1903-10-13

Mr. JAMES M. DOUGLAS (East Assini-boia) moved :: That the House do concur in the eighth and final report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization and especially that 40,000 copies of the evidence of the inspector of binder twine lie printed forthwith in pamphlet form in the usual numerical proportions of English and French as advance sheets

of the committee's final report for distribution to members of parliament, less 100 copies for the use of the committee.
He sail :	I may remark that this number is in excess of what has been asked on other subjects, but the report of the Dominion inspector has been of special interest. He provides information of vast moment in protecting the farmers against fraud in the quantity and quality of the twine they purchased as indicated in the consumption of the year 1902, valued at $3,500,000. The inspector stated in his evidence that in fourteen cases he imposed fines amounting to $518 for shortage in the quantity indicated by the labels, and had $275,000 worth deported to the manufacturer in the United States, and that a quantity was confiscated to the Crown. These violations of the Binder Twine Act of 1902 were almost wholly found with the imported article. The consumption of binder twine in Canada for 1902 is estimated at 14,000 tons, of which 6,500 was of home manufacture, making over 50 per cent supplied by importation. Here again is evidence of the large expansion awaiting the output of twine factories in Canada.


Mr. SPEAKER.: May I call 'the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Douglas) to the fact that this motion cannot be adopted without suspending rule 94, which provides that a motion for printing any paper shall first be presented to the Committee on Printing.


Mr. DOUGDAS.: I move that rule 94 be suspended.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I do not actually oppose the adoption of the motion, but this report has been but a short time before the House and many of us have had no opportunity of seeing it. I do not know what the statement read by the Chairman of the committee purports to be, whether it is a report from the committee or part of the general report, or observations of his own. In any case, I must take exception to it because I think it is somewhat out of place or, at least, that the conclusions are still the subject of controversy. My judgment in connection with the discharge of his duties by the inspector of binder twine is that there was very strong evidence before the committee that the inspector misunderstood his duties and acted a part he was not justified in playing either by the statute under which he acted or any other authority, I think it would be well to allow this to remain for a day until we look into it.


James Moffat Douglas: This report was presented last Friday, and notice of motion was given to the House that to-day I would move concurrence. Besides, the body of the report is in the Votes and Proceedings, and, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) has not seen it, that is not the fault of the convener of the committee or the committee itself.
I may say that I have voiced the consensus of opinion of the committee in making the remarks I have made. The report was adopted by the unanimous consent of the committee and we thought it would he well to made a few remarks in connection with the presentation of the motion for concurrence so that it might be fully before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This report has been before the House since Friday. On Saturday we sat all day, and the same yesterday. So, it is very hard to keep up with every portion of the work. Consequently I for one, have had no opportunity to see the report. 1 do not know whether the observations made by the hon. member (Mr. Douglas) were the result of the deliberations of the committee or not. If they were it seems to me they were improper. I think this should be allowed to remain over to another day to give us an opportunity to examine it. Surely there can be no such urgent demand for forcing it through. Saturday is an unusual day for the sitting of the House, so that this is pressing the matter through at practically one day's notice To allow it to remain for another day will not prevent the work being done, and will be quite in keeping with the needs of the House and of the country.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It will then go to Public Bills and Orders.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Better withdraw the motion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman have leave to withdraw his motion ?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and motion withdrawn.

The PRIME MINISTER moved :: * That when this House adjourns to-morrow it shall stand adjourned till Friday next.
He said: I take advantage of this opportunity to say that the business that the government intends to present to the House yet is as follows : Some resolutions regarding the Quebec bridge, some further supplementary estimates, chiefly relating to the Transcontinental Railway ; and, perhaps, a purely departmental Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I assume from that statement that the other items appearing on the Order paper are intended to be pushed through by the government ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think so.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House go into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that the regulations made by the Governor In Council, under the authority o* section 47 of the Dominion Lands Act, applicable or relating to the Yukon Territory, and set forth in the Orders in Council of which the dates are respectively as follows, and of which copies have been laid before this House, are approved by this House, in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of chapter 34 of the Statutes of 1902 :-
Order dated the 15th April, 1902, P. C. No. 633 ; Orders dated the 19th May, 1902, P. C. Nos. 573, 597, 749, and 825 ; Orders dated the 21st May, 1902, P. C. Nos. 898, and 899 ; Orders dated the 31st May, 1902, P. C. Nos. 938, 941, and 960 ; Order dated 4th June, 1902, P. C. No. 619 ; Order dated the 31st October, 1902, P. C. No. 1606 ; Orders dated the 22nd December, 1902, P. C. Nos. 1890, and 1899 ; Orders dated the 7th March, 1903, P. C. Nos. 323, and 325 ; and Orders dated the 31st March, 1903, P. C. Nos. 472, 473, 474, and 475.
He said : The reason for tills motion is to he found in the Act passed last session to amend the Yukon Territory Act. Section 5 of that Act provides as follows [DOT]
Every regulation made by the Governor in Council under the authority of section 47 of the Dominion Lands Act, applicable or relating to the Yukon Territory, shall remain in force until the day immediately succeeding the day of prorogation of the then next session of parliament, and no longer, unless during such session of parliament such regulation is approved by resolution of both Houses of parliament.
Then section 47 of the Dominion Lands Act reads as follows :
Lands containing coal or other minerals, whether in surveyed or unsurveyed,territory, shall not be subject to the provisions of this Act respecting sale or homestead entries, but shall be disposed of in such manner and on such terms and conditions as are, from time to time, fixed by the Governor in Council, by regulations made in that behalf.
Several regulations have been made which were laid on the Table of tbe House a few days ago, in terms of that section 47. I need not perhaps go into the details of each one of them ; a synopsis of the details of some of them will give a general character of the whole. The first Order in Council which was passed on the 15th of April, 1902, provides in substance that three miners owning adjoining claims, may unite to work one claim. The reason of that is that under the old regulation, every miner owning a claim is bound to do a certain quantity of work on it, under penalty of forfeiture, and it has been found convenient to permit a group of miners to work together ; that is to say, when their claims are adjoining each other it might be advantageous to al-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
low them to club together and put their work upon one claim instead of distributing it upon all, and by so doing they would avoid forfeiture. Another Order in Council passed on the 19th of May, defines a miner's inch. The miner's inch is a new expression with which we in the east are not familiar, but which in mining territories is now well known, and we propose simply to make it legal and give it a proper definition. Another Order in Council of the same date enacts that all applications for mining locations and for work by the hydraulic mining process, shall be filed with tbe Commissioner of the Yukon Territory, and recommended by him, and so on.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: In connection with that, I presume it would be necessary to bring up the whole subject of the controversy and investigation into the Treadgold concessions, because some of those Orders in Council affect the situation there. One which the Prime Minister just read would apply to that, namely, that one giving them the privilege to group together a number of claims, of which they become possessed perhaps through the abandonment of others, or through taking up others and jointly working them. I see they have had a public meeting out there and protested against the mode of the inquiry that was conducted by the commission, and are memorializing, it seems, the Governor in Council against the way the inquiry was conducted. Could the Prime Minister give us any information regarding the situation, and has he any report from the commissioners on the work they have undertaken ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: If my hon. friend will look again at these resolutions lie will see that they do not in any way affect the Treadgold concessions. With regard to the subject of the commission itself, I have seen what my hon. friend has seen in the public press, but I may say that the government have received no official communication upon the subject from any one. The government has not yet received any report from the commissioners.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Has the right hon. gentleman any idea as to when the report will be received? With respect to the hearing, of course, we do not know anything officially, but a majority of the public and press in the Yukon seem to find fault with the inquiry, because they think it was unduly restricted, even under the terms of the commission. One grave circumstance is the allegation in more than one newspaper that the commissioners directed the stenographers not to take down certain portions of the evidence, certain things that were said. If that is the case, all that it would be proper to say at present, is that such a matter demands careful consideration, and might make necessary a commission to investigate the conduct of the

commissioners; because, -while the commission was restricted very much, more restricted than a good many gentlemen in this House thought it should have been, inasmuch as it denied the people of that country an opportunity to investigate the circumstances under which those concessions were granted-nevertheless in the restricted form in which it was issued there was no reason why the commissioner's or any one of them should have interfered in the slightest way to prevent the taking down of the testimony which was given. I do not admit this to be the fact at present, for the commissioners have not yet been heard. Nevertheless this particular circumstance is openly stated in more than one newspaper in the Yukon, newspapers which I have received myself.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hou. friend will admit himself, interested as he is in the subject, that it would be very unfair to the commissioners, until their report is before the House, to accept any statements of that nature that may appear in the press. The commissioners have not made their report yet, I have no information when it will be made, I suppose it cannot be long delayed, for I think they are at work on it at this moment. But in the meantime I think there is no reason to suppose that the commissioners did not discharge their duties in an able, satisfactory and impartial manner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee on the resolutions.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the right hon. gentleman should go further and give a little explanation in regard to each one of the orders mentioned in the resolution.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The first order, of the 15th of April, 1902, as I have explained, allows three miners owning adjoining claims to club together and put their work on one claim. That is the tenor of thfi order.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there should .be no objection to that.
The PRiME MINISTER. Then the second order, of the 19th of May, 1902, defines a miner's inch as being an orifice which shall discharge one and a half cubic feet of water per minute. This is a purely mechanical order. Then the third order, of the 19th May, is that:
The Governor in Council is pleased to order that the Order in Council of 31st day of October, 1901, authorizing the Minister of the Interior to dispose of any mining claim whieh may be forfeited under the provisions of section 41 of the regulations governing placer mining in the Yukon Territory, established by Order in Council on the 13th day of March, 1901, shall be and is hereby rescinded.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is just one of the orders that come in under the Treadgold concession. It is contended that once claims 432
were abandoned and the government had power to dispose of them, the persons interested in the Treadgold concession had arranged their affairs so that they could either by themselves or by others get hold of these claims, in order that they might be corralled under one management. While they might not be under one name, they would still practically be under the Treadgold concession. That was one of the claims set forth by one gentleman who wrote to me from Dawson in regard to this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the right hon. gentleman has not stated the effect of this order. It provides that the Order in Council, the effect of which he has already mentioned, is rescinded.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, I see I was mistaken. It provides that it shall be rescinded.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We cannot object to that.


The PRIME MINISTER.: If we cannot object to that, let us pass on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the next is 597.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This is 749, and I now pass to No. 825. That order provides that:
Section 7 of the regulations governing placer mining in the Yukon Territory, established by Order in Council dated 13th March, 1901, which provides that a person or joint stock company, and every person in his or Its employment, except house servants, shall have a free miner's certificate unexpired, was amended by leaving out the words ' and every person in his or its employment, except house servants.'
The effect is to restrict the application of the regulation.


Robert Laird Borden: Before we pass from this, it seems to me that the existence of such an Order in Council as is now rescinded is the best possible reason why the statute should have been enacted. I cannot conceive any possible reason why the mere fact that a person was in the clerical employment of a joint stock company should entitle him to a free miner's certificate in competition with actual miners, who have to pay a fee for the purpose and who have to devote their attention to the occupation of mining. It would be well to know the reason why this Order in Council should have been passed in the first instance.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I could not
give this information to my hon. friend at this moment, but I will get it later on.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my right hon. friend will recognize that It is a very strange regulation that any person in the employ of a joint stock company should be entitled to a free miner's certificate. It is time it should be repealed, and it is strange that such a regulation should ever have .been enacted.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is repealed as far as my hon. friend has any objection to it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The dangerous feature that suggests itself to my mind is that a regulation was made some years ago to provide for people getting control of timber lands, and after a certain individual had got control of a very important section of timber land the Order in Council was immediately rescinded.


The PRIME MINISTER.: At all events, if we have rescinded it, so far so good.


Robert Laird Borden: While it was not rescinded, so far so good.


The TRIME MINISTER.: Order No. 973 provides that:
The Governor in Council is pleased to order that clause 3 of the regulations for the disposal of mining locations in the Yukon Territory to be worked by hydraulic mining process made and established by the Governor in Council on the 3rd of December. 139S, as amended by Order in Council of 2nd March, 1900, which provides that an application for a location shall be filed in the Department of the Interior at Ottawa, was amended so as to provide that the application shall be filed with the commissioner of the Yukon Territory at Dawson ; and that no lease. be issued for a location unless it is recommended by him.
And further, the exemption of royalty on $25.000 of the annual output of a location, provided for in section 5 of the aforesaid regulations, was rescinded on, from and after the date hereof.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of the provision that no lease shall be issued for a location unless recommended by the commissioner ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: It was to avoid a conflict, as far as I remember, between the applications which might be made at Dawson and the applications which might be made here, under which circumstances the same location might be granted to two different parties. The department came to the conclusion that all applications should be made at Dawson to the commissioner and forwarded by him for approval to the department here.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to go a great deal beyond that. It seems to vest in the commissioner of the Yukon an absolute discretion as to whether a location shall be granted or not. I do not regard that as a fair provision of the law. In the province of Nova Scotia we have certain laws governing this matter. A man who applies for a gold or a coal area is entitled to it as a matter of right. If it is open, if no other person has covered it by his application, and if he has made his application in the usual way, he is entitled to certain rights under the law over the area. But here you do not have that. You have an applicant going to the Commissioner of the Yukon, and finding that it is absolute-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ly necessary that the commissioner should recommend his application - before he can have it granted. I do not understand why a discretion of that kind should be conferred upon the Commissioner of the Yukon or on any one else. It seems to me there should be a mode of defining the rights of public property so that any citizen of this country, conforming to the regulations, should have the right to make an application in respect to lands not already covered by some one else. Neither the Commissioner of the Yukon, aior the Minister of the Interior, nor any one else, should have the right to say : You shall not receive this, because I do not see fit to recommend it. I cannot attach any other meaning to the language of this Order in Council than that which I have just expressed.


Mr. BEDCOURT.: The reason of this is that in the case of these applications, the applicant has to submit for consideration evidence of certain facts ; for instance, the fact that the ground for which he applies is capable of being worked in the manner which lie describes, that he has a sufficient dumping ground on which to deposit his tailings, and that there is a sufficient supply of water to provide for the working of the claim in the manner applied for. These matters have all to be verified by affidavit or evidence sufficient to satisfy the Commissioner of the Yukon. Evidence having been submitted to him, it became necessary under the old regulation to have the evidence sent down here, though the commissioner had, in his discretion, to decide these matters. That is the reason the regulation was passed some time ago. As everything has now to be decided there, the regulation has no longer any raison d'etre. The case would be entirely different in regard to an application for coal lands in the province of Nova Scotia, where the applicant is entitled to the land from the simple fact of having prospected, located and made application. In the Yukon something else is required. Not only must he have discovered the ground, prospected and located it, but he must have satisfied the commissioner as to the conditions as to water, dumping ground and so on.


Robert Laird Borden: Why should he be obliged to do so ? Are not these matters as to which he must take the risk ? If there is no water, he perhaps cannot work the area, but that is his own matter. If there is no dumping ground, perhaps he cannot work the area. Why this paternal care on the part of the Department of the Interior with regard to these matters ? In the province of Nova Scotia you might have the government interfering with a gold mining area, and pointing out that there are certain conditions which render it impossible, perhaps, to work it at a profit. These are matters as to which the applicant

takes bis own risk, and, provided he pays his fee, he is entitled to take that risk.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The complaints which we have heard in this House would be sufficient reason for the enactment of this legislation. I have not discussed the matter with the minister, but I would imagine that it is felt that in order to entitle the person to get a larger area than the area fixed for the ordinary placer claim, and, to facilitate his working it toy hydraulic means, this regulation is necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: But this is dealing with an application for an ordinary location, and not an application for a large territory.


The PRIME MINISTER.: This refers to hydraulic process mining alone.


Robert Laird Borden: It is an ordinary application to work toy hydraulic process. There is nothing iu this Order in Council about a large location.


Tbe PRIME MINISTER.: The hydraulic process requires capital to carry it on, and everybody cannot procure the means; but in the case of an ordinary location you require nothing but strong arms to work it.


Robert Laird Borden: I know; but all that can be covered in an entirely different way. In our Nova Scotia mining laws we have the provision that unless the person works his claim in a particular, effective way it will be forfeited. You could cover everything my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) has said, by making a provision, that unless effective work of a certain character is done within a specified time, the location shall become forfeited. Thus yon get rid of tbe disagreeable feature of having the right to this location depend upon the opinion of an officer of the department, which I regard as a very vicious kind of legislation, which should toe avoided, because it will always give rise to more or less suspicion on the part of those whose locations have been denied. It is not desirable that power of that kind should toe vested even in the most capable and upright officer of the government.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: There are regulations in the Department of the Interior with reference to placer mining, hydraulic mining and dredging, and these regulations differ one from the other. The placer mining regulations require nothing but staking, and an application for the grant; dredging leases require certain conditions and the payment of a certain rental, and in the case of hydraulic leases, the regulations provide that the applicant must satisfy the commissioner {Eat the ground applied for is suitable for the work, on a large scale; that it has sufficient water to enable it to toe worked, and that there is sufficient dumping ground.
432i
These conditions are imposed for the protection of the miners generally. If my hon. friend's suggestion were adopted, any one could go to the commissioner and make an application for one mile, or two miles, or more, and though he would not be able to work it, this large area would be tied up. In the meantime the prospecting miner would complain that this large area was tied up without any advantage to the community, or even to the applicant himself. It is to prevent the 'tying up of large areas of land, to the alleged detriment of the miners, that these regulations were passed, and they are still in force. It was no doubt felt by the department, that it would be more in the public interest for the commissioner himself to have the whole discretion, and that the matter should not be brought to Ottawa to be pronounced upon by the department here. It is no doubt easier for the officer who is on the ground to verify the accuracy of the facts and to pronounce upon the matter. I take it, that there is no other reason for the cancellation of the Order in Council, than to leave it for the proper officer in the Yukon to decide. I would again point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) that the regulation itself is not abolished. It may be that the hon. gentleman thinks that the regulation itself should be changed, but I am of opinion that the granting of hydraulic concessions on a large scale should be subject to the conditions which are at present imposed. However, the only effect of the cancellation of the Order in Council is to leave the decision under the regulations in the hands of the commissioner, rather than in the hands of the officer here.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the Order iri Council provide that no lease shall be issued for a location unless it is recommended by the commissioner ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is iu the hydraulic mining regulations.


Robert Laird Borden: But on whose recommendation is it V	,


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I think it is the gold commissioner, but I am not quite sure.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman himself is not sure about that.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I am not sure whether it is the gold commissioner or the commissioner of the Yukon.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a substantive condition, that no lease shall be issued for a location unless it be recommended by the commissioner of the Yukon Territory. What my hon. friend from Ottawa has suggested as the meaning of this, may l>e a better provision, but it is not what is stated in the regulation at ail. It does not provide that the commissioner shall not issue

a location until he Is satisfied that there is sufficient dumping ground and sufficient water for working the location; it simply states* baldly, that no lease be isssued for a location unless it be recommended by him, leaving it absolutely in the discretion of the commissioner. That is what I object to. I think that everything my right hon. friend has mentioned could be covered by some such provision as I have suggested. You could make your regulations as to dumping ground and as to sufficiency of water, and you could provide that unless the regulations were complied with within a reasonable time, the location should revert to the Crown. That would cover everything that my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) has said, and would remove this objectionable element [DOT] of testing this absolute jurisdiction in an officer of the department, however capable and upright.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The next two orders are Nos. 898 and 899. They refer to the same subject, namely, the royalty to be paid upon gold. Instead of the former royalty of 10 per cent, they substitute a royalty of 21 per cent. No. 898 contains the ordinance fixing the royalty at 2J per cent, and No. 899 summarizes this, and proclaims the ordinance. No. 938 is as follows :
The Governor in Council, in virtue of the provisions of clause 47 of the Dominion Lands Act, as enacted by section 5 of chapter 15 of 55-56 Victoria, and of section 8 of the Yukon Territory Act, as enacted by section 3 of chapter 34 of 2 Edward VII., is pleased to order and doth order that clause (a) of section 41 of the regulations governing placer mining in the Yukon Territory established by Order in Council dated 13th March, 1901, shall be amended by adding the following paragraph thereto :-
If a claim is not rerecorded within three months subsequent to the date up to which it was recorded, the claim shall then be deemed to be abandoned and open for occupation and entry by a free miner, even although the required amount of work may have been done within the year for which the claim was recorded or the commutation fee paid in lieu thereof, and the certificate called for by the regulations obtained.
No. 941 enacts :
That clause 38 of the regulations governing placer mining in the Yukon Territory, established by Order in Council dated 27th November, 1901, be amended by providing that the fee of $2 therein mentioned be the fee for the registration of the instrument therein referred to for one claim, and $1 for each additional claim or fraction of a claim described in said instrument.
The next Order, No. 960, enacts as follows:
That the third paragraph of clause (d) of section 6 of the Order in Council of 8th July, 1898, be cancelled, and that the following be substituted therefor
Every entry made in any of the mining recorder's books shall show the date upon which such entry is made. A fee of twenty-five cents shall be charged for obtaining informa-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
tion, either verbally or in writing, from the mining recorder with respect to each claim, and documents filed shall be open to public inspection upon payment of a fee of fifty cents; but for copies of any documents the fee shall be two dollars and fifty cents up to two hundred and fifty words, and fifty cents for each extra one hundred words.


Robert Laird Borden: To whom do these fees belong ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: 
Robert Laird Borden: On the very highest authority in the empire, the House of Lords and Privy Council, I would be prepared to say that that Order in Council is absolutely ultra vires. Where you have a statute, the Governor in Council or any one else can only act within the terms of the statute ; and if the statute says that application must be made within a particular time, and it is not made within that time, neither the Governor in Council nor the officers of the department have the slightest power to make it a good application by affidavit and certificate.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The concession ought to be granted unless in the interval somebody has made application himself. If a third party had come in and made application for the same lot, then I have no doubt the point would have been decided in favour of the new application, but if no application had been made I think we could very well waive the technical point.
The next one, of the 22nd of December, 1902, No. 1899, provides :
1.	All unappropriated Dominion lands in Manitoba, the North-west Territories and within the Yukon Territory shall be open to prospecting for petroleum by an individual or company desiring to do so. In case there should arise any dispute as to whether lands are 'or are not unappropriated, the question shall be decided by the Minister of the Interior whose decision shall be final. Provided, however, that the minister may reserve for an individual or company who have machinery on the land to he prospected, an area of 640 acres of such shape as the minister may approve of, and that the reservation may be made for such period as he may decide.
2.	Should oil in paying quantities be discovered by a prospector on any vacant lands of
the Crown, and should such discovery be established to the satisfaction of the Minister of the Interior, an area not exceeding 640 acres of land, including the oil well and such other land as may be determined by the Minister of the Interior, will be sold to the person or company making such discovery at the rate of $1 per acre.
The next one, dated the 7th day of March, 1903, Order No. 323, provides that:
Whereas section 1 of the regulations governing the administration of Dominion lands in the Yukon Territory containing coal, established by the Order in Council of the 21st January, 1901, provides for the collection of a royalty on the gross output of the mine at such rate per ton as may from time to time be specified hy the Governor General in Council.
Therefore the Governor in Council is pleased to order the amount of the -royalty to he collected shall be and the same is hereby fixed for a period of ten years from the date hereof at the rate of 10 cents per ton of two thousand pounds and that -the right of altering said rate after the expiration of such period of ten years be reserved.
The next one provides for a special case, and. I shall read it in full. It is as follows : Extract from a report of a committee of the Honourable the Privy -Council, approved by His Excellency on the 7th March, 1903.
On a report dated 23rd February, 1903, from the Minister of the Interior, submitting that a deep shaft was sunk by Mr. A. R. Thompson, of Dawson, on placer mining claim No. 3a, on Eldorado Creek, in the Yukon Territory, with a view of ascertaining whether or not a second strata of gold-bearing gravel existed at a considerable depth below what has generally been supposed to he bed rock ; that at the depth of about 220 feet a very considerable flow of water was struck which filled the shaft and overflowed to the extent of from 900 to 1,000 gallons per minute ; that owing to the very low temperature this water formed a vast glacier which threatened to envelop the town of Bonnaza and all mining claims below the- mouth of Eldorado Creek ; and that your government Incurred very considerable expenditure in successfully capping this flow and so insuring the safety of the property situated below It on Eldorado and Bonanza Creeks.
The minister states that Mr. Thompson has now applied to the Department of the Interior for the right to the water from this shaft together with the right to dispose of the same for mining and other purposes. That- by an Order in Council of the 3rd of August, 1898, provision was made for the diversion and use of water for mining purposes in the Yukon Territory, but the right to dispose of the water acquired under the provisions of these regulations was rescinded hy Order in Council, dated the 7th of December. 1901.
The minister, however, recommends that he he authorized to grant to Mr. Thompson the right to the water flowing from the shaft referred to, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations established hy the Order in Council dated the 3rd August, 1898, and the amendments thereto, together with the right to dispose of the whole or any portion thereof upon such terms and under such conditions as may be approved by the commissioner of the Yukon Territory.
The minister further recommends, as the government, however, has incurred very consider-

13S04
able expenditure in arresting the flow of water from this shaft, and as it would appear to be reasonable that a certain portion of the revenue which may be derived from the sale of the water should be paid to the Crown on account of such expenditure, that the grant to Mr. Thompson be made subject to the payment to the Crown of a royalty of not less than ten per cent of the gross amount received for the sale or use of the water, until the royalty collected equals the amount of such expenditure, together with interest on such amount at the rate of five per cent per annum. Sworn returns on a form to be furnished by the commissioner to be made monthly by the grantee to the gold commissioner showing the quantities of water sold or disposed of, and the amounts realized therefrom. and payment at the same time to be made of the royalty thereon at the rate fixed. The grantee shall keep a book in which shall be entered all sales and which shall be submitted for the inspection of the gold commissioner or other officer of the Crown for the purpose of verifying his returns aforesaid. Default in making the said returns, in producing the said book, and in payment of the royalty, if continued for thirty days after notice has been posted to that effect in the vicinity of the shaft by the gold commissioner, or by his direction, to be followed by the cancellation of the grant, in which case the works shall be taken possession of and operated by the Crown and the revenue derived from the sale of the water shall be applied to the repayment of the amount expended by the Crown in capping the flow and operating the works until the whole amount, with interest, has been repaid.
The next order, which is dated 31st March, 1903, Order No. 472, provides :
Whereas section 6 of the regulations governing the issue of leases to dredge for minerals in the beds of rivers in the Yukon Territory, established by the Order in Council of the 18th day of January, 1898, provides that the lessees shall pay to the Crown a royalty of 10 per cent on the output in excess of $15,000 as shown by sworn returns to be furnished monthly by the lessee to the gold commissioner during the period that dredging operations are being carried on; such royalty, if any, to be paid with each return ;
And whereas at the time these regulations were approved the royalty on gold mined under the provisions of the placer mining regulations was 10 per cent of the gross output, but it has since been reduced to 2J per cent on the value of the gold exported without any exemption ;
Therefore the Governor General in Council is pleased, in virtue of the provisions of clause 47 of the Dominion Lands Act, as enacted by section 5 of chapter 15 of 55-56 Victoria, and of section 8 of the Yukon Territory Act, as enacted by section 3 of chapter 34 of 2 Edward VII., to order that the portion of section 6 of the regulations governing the issue of leases to dredge for minerals in the rivers of the Yukon Territory, above quoted, and also section 6a of the said regulations shall be, and the same are hereby rescinded and the following substituted therefor :-
The same royalty shall be paid upon the output of gold as is provided, or may hereafter be provided, in the case of placer mining claims, such royalty to be paid in the maner provided in the regulations governing placer mining.
The next one of the same date, No. 473, provides that;


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Whereas section 41 of the regulations governing placer mining in the Yukon Territory, established by the Order in Council of the 13th March, 1901, provides that any free miner having duly located and recorded a claim shall be entitled to hold it for the period for which he received entry, and thence from year to year by re-recording the same, provided, however, that during each year and each succeeding year such free miner shall do or cause to be done work on the claim itself to the value of $200, or he may at his option in lieu of the work required to be done thereon each year pay to the mining recorder in whose office the claim is recorded the sum of $200 for each of the first three years, but for the fourth and succeeding years the sum of $400 must be paid in lieu of work done on the location or in connection' therewith ;
And whereas the commissioner of the Yukon Territory reports that it would be in the public interest if the amount of work done in each year on a placer mining claim could not be commuted by payment of a fee in lieu thereof ;
Therefore the Governor General in Council is pleased, in virtue of clause 47 of the Dominion Lands Act, as enacted by section 5 cf the Act 55-56 Victoria, chapter 15, and of section 8 of the Yukon Territory Act, as enacted by section 3 of the Act 2 Edward VII., chapter 34 to order, and it is hereby ordered, that the provisions contained in the several sub-clauses of section 41 of the regulations established by Order in Council of the 13th of March, 1901, for payment at the option of the free miner, in lieu of assessment work shall be rescinded on and after the 1st day of August, 1903.
The next order is also of the same date, No. 474. It provides ;
Whereas section 2 of the regulations governing placer mining in the Yukon Territory, established by the Order in Council of the 13th March, 1901, provides that for a free miner's certificate issued in favour of an individual the fee shall be $10 and sections 20 and 34 of the regulations in question provide for the payment of a fee of $15 for entry for a placer mining claim, and the payment of a like amount for renewal thereof each year ;
And whereas the commissioner of the Yukon Territory now recommends that the charge for a free miner's certificate be reduced to $7.50 and that the fee for a grant of renewal of a placer mining claim be reduced to $10 ;
Therefore the Governor in Council is pleased, in virtue of clause 47 of the Dominions Lands Act, as enacted by section 5 of the Act, chapter 15 of 55-56 Victoria, and of section 8 of the Yukon Territory Act, as enacted by section 3 of the Act, chapter 34 of 2 Edward VII., to order that section 2 of the regulations established by the Order in Council of the 13th of March, 1901, above referred to, shall be and the same is hereby amended by striking out the fee of $10 for which provision is made therein as the charge for a free miner's certificate to an individual and substituting therefor $7.50 ; and that sections 29 and 34 of the said regulations shall be, and the same are hereby amended, by substituting a charge of $10 for entry or for renewal of a placer mining claim in the place of the present charge of $15.
Then, another order of the same date, No. 475, enacts :
i

The Governor General in Council is pleased, in virtue of the provisions of clause 47 of the Dominions Lands Act, as enacted hy section 5 of the Act 55-56 Victoria, chapter 15, and of section 8 of the Yukon Territory Act, as enacted by section 3 of the Act 2 Edward VII., chapter 34, to order that Form ' N ' of the regulations for the disposal of the right to divert and use water from any stream or lake and the right of way through and entry upon any mining ground for the purpose of constructing ditches and flumes to convey such water for mining purposes in the Yukon Territory established by the Order in Council of the 3rd August, 1898, shall be, and the same is hereby rescinded, and the following form substituted therefor.
Form N is then printed, but I presume it is not necessary for me to read it.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the resolution is adopted, I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be advisable to have all the regulations relating to the Dominion lands and matters of that kind in the Yukon revised and put in intelligible shape, and printed, so that members of the House and others interested might be able thoroughly to understand the meaning and scope of the regulations.


The PRIME MINISTER.: And laid before parliament at the beginning of the session-issued as a Blue-book ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think so.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think so. I shall make that recommendation.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.



OFFER OF JUDGESHIP-POLITICAL REPORT.

Mr. H. J. LOGAN (Cumberland).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to call the attention of the government to a paragraph in the Montreal ' Star ' of last evening. It read as follows :
Rumours that would seem strange to the un-itiated came from Ottawa this morning. It seems the Liberals have become somewhat disturbed about the apparent reaction in public sentiment. It is said, on authority that seldom errs in statements of fact that the Liberals have offered through Mr. Dansereau, a judgeship to a somewhat prominent Conservative politician in the province of Quebec, if he will carry out a programme arranged by Mr. Dansereau to create and perpetuate a split in the Conservative ranks.
I desire to ask if there is any truth in the rumour contained in the Montreal ' Star.'


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have been in the city of Ottawa pretty constantly for eight months, and I must say that I never heard such a rumour ; nor do I believe that anybody in this House ever heard it. I do not know what may be reported in Montreal, but I am sure that this is news to every body in this House. I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Logan) that there is no truth in the statement. No judgeship has been
offered to any body, especially to the hon. gentleman who is not named but well indicated. The whole thing is a pure fabrication.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: And there is no truth in the rumour of a split.



ALASKA BOUNDARY ARBITRATION- CABLEGRAM FROM LORD AL-VERSTONE.

The PRIME MINISTER.: The subject we have just discussed is another illustration that we must not always take what the newspapers tell us as gospel truth. And, on that point I may say that I have received a telegram from Lord Alverstone, Chief Justice of England :
London, October 13, 1903.
There Is not the slightest foundation for statement attributed to me in Reuter telegram from Ottawa dated 12th October, as to question in House of Comomns on that date. I have made' no communication of any kind to any diplomatic or colonial officials, or to any person respecting the case. The report is an absolute fabrication.
(Sgd.) ALVERSTONE.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sure this is what might have been expected from Lord Alverstone. I suppose the right hon. gentleman has no telegram from Mr. Ayles-worth with regard to


The PRIME MINISTER.: No.



RURAL MAIL DELIVERY.

