1903-06-11

THE GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

Mr.  C. S.@: HYMAN (London) moved that the Order for . the House in Committee on Bill (No. 04) to incorporate the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway be discharged, and that the report be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for further consideration. He said : The reason of my making this motion is that the committee, when tlie Bill was before it, adopted the following amendment :-
Provided always that before the construction of the prairie section is commenced, the location thereof shall be approved by the Governor in Council, and no part of such location shall be nearer than thirty miles to any constructed or located main line of any railway unless for special reasons to be named by the Order in Council, unless the Governor in Council may otherwise order.
While that was carried by the committee, the wording of it and the principle were left to be settled by the Minister of Railways and myself. As we find ourselves unable to bring the contending parties together and to get them to agree upon it, we think it is only fair, under the circumstances, that the Bill should be sent back to tbe committee for the purpose of discussing that clause.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The motion will stand till to-morrow.
Motion withdrawn.



REVISION OF RULES.

[Stage Direction]
Mi-. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville) moved : That a select committee be appointed to confer with a similar committee to be appointed by tbe Senate for the purpose of revising rule 51 of the House of Commons and rule 49 of the Senate, and making them agree, with power to report from time to time ; the committee to be composed of the following members : Johnston (Cape Breton), Lancaster, Turgeon, Wilson and the mover.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What are the rules, and what is the difference which is proposed to be adjusted ?


Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) In answer to the hon. leader of the opposition, I may say that the regulations governing the notices required by parliament in connection with private Bills are no longer what they should he. The Committee on Standing Orders, on examining the notices given in the newspapers
regarding private Bills, came to the conclusion that the rule in this regard should be amended. For instance, the committee are of opinion that it is unnecessary to have these notices given for such a long period of time. Moreover, they found out that a difficulty arose in the case of a railway or any company whose business extended over more than one district. In accordance with the regulation now in force, notices should appear in every county in each district, while the committee think it would be sufficient to issue such notices in one only. This same difficulty arose formerly, and a similar committee was appointed. It is for the purpose of definitely settling this matter that it is proposed to appoint the committee referred to in the motion.



INSPECTION AND SALE OF SEEDS.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 200) respecting inspection and sale of seeds.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fisher) he good enough to state briefly the purport of the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Bill is for the purpose of trying to remedy some defects, and I might almost say grievances, in connection with the sale of agricultural seeds. In consequence of complaints and facts that came to the knowledge of the department some two years ago the department has been carrying on a good deal of investigation into the business of the sale of agricultural seeds, especially in this country. A condition of affairs was found which showed that there is a great deal of seed sold which is not full value for what is paid for it, and the people who purchase it in many instances are-I will not say imposed upon, perhaps, because I do not think for a moment that there is any intention or desire to commit fraud-hut from ignorance and carelessness are not getting what they think they are getting. I believe that the evil has reached a magnitude in this country that requires a certain amount of regulation, and it is the purpose of this Bill to provide for such regulation. When the Bill is printed and before hon. members, it will be, perhaps, more suitable and convenient for me to go into the details more fully than at the present time.


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. Hackett-asked:
1.	Have any communications, or recommendations. been received by the government with re-
[Stage Direction]
gard to the building of a new railway station at Charlottetown, P.E.I., and for the extending of the railway along the water front, to afford more facilities for shipping ?
2.	What are the names of the parties sending such communications, or making recommendations ?
3.	Has the government decided on a site for the new station ? And if so, where will It be situated ?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to extend the railway along the water front ?
5.	Has the government stipulated that the city of Charlottetown shall provide the right of way fo-r said extension ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Board of Trade, Charlottetown, Horace Haszard, D. A. MacKinnon. Petition signed hy the Mayor, merchants and other residents of Charlottetown.
3.	No.
4.	The matter is under consideration.
5.	It is thought that the railway should he provided with the right of way for the track extension along the water front free of charge.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY-SEMAPHORE LIGHTS.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Has the superintendent of the Prince Edward Island Railway forbidden the use of semaphore lights where heretofore used on said railway ?
2.	If so. will not the discontinuance of the lights lead to the possibility of accidents occurring at crossings, &c.?
3.	What is the practice with regard to such lights on the other government railways ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	At certain stations along' the line of tlie Prince Edward Island Railway instructions have been given not to light the semaphore lights.
2.	It is considered that accidents are not likely to arise by the non-use of semaphore lights at these stations.
3.	Wherever it is considered necessary lights are maintained at stations on the government railways where the traffic seems to demand them.


OFFICERS OF PERMANENT CORPS.
Mr. SMITH (Wentworth) asked :: Will those officers who qualified for appointment under general order 86, 1896, and for promotion under general order 75, 1899, and whose brevet rank of captain was withheld until they had passed the latter, be required to pass again, for substantive rank of captain, under general order 30. 1903 ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: The following answer has been placed in my hands by the Adjutant General :	All
subaltern officers of the permanent corps who qualified under G. O. 86, of 1896, must pass for the substantive rank of captain Mr. LEFURGEY.
under G. O. 30, 1903. Had any qualified under G. O. 75, of 1899, they would not be required to pass again, but none have done so.


GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Are compositors, or typesetting machine operators, who do not belong to the typographical union, permitted to work in the composing room of the Government Printing Bureau ; and if so, how many such men are now employed there ?
2.	Were the demands recently made by the compositors in the Government Printing Bureau for an increase of wages submitted to the fair-wage officer of the Labour Bureau to report upon ? And if so. did he report favourably or unfavourably upon tho demand ?
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) :: 1.	All the compositors and typesetting machine operators in the Bureau belong to tlie Typographical Union.
2.	No-; the Typographical Union adopted a scale without any conference with the government and announced that it would he in operation on and after the first day of June. The government declined, under the circumstances, to recognize the scale and the subject-matter was not referred to the fair-wage officer of the Department of Labour.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAY- HILLSBOROUGH BRIDGE.
Mr. HACKETT asked :: 1.	Was the contract or agreement between the government of Canada and province of Prince Edward Island, with regard to the Hillsborough Bridge, prepared by the Department of Railways and Canals ?
2.	Was the whole cost of preparing the said agreement paid by the province of Prince Edward Island ?
3.	Is the province made liable for damages in cases of accidents at the approach to said bridge ?
4.	Are vehicles allowed to cross the bridge when trains are grossing the same ?
5.	If not. what time is allowed between crossing of trains and permitting vehicles on bridge?
6.	Is the provincial government to provide and maintain the approaches to said bridge ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	No, but in consultation with the law clerk of this department.
2.	Cannot say. The Dominion government, however, paid nothing.
3.	No.
4.	No.
6.	No.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-EARNINGS, WORKING EXPENSES AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.
Mr. BARKER asked :: 1.	What is the latest date up to which the Minister of Railways and Canals has received

interim reports of the gross earnings and working expenses of the Intercolonial Railway since July, 1902 ?
2.	What, according to such reports, have been the approximate gross earnings and working expenses of the railway from 1st July, 1902, to the date of such latest reports ?
3.	What sum has been expended upon the Intercolonial Railway on capital account from 1st July, 1902, to the date of the latest interim report ; and what is the date of such report ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	April 30th, 1903.
2.	Gross earnings for ten months ended April 30th, 1903, $5,292,639.09. Working expenses for ten months ended April 30th, 1903, $5,28S,763.56.
3.	Amount expended on capital account from 1st July, 1902, to the 30th April, 1903 is $910,576.99.


FAST ATLANTIC SERVICE.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the Orders of- the Day are called I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has anything to announce to the House as to the action of the government in regard to the tenders which have been received for the Fast Atlantic service ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright).: Not to-day.


MONTREAL HARBOUR-ADVANCES TO THE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.
[Stage Direction]
House went in committee on the following proposed resolution.
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide as follows :-
1.	The Governor in Council may from time to time advance and pay to the corporation of the Harbour Commissioners of'Montreal (hereinafter called ' the corporation '), in addition to the moneys authorized to be advanced to the corporation by the Governor in Council by chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896 (first session), and by chapter 47 of the statutes of 1898, and by chapter 9 of the statutes of 1901, such sums of money, not exceeding in the whole the sum of three million dollars, as are required to enable the corporation to construct such further terminal facilities as are necessary properly to equip the port of Montreal.
2.	No such advances shall be made unless the plans, specifications and estimates for the works to be performed by the corporation, and on which the money so to be advanced is to be expended, have first been submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council.
3.	The corporation shall, upon any advance being made, deposit with the Minister of Finance and Receiver General debentures of the corporation equal to par value to the advance so made (which debentures the corporation are hereby authorized to issue), and such debentures so issued shall be of such amounts as the
Minister of Finance and Receiver General determines, and shall bear date on the day when such advance is made, and shall be repayable within twenty-five years from the date of their issue, and in the meantime shall bear interest at the rate of three per cent per annum, such interest to be payable half yearly on the first day of July and the first day of January in each year.
4.	The principal and interest of the sums advanced under the authority of this Act to the corporation shall be paid by the corporation out of its revenue mentioned in section 8 of chapter 10 of the statutes of 1896 (first session), and shall be a charge upon the said revenue in the same manner and to the same extent as if the sums so advanced had been borrowed by the corporation under the said chapter 10.-The Minister of Finance.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding). With the increasing and very rapid growth of the trade of the country, there has arisen necessity for better means of transportation and -better terminal facilities at our ports, especially at the port of Montreal, which handles such a very large proportion of the total trade of the country. We have been aiding the port of Montreal during recent years by granting loans to the Harbour Commissioners to enable them to provide the necessary facilities. Going back as far as the year 1896, provision was made for a loan of $2,000,000 which was intended not only to deal with works which were then in hand but also to pay off some existing indebtedness. In 1898 provision was made for a further advance to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal of $2,000,000. and in the year 1901, a further advance of $1,000,000. So that by these three separate Acts of 1896, 1898 and 1901 authority was taken for the advance from time to time of sums aggregating $5,000,000. A portion of this was advanced at three and a half per cent, but the latter portion at three per cent. The advances made by the government under the authority of these Acts, up to a recent date, amount to $3,450,000- $2,000,000 of this was advanced under the earlier Acts at three and a half per cent and $1,450,000 under the later Acts at three per cent. Therefore there would be a balance available to the commissioners at present out of existing authorized loans of $1,550,000. Against that, however, the commissioners have entered into certain contracts and have works in contemplation which it is understood will absorb nearly all that sum, leaving about $294,000 which they have not applied to any work already authorized. Under the legislation now proposed, the commissioners will have available this sum of $294,000 out of the past advances, over and above their present contracts, and $3,000,000 under the proposed resolution now- before the committee. The purposes to which it is contemplated to apply this money as stated by the commissioners is as follows :

[Stage Direction]
Estimates of amounts required to carry out improvements.
Two-storey steel wharf sheds, including elevated roadways and ramps leading thereto, and conveyors complete on the Alexandria, King Edward and Jacques Cartier, piers and shore wharfs at sections 12, 13 and 17, covering an area of 642,195 square feet and giving a floor space on the two storeys of 1.284,390 square feet.. .$2,36?,COO 00 Paving wharfs-
Alexandria, King Edward and Jacques Cartier
piers	$ 97,125
Shore wharfs between the entrance to the Lachine canal and Victoria pier. 246,925 Shore wharf between Victoria pier and the lower end of section 27	 242,835
Raising the wharf on the south-west side of Windmill Point basin to high level, as per plans, specifications and estimate approved by the Hon. the Minister of Public
Works	
Additional railway tracks on the wharfs between the entrance to the Lachine canal and the lower end of
section * 27	
Floating crane	
New steel tug	
586,885 00
130,000 00
79.000	00
50.000	00 25.0C0 00
[Stage Direction]
Balance of advance of $1,000,000 authorized by Act 1 Edward VII., chap. 9, 1901, available after providing for the payment of the amount of contracts for grain elevator, &c., &e., entered into $705,543.50	 294,456 50
Estimated amount required. .$1,004,428 50 These sums aggregate $3,298,885, against which they will have $3,000,000 applied for by the present legislation and the balance of nearly $300,000 under past authority. There will, I am sure, be no question on the part of the House as to the readiness of the government and parliament to afford all reasonable assistance to provide these facilities at the great port of Montreal. Perhaps, I should say, although it is hardly necessary, that the interest of these loans in the past has in all cases been promptly met by the Montreal Harbour Commissioners. They have from time to time met their obligations and they represent to ns now that with the growing business of the port they will be able to meet tlie larger obligations which this resolution creates. As X have pointed out. two-thirds of this proposed loan, over $2,000,000, is to be applied to the construction of steel sheds, and they estimate that these sheds will yield a rental which will amply compensate them and enable them to provide the interest. They also represent that as respects the balance of the indebtedness the Increasing business Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
of Montreal will enable them to provide for it as they have done so promptly in the post. The trade which passes over the wharfs in Montreal is of course not the trade of Montreal Itself but the trade of the whole Dominion, and the charges that are levied upon it have in the past enabled the commissioners to obtain a liberal revenue and to meet all their obligations. They are satisfied that with the increased business of the country they will continue to meet these obligations. The government, feeling satisfied that these representations are well founded, and that the object is one in which the House will readily concur, have brought forward this resolution asking that a further sum of $3,000,000 may he advanced to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal for the purposes stated and on the same terms and conditions as the grants of former years.
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: There is no doubt that we canuot stand still in providing facilities for the port of Montreal, but that we must continue the improvements begun there, and these improvements, before they are finished, will cost a very considerable amount. I doubt very much, in spite of the details which the hon. minister has given us, whether it will be possible, with the sum of $3,000,000, to carry out these improvements to the very end.
But what I wish to call the attention of the government and of the committee to is the fact that we have adopted with respect to the port of Montreal a very singular policy. We are accumulating upou that unfortunate port an immense indebtedness; and the harbour commissioners, as the hou. minister has stated, have always been ready to meet their obligations when they have become due. I calculate that when this sum of $3,000,000 has been raised for the port of Montreal, that port will be indebted in the sum of $10,222,000, upon which it is impossible to conceive, if we are to make a success of that port, that the harbour commissioners shall be able to pay the interest, without reference to the considerable sum required every year for maintenance. If we are to meet that indebtedness and to maintain the port after we have finished it, we shall have to place charges against the port which will render it anything but a free port, and place it on a footing of inferiority to all the other ports on the continent of North America. The interest on that sum of $10,222,000, when we shall have spent it-and we must move for the spending of the $3,000,000 now being loaned without delay-will amount to $351,000 a year.
Let us look at the position of that port in the last three or four years. In 1901 the indebtedness of the port of Montreal tor improvements, partly from loans advanced by the government, and partly from advances obtained otherwise, amounted to $4,372,000, bearing', I think, about 3J per

cent. The annual interest charge was $176,032, and we paid for maintenance and repairs, $12S,375; making a total expenditure in that year of $305,207; and our revenue was only $270,411. So that in the year 1901, even with this comparatively small indebtedness, we had a deficit of over $34,000. To-day the indebtedness of the port of Montreal amounts to $5,672,000, and we still have power to borrow, if I am not mistaken, $1,550,000. That is to say, at the present moment the borrowing power of the harbour commissioners amounts to $7,222,000. I have stated that I do not think, from my limited experience, though from close observation, that it is possible, even with this $3,000,000 referred to by the minister, and with the balance mentioned, for the port of Montreal to be fully equipped, as it was intended to be equipped, with all modern conveniences. I fix upon $12,000,000 rather than $10,222,000 as the amount which the port will have to incur in the way of debt before it can be equipped with modern improvements; and this would represent an annual interest charge on the port of $400,000.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is possible for the port of Montreal to meet that charge. It would cease absolutely to be a free port. Revenue would have to be gathered everywhere, in every imaginable way, and even then, unless the charges were absolutely exorbitant, we could not possibly raise that sum of $400,000 a year to pay interest on this indebtedness.
What I wish to call the government's attention to is this, that it seems to me we are proceeding otherwise with Montreal than we ought to do, and otherwise than we are proceeding with everything else connected with the transportation system. We have given a large amount of money to railways in the west. We have equipped or we are equipping ports on the great lakes at considerable expense. It has been admitted in the House that that equipment is necessary, and that we must be prepared to compete with our American neighbours in that respect. We have spent millions in improving the St. Lawrence route, so as to enable the commerce of the west to find an exit through that route; and recently we have taken off the canal tolls. Our object ought to be, with the advantages which nature has given us. to make transportation as easy and as cheap as possible, and to provide ports for ocean going vessels. It has been said, and I think with a great deal of truth, that we are not in a position to handle in the port of Montreal the freight from the west which nature intended we should receive, even if we had that freight. It has been said time and again that if we had a great inflow of grain into the port of Montreal, that port would be choked in a short space of time. So that it seems to me that the disposition of the government, however generous it may be, to lend money to the 140
harbour commissioners for the equipment of that port, is contrary to sound policy. I cannot repeat it too often, that we ought, starting from the west, to have a policy of transportation clearly expressed by the government. We voted yesterday a very large amount of money for a railway in the west, and hon. members will notice that we had no declaration from the government, although it was insistently called for by the leader of the opposition, as to what link in the chain or scheme of transportation that railway was going to supply; and I have never heard, since I have had the advantage of sitting in this House, any clear declaration of policy in regard to transportation from this government. The reason is that it is impossible for the government to arrive at a clear, economic conclusion with regard to this great question, which interests us so much, without incurring the displeasure or disfavour of certain localities in this country. And yet, if there is a question perhaps more important than the question of protection, which has been so much discussed lately in this House, it is this question of transportation; and, strange to say, whereas everywhere else expense is incurred by the government with the object no doubt, of furthering in some way the attainment of that great national aim, when you come to the port of Montreal, you proceed upon a method which must inevitably it seems to me, lead to difficulty.
Unless at a future day the government is prepared to abandon its claim on the harbour commissioners, it seems to me that the bankruptcy of that port will be inevitable or the commissioners will have to impose charges on the shipping and thus take away from that port its national and free character. It is not merely the port of Montreal that is concerned. Our transportation system begins in the extreme west and ends on the continent of Europe. It has several stages. The stage represented by an ocean port is not confined to the port of Montreal. There is the important port of Quebec lower down, and if we are to have a winter port, then we must find that port on the coast and be prepared to equip it as we now find it necessary to equip the port of Montreal. It is therefore no sectional question I am raising, but the question of transportation in one of its phases and I venture to say that if we are to be saddled with this additional indebtedness, we will never be able to meet the interest and will have to go into bankruptcy. It seems to me therefore that it would be better for this government to, make up its mind now as to the character to be given the port of Montreal, and if it should cost us $10,000,000 or $15,000,000, or even, as the equipment of many ports elsewhere have cost, $20,000,000 or $25,000,000, we should be prepared to incur that expense in order that the important obligations we are about to undertake with respect to railways for



tlie purpose of bringing freight from the west may prove fruitful aud give to this country all the benefits we are entitled to expect from the investment. It seems to me that the government is lacking in frankness. It seems to me that it would be better for the government, instead of spending vast sums on wharfs in divers section's of the country, to concentrate its efforts on one, two or three ports, and place them in such a position as to be able, without making any charge to handle the very considerable amount of freight which must come from the west unless our expectations should be sadly disappointed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I am afraid that the suggestion of my hon. friend that we should abandon expenditure on wharfs elsewhere and concentrate all our expenditure in that connection on the port of Montreal is not one which would meet with general favour in this House. The alarm of my hon. friend regarding the bankruptcy of the Montreal Harbour Commissioners is not at al'l shared by the commissioners themselves. His suggestion is that these sums, which we are providing by way of a loan, should be presented as a free gift, and that the services which, under this scheme, will receive some compensation by way of a tax on the trade, shall be performed free. Let us see what these services are. About $1,000,000 of the loan will go into an elevator. Now elevator services are not free elsewhere: why should they be free in Montreal ? Elsewhere elevators charge a reasonable compensation when service is rendered.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are they not free in St. John and Halifax, or so low that there is not much revenue ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think that elevator services are given anywhere free. There are cases where a railway has an elevator on its line, and the elevator charge is included in the freight, but in all cases elevators are recognized as public utilities which may reasonably charge some compensation for the services they render. I do not think it would be wrong to say that a reasonable tax should be paid on grain for elevator service in Montreal. $2,000,000 out of the $3,000,000 are to be expended in building warehouses in Montreal, which is a very proper and necessary service in the handling of traffic. But we do not generally find warehouses supplied free elsewhere. Why should they be supplied free in Montreal ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Because they are simply sheds.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A shed that costs $2,000,000 is a very respectable kind of warehouse. The harbour commissioners do not share my hon. friend's alarm. They recognize that if they own a two million dollar warehouse, it is not unreasonable Mr. MONK.
to ask the people who use it to pay a small charge, and they are satisfied that out of this small charge they will be able to pay the interest on the cost. They are satisfied that if these sheds, which are to cost over $2,000,000, be rented on terms which would not impose any undue burden on the trade, they will yield a sufficient return to enable the commissioners to pay the interest on their cost. If those who use warehouses elsewhere have to pay rent, why should they not have to pay rent when they use warehouses in Montreal ? My hon. friend will find on reflection that, in his praiseworthy desire to advance the interests of the great city in which he lives, he is a bit unreasonable. The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, who have given this matter their careful attention, are satisfied that, with the increasing trade of the country, they will be able to meet the interest. The government, in advancing the money at the low rate of 3 per cent, is certainly doing something which, I am sure, will be appreciated, but unless it can be shown that charges, such as rentals for the use of these warehouses and of elevators, are excessive, my hon. friend has not much of a case. I do not think that the people of Montreal will be so unreasonable as to expect to be provided with free warehouses and eleva tors. In advancing this money at a low rate of interest this government and parliament are following out the policy which originated with our predecessors, and in my opinion the people of Montreal will be less alarmed than my hon. friend and more willing to recognize the liberal manner in which we are dealing with that great port.


