Into the city sewage system.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this complete the work ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the total cost is $10,647.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the work let by tender ?
\


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No. A portion of the work was done by the city, for which the city was paid. The balance was done by day's work under officers of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was this work commenced ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Last summer. It will be completed in a short time.


Robert Lorne Richardson: What is the length of the sewer ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: 2,065 feet. My hon. friend must remember that the work had to be done by blasting through the rock.
Toronto Custom House-underpinning walls,


Mr. KEMP.: Will the minister please explain the nature of that work ?


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose the great majority of the members of the Committee are familiar with the splendid building we have in Toronto. It was reported to the department that the piles on which the building was originally constructed were decayed, and that there was danger of the building falling down. The chief architect of the department made a careful examination, and came to the conclusion that this was correct; and the work seemed to be so necessary and so urgent for the preservation of the building, that I took the responsibility of ordering it to be commenced. This is one of the cases in which it is somewhat difficult for any one to estimate at the beginning just what the total cost will be. The chief architect estimates, however, that it will be between $15,000 and $20,000. The work is done in sections, six feet of the wall being taken down at a time and reconstructed. The timbers are cut away down below the water line where they" are decayed, and a new foundation built up of hard brick set in cement. It is a somewhat dangerous work. I may say. as I may be criticised afterwards, that I ascertained who the original contractors on the building were, and as they were responsible and reliable men who could be depended on, I authorized the chief architect to make an arrangement with them to do this work. If I had let it by tender to other contractors, and a mistake were made, there would be great danger of a valuable building being lost.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What are the names of the contractors ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Brown & Love.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is it the main building or the examining warehouse ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The custom house itself.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that no tender was asked for, but that you gave the work to Brown & Love without tender ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: They gave a price, and it was agreed on between them and the chief architect under my authority. I did not ask for any other tender.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who supervises the work?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The architect's name is Mr. Curry.


Albert Edward Kemp: Has the minister had any application from the officers at Toronto looking to the enlargement of the buildings there, or are they considered large enough for the work at the present time ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have had applications from all over the Dominion for increased accommodation, including Toronto. I have not been able to inform myself of the necessity that may

exist in Toronto, but will look into it at the earliest moment.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did the architect, Mr. Curry, recommend that this work should be given to Brown & Love without tender?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. When the matter was discussed between the chief architect and myself, lie looked up the papers and ascertained that Brown & Love were the original contractors. The architect was appointed afterwards, when it was decided that that was the best mode of proceeding with the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On what principle is the work done ? Is it at a schedule price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. The price was agreed on between the chief architect, the contractors and the department at so much per foot.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you paying per foot ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not here the figures which were agreed upon.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose there will be no dilliculty about bringing down the correspondence ?
The MINISTER Ob'! PUBLIC WORKS. No objection at all. I was very sorry to know that there was a danger of the building falling down. It was an extreme case, and I thought this was the best way to proceed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The firm of Brown & Love are certainly good contractors, there is no doubt of that. They have a very high and enviable reputation. There are other firms, of course. We would like to know what price has been agreed on with them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have to take the responsibility of ordering the work to be proceeded with on the recommendation of the chief architect; and I thought it was much safer and cheaper to have it done by the men who had originally erected the building than to take new men. We will not put more on it than necessary to make the building safe. The architect has examined as closely as he could. When they come to cutting these piles they must continue the work until the building is safe.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The architect ought to be able to come to some conclusion now as to the repairs which have to be made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have given the detailed description of the work to be done. We are asking for $15,000 and hope that that will do the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They must have done most of the expensive work or as much
foundation work as would enable them 10 tell how they have to finish it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect states that this will complete the work. If it does not, he will be able to give very satisfactory explanation why.
Toronto-Dominion public buildings-renewals, repairs, &c., $8,000.


James Clancy: Would the hon. minister allow this item to stand and also the one that follows, Toronto post otfice. I have been requested to ask that these two items stand.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am quite agreeable.
Items allowed to stand.
Toronto Junction-public building, $15,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to provide a building for post office and customs purposes. The total estimated cost is $38,135. That includes the site and the building, as well as the fitting, heating, lighting, &c.


James Clancy: What did the site cost and how much will the building cost, and the heating, fitting and lighting ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tlie site cost $4,500. Including all expenses, $4,625. I need not give the estimated cost of the building, heating and fitting as I have already read the particulars.


James Clancy: From whom was the site bought ?
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. The site was purchased from the Real Estate Loan Company of Canada, limited.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the contract been let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then this is just an estimate. There is one pleasant feature about this. When the hon. member for that riding was running his election, he and his friends gave the word that if he were elected, there would be a good post office put up, and now the government are redeeming their promise. It is so unusual to see this government redeem any of their promises that I cannot but help giving them credit in this instance. Whether the transaction might be considered bribery or not, I am not going to discuss. Toronto Junction requires a post office and should get it. No doubt the site was bought from some very good friend of the government. I do not know whether the government xmid double its value or not, but they probably paid a good round figure. They will no doubt follow that up by giving the contract to one of their friends, but I would advise them not to give it at too high a figure and then

ask us next year for an additional sum to complete or they may expect much more severe criticism.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: The site was bought at a very reasonable price, $75 a foot for 00 feet on Dundas street and 130 feet on King street. It is one of the best sites in. the whole town of Toronto Junction. Toronto Junction, as everybody knows is growing rapidly. It has a population of nearly 7.000. The post office receipts are nearly $5,000 a year, and the customs about $60,000 a year. This all appears under the head of Toronto, as Toronto Junction is an outport of that city. The present post office is very small and the amount they are paying for rent for the present post office and also for the customs will pay a reasonable sum on the cost of the building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the government paying for rent ?