Mr. EDWARD LIACKETT (West Prince).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to call the attention of the Postmaster General to a statement which appears in the editorial column of the Charlottetown ' Patriot,' of the 9th instant:



[Stage Direction]
As soon as the consolidated school Is established at Hazelbrook, we understand it is the intention of the government to inaugurate a rural mail delivery service in that part of Prince Ed->
ward Island. Mr. D. A. MacKinnon, M.P., brought this matter to the notice of the department and suggested that the mails could he carried by the same vans to the houses, when conveying the pupils to and from school. In this way the service could be performed very economically and satisfactorily. Thus a rural mail delivery will have Its initial movement in this province. In the event of its proving a success the system could be extended to other parts of the country.
I desire to ask the bon., Minister if there is any truth in, that statement, and, if, while he is considering the question of mail delivery in Prince Edward Island, he will establish mail delivery in the city of Charlottetown, the town of Summerside and other urban centres, instead of commencing in a rural district.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The hon. member for Queen's (Mr. McKinnon) has, from time to

time, pressed upon me the advisability of establishing rural mail deliveries. But, up to this moment, the department has arrived at no conclusion upon the subject. I may say that many other members have made similar demands, in fact, they are constant-lg being made from all parts of this Dominion. But this is a subject of very serious moment, one that the government could not undertake except after the most careful consideration ; and, for my part, I think that Canada is not ripe for any such movement. I am quite satisfied that the people of Canada would not bear the cost that such a service would involve. It is at present beyond the resources of the people of Canada to attempt to establish a rural mail delivery over a country so sparsely inhabited as ours and as large as all Europe, for Europe even with its four hundred millions of people, has not yet, to any great extent, adopted the system.



INSPECTION ACT AMENDMENT-GRAIN INSPECTION EAST OP MANITOBA DISTRICT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolutions :
.Resolved, that it Is expedient to amend the General Inspection Act, and to provide for the appointment of weigh-masters for the weighing of grain in any inspection district east of the inspection district of Manitoba, and for their remuneration by fees or otherwise.-The Minister of Trade and Commerce.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: I would say to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that this resolution is introduced merely for the purpose of submitting a Bill which I have here in detail. The object of the measure is to extend the inspection law applying to grain in tl'e district of Manitoba to the country east of Manitoba. Of course, every discussion can be had on the Bill that can be had on the resolution. If hon. gentlemen wish to discuss the resolution I will withdraw it, as I do not want to interfere with the business to be proposed by my hon. friend the Postmaster General.


Mr. TAYLOR.: What territory does the Bill include ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: The right lion, gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cart-wrigt) informs me that there is some other matter which the government desires to go on with, and I agree that it would be convenient to reserve any discussion with regal'd to the measure now proposed until the Bill is introduced. I do not think there is any objection, if it meets the approval of my hon. friends on this side.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK,
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 266), further to amend the General Inspection Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 237) to amend the Civil Service Act.-The Postmaster General.
On section 1,
Mr. BARKER.: I would like to call the attention of the Postmaster General to another officer who, I think, might well be provided for under this section. There are provisions here for three of our deputy heads, the Deputy Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals. There is a provision by which their salaries may be increased to $5,000, in certain events. The Deputy Minister of Justice, when appointed, must have had ten years' service at the bar. I can hardly imagine any man obtaining the position of Deputy Minister of Justice if he had served less than ten years at the bar, it would be very unusual ; and it looks to me as if this were rather a means of enabling this gentleman, and in tlie same manner these other two gentlemen, to get an exceptional allowance. Now I do not object, but I wish to bring forward the case of another official, the Auditor General. I am aware that there has been friction between the gentleman who holds that position and some of the other departments, but it seems to me that we should deal with the office, and that there should be no distinction made between the salary of a deputy minister of one of the departments and the salary of the Auditor General, at all events to' the disadvantage of the Auditor General. I do not think there is any deputy head in the whole service whose position is so important and so valuable to the country as that of the Auditor General. I cannot imagine that there is any sufficient reason why there should be any distinction between the salaries of the deputy heads I have named and that of an officer so important in the interests of the whole Dominion as the Auditor General. As I said before, I know there has been friction between the present incumbent of that office and other departments, probably I might more correctly say with the deputy heads of other departments. Well, I can only say that I doubt whether you will ever have an Auditor General, who attempts to do his duty, who will not have friction with the various departments. It is inevitable that it should be so. He is (lie criti-ciser, he is to a certain extent a fault-finder, and every time lie attempts to scrutinize the acts of the department he will meet with resistance ; if he persists there will

be more than resistance, there will be opposition. Now those of us who have read the correspondence in the Auditor General's Report know that he has come into conflict with deputy heads on matters that were likely to cause serious friction between them. Under those circumstances 1 think it is the duty of the government, instead of giving exceptional treatment to the deputy heads which will put him in a somewhat unfair position as regards rank, that they should protect the department of the Auditor General, whatever view they may take of the gentleman who occupies that office for the moment. 1 therefore suggest to the hon. the Postmaster General that it would be only proper, now that the salaries are being dealt with, to make provision in this section for the department of the Auditor General. lie is not a deputy head, he has not by statute the rank of deputy head, and he is apparently to be left out simply because lie has not D. H. after his name.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I appreciate what my hon. friend has said as to its being the duty of the government , to strengthen the hands of the Auditor General, to stand by him in the proper discharge of his duties, and to give proper weight and dignity to his high and responsible position I do not controvert anything the hon. gentleman has said as to the salary that should attach to the office, and if to-day I am not able to include his name in this list, it is not because of any decision to the contrary, either by the government or in my own mind. It may be that his case was not presented when the-cases of the deputy heads were under consideration. This Bill has grown, it has assumed proportions In excess of those that were contemplated when I introduced it. Therefore if the Auditor General is not being included with the others who are being given extra salaries, it is not because of any adverse conclusion we have come to, and no inference of that kind should be entertained. Perhaps my hon. friend would be good enough not to press the subject at this late date In the session. I think I can say on behalf of the government that, notwithstanding the supposed friction that has been referred to, the Auditor General enjoys the confidence and respect of the government, and we would be quite as ready as any hon. gentleman in the House to recognize his claims, both for increased emoluments and for support at the hands of the government in the discharge of his very embarrassing and responsible duties. Leaving the matter over for future consideration will not in any wise prejudice his claim. If we do not include him to-day it is simply because his case has not been under consideration. The Bill has grown, as I say, new clauses have been introduced from time to time. Under the circumstances this case might very properly come up for consideration at a later date.


Samuel Barker: I should be quite content with that decision, speaking for myself. But I would be better pleased if the Postmaster General would say that the case will be taken into consideration at an early date rather than at some future date. Some future date might be very far away. If it be that the Auditor General's case lias been overlooked, I hope the hon. gentleman will promise the House that it will be taken up at an early date, for consideration at all events. I am very glad to hear that the Auditor General has the confidence of the government. I believe the Auditor General has the confidence of the whole country and I am glad to hear now that the government do not disagree with the country in regard to him.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In asking that the matter be not pressed at this point, it was not for the purpose of shelving it indefinitely, but simply out of regard for the manifest desire of hon. members for an early prorogation. I wished to avoid anything that might interfere with that much desired end.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I see that the clause in regard to a civil engineer says that he must be a civil engineer of ten years' standing. What is the qualification of a civil engineer under that clause ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The title of ' civil engineer ' may be acquired, I suppose without one having the diploma of an educational institution, but I think the construction that would be placed upon these words ' civil engineer ' in this case would be that they would apply to some person who had acquired the legal status of a civil engineer in a technical sense.


John Graham Haggart: What is the legal status.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Perhaps it may be necessary that any one who sets himself up as a civil engineer is required to have a diploma from some college or university in civil engineering. There is a department of civil engineering in McGill and one at the School of Practical Science, Toronto. No government would consider a man as coming within the meaning of this section and being a civil engineer simply because he chose to call himself a civil engineer and sought to work in that way. He would have to be a civil engineer of standing and professionnal qualification evidenced either by the practice of his profession or by the diplomas of educational institutions. It seems to me there would be no difficulty in determining the meaning of the words ' civil engineer.'


John Graham Haggart: Of course, I can understand that if he gets the diploma of a college or institution, such as the School

of Science, lie would come under this clause, but the great majority of those who are practising their professsion in this country have no diploma or anything beyond the fact that they are working at this profession. I think it ought to be defined.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think that any government would recognize a man as a civil engineer under this section unless he had professional attainments and education to entitle him to such recognition.


John Graham Haggart: This is making the government the interpreter of what a civil engineer is. The standard should be defined.


Mr. BELL.: In reference to the matter raised by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) as to the position of the Auditor Genera!, I really feel as if the hon. minister in charge of this Bill has not given any satisfactory reason why the question should not be dealt with at this time. The hon. minister stated that this Bill had very largely developed in the course of its passage through the different stages.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not say so for the purpose of provoking discussion, but the very contrary. If my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) will reserve his observations to a later stage, I will let the Bill stand after the second reading, and then I will have an opportunity of consulting the government and perhaps be able to make an announcement.


John William Bell: All right.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I wish to add a few words to subsection (b) of section 2 of the Civil Service Act. The Clerk of the Privy Council is Mr. McGee. He is supposed to be the deputy head. He is called the deputy head, and he was supposed to come within the meaning of this section, but I cannot find any place in which he has been made deputy head by the statute. He is always included as a deputy head in the Civil Service list. Therefore, I propose to make the Civil Service Act meet the case by adding to this the following :
Subsection (b) of section 2 of the Civil Service Act is amended by inserting in the third line after the word ' department ' the words ' also the Clerk of the Privy Council.'
The committee will find by reference to subsection (b) of section 2 of the Civil Service Act, which I am now proposing to amend, that it says :
The expression ' deputy,' ' deputy head,' or ' deputy head of the department,' means the deputy of the minister of the Crown presiding over such department, and also includes the ' Auditor General,' in all cases in which such meaning is not inconsistent with his powers and duties under the ' Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.'
Hon. Mr. HAGGART
I propose to add after the words ' head of the department,' a provision that it also includes the clerk of the Privy Council.


John William Bell: I would suggest that there are other officers, not perhaps of the government, but of this parliament, who fill positions apparently very similar to that of the Clerk of the Privy Council. I refer to the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons and to the Chief Clerk of the Senate. There are also the Librarians of Parliament.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are going to be dealt with in another way.


John William Bell: I observe that, but it seems to me that provision should be made when we are passing this measure to see that the officers of the House of Commons do not receive worse treatment than those who fill other positions in the civil service. Since the hon. minister is making the amend! ment he is now making in favour of the Clerk of the Privy Council it would seem a simple and easy matter to include the Clerks of the House of Commons and the Senate.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think that the fact that the Clerks of the House of Commons and Senate are officers of parliament should be a reason for their not being embraced in the Civil Service Act. They are outside of the Civil Service Act.


Mr. BIRKETT.: I understand the hon. minister to say that the Chief Clerk of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons are to be dealt with in another way. Will other officers of parliament be dealt with in the same way ? Is it the intention to deal only with the Chief Clerks of the two Houses or is it the intention to deal generally with the officers of the House of Commons ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is a section dealing with deputy heads. Would it not be advisable to dispose of this before we embark upon a general discussion upon another question ? I think we would make more progress.


Thomas Birkett: I understand that this does not deal with the members of the staff of the House of Commons, but the hon. minister having referred to the Chief Clerk, I thought it was an opportune time to inquire about the balance of the staff of the House of Commons.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My remarks in reference to the Clerk of the House of Commons would apply to all officers of parliament. They are under the control of parliament in a different way from members of the civil service. They are not members of the civil service. This is a Bill to deal with the civil service, and if it is proposed to deal with the officers of parliament it should be done in a measure independently of the civil service.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That section 2 be amended by striking out the words ' at the time of the coming into force o/ this Act ' in the 29th and 30th lines.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the meaning of the words in this section :	.
Either as deputy or in some other with capacity in the department.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The word ' with ' is a typographical error.


Mr. LANCASTER.: It must mean ' such '. capacity, or * like ' capacity.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No. It is only dealing with those in the public service at present, and if you strike out the word ' with ' it is all right.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: This clause refers more particularly to the case of Mr. Gerald. He was for many years assistant commissioner, and for five or six years he discharged the duties of commissioner, Mr. Miall being ill. This is inserted in the Bill in order that Mr. Gerald may have the benefit of the increase the same as other deputy ministers.


Mr. COCHRANE.: It is retroactive ; giving him the benefit of the salary for five years past.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Edward Cochrane: Why didn't you come out and say so straight ?


Thomas Birkett: In future, Mr. Gerald instead of being known as the commissioner, will be known as the deputy ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It only affects the salary henceforth.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: He will be entitled to rank as deputy minister for five or six years past, so that he may get the increase of $100 a year, as the other deputy ministers get.


Edward Cochrane: This clause is put in to give this gentleman a salary that he was not entitled to.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, it gives him d record. He was acting practically as deputy minister during the illness of Mr, Miall for several years, and this is in order that his service for such should count.


Edward Cochrane: Then you are paying two deputy ministers for some years.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We could have superannuated Mr, Miall.


Edward Cochrane: You could fly if you had wings. You appear to have more consideration for these gentlemen than for the tax-payers. If any of these ministers were running their own business they would not do such a thing. This deputy minister was ill, and we all sympathize with him, and this other gentleman was not hurt at all by doing his work, but four or five years afterwards we have this kind of legislation coming down. The ministers do not give us an explanation that any ordinary mortal can understand, and we have to ply questions at them in order to grasp the situation. Now we are to pay two deputy ministers concurrently.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


Edward Cochrane: What are you doing then ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Does the hon. gentleman wish me to answer ?


Edward Cochrane: Yes, if you give us some straight information and not mystify it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will try not to do that. We are not paying any back salary at all. We have here the case of one deputy who hais been in the service for a great many years, but prior to his appointment as deputy he had been performing the duties of the office, though not occupying the legal status of a deputy. It is now proposed to recognize his services to the extent of allowing his increase to commence at such amount as his length of service will entitle him to, instead of postponing it for some length of time.


Samuel Barker: He does not get any arrears ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No. His increase will come in the future. If this session should ever come to an end, and this Bill becomes law, then this deputy minister will be eligible for this increase, so that every day we are protracting the session we are keeping that increase back.


Edward Cochrane: I would suggest to the ministers that they should give plain explanations and not be constantly mystifying what they say.


Samuel Barker: The word ' with ' in the clause has no meaning.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It must have been intended for the word ' such,' so as to read, ' some other such capacity.'


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think that is necessary at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It certainly is necessary if you read the context.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am afraid the Auditor General might hold that although acting as deputy and not having the status of a deputy, it would not be such capacity as would entitle this officer to I come in under the terms of the section. So

far as I know, there is only one deputy in the service to whom these words apply ; the whole section is limited to men who are in the service and who are well known. Therefore no great grievance can grow out of it. Every person who has now the legal status of a deputy will come in under this section, if you pass it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot see how anyone would he affected injuriously if you added the words, ' or some such capacity.' Under the Bill, a man might act in some other capacity. He might be a messenger.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no such case.	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But if there were such a ease, this would apply to it, and it would make it absurd, because service in such a capacity would certainly be of no value in determining the man's salary.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Suppose we adopted the hon. gentleman's suggestion, the Auditor General might say that as a matter of law he could not recognize that Mr. Gerald, who was serving in the capacity of assistant commissioner, was taking the place of the deputy; and therefore he would not come within this provision.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.	[DOT]
On section 4-certain salaries not affected.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved that after the word ' salary ' in the first line, the words ' or emolument ' be inserted.
Edward Cochrane: What does that mean V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It happens that some of the deputies receive something outside of their salaries. For example, Mr. Parmelee, Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, gets an allowance as controller of Chinese, and Mr. McDougald, Commissioner of Customs, besides his salary of $2,800, receives $800 as Chairman of the Board of Appraisers. These extra fees may be considered as emoluments, and it is not proposed to take them away. We want to allow the officers to retain whatever they have now.


Edward Cochrane: We have here an example of legislation brought down by a minister of the crown in such a crude state that the time of this committee has to be taken up whipping it into shape. There has hardly been a Bill introduced by the government this session that has not had to be amended over and over again before it lias been in a shape to carry out the intention. This proves to me as a layman that the legislation is not properly considered before it is brought to this House. I think the country might better pay a competent draftsman to find out what the ministers mean, and then to put their legislation in such a shape as to carry out their intention. We


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: have a provision here in regard to Mr. Parmelee, an official in a department which the minister who presides over it used to say was a sinecure and should never have been created. The hon. minister's soul is not now harassed by the fact that the farmers are being bled white. The hon. gentleman's deputy minister is receiving the same salary as he did in those days and now the minister proposes to increase it or rather to have the obnoxious word ' emolument ' or ' allowance' removed and have it made a salary so that when the minister leaves his present position the deputy will have the full salary. The hon. minister we know is idle and the deputy must be idle too and lie wishes to leave him in a secure position.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 understand that my hon. friend wants to have a law clerk appointed to do this work. That is a subject worthy of consideration but we would not care to add to the burdens of the taxpayers now.


Edward Cochrane: I know how much you are concerned about the taxpayers, when you have all the offices loaded with officials and the taxpayers are not considered at all. If 5rou had officials that had some brains to do this work that would be a benefit and we would not be detained here as we have been. The hon. gentleman brings down a measure and the moment a section is read he says he will have to amend it. How could a layman like myself understand that Bill ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh !


Edward Cochrane: I am serious about it. I do not think it is anything to laugh at that we are here from day to day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope that ' Hansard ' will not include the speech of my hon. friends as part of my own.


Edward Cochrane: They have been deceived enough, with what you said in parliament without transferring anything I said to your credit.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think it would be fail- to take away the allowances which these old officers have had and to reduce them ; that is the point. We want to protect them in their rights. Whether it was right or not in days gone by to make these allowances is another matter, but I think the committee will agree that we should protect them in their rights.


Edward Cochrane: I have no objection to protecting them in their rights. I said nothing about their rights. The Postmaster General should not put in my mouth words that I did not use. This would not excuse the Postmaster General for what he said year after year when we proposed to give anything to the civil service. He was one of the first on his feet with the Minister of

Customs denouncing the extravagance of the Tory party. The Minister of Trade and Commerce used to wax eloquent and his soul was torn with the burden we were placing on the farmers and now we are voting millions of money.
Sections as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock, Committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 5,
This Act shall not apply to the present Deputy of the Minister of Justice until the conclusion of his present engagement as one of the commissioners for the revision of the Statutes of Canada.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is because the Deputy Minister of Justice gets an allowance in connection with the revision of the statutes.


John Graham Haggart: Besides his salary as deputy minister and the allowance in connection with this revision of the statutes, I think he has another allowance, though I have forgotten what it is.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know as to that. At all events he has recently been appointed commissioner for revising the statutes for which he will get an allowance. It is not intended to give him the benefit of this Act until his com-missionership ends.	.
On section 6,
Section 13 of the Civil Service Act is repealed and the following section is substituted therefor :-
13. The deputy head of each department shall, subject to the directions of the head of the department, oversee and direct the officers, clerks and employees in the department, and shall have general control of the business thereof, and shall perform such other duties as are assigned to him by the Governor in Council. He shall give his full time to the public service and shall discharge all duties required by the head of the department, or by the Governor in Council, whether such duty is in his own department or not ; and no deputy head shall receive any bay, fee or allowance in any form in excess of the amount provided for him in section 12 of this Act.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This section is to exclude claims for any other service.


John Graham Haggart: The preceding section makes it clear, I suppose, without any exception being mentioned in this section, that the Deputy Minister of Justice is not included ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.
On section 7,
7. In addition to the class of chief clerkships referred to in sections 15 and 16 of the said
Act, another class, to be known as that of ' chief clerkship, grade A,' is hereby created.
2.	The minimum salary paid to a chief clerk, grade A, shall be two thousand four hundred dollars per annum, with annual increases of one hundred dollars up to a maximum of two thousand eight hundred dollars per annum.
3.	A chief clerk in any department may be promoted to grade A, by an Order in Council passed after-
(a.) The deputy head has reported that the duties devolving upon such officer are of special importance, and that the officer recommended for such promotion is specially qualified for their performance ;
(b.) The concurrence of the head of the department in such report ; and
(c.) The salary has been voted by parliament.
(d.) If a person on appointment to a chief clerkship, grade A, is at the time of such appointment in receipt of a salary greater than the minimum salary of such chief clerkship as above provided, he may be appointed to such chief clerkships at the salary he is then in receipt of, provided it does not exceed the maximum salary of such chief clerkship a3 above provided.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: [ move to amend subsection 3 so as to read: ' A chief clerk in any department may, without being required to undergo any special or other examination be promoted to grade A ' &e.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Samuel Barker: Is a clerk promoted to a chief clerkship, grade A., to have his salary increased over whatever he may be receiving ? For example, if his class entitled him to a maximum of $1,800, but his actual salary is $2,000, would you make the Increases to $2,100, $2,200 and so on ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This section is limited solely to chief clerks in grade A, and does not cover all chief clerks. A man promoted to grade A enters me class at a minimum salary of $2,400. If he had been in receipt of $2,400 for a year before that promotion, he would be eligible for an increase of $100. But if he had been in receipt of $2,400 for less than a year, his increase would not begin until the expiry of a year from his last increase.


Samuel Barker: Suppose he had been receiving $2,600 instead of $2,400. Would he then receive $2,700, being an increase of $100 over his then salary, or $2,500, being an increase of $100 over the minimum of his class ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Such a case could not arise. A man will be transferred from a lower class to grade A, and at promotion he would receive $2,400 as a minimum.


John Graham Haggart: How many did you intend this to apply to ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Nothing has been settled in that way. I do not think the ministers have gone through their departments with that view. I have not gone

through mine. When a law like this is to apply generally, it is impossible in advance to go through and make your selection.


John Graham Haggart: It cannot apply until next session, because parliament has to vote the money.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, it is not arranged in that way. If you would allow' me, Mr. Chairman, to direct the attention of my bon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) for purposes of explanation to section 2(5, he will And that after referring to moneys voted by parliament, it provides :
And during the financial year ending on the thirtieth day of June, 1904, there may he paid from out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada such sums of money as have been voted by parliament but are required for payment of such salaries and increases of salaries as are authorized by this Act.
There are conditions in the Bill such as are found in the Civil Service Act, that, before a chief clerkship can be created, there must be an Order in Council, a recommendation by the deputy head and concurrence by the head of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me the government ought to be prepared to give the House some information as to the number w'ho will be affected by this reorganization. Some one must have gone through and made some sort of calculation. If we have not that information, we do not know what expense the country is being committed to by this change. I assume that every one of these will want to be promoted at the earliest possible moment after this Act passes.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are not all at their maximum, comparatively few are at their maximum now'. I have no doubt that there will be a certain number of promotions, and they will be made prizes to be sought after. Instead of dumping the whole number into the higher class, all who might by law' be put there, the government will exercise a careful discretion. They are treated as privates, and this is simply an intermediate step between the chief clerk and a deputy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose it is because tlie deputy heads do not die quick enough.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, but it makes a smaller step. It is an incentive to service, so that a man should not feel that he has got to the end of his career because he has got to the maximum of a chief clerk, and that there is still a prize beyond that point.


John Graham Haggart: What sum of money is available from the votes of parliament for this purpose ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is not possible to say, because at present there are eligible cases all through the service, and unless we have an omnibus clause such Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
as clause 26, it will be necessary to revote the whole salary for every man who is promoted from a chief clerkship to grade A. Under the section, any payment of salary to a man as chief clerk should be available to pay that same man if he is transferred to the higher class. Otherwise you would have to go through the whole service and revote all that is voted for the chief clerkships.


Samuel Barker: I understood there was to be a provision inserted in section 7 to apply the same rule to the Auditor General's Department.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have an amendment for that purpose now'. I move to add this subsection to section 7 :
The provisions of subsection 3, section 24, of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, as that section is enacted by section 1 of chapter 16 of the statutes of 1891, shall apply to promotions to chief clerkships in grade A in the office of the Auditor General.
That is in order that the Auditor General should have the same control over promotions to grade A as he has in regard to promotions of other members of his staff. Since we are speaking of the Auditor General, I find it won't be possible for me to settle that particular question in; time for the present measure. The session is so far advanced that I find it impossible to take up anything new, or to indulge in any departure or amendment that will involve any delay. So I think it will be wiser to leave the matter as it is with the expressions that have fallen from hon. gentlemen, until next session.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister leave all the promotions to the Auditor General ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Whatever they are under the Audit Act; we do not propose any change.


Samuel Barker: This section which is proposed will give him the same power precisely with respect to grade A that he already has w'ith clerks in his department, neither more nor less.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Precisely.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section (a),
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This clause merely re-echoes the resolutions that passed, increasing the; minimum and maximum by $100. Section 16 fixes the minimum of a chief clerkship at $1,800 and the maximum at $2,400. This adds $100 at each end.
On section 14,
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved to amend by adding as subsection 2 the following :

Subsection 2 of section 39 ot the Civil Service Act is amended by striking out the word only ' in the second line and by inserting the following words : ' and at such other time as may be from time to time fixed by the Governor in Council.'
Section 39 of the Civil Service Act provides that promotion examinations shall be held only once a year, in the month of May. It is rather inconvenient to have Only one time in the year at which to hold promotion examinations, therefore it is proposed, not to dispense with the promotion examination in May, but to hold promotion examinations at other times in addition, when desirable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can a supplemental examination be held at any time by one member of the board or must it be held by the whole board ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, it is held by Order in Council. It is really a departmental, technical examination. It is not an examination for the public, but for those actually in the service.


John Graham Haggart: It gives the government power to hold a special examination between times.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, more than once a year.


John Graham Haggart: You can order a special examination for any candidate for a position ?


The TOSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Had you not that power before ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, the statute says only once a year.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 17,
John Graham Haggart: Is that a substitute clause for the one that is at present in the Civil Service Act ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: At present there are no third-class clerks except those who are appointed before the repeal of the provision for third-class clerks. I think that under the Act they were eligible for $50 a year increase. We are restoring the old annual increase of $50. The class that took the place of the third-class, the temporary writers, began at $400, and they had only an annual increase of $30 a year.


John Graham Haggart: But my point is this : The parties who were appointed to be third-class clerks before that class was abolished claim that they had the right to their increment of $50 a year. Of course that question was threshed out in the House and Sir Charles Tupper, while leader of the opposition, took strong ground that it was a statutory right they obtained upon appointment. This does not make it a statutory right but leaves it optional with the government.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This does not alter the law.


John Graham Haggart: It is just a doubtful point whether it alters the law or not.
On section 19,
Any person who is now, or hereafter may be, writer, clerk, packer, sorter, or messenger, temporary or otherwise, in the service of the government of Canada, employed in one of the departments at Ottawa, or in the office of the Auditor General, may, under Order in Council, be appointed a third-class clerk at a salary not less than the salary of which he was in receipt or to which he would be entitled at the time of such appointment (but limited always to a sum not exceeding to maximum salary of the third class); provided always that any such person, who in the capacity aforesaid, or in any other capacity, has been continuously in the said service for two years prior to the passing of this Act, may be so appointed without regard to his age and without passing the qualifying examination. and the said Order in Council shall be held to create the third-class clerkship in respect of which such appointment is made, and the Governor in Council may, in the case of any such person whose salary is at the time of his appointment as third-class clerk less than five hundred dollars a year, increase such salary to five hundred dollars a year, but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act, nor shall it be made except on the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that such clerk is deserving thereof.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved that :
Section 19 be amended by inserting after the word ' who ' in the first line the words ' either before or after the passing of this Act was or who thereafter ' and striking out the words ' is now or hereafter '; also to insert the letter (a) after the word 'be' on the first line; and in the 30th and following lines to strike out the words * but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into-force of this Act, nor shall it be made except.'
He said : This does not change the legal effect. The Act will come into operation when it receives the royal assent, and these words are therefore unnecessary.


John Graham Haggart: This virtually does away with the civil service examination for third-class clerks, because it allows anyone who has been in tbe service to be appointed to that grade without examination.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It provides that those who have been in the service for two years in a temporary capacity as packers, sorters, messengers, &c., shall not have to undergo an examination.


Mr. CLARKE.: After this amendment has been passed, who will be required to pass the examination 1


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Those who have been in the service for two years prior to the first

of July, 1003, as packers, sorters or messengers in a temporary capacity may be promoted to tile third-class without regard to age, and without having to pass an examination.
Hon. Mr. HAGGAItT. Does this give power to make a third-class clerk, even if there is no vacancy ?	[DOT]


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No question of a vacancy would arise in the beginning, and this does not dispense with the examination for any person who is hereafter appointed.


John Graham Haggart: It only applies to those who have been two years in the service ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Or who hereafter may be in the service as temporaries for two or three years. The temporaries can look forward to being transferred to the third-class as a reward. The question of vacancies would not arise at the beginning, because there will be no third-class clerkships in existence when this Act goes into effect. The old third-class clerkship has been merged into the junior second, so that to-day we have to start by promoting the temporaries into the third class. My own opinion is that we ought to make a liberal use of this provision, and transfer the temporaries into the third class clerkships as they show themselves deserving. A temporary position, with from $500 to $600 a year, is not a satisfactory position to hold in the service of the Dominion, and so far as my department is concerned I would look forward with pleasure to being able to go through the department, and to select all who are deserving of being made permanent. That is the spirit in which I would feel myself bound to interpret it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you, by Order in Council, create the third-class clerkships ? That was the question of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. member for Lanark spoke of vacancies, and I explained to him that the question of vacancies would arise. My own department is constantly expanding, and it is impossible to tell parliament with any accurate detail, the number of temporary writers you will require throughout the year ; you have to feel your way into it. Probably in one month you will find your staff inadequate to cope with the increased number of post office savings bank acccounts and other work, and you have to make a temporary appointment under the law. I would look forward to that temporary appointee becoming permanent, if he were fit for the position. We may consider that most positions in the service are of a permanent character; they certainly are in the Post Office Department. When a man is employed temporarily and proves himself de-


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: serving, he ought to be put on the permanent list and have a chance to rise in the service.


John Graham Haggart: Under the present Act it requires the deputy minister to report as to the necessities of the department, and the minister to concur in tLat report, and the council to approve of the organization set out in that report, before parliament is asked to vote the sums necessary to provide for the organization of that department. This clause would appear to give power to the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, to appoint any number of third-class clerks.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not after this fiscal year.


John Graham Haggart: It certainly inter-[DOT] feres with the existing Act in that respect. After all, I look upon our civil service examination as at present conducted as a sort of farce, and especially the examination for promotion from one class to another. A man who is at the maximum of the second class for thirteen or fourteen years, cannot be promoted to the first-class because he cannot pass some technical examination which is not pertinent at all to his office. I place very little faith in the civil service examination, but I think the minister should go through the form with regard to the organization as required by the existing Act.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The observations of my hon. friend, if applied generally, are very fair, but he will see that the promotion to the third class is limited to the number we have at present in a temporary capacity, and I hope the government will make a liberal use of this power.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Section 40 of the Civil Service Act provides :
Once in each year, and not later than the 15th day of March, the deputy head of each department shall make and lay before the board, through the Department of the Secretary of State, an estimate of the number of vacancies likely to occur during the ensuing year.	>
Then it names certain grades in reference to which this report is to be made.


John Graham Haggart: This clause does away with that altogether, so that that is not applicable to this clause.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It is applicable in this sense, that the only time when an estimate can be -made of the number of clerks required in the department is once a year, on the report prepared under the provisions of section 40.


Edward Hackett: I desire to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister of Labour the case of Mr. H. W. Mutch, who has been a messenger for the Marine and Fisheries Department, in Mr. Lord's office at Charlottetown for the last ten years, at $20 a month. If the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries were in his place, I might get

some information from him in that regard. We are all proud of the civil service of Canada. In every department, from the deputy head down to the lowest clerk, they are a credit to Canada, and are equal to any body of civil servants in any other part of the world.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Would my hon. fi^end allow me to make a suggestion ? I am not familiar with the case to which he refers, but there will be an item in the estimates connected with the Department of Marine and Fisheries when the minister of that department will be present. If my hon. friend will bring the matter up then, it would be more satisfactory.


Mr. GALLERY.: I would like to ask the hon. minister what examination the old employees will have to undergo ; for instance, men who have 'been working for the government for fifteen or twenty years ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend is referring to the Department of Customs. His question will be answered by subsection 3 of section 37, which provides that the examination hereafter shall be upon the duties of the office, and be departmental rather than the ordinary civil service examination.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I agree that in certain departments, such as the Customs Department, a civil service examination is out of the question. Take landing waiters, lockers and checkers, who check goods passing from steamers into cars ; these men have special training for special work, and I think it would be very unfair and ridiculous to ask them to pass a civil service examination.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will be the effect of section 6 of the Civil Service Act provided this passes ? That section says :
The Governor in Council shall, from time to time, determine the number of officers, chief clerks, clerks, messengers and other employees required for the working of the several departments.
Then it goes on to provide that all others shall be supernumerary clerks without being eligible for increase of salary. That is practically the skeleton of your service. I do not see any clause in this Bill which repeals that ; and if it is not repealed, it seems to me that you cannot by Order in Council add the third-class clerkship again.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This Act must prevail over all prior Acts. When it says the Governor in Council can create an additional third-class clerkship, it must take the place of any prior legislation that clashes with it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that is a very proper way to pass legislation. It seems to me that section 6 will have some force and effect if it is not specifically repealed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not say that section 6 of the Civil Service Act is repealed entirely and actually ; but it is repealed pro tanto, so far as those now in the service are concerned. This is to start the new class going, 'but when this fiscal year runs out the full force of section 6 will apply.
Mr.. SPROULE. If it only applied to those now in the service I could understand it, but you provide for those who may come in in the future.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There can be no appointment without a vote of money. This Bill does not dispense with the voting of money specifically, except for the remainder of this year and with respect to those now in the service. When this fiscal year expires there wifi be so many third-class clerkships, and the estimates for future years must be voted in the same way as heretofore.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you are practically creating another class by Order in Council.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: A government would not create a clerkship if it had not money to pay the clerk. There can be practically no appointment made until parliament votes the money.
On section 20,


John Graham Haggart: What is the effect of this ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This section does not alter the Civil Service Act of 1887. It classifies the employees under three classes, while now they are all enumerated in one list.