Hon. J. I. TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).: The question raised by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has a wider scope than the hon. Minister of Finance seems to imagine. It is not a Montreal question. I have no doubt that my hon. friend knows that last year the trade in the port of Montreal, export and import, reached the very large amount of $191,000,-000-nearly half the trade of the whole country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not nearly half, but thirty-five per cent.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, let us say thirty-five per cent. But that in itself is a pretty large amount of money. My hon. friend, if he allows me to say so in all deference, takes a narrow view of the situation. He tells us that we must not expect that Montreal shall have free harbour accommodation. It is not Montreal that is asking that, but the trade of the country. Why did my hon. friend a few weeks ago, consent to have free canals this year ? For the very excellent reason that he wished to help in developing trade through Canadian channels. The government holds the Canadian system of canals on which we have spent about I $70,000,000. We are further equipping the

entrance to the canals at federal expense ; we are equipping, at federal expense our harbours on the lakes. We have not done enough. Let us do more. But why, I ask, does the Minister of Finance wish to put a stop to the trade at Montreal ?-for that is what it means. Raising a loan means paying the interest on that loan. X am sure that my hon. friend from .Taeques Cartier (Mr. Monk) did not intend to convey the idea that the harbour commissioners of Montreal were going into bankruptcy. There is no fear of that; but there is fear, and well-founded fear, that if we go on piling up debts upon the port of Montreal the trade will go elsewhere. I believe that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is perfectly right when he says that Montreal is treated as no other port in the country is treated. The port of Quebec started borrowing money ; the trade did not materialize ; the interest is not being paid, and the port of Quebec cannot pay it. I do not blame them for not paying the interest- the trade does not afford the means of paying the interest. I would be perfectly ready to spend more money in Quebec, if it were necessary. But I say that it is a narrow policy-and I say it in no offensive manner- to raise a wall against the trade of Montreal both import and export. But that Is Just what the Minister of Finance is doing now. He has mentioned the harbour board. I happen to have had long and frequent intercourse with that body ; and I know that, this year, the harbour commissioners were anxious not to borrow any more. But they have been informed, officially or unofficially, that they could not succeed in getting money. I have been told by several of them that that is the reason they have been obliged to accept a loan. I believe they are making a mistake. I have said it elsewhere, and I say here, that they should not have made a loan-they should not have consented to do so. Had they taken this position the government would have been responsible for the refusal to equip the port at federal expense as it ought to do. not in the interest of Montreal, but in the interest of the country at large. Now, there is no use in making long speeches ; it is a very clear question. Are we going to have Canadian trade through Canadian channels? If that is what we want, let us take the means to bring it about, and one of the means necessary is to make our ports as free as possible. I agree with the Minister of Finance that we must not expect to have free elevators, to have free wharfage. But my hon. friend must not lose sight of one thing, and that Is that, besides the interest on debts incurred, there is a very large expenditure of money for maintenance. It will always be necessary to raise money for that purpose. In my humble opinion, the government should assume the port of Montreal and deal with it as a great national problem, just as we deal with our great system of canals. Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax 140$	s
should be national harbours. In point of fact we have dealt with several of them- with all of them-partially in that way.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not all.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, I said partially- that is the word I used.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said was that we had dealt with all of them partially as national harbours. I take exception to that.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Will my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Blair) say what exception he takes ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I take exception to that as applied to the port of St. John. All that the government has done at the port of St. John is to furnish railway accommodation. In the way of constructing piers and wharfs, it has done nothing whatever.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Unless my eyes have greatly deceived me, I have seen at the port of St. John wharfs


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: For railway purposes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Oh, well, my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Blair) is drawing a red herring across the trail. And a very poor herring it is. Why my hon. friend himself has spent over $2,000,000 in St. John on wharf accommodation, shed accommodation and elevator accommodation. And he has done more than that, he has spent in Halifax a large amount of money in providing accommodation for which there is no trade. The elevator of Halifax costs this country a large amount of money every year. There is no trade for it. When it was built, we knew very well that there would not be much trade for it. I consented to the erection of that building, because I was of opinion then, as I am now, that the duty of a government is to go ahead of the trade, not to allow itself to lag behind it. I knew that the trade of Halifax would not come immediately. But that elevator in Halifax is an invitation to the trade. My hon. friend's elevator in St. John, I believe, is not doing very much either. But I do not care for that-the accommodation is there, and I have always supported him faithfully on the ground I have stated, that I believe In the complete and speedy equipment of our national harbours. Speaking from that standpoint, I do not hesitate to say that the policy of the government to-day is a mistaken policy. Why ? We have spent, as I have said, $70,000,000 on our system of canals. We are going to spend millions upon millions to secure further railway accommodation. Where do we wish the trade to go ? Through the St. Lawrence route. Mr. Hays, speaking elsewhere a few days ago said what is perfectly true, that we
vsJ

mo providing accommodation in the west, but we do not do anything for ' the spout ' in the east. The port of Montreal, as it is equipped to-day cannot handle the trade that is coming to it. If my hon. friend would do us the pleasure of visiting our harbour now, he would find that there is not enough accommodation. A few days ago there were fifty large steamers in the port of Montreal. We are developing, deepening, widening the St. Lawrence river ; we are lighting it in a first-class manner ; we are going to spend even more money than we have spent in the past in completing all our other equipment. Yet, at the very most important strategic point we put up a wall against the trade. There is no sense in sueh policy. The government of which I was lately a member understood the position better in the past than it does to-day, because they agreed to a proposition of mine which is now being carried out, to complete, at federal expense, the harbour accommodation in the eastern portion of the port of Montreal. And what has been the result of that wise policy that my hon. friends followed with me in the past ? The Canadian Pacific Railway Company have located in the eastern part of Montreal their large works, works that will employ about eight thousand people. The Grand Trunk Railway Company, in view of the improvements going on in Montreal, have agreed to erect an elevator and warehouses. Is not this the best evidence that when we move in the path of progress we are rewarded immediately ?
I am very much surprised at the statement made by the Minister of Finance a few minutes ago. He said : You cannot expect to have freight sheds. What he calls sheds are a necessary equipment of the harbour, that you find in every port in the world. Go to any well equipped harbour, and you will find that a bare wharf is not an equipment; you must have warehouses, you must have trade, you must have all the modern appliances that have made such nations as Germany, France, England and the United States so successful in the trade of the world. To the south of us we have neighbours who have magnificently equipped harbours. Why should we not have the same ? Trade has been diverted from us, a great deal of our own trade is finding its way through American channels. When trade has once been diverted it is a difficult thing to get it back. The only thing we have to do is to give better rates, better accommodation, just as good rates and accommodation as other nations are giving. Unless we make up our minds to give as low rates as possible, to give as good equipment as money can make, we cannot expect to be rewarded to any large extent for the expenditure we are incurring now. Parliament was asked yesterday to guarantee for thirty years a loan for $9,000,000 for a railway in the west. That railway company will not send their trade to the St. Law-Hon. Mr. TARTE.
rence route unless you give them good rates. That railway company goes through Minnesota, Duluth is very near by, the United States routes are available; and I say again that unless you make the St. Lawrence route cheap, commodious and safe, you cannot expect trade.
Now, I think that on reflection the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches will admit that the views that I am stating-not now for the first time, I have stated them when I was their colleague, privately and on the floor of parliament-are correct views. When I was Minister of Public Works I tried to carry out those views, and with the help and co-operation of the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues I succeeded in beginning improvements and the equipment of our harbours in nearly all parts of the country. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is not doing justice to the government when he says, when he seems to imply, that we have not done anything. It is not fair to speak in that way. Large things cannot be done in a day, but the beginning is there, and a good beginning it is. There has been great improvement in the port of Montreal. I obtained from this parliament the sanction of a vote of $1,000,000 for the port of Quebec. Three Rivers is being equipped. I went to the port of St. John last year, on an electoral occasion, when the Minister of Railways, speaking of my visit, said that I was a very pleasant little man, and had gone down to the sea to offer public works. I went down at the request of the citizens, of the board of trade, of the merchants, to look into the accommodation which is necessary. I have no hesitation in stating here that the government should equip at their own expense the port of St. John better than it has been equipped in the past. There is not enough accommodation there. They are doing it to some extent in granting, as we did some time ago, a three percent guarantee to a private company for a dry-dock. But that is not doing what I would like to see done. The government should equip these harbours themselves. The Minister of Public Works should take hold of these national harbours. When I was a minister I was often accused of monopolizing things. I cannot be accused of such a desire now. There is no fear that 1 shall be minister again very soon, so I am speaking independently when I say that this is a genuine national policy that should be followed by this government. Whoever may be Minister of Public Works, as a rule, he understands his business and his duty. I would trust these large national undertakings to any Minister of Public Works, whoever lie may be. Therefore, I earnestly beg the government to think twice over the position they are taking to-day. I quite understand that it is too late to recede from the position they have assumed in reference to the port of Montreal, although they are

going back on what they have said in the past. Because the fact that we had agreed to build at national expense part of the equipment that is now being carried out in tlie port of Montreal, was a sanction of the principle that in future the port of Montreal would be treated as Port Colborne is treated, as Parry Sound is treated, as Fort William is treated, as Quebec is treated. I do not complain of the treatment afforded to these towns, I am glad to see it; I only want to remind the House and the country of the fact that Montreal is the most important port. It is really the largest port, and therefore should require our earnest aid. With these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, and reserving the privilege of dealing with the question again, I resume my seat.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. .Tames Sutherland).: I listened carefully to gather from the speeches of my hon. friends from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) exactly what position they were taking witli regard to the resolution now before the committee. If I could come to any conclusion it was that they were not offering any particular opposition, but they were of the opinion that the port of Montreal was in some way being discriminated against, and was not being treated, if I heard their language correctly, as well as other ports throughout the country. I do not think the facts will bear that out. I believe this parliament has recently done a great deal towards developing the port of Montreal. The port of Montreal is not situated on the ocean, and in order to make It one of the great national ports of the Dominion it could not be treated in the same way as other places. Nor do I think the impression should be allowed to go abroad that the citizens of Montreal have done more towards the development of their harbour and shipping facilities than the citizens of any other port, large or small, throughout tile country. I think if my hon. friend will make comparisons he will find that in many of the smaller. ports on the lakes and on the ocean, the municipalities themselves have come forward and have contributed more to create the necessary facilities for shipping than the great city of Montreal lias done. I mention that only because the point seems to have been raised and the impression given that this port is being discriminated against, and not treated as well as other places. In regard to the statement of my hon. friend that the harbour commissioners will be bankrupt if they are called upon to pay interest upon the advances that have been made in the past and that which it is now proposed to make, I do not think there is any danger whatever. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has answered that when he said that it was not the opinion of the harbour commissioners, because they have applied for this loan and they have shown from the resources of the past
and from the resources which they will have In the future it will be quite easy for them to pay the interest upon the amount that has already been advanced and upon this $3,000,000, and retain something like $100,000 for the maintenance of the works under their charge. As to the treatment which has been accorded the harbour of Montreal in the past, I find, according to tlie books of the department, that over $13,000,000 has been expended on tlie port of Montreal. Out of that amount the parliament of Canada has contributed something over $8,000,000.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Upon loan.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, not upon loan. On the development of the ship channel and improvements to the harbour something over $8,000,000 have been spent. Does my hon. friend say that it is not necessary to make improvements to the ship channel ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I say that it is not any more necessary to the development of the trade of the country than the building of the canals is. Why. do you not charge the canals also to the port of Montreal ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC W'ORKS. Trade might have gone to other ports. One would suppose to hear those who are speaking about Montreal that the citizens of Montreal were taxed to pay the charges and the interest upon this loan.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They pay a good deal of it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not take that view at all. I do not think any of them pay these charges, excepting those citizens who contribute to the trade of the country. The importers and exporters pay the fees that go to make up the interest that is paid upon these loans. I consider, so far as this large expenditure is concerned, that it is correctly chargeable to the port of Montreal. It may be said that this is a national port, that its development is necessary in the interest of the country, but the same thing can be said, in a comparative degree, regarding the development of any other port or channel throughout the country which is in the interest of the general trade of the country. Now, I am pointing this out because it appeared to me that there was a desire to give a wrong impression to the House and the country as to the actual state of affairs in regard to the improvements which have been made and which are being made at the port of Montreal. I think, whatever may be the future policy of the country in regard to this port, we are not prepared to say that every port in the country, both great and small, shall De declared to be free. As has been pointed out by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, the question as to what action may be taken towards decreasing the fees collected upon mer-

ehandise received and delivered at these ports may be one for consideration, but so far as the general benefit derived by the parties using the elevators, warehouses, sheds and other works that are provided by public contribution is concerned, I think it is only right that those directly using them should contribute something for the advantage which they derive from their use. In the meantime, at any rate, that will be continued as the policy of the government. The port of Montreal, as my hon. friend says, may not be fully equipped for all the trade that will come to it, but the advances which have been made in the past and the liberal advance now being made, I think, if properly expended, will put the port of Montreal in better shape than it is to-day for doing business. We all hope the development of the trade of the country will be such at the port of Montreal, that greater facilities and greater improvements will be required, and I have no doubt that when the time comes this House will be ready to support any proper suggestion that may be brought down for the continuance of the improvements. The completion of the improvements now suggested and for which this money will make provision, I think, will do a great deal towards making the port of Montreal just what my hon. friend said it should be-a great national port. The general question of transportation comes into speeches made on an occasion of this kind. I am always listening attentively to hear what practical suggestions may be made. It is all very well to get up in this House, or on the platform, and talk about the importance of the transportation question, but what we want are practical suggestions as to what would be the best policy to adopt. So far as I am concerned, my greatest desire at the present time is to gain information of a practical character-, and that instead of discussing the question in an academic manner on the platform and in the House, we may have the advantage of listening to some practical, business-like suggestions that can be carried out to the advantage of the country.
Mr. ROBERT BICKERDIIvE (Montreal, St. Lawrence). Mr. Chairman, I may state that I agree very largely with what the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) have said on the auestion of making the port of Montreal a national port and a free port. But we are met at the present time with the fact that we have to continue the improvements that we started some years ago. There is no other way to do it than by borrowing this $3,000,000, and there is no way we can get it without paying interest for it. I would have been very pleased if the government had seen their way clear to giving that money without charging any interest, but that is not the policy of the government at present, nor do I think that it was the policy of the Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
preceding government. I must say that I think the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland), in charging the cost of the St. Peter channel to Montreal, is hardly fair to us. I do not think it is any fairer that the Lake St. Peter channel should be chargeable to the city of Montreal than that the Welland canal should be chargeable to the city of Toronto. They are all canals. I have a very good authority on that question, the late lamented statesman that we all thought so much of, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. He said that the canals of this country should not be chargeable to any particular part of the country, but to the whole country, as the whole country is benefited by them. The hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's, says that the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) takes a narrow view of matters pertaining to the city of Montreal. I will not quarrel with him in that statement, but I am rather surprised that the hon. gentleman, when he was Minister of Public Works, did not soften the hon. Minister of Finance towards the city of Montreal. That would have been the time for the hon. gentleman to have used his influence. Not only was he Minister of Public Works, but, if report says correctly, he was also the master of the administration, and as such surely that was the time for the hon. gentleman to have insisted upon the government doing their duty towards Montreal. I believe they have not done so. I believe no government has done so. It is a fact that up to the present day not one dollar of public money has been spent upon the harbour of Montreal for which interest has not been paid. It is true that the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works did start, and that the government are now continuing, the building of a portion of the harbour of Montreal at the public expense. It is not really in the city of Montreal, as the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's, knows well. It is a good work that the government are carrying on, and we take no exception to it. It is not the intention of the harbour commissioners to raise the tolls. No man knows better than the hon. member for Jacques Cartier and the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's, that within the last two or three years the tolls have been reduced by from 20 to 25 per cent.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It would be impossible to raise them.
Mr. BICKERDIIvE. The hon. member for St. Mary's was consulted in the matter at that time. He thought the reduction was not enough and we cut down the tolls until there was a 40 per cent reduction. It would be impossible to reduce them further. The intention is to charge the steamship companies and they willingly agree to pay it if you give them first class double-decked steel sheds in which they can do their business at much less expense than they are doing it at now. We all know that the

harbour of Montreal is very much congested and that goods are lying all ov'er the wharfs. We will supply splendid storage facilities under this scheme and these men are willing to pay for that to the extent of the interest on the loan. Therefore if we spend $2,000,000 on sheds, these sheds will really pay for themselves. I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in his statement that the port of Montreal is bankrupt at the present time. The port of Montreal ha,s always paid every dollar of the interest on the advances made to it, and, Sir, I believe that if there was any danger of the port of Montreal becoming bankrupt the citizens of Montreal are loyal enough to their port to not allow it to become bankrupt. I believe the day is coming when not only the port of Montreal but all the ports of the Dominion, and especially those on the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic coast, will be made free to commerce. We must have free ports in Canada if we are going to compete successfully with the United States. There is no question about that, and I believe that this government will come to that conclusion. I think theyi see it now, but they are probably not just ready to do it, as no doubt there are a great many things they would like to do but cannot do at the present moment. But, Sir, I hope that next year the government will take over the port of Montreal and assume the debt. I hope they will do the same thing with Three Rivers, Sorel and Quebec. The only way in which we can keep the ports of Canada on a par with the ports in the United States is by making them free ports, and making the commerce of the country as free from tolls as possible. As to the elevator, I expect that it will pay its way when it gets running. We will then have a debt of between $10,000,000 and $11,000,000, but I must frankly say that it will not be sufficient to finish the work there. On the most conservative estimate I can make, it will take $12,000,000 to put the port of Montreal in good shape. If the government cannot see their way clear now to make Montreal a free port they might reduce the interest and if the debt were $12,000,000 and the interest were 21 per cent there would be very little difficulty about raising the funds. Another thing the government might do is this :	They might at
least pay to the city of Montreal and the harbour commissioners the money they owe them. It is well known to the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that the government owes to the harbour at Montreal nearly $2,000,000, which was left over from the old Lake St. Peter debt, and which was charged up to the harbour commissioners. I trust that at an early date the government will pay this just debt which they owe to the port of Montreal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) at the
beginning of his speech said that when I was in office I should have commenced by getting public money far the port of Mont-eral, but knowing the facts as he does, he was obliged to correct that statement and to add that there are works at Montreal which have been carried out at the public expense, although he said these works were not in the port of Montreal proper. Well, the port of Montreal is the one thing.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I said they were not in the city of Montreal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman used the very words I attributed to him.


Robert Bickerdike: I did not mean it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I will take the hon. gentleman's correction. My hon. friend (Mr. Bickerdike) who is a harbour commissioner knows that to-day there is a very large trade which is being developed in the eastern portion of the harbour. When I was a minister I had the honour of bringing my colleagues to the principle that the port of Montreal as a national port should be equipped in future at the public expense. That work has been begun and my hon friend has expressed the hope that next year the government will give full recognition to that principle. I hope so. The hon. gentleman thought fit to allude to the fact that I was supposed to be the master of the administration. Well, the facts do not prove that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is of course quite true that every Prime Minister does not take the same severe view of his colleagues' speeches as the Prime Minister of Canada took of mine.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have on my desk a very important speech delivered yesterday in the Imperial House of Commons in which Mr. Balfour says very distinctly that he had no desire to discipline his colleagues in the way some people expected he would discipline them. I was not the master of the administration^ but I tried to be the master of my own mind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My mind was that we should endeavour to develop to the best of our ability the trade of this country on Canadian and national lines. I tried to bring about that result. However, if next year the government comes down with a policy which will better suit our views, I will be the first man to applaud and cheer them. My hon. friend from St. Lawrence knows very well that this $3,000,000 will not equip the port of Montreal, and that it will be necessary to spend a very much larger amount of money. There is no use hiding the facts. What is $10,000,000 to a great national harbour ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Is it proposed that dues and fees shall be collected upon the works which are being constructed in that portion of the harbour which is not in the city of Montreal ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes. I stated to the House after having discussed the matter with my colleagues, that those works when completed would be treated just in the same way as other works.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That was the understanding.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: How much better off is the harbour then ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The harbour commissioners are not paying interest on that money, and it is the beginning of lowering the tolls.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But you are continuing to charge tolls ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend is not serious. If the public treasury gives $2,000,000, the harbour commissioners have not to pay the interest on it, and there is so much less to be charged on the port of Montreal. Surely the hon. minister has not thought twice. I will try to make myself clear.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You will have some difficulty in doing so.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The difference is just this. That when money is not borrowed we have no interest to pay on it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When the hon. gentleman says : * We have no interest to pay on it; ' who are the 'we' ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The country pays it one way or the other.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am speaking as a Canadian member of parliament having at heart the development of Canadian trade through Canadian channels. Why have we spent about $20,000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not the question.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is the question. It is on the same lines, because we expect to have more trade. Why are our hon. friends asking us to guarantee millions upon millions for railway companies if not to have more trade ? The harbour of Montreal should be treated on the same lines as the railways, for the same reason. It seems to me that the position I am taking is the right one. We have this year made the canals free. In saying we, I speak as a member Hon. Mr. TARTE.
of parliament, for on that question parliament was unanimous.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: May I ask my hon. friend a question ? I fail to understand him so far. Will he kindly point out what is the distinction from which the port of Montreal benefits, between paying dues and fees on works which are not under the control of the harbour commissioners, and paying the same measure of dues and fees on works which are under the control of the harbour commissioners ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: It seems to me that the answer is very easy. The policy which I was endeavouring to impress on my colleagues, and which I thought I succeeded in impressing upon them, was that the port of Montreal should be made as free a port as it was possible to make it. Then, by our constructing, at the public expense, some of the works of improvement which are now going on, and the harbour commissioners having no money to borrow, they would have no interest to pay. The country would supply the money, and there would be so much less interest to pay.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Who would pay it ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is another small herring my hon. friend is drawing across the trail.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think that is very much like a whale, instead of a small herring.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I may be slow, but I do not see the wit of the word. Seriously speaking, what I was aiming at when I had the honour of being a colleague of my hon. friend, was to impress on the government and the country the necessity of having as cheap transportation as it was possible to make it. That is the reason why I have always been happy to help my friends in the maritime provinces to get accommodation for that part of the country. It is the reason why I have been preaching this gospel of transportation from one end of the country to the other ; and I thought I had succeeded in impressing upon the government the necessity of not saddling the port of Montreal with any more debt. Suppose we take the position that the port of Montreal shall pay for past debts, but that for the future it should be equipped at the national expense. That is in two words what I was aiming at then, and what I am aiming at now. I quite admit that it would be difficult to make the port altogether free, because there will always be the cost of maintenance; but I do not know that the time will not come when public opinion will be so strong that even this government, which seems to be very steep at times on matters of national importance, will be obliged to realize that the sentiment of the nation is above party ex-

pediency. I say without any hesitation that the policy followed to-day is one of party expediency, because my hon. friends may be afraid to be reproached elsewhere for giving money to the port of Montreal. Well, we must recognize that geography cannot be changed. The port of Montreal has been placed where it is by the hand of Providence. It is the first port at the end of the lakes, at the head of navigation. I heard one of my colleagues say the trade could go elsewhere. Where could it go ? It could not stop farther up without going to American ports, such as Portland, New York, Philadelphia, and other ports. Quebec will undoubtedly have its trade, but Quebec has always been where it is. To-day the port of Montreal is there, with its magnificent natural facilities ; and, m spite of the fact that we have no great accommodation at Montreal, the trade is coming to that port, because trade is always inclined to go as far as possible into the land-this my hon. friends know as well as I do, if not better. It seems to me, then, that the policy that this country should follow is to make the port of Montreal and other ports of national importance as free as it is possible to make them. St. John, Halifax, Quebec, Three Rivers, should be made commodious and cheap ports, such as Canadian energy and Canadian enterprise and Canadian money can make them. This is not a sectional question with me. I recognize all the ports that are of national importance as forming part of the same system, and, unless we so recognize them, we shall be left behind. By improving the waterways you give competition and cheap rates to the farmers and the industrial interests, and you serve a great national object.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Mr. Chairman, no one can deny that my hon. friend invariably makes every subject he discusses in this House interesting, if not in itself, at least to those who listen to him. He has just now spoken of Montreal as having been placed where it is by the hand of Providence. I do not think there can be any doubt that Montreal is at the point where the rapids in the St. Lawrence begin and where the river navigation, properly so-called ends, as the act of Providence ; but I think Providence had very little to do with the digging of the channel between Quebec and Montreal. I think we have to give some credit to man for the part he has taken in connection with the works of construction that have been carried on in order to enable Montreal to occupy the position it now occupies. My hon. friend talks of making Montreal a national port. There is some vagueness and uncertainty as to what he means by a national port. Ho I understand that he means a port equipped with wharfs, sheds, and elevators at the national expense, to be used by ail-comers for nothing? If that is what he means by a national
port, in order to put Montreal on an equal footing with the other harbours of this Dominion, shall we not do the same thing for the other harbours ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Why distinguish ? If we do that, it means that we must expend upon them a certain amount of money which comes out of the public exchequer, and on that money somebody must pay the interest. The people of Canada at large must pay the interest on that. Where is the difference in principle between paying the interest on money that would be expended in that way, and getting the interest back as we now do, out of the pockets of those who use the goods that go to the port of Montreal and get the benefit of these improvements ? Is that uot the more intelligent way, if I might use the word, of disposing of this matter-that those who use these improvements created by Canada shall pay for the use they make of them ? My hon. friend says that we ought to equip our ports in a way to fit them to compete with the American ports. I can speak of New York . there is not an inch of wharf in the city of New York that is not paid for by the city.
There is not an inch of wharf nor a foot of shed in New York which is not paid for. All those improvements made in the harbour of New York are paid for by those who use them. Why should we depart from the principle here ? Why should a different policy be followed in our Canadian ports ? It seems to be almost unavoidable that m.v hon. friend and myself should occasionally indulge in a little controversy with reference to the port of Quebec. I have no desire to enter into any discussion for the purpose of making parochial politics, and I am quite willing to admit that both my hon. friend and I are animated by the same spirit and desire to do all we can to advance the interests of our Canadian ports. My hon. friend knows that about three million dollars were spent on the port of Quebec. He knows too how that money was spent and to what extent we benefited by it. The result of the expenditure, as my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) told us the other night, is that we have in the Louise basin a berth for one ship. My hon. friend from St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte) talks of the expenditure in Quebec made by the government and for which no return was made to this government, but what occurred ? No sooner was the expenditure begun than immediately, for the purpose of drawing away the trade which the expenditure was intended to benefit, seven million dollars were expended on the channel between Quebec and Montreal. I am not questioning the right of the people of Montreal to use all their energies for the purpose of getting this expenditure of public money on the improvement of the waterway, but