Archibald Campbell: I think it is $150 a year for the post office.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much for the customs ?


Archibald Campbell: For two rooms they are paying $20 a month. Four or five years ago rents were very low and they made an exceptionally good bargain renting the two rooms for $12 a month. But when the lease was to be renewed, rents had gone up and they had to pay $20 a month. I am sure that when the time expires again the rent will be still further advanced.


Edmund Boyd Osler: These rents are a little more than three quarters of one per cent on the amount to be expended.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last night I asked for a list of the papers in which tendersi for the Clinton post office were advertised for.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Orders have been given to have a list prepared, and I shall be glad to send it to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram).


Air. HUGHES (Victoria).: I was not in my place when the minister gave details with regard to the Cobourg drill shed. Though a little out of order I ask leave to go back to that point. I wish to know if the Slinister of Public Works has outlined any policy in relation to these drill sheds erected throughout the country. I think he should prepare some plan by which drill sheds could be erected at much reduced cost. In that way all the regiments could be provided for, but, at the present rate of going, and each drill shed costing a great deal of money, it will be years before the country will be anything like fully served with these sheds.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend (Air. Hughes, Victoria) had been present he would have heard me express my views on that subject. Of course,' the Mr. SPROULE.
policy with regard to these matters rests largely with the Militia Department. I expressed my personal view that every bat- _ talion should be provided with a good build-' ing for headquarters, and, that to that purpose we should try to reduce the cost of the buildings to some extent. I am not complaining about the cost that has already been incurred in some of the large cities. But I think we should provide in the counties good substantial buildings at the least possible cost as headquarters for these battalions.


Air.   THOAISON@North Grey: The hon. member for AVest York (Air Campbell) gives as a reason for the construction of a public building at a cost of $35,000 for postal puiv poses in Toronto Junction, that the post office receipts last year were $5,000. I may say that, in Owen Sound the receipts of the post office are about $15,000, while the customs collects $40,000. Yet we have no public building. The rents paid by the government for buildings used in connection with the customs, post office and inland revenue, amount to $965 a year, which, capitalized at 3 per cent would give about $30,000. Reference was made the other evening to the promise made to the electors in the recent byelection that there would be a public building put up in Owen Sound. I merely submit these figures to the Alinister of Public Works, and hope that it will enable him to see his way clear to put a sum in the supplementary estimates, so that we may have a building there adequate to the business of the town and of a character creditable to the government.
The A1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.
I have to be consistent. As I have spoken of the necessity of a public building in Owen Sound, I can express my sympathy with the hon. gentleman (Air. Thomson) in agitating for this expenditure. But, of course he would not expect me to make a. promise, because that would be unconstitutional. Though I am not very anxious to be in the government, I would rather leave of my own accord than be kicked out. If I were to announce anything not in accordance with the constitution the hon. gentleman knows what would happen. I can assure the hon. gentleman that the case will have every consideration when it comes up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All over the country there seems to be drill sheds which are going out of repair. The government are doing nothing to preserve them. The hon. Alinister of Public Works speaks of intending to provide headquarters for the different regiments, but how about retaining the buildings already in existence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say we were going to provide headquarters ; but I stated my personal opinion in favour of that policy. In many cases, the rural battalions have quarters. The

policy has been recommended to the militia department, and, I believe, is being carried out to some extent, of providing comparatively cheap buildings, but many of them, so that our accoutrements, rifles, etc., may be better taken care of than at present and greater encouragement given to the young men to join. The buildings referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) are under the management of the Militia Department. We are getting more expensive arms and accoutrements, and it will be a saving to the country to provide buildings where they can be kept free from injury.


Samuel Hughes: The drawback to the old system was that the municipalities paid half the cost of these buildings and had the use of them. It was very convenient for the town, but it was inconvenient to the militia companies to have their armouries almost open to the public.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Several buildings in ray own county are going to rack. Nothing seems to be done to repair them. I have always thought there ought to be some headquarters for these militia companies, and if these buildings are too expensive, smaller and less expensive ones should be provided. Take the case of Fleslierton, I do not think the municipality has any interest in the building there, and it is all going to rack. If it is government property the government ought to take care of it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It may be there is some neglect. I will call the attention of the department to it.


Samuel Hughes: There Is a little matter I want to bring before the attention of the government, possibly the Department of Justice. I chanced this year to be coming down on the train from Edmonton to Winnipeg. There were four criminals on the train, being brought to Regina ; one was a murderer, and the others were about as tough looking subjects as one could see anywhere. They were in charge of the poiice. These fellows rode first class ; and on the same train there were about twenty young ladies who were coming to the normal school at Regina, and all the way they had to sit in seats adjoining those occupied by these criminals. I want to draw the attention of the government to the fact that I do not think the people of Canada are inclined to pay for criminals riding first-class. In Ontario our volunteers have to ride third-class, frequently in freight cars, when going to serve their country. I do not know whose business it is to look into this matter, but I trust that the coming Prime Minister will take note of it, and give It his serious consideration.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When he comes in.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, the House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Monday, March 30, 1903.