John Graham Haggart: Does it increase the salaries ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, it does not make any change in that way; it simply puts them in groups.
On section 21,


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: In section 37 of the Act of 1887 there was a subclause B ; that is left out.


John Graham Haggart: That is the clause providing that an appointment shall be made from outside the service only if no person in the civil service has the qualifications for the office.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We left that out for this reason :	Suppose that in
the Customs Department you want an appraiser, a techincal officer, and you have a man in the customs service who is possessed of the qualifications required ; you cannot appoint him, because the deputy has to certify that the requisite qualifications are not possessed by any person then in the service, and it may be a preventive officer, who has the qualifications and he



cannot give that certificate. Therefore we have left out the words :
Said appointments shall be made from the civil service if any person therein shall he found available.
Subsection 3 is entirely new, and is added to section 37. This is to meet a difficulty that was discussed when the customs estimates were under consideration, and I think the provision now made meets the wishes of members on both sides of the House. We have a great many old officers in the outside department of the service who have been engaged in the work for years and years, but who hesitate to attempt the literary examination, if I may call it so, that the Civil Service Act requires, and yet we consider that they are very competent officers in the discharge of their duties. But still, as they have not passed the examination, we have either to appoint them preventive officers, which is too general, or they have to remain on the temporary list. It is desirable I think in the public interest and in their interest, that they should be made permanent officers, and by this section you dispense with the literary examination pre scribed by the Civil Service Act so far as the outside service is concerned, and substitute therefor a technical practical examination on the duties of their office which they will be able to pass.


John Graham Haggart: What changes does this make? The Minister of Customs said a moment ago that this would not affect salaries, but was simply putting them into classes ; but I see that it increases the salaries of a number of classes. Perhaps the Minister of Customs will explain that when he returns to the House.
On section 22,
So much of schedule (b) to the Civil Service Act as is included under the heading 1 Inland Revenue,' as enacted by section 3 of chapter 12 of the statutes of 1889, is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor :-
Inland Revenue.
Inspectors, salary from	$1,600	to	$2,500Collectors, salary from	
500	"	2,400Deputy collectors, salary from... 400	"	1,700Accountants, salary from	
600	"	1,500Special class excisemen (chief officers In charge of distilleries), salary from	
1,400	"	1,800
Special class excisemen, other than as above, salary from.. .. 1,200 " 1,400 First, second and third-class
excisemen, salary from	 600	"	1,200
Probationary excisemen, salary
from	 500
Stenographers and typewriters,
salary from	
400	"	600Messengers, salary from	
400	"	750
To which may be added for surveys of important manufactories an additional salary, for the special class excisemen and other officers connected with the survey, not exceeding in any one case two hundred dollars per annum.


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this clause intended to apply in the future as in the past ? It seems to me that you are extra liberal to these people.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I will explain that. With regard to the special class excisemen, we have been in the habit of paying additional salary because the hours of work are 1 singer and because the work is special and highly technical. The clause remains the same with regard to that addition of salary to which may be added for service of important manufactories an additional salary for tlie special class excisemen, who perform that duty, not exceeding $100 per annum. But, as very often the work cannot be performed by one man, who is the chief officer in the distillery, we have had it revised so that the class will be :
To which may be added for surveys of Important manufactories an additional salary for the special excisemen class and other officers connected with such survey, not exceeding in any one case two hundred dollars per annum.
But I have similar officers to these in distilleries, one man cannot perform the duties alone, and he has what is called an assistant, who may not be a special class officer, but an officer of tlie first or second class, which is next to the rank of first officer, be should receive an additional salary of not over $200 when he is in charge of these distilleries. But this salai-y is paid only to those officers who work in those distilleries and serve long hours.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you think they are of more importance than the deputy collectors, who only get $1,700, that you give these men $2,000 ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Yes. The responsibility is very much greater. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) knows that the most important part of the revenue is derived from the distilleries, and we must have a special class of men, men of technical knowledge. I regard the special class officers as the most Important in the service-even more important than the collector or inspector of the division. They must possess technical knowledge which cannot be learned in a few years, and they must work for years, besides passing an examination of two or three classes before they reach that position.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do not the deputy collectors require the same knowledge ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: Oh, no. The position of deputy collector is open for almost everybody. They do not have to pass any examination, and their responsibility is not great, because the collector is responsible. Of course, lie may take charge in case of the collector's sickness or absence, but be is not otherwise responsible. And he need not have technical

skill equal to that of the special class excise officer.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I understood that the hon, member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) had called attention, while I was out for a moment, to a mistake I had made in saying that there had been no increase in salary. I did not allow for the effect of the classification. For instance, under this Bill tide surveyors are classed with chief landing waiters and chief lockers. The old Bill being chief landing waiters and chief lockers, $1,200, that being voted, and tide surveyors being credited with that, gives them the same,	and to that extent I was
wrong. And the messengers get $100 increase to the maximum. That is a change, I think, since I gave the Bill consideration. When I spoke I was under the impression that it made no change and hon. members will see that the change is very slight.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Bill does not make any difference between deputies in the first-class divisions and other divisions.


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: The salary is not mentioned here, but it is fixed by the minister himself. The minimum is $500 and the maximum $1,700, according to the importance of the division.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister thinks the duty of the deputy collector in a first-class division is almost equal to the duty of a special excise officer attending a distillery ?


The MINISTER OF INLAND REVENUE.: I always considered the duties of a special officer unique. They are quite different from any other service performed by any other officer in the department. Of course, the salary of $1,700 is paid only in large divisions like Montreal and Toronto, on account of the responsibility upon the collector and upon his assistant. It has always been left to the minister to determine what shall be the salaries of the deputy collectors. There are two classes, classes A and B, and each man is paid according to the importance of the work he has under his charge.
On section 23,
The Governor in Council may grant such increases of salary in the Departments of Customs and Inland Revenue as are by this Act authorized, but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act, nor shall it be made except upon the report of the deputy head of the department, concurred in by the head of the department, that the person recommended for such increase is deserving thereof.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved to amend by striking out the words 'but no such increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act, nor shall it be made except '.


John Graham Haggart: If you have a vote for the salary, and you are not limited to the 433J
date of the passage of this Act, why would it not be good for the current year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That will be for the Department of Justice to determine. But if we pass the Act now and it goes into effect on a certain date, I do not know how you can make it retroactive.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the object of striking out these words ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Section 27 of the Bill says the Act shall go into effect on the 1st of July, 1903, and unless these words in section 23 had been inserted, it would have been possible, with section 27 standing, to have made the salary commence at the date when the Act came into force. But by striking out section 27 you must also strike out the corresponding safeguard that .runs through the Bill. By not saying that the Act shall come into effect on the 1st of July but only allowing it to come into effect when it becomes law, then it is necessary to provide that the salary shall not begin at an anterior date.


Robert Laird Borden: I am of the opinion the hon. gentleman is right as to his conclusion, but you would require either express words or necessary implication in order to give the Act retroactive effect. But I do not follow the line of his argument exactly. It does not seem to me these words are any less necessary now than they were before-I refer to the words which are being struck out. I do not see that striking out section 27 affects this either one way or the other. All you say in section 23 is that no increase shall take effect from a date prior to the date of the coming into force of this Act. It does not seem to me to make any difference.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: To make the point I had in my mind I should have said ' Prior to the passing of the Act.' However, what I intended was to prevent a retroactive effect of the law and to let it take effect when it receives the royal assent.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to think that the hon. Postmaster General is right about that, and I think the original words in section 23 were introduced because of a possibly erroneous idea of section 27.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Quite so.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 26,
All sums of money voted by parliament for the financial year ending on the thirtieth day of June, 1904, for the payment of the salaries or the increases to the salaries of any persons now in the public service, shall, in the event of the promotion of any such persons to higher classes or grades, or on their transfer to other positions in the public service, or their becoming entitled to, or being granted, increases of salary under the provisions of this Act, be applicable in or towards payment of the salaries or in-

creases to the salaries of such persons so promoted or transferred, or becoming entitled to or being granted increases as aforesaid ; and during the financial year ending on the thirtieth day of June, 1904, there may be paid from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada such sums of money as have been voted by parliament but are required for payment of such salaries and increases of salaries as are authorized by this Act.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved :: That section 26 be amended by inserting after the words ' nineteen hundred and four ' in the second line the words 'and applicable'; also by striking out the word * now ' in the 4th line and by inserting the word ' not' after the word ' have ' in the 3rd line from the last of the clause. .


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That gives you au opportunity of going into the treasury when you had no authority to go into it before. You can only deal with what has been voted.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This allows the government to apply the moneys which have been voted and are now applicable to the payment of the salaries of officers although they are transferred to a higher class. Take for example the case of a chief clerk. If a chief clerk were promoted to grade A the money that we have already voted to pay the salary as a chief clerk would be available to pay him although he was transferred to a higher class. Take the class of temporary writers. There are in the service of the Post Office Department alone about one hundred of this class. The sums for this class have been voted heretofore in bulk simply under the heading of contingencies and they will be available for this class for the present fiscal year although the temporary class have ceased to be temporaries and have become third-class clerks. At the end of this year, when we enter upon a new fiscal year, they will appear in the ordinary way under the old practice and hereafter a vote will be taken for them as clerks and not as a part of the contingencies of the department.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved :: That section 27 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolutions :
1.	Resolved., that the salaries ot the general librarian and the parliamentary librarian ot the library ot parliament. [DOT] and the registrar ot the Supreme Court of Canada shall each be $3,500 per annum ; with an annual increase of $100, up to a maximum ot $4,000 per annum.
2.	Resolved, that for the purpose of determining the salary of the officers at present occupying
William Mulock: the said positions, each shall be credited with his period of service ; and shall hereafter be paid such salary as he would by length of service have become entitled to, had the provision of the next preceding resolution been in force at the time of his appointment.
3.	Resolved, that during the financial year ending June 30, 1904, there may be paid, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, such sums as are required for payment of the foregoing increases. -The Minister of Justice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are their salaries now ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Chapter 15 of the Revised Statutes, ' an Act respecting the Library of Parliament,' section 4 provides that there shall be two officers, one of whom shall be called the general librarian and the other of whom shall be called the parliamentary librarian, which officers shall be appointed by joint commission, under the Great Seal, as librarians of parliament, and shall have equal powers as respects the control and management of the library. Section 5 provides that the salary of each officer so appointed shall be such sum not exceeding $3,000 as the Governor in Council directs. Under section 0 it is provided that:
The general librarian, parliamentary librarian, and other officers and servants of the library of parliament, shall be responsible for '.he faithful discharge of their official duties, as the same are defined by regulations agreed upon by the Speakers of the two Houses, and concurred in by the said joint committee on the library.
These gentlemen are really officers of parliament and do not come under the Civil Service Act properly so-called.


Robert Laird Borden: That will bring each of the librarians up to the limit of the statute ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: This is in accordance with suggestions which, I think, were made at the time when the Bill providing for the increase of certain salaries was before the Committee of the House, that the librarians of parliament had some right to be considered in connection with it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then that brings them up at once to $4,000 ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Those that have been in the position for a sufficient length of time go to $3,500 and then they go up by annual increments of $100 a year to $4,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they start at $3,500 now or would they only be entitled to $3,500 at a certain time and then go up ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be just as well to say in plain English that they will get $4,000 a year ?


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact, so far as the present librarians are

concerned, it is a proposal to give them $4,000 a year so long as they hold office. The difference is that a new appointee would begin at $3,500.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has anything been done for the rest of the library staff ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 48 and 49 Victoria, provides that the other officers and servants of the library of parliament come under the operation of the Civil Service Act.


John William Bell: I wish to call attention to the fact that the clerks of the House of Commons and the staff of the House of Commons generally, are, so far as I can understand, not included at all in the legislation that has passed this House, and are not going to derive any advantage through it.
I would suppose that it would be advisable that the officers of the House of Commons should participate in the benefits of the present movement to increase the salaries generally speaking of the servants of the country. It would seem somewhat extraordinary if the House of Comons were providing for every, one else to the exclusion of those who are more particularly their own officials. I understand that the Senate is much more liberal in dealing with its staff than is the House of Commons, but I would like to know from the Minister of Justice, if it is necessary to pass legislation in order that the staff of the House of Commons, and the staff of the Senate may participate in these advantages ? If so, this would be an opportune time to add to this resolution, so as to include the members of the House of Commons staff. I am sure that generally speaking, the members of the House of Commons would like to see the legislation so extended as to include the officers of this House.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This no doubt is a matter of very considerable importance, and ought to be 'dealt with at an early date, but I presume it ought to be dealt with in the estimates. I do not presume it is possible to deal with it in the way we are dealing with those who are affected by the Civil Service Act.
Resolutions reported ; read the first and second times, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 267) respecting the Librarians of Parliament, and Bill (No. 2CS) respecting the registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 257) to amend the Civil Service Act.-The Postmaster General.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: As this Bill is confined simply to the civil service, it is thought not advisable to add the class which the Minister of Justice has dealt with, by resolution. I would therefore move that the Bill be reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not a peculiar situation that the librarians shall not be under the Civil Service Act, but that all the other officials of the library are under that Act 1


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is one of the mysteries of the Civil Service Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It certainly is.
On the question : When shall the Bill be read the third time :


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Leave it until to-morrow.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Better let it go to the Senate now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have had some letters in reference to this Bill which I have not been able to attend to.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman presses it, I will let the third reading stand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, I should like to have an opportunity of looking at these letters.
Order allowed to stand.



THE RAILWAY ACT, 1903-SENATE AMENDMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved :: That a message be sent to the Senate, ac-auainting their honours, that this House agrees to Nos. 1,	5,	7, 8, 9,	10,	12,	13,	14,	15,	16,	17,	18,19 20,	21,	22,	23, 24,	25,	26,	27,	28,	29,	30,	32,	34,35' 36,	37,	38,	39, 41,	42,	43,	44,	47,	48,	49,	50,	52,53, 54,	55,	56,	57, 58,	59,	61,	62,	63,	64.	65,	66,	67,
68, 69, of their amendments to the Bill intituled: An Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.
And amendments Nos. 52 and 53 as follows: Amendments to 51.
So that the clause as amended ly them will a .	leave th,prA.fnr haviner hpen ohtained from the board.
And disagrees to Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 31, 33, 40, 45, 46, 60, 70, of their amendments for the following reasons :-
Reasons for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 70.
(a.) Because the amendment made by the Senate refers to all railways, the construction and operation of which are authorized by special Acts of the legislature of any province whether the said railways have subsequently been declared to be works for the general advantage of
Canada by this parliament, or not.
(b.) That the said amendment is ultra vire3 as declaring a railway to be a work for the general advantage of Canada only with respect of certain matters instead of declaring the whole railway to be such a work.
I

(c.) That the subject matters within the jurisdiction of this parliament should be made applicable.
(d.) Because it declares a railway to be a work for the general advantage of Canada in respect to provisions of an Act.
(e.) That the second subsection of their amendment depends upon the rest.
Reasons for disagreeing to their amendment No. 6 :
Because the amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill with respect to the tenure of office of a commissioner.
Because such Acts as in the amendment stated would be a cause for removal.
Reasons for disagreeing to amendment No. 11:
Because their amendment is inconsistent with other provisions of the Bill and with the spirit in which the Bill is framed.
Because a conflict of opinion between the Governor in Council and the Supreme Court of Canada might result.
Reasons for disagreeing with their amendment No. 31 :-
Because their amendment is inconsistent vith the section which it is proposed to amend.
Because their amendment is not a complete sentence.
Reasons for disagreeing with their amendment
No. 33 :-
Because their amendment unduly limits the discretion of the board of commissioners.
Reasons for disagreeing to their amendment No. 40 :-
Because their amendment is ultra vires.
Reasons for disagreeing with their amendment No. 45 :-
Because their amendment does not remedy the evil existing under the present law.
Reasons for disagreeing to their amendment No. 46
Because their amendment is ultra vires of this parliament.
Reasons for disagreeing to their amendment No. 60 :-[DOT]
Because their amendment either limits the meaning of the word ' traffic ' or is unnecessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a difficult matter to bring any consideration to bear on these amendments, as we do not know what their effect is.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am moving with regard to the amendments, and it is for hon. gentlemen to say whether they agree with my motion or not.


Robert Laird Borden: After my hon. friend has spoken, we are just as wise as before. If the House is to give any intelligent consideration to the amendments, one of two courses will have to be adopted; either my hon. friend will have to take up each amendment and explain what it is, or else it will be necessary to adjourn the debate on his motion so as to give hou. members a chance to look into the amendments for themselves.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am entirely in the hands of the House. 1 am prepared to deal with the whole matter immediately, or, if it is more convenient to lion, members, I am willing to put off the matter.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: I was under the impression that we had all considered these amendments, because they have been before us for some time. Of course, this motion must go to the Senate, and if they fail to agree, we must have a conference.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would suggest that the amendments be taken up one by one.


John Graham Haggart: If the hon. Minister of Justice has no objection, we would like to have an explanation of each amendment, and we might afterwards take time to consider them.
On amendment 1,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The first amendment is to section 2, subsection (b). At present it reads as follows :
The expression 'by-law' includes a resolution.
The suggested amendment is :
The expression * by-law,' when referring to the Act of the company, includes a resolution.
This amendment I think we ought to accept, because it is an improvement on the phraseology.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 2,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The second amendment Is to section 5, for which the Senate proposes to substitute the following :
Every railway, steam or electric street railway or tramway, the construction or operation of which is authorized by a special Act passed by the legislature of any province, now or hereinafter connecting with or crossing a railway which, at the time of such connection or crossing, is subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, is hereby declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada in respect only to such connection or crossing or to through-traffic thereon or anything appertaining thereto, and also to the provisions set forth in this Act relating to offences and penalties, navigable waters and criminal matters, and this Act shall apply to that extent only.
2. This section shall not, however, operate as regards through-traffic on railways owned by any provincial government, without the consent of such government.
Then, they leave out sections 6 and 7 altogether. That is to say, we are to depart from the principle which we have adopted and which has been in force for many years, that parliament declares a work to he for the general advantage of Canada, and not simply a piece of the work. I can see no good reason why we should adopt a new prlnciule which it seems to me would be of doubtful legality and a very serious inconvenience in the operation of the road.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the object of the amendment ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The object of the amendment, as I understand it,

is that instead of declaring the whole work to be for the general advantage of Canada, and as a result of that declaration bringing the whole railway within our jurisdiction, we should exercise our jurisdiction only with respect to that particular portion of the railway which is connected with the crossing.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman does not propose to concur in this amendment.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Oh, no. Amendment not agreed to.
On amendment 3,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: By the third amendment it is proposed to leave out section 6, and by the fourth amendment to leave out section 7. These two sections are necessary if section 5 is retained, and therefore I propose to disagree with respect to those two for the same reason as in the case of the second amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: I quite concur in the view of the hon. Minister of Justice and I might have some other reasons in addition to those which he has already pointed out, although these reasons are, perhaps, more a question of legislative wisdom than of constitutional validity. I do not see how you could work out the provision that a railway in respect to its connection with or crossing by another railway should be a work for the general advantage of Canada and in respect to other things should not be a work for the general advantage of Canada ; and I do not see how a railway _ shall be a provincial railway, that is not for the general advantage of Canada with respect to all local traffic, but for the general advantage of Canada as to through-traffic. I think that, in addition to what the Minister of Justice has suggested, it would be absolutely impracticable to work out the provision suggested in the Senate. I have not had the advantage, however, of hearing or reading the arguments that has been adduced in support of their views.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I read with some care what was said in the Senate and I think the object the Senate had in view was to prevent the parliament of Canada extending its jurisdiction to local railways. The intention was to limit our jurisdiction as far as possible. Now, that intention may be very good but it seems to me that with respect to this particular class of enterprise it is most desirable that railways which connect together should he under tue same jurisdiction.
Amendment not agreed to.
On amendment 5,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I agree to number 5 ; the section amended is section 11. The words there added are in the second paragraph :
No commissioner shall, directly or indirectly, hold, purchase, take or become interested in, for nis own behalf.
I agree to the addition of these words:
' directly or indirectly.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 6,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I disagree with amendment number 6, which amends section 11, because the amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill with respect to the tenure of office of the commissioner because such an Act as is referred to in the amendment would be cause for removal. The amendment reads as follows :
Any member of the board accepting any gift Or favour for himself or for any other person, or exercising his influence on behalf of any person with any railway company or officer for any position or favour shall thereby forfeit his seat as a member of the board.


Robert Laird Borden: Under what provision of the law or of this statute would that he cause for removal ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will allow that amendment to stand ; I cannot put my finger upon the clause at the present time. On general principles, of course, they would he removaable for any act of corruption.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the provision that any such commissioner shall thereby forfeit his seat as here proposed would necessarily mean that legal proceedings would have to be taken so it would not be very different after all from what the hon. Minister of Justice suggests. As far as the substance of the clause is concerned it does not seem to me out of place. The objection of the hon. Minister of Justice is that it is inconsistent with the tenure of office of the commissioner. While in one sense it is, in another sense it is not. The tenure of office is for a term of years, but that tenure of office is coupled with certain provisions contained in this subsection, that the commissioners shall not under pain of forfeiture he guilty of certain acts. If this is provided for anywhere else in the statute I would agree with the Minister of Justice ; but if it is not provided for anywhere else in the Act I would be inclined to think that the amendment of the Senate is a very wise one.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In any event we could not accept the amendment in its present form.
If any member of the board accepts any gift or favour

Why, the giving of a cigar would be sufficient to disqualify a commissioner and in addition to that my hon. friend will mark the words :
-shall thereby forfeit his seat as a member of I the board.

Forfeiture of a seat might be construed to mean the vacating of a seat and that might render all subsequent acts of the commissioner void; there is that embarrassment about the clause as drawn.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister will observe that I was referring to the policy of the subsection. I do not at all overlook the difficulty my hon. friend suggests as to the precise- wording of this clause. However, perhaps we can let this stand my hon. friend the Minister of Justice can point out later the provision to which he referred.
Amendment allowed to stand.
On amendment 7,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This amendment I agree to. It is an amendment to section 25. It provides for inserting the words ' company or ' before the word ' person.' The object of the amendment is to make the section apply to companies as well as to persons.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 8,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This also is an amendment to section 25, and is for the addition of the words ' company or ' in another line. It has the same effect as the previous one.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 9,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is an amendment to section 43, and it is one to which I agree. The object is to add, after the word ' may,' the words ' of its own motion or.' The section now reads that the board may upon the application of any parties state a case to the Supreme Court of Canada. This extends it so that the board may take this action upon its own motion. That, I think, is a good amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 10,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This also is an amendment to section 43, and it provides for the addition of the words 'like reference may also be made on the request of the Governor in Council.' I think that is a useful amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 11,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is an amendment to section 44, and is one with which I disagree. The amendment is proposed to the second paragraph of section 3. That paragraph reads :
An appeal also shall lie from the board to such court upon any question which, in the opiniorf of the board is a question of law, upon leave


Charles Fitzpatrick: therefor having been first obtained from the board.
It is proposed to substitute for this the following :
An appeal shall also lie from the board to such court, upon any question of law, upon leave therefor having been first obtained from the board or, in the event of their refusal from two Judges of such court.
I propose that this amendment be not concurred in, the reason for disagreeing being because the amendment is inconsistent with other provisions of the Bill and the spirit in which the Bill is framed, and conflict of opinion between the Governor in Council and the Supreme Court of Canada might result. The intention- of the Bill is to endeavour to have grievances that exist speedily remedied, and, to that end, that the finding of the board may be final and appeal to the courts excluded, except as the board may, of its own motion, determine to refer questions of law to the court.
Amendment not agreed to.
On amendment 12,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is an amendment to section 52, and proposes to insert, after the word ' Canada,' the words ' notice thereof to be given to the secretary of the board, who shall keep a register for the purpose.' Section 52 provides that the head office of the company shall be in a place designated by the special Act of the company, but that the company may by by-law change it from time to time. The intention of the amendment fs to provide [DOT] that notice of any change of head office shall be given to the board, so that the board may know where the head office of every company is. This amendment I agree to.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 13,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is an amendment to section 111, and to this also I agree. The proposal is, in the first line of subsection 4 to substitute for 'bonds' the word ' securities.' That is a better word, as having more general application.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 14,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This also is an amendment to section 111, and provides for the substitution of 'and' for ' but ' in the third line of subsection 4. The subsection reads : ' The power of issuing bonds conferred on the company hereby or under the special Act shall not be construed as being exhausted by such issue ; but,' and so on. 'And' is substituted for ' but.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

On amendment 15,
Samuel Barker: Ought not the word ' securities ' to be put in place of ' bonds ' on the fourth line of subsection 4, seeing it has been substituted in the other case ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) will see that this will be unnecessary if we agree to amendment No. 15. The effect of No. 15 is to strike out the words ' upon the bonds constituting such issue being withdrawn or paid off and duly cancelled.' The whole clause reads : ' But such power may be exercised from time to time upon the bonds constituting such issue being withdrawn or paid off and duly cancelled.' The latter part of the clause is struck out. I agree to the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 16,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The object of this is to amend section 122 by inserting before the beginning of the present subsection provisions with regard to the preparation of a map showing the proposed location of the railroad. To this amendment I agree.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 17,
In the province of Quebec the portion of the railway comprised in each municipality shall be indicated on the plan and in the book of reference by separate number or numbers.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is done as a result of the cadastral system we have in that province, in which each property is numbered. I think the amendment is useful, and I agree to it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
On amendment 19,
In the fifth line of subsection 3, section 139, leave out from * certified ' to ' an ' in the seventh line and substitute * as provided in section 129 of this Act.'
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The effect is merely verbal. It is to amend paragraph 3 of section 129 by omitting the words :
' Certified correct by the president, general manager or one of the directors of the company, and also by its engineer.' I move concurrence in the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 20 agreed to.
On amendment 21,
In the third line of subsection 2 after the word ' Act ' where it first occurs, insert ' excepting paragraph (c) of subsection 1 thereof.'
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I also agree to that. The paragraph will then read :
Such arbitrator or arbitrators shall have and may exercise with respect to such arbitration
all the powers mentioned in section 49 of this Act excepting paragraph (c) of subsection 1 thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
On amendment 23,
For subsection 3 substitute :
3. Where the lands are situated in the province of Quebec, the notice shall be published as is required in cases of confirmation of title, and the registrar's certificate shall be procured and filed as in such cases.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I accept that amendment. It is another amendment to section 124, by which we substitute another new section to subsection 3. because of certain conditions existing in the province of Quebec, for which we made an amendment some time ago.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 24,
In the second and third lines of subsection 4 leave out ' or judgment of confirmation.'
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I accept the amendment. It is also applicable to the same section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 agreed to.
On amendment 30,
Leave out paragraph (g) and substitute :
Whenever any city, town or incorporated village is desirous of having lines of telegraph, telephone, or for the conveyance of light, heat, power or electricity, placed under ground the board may, on the application of such city, town or incorporated village, require the company to thus place its lines or wires under ground, and abrogate the right given by this section or by the special Act to carry lines on poles, in such city, town, or incorporated village, the whole on such terms and conditions as the board may prescribe.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the actual change made ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Paragraph (g) in the Act reads :
In case efficient means are devised for carrying any such lines or wires underground, no Act of parliament requiring the company to adopt such means, and abrogating the right given by this section to carry lines on poles, shall be deemed an infringement of the privileges granted by this Act, nor shall the company be entitled to damages in respect thereof.
This is clearer and more effective, and gives more complete control to the municipalities.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment 31,
Add as subsection 3 :
3. Nothing contained in this section shall be deened to authorize the company exercising the powers therein mentioned for the purpose
[Stage Direction]
of selling or distributing light, heat, power or electricity in cities, towns or villages, without the company having first obtained the consent therefor by a by-law of the municipality.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I disagree with this amendment. It would' make the company subject to absolute control of the municipalities, and make it impossible to exercise the powers conferred by parliament. I move that the amendment be not concurred in for the following reason :
Because their amendment Is inconsistent with the section which it is proposed to amend, and because their amendment is not a complete sentence. I move non-concurrence with the amendment.
Amendment not agreed to.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
On amendment 33,
Add to the end of subsection 2 :
Having regard as to whether the right to one or more crossings or to take away or withhold rights of crossing formed part of the consideration paid by the company to the landowner, or of the bargain by which the company acquired the land.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The amendment of the Senate would have the effect of unduly limiting the discretion of the board while we contend that it is proper that the board should have absolute discretion in the premises to determine whether an additional farm crossing is necessary. I therefore beg to move :
That the said amendment be not concurred in for the reason that the amendment unduly limits the discretion of the board of commissioners.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you propose to leave it entirely in the hands of the commissioners as to whether they shall give an additional crossing to a portion of a farm ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, in ease a farm is subdivided.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the farmer should have that right without being obliged to apply to the board for it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Section 198 provides that:
Every company shall make crossings for persons across whose lands the railway is carried, convenient and proper for the crossing of the railway for farm purposes. In crossing with live stock, the same shall be in charge of some competent person, who shall use all reasonable care and precaution to avoid accidents.
That is the law as we have it at the present time, but when the farm is subdivided the question arises as to whether each subdivision of the farm is entitled to a crossing. In a case in the Supreme Court against the Grand Trunk Railway Company it was decided that the original crossing was the only crossing that was binding on the company and that the subdivision of the farm afterwards did not entitle the man who got the subdivided farm Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
to an additional erosssiug. This provision of the new Bill is to enable tlie man who has acquired the subdivided farm to go before the board and let the board decide whether an additional crossing is necessary or not. The intention of the Senate is to limit the authority of the board by providing that the board shall be obliged to take into account all the conditions existing at the time the right to the farm crossing was acquired. We think it proper not to bind it in this respect but to allow the board to determine what shall lie done under the existing conditions at the time the application is made.


John Graham Haggart: The Senate amendment means, that, where a party sells his land to a railway company and makes a bargain with the railway company that he shall not. have more than oue crossing, or that he shall not have any crossing, notwithstanding that bargain, be may apply to the board for the purpose of securing a crossing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is just the other way about. Subsection 2 of the Bill reads as follows :
The board may, upon the application of any landowner, order the company to provide and construct a suitable farm crossing across the railway, wherever in any case the board deems it necessary for the proper enjoyment of his land, on either side of the railway, and safe in the public interest ; and may order and direct how, when, where, by whom, and upon wh5t terms and conditions, such farm crossing shall be constructed and maintained.
This leaves it absolutely under the control of the commissioners to determine whether or not an additional farm crossing is advisable. The Senate leave these words I have just read as they were originally, but they add this paragraph :
Having regard as to whether the right to one or more crossings or to take away or withhold rights of crossings formed part of the consideration paid by the company to the landowner, or-of the bargain by which the company acquired the land.
Under this amendment the commissioners are obliged, in determining whether or not they shall grant an additional farm crossing, to consider the terms of the contract under which the railway company acquired the land from the original landowner in connection! with which land application for a farm crossing is being made.
I-Ion. Mr. HAGGART. It is exactly as I said it was. The Bill, as we passed it, gave the board, notwithstanding any bargain that was made with the landpwner in reference to a crossing, the right to determine whether a crossing should be given or not, whereas, the Senate amendment directs that the commissioners, if a bargain has been made that there shall be no crossing, to inquire into the circumstances of that bargain in considering the application. If

a railway company in order to be relieved from the necessity of making a railway crossing, are obliged to buy a whole farm and sell it off in sections, after making that bargain with the individuals, why should they be obliged afterwards to provide a crossing if the railway commissioners decide that it is necessary ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I can answer my hon. friend's question. I think there would be good reason. The conditions may have changed as yearsl have gone on. The situation of the land may be different. The reasons which originally made the crossing unnecessary might not then exist and would not be at all applicable to the matters that come before the board. As the amendment of the Senate limits the jurisdiction of the board I agree with the hon. Minister of Justice that we should not concur in it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought our original Bill went farther. I thought it gave a farmer the right to a crossing upon any unsold land that he had. The old Railway Act provided that a farmer was entitled to a crossing, but I think that was only one crossing to every lot. That lot might be 100 acres in extent. The case I have in mind is where a man sells the half of his lot. He has one crossing for the whole lot but that crossing happens to be on one of the fifty acre subdivisions. He sells the one which has the railway crossing. The railway runs through the centre of the farm and he wants another crossing but because the original crossing happened to be on the other fifty acres and although he is willing to bear all the expense of making a second crossing he is not allowed the right to another crossing so as to get the use of his land which he owned before the railway was put through the farm at all. It seems to me that is a very hard case, but many eases of that kind occur and I thought that in the Bill which we passed we had provided a fair means of redress for a farmer under such circumstances as those.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Under the law provision was made for farm crossings. Supposing a farmer has 100 acres. He subsequently subdivides the property. The case I have in my mind at the present moment is a case with which I was connected, the case of a father who owned 100 acres of land. He subdivided his farm so as to give one part of his property on his right to one son and another part on his left to another son, he himself reserving the middle farm. After a time the sons wanted to get a farm crossing for themselves. Application was made to the railway company, the company refused, suit was brought in the province of Quebec, it was held that they were entitled to a farm crossing for each farm, but the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and in the Supreme Court it was decided that in view of the original purchase of the property,
a provision' being made for only one crossing, they were entitled to no more. Under the Bill as we passed it the board can authorize as many crossings as under the circumstances they think necessary. But the amendment passed by the Senate would oblige the board when application is made to take into consideration the circumstances connected with the original purchase and limit their authority to deal with it. Under these conditions we think it better that the board should be absolutely free to exercise their own judgment in regard to the conditions which exist at the time the application is made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the farmer is entitled to that right. While the board is free to say that a crossing shall be provided it is equally free to say that it cannot be made and if it says that there shall be no crossing the farmer is deprived of the right" of using his land.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That would be a very good criticism of the Bill as we sent it to the Senate, but it is an absolute criticism of the amendment of the Senate which goes much further in the direction of doing what my hon. friend wants to prevent this Bill from doing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am entirely opposed to the amendment of the Senate. I think it is an absurdity. I thought the Act as we sent it contained a complete provision.