I am simply pointing out that, as a matter of fact, it absolutely neutralized the expenditure on the part of Quebec. The expenditure was made absolutely useless because, in the first place, the money was expended at an improper place, and then, in the second instance, the government of the day immediately proceeded to expend millions on the lake St. Peter channel, in order to divert the shipping from Quebec to Montreal. I am not finding any fault with the government of that day for improving the channel, for we are going on the same lines, but I am simply pointing out how the port of Quebec was affected by that policy. My hon. friend must not forget that not only did we spend $7,000,000 In deepening that channel but that we are also spending at the rate of some $600,000 per annum on the maintenance of the channel, we are expending in the vicinity of from $800,000 to $900,000 on capital account for the construction of two dredges to be used in improving that channel. When we come to build elevators, there is no reason why we should make any distinction between Montreal and Quebec. We have two elevators in Quebec, built by private corporations. If the Montreal Harbour Board thinks it proper to build one in that port, I have no desire to interfere, but, the least the general public can ask is that those who use the elevator should be made to pay for it. We are asked to build sheds in addition to the elevators. Is there any good reason why those who use the sheds should not pay for that use ? We have built sheds in Quebec but without any government aid. I do not wish to detain the House, but it seems to me that if we adopt the principle of equipping Montreal as a national port at the public expense, in all fairness we should do the same for all the other ports in the Dominion. Quebec has greater natural advantages than Montreal, and if Montreal had not been so generously aided by the hand of man, the trade which is done there would be centred in Quebec. I go further and say, that until the government interfered for the purpose of building this channel between Quebec and Montreal, and so long as Quebec was left with its natural advantages, it was in advance of Montreal. I can remember when we had ten ships in that port for one in Montreal ; and although things have been changed since, that change is due to the result of government expenditure. In saying this, I am not casting any reflection on that policy. I am quite free to admit that whatever is to the advantage of Montreal, profits every other part of Canada. But, I would urge that all the ports in the Dominion be put on the same footing and each be given a fair field and no favour.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend and myself will agree no doubt as to facts of public notoriety. The port of Quebec was equipped in the same convenient way as Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
the port of Montreal is being equipped now, namely, by a loan. If there is any one who knows how that money was spent, I am the one. My hon. friend knows a good deal, but perhaps I know more than he does, I know a good deal about it, but let by-gones be by-gones. We ventilated that question some years ago, and I hope that we will see nothing more of the kind in the future. There are some facts which my hon. friend seems to have forgotten. He says that in Quebec we are building sheds and not asking anybody for money to build them ? Well, I give my hon. friend the credit for the interest he has displayed in the port of Quebec by inducing the government to forfeit the rights guaranteed to it by the bonds in the hands of the hon. Finance Minister. The government gave up the precedence attaching to those bonds in order to enable the people of Quebec to borrow money.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Eet my hon. friend state the facts fully. In so far as that precedence is concerned, it had reference to the piece of wharf built immediately opposite the custom house. The money was spent on the construction of that wharf and had absolutely no connection with the sheds.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The sheds were built because the government gave up its precedence, and I am very glad it did so. The harbour commissioners at Quebec owe about $6,000,000 with the interest. I fully recognize that they cannot pay either the capital or the interest. I fully admit that a large volume of that money has been badly spent, but all the same the government advanced the money and has never been paid the interest. I am not complaining of this, but I say that the port of Montreal has not been treated in a like manner. That port pays the interest on every dollar borrowed from the government. It is not the people of Montreal who pay, but the trade of the country ; and if the trade of the country is obliged to pay rates that are too high, it will go through other channels. That cannot be denied. The port of Quebec has natural advantages. My hon. friend has said that the dredging of the St. Lawrence has diverted the trade from Quebec, but he forgets that the work of dredging the St. Lawrence began nearly fifty years ago- long before the Louise Basin was started.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But the diversion did not take place until about fifteen years ago. Before that we had more ships in Quebec than in Montreal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I shall not discuss that point The trade is taking good care of itself. My hon. friend knows that most of the important harbours of the world are inland harbours. He knows that Hamburg and Manchester are both inland harbours.

Why the German nation have spent $75,000,000 on the Elbe and Hamburg works.


Mr. WADE.: They have no ocean harbours.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, there is no use discussing such a question before such an audience. The port of Quebec is available; why, then, does the trade seek the port of Montreal ? Because the port of Montreal is the natural centre of exchange between the west and the east. Why should a barge loaded with grain pass by Montreal, when there are sea-going ships waiting for her cargo? The city of Montreal with its suburbs and surroundings has a population of nearly half a million. Why should they displace themselves and send their trade elsewhere ? That cannot possibly be done. Why did we build the canals ? To take the trade through the St. Lawrence route. It seems to me that it is not necessary to adduce much argument to establish the position I take. My hon. friend has spoken of the port of New York. That port is fairly well equipped; but, on account of the high charges exacted there, it is losing ground every day.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: How is it in Boston ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: How is it equipped ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: How are the charges ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have not the figures under my hand


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: How is it about the ownership of the wharfs, and the ownership of the sheds ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: In the United States, there are several systems. In certain cities, the state governments contribute, and in others the federal government contributes. Take Buffalo, for instance, that port has been equipped partly by the state government of New York, and party by the federal government. But we have to face the simple question :	Are we making up our
minds that we will give the trade cheap rates ? If so, we must take the means to do it. And the main reason why I object to the policy of my hon. friends on the treasury benches is that they are not taking the means to accomplish this great national object. However, we have made our position pretty clear. I hope that in the future my hon. friends will change their minds. If they do not change their minds we will try to induce the people outside to impress upon them the great importance of doing so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend from Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) said that $1,000,000 was voted last year for the harbour of Quebec. I have looked over the estimates and I find that only $100,000 was voted.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) is a very clever man. But he is doing now just what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) tried to do-he is drawing a red herring across the trail. And let me explain to the committee how he is doing it. When I had the honour of being Minister of Public Works, I was approached, and the right hon. the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was approached at the same time by the representatives of the trade of Quebec. They represented that it was necessary that there should be further equipment for the port. My right hon. friend helped me, and it was understood and agreed that certain works should be carried out. I placed the plans of those works on the Table of the House last session, works the carrying out of which would have involved the expenditure of about $1,000,000. My hon. friend has only to read ' Hansard ' to see that that is the case. I placed these plans on the Table with the consent of my colleagues, especially of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government. These plans were approved by the House. I asked for a vote of $100,000, of course, because we could not spend more during the present year; but at the time, I stated distinctly that these works would cost $1,000,000. These are the facts of the case. Now, my hon. friends have thought fit to change the plan. That is there business. What they are doing to-day is a good work-I do not complain that it is not a good work. But what I make bold to say to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is this-that if the government are going to provide this country with a fast Atlantic service, the accommodation being provided in Quebec is not sufficient. And if my hon. friend comes next year with an appropriation of the balance of the million dollars that I succeeded in getting, I shall be very glad to vote for it.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: As my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has referred to me perhaps it will not be out of place for me to give a word of explanation as to the statement he has just made. My hon. friend laid before the House last year plans as to which there was a good deal of exception taken, and as to which, on the other hand, there was a good deal of approbation. These plans provided for the extension of the wharf at La Pointe J Carey, towards the middle of tlie river and works towards the back. I agreed that he should take an appropriation of $100,000 for the extension of the wharfs extending up to the wharf at La Pointe it Carey. As to the plans provided with regard to the extending of the works behind the Louise Basin, since I came back from Europe, it has been represented that there might be some danger to the existing works in carrying out the operations proposed. I asked my hon. friend the Minister of Public


COMMOXS
[Stage Direction]
Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) to have that matter decided before the work was gone on with. 1 agree with my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that the harbour has to be equipped; and, if we are to have, as we must have, a fast Atlantic service, considerable improvements must be added to give the accommodation necessary for that service. But whether we should go on with the plans that my hon. friend has provided for the extension of the work behind the Louise Basin is now under consideration. The plans are being considered by proper engineers, to see whether the plans proposed are correct or whether they should be amended.
As I am on my feet I may say a few words on the general topic under discussion. I take issue with my hon. friend in the view he has taken that the harbour of Montreal is being discriminated against. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) started that view. I took note of the statement he made, which, I think he himself will agree, requires some explanation. He said that we were dealing in a different way with the harbour of Montreal from the way in which we were dealing with the North-west. He said that we voted several millions yesterday for the North-west. That is true; but what we did for the North-west yesterday is precisely wrhat we propose now to do for the harbour of Montreal-in one case, as in the other we are simply loaning the credit of the Dominion. Yesterday it was to a big railway company to build a railway, and to-day it is to the Montreal Harbour Trust to carry on their work. I think there is no necessity of pushing the comparison further-we have only to state the case to show that there is no essential difference. But there is a matter of difference which I wish to point out. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has started the idea that the harbour of Montreal should be treated like every other harbour in the Dominion, that no more charges should be put upon it than upon any other harbour I agree with him. But my hon. friend should remember that we are to-day proceeding, with regard to the harbour of Montreal in a manner which, he will permit me to say, received his approbation when I had the honour of having him for my colleague. There is no difference between what is being done to-day and what was done three or four years ago. At that time we gave authority to the harbour commissioners of Montreal to borrow a certain amount to equip the harbour. At the same time we gave authority to my hon. friend, then Minister of Public Works, to carry out certain works in the harbour. He says that it was intended that these works should be made national works. So it was. I will not enter upon the discussion at this moment whether or not the works done by the government were to pay dues or not. That is not of material concern, -for X cannot see Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
that there is any difference, if dues are to be paid upon the wharfs, whether those wharfs are built by the government or by the harbour commissioners. In either case the tolls are to come out of the shipping, which seems to be a very sound principle. But at the same time that my hon. friend was obtaining authority from parliament to build these wharfs which are now in course of construction, which certainly are of great utility and will be of still greater utility in the future, the harbour commissioners were empowered to borrow money on the credit of the country to carry on their own works. I understand my hon. friend to say now that the harbour commissioners instead of spending the money themselves upon sheds and elevators, should not be allowed to do so, but that the money should be paid by the Minister of Public Works. That is practically his criticism. I have only to observe that there is no necessity and no opportunity at this moment, to change the policy which he inaugurated a few years ago.
My hon. friend remembers very well that when these works in the harbour of Montreal were contemplated he was Minister of Public Works. He gave a great deal of time to the plans which were prepared, and he knows very well that the equipment of these wharfs which it was then intended to build by the harbour commissioners was to be supplemented by elevators and by sheds. Therefore the hon. gentleman ought not to forget that at this moment we are simply carrying out the plans which had his sanction, and which were provided for three or four years ago to keep this harbour in the best possible condition for trade. It was not sufficient simply to have wharfs, it was not sufficient simply to have the necessary appliances for ships to load and unload their cargoes, but further works had to be done to provide an elevator and sheds for warehouses. Now is it not better, under such circumstances, that the authority which had begun these works should carry them to completion ? If in future we have other works to complete in the harbour of Montreal, as we shall have, then the views presented by my hon. friend may be presented with better purpose, and we shall have to decide then whether they should be built by the harbour commissioners or by the Minister of Public Works. All that will come in due time. In the meantime, I take notice of the objection made by my hon. friend that the harbour of Montreal ought not to be burdened more than any other harbour. Sir, if the harbour of Montreal has been more burdened than any other harbour-I do not say that it is so-whose fault is it ? It is certainly not the fault of this government. My hon. friend was for a sufficiently long time a member of this government to defend himself and to defend the government of which he was a member at the time. We found the situation when

we came in, we found the harbour commission of Montreal in possession of certain works. They applied to us to continue what they had been doing, and I give credit to my bon. friend for this, that he contributed a great deal, I think, to improve the work done by the harbour commissioners and to continue it. But if the harbour commissioners have spent too much money, if the harbour of Montreal has been unduly burdened, I think it is a case that the board of trade and the citizens of Montreal may be trusted to come and represent to the government. I received a notice a few days ago from the harbour board that they wanted to interview the government on this question and I granted the interview at once. Then they sent me word that they would come at a later period. When they come we will hear their views, and they will say whether the harbour of Montreal has been saddled with a greater burden than Toronto or St. John. But at this moment the hon. gentleman ought to agree that he can find no fault with us for doing what we are doing now, that is to say, for continuing the policy which he approved himself when Minister of Public Works, of enabling the harbour commissioners to carry on and complete the work which they had undertaken under his own regime.
Joseph Israël Tarte: The hon. gentleman, 1 am sure, will do me the justice to admit that when I had the privilege of being his colleague 1 always struggled, especially during the last couple of years, to have our national harbours equipped as fully as possible. He has in his hand a memorandum that I left two or three months before quitting office, in which my views are set forth very fully. I acknowledge that I have been a party to lending money to the port of Montreal, as I have also been a party to maintaining the tariff which is to-day in existence. There is always room for improvement in the world. It does not follow that because the port of Montreal lias been treated in the past in the way we know, we must always proceed in the same direction. I was glad to hear my hon. friend say that perhaps in the near future the direction in which we are proceeding now might be changed. I paid a good deal of attention to his words, and if I understood them correctly, it is good news for us, because the policy which is being followed now is not the right policy. We are at present only putting up a gate that we should instead be lowering. Only one word as to the work in Quebec. My right hon. friend has said that representations have been made to him that the plans I submitted to the House last year might perhaps imperil the existing works. I am sure that no engineer made such representations to him, because no engineer who knows anything about the works could say anything of the kind. I will explain to my right hon. friend. He
is not an engineer in public works, though he is a good engineer in some other directions. The works which were begun had no foundation ; we cannot dredge in the Louise Basin because the works have been laid without a foundation. The plan I submitted provided for a deeper foundation, about fifteen feet deeper, and at the same time to make it more solid. That makes a vast difference. My hon. friend I am sure did not mean to misrepresent me on that occasion.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I did not say it was a fact, I said that representations had been made.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There are representations that may be made with some motive. I know the cost of the Quebec harbour works. 1 have studied them carefully, but not in the direction that has been pointed out by my right hon. friend. There were some other interests, however, that I do not mean to allude to now.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The harbour commissioners of Montreal have treated this question in a businesslike way, and the government, I think, is treating the question in the same manner. There is no difficulty about the harbour commissioners being in a position to meet the interest on the loan which they have asked the Dominion government to make to them. The resolution which I hold in my hand, dated May 5tli, 1903, explains the position very well, there can be no misunderstanding about it:
Resolved, that should the loan of $3,000,000 asked for from the government be obtained, that about $2,000,000 would he required for building two storey steel sheds on the Alexandra, King Edward and Jacques Cartier piers, and the shore wharfs at sections 12, 13 and 17, which it is proposed to rent to the steamship lines, the rental to be charged therefor not to exceed six cents per square foot of space which, for 1,284,390 square feet which would be provided in the sheds, would yield $74,903.40 per annum, of which $60,000 would be for the interest, and the balance of $14,903.40 for maintenance and insurance. The interest on the balance of the loan of $1,000,000, which is $30,000, would be provided for out of the ordinary revenue obtained from wharfage" dues, as it is proposed to expend out of the aforesaid sum $586,885 on permanent paving, thus reducing the cost of annual repairs which in the past has been considerable for maintenance of roadways, and leave the expense which would be required for maintenance to be available for the payment of interest.
Now what are the facts ? The interest on the sums which we have authorized them to borrow, in all $10,222,000, will make, with the maintenance, a sum to he levied every year of $450,880. Now, if you deduct from that sum of $450,880, $30,000 of revenue from the elevator and $00,000, the rental on the sheds, you will have remaining a balance of $300,880 to provide for. The revenue last year was over $322,000,

so that there should be no fear whatever that the harbour commissioners will have sufficient to meet the Interest on the different sums that they have borrowed and those that they will borrow. Of course, it must be borne in mind that it will be only within the next few years that the whole amount can be borrowed because we can easily understand that the whole expenditure of this $3,000,000 cannot be made in one season. It would take two seasons at least in which this expenditure can be made. As regards the principle of advancing money to the harbour commissioners, I may say, as it has been said and repeated here, this is the same principle which has been in force since 1890 under this government. It is the same principle which has been applied by former governments. Well, if you look at the facts, in wlmt position are you ? In 1896 the former government were able to reduce the harbour dues in Montreal by from 25 to 30 per cent. Under the present government the harbour commissioners have been able, although they have reduced their interest, and although they have spent every year large sums of money for maintenance which they will not be called upon to expend in future years, when the wharfs will all have been paid for-they have been able, as I am perfectly well aware, and as has been stated by the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), to reduce the dues by 40 per cent and notwithstanding this their revenue has been increasing. Fault has been found with this procedure by the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). I can only repeat what has been stated already that this principle was concurred in in 1898 and 1899 when the harbour commissioners came before the government and asked for advances, so that, if this is the time to find fault with the principle and to say that it is wrong it must have been equally wrong in 1898 and 1899. I want to go further. I say the principle is not wrong at the present time. There may come a time when all the harbours and piers will be perfectly free, but a'll this does not come in a day. It takes years before this can be accomplished. Take, for instance, the abolition of the tolls on the canals. For years and years the navigation companies had been asking that the tolls on the canals the customs dues and the inspection fees should be abolished. It is only this year that they have succeeded in obtaining justice, but this is a beginning and I think the present government cannot be accused of not doing anything to aid transportation and navigation when it is easy to calculate that the amount of which the navigation companies have been relieved is nearly $400,000 annually. Now, thq hon. ex-Minister of Public Works says that the principle is wrong and he states that he began himself the expenditure of public money to improve the port of Montreal. I have to Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
differ from him on that point, because, what he says as to the expenditure of public money to improve the port of Montreal means simply this that instead of the interest on that amount advanced for the construction of the pier in Hochelaga bay being paid indirectly to the government by the harbour commissioners it will be collected directly by the government in harbour dues at this pier, because nobody will deny that it was perfectly well understood when the money was voted to build this pier and when the consent of the harbour commissioners was asked that this pier, which is being built by Messrs. Poupore & Malone, would not be free but that dues would be charged at the same rate and under the same conditions as they are collected on the rest of the piers in the harbour of Montreal. Everybody understands perfectly well that in the case of the pier being built now under the control of the hon. Minister of Public Works, dues will be collected by the government instead of being collected by the commissioners and paid over to the government as interest.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Who will pay the interest on that $1,000,000 which will be spent at Hochelaga ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It will be paid out of the dues. The government will pay the interest, but they will collect the amount hi dues on the pier. Blanc Bonnet et bonnet blanc. It means exactly the same thing, except, of course, that the debt of the harbour commissioners of Montreal will be increased by $600,000 or thereabouts, or by whatever may be the cost of the pier. As regards the position of the shipping interests and the trade of Montreal they will be in exactly the same position whether vessels land their goods and merchandise on the pier built by the government or whether they land their goods and merchandise on the piers built under the system adopted by the harbour commissioners. Now, a good deal has been said about the expenditure on the port of Montreal and on the channel. The facts as regards the expenditure of money on the channel ar.e fresh in the mind of every member in this House. The money spent on the channel of the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and Quebec was levied by the harbour commissioners of Montreal on the trade of Canada generally and on the shipping interest doing business in the city of Montreal. Great credit is due to the men of enterprise who, in 1840 or 1850, organized the harbour commissioners of Montreal and took in hand the work of improving the channel of the St. Lawrence which was then eleven or twelve feet deep on the flats of Lake	St. Peter and who
made it what it was in 1887 or 1888, when the government took hold of it. it was only fair and reasonable that the gov-

eminent, having taken charge of that channel, should assume the debt which had been contracted, although I think the government did not do entire justice to the harbour commissioners and citizens of Montreal, because, instead of reimbursing the whole amount that had been expended on the works of the channel they reimbursed only the capital expenditure without taking into consideration the interest. I know something about the matter, having been a member of the harbour commission for four years, and there is an account standing now awaiting settlement for interest paid on the sums advanced by the commissioners of nearly $2,000,000. Instead of pressing for the settlement of that claim against the government, the commission which is composed of men of business representing the vast corporations of Montreal, such as the Board of Trade, the Corn Exchange, the Shipping Interests, the Ghambre de Commerce, besides six members appointed by the government representing the best business men of Montreal, after having studied this question since 1898 have come to the unanimous opinion that it is a businesslike course to proceed in the way proposed. The general plans for the the improvement of the harbour of Montreal had been approved in 1898 by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte). These plans did not provide then for such works as permanent sheds, a complete railway track system, a steam crane and others which are included in the $3,000,000 loan. It is a well known fact that the harbour commissioners of Montreal are now in a better condition to execute these works properly and cheaply than any other body, because they have the whole organization at their disposal. They are in a position to undertake themselves works of this kind, except probably the steel structure which they will have to let by contract. The other works will be done u'nder the supervision of their own engineer and staff which up to the present time has proven itself to be perfectly competent. There is no fear of the Montreal harbour commissioners becoming bankrupt, or that the trade will be charged more for tolls than in the past. On the contrary, if you fake the trade this year since the opening of navigation which is only a comparatively short period, you will find that there were more head of cattle shipped up to the present time than during the whole season last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They have twelve steamers more in the port of Montreal this season than up to the corresponding date last season. I am informed by those who take a deep interest in our commerce that there have been shipped through the port of Montreal up to the present, 2,000,000 bushels
more of grain than during the corresponding period last year. That is probably due in part to the fact that tolls have been abolished on the canals, and that customs dues and inspection fees are no longer charged. As representing the largest division of the city of Montreal, I am entirely in accord with the proposition made by the harbour commissioners. It is the only reasonable proposition under the circumstances, and it is the best means calculated to equip the harbour of Montreal within a reasonable time. If the government were to take hold of these extensive works they would not have the necessary means and plant at their disposal, and It would take them a long time to get prepared for the work, while it Is the hope of every good citizen of Montreal that these works will be finished next season, and then the works can be proceeded with in the east end of Montreal which have been already started.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I wish to add a word of correction and explanation. Touching the discrimination against Montreal, I am afraid my hon, friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) failed to catch the point of the question which I ventured to put him about the word ' we.' My only object was to emphasize the point Which has been made during the debate as to who pays the interest on the loan. My hon. friend said: ' We pay the interest,' which was likely to convey the impression that the people of Montreal pay the interest.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I did not mean that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) admitted afterwards that this interest was paid by the trade of the country which passes through Montreal. As a matter of fact the citizens of the city of Winnipeg pay the Interest as much as the citizens of Montreal. There are cities in Canada where the people are paying hard money in taxes for harbour facilities, but Montreal is not one of them. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and I differed as to the extent of the trade of Montreal. He said that in Montreal the total trade was nearly one-half the total trade of the country and I said I thought it was not more than 35 per cent. I see by the figures that last year it was actually 29-25 per cent. I do not mention that for the purpose of undervaluing it, because that is a very great proportion of the trade of the country. As the figures we use in debate are often quoted elsewhere it is just as well that the correction should be made.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have the figures in my hand and I will read them. They are as follows :


HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS OF MONTREAL.
[Stage Direction]
Statement of revenue and tonnage from the opening of navigation to 30th September, in 1901 and 1902.
[Stage Direction]
1901.	1902.
From imports	$ 93,500 00 $122,500 00
From exports	
47,000 00	52,500 00From local traffic	
18,765 92	16,328 90Total	$159,265 92 $191,328 90
Increase in 1902 over 1901, $32,062 98.
1901.	1902.
Tonnage of sea-going vessels	 1,144,004 1,163,778
Increase in 1902 over 1901	 19,774
Tonnage of inland vessels.. 1,278,144 1,427,100 Increase in 1902 over 1901	 148,956
Total increase of tonnage in 1902 over 1901, 168.730.
I did not mean to say that the interest is paid by Montreal or elsewhere, but what I did try to urge was that unless you make the ports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax, cheap ports, the trade will not come to us at all. It is only from that standpoint that I am discussing the question.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have been following this discussion with a good deal of interest, because I represent a constituency in which is situated one of the two principal Canadian seaports which are open all the year round. My constituents take a very deep personal interest in the question which is now to some extent uik^' discussion. I have been desirous of hearing from my hon. friends who are criticising the present proposal, some very cogent reasons why this vote ought not to be passed, because I felt convinced that if they made out a case strong enough to show that a great deal of argument was capable of being advanced against the approval of this motion, then a very j very strong case would be made in favour of the general adoption of the principle which the hon. member for St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) declares himself so strongly in favour of. There is no doubt that there is a difference between the manner in which some of the Canadian seaports are treated by this government and by all governments, and the manner in which other Canadian ports are treated. The Minister of Finance has correctly pointed out that the citizens of Montreal have not been called upon to pay any interest burden in connection with the expenditure upon their port.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The city of Montreal is contributing $1,000,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Now ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I was not aware of that fact, and the hon. gentleman permitted the statement of the Minister of Finance to pass unchallenged. If they have that in contemplation now, it is nevertheless the fact that up to the present moment the citv of Montreal has not put its hand into its poekets municipally speaking, and borne any por-Hon. Mr. TARTE.
tion of any charge incident to the betterment of their harbour. That cannot be said, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has remarked, with regard to some other ports. It certainly cannot be said with regard to the seaport of St. John. When the business coming from the western country was being carried to St. John for ocean transport, which was bound to flow into that city, the people of St. John hoped that the government of the day would come to their assistance and enable them to handle that produce with advantage to the shippers and to the country. They could, I am free to confess, have secured assistance if they had been willing to place their harbour under the control of a trust, like one or two other harbours in the country. They did not agree to that, and therefore they received no direct assistance from the exchequer of Canada failing to get any assistance from the government of Canada, they set to work to provide the piers, sheds and other facilities, which were necessarily required if any business was to be done, by municipal taxation ; and a sum which exceeds three-quarters of a million and very nearly approaches a million dollars was actually paid by the people of that city in order to provide its harbour with these necessary requirements. The people of St. John are paying the tax on that expenditure. The business of the port does not bear it. There are no dues or fees collected in respect of the wharfs, because they had to be handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in order that that company would interest itself in making St. j John a port of ocean shipment. The city has undoubtedly had some advantage from that expenditure. The business has increased arid is increasing year by year. I cannot at this moment state exactly the gross amount of tonnage shipped last winter as compared with previous years ; but it has quadrupled since these works were established. So that the committee can see that there was every warrant for the people of St. John, from the point of view of the interests of business, to embark ip this expenditure and provide the port with what it needed. But it appeared to me at that time, and it appears to me now, that we ought to appeal confidently for the support of the government; because if it is a fact that all these transportation and shipping facilities that have been provided by the government are of national importance and are justified from the national point of view, the nationdl interest does not cease to be involved when the shipment goes during the winter season from one of the Atlantic seaports. It is a national interest there if it is a national interest anywhere. My hope with regard to this-and it bears on the suggestion which the hon. member has made, that the government ought to make these ports free ports, and is a complete answer to any criticism that may be passed

upon us for making this vote-is that at the present moment the government, with the full knowledge of parliament, lias constituted a commission, the object of -which is to study the whole question as it bears upon the providing of proper facilities at the different Canadian seaports. Their business will be to look into the situation as respects them all, and to advise the government as to what, in their opinion, would be the proper method to pursue in order that those ports should be equipped in the manner which the national interests will require, and enable the business of the country to be transacted under the most favourable conditions. I cannot conceive of anything that ought to engage the more careful attention or consideration of this commission. I say, therefore, that it would be entirely premature, in view of the arrangements which have been made hitherto for the harbour of Montreal, to make any change at this moment in the matter under discussion.


Mr. McCREARY.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if it would not be wise to hold over even this vote until that commission has made its report ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No ; if you did that, you would practically delay the improvements in the harbour of Montreal. These works, which my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says were planned over ten years ago, have been partially performed. They -were taken hold of four or five years ago by the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, and pushed on by the harbour trust with a considerable amount of energy. The plans contemplated the providing of sheds and other equipment.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The plans of the sheds are ready now.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The plans of the sheds, I am told, are ready now, and it is a very serious matter to delay works of this kind. The harbour of Montreal has undoubtedly been suffering in the fact that it has not been able to furnish the required accommodation to the ships which came there last year. I have heard a number of shipping men say that they would have been willing to have their traffic carried through the port of Montreal if they had been confident that when it reached there, it would have got early shipping accommodation. I am very glad that the Harbour Trust of Montreal are prepared to go on with the work and push it rapidly to completion. One more word. My hon. friend, I think, ought to acknowledge that his criticism on this proposal of the government is not timely or justifiable. My hon. friend's language was that the government ought not to have refused to give money, and ought not to have insisted on the Harbour Trust of Montreal 141
taking this money by -way of a loan, as these resolutions provide. I do not think my hon. friend, as an "ex-minister, and as one having so much to do with this question as a minister, was justified under all the circumstances, in getting up in his place and, without proper reflection and consideration, condemning the government for carrying out the very arrangements he warmly advocated when he was a member of the government.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Am I not advocating now what I did in the government for two or three years ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We must not tell.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Outside of it, then ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not find fault with the hon. gentleman for advocating what he advocates ; but advocacy is one thing, and criticism and condemnation of his late colleagues is another thing, for doing what he favoured and justified and arranged, and what they must do if his arrangements are to be carried out. What I complain of is that he says that the government should not have refused to give the harbour commissioners this money, and should not force them to take it as a loan. I say that criticism is unfounded, and I am surprised that my hon. friend should be so unmindful of the views and opinions he has held heretofore as to make that criticism on the present proposal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like just to offer an observation or two, and 1 must begin by saying to my hOn. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) that he surprised me a little in proposing, in an off-hand way, that the prosecution of these important works and the voting of this money should be postponed. My hon. friend, like many of his colleagues from the west, is always ready to urge the needs of the -west in connection with this very question of transportation ; but I have often noticed that once they get to this end of Lake Superior, my hon. friend and some of his colleagues do not realize the importance of this end of the question. I cannot understand -what my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) means when he says that, with respect to the wharf which we built below Montreal, we are in the same position as we are with respect to these projected works. The country in that case gave the money and there is no interest to pay. but in this case the government loans the money and there is interest to pay, so that I fail to understand how both cases are the same. Of course, as the hon. gentleman says, we collect harbour dues, but not as interest on the money.
I regret that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance should have seen in what I said



a desire to defend parochially the rights of Montreal. It was not in any local spirit that I approached this question. I view it as the general question of transportation. I have no interest in the harbour myself. My constituency lies outside the city, and I brought this matter before the House because I consider that in some parts of the country we are dealing with the transportation system in a different manner than we are dealing with it in other parts. In 1901 we collected $270,000; and if we are to accept the statement of the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, last year we collected a little more. But we cannot, without sacrificing, not only the port of Montreal but any other port that we may wish to nationalize, collect such a sum as $400,000, and that would be the least we would have to collect. The hon. Minister of Finance talks of the warehouses that are going to be built out of the $2,000,000. He is mistaken. It is sheds that we are building.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE..: A rose by another name will smell as sweet.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is a greater difference than my hon. friend will admit. When he talks of a warehouse he is talking of something that will produce large revenue, but we cannot have very much revenue out of those sheds. The charges now are too heavy and should be reduced, but we will never be able to reduce them under this system. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has fallen into the old system of complaining about Montreal taking away the trade of Quebec. That is absurd. The deepening of the St. Lawrence was not made with the object of ruining Quebec but of meeting the demands of trade. We have no grudge against Quebec. We are glad that considerable business is being done there, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that vessels all the world over will go as far inland as possible. My hon. friend must not forget that at present the port of New York is in a state of more or less decadence on account of its charges, and ships are going elsewhere. They go to Baltimore, Boston, Portland and other ports.


The TOSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are harbour dues at all these ports.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are and must be everywhere, but we must reduce them. If we want to compete with the American ports successfully, we must reduce our charges.


Robert Bickerdike: There are no harbour-dues in New York.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It comes to the same thing. There are charges and very heavy charges to be paid in New York. They take the shape of rentals, but it does not make much difference. I do not know what my right hon. friend meant when he said that" it was Montreal's oiwn fault if it is liable for this Mr. MONK.
large amount on which we cannot pay interest. It is not our fault, but is due to the situation of the harbour. These plans, which were made long ago, must be carried out, and for that the citizens of Montreal are not to blame.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The majority of the harbour commissioners are government appointees.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. PrSfontaine) was not exactly of the same opinion some months ago. He believed then that the harbour commissioners should be thrust aside and that the improvements to the harbour were so important that they should be carried out by himself. That point, however, I shall not discuss now. I would like to say to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals that we have given money in Montreal for the improvement of the harbour and have made great improvements in the approaches to the harbour and spent considerable sums of money. I might inform him also that in St. John the harbour charges collected go into the civic revenue. If that be the case, it makes a considerable difference. So that on the whole, I was right in saying that the government are to blame.
The ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) told us a few moments ago that this nationalization of our ports-he did not speak of Montreal alone-was approved of by this government at the time he was one of the ministers, and I really so understood by words which fell from several of the ministers at the time. What I find fault with is that these hon. gentlemen are to-day going back on that policy. Unless we adopt that system for the port of Montreal and the other important ports of the Dominion, then the millions we have spent and the millions we pledged to spend on railways will be to a large extent useless.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. Minister of Public Works has asked for practical suggestions, and I shall venture to offer him one. The hon. Minister of Finance said that it was the intention of the harbour commissioners of Montreal to spend $1,000,000 on an elevator and $2,000,000 in building a shed or warehouse, and that the revenue from the elevator would pay the interest on the $1,000,000 and the revenue from the shed or warehouse would pay the interest on the $2,000,000. But who is going to pay that ? If we put a million dollars into an elevator, who are going to use it but the farmers ? Who will pay the tolls but the farmers and not the people generally. Who will pay the rent of the shed ? The steamship companies, in the first place, but from whom will they collect it ? From the agriculturists of this country.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The charges are raised on the goods themselves.


George Taylor: It Is the steamship company that raises them.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, the harbour commissioners themselves.


George Taylor: And it comes straight out of the pockets of the farmers. If I buy a million bushels of wheat in the North-west, the water rate from Port Arthur to Montreal is four or five cents a bushel, and to Europe another four or five cents per bushel. But if this elevator, which my hon. friend is going to erect at the port of Montreal, is going to charge a quarter or a half of a cent for transhipping from the barges to the ocean going steamers, I will have to buy from the farmer at half a cent a bushel less than if the elevator were free. Let the government, in place of loaning these 83,000,000, hand the cash over as a gift to the harbour commissioners of Montreal, so that they may make these improvements without increasing the tolls. Let us have no tolls charged the farmers on this expenditure, for they are the parties who will* have to pay and not the general public. Let the government make this a national port, let them give this 83,000,000 out and out, and I am sure that the people of Ontario and the Dominion generally will be pleased to see Montreal made a national free port. We cannot compete successfully unless we have lower rates. If I have a million bushels of grain at Port Arthur to be shipped to Europe, and I get a ten cent rate by Boston and also a ten cent rate by the Canadian route together with these elevator charges, the grain will have to be shipped by Boston. One sixteenth of a cent will transfer the traffic from the Canadian to the American route, and this elevator charge at Montreal may have the effect of sending all the grain by the United States, and so we shall get no revenue whatever. There should be no elevator charges upon grain shipped from Port Arthur by the St. Lawrence route to a foreign market. Any charge that is maclc comes out of the pockets of the farmers of the North-west, or Ontario, or wherever the grain is grown. It comes out of the pockets [DOT]of the farmers, and not out of the pockets of the people generally.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I spoke of the people of Canada generally, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) is giving a meaning to the words that I did not intend. What I meant was that the charges had to be paid by those concerned in the traffic. I am as much a friend of the farmer as anybody. But I believe that if the farmer put his grain in a warehouse, he should pay for the privilege ; if he puts it in his own barn he pays for the barn. I believe the farmer is ready to pay for any service that is rendered to him. Of course, we might easily give free warehouse accommodation, or-yes, as an hon. friend belli*
sides me suggests, we might pay the freight from Winnipeg ; we might throw in cliro-mo ; we might offer many advantages ; but these are not business. We believe the farmer should be treated like a man. As touching the question of these trifling sheds, -to cost about 82,000,000-to which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has referred, and from which he says nothing will be received, I may say that I have been informed that the steamship companies have made arrangements to occupy these sheds instead of putting up sheds of their own, and the harbour commissioners are satisfied that they will get a revenue of 874,000 a year from that source.
, Mr. MONK. They will never get it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They say they will, and I believe they will.
Resolutions reported, and read the first and second time and agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 201) to provide for further advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
, At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
["If the hon. gentleman had carefully read the evidence that was given by Mr. Shutt he would find that the chemical experiments have been thoroughly unreliable. I have no hesitation in making that statement in this House. What did we elicit in Mr. Shutt's examination ? For instance, he was asked if, when he made the statement in his report comparing pigs bought in the west and those bought in the east, they were all alike, or was there some cause from which salt pork was found in the same condition in both lots, and he answered that was the, case. If that is the case, how can you lay down any rule? It is dangerous for any one to set afloat statements upon mere scientific bubble-blowing. With", 'regard to the chemical experiments, I have pointed out the contradictory sections of that bulletin with regard to the oil test, as it is called, the temperatures and so on, where the temperatures were professedly the same and he got very different results. I make no apology for saying that it is a most unreliable and damaging report. There is no difference in the feeding conditions. People are not so stupid in the west, although they live in a corn belt where pigs are fed entirely upon corn, as not to know the*value of feeding mixed grains other than corn. It was unfair to assume that because a lot of pigs were bought in the west, they were fed on com any more than in the east. The farmers in the west understand as well as those in the east that it is to their interest to feed pigs upon mixed grains.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 1.35 a.m. Friday.', 'Friday, June 12, 1903.']
Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: I have no doubt the House and the country generally felt a sense of relief when the government promised an investigation into the matter of the concession of the Treadgold grant in the Yukon and other similar hydraulic concessions. But if the House and the public felt any sense of relief at the time that announcement was made by the government, I venture to say that this feeling of relief and satisfaction was superseded by disappointment and even by a shock, when the public and the House read the instructions which were given to the commission which is to be appointed to investigate that matter. I purpose reading extracts from the instructions which were laid upon the Table of the House last Monday, so that I may bring to the minds of the members the utter farce which the government is trying to perpetrate upon the House and the country :
On a report dated 1903, from the Minister of Justice, submitting that for several years placer gold mining has been successfully carried on in the Yukon Territory, particularly in the district

traversed by the Klondike river, and rivers, streams, and creeks tributary thereto.
That only such claims as enjoyed water facilities have heretofore been profitably worked ; that gold is supposed to be distributed in the benches, banks and other elevated grounds along such rivers, streams and creeks.
That owing to the expense and difficulty involved in securing the necessary supply of water the successful prosecution of the industry throughout these last named localities has been seriously retarded and in many cases made impossible ; that it has been represented to the government that great expense is required to be incurred to collect, store and distribute the waters of the said benches, banks and elevated grounds.
That it has also been represented to the government that the extent and value of the deposits of gold in the said benches, creeks and elevated grounds is at present unknown, and must remain so until a sufficient supply of water is available for the construction of hydraulic works, and that parties advancing the moneys for the construction of said works must necessarily take great risks with respect to their investment.
That while it is fitting that reasonable and proper privileges and advantages should te offered which will induee parties to construct such hydraulic works, yet it is essential :
(a.) that no grants or concessions should be made that would interfere with the right to water which any free miner is entitled to under the regulations governing placer mining in the Yukon Territory ;
(b.) that the water so to be held and controlled by the hydraulic companies should be available on equal terms to all free miners whose claims can be profitably worked thereby, and subject to such reasonable rates and conditions to be fixed by the Governor in Ccuncil as shall secure the greatest possible advantage to the district in which the works are established.
That to obtain such hydraulic work and a supply of water for the benches, banks and elevated grounds above mentioned, certain powers, rights and privileges were granted by the Governor General in Council on the 21st of April, 1902, to Malcolm H. Orr-Ewing, A. N. C. Treadgold and Walter Barwick ; that it has been alleged the said grant and concession constitutes a monopoly, which, while depriving the treasury of enormous revenues, is most detrimental to the mining industry of the Yukon.
Now I desire to lay stress upon tills paragraph of instructions, because it is the most important of the whole document. Tt is the part in which the .jurisdiction of the commissioners who are to be appointed is limited, and it is limited simply to the obtaining of information showing to what extent the said concession is likely to be beneficial or injurious to the mining Interests of the said Yukon territory.
That it is very desirable that the commissioners making the inquiry should investigate generally all facts and circumstances which may afford information to the government and to parliament respecting the hydraulic or other means which it is desirable should be adopted [DOT] to successfully develop the benches, banks and other elevated grounds which could only be worked at great disadvantage under natural conditions, or are not able to be profitably Mr. CASGRAIN.
worked at all without an artificial supply of water.
The minister therefore recommends that under the provisions of chapter 114 of the reused statutes of Canada, being an Act entitled an Act respecting inquiries concerning public matters, it be referred-as commissioners to conduct such public inquiry for that purpose, holding the same in Dawson City and elsewhere in the Yukon as they shall determine, the said commissioners to have all the powers of summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, &c.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it will be observed that the only power which is given to these commissioners who are to be appointed is to investigate the scientific problem as to whether or not the hydraulic system is to be introduced into the Yukon Territory for the better carrying out of placer mining in that territory. That is the whole scope of the inquiry. It extends to the Treadgold concession and to other similar concessions, but no further, and also to the obtaining ot information 'respecting the hydraulic or other means which it is desirable should be adopted to' successfully develop the benches, banks and other elevated grounds which could only be worked at great disadvantage under natural conditions.' It will also be observed by the terms of these instructions that the commissioners are to sit in the Yukon Territory only, that is, at Dawson City, or anv other part of the Yukon Territory in which they see fit to sit.
Sir, since this matter was brought before the House some time ago, there is no doubt, and I think hon. gentlemen opposite will not controvert this statement, that there has been a general demand for an inquiry, not only from this side of the House, not only from people who are generally adverse to the present administration politically, but there has been a general demand from all those who have the true interests of the country at heart, that a thorough and complete investigation into all the circumstances surrounding the grant of the Treadgold concession and other hydraulic concessions in the Yukon Territory, should be made. The independent press has been unanimous upon this point, and has asked the government, has demanded from the government, that this investigation should be held. But, Sir, what kind of an investigation ? Not merely an investigation of the scientific questions which are dealt with in the instructions given to the commissioners who are to be appointed, not simply to know whether these hydraulic concessions are to the benefit or the injury of the free miners of the Yukon, but an investigation into all the circumstances surrounding the granting of the Treadgold concession and of other concessions of a similar nature. In a word, I take it that when the question came up before the House the public conscience of this country was shocked at the revelations which were made and brought to the notice of parliament by the reading of the docu-
44S9

meats of which myself and those who followed me in the debate on this side of the House, gave cognizance to this House.
Sir, it was only following up what had taken place in the Yukon itself ; because as I stated, without wishing at all to refer to a prior debate, I brought to the notice of the House the fact that a petition had been presented to this House by the Dawson Board of Trade and by hundreds, yes, by thousands, of the citizens of the Yukon Territory, in which these concessions were denounced in unmeasured terms. I hold in my hand now the petition which was presented to this House on the 16th of April, 1903, by the member of the Yukon. As the House will see, it is a bulky petition, there are many signatures attached to this petition. It was signed by the most prominent citizens of the Yukon, belonging to all shades of political opinion, not only by the adversaries of the government but by those citizens in the Yukon Territory who have at heart the true interests of the Dominion and the pure administration of the affairs of this country. What does this petition say amongst other things ?	.
That the benefits conferred upon the grantees are of incalculable value and involve an enormous exploitation of the public resources of this territory for the benefit of a few favoured concessionaires.
The House will understand what that means. It bore evidence on the face of it to the citizens of the Yukon Territory themselves that this was a grant which was made to certain favourites of the government and that it was an enormous exploitation of the public resources of the Territory to the detriment of the citizens of the Yukon and of the miners. This petition is a most important one because it comes from a public body of the Yukon which has no political leanings and it is signed by thousands of men who must know the condition of affairs in the Yukon and who come to this parliament and ask that an investigation be held into the charges which they make, not only against the concessionaires, but impliedly, also against those who gave these concessions to Treadgold and others.
I also hold in my hand another petition which was presented to the House of Commons from another public body in the Yukon. This is the petition of the corporation of the city of Dawson which is now before the House. It was also presented to this House by the hon. member who represents the Yukon on the 16th of April, 1903, and it contains exactly the same allegation as the petition I have just read; that is the petition of the Dawson Board of Trade. I take it that the condition created by these concessions must be grave indeed when all these citizens come to the House of Commons, call the attention of the House of Commons to these facts and take, as I believe, the unprecedented step of presenting these petitions to the House
and of making these grave charges in the face of the whole country. But, that is not all. If these petitions from the Dawson Board of Trade and from the corporation of the city of Dawson could have been instigated by any political feeling, surely the Liberal Association of Dawson could not have had in its mind any unwarrantable attack upon the administration which it supports. I hold in my hand here the Yukon,'Sun' which is the organ of the Liberal party of the Yukon Territory, and not only that, but, if I turn to page 2 of the issue which I hold in my hand, I find that the Yukon ' Official Gazette ' is the Saturday issue of the ' Sun ' so that it is the official newspaper of the Yukon Territory. According to this paper on the 1st of April last:
At a well attended meeting of the Liberal Club held last night at Pioneer Hall, steps were taken toward strengthening the hand of Mr. Ross, at Ottawa, on several matters of importance to the territory.
Further, a petition is resolved upon and adopted by the Liberal Club of Dawson, friends of hon. gentlemen opposite, then-supporters in the Yukon Territory, and what do we find in this petition ? We find amongst other things this :
Resolved, that an inquiry may be set on foot to ascertain the circumstances under which the leading hydraulic concessions were obtained in order that action may be taken by the Attorney General of Canada in the premises.
That was only following up what happened a few months ago in the Yukon Territory, because, as we all know, an election had taken place at which the hon. member who represents the Yukon Territory (Mr. Ross) was elected, and at that time he was asked very pointedly, in a question which was published in the papers, whether he would take steps to bring to punishment the officials at Ottawa and at Dawson who have given these large concessions to the favourites of the government. He was asked if he would not take the necessary steps to bring these people to punishment for the fraud which they had perpetrated upon the government or which these officials at Ottawa had perpetrated upon the government. We were told to bring specific charges-bring charges against any one, bring charges against any officials, or charges against any minister, bring charges of malfeasance against anybody in authority, make specific charges, say that you will give up your seat if these charges are not proved .and we will grant an immediate inquiry. That is what was thrown out to this side of the House by hon. gentlemen opposite. We have brought to the notice of the House and of the government the charges which are made by these public bodies to which I alluded a minute ago- the Dawson Board of Trade and the corporation of the city of Dawson. We have

brought to the notice of hon. gentlemen opposite the charges made by their own friends in the Yukon, we have laid them before the House and we say now that the government is on its defence and that it should take up these charges. If they are not true it will be good for lion, gentlemen opposite to have an investigation so as to prove that these charges are false and that there is absolutely nothing in them. First of all we were promised an investigation, not an investigation of a scientific character, to ascertain whether or not the government have made a provident bargain by giving these concessions to wash the gold in the Yukon Territory, but we were promised a complete investigation into the charges which had been laid at the door of the government. We were promised this and it was said :	We have not had time yet
to investigate these charges or to appoint commissioners or a committee of this House to investigate them. We are waiting until the hon. member for the Yukon arrives. The navigation is not quite open in the Territory, but wait until navigation is open. Wait until the hon. gentleman takes his seat. I am sorry he is not here. I understand onj very good authority that he will not be here again this session. Wait, and everything that you have said in this House will be investigated by the commissioner :
When the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) returns to Ottawa.-he Is at present in British Columbia. I understand-and we can have the benefit of his advice, it is our intention to fully carry out the representations made to the citizens of the Yukon to have a full investigation into all charges or suspicions that hon. gentlemen may be good enough to mention or entertain in regard to any matters connected with the Yukon administration. I give that public notice to my hon. friend1, so that, in addition to the advantage he has had of ventilating his views on the floor of this House, he will have an opportunity to make good, if he can, any of his charges or suspicions before a tribunal where newspaper extracts and let ters will not be the only evidence, but where gentlemen will have the privilege of pledging their oaths to the truth of all they say.
This was the pledge that was given to this House by the hon. gentleman who spoke for the government when this matter was' brought up. The hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) in reply to the speech which I had the honour to make to the House on the 12th of May last, made a solemn promise to the House and the country that a full and complete Investigation would be held iuto all the charges made at that time against the government, against officials, grantees and concessionaires. I cannot see why the government has changed its mind. We were notified the other day, it is true that the government had come to another conclusion, before these instructions were laid on the Table of the House. We were surprised that it should be given out in the House that the government had recanted, that the * Mr. CASGRAIN.
government had come to another conclusion, that it was not going to grant this full and complete investigation into the charges of fraud which had been laid at its door, but that it was simply going to grant the investigation which is foreshadowed in the instructions to the commissioners which I read a moment ago. At that time the surprise was great. We felt there must be some misapprehension in the mind of the hon. gentleman who was then addressing the House. We could not for a moment believe after that the solemn pledge which had been given to the House in the name of the government by the hon. Postmaster General, that the government would in such a short time change its mind and come to the House, with, as I said before, this farce of an investigation which is going to be confided to Mr. Justice Britton and others. What is the reason of that change of opinion on the part of the hon. ministers who are responsible for the giving of these concessions in the Yukon ? Why do they not now say that they are going to grant a full and complete inquiry into the charges which these people from the Yukon make against the government and the officials who are in charge of this department ?
What has come across the spirit of their dreams ! The natural conclusion and the only conclusion to which this House and the country can come is, that there are guilty parties whom the government is interested in protecting. Here was a minister speaking for the government in this debate and he said on the floor of parliament: you should have known that it has been decided long ago by the government to give a full and complete inquiry into these charges ; we are going to give it as soon as we can and this investigation is going to be so complete that you will have an opportunity of proving all the charges you have made. But when the instructions were brought dowrn we found that the inquiry was limited to the one point as to whether it was provident or improvident on the part of the government to give these concessions in the Yukon Territory. I repeat, and the country will endorse me when I say, that every independent man in this country will come to the conclusion that the only reason why the government is limiting this investigation is because the charges that were made on the 12tli of May in this House, the charges which were made by the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) the other day, are absolutely true, and the government dare not go before a commission even of its own appointment to have these charges investigated, because they are so true that some one on the government benches probably would find these charges so true that he would have to retire from public life.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. CASGRAIN.: There is noticeable also a change In the manner of the right hon.