Mr. WILSON.: What would the probable cost be of taking this before the Railway Commission ? I think there should be very little trouble for a farmer to get across a railway, because we know the very great inconvenience the farmers are often put to by railways being built across their farms. The case which the Minister of Justice cited, would show that if a farmer divided his farm among his sons, they might have a great deal of difficulty in getting across it.
I would be strongly in favour of making it as easy as possible for a farmer to get across a railway without going to any great expense.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, agreed to.
On amendment 40,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I propose that we disagree to this amendment. It is an amendment to section 211, which is called the contracting out clause. Subsection 4, of section 211, provides that the company shall be liable for damages to the individual who lias suffered injury, or to his representatives, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary with regard to auy such person. That is to say, no agreement can lie entered into between the company and the individual, which will save the company from liability in the case of an ac-

cident; that if the company is liable to the individual, and if for any consideration which they choose to give, for instance by way of insurance, they make a contract with him by which he will waive all claims against the company for the damage he may suffer, accepting in lieu of the claim such indemnity as the company may fix or determine in advance ; such an agreement as that is invalid. So far as I am personally concerned, I would like to make this statement : As to whether or not such a provision as that can be contained in a railway Act passed by the federal parliament, I am doubtful. I would like to protect myself on that score.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Doubtful whether it would invalidate the contract ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.
EIou. Mr. HAGGART. What is the effect of the Senate amendment ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Under the English workman's Compensation Act, or the Employer's Liability Act, I forget which, for the moment; an employee can contract himself out, provided the form of contract is prepared beforehand and submitted to an official who is called the registrar of friendly societies. If it is approved of by that official, the contract is binding, and there are certain conditions as to what this agreement must contain. It seems to me that the attempt of the Senate, was to some extent, to adopt that provision, but the Senate failed entirely in that object. Their amendment was :
That after the words ' notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary with regard to any such person,' the following should be added-
Unless such agreement shall have been first approved by order or regulation of the board.
The idea would be that each time an agreement which would have for effect to restrict the liability of the company, would be entered into with a particular individual, that agreement, if submitted to the board and sanctioned by the board, should be binding. I presume the object they had in view was to substitute the board for the registrar of friendly societies in England. My difficulty is, and I will not do more than merely state it; a contract of lease and hire is essentially a civil contract under the control of the provincial legislature, and if the contract is made in the province, it is made subject to the law of that particular province, and how far we have the right to say, that an individual in a province can not enter into a contract, which is in my judgment an ordinary civil contract, is to say the least doubtful. I do not enter any dissent against this, but I wish to express my personal view, and I do so for my protection if the matter is considered nere-after.


John Graham Haggart: If we reject the amendment of the Senate, will not the effect he to do away with the present insurance companies, to which the largest amount is contributed by the railway companies ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It seems to me that will be the effect. At present each railway company contributes to the employees' liability insurance company a certain amount, and when each individual is hired by the company he signs an agreement by which he becomes a member of the insurance society, and by which he binds himself and his representatives not to claim more than a certain amount from the company. That means, that the liability of the company is limited. The consideration given by the company is a contribution towards the insurance fund. If that contract be not binding, it is presumable that the companies would not continue their contribution. However, I will not discuss that matter now. I have my individual opinion about it, but it is a matter which after all the employees who are interested in this legislation are most concerned about. If they consider it desirable to set aside these insurance benefits, that is a matter that concerns them, and I think after all they ought to be the best judges.
Amendment 40 not agreed to.
On amendment 41,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I move to concur in that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why do you consent to strike out these words ? I think it is a good provision that these bells should be rung.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are two amendments to the same section, and if my hon. friend has the original section before him, and will follow me, he will see the reason.
Section 224 at present reads :
When any train is approaching a highway crossing at rail level, the engine whistle shall be sounded and the bell rung at least eighty rods before reaching such crossing, and at short" intervals, until the engine has crossed such highway.
Instead of saying ' at short intervals ' the amendment, provides that the Bill shall be be rung continuously, so that it affords a greater protection for the public.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments 42, 43 and 44 agreed to.
On amendment 45,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is the cattle-guard amendment. 1 propose to dissent from this and I put my reason very briefly. I believe I am expressing the view of the great majority of the House when I

say that the amendment does not remedy the evil existing under the present law.
Amendment not agreed to.
On amendment 46,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This amendment proposes to add as subsection 5 of section 237 the following :
5. In all actions under this section v.'Lere a judgment shall be obtained in which the amount thereof does not exceed two hundred dollars, there shall be no appeal from the court of competent jurisdiction.
I dissent from this, because I contend that it is ultra vires of this parliament.
Amendment not agreed to.
Amendments-47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 agreed to.
On amendments 52 and 53,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: These two amendments require to be taken up together, as they both deal with section 253. They would practically make the section inoperative. It would read, beginning at line 40 :
Nor shall any company so distribute or allot its freight cars as to discriminate unjustly against any locality or industry, or against any traffic which may originate on its railway destined to a point on another railway in Canada with which it connects.
The words originally were, ' with which it may be connected.' ' Connects ' means immediate contact; 1 may be connected ' suggests the possibility of an intervening space or road. While I do mot absolutely disagree with the amendments, I propose that the clause be amended so as to read as follows :
Nor shall any company so distribute or allot its freight cars as to discriminate unjustly against any person, railway, locality, industry or traffic.
Amendment (the Minister of Justice) agreed to.


Samuel Barker: What objection is there to section 252 as amended by the Senate, with the saving words which they have inserted :
The board shall not grant such leave unless satisfied that granting the same is not contrary to the public interest.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I strike that out altogether.


Samuel Barker: I do not see that there can be objection to this clause with these words in. There may be cases where it will be a great convenience to railway companies to have power to divide their earnings in a particular manner, that is, as between each other, in an arbitratory manner ; division on a mileage basis may not be a fair division.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend is perhaps right so far as the first words are concerned :
Without leave therefore having been first obtained from the board.
That would give the board power to interfere; but I do not like the other words, which seem to be absolutely superfluous :
The board shall not grant such leave unless satisfied that granting the same is not contrary to the public interest.
It does not seem to me that it should be necessary to tell them that they are not to do what is not in the public interest. I was perhaps going too far in my proposed amendment, and perhaps had better re? strict myself to eliminating the last .words of the amendment of the Senate. I shall consider the matter.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
On amendment 51,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This amendment purports to amend section 252. I suggest that we accept part of the amendment. The clause as amended will then read :	' Without any leave therefor having
been first obtained from the board.' I move that this amendment be not agreed to but that it be amended by striking out all the words except those I have quoted.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55, 50, 57, 58 and 59, agreed to.
On amendment CO,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This amendment purports to amend section 275 of the Bill, inserting after the word ' traffic ' in the 27th line the words ' to which this Act applies.' I disagree with this amendment and move that it be not agreed to for the reason that it either limits the meaning of the word ' traffic ' or is unnecessary.
Amendment not agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 63, agreed to.
On amendment 64,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: From No. 00 to No. 64 these are all amendments to the same section, No. 275. The last is an amendment with respect to free transportation. Subsection 5 of this section provides that ' the company shall furnish free transportation upon any of its trains for members of the House of Commons of Canada and for any members of the board,' and so on. The amendment makes it read : ' The company shall furnish free transportation upon any of its trains, for members of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada with their baggage, and also for members of the board.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Amendments 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69, agreed to.
Robert Laird Borden: With respect to section 284, as to traffic agreements, is there any conflict between that and one of the sections we have already passed-I do not recall the number at the moment-providing that consent must be obtained for the pooling of receipts. This section No. 284 provides for ' division and apportionment ' of tolls under certain circumstances. That does not seem to be very different from the pooling of receipts.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The section as it left the House of Commons provided :
284. The flirectors of any company may, at any time, make and enter into any agreement or arrangement not inconsistent with the provisions of this or the special Act, with any other company, either in Canada or elsewhere, for the regulation and interchange of traffic passing to and from the company's railways, and for the working of the traffic over the said railways respectively, or for either of those objects separately, and for the running of the trains over the tracks of another company, and for the division and apportionment of tolls in respect of such traffic.
The Senate amendment proposes :
The directors may at any time make and enter into any agreement or arrangement net inconsistent with the provisions of this or the special Act, with any other company, either in Canada or elsewhere, for the interchange of traffic between their railways or vessels and for the division and apportionment of tolls in respect of such traffic.
The hon. member will see this expresses ali that appears in the first paragraph of section 284 in fewer words and more general terms. I think perhaps that it is an improvement, because when you elaborate the statute you are apt to forget something and so get into trouble. And the second paragraph of the amendment:
2.	The directors may also make and enter into any agreement or arrangements, not Inconsistent with the provisions of this or the special Act, for.
Then, the present subsection 2 becomes subsection 3. Subsection 2 provides that the making of any such arrangement or agreement shall not restrict, limit or affect any power by this Act vested in the hoard. That leaves all the power to the board intact. Subsection 2 of the Bill as we sent it to the Senate becomes subsection 3 under the new drafting.


Robert Laird Borden: This section seems to be perfectly consistent, so far as its own terms are concerned. But what I had in mind was a previous section.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That would be section 252, would it not V


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, that seems to be it. Subsection 4 of that section provides :


Charles Fitzpatrick: No company shall, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, directly or indirectly, pool its freights or tolls with the freights or tolls of any other railway company or common carrier, nor divide its earnings or any portion thereof with any other railway company, or common carrier nor enter into any contract, arrangement, agreement, or combination to effect, or which may effect any such result.
Without leave therefor having been obtained from the board. This section 284 provides that the directors may make any such arrangements ' not inconsistent with the provisions of this or the Special Act.' I suppose that possibly those words to which my hon. friend has called attention might control.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think they do control.


Robert Laird Borden: Very likely that is the case. I suppose there may be some distinction to railway men between pooling receipts and a division and apportionment of tolls respecting traffic.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am told there is a great distinction, and I endeavoured to get an explanation of it, and the explanation embarrassed me. A pi*e-tended railway expert attempted to explain it to me, but I must admit that probably owing to my obtuseness I did not understand it. With respect to amendment 70, I dissent from it. This Senate amendment to section 310 would be admissible if we had adopted their amendments to sections 6 and 7 ; but having refused to concur in their amendments to sections 6 and 7, I cannot accept the amendment No. 70. I move non-concurrence for the same reasons as given in amendments 6 and 7.


Samuel Barker: There may have been reason for the Senate striking that out. An examination of the statutes would probably lead the Minister of Justice to see it was a reasonable amendment. I think all these railways have been expressly made works for the general advantage of Canada. I think there is not a railway there which has not been converted into a Dominion railway by express enactment.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think there are one or two exceptions.


Samuel Barker: I doubt whether there is any one of these that has not become a Dominion railway now by express enactment.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: What would you suggest ?


Samuel Barker: I think the reservation of these in the general Railway Act may be altogether unnecessary if they are Dominion railways, and if so it is useless to retain such a provision.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Would the section do any harm ?


Samuel Barker: No harm at all.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Then, if the hon. gentleman does not mind, I would prefer to leave It.
Amendment not agreed to.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE moved that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours with the reasons for nonconcurrence with the foregoing amendments.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 259) to amend the North-west Territories Act, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
2. Except where a question has been reserved [DOT] and stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court of the North-west Territories as a court of appeal under section 743 of the Criminal Code, 1892, the judge by or before whom the judgment, order or decision then in question was rendered or made, shall not sit as one of the judges composing the court unless his presence is necessary to compose a quorum.
2.	The proviso added to section 50 of the said Act by section 4 of chapter 17 of the Statutes of 1894 is repealed.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: This amendment has been suggested by Mr. Justice AVetmore, who has considerable experience in criminal cases in that part of the country, and who thinks it is desirable that the judge should reserve a case for the full court.


Mr. SCOTT.: AVith the consent of the House and of the minister, I beg leave to propose two additional clauses to the Bill, as follows :
3.	Notwithstanding anything in the Northwest Territories Act, or any Act in amendment thereof, the legislative assembly may, by ordinance, repeal the provisions of sections 49, 51, 53, 55, 64, 88, 89 and 90 of the said North-west Territories Act as amended, and re-enact the said provisions or substitute other provisions in lieu thereof, but nothing in this section contained shall be construed as giving to the legislative assembly power to pass ordinances for the constitution, organization or maintenance of courts of criminal jurisdiction, or respecting procedure in criminal matters.
4.	Notwithstanding anything in the Northwest Territories Act, or any Act in amendment thereto, the legislative assembly may, by ordinance, repeal the provisions of sections 7, 8. 9. 11 and 12 of chapter 19 of the statutes of 1888, and section 18 of cifhpter 17 of the Statutes of 1894 as that section is enacted by section 9 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1897. and re-enact the said provisions or substitute other provisions in lieu thereof.
I may explain the purport of these various
sections of the North-west Territories Act under which it is proposed to give power to the legislative assembly.
Section 49 has reference to times and places of sittings of the Supreme Court in banc.
Section 51 empowers the Governor in Council to divide the territories into judicial districts. The amendment will give power to the assembly to make provision for determining the boundaries of judicial districts.
Section 53 makes a Supreme Court judge the instrument of authority in any matter which the law specifies shall be dealt with by a court or judge, in the absence of other specific provision.
Section 64 deals with justices of the peace, as to appointment, qualifications, &c., and with police magistrates.
Section 88 deals with the jurisdiction of judges in civil matters, and the class of matters in which either party may demand a jury trial, together with various other provisions relating to civil trials and cases.
Sections S9 and 90 also deal with judgments and procedure in civil cases.
The sections mentioned in No. 4 are 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 of chapter 19 of 1888. All refer to the constitution of the legislative assembly.
Section 7 prescribes the qualifications of voters.
Section 8 the qualifications of candidates for election.
Section 9 specifies the oath to be subscribed and taken by members.
Section 11 deals with the election and duties of the Speaker.
Section 12 names the occasions when the Speaker may vote in the legislative assembly.
Section 9 of chapter 28, of 1897, which repealed and was substituted for section IS of chapter 17 of 1894, prohibits members of the legislative assembly from holding positions of emolument, making the exception as regards members of the executive council who have procured election after appointment to such office.
In this latter important particular what I am proposing to do by the amendment is to give the legislative assembly power to define the qualifications or limitations and to regulate the conduct of its own members, a right and power which is possessed and exercised by this parliament and by every-provincial parliament. I may say that in every discussion of the question of provincial autonomy by Premier Haultain, the lack of tliis power has been a matter of serious complaint. The proposal as a whole, while perhaps not very urgent or important, will have the effect of narrowing down still further the difference between the present position of the territories as territories, and tile position of a province in confedera-| tion. I may explain that when Premier . Haultain was on his last visit to Ottawa,

in February or March, a tacit understanding was arrived at, not, of course, with his willing consent, because, as a matter of fact, Premier Haultain believes that the question of provincial establishment should not he delayed at all, that the whole question of autonomy should not be dealt with and could not be dealt with at this session of parliament, and as a result of this understandig he suggested a number of intermediate changes in the existing powers of the legislative assembly. He proposed one important change by which the entire land titles system should be transferred to the local authority as well as a number of additional minor changes of which these I am proposing form a part. I believe, that, but for the long absence during this session of the hou. Minister of the Interior (Hou. Mr. Sifton), all of these changes which have been asked for by Premier Haultain, would have been introduced and put through at this session, but on account of the pressure on his time, and perhaps partly because of the opinion which I think the hon. Minister of the Interior has formed that the question of provincial establishment cannot wisely be 'delayed beyond next year, he decided not to take up any of these points at this session, but to leave them over until next session, and then finally dispose of the whole subject by giving the territories a complete provincial status. On account of provision being made at this session for an additional judge of the Supreme Court of the North-west Territories, and a consequent necessary amendment of the North-west Territories Act, Premier Haultain, some time ago, wrote to me suggesting that even if the change respecting the transfer of the land titles system could not be made this year it would be a distinct advantage to the practical carrying on of the business of his government if certain of these minor changes were made. It perhaps would be only right for me to state further that Premier Haultain's proposals to the hon. Minister of the Interior included half a dozen other sections in addition to those that I have gone over. I have omitted a number of sections at the suggestion of the Department of Justice, which holds that these other sections deal with criminal jurisdiction over which _ for the present this parliament's authority had better be maintained. With that view of the department, I do not express agreement or disagreement. At this stage of the session it is perhaps wise not to attempt to introduce anything controversial, and I have therefore left out half a dozen sections which Premier Haultain desired to have added to this amendment. These various sections which I have added to this proposed amendment are not of very great moment. I do not imagine that they can raise any controversy at all. I trust they will meet with the unanimous approval of the House.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: There is nothing in that germane to the Bill ?


Thomas Walter Scott: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, the Bill is intended to provide for the constitution of the Supreme Court, and also for appeals to the court. The intention of the amendment that my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) proposes is merely to give to the council of the North-west Territories control over the court as to the time, place and sittings of the court, as to the dividing the territories into judicial districts, as to defining the territorial jurisdiction and other provisions of that sort. They also asked that they should have control over the administration of criminal justice, but I was not prepared to give it to them, and they 'did not get it. We are responsible for the administration of criminal justice in these territories, and we want to keep control over its administration.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be better if the committee could have some notice of amendments of this kind. It is almost impossible to understand them on the spur of the moment.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think it is fair to take my hon. friend by surprise, and I have no objection at all that the committee should rise.


Robert Laird Borden: If I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott), who has introduced the amendments, they are in the direction of giving greater powers to the legislature of the North-west Territories witli respect to civil matters.


Thomas Walter Scott: And the constitution of the assembly.
Mr. BORDEN fHalifax). If that be the case, and' when I have the opportunity to look them over, there will not be the slightest objection to them, and I will do everything to expedite their passage.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-AUTONOMY OB'1 THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Bfitzpatrick) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['I would like to give notice that I intend to move a resolution in regard to Fast Atlantic Service, on going into Supply.']
Robert Laird Borden: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter which is of some importance not only to the people of the North-west Territories of Canada, but to the people of the entire Dominion. Early this session I called attention to the fact that the speecli from the Throne made no reference to the granting of a provincial status to the North-west Territories, and I expressed the hope that before the end of this session-which at that time we thought would have been ended before this-the government would introduce some legislation for that purpose. According to the census of 1003, there were 158,000 inhabitants in the North-west Terri-

tories; according to the report of the department of immigration there came into this country in the year 1901 49,149 people; in 1902, 07,379 people: and the Prime Minister stated only last evening that, according to the information received from the department of immigration, no less than 110,000 immigrants came to Canada during the present year. That makes a total for these three years of 227,528, and we may fairly assume that at least 175,000 of that number have gone to the North-west Territories. If that computation is fair, and I believe it is, then we have iu the North-west Territories at the present time a population of 330.000 people.
It is not contemplated by the government, apparently, to take any steps for the purpose of granting, during the present session, provincial autonomy to the people of these territories. It seems to me that, having regard to the very large population, the great territorial area, the magnificent country which we have in the west, the government of Canada should immediately give its attention to the granting of a provincial status to the people of the North-west Territories. It was asserted in this House by the Prime Minister the other day that the people in the North-west Territories have in effect at the present time all the powers which the people of the other provinces possess, with the possible exception of the power of borrowing money. The right hon. gentleman said :
What are the powers which the territories have not to-day, which they would have if they were a province ? If I mistake not, speaking at first blush, the legislature of the territories has all the powers enjoyed by a province with the exception of borrowing money.
The right hon. gentleman greatly minimized the difference which exists between the powers possessed by the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories and the powers possessed by the respective legislatures of the different provinces. In the first place, the people of the North-west Territories have not the same full rights of citizenship as are enjoyed by the inhabitants of the older provinces, inasmuch as they have not the control of their public lands, which are controlled by the government of Canada, and which are administered, to a very great extent, from Ottawa. In the second place, the people of the North-west Territories have not the control of their minerals, which is possessed by the people of the older provinces of Canada. In the third place, they have not the power to charter railways and certain other companies. That power is taken from them by an exception to subsection 7 of section 13 of the North-west Territories Act, as amended by section 6 of chapter 22 of the Acts of 1891. That exception is as follows :-
The legislative assembly shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, or of any other Act of the parliament of Canada at any time in force 434
in the territories, have power to make ordinances for the government of the territories in relation to the class of subjects next hereinafter mentioned ; that is to say : the incorporation of companies with territorial objects, with the following exceptions :-
Such companies as cannot be incorporated by provincial legislatures :	railway, steamboat,
canal, tranportation, telegraph, and irrigation companies.
Therefore, in respect to these six classes of companies, the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories has at the present time no power whatever to enact legislation. This exception deprives them of the power to incorporate a railway company and the power to deal with irrigation; it deprives them of the power to incorporate transportation, telephone or telegraph companies. I am not aware of any amendment to that section, but if there is any such amendment, I shall be glad to have my attention called to it. Then, in the next place, the Northwest Territories have no power to borrow money for necessary purposes; they have not tlie same powers in connection with the administration of justice as the older provinces have, and they have no power to amend their own constitution. The Prime Minister of the North-west Territories, in a speech which he delivered in 1900, summarized the differences between the powers of the legislature of the North-west Territories and the powers of the legislatures of the provinces in the following words, which I will take the liberty of reading to the House. His words are as follows :
Where we fall short of provincial powers is in these points : we have not the power to amend the constitution outside of the power to deal with certain phases in our election law ; we have not the power to borrow money ; we have not the power to deal with the public domain ; we have not the power to establish certain institutions, such as hospitals, asylums, charities-' eleemosynary institutions ' as they are called in the British North America Act ; we have not the power to take cognizance of public undertakings other than such as may be carried on by certain sorts of joint stock companies ; and our powers are limited to the extent that we have not the administration of the criminal law in the territories. That, I think, will suffice for any reference which H is necessary to make to the eighth recital.
Now this question has excited a good deal of interest in the North-west Territories during the past six or seven years ; and, although the documents which have been brought down at the present session of parliament are in a somewhat confused condition, I shall endeavour as well as I can to run very briefly over the correspondence and the proceedings respecting this question, and to point out to the House in what way the matter has been brought up in the legislature of the territories, and in what manner it has been brought to the attention of this government since the year 1897, when, so far as I know, the question first became a living issue in the territories. I



may say, however, in the beginning, that my 'non. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), as far back as the year 1895, gave a very strong expression of opinion in this behalf. Referring to the grant of $277,000 then voted to the North-west Territories, that hon. gentleman said :
We could save the whole of that expense by allowing the North-west Territories people to manage their own concerns. Give them selfgovernment, do not lead them around as infants with a string, but let them manage their own business like free British subjects.
I do not agree with the hon. member for North Norfolk that there would be any saving at all to the country as a whole by granting provincial autonomy ; but in the last part of the hon. gentleman's remarks I thoroughly concur, and I think he lias there very aptly expressed the idea in a few words.
Now, there was a memorial from the territorial legislature to this government on the 9tli of December, 1897, which is to be found in sessional paper 116, at page 32. That memorial reads as follows :
Resolved, that in the opinion of this House the North-west Territories as they are at present composed should be maintained intact for administrative purposes until the time has arrived for their entrance into confederation as a province.
That was when a question first seems to have been raised in the North-west Territories in regard to this matter. It was more directly raised, however, in a memorial passed in 1900, which is to be found in sessional paper 116, at pages 2 and 4. I will not read the whole of the memorial, which deals with other matters ; but one paragraph, found at page 3, referring to the previous address, says :
That in the said address it was represented to Her Majesty, as a reason for the extension of the Dominion of Canada westward, that the welfare of the population of these territories would be materially enhanced by the formation therein of political institutions bearing analogy, as far as circumstances will admit, to those which existed in the several provinces then forming the Dominion.
Another paragraph proceeds as follows :
That under the several authorities so given the parliament of Canada has created political institutions in these territories bearing a close analogy to those which exist in the several provinces of the Dominion.	"
The two concluding paragraphs of the address are as follows :
That we do therefore most humbly pray that Your Excellency will be graciously pleased to cause the fullest inquiry to be made into the position of the territories, financial and otherwise, and to cause such action to be taken as will provide for their present and immediate welfare and good government, as well as the due fulfilment of the duties and obligations of government and legislation, assumed, with respect to these territories, by the parliament of Canada ;


Robert Laird Borden: And furthermore that, by the British North America Act, 1871, it was (amongst other things) enacted that the parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, st the time of such establishment, make provision' for the constitution and administration cf . . . . such province, we do therefore most humbly pray that Your Excellency will be also graciously pleased to order inquiries to be made and accounts taken with a view to the settlement of the terms and conditions upon which the territories or any part thereof shall be established as a province, and that, before any such province is established, opportunity should be given to the people of the territories, through their accredited representatives, of considering and discussing such terms and conditions.
All which we humbly pray Your Excellency to take into Your Excellency's most gracious and favourable consideration.
That memorial was forwarded, and subsequent correspondence took place. The first letter to which I will refer is a letter from the Prime Minister of the Territories, Mr. Haultain, to the Minister of the Interior, dated the 30th of January, 1901. It is to be found in sessional paper 116a, at page 1.
I will not read the whole of this letter, but certain paragraphs of it are as follows :
While financial embarrassments rather than constitutional aspirations have led the Northwest government and legislature to discuss the provincial status, I think that sufficient practical reasons can be given for the early establishment of provincial institutions in the west. We have a rapidly growing population, much larger, as the census will show, than that of British Columbia ten years ago, and than that of Prince Edward Island to-day ; a population trained to the exercise of powers of selfgovernment falling a little short only of those enjoyed by the provinces. For nearly thirteen years the North-west legislative assembly has been occupied with founding local institutions and a body of laws suitable to the condition and circumstances of the country.
Further on, the memorial, referring to the anomalous constitution of the territories, uses these words :
The territories have arrived at a point, where by reason of their population and material development, the larger powers and larger income of a province have become necessary. I have already in former communications pointed out to you how our limited powers are still more limited by the reservation of subjects such as the Land Titles law, the administration of the criminal law and the control of the public domain. It is undoubtedly in the interest of any province or provinces herafter to be established, that the important questions surrounding the subject of the public domain should be settled at once, and before any more, of the public lands of the territories are alienated from the Crown.
On the 21st of March, 3901, Mr. Sifton replied to Mr. Haultain, and his letter is to be found in sessional paper 116a, at page

4. In that letter, which I will not quote in full, Mr. Sifton used the following language :
It is the view of the government that it will not he wise at the present time to pass legislation forming the North-west Territories into a province or provinces. Some of the reasons leading to this view may he found in the fact that the population of the territories is yet sparse ; that the rapid increase in population now taking place will In a short time alter the conditions to he dealt with very materially and that there is a considerable divergence of opinion respecting the question whether there should be one province only, or more than one province. Holding this view, therefore, it will not be necessary for me to discuss the details of the draft Bill which you presented as embodying your views.
I may say, in connection with this matter, which X think has been alluded to also by my hon. friend the Prime Minister during the present session, that the difference of opinion as to whether there should be one province or two provinces does not seem a sufficient reason for withholding provincial status from the North-west Territories. Are the people of those territories to be for ever deprived of the status enjoyed by the people of the provinces of Canada, merely because there may not be absolute unanimity as to whether there shall be one province or two provinces or three provinces? It is not likely at any time in the future that you will have absolute unanimity in the North-west Territories with regard to a matter of that kind. It is only a detail after you have once settled the principle that the time has arrived when the people of the North-west Territories should be entrusted with the same rights of self-government as those enjoyed by the people of the various provinces.
Mr. Haultain replied to that letter on the 30th of March, 1901. His reply is to be found in sessional paper 116a, at page 2. I shall quote only portions of his reply. In the first place he quotes from Mr. Sifton's letter of March 21st, from which I have just read extracts. Perhaps as some of the letters from which he quoted have not been brought to the attention of the House, and as it would take too much time to read them all, I had better read his quotations from the previous correspondence with Mr. Sifton. Mr. Haultain's words are as follows:
So far from your conclusions not coming as a surprise as you suggest, I must say quite frankly that the decision of the government has, come not only as a surprise, hut as a deep disappointment as well. In your letter of March 21, 1901, you say :
He then quotes Mr. Sifton's language as follows :
I may say that I realize very fully the difficulties of the position in which the government and legislative assembly of the North-west Territories is placed, and I admit that there is very much in the suggestions which are made in your letter and in the memorial regarding the necessity of a change in the constitutional and financial position of the territories.
434}
That language of Mr. Sifton Is very significant because, so far hack as March, 1901, he said there was very much In the suggestion that it was necessary there should be a change in the constitutional and financial conditions of the territories. We have now reached a period two years and a half later In the history of the territories than the day on which this letter was written, but we seem to be no nearer to any solution of the question by the present government than we were at that time. Continuing, Mr. Haul-tain quotes from Mr. Sifton's letter as follows :
Without at the present moment committing myself to any positive statement I am prepared to say that the time has arrived when the question of organizing the territories on the provincial basis ought to be the subject of full consideration. It would appear to me that the better way of bringing the matter to a more definite position would be to arrange for a conference upon the subject between the representatives of your government and a committee of council representing the federal government.
Now, if the time had arrived two and a half years ago, when the population of the territories was not one-half what it is today, when that question ought to be the subject of full consideration, how is it that, after the expiration of those two and a half years, when greatly increased importance has been added to the territories owing to the impetus which that country has received by the influx of a very great number of people, we are still told that the time for action has not yet arrived and we are still met with exactly the same objections which were advanced to Mr. Haultain by Mr. Sifton in the correspondence to which I am now referring.
Mr. Haultain in this same letter refers to a further letter from Mr. Sifton of April 5th, 1901, from which he quotes as follows :
The latter portion of the session of parliament here finds all the members of the government extremely busy, and It would be hopeless to expect from them that mature and careful consideration of the various and Important subjects which will require to he debated and settled in connection with the establishment of the territories as a province or upon the provincial basis. I think I shall therefore be compelled to ask you to defer the discussion until after parliament has prorogued.
Mr. Haultaiu then proceeds to deal with the objections raised by Mr. Sifton, and I quote one or two paragraphs1 from his letter. One of these paragraphs is as follows :
Another reason advanced is : ' That the rapid increase In population now taking place will in a short time alter the conditions to be dealt with very materially. This rapid increase in population is one of the principal reasons why we are asking to be formed Into a province, in order that we may be able to deal with the new conditions that it brings about. The longer it goes on without the change the more aggravated the present difficulties will become.
I think there is not one of us in the House who will not realize that there is great

truth and force in that statement of Mr. Haultain's. Are we to expect that the population of the North-west Territories is to stand still at any time within the next fifteen or twenty years ? We have there a country which is capable of supporting many millions of population ; we have there the best undeveloped country in the world, and I see no reason to anticipate that population will flow into the North-west of Canada less rapidly during the next fifteen or twenty years than it is flowing into that country at present. Therefore as Mr. Haul-tain forcibly points out in the letter to which I have referred, the difficulties in that regard will not be obviated by mere delay ; there will always be difficulties of that kind and the only way in which we can do justice to the people of the North-west Territories in this matter is by dealing with these difficulties at the present time and by giving them, after proper consultation, after meeting their wishes as far as it is proper and reasonable and possible, that provincial status which the people of the eastern provinces now enjoy.
Mr. Haultain's letter continues as follows:
With regard to a divergence of opinion as to one or more provinces I might say that that is a difficulty that will always exist and any post-ponment of action will not remove.
I say again that those words of Mr. Haultain's are reasonable and forcible and there is no man in this House who does not, I think, realize the justice of his answer to Mr. Sifton.
Mr. Haultain's letter continues :
I must also say, on behalf of the North-west government, that after having been asked to meet a sub-committee of the Privy Council, and to state our case not only verbally hut in writing, it is extremely unsatisfactory that the government has come to the conclusion : ' That It will not be necessary to discuss the details of the draft Bill which embodied our views.' This is a conclusion to the negotiations which have been held which we could hardly have expected considering the importance of the subject discussed and the formal manner in which the discussion has taken place.
I shall not refer especially to the draft Bill which was proposed by Mr. Haultain as a scheme for the government of the North-west Territories ; I shall refer, however, to one or two passages in the memorandum which accompanied that Bill. In the memorandum accompanying the draft Bill, which is to be found in sessional paper 116, on page 19, Mr. Haultain, dealing with the question as to whether or not the people of the North-west Territories are entitled to their own lands, uses the following language :
As Great Britain has divested herself, for the benefit of her colonies, of all her proprietary rights in the public domain within those colonies, so, it is thought, Canada should do with respect to any claim that may be preferred on behalf of the Dominion to the beneficiary interest in the public domain within that part of the North-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
west Territories to be included in any province to be established.
It may be that the government of Canada will admit the principle contended for above on behalf of the people of the North-west Territories who may be included within the limits of any province to be created, but will argue that it will not be1 in accord with established public policy for the Dominion to divest itself of the ability, largely advertised abroad, to grant lands to actual settlers upon almost nominal conditions. Such appears to have been the view adopted in 1884 by the government of the day with respect to certain similar representations then made by the province of Manitoba. The validity of the claim was admitted by the agreement to recompense the province for the loss of its public property. It is not deemed necessary, here, at this stage, to discuss any such proposition further than to point out the one fact that, should the Dominion withhold from the province, for the benefit of Canada at large, the right to administer the public domain within its boundaries and to enjoy the revenues therefrom, the addition of each new settler, or-what experience has shown to practically almost amount to the same thing-the opening up of each new settlement, will impose a burden and financial strain upon the revenues of the province altogether out of proportion to any revenue derivable on account of such settler or settlement, and one that can only be met by an early appeal to extensive direct taxation.
Then he proceeds to deal with the expenditure per head in the different provinces and to compare that expenditure with the expenditure in the North-west Territories. He continues as follows :
Without extravagance and in order to provide for urgent public necessities, the per capita rate of expenditure in the territories, had the money been available, would have been between $6 and $7. This large rate of public expenditure in the territories, as compared with the rates of the eastern provinces, is entirely attributable to the extraordinary increase in expenditure due to the energy displayed by the immigration branch of the Interior Department. While such energy is commendable from the view point of Dominion interests, yet its results place a great strain upon the finances of the country, and it is, with all respect, urg- . ed that the exploitation of the public domain within the province to be established, in the interests of the Dominion solely and entirely, will place upon the province a burden too onerous to bear, and one which should properly fall where the benefits go.
On the 22nd of January, 1902, there was an acknowledgment by the private secretary of the right hon. Prime Minister of several copies of this draft Bill for the use of his colleagues. On the 22nd of March, 1902, there] was a letter from Mr. Sifton to Mr. Haultain, which is found in sessional paper No. 116a, at page 4. I have already referred to that in substance, so I need not deal with it further. The next document is a telegram from Mr. Sifton to Mr. Haultain appointing a meeting between representatives of the two governments, which is found in sessional paper No. 116a, page 7. And on the 11th of February, in a letter which is found in the same document, page 7, Mr. Haultain again urges the question of provincial autonomy

upon tlie attention of the Minister of the Interior. He says, after referring to the correspondence and the various reasons why conferences have not been held :	' I should
like to ask the consideration by the subcommittee of Council of our provincial proposition.' On the 19th of March, 1903, in a letter, which is found in this same sessional paper, page 13, Mr. Haultain, who had come to Ottawa with his colleagues for the purpose of a conference, had had a conference, and was waiting an answer, wrote the Minister of the Interior as follows :
Rideau Club, Ottawa, March 19, 1903. The Honourable Clifford Slfton,
Minister of the Interior, Ottawa.
As I have remained here for some days since I last saw you, you may have written to me to Regina with reference to the result of the recent interview of Mr. Bulyea and myself with the sub-committee of Council regarding North-west affairs. In ease no decision has yet been arrived at or communicated to me, may I ask you to let me have (addressed to Regina) a final reply on behalf of the government to our request for the creation of a province and for larger financial assistance In the meantime.