the Prime Minister. Compare his conduct now with his conduct in reference to the Drummond County matter. Here are his remarks delivered on February 15tli, 189S- I quote from 'Hansard':
The reasons which compel the government to make this motion will he understood by every one in this House, and I presume also appreciated by everybody. Last year the government undertook to extend the Intercolonial Railway from the present terminus at Chaudidre to Montreal. I am under the impression that this scheme had been engaging the attention of previous governments for some years past. The government selected a route which had the advantage of being, by twenty miles, shorter than the route existing between Ldvis and Montreal over the Grand Trunk Railway and which bad the further merit and advantage of avoiding the chain of mountains which are adjacent to the St. Francis river near Richmond.
I call the attention of the House to this part of my right hon. friend's remarks :
But, suspicious as to the dealings of the government with the company in question-the Drummond Country Railway Company-having been thrown out to the public, the government deem it their duty to court every inquiry and to see that all charges may be properly ventilated.
Here the Prime Minister states that the only reason why the government granted the Drummond County inquiry was because suspicions had been thrown out to the public with regard to the government dealings in the purchase of that railway. There were no specific charges made in this House. We were not defied to make these specific charges, but as the right lion, gentleman says, it was only because suspicions had been thrown out that it was the duty of the government to ask for a full and complete inquiry, and the Prime Minister moved :
That a special committee of the House be appointed to inquire into the expenditure of the subsidies granted by the parliament of Canada in aid of the construction of the Drummond County Railway and into all negotiations rnd transactions between the government of Canada and any member or officer thereof, or any person in its behalf, and the. Drummond County Railway Company, or any director, officer or person in the company's behalf, relating to the acquiring of the siaid railway by the government ; with power to send for papers, persons and records, and to report the evidence to this House, together with the opinion of the said committee thereupon.
How is it that the government has changed its mind now. Why is it that when charges are made by responsible persons in the Yukon, by the Dawson Board of Trade, by the municipal corporation of the city of Dawson. yes, and by even the friends and supporters of the government ; why is it that these charges and these accusations are not to be investigated, while mere suspicions in connection with the Drummond County railway purchase were to be the subject of a full and complete investigation. There is one other reason why the inquiry is limited
to discovering whether Treadgold should have the power to construct hydraulic works in the Yukon, and that one other reason is, that tiie commission is worded in this way in order to throw sand into the eyes of the public. Public opinion demanded a full and complete investigation into everything connected with the transaction, and this kind of investigation is granted so that the government may be able to say : oh, well, we granted an inquiry any way. We well remember how in the first years of this government they used to say to us :	We
will investigate every charge and every accusation you can bring against the government, and not only that, but we will investigate even every suspicion of wrong doing so that the people may know that the men who now sit on the treasury benches compose the purest government that ever held power in Canada. Alas ; how they have changed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Probably the government is growing old and probably a little more wicked than it was in its earlier days, and now we see charges whicji have shocked the public conscience relegated to one side and not investigated. We object to the proposed investigation ; first : because it is too limited in its scope, and second because it is an investigation by a royal commission. What the country demands is a full and complete investigation by a committee of parliament Parliament is in session now and we can have an investigation before a committee of this House. We gave the reason some time ago, why we objected to the appointment of Mr. Justice Britton, and X shall not refer to that again further than to say that tiie independent press of this country unite in beseeching him not to accept the position which the government has offered to him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: The Toronto 'News' is not a journal favouring this side of the House, and it can X believe be called an independent exponent of public opinion. On the 9th instant the Toronto ' News ' wrote :
A Case for Diffidence.
There is no attack, so far as we are aware, upon Mr. Justice Britton as a judge. Not a word has been said in derogation of his impartiality. But it is a thoroughly recognized principle that the best and most impartial judge on the bench should not sit upon a case in which he has had. at any time, a private interest. British practice assumes that in such a case there is a possibility of the most upright men being swayed by an unconscious bias. British scrupulousness has impelled many judges to decline the embarrassment of cases in which their interest was more remote than Judge Britton's in the Yukon case.
Mr. Britton, as M.P., for Kingston, was the government's spokesman in the Yukon scandals debate of 1900. There is a clear historic con-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir Wm. Muloek).: I wish, Mr. Speaker, that I could congratulate the bon. gentleman on
having shown at least some measure of parliamentary courage in the way he has presented his case to the House. He has taken shelter behind his position as a member and, though challenged four weeks ago, has not up to this moment been able to summon sufficient courage to pledge his own faith to the charges he would fain have ventilated. He has told us that public opinion demands a full inquiry. But let us see what the hon. gentleman did ask by the motion he presented to parliament on the 12th of May last. The motion was as follows :
That all the words after the word ' that ' be left out, and the following added instead thereof ttfis House regrets that by an Order in Council of date the 21st day of April, 1902, the government, for the ostensible purpose of establishing hydraulic works to supply water for the efficient working of auriferous deposits, have granted to one A. N. C. Treadgold, of London, England, and his associates, vast powers, franchises and concessions in and upon the bends, banks, valleys, slopes and hills of the Klondike river. Bonanza, Bear and Hunker creeks, and in and upon the waters of Rock creek, in the Yukon Teritory, with the right to establish for the benefit and advantage of the concessionaires, in and through the region and district through which these rivers and creeks run, hydraulic, electrical and other systems, and to enter and to take up and operate mining and other lands.
This House is of opinion that the said powers, franchises and concessions constitute in favour of the said Treadgold and his associates a gigantic monopoly which, while depriving the treasury of enormous revenues, is most detrimental to the mining industry of the Yukon.
And that in so making the said grants and concessions by Order in Council the government have exceeded their authority and have committed a gross breach of the duty entrusted to them under the constitution.
That simply referred to the Treadgold concession. It1 simply charged that great advantages had been given to the concessionaires and that the government had acted ultra vires. There is nothing in that motion making reference to other concessions or charging bad faith of fraud or concealment or misrepresentation. There is in it nothing whatever except that a grant had been made, which, in its financial aspects, appeared to have been against the public interest.	That was the extent of the
grievance which the hon. gentleman set up in his motion on the 12th of May. That represented the gravamen of his charge. That was the full extent to which he could go in seeking to make any insinuation or charge against the government. - How did we meet that motion ? We made an order; we directed an inquiry. This order is far more comprehensive even than my hon. friend suggested on that occasion. It not only directed an inquiry into the Treadgold concession, but directed an inquii-y with regard to All hydraulic concessions and also as to the best means of development of the placer mining interests of the Yukon -a far more comprehensive inquiry than


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: My hon. friend, with a , great flourish, produces a petition from certain persons. He reads from that petition and suggests that the commission that has been appointed does not cover the case made in this petition. The petition dees not deal with the matters to which my hon. friend refers, provided he read the whole of the petition. This petition, which the hon. gentleman has been kind enough to send me says :
The benefits conferred upon the grantees are of incalculable value, and involve an enormous sacrifice of the resources of this territory for the benefit of a few favoured concessionaires.
I have not read all the petition, but on that point at least, it will hardly be said that it is not covered by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission, after reciting the Treadgold concession, proceeds to say :
That it is important in the public interest that inquiry be made for the purpose of obtaining information showing to what extent the said grant and concession is likely to be beneficial or injurious to the mining interests of the Yukon Territory.
What is the meaning of that part of the order of reference ? My1 hon. friend- says that the charge is that the concessionaires have obtained great advantage at the expense of the public. The order of reference isi to ascertain whether the grant is likely to be beneficial or injurious to the mining interests of the Yukon Territory. Will any hon. gentleman say that, under that order the charge made in this petition is not fully7 capable of being inquired into ? The order of reference goes on :
That it is also desirable that at the same time the inquiry should not be limited to the said grant and concession, but should extend to all similar concessions granted in the Yukon Territory ;
That it is further desirable that the commissioners making the inquiry should investigate generally all facts and circumstances which may afford information to the government and to parliament respecting the hydraulic or other means which it is desirable should be adopted to successfully develop the benches, banks, and other elevated grounds which can only be worked at great disadvantage under natural conditions or are not able to be worked at all without an artificial supply of water.
So, the point made in this petition is amply covered by the order of reference. But my hon. friend says that an article was read some weeks ago in this House emanating from the Yukon ' Sun,' containing certain charges, and that these are not made a subject of inquiry. I would like to know what would become of parliamentary practice if the charges made in newspapers were to be made the foundation of parliamentary inquiry. My hon. friend cites the case of Mr. Butt, iii which, he says, a member of parliament was able to obtain a parliamentary inquiry" to meet
a charge made against him in an article in the London ' Times.' But where is the charge made against any named person iu any newspaper or by any bon. member of this House ? The hon. gentleman has not dared to name a man. He has made insinuations. If it were parliamentry, I would say that he has assumed a most unworthy part; if I were permitted by the rules to say so 1 would say that he had adopted a cowardly course in making insinuations against members of this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 say, Sir, that if it were parliamentary X wouid charge him with having followed a most cowardly procedure in not having named some hon. member instead of insinuating. Let him rise in his place and make a charge against any man and we shall know how to deal with it. But, until he does so, let him not seek a parallel in Mr. Butt's case. In that case, the editor had the manliness to name the member, and the member availed himself of his position to ask for the benefit of an inquiry. Will the hon. gentleman say who is named in this case ? Has he ever named any one ? Does he now name any one ? I will give place to him, if he will rise and name some one in the government or out of the government against who he dare to level a charge. Let him, if he dare, put his honour in the balance with the honour of the man he assails, and we shall see which way the balance will go. But, until he does that, he has not made a case similar to that of Mr. Butt, but has rather put himself in a position which enables him to shelter himself behind the privileges of the House to utter words that will be spread broadcast throughout the country in the hopes that they will spread their poison in fertile ground. Mr. Chairman, the questions resolve themselves into two. The first point is whether there have been improvident grants-whether these concessions have been granted against the public interest. My hon. friend will not say that that branch of the question is not fully covered by the order of reference. Why be so indignant against the appointment of Judge Britton if he is not called upon to deal with the class of charge that my hon. friend shrinks from making but only Insinuates ? If it is merely an inquiry into the business phase of the question, the personality of the commissioner is not of such special importance. If, however, the charge were of a different character then, perhaps, my hon. friend would have some force in his contention that, according to the form of the charge the inquiry might be before a different tribunal-perhaps, before a committee of the House. But, up to this moment, the hon. gentleman has not ventured to suggest anything that would commit him to the truthfulness or belief in the truthful-

ness or otherwise of any accusation. He simply alludes to the business phase of the question, shirking carefully any personal responsibility as to the accusations he has made. Now, 1 ask, Mr. Chairman, is it fair for the hon. gentleman to act in that way ? Is it fair toward the country for him to make use of his position as a member of this House to make insinuation, and yet, at the same time, to shrink from the responsibility of making charges V Other members of this House in days gone by have, at different times, had the courage of their suspicions. But not so on this occasion. And yet my hon. friend seeks to add to his motion of the 12th of May, by pretending that it asked for more than it did, and endeavours to make out that the House is bound to do more than he asked for on that occasion, because, at a subsequent date, I made a statement, whieh, lie says, would carry the inquiry beyond the limit to which it is at present confined. What were the circumstances under which I made the statement ? My hon. friend was well aware that Mr. Ross, the hon. member for the Yukon is more or less familiar with the conditions of the Yukon, and more or less familiar with the state of public opinion in that district. He is aware that this question became a political question during the election in the Yukon, and the people there naturally look to Mr. Ross, as their representative, to take a more or less active part in dealing with matters that interest them. Therefore, when this question came before the House, at the time it did, it seemed to me inopportune that we should finally dispose of the case in the absence' of the hon. member for'the Yukon. At that time the member for the Yukon was not in his place in parliament. Every one knows that he has sustained a great bereavement and that his health broke down under the sad affliction, and although he hoped to be able to attend the session, yet his health has obliged him to absent himself. When this matter came before the House the government had no opportunity of consulting with him, we did not know his precise whereabouts, he was in the west moving about for his health. I think at the moment he was in British Columbia, and it was some time before I found out his whereabouts. But I stated in the House that when Mr. Ross came to Ottawa and we had an opportunity of consulting with him with regard to all the matters of the Yukon, we would issue a commission of inquiry of the character to which I referred. I have not yet seen Mr. Ross, he has not yet been to Ottawa, I trust his health will enable him to come here; but up to this moment we have not had an opportunity of seeing him, and therefore the inquiry which was proposed to be undertaken must be deferred until his arrival.
I would add that in connection with the Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
same statement I made, I then suggested that the inquiry would be as extensive as the hon. gentleman's charges, and if it were limited to his charges at this moment, certainly it would not be a very extensive inquiry. Nevertheless, no matter at what stage of the session it be brought up, I tell the hon. gentleman now that whenever he is prepared to make charges against the honour of any minister, or against the conduct of any officer of the Crown, his charge will be dealt with in a parliamentary way. But it has not been the practice in the past, and I question if it would be a sound practice to inaugurate to-day, for an hon. member of this House to say that certain charges having been made broadcast over the country, therefore on such an unsound foundation, parliament should undertake a solemn investigation. Why, Sir, I would ask the hon. gentleman what is the nature of the inquiry that is to be made ? He is a member of the bar. What would be thought of him if he were to appear in court in support of a plaintiff's claim, and there was nothing on record to show the nature of that claim ? The most simple opportunity of pleading a case requires that some particulars of the complaint should be required. It is not sufficient to issue a writ and to bring the defendant into court on a writ. The defendant is entitled to more than that. In the first place, he is entitled to the particulars. In this case the hon. gentleman wants to bring unknown parties into court, giving no names of the parties accused, nor the offence of which he thinks they ought to be accused. What sort of a position is that ? Yet that is the position into which he asks parliament to put itself.
I think at the last debate-if we may refer to that-the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and other gentlemen of fertile imagination spoke about rumours in London, rumours in New York, rumours in the Yukon. Fancy a committee sitting down to inquire into rumours in London, rumours in New York, rumours in the Yukon, rumours in the heart of members of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, lam not surprised at the hon. member for Montmorency making such a speech; I am not surprised at his endeavouring by his quotations and allegations, made on hearsay, to escape from the position in which lie put himself by the absurd argument he presented to parliament a few weeks ago. We have granted him the inquiry he asked for then.
But he says the independent press is in hitf favour. The only journal of the independent press which he ventured to quote from was the Toronto ' News,' and if I recollect aright the Toronto ' News ' said that if Mr. Casgrain believed in the correctness of his charges it was due to parliament that he should take the responsibility of formulating them. I have got a file of the ' News ' here, and I find a piece in the editorial col-

umn of a certain date absent. I do not know whether it is the date in question or not. But my impression is that the Toronto ' News ' says that if he desired an inquiry he should have assumed the responsibility of making that charge.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: You had better read the article.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot find the article containing that. But whether the independent press says that or not, I remember very well the practice of parliament, and until the practice of parliament changes, I presume this House will not, on this occasion, inaugurate such an absurd practice, as to refer to a parliamentary inquiry, rumours that have been heard on the streets of London, on the streets of New York, and the streets of Dawson, and are being circulated and added to, very frequently, by lion, gentlemen opposite.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is what the hon. gentleman does not like, I think.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not mind fair play, Mr. Speaker, but I do object to unmanly conduct, even on the floors of parliament.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would not go to the hon gentleman to learn fair play.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, I wish the hon. gentleman would. If the hon. gentleman would appeal to me for a precedent he would find one. But, Mr. Speaker, we may turn this question over and over as we like, it all comes back to the same point. I put it now, and will put it as often as this occasion is presented, or other occasions are presented: Name some person, name your charge, and if it is worthy of investigation the government will order the investigation. But the investigation is probably the last thing the hon. gentleman wants. He will not put himself into the position of moving this House to make an investigation. Why won't he ? Because, doubtless, he knows the investigation would fail. Knowing it would fail, he would cover his retreat by a pretense of desiring an investigation which he probably is the last one to hope will be granted. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the order of reference completely meets the motion of the 12th of May, goes far beyond that motion; and if the hon. gentleman desires any further order, he has only to put himself in parliamentary order and he will get the further inquiry desired.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know whether the public will appreciate the conduct of my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) in the same way it has been appreciated by the Postmaster General to-night. But between the conduct of my hon. friend from Montmorency and the backdown of the Postmaster General. I think there will be many people in this Dominion, many intelligent people, to see the difference. Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Montmorency brought to the knowledge of this House, not faint rumour, but facts. Does the Postmaster General pretend that the application of the Dawson Board of Trade, made, if I mistake not, to this House


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is fully covered by the order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does he pretend that it is not worthy of some notice V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is fully covered by the order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is not covered by the order.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Read it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Nor is any other document covered to which my hon. friend refers. Is the clear, unmistakable manifesto of the Liberal Club of Dawson City, alleging that these concessions have been obtained by unlawful and corrupt means, and cannot have been obtained otherwise, is that fully covered by the order ? Why, my hon. friend knows, himself, that when this matter was first brought to his notice, before the public press had given evidence, Mr. Speaker, of knowing a little more than my hon. friend dreamed was known among the public, my hon. friend was the first to get up in this House, and, speaking for the government, what language did he hold ? I will read it again to my hon. friend and to hon. members of this House, so that they can see the difference between the language held on that occasion by the hon. Postmaster General and his vain effort to-night to try and crawl out by the back door and refuse that investigation, which is the only one that can possibly lay the real facts of this sinister affair before the public of this country. What did the hon. gentleman say ?
I would also say to my hon. friend-
He was speaking to my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain).
-who tells us that he is so desirous of investigation that I am sure he must well know that it has been long the fixed intention of the government to hold such an investigation. The hen. gentleman must remember that, when the election was held, promises-
Because of the demands that were made, were given to the people oj the Yukon that there would be a commission to inquire into the whole administration of that terri'.ory. There has been no opportunity since that date until the present to send in commissioners I doubt if navigation is more than open, even if it is yet open. When the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) returns to Ottawa,-he is at present in British Columbia. I understand -and we can have the benefit of his advice, it is our intention to fully carry out the representations made to the citizens of the Yukon to have a full investigation into all charges or

suspicions that hon. gentlemen may be good enough to mention or entertain in regard to any matters connected with the Yukon administration.
And so on. There was at that time given to this House by the hon. Postmaster General, speaking for the government, the assurance that a full and thorough investigation would be made into all these suspicious circumstances which three or four responsible bodies of that important territory, which the population in its entirety have been exacting from the government; at all events, ever since there was an election held in the district. Under these circumstances it seems a monstrous injustice that the hon. Postmaster General, changing and shifting his position entirely to-night, should come before the House and endeavour to vindicate and defend an investigation so limited in its scope as to be absolutely useless. Names ! My hon. friend wants names. He wants my hon. friend from Montmorency and he wants me, whose knowledge of the facts is limited to what I have stated here to-night and what I will state again, to name the men, to name the ministers connected with this nefarious transaction. We will not do it. But, Mr. Speaker, which is the department which must have engineered this grant 7 It is the Department of the Interior, and 1 say boldly here to-night that it is a strange thing during the whole of this long session, when these things have been noised among the people before the opening of the session, when we knew of them, that the hon. Minister of the Interior the (Hon. Mr. Sifton) should be absent. I say this boldly. I do not think it is necessary for the hon. Minister of the Interior to be away from his department during the whole of this important session and that whatever may have been his business on the other side of the Atlantic he could have transacted that business and instructed those called upon to defend the Alaskan boundary so that he could have been here in order to give us these explanations which in his absence we lack absolutely. This is not a political question. The absence of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) is not an obstacle to a full and entire investigation. My hon. friend from Montmorency having quoted here the utterances of the board of trade of Dawson city, having given us, in addition, the utterances of the city council and given us, in addition, published in the Yukon official ' Gazette,' the statement of an important association, one which could not have been prejudiced against this government, that these concessions not only were erroneous, not only were destructive of the public good and of the prosperity of the miners, but that they cannot have been obtained otherwise than by corrupt and irregular methods. My hon. friend, having made us acquainted the other day with the pledges given by Mr. MONK.
Mr. Ross, whose absence is regretted, upon the occasion of his election that he would ask for the revocation of these concessions and that lie would, moreover, insist with this government upon a full investigation, it is vain under all these circumstances for hon. gentlemen opposite to endeavour to escape from the promise of the hon. Postmaster General upon the plea that we are not prepared here-members of this House to come down and incriminate in their absence other members of this House. I shall not take such a responsibility. It is not necessary for us to do so, but what we have to do is to announce to the government the utterances of these important bodies asking for an investigation which will go fully into the transactions previous to the obtaining of these concessions. Do the hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches imagine that an investigation of the nature of that which they desire to hold is an investigation that would satisfy the people ? I have referred to the rumours which exist throughout the country, which any man who takes the trouble to investigate will find to be absolutely logical rumours. Will these rumours be quieted by such an investigation as the hon. Postmaster General proposes to have 7 I would ask the right hon. gentleman who leads this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) fearlessly to-night if it is not the case that matters were brought to the notice of His Excellency the Governor General and by the Governor General brought to the notice of the right hon. gentleman himself.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I deny that in the most positive and absolute terms.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are obliged to accept the right hon. gentleman's denial, but the right hon. gentleman surely has heard these rumours himself or else none of the noises of this world that reach the country are heard by him. The matter has been repeated again and again not to people who are seeking scandal, not to people, who, in the delicate language of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), the other day were described as being people occupied in collecting garbage and spuming it out before this House-whatever may be the sense of that phrase. The thing has been repeated time and again from different parts of this Dominion and elsewhere and under these circumstances what my hon. friend the member for Montmorency has said is more than true. It behooves the right hon. gentleman and it behooves the hon. Postmaster General, if they believe in the vanity of all these sayings, if they believe that the utterances of these men who live far from here and who have denounced this transaction in it be strongest possible terms that have ever been used to my knowledge in this House, to fix the guilt if guilt there is, upon somebody. It may be some inferior official, it may be

men who by fraudulent means have been the ^instruments of those who obtained these concessions it may be higher up because such things have been seen before.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Under all these circumstances, the Postmaster General has adopted a most unjust manner of getting out of this serious affair, in having this investigation held by a judge who is not acceptable to botli parties for the excellent reasons already stated to this House. An investigation into the hydraulic necessities of the Yukon and the value of these concessions from an hydraulic point of view will not satisfy the people of this country. X believe, Sir, that it is constitutional and logical for us to take the stand which I have taken previously on this subject, and which is now taken by my hon. friend from Montmorency. It is neither constitutional nor fair, nor is it according to parliamentary law in Canada or England, that when the utterances of these responsible bodies living in a remote part of the country are brought to ,the notice of this House, that we should be ,told that the hon. member who brings them to the attention of the House must be prepared to stake his reputation as a member of this parliament and to make a specific charge against the guilty parties whose names are not yet known, before an investigation will be granted.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hepr, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Question.