[Stage Direction]
In answer to that, Mr. Sifton, on the 27th of March telegraphed to Mr. Haultain at Regina, as follows :
Ottawa, March 21, 1903. Hon. F. W. G. Haultain,
Regina, Assa.
I sent a note over to the Rideau Club but found you were gone. The question of your financial arrangements was up for discussion to-day, and Mr. Fielding will communicate with you. The arrangement suggested will, I think, prove reasonably satisfactory.

[Stage Direction]
You will observe in Mr. Haultain's letter a demand for an answer as to the important question of provincial autonomy which had been discussed by representatives of his government with the representatives of this government. In fact this question had, so to speak, been made a matter of state by the appointment of a subcommittee of the Privy Council for the purpose of considering the status of the North-west Territories; and, in reply to the demand of Mr. Haultain of the 19th of March for a final answer-and he puts the question of provincial autonomy first -he receives a telegram addressed to him at Regina making some reference to important financial arrangements, but containing not a single word of reply to the demand of the North-west Territories, presented through their government, that a provincial status should be accorded to the people of that great western country. That, to say the least of it, Mr. Speaker, seems a somewhat casual and indifferent way of dealing with a great question of this kind, which, although, apparently considered a small and trifling matter by this government, is of some importance to nearly 350,000 people who at present inhabit our great west. Now,
the next letter is one from Mr. Haultain to Sir AVilfrid Laurier, which is not printed at all in the correspondence brought down, but a copy of which I have procured from a document printed by the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories. I am sorry that this return brought down to this House is so very incomplete that hon. members who desire to consider this question must refer to documents brought down to the legislature of the North-west Territories in order to find a complete record. Mr. Haultain, not satisfied with this somewhat casual and supercilious response from the Minister of the Interior, wrote to Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the 15th of April, 1903, after his return to Regina. The letter is too long to quote in full, but I will read one or two paragraphs :
I am inclosing a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Sifton for the information of the government to which I referred in my interview with the sub-committee, and which, no doubt, you have already seen. It deals exclusively with the question of provincial institutions in the territories, and I will again, on behalf of my colleagues, earnestly ask your consideration of our request.
Then, after dealing with the question of
finance, he concludes his letter with the following words :
To sum up, I beg to ask for an early reply to our requests, first for the granting of provincial institutions to the territories ; secondly, for a vote supplementary to the North-west grant for the current year, and, thirdly, for a largely increased vote for the year 1903-4.
I have not observed in the correspondence any reply by my right hon. friend to that letter of Mr. Haultain's, unless we find It in a letter dated the 8th of June. The next communication in connection with the North-west government is to be found in sessional paper No. 116a, at page 13. It is in the form of a telegram from the Minister of Finance to Mr. Haultain, the Premier of the North-west Territories, and is as follows :
Ottawa, April 16, 1903.
To the Hon. Mr. F. W. G. Haultain, Regina.
Government will place In supplementary estimates for coming year two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to cover the over-expenditure of the territories, and also recommend to parliament an advance on capital account up to $500,000 from time to time for approved public works. The two bridges which have been specially arranged for to be charged to the capital advance. It will be better that all bridges in the territories be left to the territorial government. Please treat this as confidential for a day or two until I can arrange to have it dealt with by Order in Council.

[Stage Direction]
You will observe here again that there is not a single word of response to the demand of Mr. Haultain made to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of the Interior over and over again, that the demand of the Northwest Territories for a provincial status should be considered by the government and
[Stage Direction]
an answer given forthwith. I might say, in passing, that I have not been able to find in the correspondence brought down the letter from Mr. Haultain to the Minister of the Interior, which is referred to in Mr. Haul-tain's letter to the Prime Minister of the 15th of April, 1903. It may be that on account of the confused condition in which this correspondence has been brought down I have overlooked it. The next letter to which I invite the attention of the House is that of Mr. Haultain to the Minister of Finance, of the 20th of April, 1903, which is found in sessional paper 116a, page 14. I will have to trouble the House with a couple of paragraphs of this letter, which is a very long one. After quoting certain correspondence which had taken place, Mr. Haultain proceeds as follows :
It is with much satisfaction that I note that the government has so far appreciated the position of affairs in the territories as to approve, in the most practical manner possible, of our methods of administration by providing for the expenditures we found it necessary to incur in the public interest during the year 1902. It would appear, however, to have escaped your observation that the placing of the appropriation to cover our expenditures of last year in the supplementary estimates for the coming Dominion fiscal year will have the effect of keeping the money from the territorial revenue until after the first day of July next. All the representations we have made -both written and oral

have been to the effect that the supplementary appropriation is desired to the current fiscal year's appropriations, so that the money may be rendered available at the earliest possible moment. To do otherwise can only embarrass us still further, and I would submit that with a prospective surplus of thirteen million dollars, to a very large extent due to the present flourishing condition of these territories. the Dominion will not be put to any very serious inconvenience by granting us the money it has been agreed to give us during the month of May instead of July. I trust that upon further consideration of the subject you will see your way clear to recommending the government to grant our request that the $250,000 referred to in your telegram be provided for through the supplementary estimates for 1902-3.
Your telegram makes no mention whatever of any proposal to increase our grant for the coming fiscal year. I take it that the suggested advance on capital account has no connection whatever with that subject. In discussing the various phases of the question of territorial finances, it has been found necessary at times to point out that our limited and inadequate revenues were more restricted, and rendered only more inadequate, by the necessity for making expenditures out of current income which in themselves were more properly chargeable to a capital account. That is to say, we have occasionally found it necessary to incur heavy expenditures for the construction of bridges the cost of which has been a heavy drain upon our revenues, and which should have been spread over a series of years instead of being provided for out of the revenue of one year, to the exclusion of other and equally important works. But we have never asked for the establishment of a capital account, and we do not wish for the establishment of such an account until a more satisfactory subsidy or annual grant is provided. We would even prefer, if possible, to postpone all discussion of the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
question until the details of the financial position of the territories under the provincial status are settled. Whilst the Dominion retains to itself the control and beneficiary interest in our revenue producing property it seems but fair to us that the Dominion should provide all needed funds for the proper carrying on of our business. Further, we cannot assent to any proposition that our expenditures shall be subject to approval at Ottawa. The legislative assembly of the territories has for a number of years been providing for the administration of public affairs in the territories. What has been done in that regard has met with the approval of the people of the territories, and this government cannot consent, at this date to any such proposal as that made in your telegram. In one sense, I quite agree with you that ' it will be better that all bridges in territories be left to the territorial government,' but that proposi-ion must be coupled with another, namely, that adequate financial provision therefor be made by parliament. The Dominion government in the first place built the two bridges at Macleod and Lethbridge without reference to the government of the territories. It was possible that at the time they were built it was not. practicable to do so. but the fact remains that, in pursuance of its general public works policy, the Dominion government built the two bridges in question and has undertaken to replace them. Under existing conditions, which the Dominion government does not appear to wish to remedy, we are content to leave that matter as it stands at present.
Then he deals with similar matters at great length, and he concludes his letter with the following paragraiph :
I trust that the further consideration of this whole subject, promised in your telegram of this date, will result in some more definite recognition of our necessities than has hitherto been evidenced. The one, and the best solution of all these difficulties has, on several occasions of late, been suggested to the Dominion government. and it seems to me that I might well close this communication by an -expression of the opinion that just so long as the provincial status is withheld from the territories will it be necessary for the government of the territories to direct attention with increasing force and emphasis to the present unsatisfactory manner of making financial provision for the public requirements of the country.
Now, that was followed up by a resolution of the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories. But before dealing with that, I might say that on the 20th of April, 1903, the Prime Minister replied to Mr. Haultain's letter of the 15th of April, in the following terms :
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your favour of the 15th instant, as Mr. Fielding has communicated with you already by wire on the subject therein mentioned, I do not suppose that it requires any further reply.
So the House will observe that not only did the Minister of Finance ignore absolutely the demands of Mr. Haultain for an answer to the request of the territories for provincial institutions, but my right lion, friend, by referring to the Finance Minister's answer, expressed himself in exactly the same way. On the 24th of April, 1903,

by resolution found in sessional paper 116a, pages 20 and 21, the legislative assembly of the Nortb-west Territories again passed a resolution in almost exactly similar terms to their resolution of 1900. They declare in paragraphs 8 to 10 :
8.	And whereas under the several authorities so given the parliament of Canada has created political institutions in these territories bearing a close analogy to those which exist in the several provinces of the Dominion ;
9.	And whereas by the confederation compact the province which formed the Dominion on the fifteenth day of July, 1870, were furnished with the means of carrying on local self-government upon certain well defined bases ;
10.	And whereas the territories, being an integral part of the Dominion, and having had imposed upon them the duties and obligations incidental to the political institutions which have been given to them and said duties and obligations the parliament of Canada has declared its willingness to assume, are entitled to such federal assistance for their maintenance as will bear due proportion and analogy to that given to other portions of the Dominion for similar purposes.
Then a further paragraph deals with the question of finances, and paragraphs 14 and 15, concluding this memorial, are in the -same terms as those I have already read to the House as part of the resolution of 1900. On the 2nd of June Mr. Haultain addressed a further letter to the right hon. Prime Minister which will be found in sessional paper 116a page 16. After referring to the correspondence which had passed between them he proceeds as follows :
In further reference to your letter of April 20, I beg to point out that Mr. Fielding's telegram does not deal with the most important part of my letter of April 16, namely our request for provincial institutions, and I would mo-st respectfully urge that our representations on this important question merit some further reply than can be gathered by implication from the fact that Mr. Fielding does not refer to them.
Mr. Haultain had been pressing for some definite answer in regard to this matter from the month of March of that year. During that period he had written a great many times to the Minister of the Interior, he had written to the hon. Minister of Finance, he had written to the right hon. Prime Minister himself, and the only answer he ever got from any of these hon. gentlemen was a reference to some other gentleman, or a telegram of a somewhat casual character in which he was told that certain financial arrangements with the North-west Territories would be provided for by a grant during the present year. It does seem to me that the Premier of the North-west Territories, a gentleman representing a constituency of something over 350,000 people, might have been answered by any one of these three gentlemen to whom I have referred in a somewhat more formal manner than that which characterized the correspondence that I have read. O-n the 8tli June Sir Wilfrid Laurier wrote to Mr. Haultain. The
letter has not been printed at all as far as I can ascertain, but I have secured a typewritten copy of it. I repeat again my deep regret that the returns to which I have referred have come down in so incomplete a condition as to impose an enormous amount of labour on any man who desires to trace the sequence of this correspondence. I had better read the whole of the letter as it is important:
Privy Council, Canada,
Ottawa, June 8, 1903.
Hon.  F. W. G.@: Haultain,
Regina,
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter -of the 2nd inst. The Minister of Finance has, by this time, communicated with you respecting the financial grant to be given to the North-west legislature.
With regard to your further request that legislation be introduced this session conferring on the territories full provincial organization. I have had the honour to discuss the matter with the members of the House of Commons from the territories. I have asked them to consider whether it would he advisable to have such legislation introduced this year. We are, as you know, introducing a redistribution measure at the present session, and we are giving to the territories a much larger representation in -the House of Commons than they would be entitled to, were they to become a province. In fact the Bill which we have introduced allows to the territories a representation in the House of Commons of ten members. Were they to be admitted at once as a province they would be entitled to only six members. It would be a question of extreme difficulty and complications to give 1o the territories at the same time all the advantages of full provincial organization without the corresponding disadvantages.
I have the honour to he, sir,
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) WILFRID LAURIER.
Well, my right lion, friend lias at last given a reply to the Prime Minister of the territories and it does not seem to me to be a reply which ought to carry very great weight. Tie does not take up any of the reasons for delay which have been urged during the past two sessions by the hon. Minister of the Interior. The right hon. Prime Minister in this letter confines himself almost -entirely to the fact that under the Redistribution Bill which was introduced during the present session the territories are to receive a representation of ten members, whereas, if we went strictly on population, they would be entitled to only six members. Is that really an answer to the demand of these people that they should be accorded a provincial status ? It is not an answer, certainly, even if the contention could be supported for a moment. It could not be supported for a moment, because, 1 lie right lion, gentleman only yesterday admitted that it would be fair to regard the territories as having a population of over 300,000 and as the unit of population for Canada is something less than 25,000, if the


Mr. OLIVER.: Might I ask the hon. gentleman-


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend let me finish the sentence ?


Frank Oliver: Might I ask the hon. gentleman to read from the letter of the Prime Minister in which he made that statement?


Robert Laird Borden: I will read it later. I am dealing with it as Mr. Haultain interpreted it. I make no comment on that, except to say that if Mr. Haultain is to be believed-and he gives reasons why he should be believed-the opinion of these gentlemen, if it is their opinion, does not seem to be in accord with the opinion of the majority of the people of the North-west Territories. I do not presume to have the same knowledge of political matters in the North-west which is possessed by my hon. friends who represent the territories in this House, but I know that in 1900 a resolution demanding that this question should be taken up at once, was passed by the territorial legislature. I have understood-if I am wrong in this I would like to be corrected-that Mr. Haultain went to the people of the North-west Territories in 1902

upon the platform that provincial autonomy and a provincial status should be granted forthwith, that going to the people upon that platform, he practically swept the constituencies, and that very few of those who were opposed to this government on that question were returned to the assembly. X have understood that the legislature of the Northwest Territories to-day is practically unanimous upon that point. I have been so informed by those who profess to know the views of the members of the legislature. However, I have not the same acquaintance with political matters there as have the gentlemen who represent the territories in this House, and if I am wrong on that point I shall be glad indeed that these gentlemen shall set me right. My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) desired me to read again a paragraph from the letter of the Prime Minister, and I will gladly do so.
With regard to your further request that legislation he introduced this session conferring on the territories full provincial organization, I have had the honour to discuss the matter with the members of the House of Commons from the territories. I have asked them to consider whether it would be advisable to have such legislation introduced this year. We are as you know introducing a redistribution measure at the present session and we are giving to the territories a much larger representation in the House of Commons than they would be entitled to were they to become a province. In fact the Bill which we have introduced, allows to the territories a representation in the House of Commons of 10 members. Were they to be admitted at once as a province they would be entitled only to six members. It would be a question of extreme difficulty and complications to give to the territories at the same time all the advantages of full provincial organization without the corresponding disadvantages.
My bon. friend1 (Mr. Oliver) is quite right in suggesting-if he intended to make that suggestion-that there is no direct statement in the letter of the Prime Minister that it was the opinion of the hon. members from the territories that such legislation should, not be introduced this year, but the inference that has been drawn by Mr. Haul-tain is the only possible inference. It is this; that the Prime Minister, having consulted with these gentlemen, and having come to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to introduce legislation this year, they must have been of the opinion which the Prime Minister expresses in this letter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Otherwise, of course, the Prime Minister would be consulting these hon. gentlemen as a matter of form, and knowing that these are gentlemen of strong opinions, and quite capable of pressing on the Prime Minister of Canada or any one else the opinions which they strongly hold, we can hardly believe that the Prime Minister would conclude not to
introduce a measure this year, unless their opinion had practically coincided with his own on that point. The only other letter to which I will refer, is a letter from Mr. Bul-yea, one of the ministers of the North-west Territories government, to Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier, dated the 16th of June, 1903 ; it is found at page 18, sessional paper 116a, and is as follows :
You will please excuse the liberty I take ia addressing you, if it is a liberty to lay before you facts that I consider will be of material influence on the welfare of the Liberal party in the North-west Territories.
You are, of course, cognizant of all the representations ,that the territorial government have made in reference to increase of the financial assistance that is voted to us from time to time, and the arguments that have been advanced why a material increase is absolutely necessary, if the alternative of provincial autonomy were not granted to us. I have had considerable correspondence with the federal members representing the territories, who were kind enough to apprize me of the general representations they had made to your government, and I advised them that I consider that if such were adopted It would reasonably satisfy the general public in the territories, and would put your candidates and your supporters in the coming election ia a position In which they could fight with zeal and, I am pleased to say, with every prospect of success.
The supplementary grant, and the addition to the main vote, while not as much as we asked for, will be of very material assistance to me in the work of my department as Commissioner of Public Works. The capital advance tendered is also needed for the construction of the large and permanent structures that must be completed to meet the requirements of the large influx of settlers into the country.
I regret to say, however, that not only as a member of the territorial government, but as a citizen of the North-west Territories, I must dissent most strongly from the proposition to charge up against this vote the large expenditure of $S4.000 which is purely and simply for the reconstruction of two federal public works, viz:-the bridges over the Old Man's and Belly rivers, erected by the late Conservative government.
Then he deals with certain details as to these two bridges, and he concludes his letter with the following paragraph :
I trust, therefore, that you. will see the necessity of meeting the reasonable views not only of the North-west government but of your friends who are memllers of the territorial assembly, and who uphold unanimously our government in claiming that the territories are entitled to have these federal structures replaced at the general expense of the Dominion of Canada.


GEO. H. V. BULYEA.
[Stage Direction]
A number of members of the legislative assembly sign an approval of that letter in the following words
The undersigned members of the legislative assembly strongly approve of the tenor of the above letter :-
George W.: Brown. L. Geo. de Veter. J. W. Woolf.
W. J. Finley.
C. A. Fisher.
A. D. McIntyre. Charles Fisher.
A. S. Smith.
P. Talbot.
B. Prince R. A. Wallace.
J. A. Simpson.
A. S. Rosenroll. Thos. Macnutt.


Alex.   C.@: Rutherford.
I have detained the House with the correspondence at this length principally for these reasons : In the first place, to show that this has been a live question in the North-west Territories since the year 1900 at least; in the second place, to show that it has been the subject of considerable correspondence between the territorial government and this government, that a sub-committee of the Privy Council lias been appointed to deal with it, and that representatives of the territorial government have conferred with that committee; in the third place, to show the reasons on account of which this government has declined to act upon the memorial twice forwarded to His Excellency by the legislature of the North-west Territories, urging upon this government that provincial status should be granted ; and in the fourth place, to prove by the statement of the Prime Minister of the North-west Territories and by the resolution passed by its legislature that the people of the North-west Territories are almost unanimous in their demand that the provincial status should be granted to them.
I shall deal very briefly-because I have taken up the time of the House longer than I intended-I shall deal very briefly with some of the objections which have been raised against granting a provincial status to the territories. In the first place, there is the objection which has been already adverted to in the letters of Mr. Haultain, that the population of the territories is Increasing at a more rapid rate than the population of the older provinces. I say, as I have several times before said in this House, and as Mr. Haultain has said in his correspondence, that if this is to debar the North-west Territories from obtaining a provincial status, then we must deprive them of provincial status during the next ten or fifteen years. That reason would deprive them of a provincial status after they have a population of a million people-after they have a population three or four times, possibly five or six times, that of some of the provinces of Canada which have enjoyed representative institutions for many years.
In the next place, the objection was made -it was made by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior last year, and I think also in some of the correspondence-that with a continually increasing population it will be difficult to arrange a permanent financial basis. So far as that is concerned, it is one of the difficulties which you must meet in granting a provincial status to the people of the North-west Territories. It is impossible to believe that the population of Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
those territories will not increase at an enormously rapid rate during the next ten, or fifteen, or twenty years ; and if that fact is to afford an insuperable difficulty in arranging a permanent financial basis, then we shall have the people of the Northwest Territories treated, to a certain extent, as wards of this county for a great many years to come. I do not believe the difficulty is insuperable. After you have arrived at a conclusion that the people of that country are entitled to a provincial status, why cannot this government, as demanded by the government of the territories, at once appoint a committee for conference with that government V And what reason is there for saying that it is impossible to find a basis which, on the one hand, will be just and fair so far as Canada is concerned, and, on the other hand, will give the people of the North-west Territories such an increase in the financial assistance to be obtained from the Dominion as the needs of their rapidly increasing population will from time to time demand at our hands ? I do not conceal from lny-self that the question is attended with difficulties ; but I suppose that almost every question of this kind is attended with some difficulties. The confederation of this Dominion was not unattended with difficulties. On the contrary, it was accompanied with difficulties tenfold greater than any of those which in the present case are considered so formidable. Those difficulties were overcome, and we have to-day a great Dominion as a result of the courage and the wisdom of the men who undertook to grapple with those difficulties; and all we require, it seems to me, is a certain amount of courage and capacity to be devoted to this question, and some means can be found by which justice can be done to the territories in that regard, and at the same time no injustice will be done to the people of Canada as a whole.
The next point which has been made has been referred to by my right hon. friend during the present session. If I may be permitted to refer to his language, in speaking a few days ago of the powers which are possessed by the people of the Northwest Territories, and overlooking for the moment many of the differences which exist between their status and the status of the provinces, he used this language :
They are as free as any of us, but have not the power to borrow money, and perhaps it is as well to keep that power in abeyance in a young country like that.
My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, during the past session, used somewhat similar language (' Hansard,' page 3110) :
If they had the power to mortgage that territory for all time to come, which they would have if they were granted provincial powers, it might be mortgaged for very unwise and very unnecessary purposes. In saying this, I wish to guard against the imputation of saying that the

people of the North-west Territories are not as capable of taking care of themselves and doing their own business as any others.
I do not share tlie apprehensions of my right hon. friend .and of the Minister of the Interior with regard to these people. In the first place, although I have not the knowledge of them which is possessed by my hon. friends from that country who sit in this House, nevertheless I have' some acquaintance with many of them from having made a tour through that country during the past year ; and I am prepared to say that if there is any body of people in Canada who would wisely administer a public domain entrusted to them, it is the people of the North-west Territories ; because I found in every meeting which I addressed in that country that the people were strongly imbued with the idea that the public domain should be conserved for public purposes, and not handed over to corporations and promoters. I believe that feeling is very deep and very widespread in the North-west Territories ; and a feeling of that kind is absolutely inconsistent with the possibility that if the public domain were entrusted to them, and they were granted the power to incur debt, they would be likely to use either the one power or the other in such a way as would not inure to the public interest of that country or of Canada as a whole. Who are those people who inhabit the North-west ? Why, up to the present year, they have been largely the same people who have been sending representatives from the older provinces of Canada-people of exactly the same type, having the same political training, accustomed to the same representative institutions ; and why is it that Mr. John Smith, living in the eastern provinces of Canada, is to be entrusted with the right to borrow money for public purposes, and the same gentleman, when he removes to the North-west Territories, finds himself classed in a different category ? I do not understand any such argument as that: and I do not believe any ordinary citizen of this country, going from eastern Canada to the north-west of Canada, will be so influenced by the fact that there is a great public domain in that country that he will be induced either to borrow money or to alienate the public domain to any unwise extent or for any unwise purpose.
Then, we have now another element coming into the North-west Territories-an element from the great country to the south of us. Are we to have any apprehension with regard to the attitude of these people on a question of that kind ? They are people who are accustomed to practically the same representative institutions ns those enjoyed by the people of Canada. They are people who, I believe, for the most part, take a deep interest in public affairs ; and I believe that any one of those people will take at once as deep an interest in the proper administration of the public affairs of
this country as any citizen of Canada in the east or the west. I was particularly struck with the interest which some of these people took in the country. I was struck with the fact that before they emigrated to this country they took the pains, some of them at least, to ascertain what were the laws with regard to the schools. They wished to know whether their children would have the advantage of public schools or not; and they evinced an interest in the administration of the public affairs of the country which, I think, indicates that we might safely entrust to them, as well as to our own people from the east, who, with their descendants, are in that country, the management of their own .local affairs. Under these circumstances, it does not seem to me that the reason that has been suggested is a good reason. And where are we to draw the limit ? If 350,000 people in the North-west Territories cannot be entrusted to borrow money, are you to entrust that power to half a million or to a million ? What number will afford any reasonable degree of safety ? I see no reason for withholding that power from 350,000 people and granting it to half a million or a million.
It is within the bounds of extreme probability that the North-west Territories of Canada will have well nigh one-half a million people before provincial autonomy can be accomplished if it is undertaken at once. Therefore there is no good reason why the government should stay its hand ; there is no good reason, I believe why during this present session the government should have stayed its hand. Is there any objection to granting to the people of the North-west Territories the power to charter railway companies, telegraph companies, telephone companies and steamship lines ? That power is possessed by the people of Manitoba who dwell alongside of them ; in what respect are the people of Manitoba better able to say whether or not a railway company shall be chartered than are the people of the North-west Territories who are separated from them only by an imaginary line ? I see no force in any suggestion that in respect of pow-ers of that kind the people of the North-west Territories should not be placed on exactly the same plane as the people of eastern Canada.
The people of the North-west Territories contend, and it seems to me they fairly contend, that upon the conceding of a provincial status they should be given control of their lands and. minerals. Objections have been raised to this ; I shall refer to one of them. The Premier of the North-west Territories touched upon this subject in his speech to which I have already referred and before concluding I shall trouble the House with a quotation from his remarks. I believe the argument against granting to the people of the North-west Territories the right to control their own lands is based on the theory that Canada as a whole and not the people of the North-west Teritories are en-

titled to a proprietary interest in those lands, and that,. therefore those lands should be reserved for- the people of Canada, including the eastern provinces, and should not be committed to the people of the Northwest Territories lo be administered by them. I have already considered the wisdom or unwisdom of conceding this power to the people of the North-west Territories so far as the likelihood of their making an unwise use of that power is concerned and X shall not repeat my argument as to that ; but I say that the arguments used to-day in Canada with regard to lands in the North-west Territories are precisely the arguments used by English statesmen of forty or fifty years ago with regal'd to the public lands of Canada as a whole, and of the colonies generally. I had occasion to look carefully into this question some two or three years ago and I went into it somewhat fully in an address which I delivered in the town of Lindsay in this province. I pointed out on that occasion, what I believe to be the fact, that if the policy of certain British statesmen had been persevered in, and if the lauds Qf Canada and of the other colonies had been administered from Downing Street instead of by the colonies, such friction and dissatisfaction would have been created that it is more than probable that Canada and some of the other colonies would before this have severed their connection with the mother country, I see no reason why the views which prevailed eventually and which reseulted in giving to Canada the absolute control of her own public lands are not just as forcible arguments to-day in the mouths of the people of the North-west Territories. I have under my hand in the speech of Mr. Haul-tain, the arguments of British statesmen of days gone by. Let me refer to one or two of them and you will see that they are exactly in line with the views of those who hold that the public lands in the North-west Territories should be retained by Canada. Lord Durham in his report said :
The country which has founded and maintained these colonies at a vast expenditure of blood and treasure may justly expect its compensation in turning their unappropriated resources to the account of its own redundant population ; they are the rightful patrimony of the English people, the ample appanage, which God and nature have set aside in the new world, for those whose lot has assigned them an insufficient portion in the old	Under wise and free institutions these great advantages may yet be secured to Your Majesty's subjects, and a connection, secured by the link of kindred origin and mutual benefits, may continue to bind to the British empire the ample territories of its North American provinces, and the large and flourishing population by which they will assuredly be filled.	[DOT]
Then Lord Grey, later on, used the following language :
The waste lands of the vast colonial possessions of the British empire are held by the Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Crown, as trustee for the inhabitants of that empire at large, and not for the inhabitants of the particular province, divided by arbitrary geographical limits, in which any such waste land happens to be situate. Otherwise the consequence would follow that the other inhabitants of these vast provinces (if possessing these representative institutions which arise as of right in ordinary British colonies) are indefeasihly entitled to administer all the lands and land revenue of the great unexplored tract called a province and of which they may occupy an extremity. wholly without regard to the nation which has founded the settlement, perhaps at great expense, In order to serve as a home for her own emigrants and a market for her own industry.
Mr. Haultain also referred to a very valuable work, which is in the library here, the work of Mr. Egerton. He quoted from Mr. Egerton as follows :
It was, however, when it became necessary to translate these admirable theories into practice that the real difficulties began. In the case of Canada these difficulties proved insurmountable.
And later on Mr. Egerton says :
We have already seen that all English statesmen started with the firm intention to control the Crown lands in the hands of the mother country, but the practical difficulties in the way proved insurmountable.
Mr. Haultain, in his speech, referred to the policy of the mother country in later years and. particularly to what was done when a constitution was given to the colony of West Australia in 1890. The policy of the British government in later years, where representative institutions have been conferred on a colony, is to give to the colony absolute control of its own lands and not to seek to administer those lands from London. The same policy was pursued by those who prepared the Canadian Confederation Act. The provinces were given the control of their own public lands in almost every respect. The province of Nova Scotia has control of its Crown lands and of its mines and minerals. The same rule prevails in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. In the province of Manitoba the lands are still administered, I believe, by the Dominion, but some compensation was made to that province when it received a constitution and I believe that since the erection of the province-although my friend from Manitoba will know this better than I do-the swamp lands have been entrusted to the administration of the province and I am under the impression, although am not sure, that any revenue derived from the administration of these swamp lands belongs to the province. I am correct in that, am I not ?


Mr. McCREARY.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any more reason why a man in the North-west Territories who desires to apply for a grant of land, should have to deal with the government at Ottawa than a citizen of the

province of Nova Scotia should be required to come to Ottawa when he desires to make an application for a mining lease ? Is there any reason why matters of this kind should not be under the control of the local government ? Has any danger or any injury accrued to the public interest in the province of Ontario, in the province of Quebec, or in the maritime provinces on account of the powers of self-government which have been granted to those provinces in this respect ? The North-west Territories are not the only part of Canada containing great areas of surplus lands that may be filled with an enormous population in the future.
I am told by a gentleman holding a high position in the public affairs of the province of Quebec that in that great province there are 75,000,000 of acres of the best land in the world, which will be settled and will support an enormous population one day. The province of Quebec administers these lands. Immigration from foreign countries promoted by this government may come to settle on these lands. And yet, while the lands are controlled absolutely by the province of Quebec under their own local powers of self-government, the lands of the North-west Territories are controlled by this government through the Department of the Interior. We have heard a great deal lately of New Ontario, and no one can doubt that there is a splendid country in Ontario that will be filled up with a fine population one of these days, or that immigration will be brought from foreign countries to new Ontario. The lands of that country are administered by the people of Ontario through their local government, while, in contrast with that, the people of the North-west Territories have their lands administered at Ottawa by this government, through the Department of the Interim'.


Thomas Walter Scott: And the same with Manitoba.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I stated that, except that I pointed out, as Mr. Haul-tain has pointed out, that the people of Manitoba received a certain compensation, I believe for their lands at the time the province was constituted. Further than that, a portion of the lands at least have been handed over to the control of the province since it was organized. And, so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned, I know of no good reason why any lands that remain to be administered in that province should not be administered by the local government instead of by this government. If the principle is good for the North-west Territories, I admit it is also good for the province of Manitoba. In matters of this kind, I do not think we should shrink from going the full length. If the people of Ontario, of Quebec and of the maritime provinces can properly administer their lands through their own local government, I say the people of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories are just as capable of administering their lands through their own local government, and they can better administer them than can this central government at Ottawa. Now, Mr. Haultain refers to some difficulties that might be suggested, with regard to immigration. I suppose he refers to homestead entries and matters of that kind. These questions would have to be dealt with between this government and the government of the territories. I believe that reasonable provisions could be made with the people of the North-west Territories which would ensure to the people of the country as a whole that there would be no restriction of immigration by reason of any dealing by the North-west territories, with their own lands. The people of the North-west Territories are more interested than any one else in Canada in having these lands taken up and occupied, in having the country settled, and in the prosperity that would follow a great flood of immigration into that country. So far as that question is concerned, it has been suggested by Mr. Haultain, I believe, that it would not be incapable of solution, and that it could be settled satisfactorily not only to the people as a whole, but to the people of the North-west Territories.
I think I have dealt, though very briefly, with the principal objections which have been pointed out in the correspondence and in the speeches of the right bon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior in dealing with this question. I say in conclusion that, the people of the North-west Territories are practically unanimous on this question, that their government is urgent on this question, and as the matter has had the consideration of this government for at least two years and a half, there seems no good reason why active steps should not be taken for the purpose of giving to these people the rights of local self-government to which they are, I believe, justly entitled. I apprehend no injury, no danger, to the people of this country from taking that course. On the other hand, I believe the adoption of that course will tend to remove and obviate friction and dissatisfaction among these people which, however, will prevail and continue if we longer withhold from them those complete rights which the people of the eastern provinces enjoy, and which the people of the west, I believe, could exercise just as prudently and as well as the people of any province in Canada. Therefore, I move :
That all the words after the word 1 That ' in the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted therefor :-
' By humble addresses of the legislative assembly of the North-west Territories of Canada to His Excellency the Governor General, in the year 1900 and again in the year 1903, the said legislative assembly did humbly represent and pray (inter alia) to His Excellency as follows :-	.	_ .	.
' 14. Therefore, be it resolved, that an humble address to His Excellency the Governor

General be adopted by this House praying him that he will be pleased to cause the fullest inquiry to be made into the position of the territories, financial and otherwise, and to cause such action to be taken as will provide for their present and immediate welfare and good government, as well as the due fulfilment of the duties and obligations of government and legislation assumed, with respect to these'territories, by the parliament of Canada.
* 15. And be it further resolved, that, whereas by the British North America Act, 1871, it was (amongst other things) enacted that the parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of ... . such province, His Excellency be also prayed to order inquiries to be made and accounts taken with a view to the settlement of the terms and conditions upon which the territories or any part thereof shall be established as a province, and that before any such province is established opportunity should be given to the people of the territories through their accredited representatives of considering and discussing such terms and conditions.'
That under the provision of the British North America Act and amending Acts the people of the several provinces of Canada enjoy large powers of local self-government committed to and exercised by the executive and the legislature of each province.
That the time has arrived when the same powers of local self-government should be granted to the people of the North-west Territories of Canada and to this end the said representations and prayer contained in the said humble addresses should be taken into immediate consideration and acted upon forthwith.
I know that there are many matters of detail which will have to he dealt with when this question comes to be considered. These matters of detail will have to be arranged by conference between representatives of this government and representatives of the people of the North-west Territories. For the present, the proposition which I desire to place before the House and the country is this-that the time has arrived when the same power of local self-government should be granted to the people of the North-west Territories as that enjoyed by the people of the older provinces of Canada, and that this government, in compliance with the prayer of the legislature of the North-west Territories twice repeated, should take immediately, without any further delay whatever, such steps as may be necessary to accomplish that purpose, which I believe, to be not only a wise but a just one.


Frank Oliver: The North-west Territories are certainly to be congratulated on having received so much recognition from the leader of the opposition on this occasion, and from his followers. The people of the west will no doubt with great satisfaction hear of the interest he has taken and of the arguments he has made in their behalf. As one of the representatives Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). .
of the territories in parliament, I can assure the House that it is with great pleasure and satisfaction I heard him take the stand he has taken to-night. I hope he is not alone, and that the gentlemen who sit behind him take as great a degree of interest as he has taken on this occasion. It has struck me however, and I think it will strike the people of the territories as well, that possibly there would have been a more definite and satisfactory result from the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite had the leader of the opposition spoken sooner. This is not a new question ; as he has intimated.


Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend permit me to make a statement in regard to that ? It was not until after we began the debate on the Transcontinental Railway Bill that the papers to which I have been referring to-night were printed, and since that debate has concluded I have spent a good deal of time in endeavouring to get this correspondence brought down, and now we have it in a very confused shape. But I can assure my hon. friend that it was only for that reason I had delayed until now in speaking on this matter. My hon. friend will do me the justice, I am sure, to remember that I brought the matter to the attention of the government in speaking in the debate on the address at the commencement of the session.
Mr-. OLIVER. Certainly I do not wish to do the leader of the opposition any injustice under the circumstances, and I was not alluding to that particular feature of the case. I was about to say that the question is even older than he suggested in his opening remarks. It is not a question which arose in 1896, or in 1897, or in 1900. Having been a member of the North-west Assembly myself, I am perhaps more familiar with the matter than he is, and I can assure him that the question is of much more ancient date ; that it has been claiming the attention of the people of the territories for many years, and that the position has remained substantially the same all these years. That is to say, there has been a demand, either for terms which would go with provincial organization, or equally good terms without provincial organization. For the people of the North-west Territories the question has been one of finance and not of authority ; it has been a material question and not a theoretical question. The question in 1896, in 1897, and in 1900, was with them how to best govern the territories, how to meet the financial requirements of that government, and how best to bring to the notice and favourable attention of this government the requirements of that country. The financial needs of the territories are the same to-day as they have always been, except that they are greater to-day than they have ever been. Although my hon. friend has said that he did not have in his possession the particular correspondence that has been

laid upon the Table, and upon which he made such lengthy remarks this evening, still, as a member of this House since 1896, he must have known that there was a continual conflict of opinion between the government of the territories and the government here as to the amount of money that should be placed at the disposal of that government by this government. If he had been as enthusiastic ever since 1896 as he has expressed himself to-night, the people of the territories would have benefited thereby in the years which have intervened, and would have benefited substantially even this year. It is no secret that the opposition have a great deal to do with shaping the policy of the government, and that the government, in considering the demands of the territories from time to time, have had to consider the possibility of opposition'from the opposition. It has been the somewhat thankless place of members of this House from the territories supporting the government, to bring before the attention of the House and of the country, year after year, the financial requirements of the territories.
I do not recall that up to the present moment we have received any assistance from the leader of the opposition or from his supporters on the other side of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon, friend is mistaken in that.


Frank Oliver: Well, I am willing to be corrected, but I do not remember anything of that kind at this moment. I may say that this is a subject that has taken my attention very strongly from year to year, and while I would not wish at all to question the statement, still, as I said, it does not come to my memory that we ever did receive any assistance. I would like to say that had that interest been taken by the members of the opposition in the early part -of the session that was taken later on and to-night, the territories would no doubt have gained a very considerable financial benefit and would have been still better able to meet the requirements that they are called upon to meet. The point I wish to make is that the people of the territories want money and not talk. That is the question at issue, and the closer we keep to it the better will be the understanding, and the better the results that we will have. While I do not wish to go into anything very controversial at this particular time, I will take the opportunity of pointing out that a proposition which involves the placing before the people of the North-west Territories of the idea that they have been very badly used both financially and otherwise, that their premier, in fact, has been insulted by this government, and yet that does not offer in any degree or in any way any substantial suggestion for immediate or future relief, is not a proposition that is likely to meet with very much favour at their hands. Had it been intended to actually benefit the people of the North-west
and had the address which we have listened to to-night contained propositions definitely tending to result in financial benefit to the territories, we could appreciate the action taken, but when action has not been taken until the last days of a session which already has lasted over seven months


An hon. MEMBERS: How do you know they are the last days of the session ?


Frank Oliver: We hope they are. When action has not been taken until the last days of a session which has already lasted over seven months, and when brought forward no practical suggestion for meeting the present difficulty is contained in it, there is only one conclusion to be drawn, and that is that the remarks of the hon. gentleman are chiefly made to be added to the tons of printed matter already lying franked in stacks outside and inside of this building for distribution throughout the territories. Talk is cheap, but it is money that counts.
We are more than pleased to hear the expression of confidence by the hon. leader of the opposition in the intelligence and honesty of the people of the North-west Territories. I was not aware that they needed any particular certificate in that regard, but at any rate, we are pleased to have it from such a good authority. We believe that all his kind words are fully deserved, although the modesty of the people of the North-west Territories and of their representatives would prevent them claiming any special advantage in that regard. The hon. gentleman has been very willing to concede to us the control of the public lauds in the territories, and of the public resources of the territories, and he has been willing to concede us the right to incur debt on our own behalf. As he said, I do not know why the people of the North-west Territories are not just as able to control their own land satisfactorily and just as worthy of being allowed to contract debt for public purposes as the people of any other part of the country. But, that is not the point. The point is this :	What subsidy is to be
given to the people of the North-west Territories as the basis of their provincial organization, so that they will not need to sell their public lands and so that they will not need to go in debt ? The hon. gentleman was very generous with us in permitting us to do as we like with our own. What we want to know is what share he is going to give us in the general financial arrangements of the Dominion. That is a matter which he proposed to leave to a commission or to arbitration. That is not the way in which the Premier of the North-west Territories left it. He made certain definite financial propositions. He said:	Give us
these as the essential part of provincial organization. But, the hon. leader of the opposition does not say that he will give them these. He says : We will leave it to a committee or to a commission. As a representa-

tive of the North-west Territories, and believing that the proposition made by the Premier would be a good proposition for the territories if acceded to, we want to know what the hon. leader of the opposition and his followers on the floor of parliament are prepared to give towards meeting the demands of the Premier of the North-west Territories. That is a definite proposition. It is not something that is in the clouds. It is not misty. Upon the acceptance of that proposition depends the whole question. Provincial autonomy is only a name, but the amount of subsidy which the proposed province will receive is an important fact, and that is the point we want settled or approximately settled before we go into a provincial organization.


Mr. CLANCY.: By whom ?


Frank Oliver: By the Dominion government, and we want to know when we get offers of help from our hon. friends opposite what those offers of help mean. AVe want to know the measure of their sympathy in dollars and not in words.


Mr. POPE.: You are ingenious but not clever.
Air. OLIArER. T may return the compliment. It is of no advantage to the people of the territories that they should be permitted to sell the lands of the territories. If they sell the lands, settlement is thereby deterred ; if they do not sell them, they derive no revenue from them, and in so far as that is concerned, they might as well be administered by the Dominion government as by themselves. It is, I may say, a rather cool proposition that political credit should be claimed for an offer to permit the North-west Territories to control their own lands, when such a large portion of those lands have already passed out of the control of either government, and when the balance of these lands are not being sold and no revenue is being derived from them by the government which has them in hand.
The proposition, as it has been laid down, simply amounts to this:	We
will give you provincial autonomy; we will give you the lands that at present are not being sold, and that the general good of the country requires shall not be sold ; we will allow you to go into debt to any extent you like; but we will not say what we will give you to run your government on; we will keep away from that subject altogether. It seems to me most unfair that an attempt should be made to create a feeling of dissatisfaction in the North-west Territories, without any steps whatever being taken to allay the dissatisfaction thus created, without saying in any shape or form, how far the desires of the people of the North-west in regard to financial assistance are to be acceded to. Just what these desires are it may be well to inform the House, and perhaps some gentleman on the


Frank Oliver: other side will be able to tell us how far they will go towards acceding to these desires. I may point out that in the printed papers that have been placed before the House the financial question is the essential point in every one of the arguments of Premier Haultain and of his government. In his memorial of April 4th, 1903, the complaint is :
That no sufficient response has been given to the repeated demands for financial assistance necessary for the proper and effective administration of the territories.
In the memorial which follows the complaint is that there are not sufficient additions to the annual grant. In Mr. Haul-tain's letter to the Prime Minister he draws particular attention-
To .the necessities, financial and otherwise, of the territories.
And all through the correspondence the great question is the financial question, the question of the amount of money that is to be derived by the territories from the national treasury as a condition of entering into the provincial status. It has been said that the people of the Northwest Territories are unanimously in favour of this provincial organization. I believe they are unanimously in favour of it if they can get it on the terms proposed, but I am just as certain that they are just as unanimously against it unless they get it on these terms, or on some similar terms. I am perfectly satisfied that they are unanimously against it if they are only to get it on the same terms as it has been granted to the other provinces of the Dominion, and I will take the liberty of reading from the definite proposition made by Mr. Haultain in support of my statement. He submitted a draft Bill for the establishment of the territories as a province, and in that Bill he suggested the measure of subsidies which the territories should receive :
The following amounts shall be allowed and paid by Canada by half yearly payments in advance as an annual subsidy to the province, that is to say :-
(a.) For the support of the government and legislature, fifty thousand dollars.
(b.) On an estimated population of two hundred and fifty thousand at eighty cents per head, two hundred thousand dollars, subject to be increased, as hereinafter mentioned, that is to say :-A census of the province shall be taken in every fifth year reckoning from the general decennial census of one thonsand nine hundred and one and an approximate estimate of the population shall be made at equal intervals of time between such quinquennial census and such decennial census, and whenever the population by any such census or estimate exceeds two hundred and fifty thousand, which shall be the minimum on which the said allowance shall be calculated, the amount of the said allowance shall he increased in accordance therewith until the population reaches one million three hundred and ninety six thousand and ninety-one, after which there shall be no further increase.

The words ' one million ' are not contained on that page, hut a telegram on a subsequent page states they should he inserted. The next demand is in the following terms:
The province shall be entitled to be paid and to receive from the government of Canada by half yearly payments in advance, interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum, on the excess over the sum of	of a sum te be
ascertained by multiplying the population of the province by 32'46, and for the purpose of this section the population of the province shall until after the next decennial census be deemed to be two hundred and fifty thousand : provided that immediately after the census of	there shall be a readjustment under
this section on the basis of the population as ascertained by such census.
Now, the proposition which the Premier of the territories asks this parliament to agree to, and to which inferentially the leader of the opposition has asked parliament to agree-hut which he has been very careful not to definitely ask anybody to agree to-is that there shall be a continual readjustment of the per capita grant and of the debt account on the basis of the continually increasing population. I am here to say that no other arrangement can or would be satisfactory. No arrangement would be satisfactory that would not provide for an increase in the per capita grant and in the debt allowance according to increase of population. It is a play upon words, or it is a misuse of words to call an arrangement entered into under those conditions, acquiring the rights of the other provinces of Canada. It is acquiring rights which the other provinces do not possess. I will be very glad if the other provinces will agree to it, but I, as a representative of the North-west Territories, do not propose to go into a sort of blind pool, not knowing how we are going to come out when a conclusion has been reached on this very momentous question. As the members of the House know, in the case of the other provinces the per capita grant is paid on the actual or estimated population at the date of confederation, and that population is not continually increased.


Thomas Walter Scott: The other provinces are going to ask for that to be changed.


Frank Oliver: Possibly so, but I am speaking of the condition as it exists. I am not finding fault with the proposition of Premier Haultain, but what I am finding fault with is that when the words ' provincial organization ' or ' provincial autonomy ' are used, the inference should be given out that we are asking for the same terms that the provinces now have. We are not asking for these terms ; we would not accept these terms ; we could not afford to accept these terms ; we must get different terms, and the question is : Will the opposition, which is in such generous mood, accept those terms. The leader of the 435
opposition had this document before him, and he was careful not to say that he would accept these terms. He was careful to convey the idea that this question was a mere matter of detail, and that It could be arranged by a committee. I want to say that it is not a matter of detail. I say that it is an essential question, and that upon this question hinges the willingness of the people to enter into the status of a province, or to remain outside of thatstatus. I was somewhat astonished to hear the hon, member (Mr. Borden, Halifax) indicate that the question as to whether there should be one province or two was a mere question of detail. The question of the number of provinces, and the question of the subsidies which these provinces shall receive are the essential questions; other questions are matters of detail.
The question whether the territories, as they are at present, have all the powers which a province has, is a question of detail ; because, if they have not those powers, they can be given to them in their present condition as well as they could if they were a province. The hon. leader of the opposition questioned the previous statement of the Premier, that the only important right belonging to a province which the territories did not hold was the right to incur debt. That statement stands, and stands correct in all essential particulars. If the territories lack any other power than that, it can be given to them without provincial organization ; and provincial organization, with the power to incur debt, rests, not upon a legislative enactment in itself, but upon a fixed subsidy being granted. Until there is a fixed subsidy, the province, if the territories were created or called a province to-morrow, could not incur debt. Though this parliament were to pass a thousand Acts allowing it to incur debt, its credit would not be good until it had a fixed subsidy. Therefore, the question of incurring debt depends entirely upon the terms upon which the subsidy for the province to be created is granted. Given a permanent, fixed subsidy, the province or the territories, if you like to call them such, could incur debt, because their credit would be good.
I have said that the difference between the powers of the territories as they exist and the powers of a province are not important. They are not of chief importance. The chief purpose of a local government is to attend to local interests, of which the greater are the needs of education, the taking care of municipal legislation and the providing of the smaller public works. If these needs are attended to, it matters not whether it is under the name of a province or a territory. The needs and requirements of the people are met; and if they are fully met the people are better satisfied than they would be with an empty offer to allow them to sell their public lands



and to incur debt on tlieir own account, *which, as far as the proposition has been laid before us, might have to be met by local taxation.
I will just draw attention again to the difference in the status of the provinces and the status of the territories in the matter of subsidy, which, as I said before, is the main matter. The total subsidy per head amounts, in Ontario, to G6i cents, In Quebec to 06 cents, in Nova Scotia to 94i cents, in New Brunswick to $1.40, in British Columbia to $1.72, in Manitoba to $2,081, in Prince Edward Island to $2.05^, and in the North-west Territories, on the grant of this year, to $4.47$. Now, unless our hon. friends are prepared to give us some definite assurance that we are not going to be placed in an inferior position financially to that which we occupy at the present time, I certainly cannot say that we are in favour of provincial autonomy, especially whcen it js held out to us that provincial autonomy means giving us provincial organization on the same footing as the provinces. We do not want it on those terms ; we cannot afford to take it on those terms.
There has been put up the argument that the territories should have control of their public lands and of their own resources in all ways, in order that they might be able to aid railways. I do not know just where this idea emanated from at present ; but I take the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the fact that as a result of the proceedings of this session, as far as it has gone, the North-west is not doing badly in the matter of aid to railways. It stand's at present to benefit by the credit of the country at large to the extent of some $9,000,000 In regard to the Canadian Northern Railway and some $12,000,000 in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific. It might be, if the Northwest Territories had control of their own lands, they would be required to pledge those lands to give aid to railways. I am in a position to say that it was for the definite purpose of being able to do so in years gone by that the demand was made for control of the lands at a time when there was no railway extension in the territories, when railway extension was very greatly needed, and when the lands of the territories had been given and *were being given to aid in the construction of railways not in the territories at all. At that time the territories did demand and require the control of their own lands for the purpose of *aiding railways ; but to-day, I submit, the position is very considerably different. Today there are no lands in' the territories being sold to speculators ; to-day there are no lands In the territories being granted to railways, but railways are being provided in the territories as they never were provided before-liberally and under satisfactory conditions. That reason, then, for the [DOT]control of lands certainly does not exist.
In regard to the question whether there


Frank Oliver: should be one province or two, I may point out that the Bill which the Premier has submitted provides for only one province. For my owu part, considering the territories in their present condition, with their present population, I have no hesitation in declaring myself in favour of only one province. Blit -the comparison which the hon. leader of the opposition has made between the territories and the other- parts of the Dominion does not hold. There is no other equal area of the Dominion which offers the same prospect of an early settlement of an immense population as does the territories ; and it is fair matter for consideration whether such a large area, if fully populated, might not be better divided into two or more provinces rather than be held as only one. I submit that at this moment, when there is a prospect of the early construction of two lines of railway across the territories, through the most fertile part and the prospect of an early and very large increase of population in that particular part of the country, which has until recent years been almost uninhabited, it is hardly opportune to decide on all questions relating to the manner of a final organization of the territories. I beg to assure hou. gentlemen that the territories are not in the state of excitement in regard to provincial organization which they seem to imagine. They will find that with fair treatment in the matter of subsidy, the people will be satisfied, whatever the politicians may be, or whatever may be those who wrould desire to exploit the resources of the country if placed in other than the present hands. In regard to the treatment accorded the Premier of the territories by the members of this government, I may say that I have had a long acquaintance with Mr. Haultain, and I am quite satisfied that he is able to protect himself ; and from my more brief acquaintance with the members of the present government, I believe they are able to take their own part, and that we can leave that matter to be settled between them. In regard to the people of the Northwest Territories, it is a different matter. The questions at issue are questions concerning them and interesting to them, and I am bound to say that the answer to the people of the North-west Territories has been fairly satisfactory. It is contained in the main and supplementary estimates of the .present session, total,Iing'sometliing like $1,040,000. This is the answer we wanted ; this is the answer for which we asked ; this is the answer we received, and I beg to assure the House that, so far as it goes, it is entirely satisfactory, very much more so than would be any possible interchange of civilities that might have gone on between the representatives of the two governments. I might say also, in answer to the question as to the attitude of the representatives of the North-west Territories, that we are here to support and to

advance the interests of the people of the North-west Territories. Speaking for myself-as I am entitled to speak for myself only-I support the government so long as I consider it is supporting the interests of the North-west Territories. In this particular instance I am bound to say that I helieve the North-west Territories has this year received a response to its demand and to its requirements which comes nearer being satisfactory than any which it lias heretofore received. So far, then, we are entitled to congratulate ourselves upon the results achieved, and I believe the people of the North-west Territories will give due credit both to the government and to their representatives.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the people of the west are satisfied with what has been done this year, why does Premier Haultain say that they have never asked for the establishment of a capital account, and refuse to accept the money on that basis ?


Mr. DAVIS.: He called a special meeting of the assembly to vote $250,000, and they were in a hurry to vote it ; they did not let the grass grow.


Frank Oliver: I am very glad my hon. friend interrupted me on this point, because I had nearly missed it. As I said before, the power which goes with provincial organization is the power of borrowing money. This is the power which the hon. leader of the opposition is most anxious to give to the people of the North-west Territories. It and the power to sell the lands are apparently the only powers he is willing to give the territories. In the memorandum which Mr. Haultain submitted to the government it will be found that one of the grounds of complaint is that we are not permitted to draw on the future. He points out that extensive works are needed, and he complains that under their present status they are not permitted to draw on the future- to borrow money. That is his strong ground in demanding provincial organization, and now, when the government offers to advance and does advance, a matter of $250,000, the opposition want to know why it is done, and say that nobody asked for it and that it will not be' spent. Surely, this money is just as useful to the people of the territories when advanced from the Dominion treasury as it would be if borrowed in the outside market. Surely, it is as much use to them an'd will build as many public works. Besides that, if they had borrowed it in the ordinary market, they would have had to pay interest, but by the present arrangement they are not required to pay interest, and indeed it is not at all certain, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, that they will ever have to account for the principal; that is a matter which will be settled when a final provincial organization is arrived at.


Edward Hackett: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if he supported the resolution for home rule for Ireland ?


Frank Oliver: I did not happen to be here when that vote was taken ; 1 had not arrived in parliament, but if it is of any interest to the hon. member or to the House, I would say that if I had been here I would not have supported it.


Edward Hackett: The majority of hon. gentlemen on that side of the House did support it, and I think it is strange that, after supporting that resolution for home rule for Ireland, they should now oppose home rule for the w-est.


Frank Oliver: It does not concern me what the other members of the House did on that occasion or on any other occasion, as possibly members on both sides very well know. However, I do not see what that has to do with the question, and I would wish to point out to the hon. member, and to the gentlemen on both sides, that it is not we who are objecting to provincial autonomy; we are asking provincial autonomy, but we want it on certain terms. It is hon. gentlemen opposite who are talking provincial autonomy, but are not willing to give it. They will not give the terms that alone make provincial autonomy a practical and reasonable proposition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be a proper thing to settle whether parliament is prepared to give it or not, and then arrange the details ?


Frank Oliver: We understand that exactly. That is a view hon. gentlemen opposite take, but that is not the view we take.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You take the view that, it should not be given on any terms.


Frank Oliver: Not at all. I said in this House last session, and this session, and I take the liberty of repeating it, that if the House will give the North-west Territories the terms asked for in the draft Bill contained in these papers, I will certainly support it most strongly. We will all support it. These are the terms we want.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not wish to do the hon. gentleman personally any injustice, in making the statement I did. I referred to the government he supports. They are not prepared to give the autonomy on any terms.


Frank Oliver: I am not discussing what the government have done. The terms of this draft Bill are what we want. That is what we want the government to do and that is what we want the opposition to say they will do-but they won't; they are very careful not to. The leader of the opposition spoke for two hours, but was careful to go around this point, and that gives us to understand that he does not mean to con-

cede these terms. We do not expect we can get the terms unless we get some support from the other side of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: You put through the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill without any support from this side.


Frank Oliver: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) must have forgotten that over half his followers did not vote against the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: All who were here did.


Frank Oliver: There were a great many who were not here. And the hon. gentleman will remember that it was stated in the debate last Saturday-if, I may have the privilege of referring to it-that keeping away from the polls was an evidence of opinion as well as going to the polls. Therefore, we are entitled to claim that those of the hon. gentleman's following who remained away


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They were all paired with gentlemen on the other side of the House. Every member of the opposition either voted or was paired.


Frank Oliver: I was discussing this question of debt, the condition which has allowed the territories an advance of $250,000. I point out that this is strictly in accordance with the request which has been made by the government of the North-west Territories from time to time, and which was introduced in the resolution before the House. And, in regard to the expenditure of the money, Mr. Haultain says that an advance on capital account is nothing more or less than a loan on which, eventually they would have to pay 5 per cent per annum. Naturally he would like to get out of paying five per [DOT] cent interest, and I think that having got out of it-that is the government having given a loan without interest-he naturally accepts the money and prepares to spend it-and it will do the territories that amount of good. I refer to this because of the way the matter was alluded to by hon. gentlemen opposite in a recent deba'te. They seemed to think there was an intention to take advantage of the territories in some way by compelling-or impelling-them to take a loan which they either did not want or did not require. I wish to point out that it was strictly in accordance with the wishes expressed by the North-west government, that it was placing them in the same financial position exactly as if they were a provincial government, except that they were able to borrow money without paying interest, while if the territories had provincial autonomy, they would have to pay interest on borrowed money.
I repeat that what the territories want at the present time is adequate financial assistance with which to conduct their schools construct their public works, and generally


Frank Oliver: care for the interests of government which have been entrusted to their care. We are glad of any assistance that we receive from hon. members of the opposition in pressing these interests upon the government. We hope that the coolness with which the opposition have viewed these matters in the past has given place now and for the future to deep interest, and that, therefore, we shall be able to depend upon the members of the opposition to aid us in impressing upon the government the needs of the Northwest Territories in their present or future condition. But if our hon. friends expect to make political capital with the people of the North-west Territories, or with the people outside of the North-west Territories, by telling us they are in favour of provincial autonomy, but without providing means for carrying on that organization, I am afraid they will make a mistake.


Thomas Osborne Davis: As the hour is late, I do not intend to take up much time in discussing this question. The leader of the opposition, in the long speech he delivered and the resolution he read, asked this House to vote in favour of granting provincial autonomy to the territories. It seems to me that in doing so he should have put some facts before us on which we could vote intelligently. As far as I could understand his speech, he seemed simply to be reading statements from the letters Mr. Haultain had written to the government, and part of the replies. As representing a constituency in the North-west Territories I have always been opposed to the proposition of Premier Haultain. In this connection, I may say that Premier Haultain in one of his letters said that the members here do not know the public opinion in the territories. I say I know as much about public opinion in the territories as Premier Haultain does, and I say a majority of people are opposed to this scheme, and for good and substantial reasons, as I can show. The leader of the opposition should have Informed himself as to the revenue the people of the North-west Territories at this stage of the proceedings would be entitled to draw from the federal treasury, and show why it would be better for us to have autonomy. The hon. gentleman quoted a great deal from this sessional paper, No. 116, and in one case, I notice, he read only half a paragraph, and left the other half which did not suit his purpose. Mr. Haultain has made certain demands upon this country. My hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has said he laid before the House a full statement of what he wants. I have taken the liberty of boiling down the demands, and I think I can give in brief just what Mr. Haultain asks this House to give him, if we are prepared to give provincial autonomy. He wants first, all the public lands. The leader of the opposition said he was prepared to support that part of the proposition. I am glad to see that he has approached the matter in
1389T

that spirit. We in the west would like to see the lands given to the government of the North-west Territories provided that government made a proper use of them, and did not undertake to shut off settlement. He wants to grant payment for all the lands that were given as bonuses to railway companies in years gone by. But hon. gentlemen opposite, when they were running the governmental machine, gave away a great many millions of acres of land in the Northwest Territories, and I am sorry to say that they were not at all times given for the purpose of subsidizing railways in the Northwest Territories, but most of them were given to subsidize railways in the province of Manitoba.


William Forsythe McCreary: I suppose Manitoba would also be entitled to the same payment for all her lands given away ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I fancy so. Mr. Haultain asked for the payment of lands given as bonuses to build railways. Now, the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) who is leading the opposition, would probably inform us whether he is prepared to pay us at a reasonable rate for the 50,000,000 acres of land he and his friends gave away in the North-west Territories to subsidize railways. At a reasonable price per acre, say $3, it would amount to something like .8150,000,000. Well, we will accept it, we would like to get it, because it would put us on a good footing, a little better footing than the province of Ontario. Now, he goes on further, and if the leader of the opposition had read that portion at the bottom instead of reading only one portion of the document, he would have found that Mr. Haultain wants compensation for ail the lands that are given as homesteads in the North-west Territories; in other words, he wants the federal government to spend a certain amount of money to put the people into the territories, and then the North-west government would like to be compensated for those lands given to those people as homesteads. Whether that is a reasonable demand to make, I will leave to the judgment of the leader of the opposition who seems to be quite friendly to Mr. Haultain, and who wants to have this thing carried out. Another thing which will interest my hon. friend from Grey, I know-because he is one of the old guard and sat in this House when that monstrous piece of legislation was put through which foisted a monopoly on the people of the west in the way of exemptions from taxation on the Canadian Pacific Railway roadbed, and all its stations for ever and lands for twenty years-he will be happy to know that Mr. Haultain asks that legislation be now passed to have that removed, so that the people of the North-west Territories, in forming a province, will not labour under the disability of having this road exempted from taxation. I do not know what it will cost the people of Canada. I leave the leader of
the opposition to figure that out. But I would like to see him get the Canadian Pacific Railway to give up the privilege which was given them by his friends twenty years ago, the privilege of exemption from taxation on lands for twenty years, as we always supposed, but as it now turns out to be, for forty years, exempting them from taxation on their roadbed, rolling stock and everything else for ever.


William Forsythe McCreary: That will apply to Manitoba also.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I suppose so. Now, the leader of the opposition has figured out that the population of the North-west Territories at the present time is something like 375,000. He goes Mr. Haultain one better.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say 375,000.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I took down his figures. He said there was 158,000 in round numbers, according to the census, and that 170 odd thousand appear to have gone into the territories since then.	.


Robert Laird Borden: That makes 330,000.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Well, he has gone the Premier of the North-west Territories one better. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that the Premier of the North-west Territories is not unduly modest in his demands, and if he thought he was entitled to it he would ask for it. He said that the population was 250,000, and he wants a grant of eighty cents per head to start with. He wants to draw eighty cents per head until the population reaches 1,396,091. Now, with reference to the debt account. The present population on which that debt account is to be based is 250,000. Now, he is more modest in that respect than the leader of the opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the date of that'!


Thomas Osborne Davis: You took it out of your own return you have been reading from.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the date to which the hon. gentleman refers ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am talking about this return brought down here.


Robert Laird Borden: I am asking the date of that document.


Thomas Osborne Davis: It is in the Bill, it is 1901. I must say that if the leader of the opposition were consulting the Premier of the North-west Territories now he would be prepared to ask for $600,000, and I would not blame him at all. I am just taking what is in that Bill, the draft of the Bill that was presented to this House,' and that is what he expects if you give him provincial autonomy. Now, we will take the figures of the leader of the opposition, 330,000. He wants the debt account based on 330,000,

and a revision every five years-which is a perfectly legitimate thing, and I think he is entitled to it. But I want to point out now to the leader of the opposition-I think it was three years ago that Mr. Haultaln started this agitation for provincial auton-onmy-I want to point out to the leader of the opposition at this stage that every man, woman and child that goes into the Northwest Territories is worth to us, on capital account, $33, or close to it. Mr. Haultain puts it at $32.40. Now, taking the statement made by the leader of the opposition that 170,000 people have gone in there since the census was taken-I think Mr. Haultain started his agitation before the census was taken-I think the leader of the opposition will see that by not having provincial autonomy we have added to our capital account something in the neighbourhood of between five and six million dollars, taking his own figures as to the population. Now he wants the census taken every five years-I do not know whether the leader of the opposition and the gentlemen supporting him would agree to that. I think it would be a good thing, blit I do not know what hon. gentlemen opposite would say to it.
Now the leader of the opposition is more generous than the Premier of the Northwest Territories, who asked for ten members in this House to start with, The leader of the opposition, in addressing the House to-night, said that they were entitled to twelve. But when there was a proposition before this House to grant ten members to the North-west Territories, I did not see that the leader of the opposition exercised any haste in getting on to his feet and advocating twelve^ members. He was a member of the Redistribution Committee, and X never heard that he asked for twelve members. But to-night, at the end of the session, when we are getting ready to return home, and when the idea is abroad that possibly there may be an election in the near future, and possibly with the idea of gaining a little kudos out in the west on account of this thing, he tells us that the territories ought to have twelve members. Well, why did not the leader of the opposition take that stand when there was a proposition before .this House to give them ten members ? I am positive that if the- leader of the opposition had got up and said that we ought to have twelve members, the government would have granted us twelve. But after the Bill has passed, after it has practically become law, it is rather late for the leader of the opposition to advocate giving us twelve members.