Robert Laird Borden: Before ,the question is put, I wish to call the attention of the Postmaster General to one or two circumstances connected with this matter. We know that the election of Mr. Ross for the Yukon was heralded throughout the length and breadth of Canada as a victory for the Liberal party. We saw it paraded in every Liberal newspaper in Canada as a vindication of the splendidly pure administration given by this government to the Yukon Territory. Now, I would like to point out to the Postmaster General and to the Prime Minister what Mr. Ross's platform was oa that occasion. I will leave out-no I will not leave out; I will read the whole of the sentence which contains the language to which I refer. I
I shall advocate the reduction of fees, which,
I think, may now be safely done without impairing the revenue ; the adoption of regulations compelling the actual working of claims ; the establishment of an assay office in Dawson, where miners may obtain full value for their gold, such office to be operated in conjunction with the quartz mill, where ore may be tested free of charge ; the thorough investigation of the charges of fraud made in respect to the manner in which certain concessions are alleged to have been obtained, and if such f-aud is established, the immediate commencement of such proceedings as may be required to vacate I
the grants, and the enforcement of strict compliance with the conditions embodied in all Crown grants in the Yukon.
In passing I may say that this is the platform of Mr. Ross as contained in the official organ of this government, ' The Yukon Sun,' which received from the government last year no less a sum than nearly [DOT]'f-,400 for advertising and printing done by the individuals who happen to be the fortunate possessors of that paper. Then the advertised platform of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Iioss) is surmounted with a very good portrait of him indeed and the planks of bis platform are laid down :
1.	Reduced fee for miners' licenses and recording.
2.	Government aid for a smelter.
3.	Free quartz test mill and assay office at Dawson.
4.	National ownership of large water rights.
5.	Cancellation of concessions obtained by fraud.
That is the platform on which Mr. Ross comes to this House, and there is this significant feature in connection with it: that this platform is what the Postmaster General had in mind when a few weeks ago he pledged that there should be an investigation not only as to the providence or improvidence of this Threadgold concession, but an invesigation into every circumstance or suspicion that had been raised with regard to it. The language of the platform of the member for the Yukon and the language of the Postmaster General run on identical lines. The platform signed by Mr. J. H. Ross to the Yukon electors was :
I shall advocate the thorough investigation of the charges of fraud made in respect to the manner in which certain concessions are alleged to have been obtained.
It is not my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) who is making these charges of fraud. It is the member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) who by his promise and pledge to the people of the country said that upon coming to this parliament he would advocate a thorough investigation of those very charges, the investigation of which is demanded by my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) to-night.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: And my hon. friend from Montmorency standing in his place here to-night is only adopting the platform of Mr. Ross the member for the Yukon in asking the government to have a full inquiry.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Let the Postmaster General bear that in mind before he attempts to taunt my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) in the weak and .unworthy manner in which he has attempted to taunt him to-night.

Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, bear.


Robert Laird Borden: The member for the Yukon says 1 I will advocate a thorough investigation of these frauds,' and a few days ago the Postmaster General speaking perhaps a little hastily as he sometimes does, but speaking candidly said :
I would also state to my hon. friend who tells us that he is very desirous of investigation, that I am sure he must well know that it has long been the fixed intention of the government to hold such an investigation.
How was my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) to know it. He was only to know it from the fact that the member from the Yukon, elected as a supporter of this government had promised his electors that' lie would obtain for them a thorough investigation into these very charges of fraud which were brought to the attention of the House tonight by the hon. gentleman from Montmorency.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Postmaster General continued :
The hon. gentleman must remember that when the election was held, promises were given to the people of the Yukon that there would be a commission to inquire into the whole administration of that territory.
And in what language was that promise given. Let me read once more.
A thorough investigation of the charges of fraud made in respect to the manner in which certain concessions are alleged to have been obtained, and if such fraud is established the immediate commencement of such proceedings as may be required to vacate the grants.
That beyond doubt is the language to which the Postmaster General was alluding, and the platform of the hon. member for the Yukon is the only source from which the hon. member for Montmorency could have obtained the knowledge which was attributed to him by the Postmaster General. But the Postmaster General taunts the hon. member for Montmorency and he says : Name your names and give us something more than mere rumours. I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman who leads the House, and the hon. Postmaster General, to show me the names that were given in the resolution moved by the right hon. gentleman with regard to the Drummond County Rail-wav. I pause to ask either one of these hon. gentlemen to show me one single line in that resolution giving the name of any individual. And yet the right hon. gentleman, on that occasion, adopting a course very different from that which he asks the hon. Postmaster General to defend to-night, said :
The reasons which compel the government to make this motion will be understood by every one in this House. Suspicions as to the dealings of the government with the company Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
in question, the Drummond County Railway Company, having been thrown out to the public, the government deem it their duty to court every inquiry, and to see that all charges may be properly ventilated.
Well, why do the government not deem it their duty now, when the platform of their own candidate in the Yukon demanded that these charges should be investigated, why do they not deem it their duty to court every inquiry, and why does my hon. friend the Postmaster General stand up in this House and say : Name me some names, and I will give you the inquiry ? What is the difference ? Having regard to the platform of their own candidate, having regard to the charges of the Liberal clubs, having regard to the charges put forward by the board of trade and the corporation of the city of Dawson, there is tenfold more reason why the government should on this occasion court inquiry than there was on the occasion on which my right hon. friend stood up in this House and, amid the applause of his followers, said : The government deem it their duty to court every inquiry, suspicions having been thrown out to the public ; and the same hon. gentlemen who hailed that announcement with applause sit in their seats to-night and hail with applause the announcement of the hon. Postmaster General that the government not only do not court any inquiry, but will not grant any inquiry unless names are named. I leave the hon. gentlemen to their own position in that respect ; but the public of Canada will not. I think, be slow to appreciate the difference in the attitude of the government on that occasion, when the right hon. gentleman thought it his duty to court inquiry, and on this occasion, when the hon. Postmaster General, having spoken for the Crown and having promised a thorough Investigation of every subject, stands up and says that he has fulfilled every obligation to the people of this country by granting a mere investigation as to whether or not the concession granted to Mr. Treadgold and his associates was a provident or improvident concession. Take the resolution of my hon. friend from Montmorency, read that resolution from beginning to end. and point out if you can one single word in it that is not justified by the facts. My hon. friend the Postmaster General did not attempt to do that. He contented himself with standing up in this House and throwing a few weak taunts at my hon. friend from Montmorency ; and then, notwithstanding the platform on which his candidate was elected, notwithstanding his own direct reference to that platform a few weeks ago. notwithstanding his deliberate promise to this House, speaking, as he did. for the government, he has the audacity now to say that this government have fulfilled every pledge and every duty to the House and the country by granting this ineffectual commission.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it .may be possible for the government, with the aid of their followers, to vote down this motion ; bnt all I have to say is that in doing so they are departing from their own direct pledge, conveyed to the House and the country through the hon. Postmaster General, and they are departing from the promise made by their own candidate to the electorate of the Yukon, upon which he obtained his election to this House, and upon which his election was hailed as a Liberal victory. If my right hon. friend and his colleagues are satisfied with the contrast their conduct on this occasion presents to the attitude of my right hon. friend when he moved for the inquiry with regard to the Drummond County Hailway, we shall leave them to their satisfaction ; but when the country comes to pass judgment on this matter, i do not think that it will be so easily satisfied as are the members of the government and those who support them in this House.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: Mr. Speaker, I think that any deliberate or calm-minded individual who may be present and hear this discussion, will feel rather compelled to the conclusion that our hon. friends opposite are endeavouring, by the violence of their language and the apparent intensity of their feelings, to make up for an exceedingly weak case-for a dearth of material and a lack of facts to fit the accusations which they are making against the government. My hon. friend starts out with intimating that in the proposal which the government has made for an inquiry into this Yukon matter, we are simply showing what an utter farce the thing has developed into, because we have limited the scope of the inquiry to the questions of hydraulic mining and the character of the country from the hydraulic mining point of view. If this is such an iniquitous farce as the hon. gentleman chooses to characterize it, then all the more readily is it capable of being proved that it is a farce, that we are not covering the ground which the public interests require us to cover, and that we are not going the length we ought to go in the investigation which we are to make. I take my hon. friend's resolution, and I am prepared to follow the various clauses and statements contained in it; and I take it that my hon. friend has put forward the very best case he can ; that he has alleged the strongest possible facts ; that he has summoned to his assistance all that his ingenuity would suggest in the framing of the resolution, to lead up to the conclusion which he asks the House to draw, and which he has himself drawn, namely, that the proposal of the government is nothing but an iniquitous farce. My hon. friend says in this resolution :
For some time the grants by the government of Canada to certain parties, and, among others, 142
to A. N. C. Treadgold and his associates, of hydraulic concessions in the Yukon Territory, have been publicly denounced as fraudulent :
That at a convention held in the city of Dawson, on or about the 1st of October, 1902, for the purpose of selecting a Liberal candidate to represent the Yukon Territory in this parliament of Canada, it was, among other things, resolved, that many of the concessions above mentioned were obtained by fraud and imposition.	.
Now, I ask my hon. friends calmly, if they can summon enough calmness for the purpose, to consider what this language means. Does not the hon. gentleman who moves this resolution feel in his own mind and conscience-if he does not, he ought to feel it that what these people were complaining of was not fraud perpetrated by the government or to which the government was a party, but some fraudulent representations and impositions that had been practiced on the officers of the department and that had induced them to grant this Tread-gold concession. Is there any warrant or justification for drawing from the language which the hon. gentleman has used in his resolution, and which is a counterpart of what is found in newspaper statements and in various other forms made by the Yukon people, the inference that there is any personal or political implication or accusation involved in it against the government or any member of the administration ? Is it not all that can be fairly implied from the language which the hon. gentleman puts forward, that there have been persons who, in procuring these concessions, practiced fraud and imposition upon the government or the officials acting for the government ? A fair reading of the clauses which the hon. gentleman has embodied in his own motion can bring one's mind to no other conclusion. If I am right in this, what foundation is there for the hon. gentleman to say that there is the slightest warrant in anything contained in these two clauses for saying that there is such a prima facie case established as would justify this government in treating these statements as reflecting upon the government or any member of it ? We know how easy it is in a country such as the Yukon, filled with all sorts of people, adventurers from all countries of the world, to create excitement of any kind. These people, so far removed from the control of government, and hoping to achieve great things in their thirst for the precious metals, feel as though they own the country, and had the right to distribute it among themselves. Such a class of people would not stop to consider what was best in the general interest or whether or not this policy or the other would not be more advantageous in the future. But would only look to their own immediate selfish interests. They would not be disposed to listen to reason, but would want to lay their hands on everything in sight, regardless of whether or not the results would be disastrous to the future



*welfare and interests of tire country. In that frame of mind, when the government had decided, after due consideration, that it was in the best interest of the country to establish a system of hydraulic mining upon a large scale and conducted on the most modern mechanical methods, they did not pause to consider whether or not the mesjns which the government adopted would not in the long run be better for them, but determined to see in it only an obstacle in their way, and started this wild excitement. Under the influence of that excitement, therefore, they gave vent to these exaggerated statements and jumped to the conclusion that, because a concession had been granted, there must necessarily have been fraud and misrepresentation practiced on the government. I think that if a jury of non-partisans were summoned to consider the effect of the language used by these people, and if the jury brought its mind to bear on the conditions existing in the Yukon and the class of men gathered there and who created this excitement, they would be driven to the conclusion that the language used did not in any sense involve any reflection or imputation on the integrity of that government or any of its members.
The amendment goes on to deal with the representative of the Yukon :
That James Hamilton Ross, Esquire, now a member for this House for the Yukon Territory in accepting the nomination offered to him by the said convention promised publicly through the press to advocate a thorough ^ investigation of the charges of fraud aforesaid.
That I do not dispute. I dare say that Mr. Ross himself, although I do not know it as a matter of fact, may have been carried off his feet by that furious craze which had seized the people amongst whom this hydraulic system was going to be established. I could understand that my hon. friends opposite, cool-headed as they usually are when they see no political advantage to be gained, might, if they had been out in the Yukon, have been affected by the same wave of excitement. Everybody was at the moment carried away by it. They would not have paused to consider more than anybody else, but it devolves on this parliament to consider whether it is consistent with Its dignity to appoint a commission in order that somebody may be subjected to inquiry to find out what that somebody did. If there had been practiced, as these people imagine- *and as I am willing to admit, in this excited state of mind, they believed fraud and misrepresentation on the government, by means of which these privileges were granted, there will still be no necessity to grant a parliamentary commission. The law furnishes adequate means of getting at the facts. If anybody believed that fraud and misrepresentation had been practiced, he could appeal to the courts or [DOT]to the department. All he has to do is Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
to appeal to the department to have an inquiry, and he would be afforded every opportunity by the department of making his *charges good. The law also affords a remedy. If the department refused to grant an investigation, he could take out a writ of scire facias, be given every opportunity to establish before the courts whether such fraud or misrepresentation had been practiced as would invalidate the grant. The court would have discretion to set aside the grant, and the person who claimed that he ought to get it and was unjustly deprived of the privilege of getting it, would have the course open to him to secure it. It is a case essentially to be dealt with by the court and not by a parliamentary committee. You do not want to take a sledgehammer to break an egg. All you need do is to appeal to the proper quarter in the proper way, stating a sufficient case to enable tbe minister to judge whether, in his discretion, he should recommend that the expenditure be incurred, and you have all the remedy you could possibly ask.
Now, we come to the next clause of my hon. friend's indictment, or statement of the facts on which he relies :
That the Board of Trade of the city of Dawson and others on the 16th of April, 1903, presented to this House a petition in which it is alleged that the said concessions to A. N. C. Treadgold and his associates ' involved an enormous exploitation of the public resources of this territory, for the benefit of a few favoured concessionaires.
Now, what does that mean ? Is not that simply an expression of the dissatisfaction of the board of trade, they being impressed, as the other people there are, with the idea that the system that the government has adopted would do injury to the country? I am prepared to admit that they were so impressed. But, that being the case, is this anything more than an expression of discontent with the adoption of this policy ? ' Involving an enormous exploitation of the public resources of this country '-is that anything more than to say that the policy of the government is most disastrous to the interests of that section of the Dominion ? Where is the imputation there that would reflect on the integrity of a minister of the Crown ? Where is the warrant there, or in any statement the hon. gentleman has made, that would justify the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) in rising in his place, having the responsibility of a member of parliament, and saying that he declines to take the responsibility of incriminating a member of parliament or a minister of the Crown who is not able, at present, to be in his seat in this House ? What is there in this amendment, from the beginning to the end of it, that would warrant any member of this House who has the slightest sense of the responsibility attaching to his position in making such an imputation as that ? I have no doubt-I re-

peat it-on the contrary 1 freely confess, that the people in the Yukon, whether you take the board of trade, the common council or any other organization or portion of the inhabitants, are deeply impressed with the idea that if you have these Treadgold concessionaires or any others operating this hydraulic system according to the only way in which it can be worked, you are going to deprive the people of advantages and privileges that they would otherwise individually enjoy, and so do injury to the country. But, that is a mere question of opinion. Would anybody be willing to allow the people in one portion of Canada, particularly a section filled with valuable minerals from which we expect to be able by adopting wise, modern, up-to-date methods to extract great values-would he allow those people to compel the working of these mineral deposits by the individual methods pursued in other times ? Would anybody say that the people directly interested and concerned are the proper people to form a judgment as to the best methods by which these important questions in that country should be dealt with ? Would anybody be warranted in saying that ? We are not taking this step unadvisedly or without precedent. We are not adopting a system which has not been adopted elsewhere and used with success. We could point to dozens of places in the hill countries of the United States where these hydraulic methods had been adopted. And you cannot put two companies one alongside the other, to work the same territory. As I said the other day, when speaking of this matter, the method must be monopolistic or you cannot work it at all. These people complain because this is a monopoly. But how can you erect dams, accumulate water, and arrange for letting this water down to the lower levels to be used in connection with the work of mining, unless you have one organization and one management to control the whole matter-subject, of course, to proper government supervision ? There is no alternative, except to leave things as they are. If there was any fault to be found with the terms under which this concession was granted, then, the government must submit to criticism as to those terms. But this is a question of policy. Can any man say that this government would be worthy of the place it occupies, would it be fit to manage the affairs of this country if, after having studied the question and considered the experience in other places, they were puerilely to do nothing and refuse to adopt the policy which is the only one from which the best results could be obtained ? We would be open to the strongest condemnation if we declined to do what we did-always provided, of course, that the work is carried out by proper methods. If you read these clamorous complaints from beginning to end, you find little in them but an attack 1424
on the government policy. Therefore, I say, you are obliged, if you wish to be fair, not to take as conclusive the judgment of the people who have every interest, as they feel -I think mistakenly-that if they had their own way it would bring to them the best results. Dismiss from these clamorous complaints the idea that the monopoly itself is an evil, that it is an exploitation of individual rights, and you have absolutely nothing with which to deal. We are told that the board of trade made the complaint to which I have alluded. Granted. We are told that on or about the 23rd March, the corporation of the city of Dawson addressed to the House a petition similar in terms to the petition of the board of trade. Granted. The observations which I have made, as to the petition of the board of trade, if those observations at all commend themselves to the House, apply with the same force to the petition of the corporation of the city of Dawson. Then, in the next clause we are told that the Liberal Association of Dawson publicly denounced the said concession as having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. What does that mean ? Does that not mean exactly what the second clause of the amendment means as I have explained it ? It means that persons outside, interested in obtaining these concessions, used fraud and misrepresentation, and by these means secured the issue of these grants. I claim the right to conclude from this clause, as from the other, that there is nothing to warrant any suspicion that the integrity of a minister of the Crown is in the slightest degree impeached by the statements made. My hon. friend's motion goes on :
That on the 12th day of May last the government by the honourable, the Postmaster General, during the debate on the Treadgold Concession. promised to this House to fully carry out the representations which had been made to the citizens of the Yukon to have a full investigation into all charges or suspicions that could be mentioned or entertained in regard to any matters connected with the Yukon administration.
I have, therefore, passed in review, perhaps, somewhat at length, all the clauses of this amendment which the hon. gentleman has placed one on top of the other, endeavouring to construct a superstructure which would prove that there had beeu charges made against the government, or involving the character and integrity of a minister of the Crown, I claim to have shown that the hon. gentleman has failed in his purpose, for that is manifestly the purpose which he had in view. He has correctly enough quoted wbat has been said in these speeches and newspapers and other documents. But. taking all these, and assuming, for the sake of argument, the the construction which is put upon them by the hon. gentlemen opposite, what do they lead to ? In substance, as they interpret

them, they are a statement that charges of fraud have been made against the government in granting this concession. Now we are invited, upon that assumption, that unwarrantable assumption, to name a parliamentary committee. To do what ? The hon. gentleman says, to investigate the charges. I will tell you what you are inviting the government to appoint a parliamentary committee to do. It is to sit down and find out what it is that is charged against the government. You have not told us what the government is charged with. You are simply saying that there was fraud in the granting of this concession, and that therefore a committee should be appointed. Now, could any committee which this House might appoint sit down to discharge its functions without trying, in the first place, to discover what it is of which this fraud consisted ? The most rudimentary ideas of parliamentary government would compel hon. gentlemen opposite to tell the House and the country what are the facts which they think constitute a fraud in the transaction of which the government is guilty. Is it not reasonable that such a demand as that should be made upon hon. gentlemen opposite before they ask this House to vote a parliamentary committee ? We have only a wild, indefinite, vague statement that there was fraud in granting the concession, a statement made by somebody, a statement of which no member of parliament will assume the responsibility of vouching for, or of saying he believes it. I say, Mr. Speaker, as I have said once before in speaking upon this subject, that the parliament of Canada would be placing itself in a very ridiculous position if it took any such course.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier stated, and the hon. member for Montmorency has stated, that we are taking to-day, i.i reference to this matter, a very different attitude from what we have taken hitherto ; and he says that in the early life of this government, when vague and general statements were made, based on mere suspicions entertained by hon. gentlemen opposite, this government hastened to meet those statements and declared that they were ready, nay, anxious to have them inquired into. Well, Sir, I do not remember that any circumstance occurred in connection with the Drummond County Railway matter of a vague and non-specific character such as the hon. gentleman says exist in the present instance. I happen to remember something about that case, and I know that in the Drummond County Railway matter there was more than a sweeping charge of wrongdoing by the government. That is not said here, but it was said in that case. Now. I am prepared to accept the challenge which the hon. leader of the opposition made to this side of the House a short time ago when he asked us to name a single specific statement. I have not had time to look through the * Hansard ' for the purpose of giving all the statements that were made by Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the Drummond Railway transaction, I am unable to do that in the time at my disposal. I remember very well that one member of this House then, now dead, made the very nastiest kind of imputations in respect to the Drummond County transaction ; I remember that the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals relieved himself on two or three different occasions of reflections upon the conduct of the present minister in that transaction. But after the committee had reported, and after the investigation had resulted in total and absolute failure, then they hastened to say that they had never made any imputation against the government or any member of it which would involve their integrity, but they had simply impeached the prudence of the arrangement, and the business character of the arrangement. They told us that after the thing wns over, and their efforts had proved futile. Now I have here the speech which was made by the hon. member for Montmorency upon one occasion, and how often he made it. I have not been able to ascertain. But any one reading this will agree that there was matter of a specific character to justify any minister in claiming an inquiry and investigation, and that it was not of such a nature, emanating from the quarter it did, that it should be disregarded. The language I am going to quote will be found in the ' Hansard ' of 1808, volume 1. page 514.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: That was after the premier had announced that this committee would be appointed.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, it was on the 15th of February, I think it was before the commission was actually appointed, but after the statement was made that it would be appointed. You will see what the hon. gentleman then said, and I think the inference may fairly be drawn that if the hon. member, after he had got his committee, would make a statement of this kind, he would be not unlikely to make even stronger statements, statements that would secure the appointment of a committee which he might think, upon investigation, would disclose something of which he had no evidence, but which was matter of suspicion with him. He said :
But what, above all, was it that made this investigation necessary ? It was the extraordinary speech made in this House last session by the Minister of Public Works. Why, Sir, charged, as he was, in the public press with being interested in the deal he rose in this House and said that ' La Patrie ' newspaper, in which he writes every day, which is his organ, which, if report is true-I do not know whether it is true or not, and I do not state it as a fact- virtually belongs to him, was bought for his sons with a cheque for $30,000 furnished by the president of the Drummond Cdunty Railway.
Now, the hon. gentleman could not put that statement upon the ' Hansard ' and cir-

culate it through the country except for the purpose of creating the impression in the public mind that there was a bargain arising out of this Drummond County business, under which $30,000 passed from the president of the Drummond County Railway into the hands of the Minister of Public Works as a consideration for the transaction. He would not make the statement with any other design in view than to asperse and besmirch the character of the minister to whom he referred. If he did it then-and he did it-how was it possible for the Minister of Public Works otherwise than to say : You have made statements, and members of the House of Commons have made statements of that kind, and therefore I hail with pleasure an investigation into the matter in order that all the facts shall be brought out. But now, has there been a word said, except by insinuation, by the hon. gentleman indicating what the character or nature of the conduct was which he said was attributed by public rumour to a minister of the Crown? Not a syllable. There is nothing to take hold of, and there is nothing which any self-respecting parliament could regard as emanating from a responsible quarter involving such a reflection upon a minister of the Crown as would even leave that minister of the Crown, innocent as he might be and innocent as he is in the present case, the victim of the rumours which are always freely circulated by-I will not say members of parliament- but freely circulated by partisans of one side or the other to the disparagement of their opponents. Under such circumstances, in the face of such a lack of specific material, in the absence of any statement of fact which would show that there had been fraud or malfeasance in office committed by any minister of the Crown or by the government, I cannot see how it would be possible for this government to maintain a position of self-respect if we were to allow hon. gentlemen opposite to obtain a committee of this House to hold an investigation. The government has not changed its mind. I am not conscious that there is present on the treasury benches any member of the administration who would wish to treat questions, reflections, accusations, imputations or insinuations of that kind any differently to-day from the way in which he would wish to treat them two, or three, or four, or five, or six, or seven years ago. There is only one thing that I can imagine would influence the mind of a minister to-day. If the government had treated seriously some of the scandalous rumours which had been aired by hon. gentlemen opposite reflecting upon the government, if we had held investigations, and if our experience of such charges was that there was not a particle of foundation for them, we might very well hesitate when the same sort of procedure was again committed. But we have once, twice or three times allowed
ourselves to assume that what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite was entitled to be treated seriously and entitled to be treated with consideration. We have found, having acted under that impression, that we were deceived as to the knowledge that these hon. gentlemen possessed, or as to the foundation upon which they based these imputations, and having had the experience which we have had of the methods of procedure adopted by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, we will no longer continue to follow that course, but will ask and demand and require of these hon. gentlemen that they shall take the responsibility, if they want to reflect unfavourably upon the character of a minister of the Crown, of expressing the opinion that there is reason for the imputations which they have made, and we will demand that they shall take this responsibility manfully and honourably before the House. It is infinitely more to the credit of a member of parliament, who, believing these charges which have been talked about and rumoured in the country in regard to malfeasance or misconduct of the members of the government, should find out afterwards that he was mistaken in his belief, than that he should insinuate and impute misconduct, or that he should avail himself of the position which the people have placed him in to disseminate broadcast over the Dominion reflections upon the character of men who are filling ministerial positions. I do not care what party is in or who are members of the administration ; for the time being the people have entrusted them with the responsibility of carrying on their affairs. For the time being they hold the distinguished and honourable positions of ministers, they possess the confidence of the people, and, representing the people, I think it is at least the duty of those who oppose their policy to recognize that they are in the positions which they fill by the voice of the people of Canada, and as such they are entitled to be treated with that respect which the choice of the people of Canada merits.
I therefore claim that there is nothing alleged in the amendment which the hon. gentleman has moved, that there is notiling which has been stated in support of that amendment to justify this House in departing from the usual practice which obtains under ail parliamentary governments through the various portions of the empire, and that there is no course remaining for us but to give a decided negative to the amendment which the hon. gentleman has proposed.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Mi-. Speaker, I crave your indulgence for a very short statement that I feel it is my duty to offer. I was a member of the government when this Treadgold concession was granted. It came up in the ordinary

way of business. The matter lay within the department of the Interior. All those who have been ministers know that the minister who has charge of a department brings before his colleagues matters that are under his control. That matter, as a matter of course, was presented to the government by the minister then in charge of the Department of the Interior. The matter was discussed with all the care and attention that we were able to give to it then. We looked into the question to the best of our ability. It was referred to a sub-committee. One of the members of this sub-committee is no more a member of this parliament. The concession was granted after, as I said, we had given our best attention to the question. It was a difficult question, as my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) has said, when we were called upon to decide whether it was better to leave things as they were, to leave the miners to supply themselves with water, or whether it would be better to grant certain rights to parties who wrere undertaking to supply water under certain conditions. The first conditions that we imposed upon them were not carried out. They came to us later on and reported that they could not go on with their undertaking unless these conditions were changed. I think there were three changes. However, this has no great bearing on the case. So far as my own standpoint is concerned, all I can say is that I do not know that there is any one of my colleagues in the House to-night who was my colleague then, who I am sure has been guilty of an impropriety. As far as I can see. there is no member of this government within the preeincts of this hall-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, I do not want my words to be misinterpreted. I am just going to explain what I mean. I do not want that my words be interpreted in a wider direction than I want to give them. I generally endeavour to speak my mind very clearly. Then I understand the hot words that my hon. friend the Postmaster General has used. He is not guilty I am sure of any impropriety; he has resented the accusation that has been made against the government and I cannot blame him for that. Speaking for myself I know that as far as I have been able to judge the matter has come before us in the ordinary way of business. Eight or ten months afterwards or perhaps a little less, a deputaion came to us to Ottawa. It was headed by Mr. Ross, who represents the Yukon in this parliament. Complaints were made that the concessions were too wide; that the concessions in point of fact should be cancelled or at any rate amended in such a way that they would not be the same thing at all. The matter was taken into consideration and the changes were made. Now, this is all I have got to say Hon. Mr. TARTE.
so far as the members of the government present to-day are concerned. Let me express my regret that the hon. Minister of the Interior and Mr. Ross are not here. I trust that if the Minister of the Interior were here, after the words that have been uttered by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) he would take the position that I have taken myself in that famous celebrated and notorious inquiry of the Drummond County Railway. In 1897, there were vague accusations in that Drummond County matter. No direct accusations were made, hut having read and heard these vague rumours, I got up in my place and I challenged any direct accusation against me. These accusations did not materialize. Let me tell my hon. friends on the other side of the House, now that they are looking to the wrong pew.
gome hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What did take place during the recess between 1897 and 1898 ? The hon. Mr. Foster, the ex-Minister of Finance, went to Toronto and addressed a large meeting in which my name and the names of my sons were mentioned. When parliament was convened in 1898 I made it a duty to ask the Prime Minister and my colleagues, to themselves ask for an investigation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would not allow the government of which I was a member to lie under the accusation that had been made against me outside of the chamber, but by a gentleman who had been a minister of the Crown. I thought that that accusation had been enough for me to go to the Prime Minister and to say that if I was guilty of having received directly or indirectly $30,000 in that Drummond County deal I was not worthy to be a member of the government any longer. That is the position I took. No direct accusation has been made against the Minister of the Interior to-day. Rumours have been circulated this evening. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has quoted these rumours without naming the minister but naming his department. I have no doubt-I hope at any rate that if the hon. gentleman who is the Minister of the Interior were here he would take the position that I now take. I shall not vote on this motion and I will tell you why, Sir. In view of the vagueness of the accusation I think that the government would have been justified in declining an inquiry. When there are questions of fraud directly or indirectly mentioned it is necessary; it is proper at any rate to be direct as the rules of parliament require. But the government has granted an inquiry. I was not able to be here when the first motion was discussed, but had I been here I would have spoken just as I speak now. The government have

granted an inquiry. In my humble opinion they hare not acted as they might have acted had they paused a little more. An inquiry by a judge is always a doubtful thing. Some years ago I condemned in the press as a newspaper man, inquiries conducted by judges. It is a dangerous thing to involve the judiciary in such an inquiry as a rule. I do not say that there are not exceptions, but as a rule, parliament should keep the control of its own affairs. It is the safest rule. My hon. friends on the treasury benches have not followed that rule and they have thought proper to appoint a judge. I cannot approve of their action on that account. On the other hand in view of the fact that X have been a member of the government, that I have participated in the granting of the concession that the government is defending to-night, I cannot possibly condemn myself in voting for the motion which implies the condemnation of a transaction to which I have been a party. So far as I know it officially, as it came before us officially, I do not know of anything upon which I could base my judgment to condemn now what I have approved and participated in then. But not approving the procedure that my hon. friends on the treasury benches have adopted, I cannot vote with them.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (Bast Hastings).: Mr. Speaker, I was so impressed by the eloquence and convinced by the logic of the Minister of Railways and Canals, that I have no hesitation in saying that if any hon. gentleman on this side of the House-no, I will withdraw that and apologize for it- if any benighted Tory between the Atlantic and the Pacific should be so bereft of his faculties as to suggest the case that the Minister of Railways and Canals so successfully controverted to-night, I would be ready to join with him in taking the proper means to have this irresponsible lunatic at once put under restraint. May I be pardoned before discussing the. question, if I refer to the statement of the Minister of Railways and Canals. He read the motion at present before the House; he read it carefully, clause by clause, so far as the clause charges were concerned, and he found that the sum total of these charges was that the people of the Yukon, irrespective of party, of politics, of creed or anything else; the board of trade, the citizens in public meeting, the Liberal association, everybody in fact had agreed that the government had been imposed upon, and that these concessions had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation; but the Minister of Railways and Canals nailed his flag at the mast and said :	We deny
there is any charge there of dishonesty on the part of the government. Who said there was ? But are the hon. gentlemen occupying the treasury benches more than demigods; have they eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge; is it not possible that they
may have been deceived ? And if these-charges be true-and all that is asked on this side of the House is that they be investigated to see whether or not they are true- if it be the fact that the hon. gentlemen opposite, despite all their ability and honesty and integrity-and nobody is accusing them on any of those points-have been deceived, and that these concessions have been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation; can anybody say that we, sitting here as representatives of the people, are doing other than our duty in asking for an investigation, in order to see if the government has been deceived, and if they have been induced by fraud and misrepresentation to make concessions which everybody in the Yukon says are ruinous to that part of the country ? The question seems a simple question, and one would imagine that it would not require any great amount of oratory or discussion to decide it. I think my hon. friend the Postmaster General put the matter in a nutshell when he said that there had been a cowardly course taken and honour was in the balance. I am inclined to agree with him, and the question before us this evening is, who has taken the cowardly course, and whose honour is in the balance ?
A reference to the undisputed facts of the case would furnish, I submit, a complete answer to these questions. It will be admitted that a few years ago the people of this country were possessed of a valuable domain in the Yukon. It will be admitted that by Order in Council, which is wholly invalid-because the hon. Postmaster General himself admitted it the other night- those lands were made over, without one single dollar being paid for them, to a few concessionaires. It is true, as I said, that the hon. gentleman says the Order in Council is invalid; but this House and the unfortunate people of this country have had experience before this of another invalid Order in Council. It was but a few years ago when we learned to our sorrow that a minister of the Crown-and the same minister who is in charge of the Interior Department which controls the Yukon-some seven or eight days before parliament met, rushed through an Order in Council authorizing a railway to be constructed into this very country. It is perfectly true, the order was hopelessly and helplessly invalid; and it is equally true that this unfortunate country paid over $300,000 on the strength of that helplessly invalid Order in Council. And so, Sir, it is perhaps not surprising that the people of the Yukon, excitable as the hon. Minister of Railways says they were, living on the spot, and finding all their hopes of that country blasted, declared in resolution after resolution that the concessions which were granted would mean that in a few years there would be in that country one Treadgold and several hundred people working for him. It is no wonder that

they asked this parliament to investigate the grounds on which these extraordinary concessions were given. It is all very well for the hon. Minister of Railways to say that they are an excitable people. Who are those people ? The Board of Trade of Dawson; a public meeting convened in Dawson ; aye, Sir, the Liberal Association of Dawson ; aye, Sir, the representative of the people sent from Dawson. And so we find that the people of that country, whom we represent, and the right hon. gentleman who leads the government, the Postmaster General sitting beside him, and the Minister of Railways represent these people as much as they represent the people of their own constituencies-these people are to be called an excitable people because, feeling that everything worth anything in their country has been given away, they protested and charged the government, not with fraud, but with being imposed upon, and therefore asked their trustees, who are sent here to transact their business, simply to look into the matter and see if they had not been imposed upon, and if so, to cancel these iniquitous concessions. If we are taunted that we cannot find precedents in English history to meet a case like this, the answer is not far afield. No one can read of cases in which members of the British parliament have resigned thfiir seats without appreciating the fact that the sense of honour is so sensitive there that even if these charges were made, as they have been, by public meetings, by resolutions, by newspapers in the Yukon, there would be not only an investigation, but a vacant seat behind the right hon. leader of the government long before this. But admitting, that the country owned certain lands in the Yukon, and that those lands were given away, though by an Order in Council which is invalid on its face; admitting that the people in the part of the country protested against this; we find that an election was held in that country; and we have been taunted by the hon. Postmaster General that it is idle for us to ask for any investigation into the affairs of the Yukon because the people of that country, in sending to this House a supporter of the government, had shown their confidence in the government which had passed these extraordinary concessions. If the right hon. leader of the government would read the platform of the Liberal Association of the Yukon, which I will not occupy the time of the House in reading, as it has been read already, he would find that it condemned these concessions as strongly as any Conservative member of this House could; and if he would look at the questions wl;ich were asked of the candidate, and answered, not by that gentleman, because he was absent from the country, but by a gentleman high in his confidence, who conducted the election for him-a gentleman in whom the right hon. leader of the government Mr. NORTHRUP.
had implicit confidence, or he would not have named Mr. Congdon as Governor of the Yukon-he would find the following :
2.	Will you agree to advocate for and insist upon the cancellation of the Treadgold concession ?
3.	Will you pledge yourself to advocate for and insist upon the punishment and exposure of officials. both in Dawson and Ottawa, by whose frauds or culpable negligence or inefficiency those concessions were granted In the first Instance or are now continued in force after the same by their terms should he cancelled ?
The answer given by Mr. Congdou to these questions is that Mr. Ross is out of the country, but ' I have no doubt he will advocate the course of action you suggest iu your questions.' We find that this was the state of affairs in the Yukon. Then this parliament meets. A representative is sent here from the Yukon; pledged to the lips to secure the cancellation of these infamous concessions and to have an investigation as to the fraud or culpable negligence or inefficiency of the officials either at Ottawa or Dawson, through whose fraud or negligence or inefficiency these concessions were granted. The; House met, and shortly afterwards a motion was brought up by my hon. friend from Montmorency ou this very subject; and the government, speaking by the mouth of the hon. Postmaster General, gave no uncertain sound. Those who were here when the hon. gentleman spoke, will remember well liow broadly be promised an investigation into these matters. The government was committed, if it is possible to commit a government by the solemn statements of one of its prominent members standing on the floor of parliament-and it is hard to conceive of any way in which a government can be committed if not in that way-to what ? Tq the following :
I would also say to my hon. friend who tella us that he is so desirous of investigation that I am sure he must well know that it has been long the fixed intention of the government to hold such an investigation.
We are told by the hon. Postmaster General that promises were made to the people of the Yukon that an investigation would be held into the whole administration of that territory, and now we can see why a representative was sent from the Yukon to support the government. The hon. Postmaster General said further :
I doubt if navigation is more than open, even if it is yet open. When the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) returns to Ottawa,-he is at present in British Columbia, I understand- and we can have the benefit of his advice, it is our intention to fully carry out the representations made to the citizens of the Yukon to have a full investigation into all charges or suspicions that hon. gentlemen may be good enough to mention or entertain In regard to any matters connected with the Yukon administration. I give that public notice to my hon. friend, so that, in addition to the advantage he

has had of ventilating, his views on the floor of this House, he will have an opportunity to make good, if he can, any of his charges or suspicions before a tribunal where newspaper extracts and letters will not be the only evidence.	.
I do not think that any language could more clearly express the promise that we would be given a full investigation, not into the hydraulic needs of the Yukon, but into the charges and suspicions of fraud and corruption. Yet, to-night we have the sad spectacle of that same minister of the Crown, who made that pledge, standing up before this House-not denying that he used the language I have just quoted- but professing that the pledge then given is being carried out by the appointment of the Crown made the other day. Mr. Speaker, we may well pause to consider whose was the cowardly course, and whose honour is standing in the balance. With the words of the Postmaster General fresh in our recollection, let us consider what the authority of this commission really is, what ground it covers. There is a number of recitals :
That it has also been represented to the government that the extent and value of the deposits of gold in the benches, creeks and elevated ground is at present unknown and must remain so until a sufficient supply of water is available by the construction of hydraulic works, and that parties advancing moneys for the construction of said works must necessarily take great risks with respect to their Investments.
That is practical. That certainly relates to hydraulic operation.
That while it is fitting that such reasonable and proper privileges and advantages should be offered as will induce parties to construct such hydraulic works, yet it is essential that no grants or concessions should be made which will interfere with the right of water which any free miner is entitled to under the regulations governing placer mining In the Yukon Territory.
That the water so to be held and controlled by the hydraulic companies should be available on equal terms to all free miners whose claims can be profitably worked thereby.
That to obtain such hydraulic works and a supply of water for the benches, banks and elevated grounds above mentioned, certain powers, rights and privileges were grantel by the Governor General in Council on the 2lst of April, 1902 to Malcolm E. Orr-Ewing, A. N. C. Treadgold and Walter Barwick ; that it has been alleged

Alleged what ? Now we are coming to the sting of the whole inquiry.
That it has been alleged that the said grant and concession constitutes a monopoly, which, while depriving the treasury of an enormous revenue, is most detrimental to the mining industry of the Yukon.
It is perfectly true that that has been 1 alleged. No one on this side will deny it. But will any one pretend to say that that is ail that has been alleged ?
That it is important in the public interest that inquiry be made

We all agree with that, and we felt, with the words of the Postmaster General ringing in our ears, that at last justice was to be done, and that not only the charges but the mere suspicions were to be investigated.
for the purpose of obtaining information, showing to what extent the said grant and concession is likely to be beneficial or injurious to the mining interest of the said Yukon Territory.
That it is also desirable at the same time that the inquiry should not he limited to the said grant and concession

There we thought we were going to have something. We were going to get something at last. The hon. gentleman had repented, and even at the last moment they were going to give us what the Postmaster General promised solemnly, on the faith and honour of the government, we should have.
Showing to what extent the said grant is likely to be beneficial or injurious to the mining interests of the said Yukon Territory.
Then we read on. Another gleam of hope flashes across our mind, when we see that something more is to be investigated.
That it is further desirable that the commissioners making the inquiry shall investigate generally all the facts and circumstances

Here we felt certain we had it.
-which would afford information to parliament, to the government and to parliament

But our hearts sink within us as we go on to read :
-respecting the hydraulic or other mean3 which it is desirable should be adopted.
Is this what the House wants investigated, or what the people of the Yukon desire to have investigated ? It is not the hydraulic or other means hut the means whereby the government were deceived and misled that this House and the country want to see investigated. But when we are given this commission and are coolly told by the hon. Postmaster General that everything asked by the hon. member for Montmorency has been given, I ask again whose course is it that is cowardly, whose honour is at stake ? And I turn to the motion of my hon. friend from Montmorency for an answer. What do I find in that motion ? Among many clauses, I find this one :
That all hydraulic concessions whose owners have not observed the conditions of their leases and the provisions of the mining regulations may be rescinded.
That an inquiry may be set on foot to ascertain the circumstances under which the leading hydraulic concessions were obtained in order that action may be taken by the At or-ney General In the premises.
With that on the records of this House, moved by my hon. friend from Montmorency, the hon. the Postmaster General dared

to stand up and say that this Order in Council gives all-and he went beyond that, he out-heroded Herod, gives all and more than the hon. member for Montmorency asked.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that he is reading from the motion of the hon. member for Montmorency ?


William Barton Northrup: Yes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, you are reading from his speech.


William Barton Northrup: I am not going to be diverted from the point by the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is a question of fact. Is it the motion or the speech you are reading from ?
Mr., CASGRAIN. That is a paragraph of a resolution of the Liberal Club at Dawson. It is your own friends who said that.


William Barton Northrup: I see that the hon. Minister of Justice is quite correct. In reading hurriedly a number of quotations marked here, I inadvertently read from the petition of the Liberal Club. The clause I read is in the petition of the Liberal Club of Dawson.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman said it was in the motion.


William Barton Northrup: My hon. friend from Montmorency used that petition of the Liberal Club along with other material that came from Dawson, to show that charges had been made into which he desired an investigation. When the governments' own friends make these charges, when one of their own supporters was sent to this House to have them investigated, and the ministers of the Crown promised that they should be investigated, we on this side expected more than was given. When we asked for bread, we did not expect such a stone as that. Hon. gentlemen opposite are very fond of taunting hon. members on this side with their obligation to make charges on their own responsibility, as members. It is very easy to make such a taunt, but it would be interesting to find how many members there are, either to your right or your left, Mr. Speaker, who know what the responsibility is that is incurred by a member so acting. I venture to say that outside the right hon. the first minister, there is not a member of this House who would declare that he knows what that responsibility is. I find on page 1040, of the ' Hansard ' of 1892, a speech made by the late Sir John Thompson, at the time when the famous Parent charges were made. He expressed himself to this effect, and there is no one in this House who will not admit that few brighter, abler and more prudent jurists ever sat in this House. And Sir John Thompson said :


William Barton Northrup: 1 am aware that there is a popular impression that a gentleman in this House who makes accusations of misconduct, impropriety, dishonesty. or other charges of that character against another member of this House incurs a serious responsibility, and may, if the charge is proven and unsustained be expelled from this Chamber. In view of the ground which I shall ask the House to take with regard to this resolution. I beg to call the attention cf hon. gentlemen to the fact, that that is an entire misapprehension. A member making a charge against another in this House may, of course, subject himself, as he does in pursuing pny line of conduct on any piece of business before the House, to the censure of the House ; but, so far as his own seat is concerned he may make false charges against other members of the House with perfect impunity.
It is perfectly true that, in the same debate, the present Premier (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a few pages later, expressed himself to the contrary effect. He said :
The House expects from a member who makes a charge against a fellow member that he must have some good and strong reason for making that charge, and it is unquestionable that the common sense of the country would expect that, if any member should be guilty of making such foul charge against another member. without having strong reasons for making it and good evidence to support it, he would not be fit to associate with gentlemen and he ought to be expelled from this House.
So, on this point which has been so often referred to by lion, gentlemen opposite, surely, the ordinary member of this House may feel justified in being in some doubt when be finds that on so important a question as the Caron charges the Minister of Justice of that day and the leader of the present government, both gentlemen competent to speak, either of whose opinions, I am sure, any member of the House will bow to with the readiest deference, if they did not conflict-they are in such helpless conflict. But is that a fair taunt to throw at an hon. member on this side, when hon. members opposite are supposed to be equally interested with us in protecting the public property ? We find the charge made that the ministry has been imposed upon- and I wish to accentuate that, because it seems to lie assumed that the charge is in effect that Mr. This or Mr. That fraudulently and feloniously betrayed his trust. If such a charge were made it might fairly be said: There must be some responsibility behind it and if you were going to make a charge which would involve the political ruin of a member of this House, you must take some risk yourself. The charges made in the Yukon we wish to have investigated and the charges made in the Yukon are that that country has been robbed and ruined and an imposition practiced on the government. The whole question for this House to decide is whether we shall assume as a matter of fact and law that the government is so immaculate that it cannot be imposed upon, and therefore there should be no investigation. If we cannot come to that

conclusion, I say with all respect and regret, there is only one other conclusion possible, and that is that the hon. gentleman who glibly promised this investigation a few nights ago, as the people of this country will infallibly say, must have received further information since, which compels him now to retract what he said the other night, and not only, if I might use the expression, eat his own words, but insult the intelligence of this House by saying that this present Order in Council gives a wider investigation than we on this side either asked for or desire. Now, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House longer, for it seems to me as I said in the beginning, that the whole question can be boiled down into a very small compass. If we, sitting in this House are not to be at liberty to investigate charges of fraud on the government, charges made by the practically unanimous voice of the people of a large and important part of this country, men may well say under what condition may we ask to investigate such charges. And when we find in this debate, one minister promising full investigation and another saying that only the hydraulic powers and rights are to be investigated, and when we find ministers coming down, and, amid the clamour of their supporters, who evidently have not read the resolution, saying to this House in triumph, that they had given more than we had asked for, are we not justified in coming to the conclusion that hon. gentlemen opposite are inclined to use the pious editor's words and say :
In short, I firmly flu believe In humbug generally,
Fer it's a thing thet I perceive To hev a solid vally ;
This heth my faithful shepherd ben,
In pastures sweet heth led me,
An' this'll keep the people green To feed ez they hev fed me.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The difference between tweedledum and tweedledee is illustrated by the speakers here to-night. My hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain) supported by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), charged that fraud has been practiced by the government. My hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) changed the charge and now rings the changes on the suggestion that fraud has been practiced on the government. Which of the two are we to deal with ? I do not know that I should have been called upon to interfere in this debate were it not that I think it to be my duty to defend my hon. friend from Montmorency to some extent against a charge that was not made but was possibly suggested by the_ lion. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock). The Postmaster General suggested. not that the hon. member for Montmorency was guilty of cowardice, but that, under the circumstances it looked like
cowardice, to take the position he did. I have known my hon. friend from Montmorency for many years. I knew him under circumstances where men soon learn to understand one another's characters especially with regard to matters of cowardice and bravery-I knew him at college. No man who ever had any knowledge of my hon. friend would charge him with being a coward, either a moral or a physical coward. He is neither one nor the other. But he is something else-he is a pastmaster in the art of obscuring an issue. We have had experience of one another for many years in the college and in the forum, and if any man knows well how to make much ado about nothing, my hon. friend does. Now, let us see what has taken place. Let me justify my charge that my hon. friend has proven, in connection with this debate, that he is a pastmaster in the art of obscuring an issue. He came here the other day and made a speech.
I need not say that it was an eloquent speech, for he scarcely ever speaks otherwise than eloquently. But after having gone through the speech, after having delivered himself of this oration and quoted copiously from resolutions passed by miners' conventions in the Yukon and so on, he finally offered a motion for the consideration of the House. I do not wish to weary the House with quotations, but I venture to make the statement that the pith of the whole motion is in these words :
This House is of opinion that the said powers, franchises and concessions constitute in favour of the said Treadgold and his associates a gigantic monopoly, which, while depriving the treasury of enormous revenues, is most detrimental to the mining industry of the Yukon.
That is the charge-that this concession constituted a monopoly and that the monopoly so constituted was most detrimental to the mining interests of the Yukon. What was there, then, to investigate ? That this was a monopoly went without saying-everybody admitted it. The thing was in its nature a monopoly, and we never pretended anything to the contrary. But what remained to be investigated was whether it was detrimental to the mining industry in the Yukon. What did we do ? Immediately when that motion was introduced a pledge was given that the charge made by my hon. friend would be investigated. What was the charge ? That this concession was detrimental to the interest of the Yukon. What do we find in the report to council upon which the commission issued ? The very words used by my hon. friend. This commission is appointed for the purpose of investigating that which he says was the result of the grant of this concession, that is to say, it was a concession detrimental to the interest of the Yukon. We use his own words in the order authorizing the investigation. Now, what