Mr. BROCK.: Are you speaking for the government just- now ?


Thomas Osborne Davis: I am Speaking for myself. Now, the Prime Minister of the North-west Territories made the statement that we


Thomas Osborne Davis: should have only one province and that the legislative assembly of the Territories should have the power to locate the capital. I think perhaps there might be some milk in that cocoanut, there must be some reason why the Premier of the North-west Territories is so anxious to have provincial autonomy. I want to say to the leader of the opposition that if he had gone out into my part of the country last year-and his own political friends up there felt sore that he did not go and see them-he would have found a fine country up there, a lot of fine people, and have heard from those people that they were not very anxious for political autonomy at the present time. I would like to call the attention of the leader of the opposition to what one of the leading papers in Saskatchewan says about it. to let him see what the people up there think about provincial autonomy. This is the Alberta ' Advocate ' of October 5th-not very long ago. It is a Liberal paper.
It is a God-send for the country in general at the present time that provincial autonomy has been withheld.
Hint goes to show that the people in that part of the country are not thirsting very much for provincial autonomy. I would be very glad if the hon. leader of the opposition and the gentlemen supporting him in this House were prepared to grant all these terms, to pay for the lands that had been given away to railways, to pay for the homestead lands that have been taken and to give all that Mr. Haultain is asking for. But I do not think there is anv use of getting up and making the statement that we should have provincial autonomy without going into the question and letting us know what the hon. gentleman is prepared to do. He has brought this proposition before the House, and if be is in favour of accepting Mr. Haultain's demand in its entirety we would be happy to support it.
I am sure that every member of the House who represents the territories would sun-pert it.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman said a moment ago that it was an excessive demand.


Mr. DAI  IS@: No, I did not say anything of the kind. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is just getting wakened up. I have taken the trouble, Mr. Speaker, to make some comparisons and to see what, under the proposition laid down by Mr. Haultain, we would be fairly entitled to if the North-west Territories were to become a province. We do not know exactly what we should get.
I have a statement here, first, of what we would get if we were organized into a province, and. Second, of what we do get under the present arrangement, which is as follows :

Provincial Basis,
For government	$ 50,000
Eighty cents a head on 250,000 people.. 200,000 Debt acount, 250,000 people at $33 a head
$8,250,000 at 5 per cent	 412,000
In lieu of public lands	 300,000
Total	$ 962,000
Territorial Basis.
Grant from Dominion government this
year	$ 457,979
To pay off debt	 250,000
Additional grant made	 250,000
To pay for two bridges'	 84,000
To'tal	 1,041,979
Advance -on capital account	 250,000
So that, taking the statement that 1 have
made, we would be entitled, if we had provincial autonomy, to receive from the Dominion government $909,000 a year, while we are drawing at the present time over a million dollars, showing that we are fairly well-off at the present time. There was a time in the history of the North-west Territories, as my hon. friend from Alberta has pointed out when we were not so well-off, and when we did not get as much as we were entitled to for the purpose of building roads and bridges. Yet the hon. leader of the opposition talks about what Mr. Haul-tain did a couple of years ago, when serious storms swept away the bridges. Mr. Haul-tain went around to the people and told them that he had no money, but that if they had provincial autonomy they could have the bridges rebuilt. If the people of the Northwest are in a position to get $250,000, and $250,000 more without being called upon to pay interest on capital account, they are in a better position than if they had to pay interest on that money. Another advantage of the present position of the North-west Territories is that they have not to maintain tile extravagant form of government which is kept up in all the other provinces. I would like to call the attention of the House to some of the services that we would have to maintain ourselves if the territories were put upon a provincial basis that are now performed by the Dominion government. There is, in the first place, the police force. If the North-west Territories were formed into a province, I suppose the hon. leader opposite would admit that the province would have to pay for the maintenance of the police force. The mounted police is paid for at the present time out of the federal treasury and it performs police duty in the territories. The territories would have to assume this expense. I do not know what the force costs, but I am satisfied that for the territories that Mr. Haultain proposes to bring in Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and a portion of Athabasca, it would not cost less than $200,000 a year. The registry offices are self-supporting, so that it is not necessary to say anything about them. But, in addition to the mounted police, they would have to pay for the administration of justice, and for the maintenance of asylums. Any money that is paid out for these institutions now is paid by the federal government. Then, there are the public works that are constructed by the Dominion government, such as the building of court houses, and the only way in which tlie money could be obtained for these-works would be by borrowing it, and reducing our revenue every year by having to pay interest on that amount of money. We would have the increased cost of the provincial system of government, because we would have a lot of the paraphernalia that we do not have at the present time. Then, there would be more officials. If all these services were paid for out of the revenue of the territories, you would find that the people there would have a grievance. In my part of the country I do not see that many persons are thirsting for this change. I think the trouble lies more with the politicians than with the people. If you give us enough money so that we can build our bridges and maintain our roads that is all we want, and we will not trouble you for the present. I am glad to know that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are prepared to vote whatever we want from time to time, but I do not think the people of the North-west will trouble them very much about provincial autonomy ^ so long	as they	do	that. The	hon.gentleman also alluded to railway subsidies. The government is guaranteeing bonds to an amount of something like $20,000,000 for the construction of railways in the North-west Territories, but if Mr. Haultain had been allowed to carry out his propaganda two or three years ago, we would have been obliged to mortgage the resources of the territories for this work. Gentlemen from the province of Manitoba	will	tell	you	that they	haveno debt,	but	if hon.	gentlemen	opposite will	look	at	the	Year-book,	they
will find that Manitoba has a debt of $16,664,647, charged up against it. The people of the North-west Territories have no debt at all, because the railways are subsidized by the federal government, and if they get enough money to carry on the business of the country it is not very likely that they will be thirsting to change their system of government. I have a statement here of the subsidy per head of the different provinces in the Dominion and also of that of the North-west Territories, which is as fallows :
Ontario	 615
Quebec	   66
Nova Scotia	 941
British Columbia	 1"72
Manitoba	 2-05
North-west Territories	4-47


An hon. MEMBER.: You are getting too much.


Mr. DAYIS.: We are not getting too much, but I think we have been fairly

*well treated. I want to point out one feature of the case, and it is this : The hon. leader of the opposition thinks that provincial autonomy is a new proposition in the territories. There was a meeting held in my own town 13 years ago, and a committee was appointed and money collected to agitate for provincial autonomy, but that agitation soon died out. It is, therefore, an old scheme. Four or five years ago, when Mr. Haultain started his agitation we had a population of 100,000 ; to-day we have a population of 330,000, we are told, and if we are entitled to have $33 per head placed to our credit on capital account, we are $7,590,000 better off to-day than we would have been if Mr. Haultain had succeeded when he first commenced. It is all very well to say that we could get a re-arrangement, but I notice that the other provinces have not been successful in their attempt in that respect. When we do form a province, we want it formed on such terms and conditions that we will not have to ask for better terms from year to year. We see the province of Manitoba loaded up with a big debt. We may call it a guarantee of bonds and say that the people will not have to pay the interest, but nevertheless it is a liability against the province which they may be called upon to pay. The North-west Territories is getting all that work done by the federal government, and I think they are better off as they are to-day. The leader of the opposition told us that he considered the question of the number of provinces into which we are to be divided as a secondary consideration. If he went to my district he would find out what a mistake he makes in that. The southern belt of the North-west Territories has had the advantages of a transcontinental railway for 22 years, but the northern belt has been without railways until the last few years. There were a couple of railways there, but they might as well have been built to the moon, for they were of no use whatever to colonization. It is only now that the northern portion of the district is getting immigration, and as a member of the district I will say that the people there are not prepared to go in with the people of the southern portion to form one province. We think there should be two provinces, and if my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) were leading the government he would not coerce us unless he wanted to have another rebellion on his hands like that which the Conservatives fomented in 1885. All that has to be taken into consideration. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) goes to Calgary, which is the centre of this agitation, he will find that the people there want three provinces, and some of them want four provinces. If he told the people of Calgary that he wanted one province, the first question they would put to him was : Would he have the capital in Calgary, and if he proposed to leave it to the legislative assetn-Mr. DAVIS.
bly to decide, as Mr. Haultain proposes, they would tell him that they would prefer waiting until something else turned up. The leader of the opposition has perhaps approached this subject in a fair spirit, and I am glad to know that he is prepared to lend his assistance at all times, and to sympathize with us. We would be much better satisfied if he would tell us that he is prepared to sympathize with us to the extent of demands made by Premier Haultain. They are modest demands in a way, and the people of the North-west would be glad to know that my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) endorses them. If the hon. gentleman only gets up and states that it is a good thing to have provincial autonomy he might as well say that it would be a good thing if the sun would shine to-morrow, or that it would rain next summer, but the people of the territories want something more definite than that. They have been educated by-I was going to say my friend Mr. Haultain-they have been educated by the friend of the leader of the opposition up to considering that they were entitled to the conditions laid down in his proposition, and the leader of the opposition will find it hard to satisfy public opinion without going as far as Mr. Haultain proposes. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bor deni stated that in 1902 Mr. Haultain swept the country for provincial autonomy. Everybody knows that Mr. Haultain adopted the tactics of the wily politician, and that be took a snap verdict. I fancy that if sufficient time were given to have threshed out the question of political autonomy and other questions, Mr. Haul-, tain would not have a majority at all. But, when the people were putting their crops in, and could not get to the polls, he brought on the elections and got a snap verdict, and he claims it as a verdict in favour of provincial autonomy. I want to say that the people took no stock at all in that question. The leader of the opposition might as well say that when Mr. Roblin was returned to power the people of Manitoba pronounced in favour of a high tariff, because Mr. Roblin mentioned it on the platform. Mr. Haultain is in the same position. The people did not take any stock in the question of provincial autonomy, because they knew it had to come from Ottawa and not from him, and as a matter of fact Mr. Haultain got several in my district. I supported him myself, and I helped him to the best of my ability to carry some seats, and 1 never considered the question of provincial autonomy at all. I want to say as one of the representatives from that country, that the people whom I represent are opposed to provincial autonomy at present. I think we are well off as we are. We have been treated very; generously, and with the help of the leader of the opposition, we will be treated more generously in the future in getting sufficient subsidies to run the affairs of the country without going into debt, and without

putting taxation on the people. There is no part of Canada where a taxation is lighter at present than in the territories. I have had some intimation that Mr. Haultain intended to introduce the municipal system. If he does, he will grant the municipalities power to borrow money, because, although he cannot borrow money himself he has power to give the municipalities authority to borrow. I understand he intends to submit a Bill of that kind. I do not know how true it is, or how it will be received by the people, but I believe that taking everything into consideration, we are doing very well as we are and we had better adopt the old saying : Let well enough alone. I believe the people of the North-west Territories are of that opinion.


Mr.  W. J.@: ROCHE (Marquette)'. I have listened to some curiosities in the way of speech-making in this House during the past seven years, but the member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) has surpassed even himself tonight in the matter of exhibiting curiosities in the speech-making line. I sympathize with him, because his position must be very embarrassing in having to make a speech for autonomy and against autonomy. He is in favour of the details being settled immediately and he is against the details being settled unless they are settled in advance, not by the leader of the government, but by the leader of the opposition, forsooth. He is for an increased subsidy, but he is against the motion of the leader of the opposition, which asks that this question shall be taken up at once, and the details referred to the representatives of the people before autonomy is granted and before it is accepted by them. The hon. gentleman, therefore, finds himself in a most embarrassing position, and he feels at heart that he is speaking against the sentiment of the people he represents when he, in a fainthearted manner, I admit, opposes autonomy. He told us that he would be in favour of autonomy if autonomy were granted on the terms asked by Premier Haultain in the Bill as submitted, but that without that, he would not be in favour of it. Surely he has read some speeches made by Premier Haultain siuee that Bill was submitted to parliament by the government, in which, he stated that while he asked only what he considered was right and what the territories were entitled to, still he would not refuse to discuss the question and to accept terms less favourable for the sake of getting territorial autonomy for his people. He does not state in so many words, hard and fast, that unless he can get territorial autonomy on those terms he is not willing to accept it on any other terms. He says : This is what we are entitled to, these terms should be complied with; but, as he has stated in public speeches delivered since that time, he is willing to enter into a conference with this government and make the best terms possible.
The hon. gentleman has directed his remarks largely to the leader of the opposition. I can understand his position as a subservient supporter of the present government. He knows that the government are opposed to the granting of autonomy, and he did not wish to place them in an embarrassing position. He rather fears that his own supporters may rally to the support of the leader of the opposition, because he has struck a responsive chord in the North-west Territories ; and instead of directing his remarks to the government of which he is so strong a supporter, he has directed them wholly to the leader of the opposition, as if it were his part to offer a policy on this question. He says that this is an old question, that it is not just of this year's growth, that it was discussed in years gone by when he occupied a seat in the territorial assembly. Yes, and he forgot to tell this House that when he occupied that seat, he himself favoured local autonomy ; but to-day he opposes it. The hon. gentleman rather blamed the leader of the opposition because this question was not brought up earlier. But the leader of the opposition has brought this question up, not only this session, in an early part of the session, but last year, when he urged immediate action on the part of the government of the day. So I think the rerefence of the hon. member for Alberta to the hon. leader of the opposition was ill-timed'and not at all deserved.
The hon. gentleman says it is money they want, and not talk. It is sometimes necessary to have a good deal of talk to this government to get a little money for a certain portion of the country ; but that is not the case when they , propose to vote $125,000,000 for a railway between Winnipeg and Moncton, which is of little use for relieving the congestion of the west; and, by the way, our North-west lands are designed by the Minister of the Interior to pay for that railway.
Mr. McCreary, no.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: No other impression was possible from the statement of the Minister of the Interior in this House, that he was going to bring in a Bill to get authority to dispose of 50,000,000 acres of land which he stated had been liberated to the Crown, and which by the construction of this railway would be made very much more valuable and would realize a better price. The Toronto ' Globe ' took up the statement and said in so many words that this was the intention of the government; and it was only lately, since public opinion was aroused, that an inspired article appeared in the Regina ' Leader,' edited by the hon. member for Western Assinibioa (Mr. Scott), stating that there had been a misapprehension on that point, that such was not the intention of the government, and that they would not introduce legislation on this question this session, though he would

not vouch for the future. The granting of provincial autonomy has been the subject of debate, not only this session, but last session. The lion. Minister of Finance, in some remarks he made, left the impression on this House that in the very near future, possibly within the next year, local selfgovernment will be afforded to the people of that portion of Canada. Unfortunately, however, the gentleman who is supposed to mould the policy of the government, the Prime Minister, threw cold water on this assertion, and left the House in no doubt whatever as to his proposition on the question. He stated distinctly, in almost so many words, that so long as this government were in power, the people of the territories need not expect local autonomy for many years to come ; and the Minister of the Interior took the same ground last year, pointing out that it would not be right to grant autonomy to the North-west Territories until 600,000 or 700,000 people were in that country. Therefore I cannot understand the hon. member for Western Assini-boia when he states to-night that the Minister of the Interior has as much as promised that within the next year we would have autonomy, whereas the Minister of the Interior, not only in public documents, but in speeches delivered in this House last session, stated the direct opposite.


Thomas Walter Scott: Let me remind the hon. gentleman that the Minister of Finance made a statement practically to that effect in this House this session.


William James Roche: And what did the Prime Minister say immediately afterwards, when I placed his views before the House ? I stated that I was putting the Prime Minister's sentiments correctly before the House to the effect that for many years to come the territories need not expect autonomy at the hands of this government, and the Prime Minister said 'hear, hear.'


The PRIME MINISTER.: If I said 1 hear, hear,' it was not affirmation. On the contrary, it was negation.


William James Roche: But the right hon. gentleman's speech bore out my contention.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Quote my speech, then.


William James Roche: If I am allowed to refer to a past debate, I will do it with pleasure, as I have ' Hansard ' under my hand. He pointed out that it was not an unmixed evil to prevent the people of the North-west having power to mortgage their patrimony, to borrow money on their property ; and his whole argument was directed against granting autonomy for many years to come. I regret that on this most important question, for the welfare of the people of the west, there should be a diversity of opinion amongst the representatives Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
of the west who are supporters of this government. I think I am not misrepresenting these hon. gentlemen when I ' state that they are not a unit on this question, unless the hon. member for Western Assiniboia has changed his mind x'emarkably since last session.


Thomas Walter Scott: There is a new condition this year.


William James Roche: When I was speaking on this question before, I said :
But the Prime Minister adduced arguments that were strong, no doubt, from his point of view, that the North-west Territories should not be granted local self-government for many [DOT] years to come.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Hear, hear.


William James Roche: The Prime Minister says ' hear, hear,' so I am not misstating the case from his viewpoint.
I think the right hon. gentleman will see that I was perfectly correct in my statement. The hon. member for Eastern Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), who is not In his place to-night took the ground that it would be wiser to defer the granting of autonomy to the territories for many years, as he believed that they were much better off in their present condition. He staled that in his own opinion the majority of the men in his riding were opposed to local autonomy, whereas his colleague, the hon. member for Western Assiniboia, took the contrary view. He stated distinctly that even with an increased subsidy-and I commend that remark to the hon. member for Alberta-the people of the territories would not be satisfied with anything short of local autonomy. This was the view of the hon. member for Western Assiniboia last session, although I will admit that he was rather faint-hearted, lest he might embarrass the government of which he is a supporter. On the other hand, the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) was rather more canny last session than this, and did not commit himself so much against autonomy ; but still he stated that the great majority of the people were opposed to it, and he himself thought it would be better not to have it until there was a larger population in that country, and they would draw a larger per capita allowance ; whereas the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) has both in this House and out of it taken such strong grounds that he has been taken to task not only by the press of western Canada, but by the independent press of eastern Canada for his opposition to provincial autonomy. So here we have a House divided against itself on this most important question, on which unanimity is required, at least on the part of the supporters of the government. It is not surprising, that the government should deny the people local autonomy when we have this diversity of opinion expressed in this House by their own supporters. The hon. member for Alberta, when speaking on this

question on one occasion before, stated that the overwhelming sentiment-I believe these were his words-of the people of the Northwest was in his opinion opposed to the granting of provincial autonomy. Now, I do not believe he gauged public opinion on that question when he made use of that expression.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman has repeatedly said that I was against provincial autonomy. I have always said that I was in favour of provincial autonomy on the terms asked for by Mr. ITaultain.


William James Roche: Of course, the hon. gentleman may well say that ; I suppose there is not a single member present who would not be. But does the hon. gentleman mean to say that Mr. Haultain would not accept provincial autonomy at the hands of this government unless the exact terms which he submitted were granted?


Frank Oliver: I cannot say what Mr. Haultain would do ; I simply take his terms and say that they are acceptable to me. When discussing this he simply stated that he would be in favour of provincial autonomy only on the basis of more population.


Thomas Walter Scott: Premier Haultain is on record as saying that he would rather do without provincial autonomy for ever than accept Manitoba's terms.


William James Roche: That has nothing to do with the question at issue. We are not demanding Manitoba terms or limiting the discussion to any terms ; we are asking that the matter be immediately taken up in accordance with the prayers and petitions of the legislative assembly and to have these dealt with by this government. The hon. member for Alberta said :
Speaking for myself and for those who think with me, who I believe constitute the overwhelming majority of the people of the Northwest Territories, I believe it is better to wait until we can be sure of a more satisfactory arrangement, based on increased population, than we can possibly expect to get to-day.


Frank Oliver: Might I point out that what I said there had reference, not to what Sir. Haultain proposed, but to what I expected we could get, quite a different matter.


William James Roche: Mr. Haultain himself did not ask exactly wliat the hon. gentleman asks ; lie asked a per capita allowance on a stated population.


Frank Oliver: No ; he asked a per capita allowance on an increasing population.


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman lias blown hot and cold on this question over and over again. He gave me the impression, in fact he explicitely stated, that it would be better to wait until there was a larger population, so that they could draw a larger per capita allowance. From the interviews which I have had with prominent citizens in that part of Canada, from newspaper comments not including, however, the Edmonton ' Bulletin ', hut from newspaper comments independent of politics, and from the representatives in the territorial assembly, I had formed an opinion quite contrary to that formed by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver). That there may not be a perfect unanimity of opinion I grant you. but as the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), in his terse language last session, said, if the government wait for that they will wait for Kingdom come, and certainly they will do so upon this or on any other great public question ; there will always be a certafn divergence of public opinion, but if the expressions of the territorial representative are any gauge of public opinion on that question, it is overwhelmingly in favour of provincial autonomy at the earliest possible moment.


Frank Oliver: On what terms ?


William James Roche: If you vote for the amendment of the leader of the opposition you will see upon what terms. That is exactly wliat they are asking a conference to fix terms and I do not see how tlio hon. gentleman can consistently with his duty-although-I do not want to lecture him, as lie knows his own duty-oppose the amendment of tlie lion, leader of tlie opposition, when it is asking something so very reasonable and moderate. There may be a difference of opinion in regard to the number of provinces which should be created ; I admit that, but that is a question that must be faced sooner or later. It will have to be faced five or ten years from now just in the same way as it will to-day, and at the most it is a question of detail which the people of the territories themselves, if you give them ail opportunity, will he only too glad to decide for you. In tlie speech from the Throne in the local assembly, at the last, session of the territorial assembly, it was distinctly declared that it was a national necessity to have more power, more revenue and provincial institutions, and Mr. Haultain. in his opening address on that speech, stated that the territorial government had resorted to almost everything short of force to gain tlieir rights from the present government, and had failed. That is strong language to emanate from the premier of tlie territories, but it .only goes to show tlie friction and the irritation that is caused by the treatment accorded these people by tlie government of the day. Mr. Haultain, in that speech, stated :
' Every tiling possible has been done that could be done,' he said, ' to procure the necessary money and powers. These representations have been backed up by resolutions, memorials and addresses by the legislative assembly. Now, the question is, what more can be done ? He spoke of the $13,000,008 surplus and the ' lavish expenditure in eastern Canada,' and said that ' if the comfort and prosperity of

the new settlers is not more important than breakwaters, drill halls, &e., are we then not forced to the conclusion that the present dependency of the territories on the Dominion should he put to an end immediately ? ' Immediate provincial institutions in the territories must be the demand.
Mr. Haultain discussed certain means of temporary relief, such as having resort to municipal administration and increased local taxation. This latter must come with the growing needs of the country, he said. But, above all, they must have provincial institutions. ' The provincial question is, after all, the one solution to our constitutional difficulties and our financial difficulties. It is the one solution because we shall have not only the revenues to meet them, but the powers to do the work which it is necessary this legislature should do to meet the necessities of this great and growing country.
Manitoba, which lies alongside the territories on the eastern side, has been in the enjoyment of provincial institutions to its own advantage and to the great benefit of its inhabitants for a great many years. This autonomy was granted the province of Manitoba at a time when the population was about 17,000. British Columbia also enjoys that advantage with a much less population than the territories have at the present day. The territories of the present -day have a considerably larger population than Prince Edward Island, and yet some 250,000 or 300,000 of the population are denied the right afforded to Canadians in the other provinces of the Dominion.
The House is surely aware that this condition of affairs cannot exist much longer. It is causing a great deal of trouble and a great deal of unrest amongst the newcomers who are entering that country, and sooner or later lie will find that unless this question is dealt with the government will be piling up for themselves a heap of trouble. The longer they put off dealing with it the greater the difficulties will be. People are flocking into that country year after year, settlement is becoming more compact, new school districts must be organized and new schools provided in order to meet the wants of the rising generation. All of this will cause great demands on the territorial exchequer, and the territorial government has not means of recouping itself except a small tax on land; it has come here to this parliament, asking for the amount that may be doled out to it, large or small. It galls the people there to feel that they {ire dependent on this parliament, and makes them feel that they are being kept in leading strings. Two years ago, and I believe, again a year ago. that country was visited by very severe floods which swept away, according to the correspondence laid on the Table, upwards of 140 bridges ; and because the government of the territories had to anticipate for a few months the revenues which they would receive, the hon. Minister of the Interior, when bringing down a sup-Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
plementary of $180,000 to meet this contingency, said in an apologetic manner that the government of the territories had anticipated their revenue, and had rushed into this expenditure six months in advance, perhaps unwisely, as he put it.
What else could the territorial government do ? Here were new people coming into that country, and here were the rivers from which the bridges had been washed away. The people must reach their markets, they must have the bridges. The government had not the money to provide the bridges, and sooner than cause dissatisfaction, and even distress, among the people, they anticipated their revenue. And the Minister of the Interior thought fit to refer to this as ' perhaps being an unwise expenditure.' In my opinion, the people of the North-west Territories are as capable of managing their own affairs as those of any other portion of Canada, notwithstanding the distrust that the present government seems to have of them. And why should they not be as capable as others ? Whence come these people ? Many of them come from south of the American boundary line, as has been pointed out. These are people accustomed to representative institutions, and they look for them in Canada, and will not be satisfied without them. Many were residents of eastern Canada, who enjoyed local autonomy in the provinces from which they came ; and they will look for the same autonomy on the part of the community among whom they have settled, and will not be satisfied without it. We all know that the best immigration agent is the contented settler. And, unless we make these people feel that they are not dependent upon others, unless they are free to elect representatives to manage their affairs who will be directly responsible to them, I think you will find considerable irritation arising in the future. We have heard in the past eulogies heaped upon the succession of governments headed by Mr. Haultain. And properly so. I believe that the management of territorial affairs under his direction has been wise and judicious ; otherwise he would not have received the public endorsation on numerous occasions as he has done. And when he and his associates show such capacity, what is there to lead us to suppose that they would not show as great capacity if the territories were granted the powers of autonomy that they have been claiming ? Why, what was the course followed in making up the present cabinet ? The Prime Minister did not confine himself in his choice of colleagues to men who had stood behind him in opposition for eighteen years. He went far outside the ranks of members of this House. Pie went to the provinces to secure the provincial premiers to make up his cabinet. He took one premier from Nova Scotia, he took one from New Brunswick, he went to Ontario for another, and he went to Mani-

toba for their attorney general. Here were four of these gentlemen taken from provincial governments. And what surprises me is that, now that these provincial cabinet ministers are elevated to positions of ministers in the Dominion cabinet, in their egotism they say : We are the heaven-born legislators, and those who do not happen tS have been taken, but were left outside, are not to be trusted with the management even of their own local affairs. It all depends upon the terms, as the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) states, whether local autonomy will be accepted or not. This parliament can weld afford to deal, not only justly, but liberally with the people of the North-west ; and, in doing so, as I say, they will take the very best step to encourage immigration to go into that country. We are to-day spending upwards of half a million dollars a year for the purpose of bringing in immigrants. I think it is the duty of parliament rather to try to provide for the protection of the settlers we have and make them contented with their lot than to favour an enormous expenditure In order to import people, some of whom may not be so desirable as we would wish.
In the return brought down, we have resolutions from the North-west in favour of provincial autonomy. The hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) read from a certain paper, I think from his own town, a few lines to show that the people were not in favour of local autonomy. There is no great expression of opinion there in favour of autonomy, according to the hon. gentleman. But, in looking over the return that has been brought down. I find that the hon. gentleman himself, in a letter dated April 14th, 1903, sent to the Prime Minister a resolution passed by the board of trade of his own town. The resolution reads as follows :
Resolved by the Prince Albert Board ot Trade, that in the opinion of this board the time has now fully arrived when action should he taken towards the erection of this portion of the Dominion of Canada, known as the North-west Territories, into provinces, each of these with all provincial rights and privileges. The enormous number of settlers pouring into the Saskatchewan district, not only from other parts of Canada, hut virtually from all over the world, necessitates largely augmented grants for the improvement of roads, building of bridges and for public works, schools, &c.. Our board feel fully convinced that the only way hy which we can meet our yearly increasing indebtedness, is hy having the power in our own hands to deal with the matter.
The board of trade, while cognizant of the fact that this matter has previously been brought to the attention of the government, feel that this is a most opportune time to urge that the matter should be taken up at once, as we feel assured that the present and future prosperity of this large and important part of the Dominion of Canada largely depends upon our request being acceded to.
Here is the board of trade, composed of the business men of Prince Albert, of both
political parties, I presume, as in other places ; and they, through their representatives, send a request for the grant to the North-west of provincial institutions. And yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis), on the strength of a few words that he reads in a newspaper, and entirely ignoring the hoard of trade, says that there is no public opinion in favour of autonomy. There were other resolutions presented from other places in the territories, as, for Instance, Calgary, Lethbridge, Glenfel and others, resolutions, not only from boards of trade, but from city councils and town councils.
The hon. member (Mr. Davis) states that this is a political move. He says that the last election was not won on the question of provincial autonomy at all. The result, he says, was a snap verdict. Yet he takes credit to himself for having helped to obtain that snap verdict, because he says his influence was brought into requisition to carry three or four constituencies for the territorial government. There is a gentleman in that territorial government, Minister of Public Works, I believe, Hon. Mr. Bulyea, who is a Liberal. That hon. gentleman was in the city of Winnipeg last October, and while there he was interviewed by a representative of the press. And here are the opinions that are attributed to him :
Winnipeg, October 5.-Hon. G. H. V. Bulyea, Commissioner of Public Works in the territorial' government has been in Winnipeg, and while here talked with your correspondent on the question of territorial autonomy. Mr. Bulyea seemed to think that the matter was a simple one. The last territorial elections were fought out on the question of attaining provincial powers, and for one province in the area covered by the present territory. The result was unmistakable, thirty out of the thirty-five members of the assembly being returned on the territorial autonomy platform.
Here is this member of. the territorial government, this Liberal and supporter of the government at Ottawa, who has, I believe, urged this government, even on grounds of political expediency, to grant provincial' autonomy to the territories. Surely the hon. member for Saskatchewan 'cannot repudiate Mr. Haultain's Liberal colleague. Without wearying the House, I simply state my opinion that it should be the desire, not only of those from western Canada, hut those from eastern Canada as well, to have this question disposed of once for all, and in a manner satisfactory to the people of the west. And that desire can be expressed by voting for the amendment of the leader of the opposition, which calls for immediate action to add to the powers of the territorial legislature, and to have terms decided upon which must be referred to the territories to see if they are satisfactory before they are agreed upon.


Thomas Walter Scott: It is to me, as it was to my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) a matter of regret that the leader of the opposition did not raise

this very important question at an earlier stage in the session. He makes the excuse that the printed return was not brought down until the end of July, but if my recollection serves me, he informed the House that the printed return had been received by him from the legislative assembly at Regina at a much earlier date in the session. It is regrettable that this important discussion should have been delayed until this late stage of the session, when, for about three months, from the beginning of May to the end of July, this House was simply marking time. However, I am gratified to hear the expressions from the leader of the opposition and from my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) following so closely the expressions which I gave voice here two years ago at the first opportunity I had, and again last year. I think, however, that the people of the North-west Territories would have more confidence in our lion, friends opposite if their anxiety and keenness were not made so open to suspicion. It is plain that the opposition is best pleased when the welfare of the North-west appears to be threatened. Why the hon. member for Marquette a few moments ago endeavoured to throw doubt upon a denial that was made here less than a month ago by the Minister of Finance with regard to the policy of this government, when that hon. gentleman was represented as holding out a threat that the North-west lands were to be sold and that this government was to continue the insane and iniquitous policy pursued by previous governments, and that they were going to continue to dispose of the Northwest lands for federal purposes. The Minister of Finance a couple of weeks ago stated distinctly that no such policy was contemplated.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is quite wrong. The Finance Minister made no such statement in this House, and I say that in the presence of the Finance Minister himself.


Thomas Walter Scott: The Finance Minister can speak for himself. I listened to what he said, and I understood him to say that no such policy was contemplated and no such legislation was going to be brought down. The hon. member for Marquette seems to be anxious to believe that the opposite is the case and anxious to believe that autonomy is to be long withheld, for less than fifteen minutes ago he quoted an expression of the Prime Minister made a couple of weeks ago, and tried to give it a distorted meaning as if the Prime Minister had said that provincial autonomy would not be granted for many years to come. The Prime Minister states to-night that he did not mean that the people of the North-west Territories were to be left for years without provincial autonomy, but the member for Marquette is keen to believe the opposite. So, I think hon. gentlemen Mr. SCOTT.
opposite are evincing that kind of anxiety which will lead the people of the North-west Territories to doubt whether they are really interested in their welfare. Further, I have to say that, in my opinion, it is very regrettable that this question of so much concern to the territories, this question of our local government, should be made a party issue. Until this year it was kept free from this position. A few months ago in the North-west Terrritories an attempt was made to drag this question of provincial autonomy down to the plane of party politics. I regret that the leader of the oppositon, the leader of the Conservative party in this country, has shown to-night a willingness to aid in the attempt to make this a party question, moving his amendment on a motion to go into Supply and so making the question one of want of confidence in the government.


Robert Laird Borden: It is merely a motion asking the government to comply with the demand of the legislature of the North-west Territories, and is no more a motion of want of confidence, unless the government desire to make it so, than was the motion of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Russell) two or three years ago in regard to preferential trade, and which was moved in exactly the same way.


Thomas Walter Scott: If we take the words of the leader of the opposition and the words of the hon. member for Marquette and couple them with other words which have been used within the last few months, I think we are bound to believe that an attempt is being made, with the assistance of the leader of the Conservative party of Canada, to make the granting of provincial autonomy for the territories a party question. If my hon. friends are willing to take that responsibility, then it becomes the duty of the citizens of the North-west to view the question from that standpoint, and I propose, even though the session is late and the hour is late, to spend a few minutes in looking at this question from the point of view of its treatment by the two great parties in this country. As my hon. friend from Alberta truly said, this is chiefly a financial question. If the North-west Assembly is put in a position financially to carry out its duties, then there is no complaint to be made on behalf of the people of that country, and very little complaint would be made by the legislature of that country. Speech after speech made by Mr. Haultain could be quoted to that effect. Therefore, if we are able to show that in this present year the financial needs of the North-west Territories are being met we will go far to show that the urgency for provincial autonomy is removed for the time being. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) raised a query respecting the attitude of the Northwest government with regard to the capital advance of $250,000 voted by parliament. It would be a matter of great surprise to me to

learn that the North-west government had refused to accept that capital advance, as I understand they have called a special session for the purpose of voting this money which is being put at their disposal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They say they do not want it if it is regarded as an advance on capital account.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will read my hon. friend a quotation from the Budget speech of the Prime Minister of the Territories at the last session of the legislature. I quote the report from an independent paper, the Regina ' Standard ' ?
I would say with regard to capital advance that if such were offered to us on what we consider reasonable terms, it is a question whether we should not take advantage of it.
If a capital advance could be obtained on reasonable terms, we would then be justified in meeting capital expenditures out of it, for example in connection with these large steel bridges we are building and the surveys, roads, &c.. which are properly chargeable to capital.
There were certain objections made by Mr. Haultain to some of the conditions which the government proposed to attach to the capital advance in the first instance, but those conditions were removed and I have been informed that Mr. Haultain is quite willing to accept this capital advance and is very pleased to make use of the money. If tlj'c opposite were the fact I would be exceedingly surprised, because, on April 18, the Prime Minister, Mr. Haultain, wired me himself as follows :
Capital advance satisfactory if unconditional and if not charged with Belly and Old Man bridges.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was that ?


Thomas Walter Scott: On the 18th of April, 1903.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Haultain says on the 20th April :
But we have never asked for the establishment of a capital account and I do not wish for the establishment of such an account until a more satisfactory subsidy or annual grant is provided.
He did not want it.


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend is merely quoting a fact that was stated to the House by the hon. Minister of Finance when the capital advance was going through.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 1 am stating it in answer to the contention of the hon. gentleman that the provision that has been made is comparatively satisfactory to Mr. Haultain.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am not making the contention myself. I am quoting from a telegram from Mr. Haultain who says on the 18tli of April :
Capital advance satisfactory if unconditional and not charged with Belly and Old Man bridges.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have quoted what Mr. Haultain said on the 20th of April.


Thomas Walter Scott: Now, Sir, in the same message, Mr. Haultain stated that Mr. Fielding's telegraphed proposal to pay $250,000 deficit and to provide $457,979 for current year's services was not satisfactory and that an additional $200,000 to the grant was absolutely necessary. The vote which lias been made this year includes not only $200,000 which was stated to be absolutely necessary but $250,000 additional to the current revenue vote. In an earlier message, Mr. Haultain had advised me-and this no doubt explains the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that lie was unwilling to consider the capital advanced until the current revenue vote was made larger and on the IStli April he wired me that the last addition to the current vote that would be acceptable would be $200,000. The government of the North-west Territories gets not $200,000, but $250,000 additional and the objectionable conditions attached to the advance against which Mr. Haultain complained are removed. If he is still unsatisfied I would be bound to say, as one who in a sense acted as Mr. Haul-tain's agent in pressing these proposals on the lion. Finance Minister, that I misapprehended the instructions given by him. 1 will go a little further and state that the provision made this year for the North-west government is fully and entirely what we Northwest members asked for from the Finance Minister and his colleagues and our proposition-I state it upon my responsibility as a member of this 17ouse-was made in accordance with what we had been led to understand by Mr. Haultain and his colleagues would be reasonably satisfactory to them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He says further :
We cannot assent to any proposition that our expenditure shall be subject to the approval of Ottawa.
Yet it was granted specifically on that condition.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no condition existing in regard to the expenditure of the North-west government on capital account that does not apply to every province in the Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. Minister of Finance deny that when the matter was before the House and when we asked the question specifically as to whether this was subject to approval from Ottawa or whether the North-west government council would be allowed to expend the money as they saw fit the answer was :	Of course it must be
subject to the approval of the authorities at Ottawa.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no distinction as between the capital account of the North-west Territories and that of any other province. Any sum which remains in the capital account of any of the provinces is credited and if it is taken for local purposes it is taken by the local au-

thority. There is a nominal approval necessary by the Governor in Council but it is a purely formal proceeding, at all events the conditions are precisely the same as they will be in regard to capital account of the North-west Territories if the provinces are established.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then why did Mr. Haul-tain object on the 20th of April ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not see why he did so, and I am quite sure that when he understands it he will not object to any feature of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He has done so.


Thomas Walter Scott: It is perfectly clear. The members of the North-west government were under some misapprehension as to the measure of control that the Dominion government were going to exercise over the capital advance. But, when they read the words that the lion. Minister of Finance used here the other evening when the advance was being voted that practically the money will be entirely under the control of the local authorities they will have no further objection as indeed they cannot have. But, to proceed with what I was saying here, I go even farther and I will state that when we submitted our final proposal to the hon. Minister of Finance, a proposal which he has met in every particular this year, I communicated the effect of it to the members of the North-west government and I received a reply to the effect that the proposed provision would be considered reasonably satisfactory, and would fairly well meet their needs. I do not wish the hon. gentlemen to misunderstand me to mean that the North-west government indicated that they regarded this proposition as giving them everything that they were entitled to but they led us to believe that they would be reasonably able to carry on all the services for which they were responsible if this proposition were carried out.


James Clancy: For how long ?


Thomas Walter Scott: For this year. In regard to the capital advance it is merely to enable the local government to borrow a quarter of a million dollars. The whole provincial autonomy demand is very largely the result of the feeling of the people of the Northwest Territories that they should not be deprived of the power of borrowing money. Xu Mr. 11aultnin's last budget speech this sentence occurs :
Throughout all the correspondence and argument concerning our financial and constitutional relations with Ottawa there has been a constant and strong reference to capital expenditure. We have said that not only have we been confined to a very slender income, but we have been compelled to make large expenditures which very properly might be charged to capital account.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: I will quote a few words from Mr. Haul-tain's letter to the hon. Minister of Finance on the 20tli April, 1903.
It has been found necessary at times to point out that our limited and inadequate revenues were more restricted and rendered more inadequate by the necessity of making expenditures out of our current income which in themselves were more properly chargeable to capital account. That is to say we have occasionally found It necessary to incur heavy expenditures for construction of bridges, the cost of which have been a heavy drain upon our resources and which should have been spread over a series of years instead of being provided for out of the revenues of one year, to the exclusion of other and equally important works.
At this point I may read an extract from a letter which was sent to me a little more than a year ago by a gentleman closely connected with the North-west government. He said :
Let me illustrate by saying that at the present time there are on file in the Public Works Department, Regina, applications for works in the way of improvements for this year (1902), resulting from the rapid development which has taken place in the country, to complete which would involve an expenditure of $400,000. I know from my own personal knowledge that a very large proportion of the work asked for in certain districts is urgently needed in connection with the development of such districts, ahd from present indications the answer to all such applications is gong to be ' No funds, and impossible to undertake such work,' because the Dominion government have neither increased the subsidy nor put the territories in a position to incur debt, so that they can meet these demands resulting from the ' growing time ' which we are now realizing in the territories.
Tbe fact is tliat the lack of power to borrow money, to pledge the public credit, to undertake permanent works and spread the payment over a long period of years so as to permit the inhabitants ten or twenty years hence to assist in meeting the cost of works constructed now has been seriously complained of for years. This lack is one of tbe strong features of the gradual growth of public sentiment in tbe country in favour of provincial autonomy. As the hon. gentlemen from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) and from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) have shown, the grant made to the territorial government this year is a very much larger grant, taken proportionately or measured in any other way, than the grant given in any former year. Including the advance, it is actually more, than the North-west government stated in their estimates this year was necessary for their various purposes. The hon. the leader of the opposition will find in Mr. I-Iaultain's budget speech, that he asked for $1,130,000, and he has received in all, on current revenue account, $957,979, which is apart altogether from the $84,000 grant for bridge construction, and apart altogether from the capital advance. The amount granted therefore, is 85 per cent of the estimates Mr. OCTOBER 13, 1903
Haultain submitted here last 'winter and I may say that a grant amounting to 85 per cent of the North-west government estimate, is better treatment than the North-west Territories ever got in any former year. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden' Halifax) read extensively from letters, and communications and documents, and records, of one kind or another, to prove that the Prime Minister of the North-west Territories was very much dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to him by this government. I do not know whether it would be proper to say that this state of dissatisfaction is chronic with the Prime Minister of the territories, hut it is a fact that in former years and under other federal governments, his dissatisfaction was no less pronounced. Let me read to my hon. friend a letter which Mr. Haultain read in the assembly last spring, to prove that he has no more particular complaint to make against this government, than he had against, former governments. This is a letter which Mr. Haultain wrote on November S, 1895, to the government which was then in power in this Dominion :
I have the honour to make an additional statement on behalf of the executive committee of the territories with regard to the amount re-quird for the territories for the financial year 1896-7. The committee cannot refrain

It will be noticed that at the time the North-west government was called ' a committee.'
The committee cannot refrain from expressing a feeling of great dissatisfaction over the fact that there is no substantial increase in the amount proposed to be voted for expenses of government in the North-west Territories. The estimates show clearly that the government do not intend to pay any attention to our financial recommendations, which have been made for four years consecutively, both in our written statements and on our personal interviews.
While the government are willing to take all credit for the growth and development of the territories, they do not consider that that growth and development mean a necessarily increased expenditure.
There was no very great development there in 1895, but the Conservative government failed to cope with even what there was.
Our local institutions and machinery have been created by parliament, but parliament does not supply the necessary money for working them.
A glance at the estimates of 1891-92, when our vote was itemized and administered by the lieutenant governor alone, will show that the government and parliament recognized the necessity of making provision for certain detailed services. These services recur annually and become more costly (for example, schools), yet the increase in our vote since that date does - not bear any proportion to the increased expenditure under these heads alone. In a growing country new obligations arise and new objects of expenditure make themselves felt. Yet this self-evident fact is quite ignored at Ottawa, and year after year the services and amounts provided for in 1891 are made the basis of the new votes.


REVISED
Thomas Osborne Davis: Did Mr. Haultain write that when the Conservatives were in power ?


Thomas Walter Scott: He certainly did.
On the top of all this, demands for seed grain, for relief from starvation and other extraordinary and unforeseen contingencies, are referred to the local by the federal authorities with ah unmeaning reference to the fact that matters of this sort are dealt with by the provincial authorities in Manitoba.


Mr. GALLIHEK.: He didn't write that about starvation when the Conservative' government were in power.


Thomas Walter Scott: 
EDITION
[Stage Direction]
/
[Stage Direction]
which Mr. Haul tain made in the letter was listened to, and given practical effect to. I shall place upon the records of the House, a table of figures that will go to prove that if there is any cause to-day for the Northwest Territories being dissatisfied at the financial treatment meted out to them by this government; there was a great deal more cause in past years when another government was in power in this Dominion, and there was real reason then for the emphatic language put in the state papers by the Prime Minister of the territories. 1 shall give to the House, the 'demands made bv the territories for the past ten years for financial aid, and the proportion in which these demands have been acceded to each year :
Pekcentaoe of Grant to Estimates presented.
-	Amount risked.	Amount granted.	Per- centage.
	$	$	
1892-93	
...	368,723	195,700	531893	368,723	199,200	541894	403,640	225,534	551895	375,640	267,534	711896	387,800	242,879	621897	400,000	2,82,879	701898	438,000	282,879	641899	535,000	282,879	53
(Yukon liquor licensess yielded $160,000 spread over two years.)
1898	i
1899	/
[Stage Direction]
'/ Grants $565,758 \ (Yukon $160,000J
=$725,758 or
74%
1900	600,000	424,879	701901.	600,000	407,879	081902.	600,000	457,979	751903	1,130,000	957,979	85
In the year 1899, the North-west government collected $160,000 on account of liquor licenses in the Yukon, and it was allowed to retain that money, which I believe it was entitled to. They spread the amount thus collected over two years, and the real sums available by the North-west government in 1898 and 1899 amounted to $725,758, being 74 per cent upon the amount which they asked in these two years, which was an aggregate of $973,000.
1 have made a comparison also for periods of five years. We will call the first period five Conservative years, because the Conservative government was in power during those years, from 1892 to 1896, inclusive. The total estimates submitted here by the North-west government during those five years aggregated $1,904,526, and they were granted $1,130,847, being 59 per cent of their estimates. The Liberal government have been in power for seven years. In those seven years the estimates of the
North-west government have amounted to $4,303,000, and they have been granted directly in cash $3,097,353, to which must be added the $160,000 of Yukon liquor licenses, making a total of $3,257,353, being 75 per cent, as against 59 per cent during the last five years the Conservative government were in power. Take the first five years that the Liberal government were in power, from 1897 to 1901, inclusive, the total requisitions amounted to $2,573,000, and the total grants amounted to $1,841,495, being 71 per cent. Or, take the last five years of the present government, from 1899 to 1903, inclusive, the estimates presented amounted to $3,465,000, and upon these estimates they have been given $2,691,595, being 77 per cent of the amounts asked for in those five years, as against 59 per cent in the last five years of the pi*evious government.
In view of these figures, I think we are fairly well justified in stating that on the whole we have very much less to complain of this year than there was to be complained of in any former year. While I say that, I would not care to take the position that the grants are being made too large, because it is my belief that twice the amount of money that is being voted could be profitably and advantageously expended in the North-west Territories, and to Canada's general advantage. I say that there is no part of any country in the world which offers to-day such a good field for investments, with such an assurance of speedy and large returns. Still, I am bound to say that I think the government are this year fairly well meeting the financial demand. The comparisons which I have made with former years can lead to no other conclusion.
Sly own attitude in former years on the question of provincial autonomy lias been referred to, and I am free to state that if no new condition had arisen, if the conditions were exactly the same at the present time that they have been in former years, I would be expressing the same view that I expressed two years ago on the question. But a new condition has arisen-the condition of the Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption, to which I intend to refer a little later-which, in my opinion, furnishes a very strong reason why it is better to hesitate, why it is better not to have action taken at the present time. But, on the general question, apart from that condition, which I hope will be removed in a very short time, I would simply take the occasion to repeat the opinion which I have expressed in other years, that the people in the territories have the same right to full powers of local government as the people of any province. *
Besides the question to which I have referred, that of the Canadian Pacific Railway land tax, there are one or two other factors which might suggest the advisability of a little delay. One of these is found in
Thomas Walter Scott: the joint request of the provincial premiers, made last fall, for a revision of the scheme of annual provincial subsidies. The details of their request involve questions which must and do form an important portion of the autonomy question as relates to the Northwest Territories, and I fail to see how the autonomy question can be satisfactorily settled without parliament previously or simultaneously deciding as to the merits of the provincial statement of claim. The other factor is what, to be perfectly frank, I must term the lack of fair comprehension of the autonomy matter by this parliament and by the people of the provinces whose representatives form so great a majority in this parliament. Of the fact of this lack of comprehension, I need go no further than quote the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition last year, when he said :
With regard to the details of Mr. Haultain's Bill, with which I am not at all familiar, as I have not had an opportunity of seeing it, I do not think that these details have much to do with the matter.
It is fair to say that when the leader of one of the political parties is not well seized pf a question-a live political question-it is (oo much to expect that the ordinary member or ordinary citizen is well informed regarding it. In my opinion, the admission was a confession of utter lack of comprehension of the matter. Mr. Haultain's draft Bill practically contains the whole question. The whole question is made up of details. Although there is a sentimental side to it, it is essentially a matter of business to the people of the North-west. When speaking of a province, we are not dealing with an empty name. When a province is formed, the people will assume serious and heavy responsibilities. Whereas at the present time this parliament is under the responsibility of meeting the cost of our local government, with a provincial establishment the people of the territories would themselves have to bear that responsibility ; and, as has been stated by the hon. member for Alberta, the measure of their duties and their ability to meet those responsibilities will uepend upon the terms granted by this parliament when the province or provinces will be established. If the people have not adequate sources of revenue, they will be unable to enjoy the advantages of good government in its full sense. Now, in stating that I am really repeating what the Prime Minister of the territories says almost every time he speaks on the question. In the speech of 1900, from which the hon. leader of the opposition quoted, Mr. Haultain said : 1 would like it to be understood very distinctly that when I have ever expressed an opinion in favour of the establishment of provincial institutions it was always coupled with a very strong proviso that the proper financial terms are attached. I would never consent for one moment, if my consent were necessary, to the establishment of a province or provinces even under the terms and conditions granted to
436}
the province of Manitoba. When I say that I believe the time has come for the establishment of provincial institutions it is always coupled with the statement that with these institutions there must be given means for carrying them on.
Thus as the hon. member for Alberta said, the details, the terms, are the essence of the whole question. On the trip which the hon. leader of the opposition made through the west last fall, a slight change of mind was worked on him with regard to the importance of matters of detail in relation to this question. On one very important detail then he expressed himself clearly in the North-west Territories, just as he has done here, and, on behalf of the Northwest Territories, I wish to take occasion to thank the hon. leader of the opposition for the expression of opinion which he gave in favour of the view which we in that country unanimously take, that When a province is formed it is only fair, just and proper that the lands, timber and mineral resources in that province should be handed over to the people dwelling there to be managed and owned by them. This should be done in the North-west Territories in the same way as in every other part of the Dominion, except in the province of Manitoba which was formed when the Conservative party was in power. But on several of the other items of detail my hon. friend carefully avoided giving any expression of opinion when he was in the west last fall, as he has done on this occasion. I was in hopes when my hon. friend gave notice of this motion that he had made up his mind to give a definite opinion upon some of the details which he had failed to give in the west. At Qu'Appelle he was asked if he supported our claim to compensation for the lands which had been alienated for federal purposes and I can assure my hon. friend that the people In the audience went away without really knowing what his answer meant, whether the reply was that he would support them in their demands for compensation or not. These were the words of his reply :
In regard to the alienation of the lands, of course the question why they have been alienated should be asked and I answer that Manitoba and the North-west should receive compensation for such lands as had been alienated for exclusively Dominion purposes.
At Regina also he answered a similar question by stating in regard to compensation for lands : ,
In regard to the compensation for lands which had been alienated it would of course be necessary to consider the purpose for which they had been alienated.
Now, I venture to say that that was uot a very clear statement and that in reality the people at Qu'Appelle and Regina went away without knowing exactly where the leader of the opposition stood on this exceedingly important item, this supremely important item in the demand made by the

people of the west for provincial autonomy. My hon. friend wants to know why these lands were alienated. Surely it is a little late for my lion friend to be asking that question. Some of the new settlers in the west might ask this question without creating any surprise, but surely it is a late date for the leader of the Conservative party, the party which alienated the lands contrary to the interests and well-Ibeing of the people of the west and of the whole of Canada, to be asking in this year of grace why these lands in the west were alienated and given away to railway companies. We may diff er as to the wisdom and policy pursued by the Conservative party, but the thing is done, there is no need (o ask any questions about the lands being alienated, and is not my hon. friend able to say now whether he thinks they were alienated for federal purposes or for some other purpose? Surely the building of railways is a federal undertaking ; these railways were authorized to be built by parliament and the aid was voted by parliament, so that surely they are federal undertakings. The people in the west had the idea that my hon. friend was simply evading the question by a quibble. Let me explain to my hon. friend how serious this question is and why it is viewed so seriously by the people of the west. The total areas of lands which were voted away by the Conservative party to railway companies was 56,082,072 acres. Now the roads constructed with this in the North-west amounted to 1,606 miles and in Manitoba 1,217 miles. Northwest land was taken to construct roads in Ontario and the mileage in Ontario is 650 miles and in British Columbia it is 253 miles. By these various items railway companies in the North-west Territories, Manitoba, Ontario and British Columbia have earned 29,986.826 acres of land mostly in the Northwest Territories. Part of this area of land is in Manitoba, but the North-west Territories furnish all the lands earned by the roads in the North-west Territories, British Columbia and Ontario and a portion of the land for the roads constructed in Manitoba. In Manitoba 2,699,230 acres are patented and perhaps another million of acres will be selected there, so that the Territories will have furnished more than 26,000,000 of the total 30,000,000 acres of land furnished by the public to these companies. The territories therefore furnish about 86 per cent of the land earned by railway companies, yet only 43 per cent of the land aided railways were built in the territories, 1,606 miles out of a total of 3,741 miles which were aided by land grants. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) at Begina said :
The policy to the west ought to be one of generosity, and such is the policy of the Conservative party.
Generosity to the railway companies, generosity to Ontario, to British Columbia, to Manitoba if you like ; our lands were taken


Thomas Walter Scott: to build roads in all of these provinces, our lands were taken to make these railway corporations rich, but surely it is a little too much to ask the people of the North-west Territories to believe that the policy of the Conservative party in this respect has been one that can be properly classed as a generous policy towards the people of the Northwest Territories. If the Conservative party had remained in power another five years and had continued that policy of generosity there would be practically no public lands in the North-west Territories at the present time to have any dispute about. Even as it is of our lands that may be said to be ' fairly fit for settlement, but little remains outside of the even-numbered sections, as was proved by the case of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Company. The company were going to enter a suit in the Exchequer Court against the government to avoid being compelled to take the only land that was available for the purposes of their land grants which they said was not fit for settlement. Mr. Haultain says, and I say, and I think every man of the North-west will say, that these lands voted to railway companies were lands voted for federal purposes and that there is no possibility of any real dispute with regard to the purposes for which the lands were voted.
When a railway is aided with a cash vote by the federal government, every person in the Dominion contributes to that vote. But when the land of the North-west is taken for this purpose, only the people of the North-west contribute to the aid so given. I repeat, let the leader of the opposition, the leader of the Conservative party in the Dominion, state, so that the people of this country and especially the people of the North-west Territories can understand what he means, that the 26,000,000 acres of the North-west Territories land given to railway companies, alienated for federal purposes, are to be taken into account and that the North-west Territories are to be compensated for these lands-a statement that he failed to make when in the west, that he does not make here and that is not contained in his amendment to this motion for supply. He must recognize that his general statement in favour of autonomy is not worth very much to the people of the Northwest Territories unless he goes further, as lie was pressed to do by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver) and makes it known to the public just what he means by autonomy, and what position we shall occupy with regard to financial ability to carry on our local government, if we get the autonomy to which he thinks we are entitled. The hon. gentleman cannot this year claim ignorance of details, because he lias Mr. Haultain's draft Bill before him. I will ask the hon. gentleman as the hon. member for Alberta asked him.whether he is willing to support Mr. Haultain and the member for Alberta and myself in favour of the

propositions of this draft Bill, propositions that, I believe, are supported by all the people of the North-west. For I do not agree with all my colleagues from the Northwest on this point, but believe that Mr. Haultain's proposals are approved with practical unanimity by the people of the North-west. Until the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is willing to say that he will stand by these propositions, until he is prepared to say that if we are granted autonomy it will be by the assistance of his vote for these terms, he can hardly command the support of those of us from the North-west Territories, and he can hardly command the support of the voters of the North-west who approve the details of Mr. Haultain's draft Bill.
Now, I made reference a few minutes ago to a condition which had arisen and which made it wise, in my opinion to delay for this year, granting autonomy to the North-west. That new condition is the judgment given by the Supreme Court of Manitoba in March last upon the test case con-ceruing the Canadian Pacific Railway land tax exemption. And, in my view this is a very important consideration. Even in the view of the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories at least a very short time ago this was a very important consideration. In the explanatory part of his draft Bill prepared less than two years ago he says :
The effect of these exemptions is to prohibit any province which may be established, or any municipal corporation therein, from requiring the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to assist in the ' administration ' of the country or the maintenance of 'peace, order and good government ' within its bounds with respect to a part of its property for ever and with respect to another part for a limited period of time. This exemption falls hardly upon the people of the North-west Territories in a number of ways. The nature of the land grant to the company, in that it is spread over the whole country in small blocks of one mile square, alternating with those open for homesteads, causes every dollar spent by a settler in the improvement of his homestead, where it lies within the districts reserved for the selection of the land granted on account of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to enhance the value of the lands "held for the company in its neighbourhood. All public expenditures made in such districts for roads, bridges and other works of a similar description improve the value of the lands still held by the company under its main line grant, the company contributing nothing on account of such lands towards the cost of the works by reason of which they are benefited.
Further down in the same document be speaks of these exemptions as making an extraordinary burden on the people of the North-west Territories. Until six months ago, when this judgment of the Manitoba Supreme Court was given, nobody bad ever thought to question the right of the Canadian Pacific Railway to exemption from taxation in the territories, as respects its right of way and railway property, from
the time the road was built and for ever, nor the right of the company to exemption from taxation as respects its lands for a period of twenty years. The date of commencement of the twenty years period was disputed, but not the right of exemption for twenty years.
The trial of the test case has brought to light an exceedingly important and entirely new contention in behalf of the North-west Territories, namely that so long as that area remains in its present position the company is entitled by law and under its contract with parliament to no exemption either as to its roadbed or lands, and that in reality it has never had a right to exemption from taxation in the territories, and never will until that area is given the status of a province.
And as concerns schools, the Supreme Court of Manitoba upheld the contention, and this year all the land and all other property of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the North-west Territories are held liable for school taxation.
The court did not express an opinon as to whether the company is equally liable to municipal or direct government taxation- the North-west Territories case before the court was the case of a school district only- but the judgment given on the school case leaves little room for doubt that the court would give the same judgment as regards municipal and government taxation.
Now, upon a legal question of this kind I speak with some hesitation, not being a lawyer, and I have been careful to put on paper just what I wish to say so that I may make no error. But, I followed closely the press reports of the argument at the trial in Winnipeg. I have also seen the judgment. And before judgment was given I met Mr. Howell, counsel for the government and for the North-west people, who kindly took the trouble to explain to me the contentions he advanced in behalf of the North west Territories. I believe I have grasped the main features, which are as I have described.
He contended that with .respect of school taxation, before the Canadian Pacific Railway contract and Act were passed in 1881, granting exemption from taxation ' by the Dominion or by any province thereafter to be established, or by any municipal corporation therein,' an Act (North-west Territories Act, 43 Victoria, chapter 25) was in force, and under section 10 power to assess and collect school rates was conferred. Therefore, the Dominion government had already delegated taxing power to at least this extent, and, the Canadian Pacific Railway contract not providing for the abrogation of such .power on the part of the North-west Territories the power and right to levy taxes was not cancelled by the Canadian Pacific Railway Act, which Act therefore must be considered, as far as exemption is concerned, as subject to the right already conferred upon the North-west Territories in this respect. The

court upheld the contention, and the judgment means that the company enjoys no exemption from school taxation.
The feature that concerns this autonomy question is this-that upon the creation of a province parliament would become liable, under the contract, to secure and safeguard the company in the exemptions granted in the contract. The language of the contract means plainly that the Dominion government or parliament will not tax for twenty years the lands and for ever will not tax the other property of the company, nor permit such taxation to be levied in any province whenever such is created ; in other words, parliament contracted with the company to restrict the taxing powers of any new province.
When new territory was added to Manitoba this provision of the contract was observed, and the company was safeguarded against taxation as agreed. The added portion was brought under provincial status, and specifically made subject to the exemption provision of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract.
It is true that the North-west Territories urge that when they made a province it shall not be subject to the Canadian Pacific Railway exemptions.
This feature of the autonomy problem tends to prove the wisdom of the words used by the Minister of the Interior last year respecting the advisability of taking time to develop a full, general and popular understanding of the question. If the settlement with the North-west Territories had been made last year I very much fear, in view of the lack of full comprehension by parliament of the details of the whole matter, that the Canadian! Pacific Railway would have been left in enjoyment of its contract rights, no matter how unfair as against the people of the new province, and that the new province would have been in the same position as the added portion of Manitoba, which, by the Manitoba Supreme Court judgment, is left under the exemption handicap for twenty years as to lands and for ever as to roadbed. It is for this reason that I think it is extremely fortunate that autonomy was not granted us last year.
I have ink the slightest hesitation in declaring that it is vastly better for us to await autonomy two or three years, and finally obtain it free from these exemptions than to obtain it immediately with the heavy handicap of the exemptions.
I have already occupied so much time, and the hour is so late, at this late stage of the session, that I do not feel justified in going as fully into the question as otherwise I would feel it incumbent upon me to do. Let me say, in conclusion, that in face of the position of this Canadian Pacific Railway tax matter, in view of the millions of acres of land that ar,e involved, of the millions of value in railway property of the company that are involved, if appears to me that the people of the North-west would be Mr. SCOTT.
simply crazy at present to accept autonomy unless driven to it as a last resort-and we are not driven to the last resort this year because our immediate financial needs are fairly well met; the lack of the borrowing power remedied by the capital advance method ; and little room for complaint is left us as regards railways. Such being the case, I- certainly approve of delay until all doubts as to the Canadian Pacific Railway tax question is removed. I hope this doubt will not exist very long, I hope the case will soon be settled by a judgment of the Privy Council. Possibly it may be too much to hope that it may be settled before next year, because the law courts move slowly. But the position I take is that the government should obtain from the Privy Council a final decision upon this Canadian Pacific Railway tax exemption, and that as soon as it is obtained the people of the North-west should be granted provincial autonomy.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Borden, Plalifax) :
TEAS : Messieurs
Alcorn,	Gourley,
Avery,	Hackett,
Ball,	Haggart,
Barker,	Henderson,
Blain,	Kaulbach,
Borden (Halifax),	Lancaster,
Boyd,	MacLaren (Perth),
Broder,	McGowan,
Bruce,	Morin,
Carseallen,	Pope,
Casgrain,	Roche (Marquette),
Clancy,	Sproule,
Clare,	Wilmot,
Clarke, Cochrane,	Wilson-29.
 NAYS : Messieurs
Bazinet,	Mackie,
Beith,	Macpherson,
Bernier,	McCool,
Bourassa,	McCreary,,
Brown,	McGugan,
Bruneau,	Mclsaac,
Bureau,	Madore,
Campbell,	Marci'l (Bagot),
Champagne,	Marcil (Bonaventure)
Christie,	Matheson,
Davis,	Mayrand,
Delisle,	Mignault,
Demers (Ldvis),	Morrison,
Desjardins,	Oliver,
Dugas,	Parmelee,
Erb,	Paterson,
Fielding,	Prefontaine,
Fisher,	P-roulx,
Fitzpatrick,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fortier,	Roche (Halifax),
Galliher,	Ross (Ontario),
Gauvreau,	Ross (Rimouski),
Geoffrion,	Rousseau,
Gibson,	Schell,
Grant,	Scott,
Holmes,	Sutherland (Oxford),
Kendall,	Tobin.
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Turcot,	
Lavergne,	Turgeon,
Leblanc,	Wallace,
Lemieux, Loy,	Wright.-63.

PAIRS :
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Calvert,	Taylor,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
Hyman,	Gilmour,
Johnston (Lambton),	Simmons,
McColl,	Ward,
Fraser,	Bell,
Guthrie,	Porter,
Cowan,	Pringle,
Costigan,	Hale,
Gould,	Thomson (Grey),
Heyd,	Tolton,
Mulock,	Brock,
Talbot,	LaRiviSre,
Ross (Victoria),	Bennett,
Copp,	Calvin,
Girard,	Leonard,
Monk,	Meigs,
Thompson (Haldimand),	Ingram,
Cartwright,	Tupper,
Dyment,	McCormick,
Emmerson,	Fowler,
Charlton,	Tisdale, [DOT]
Sutherland (Esex),	Northrup,
Harty,	Reid (Grenville),
Wade,	Smith (Wentworth),
Riley,	Earle,
Maclaren (Huntingdon),	Rosamond,
Stephens,	Seagram,
Belcourt,	McIntosh,
Stewart,	Halliday,
Blair,	Roddick,
Borden (Sir F.),	Birkett,
Johnston (Cape Breton).	Culbert,
McCarthy,	Maclean,
Power,	Osier,
Amendment negatived ; motion agreed to, and House went into. Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.


ADJOURNMENT-INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid La urier) will not forget the correspondence which he promised to lay on the Table in connection with the agreement between the Department of the Interior and the North Atlantic Transportation Company.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will keep it in mind. I have some correspondence here which may be a little late in regard to the autonomy of the provinces. I have had it recast and will now put it on the Table of the House, and perhaps it may be printed again.	.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it would be better with this belated additional material to repeat the debate to-morrow. I would like to ask my right hon. friend what business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to give notice that I intend to move a resolution in regard to Fast Atlantic Service, on going into Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.40 a.m., Wednesday.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 14, 1903.