does he complain of ? Evidently my hon. friend knows when he produces an effect, because ordinarily he does produce an effect-but in another sphere when he is in court. He discovered that in this instance he failed entirely to produce any effect, either in this House or on public opinion, and he was forced to go to the newspapers immediately after and write a long and interesting letter, which had some effect, because it was in some respects interesting. But he was not satisfied with that, he found it necessary to do more. Finding the letter was not sufficient, he had to come here and make this motion to-night. Now, what do we find in his motion at the present time ? It is to the effect that the board of trade of the Yukon passed a resolution in which they said that this concession ' involved an enormous exploitation of the public resources of this territory for the benefit of a few favoured concessionaires.' Then he said :
That the Liberal Association of the city of Dawson, at a meeting held on the 1st of April, 1903. publicly denounced the said concessions as having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. and petitioned the government to institute an inquiry to ascertain the circumstances under which the leading hydraulic concessions were obtained in order that action may be taken by the Attorney General of Canada in the premises.
Then he goes on to say :
And this House is of the opinion that a special committee of this House should be appointed with all necessary powers to make a full and complete investigation, not only into the providence or improvidence of the terms and conditions of the several hereinbefore mentioned concessions, but also into all the circumstances relating to or connected with the granting or procurement of the same and all alterations therein, all negotiations and transactions between the government or any member or officer thereof and the said concessionaires or any person on their behalf with respect thereto or with respect to any alteration therein, the names of the persons directly or indirectly interested from time to time in the said concessions, the nature of their respective interests and the circumstances under which such interests were acquired.
What has that got to do with any charge
against the government ? What has that got to do with any suggestion of fraud by the government ? Is there a suggestion that there was fraud l>y the government ? Is there anything in this motion which would give the House to understand that my hon. friend is of opinion that fraud was practiced by the government, or by any member of the government, in connection with the granting of this concession ? No, he is a too honourable a man to make a statement which he knows is not true. But what does my hon. friend say ? He says the board of trade of the Yukon states that fraud was practiced on the government; he says that the Liberal Association of the Yukon echoes that charge. I have read Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
the petition sent here by the board of trade, and I cannot find anything to support my friend's assertion in it, that fraud was practiced on the government. But I will say this to my hon. friend, and here I know I will not appeal to him in vain. This concession was granted under the terms of the Dominion Lands Act, all these concessions were granted under the terms of that Act. Now there is no man in this House who knows better than my hon. friend that there is a door wide open, not only to the board of trade of the Yukon, not only to the members of the Liberal club, but to any man in the Yukon Territory or out of it, who honestly believes that fraud was practiced on the government iu connection with the granting of these concessions. The door is wide open ; Section 57 of the Dominion Lands Act, 49 Victoria, chapter 54 says :
Whenever patents, leases or other instruments, respecting lands have issued through fraud

That is the charge.
-or in error or improvidence, any court having competent jurisdiction in cases respecting real property in the province or territory where such lands are situate, may, upon action, bill or plaint respecting such lands, and upon hearing the parties interested, or upon default of the said parties after such notice of proceeding as the said court orders, decree or adjudge such patent, lease or other instrument to be void.
If fraud is practiced on the government there is a remedy, and ordinary fair play requires that that remedy should be applied, because every man who takes a patent from the Crown under the terms of the Dominion Lands Act takes it subject to all the conditions contained in that Act, and furthermore, takes it with the knowledge that the guarantees provided by that Act will surround the concession. He knows that if he has practiced fraud on the government he is exposed to have his interests brought before the Attorney General, and the Attorney General may issue a fiat for the purpose of testing the facts to ascertain whether fraud was practiced.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Must it not be an individual who is interested in the fraud ? Can any person that is not interested bring a case ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Any person having an interest, however remote, in the district affected, can act as a relator in applying to the Attorney General for his fiat for scire facias. I say that with all deference to the legal opinion of my bon. friend. Now, I say the courts are wide open to these gentlemen in the Yukon, and therein lies the secret of the motion that has been made here by my hon. friend. He knows full well that this remedy is afforded to these gentlemen ; he knows full well that if these men believe the charges they are making are well founded, there is a remedy open to them ; and knowing that,

knowing that they did not take advantage of the remedy that was open to them, he would not take the responsibility of adopting their charges and make them his own in this House ; he would not do it, because he knew full well that if they w7ere honest in their charges, if they could substantiate their charges, they might have done it elsewhere, and as they did not do it elsewhere, he would not take the responsibility of doing it for them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have something in support of that. In the motion itself of my hon. friend we find that the Liberal Association of the city of Dawson, at their meeting held on the 1st of April last, were careful to indicate what they wanted to have done. They asked that an inquiry should be held to ascertain the circumstances under which the leading hydraulic concessions were obtained in order that action might be taken by the Attorney General in the premises. Why did they not apply for a scire facias ? Why did they not adopt the remedy which the law gives them ? They were on the ground, they were cognizant of the facts. They had all the material at their disposal ; why did they not petition the Attorney General for a fiat ? I make the statement here and now, in the hearing of the Prime Minister, and with the authority of the government, that if an application of that sort is made it won't take five minutes to grant it, and an opportunity will be given to these gentlemen to make good their charges. More than that. In these instructions to the commission, what do we find ? We find they have gone very far in the direction of meeting this request of the gentlemen connected with the Liberal club of the Yukon. They say an inquiry should be made for the purpose of ascertaining the circumstances under which the hydraulic concessions were obtained in order that action may be taken by the government. The commissioner is required to investigate, not only the circumstances connected with the concession to Treadgold, but the instruction provides also :
That it is also desirable at the same time that the inquiry should not he limited to the said grants and concession but should extend to all similar hydraulic concessions granted in the Yukon Territory.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: For what purpose ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The inquiry is to be general. The inquiry is to be held into all the circumstances connected with these different concessions.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: No, no.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Will my hon. friend pardon me ?
5lr. CASGRAIN. It is not correct.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I accept the correction of my hon. friend. The inquiry is to be held for the purpose of ascertaining the facts and circumstances connected with all these concessions. The facts and circumstances will necessarily imply an investigation into the circumstances of these concessions which were granted. If it appears that fraud was practiced, the information will be in the possession of the government, but in the meantime it is open for any one to proceed as provided in the Dominion Lands Act. Let any responsible man come forward and make such charges as will justify the issue of a fiat and he will not have long to wait for it. I shall be content with recapitulating what has taken place. My hon. friend made his charge on the 12th May in regard to the Treadgold matter. He said it. ought to be investigated. We granted an investigation. He is not satisfied with that investigation, but he says that we ought to inquire into all the facts and circumstances connected with that matter for the purpose of ascertaining whether a fraud was practiced on the government or on the public. The remedy is open to him under the Dominion Lands.Act. I was not here when he began his speech, but I understand that my hon. friend found fault with the government for having chosen a judge to act in this matter. Hon. gentlemen opposite have reiterated the statement during the course of this debate that this was not a political matter, that all that was desired by them was to have an honest investigation into all the facts and circumstances connected with this concession, so that we might know whether or not it was providently or improvidently issued or whether this concession was tainted with fraud. They say it is not proper to assign a judge to perform the duties which are to be imposed upon Mr. Justice Britton and the commissioners to be appointed hereafter. My hon. friend did me the honour of quoting me in connection with the use of the judicial office for such inquiries. Would he allow me to reciprocate ? My hon. friend was attorney general in ttfie province of Quebec and occupied in respect to that province the position which I occupy in respect to the Dominion of Canada. In 1902 charges were made involving political dishonesty on the part of political men- very serious charges of the grossest political dishonesty. My hon. friend did not hesitate to appoint a judge to make the investigation. He appointed three of them. He appointed one of them who was fresh from the fray, having been only recently appointed to the bench. I do not say that he acted improperly at that time. Far be it from me to contend anything of the sort.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: May I ask the hon. gentleman who that was ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It was Mr. Justice Baby.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: He was not fresh from the fray. He had been on the bench for fifteen or twenty years.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He had been sitting in this House a year or two before he was appointed.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: No, ten years before.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At all events a short time before.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It was ten years .before.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I say two years before, and my hou. friend says ten years before. The Prime Minister suggests that we are both wrong and fixes the time at five years. I believe it is five. In medio stat veritas.


Mr. CASGRAIN  .@: The bon. gentleman must know that I had nothing to do with appointing Mr. Justice Baby, because I was not attorney general at the time.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think that is correct. My hon. friend was not attorney general at the very moment, but he became attorney general a short time after, and, I presume, assumed responsibility for that act. Does my hon. friend remember another commission appointed in Montreal, I think, by him ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That one was a judge.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Yes.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And appointed by my hon. friend.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: And that is one of the reasons why I believe after past experience that these appointments to royal commissions are not a success.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If my hon. friend will pardon me then he will have to leave it to me to say in future what my past experience has been. I contend that it would be desirable that our judges should be as far removed from politics as possible. I have had twenty years' experience at the bar and I have been engaged in a very great number of cases, sometimes for the Tories and sometimes for the Liberals. I have have been a little bit on both sides-not politically-but at the bar. and in all my experience I have never felt that I could appeal to the past and say that any judge had acted improperly from a political standpoint in any case I had before him. The experience which I have had has been such as to justify me in the belief that the judges of our country have been far removed from politics and that they are always prepared to do their duty.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Tory judges.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Rosamond) should not try to distinguish because there are those who think you should not judge others by the knowledge you have of your own. Under the circumstances, what has been done ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Mr. Justice Britton has been selected. This after all is an inquiry into an hydraulic concession, into what is after all nothing more nor less than ditches on a large scale. That is the explanation of the Treadgold matter. It is nothing more nor less than an inquiry into the conditions and circumstances under which water is distributed in the Yukon Territory. Mr. Justice Britton had a large experience in connection with matters of this sort in the province of Ontario as drainage commissioner. In addition to that there is an hydraulic engineer whose name has been mentioned in connection with the commission. Whether or not we can secure the services of this gentleman, I do not know, but to show the intention of the government an hydraulic engineer of continental reputation, against whose character not one breath of suspicion can be cast, was selected merely because of the professional position which he occupied. We have taken all the precautions to give my hon. friend what he wanted when he first moved in this matter, but it appears that be is satisfied, not that he did not go far enough in the first instance with the material he had, because no fresh material has been produced before the House, but that he did not go far enough to satisfy those who are desirous of lending a willing ear to street gossip and rumours, and to those who appear anxious to slander their neighbours to death, but have not got courage to come out as a man should, if a reflection has been put on any man, to charge that man and say he is guilty of wrongdoing, feeling satisfied that there is enough independence in this House to say whether he be guilty or not.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Will tbat commission sit in Ottawa ?	*


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This commission will naturally sit in the Yukon Territory to inquire into the facts submitted to it and especially for the purpose of inquiring into the fact as to whether these concessions were necessary and as to whether under the circumstances existing there, this hydraulic concession was a provident or an improvident one. But after having caused an inquiry on the ground, their duty would be to come here and hold any investigation that would be necessary under the circumstances. I think that having said that, I have shown the good faith of the government-of course they are not limited as to time, place and circumstance- and the desire of the government to have a thorough and honest investigation to establish two things. First, was the concession issued improvidently; was it contrary to the interest of the Yukon that such a concession should be granted; and second, was such fraud practiced on the government as would justify the government in coming to the conclusion-not to repeal the concession; there is no authority to repeal a concession for fraud; there is no author-
I

ity to repeal a concession for misrepresentation-but there is authority to take proceedings before the court for the purpose of having the concession set aside.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Before this debate comes to a conclusion I deem it my duty to refer to an incident which has taken place in connection with it, and which I think ought not to pass unnoticed. Twice within a few days any hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has made the insinuation on the floor of this House, that I had been approached by some one who had made charges to me that there had been wrongdoing in this concession. Some few days ago my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) stated that while I was in London last summer some one had made similar charges to me. I denied the statement at the titue. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) repeated it to-day in a more aggravated form and with greater emphasis. I gave it the denial which I should give it, and now for the third time I have to say to my hon. friend that there is not the slightest foundation for the insinuation he has made.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the right hon. gentleman say that I made an insinuation ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes, Sir.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I asked if there was any truth in what had been said, and I made no insinuation at all myself.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend put the question to me the other day and I denied it, and when on a subsequent occasion he reasserts it I take that to be an insinuation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I made no assertion. I deny that, Mr. Speaker. I asked if there was any truth in these remarks. I will not allow even the right hon. gentleman to put words in my mouth which I did not utter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am speaking within the knowledege of the House-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My words are in * Hansard.'


The PRIME MINISTER.: ' Hansard ' is my best authority, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) stated the other day that I had been approached by some one in England and that similar circumstances had been brought to my notice. I then denied it. To-day the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) within the hearing of everybody on the floor of the House again put a question to me and after my denial, if that is not an insinuation I do not know what is.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: When I stated here as a member of parliament, and I believe as a man of honour; at all events
with the responsibilities I hold, that there was no such thing as had been stated the other day, and when the hon. gentleman again repeats it, for my part I take it to be an insinuation. If it is not an insinuation it is certainly not an accusation, and if it is not an insinuation or an accusation then I leave it to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) to say what he thinks of it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Since my right hon. friend asks me; what I stated the other day was this :	That these things were being said
in the city of Montreal that when my right hon. friend was there the matter had been brought to his notice, and what I stated to-day was that it has been circulated also in the city of Montreal that upon the return of my right hon. friend the matter had been brought to his notice by the chief of the executive. I made no insinuation.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Well, I shall not parry the point any longer. I must however say to my hon. friend that the fact of his having twice asked me on the floor of the House whether or not I had been approached by some body with that charge of wrong-doing about this concession, implies that some one has gone to my hon. friend; that some one has poured something in his; ear, that some one has gone to my hon. friend and stated to him; that either that man himself or some one else had come to me with charges of wrong-doing in connection with that concession. Now, the man who went to my hon. friend whoever he is and who stated to him that I had been approached either by himself or by some one else, that man must have a name; he must have a reputation; he must have a character since the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) thinks it worth while to put questions to me about it. If he has no name; if he has no character; if he has no reputation, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) was very wrong to make this statement of a worthless man the basis of a question to me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The PRIME MINISTER.: But if lie had a name, if he had a reputation, if he had a character and if he made the statement, why has not the hon. gentleman the courage to repeat that statement by taking the responsibility for it on the floor of this House. It is his duty. He has information or he has not. The information that he has is worth something or it is worth nothing, and since the hon. gentleman has found it worth his while to put these questions to me in my official position. I assume the hon. gentleman attaches some responsibility to his information whoever his informant may be. If his informant has told him anything, and if his informant is worth anything, why in the name of common sense, why in the name of fair-play, why in the name of honour between man

and man, between members of parliament; wliy does be not come out with the charge that has been made to him. If any one has told him a tale whether it is true or false; if any one has told him a tale which he believes to be true, he knows his duty and his right as a member of parliament. Two or three years ago my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) had a tale poured in his ears in connection with the South African war affecting the honour or supposed to affect the honour of a trusted colleague of mine, the Minister of Militia. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) did not hesitate then to come forward with his charge; he thought he had proof behind him. But to-day neither my bon. friend or anybody else will tiike the responsibility of stating what are these charges of fraud and misrepresentation. The atmosphere is thick to-day with the words fraud and misrepresentation. The word ' fraud ' is very vague; fraud may take a multitude of forms; misrepresentation may be of different characters and I ask my hon. friend, I will ask anybody in this House-I will not even appeal to my own friends-but I will ask anybody on that side of the House in the name of fair-play and justice, what are we to investigate when we do not even know the name of a witness. If fraud has been perpetrated who has committed the fraud; wliat is the character of the fraud ? If misrepresentation has been committed to the minister or to anybody else, wliat is the character of the misrepresentation ? If there is somebody to tell us that this fraud is so and so and such and such, that there has been such an act perpetrated by which the government has been imposed upon, then .we would know where to go for evidence and for the facts which are going to be investigated, but shall it be said in an assembly of serious men, in an assembly of men such as we are here: that wie shall cause investigation to go simply upon the use of the two words ' fraud and misrepresentation ? ' Who are to be the witnesses, and if we are to appoint commissioners to investigate these frauds and misrepresentations, surely we would have to give them the names of the witnesses and the facts which would have to be investigated ? Sir, I have only to say upon this occasion that if the charges are formulated in the proper manner they shall be investigated. My hon. friend who leads the opposition appealed to me to act as we did in the Drummond County Railway charges. There was a great difference between the Drummond County Railway charges and the charges made upon this occasion. When the Drummond County Railway charges were investigated there had been made by a pro? niinent member of parliament, direct accusations against one of my colleagues. It was important that these should be investigated. Although we granted an investigation at that time, it turned out after all


Sir WILFRID LADRIER.: that those charges were absolutely futile.
It turned out that when the parties who made the charges were brought face to face with the investigation, they said they7 had nothing to prefer. Under such circumstances, I do not think that is a precedent to follow; but the precedent to follow is the rule that if a man is accused, fie has a right to know who are his accusers, and what is the accusation against him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman has made some personal references to myself, I will quote from ' Hansard ' what I said the other day :
Everybody knows that, and I demur to the proposition of my right hon. friend that a man is obliged, when he hears these rumours current in the public, when time and place and circumstances are stated-when it is stated, for instance, that my right hon. friend, himself, when he was in England, was made aware of certain circumstances connected with this matter-


The PRIME MINISTER.: I deny that absolutely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: So much the better, Mr. Speaker; but I say that has been stated, and I demur to the proposition that we are here for the purpose of bringing accusations.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Do it, then. Do it, then.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are here for the purpose of conveying to the House the sentiments of the public and what is stated in the public.
I did not go further than that, Mr. Speaker, and when this evening I alluded to the same affair, I said it had been uttered in Montreal and elsewhere that the attention of the Prime Minister had been called to this concession upon his return to this country, by His Excellency the Qovernor General, and I asked him if that was the case. Now, Sir, in spite of what has fallen from the lips of my right hon. friend, I deny that I can be deprived in this House, as a representative of the people, of the right of stating what is current on the street, and asking for information on these questions from hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury * benches. I have made no charge. I have said this evening that I do not know where the wrong-doing took place ; but I claimed that we should have such an investigation as would enable all those who had taken part in that transaction to he heard before a committee of this House.


Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).: Mr. Speaker, before you put the question, I want to say a few words in regard to my friend the Hou. Mr. Ross, who is absent from the House. I do not think it is right for hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to place Mr. Ross in a false position in this matter. The hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup), who I am sorry is not in his seat at present, made the statement that Mr. Ross was pledged to the lips to have the Treadgold concession cancelled. Now, I want to say that Mr. Ross

did nothing of the kind. Mr. Ross subscribed to the platform of the Liberal party in the Yukon. In other words, he promised that an investigation would be held, and an investigation is going to be held. The hon. member for East Hastings also made reference to something Mr. Congdon had said. 1 do not think Mr. Ross is responsible for any statement that Mr. Congdon made in his absence. The government is carrying out any promise that Mr. Ross made to* the people of the Yukon at that time. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) insinuated that the hon. Minister of the Interior was in some manner connected with this transaction. He did not go so far as to mention the name of the Minister of the Interior, but he mentioned the department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I said that it was in that department that these concessions were carried through, and I repeat it.


Mr. DAYIS.: What is that but an insinuation ? If these hon. gentlemen have anything to say with reference to the Minister of the Interior, they are well aware that he will be in this House in eight or ten days. They will then have an ample opportunity, if they have any charges to make against him, to make those charges on their responsibility as members of this House. It would be well for them to remember that an hon. gentleman in the last parliament, whom some of them are imitating to-night, spoke for nine hours in reciting charge after charge, which he refused to take the responsibility of making ; and what was the consequence ? The leader of the opposition at that time, Sir Charles Tupper, repeated the charges which had been made by the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper). The leader of the opposition of that day and the hon. member for Pictou, who is absent from the House, had a great deal more courage than some of these hon. gentlemen have to-night. They had the courage to go outside and make on the public platform the charges which they had made in this House; and what was the consequence ? The leader of the opposition made the charge all over the country, that the Minister of the Interior had been connected with his law partner at Brandon in granting some licenses for the sale of liquor in the Yukon ; but when Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper spoke at a meeting in Brandon during the election of 1900 repeating those charges he was met with a letter written by Sir Charles Tupper, sr., in which he had taken everything back. I can read the letter if hon. gentlemen would like to hear it, as it is very interesting reading. This is the letter as it appears in the Winnipeg ' Free Press : '
Dear Sir,-Referring to a speech made by me at Brandon on the_ 20th of November last, during 'which you claim I made certain damaging references to you in reference to the importation or alleged importation of liquor into the Yukon Territory, I beg to say that such speech was intended to be directed by me entirely to a discussion of public questions, and my intention was not to reflect in any way upon you personally. If any of those present took a different meaning from what I said I now beg to say that subsequent investigation has shown me that the telegram sent in your name to Mr. Sifton on the 12th of June, 1898, asking that the letter in question should be amended so as to include the importation of liquor into the Yukon, and which telegram was referred to by Mr. Sifton on the floor of the House of Commons as having been received by him from you, was not sent or authorized by you and that you did not directly or indirectly in any way through yourself or any other person take or attempt to take liquor into the Yukon Territory under the authority of the letter given by Mr. Sifton to which I referred in my remarks, and that you were no party directly or indirectly to the attempt made to dispose of the liquor. I further beg to state that I have satisfied myself that there is no ground for believing that yourself or Mr. Sifton were concerned together in taking or attempting to take liquor into the Yukon Territory. I sincerely regret if anything which I said has been construed into a reflection on your character.
That letter is signed by Sir Charles Tupper. It was sent only after a writ was issued. The leader of the opposition went through this country repeating those statements on platform after platform, and when he found that he was going to be dragged into court, he wrote this apology. After repeating this all through the country, we find that he had to take it all back. It is within the memory of every hon. gentleman who had a seat in the last parliament that statements were made in this House charging the hon. Minister of the Interior with I do not know what. I could read you a nine hours speech of Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, making all sorts of Insinuations, and if the government are to be stampeded every time any hon. gentleman chooses to repeat gossip or make insinuations against them, we would have commissions appointed every day in the week. The hon. Minister of the Interior will be here in ten or twelve days, and if any hon. gentleman opposite has any charges to make, let him do as the exMinister of Public Works did some years ago, take the responsibility of making them and no doubt he will get ail the investigation he wants.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Cas-grain :
YEAS :
Messieurs
Kaulbach,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
La Riviere,
Lennox.
Maclaren (Perth), McGowan,
Monk,
Morin,
Northrup,
Pope,
Barker,
Bennett,
Birkett,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyd,
Bruce,
Cargill,
Carscallen,
Casgrain,
Clancy,



Clare,
Clarke,
Cochrane,
Earle,
Gilmour,
Hackett,
Haggart,
Henderson,
Hughes (Victoria),
Archambault,
Bazinet,
Beith,
Beland,
Belcourt,
Bernier,
Bickerdike,
Blair,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Bourbonnais,
Bruneau,
Campbell,
Carbonneau,
Champagne,
Christie,
Cowan,
Davis,
Demers (LSvis),
Demers (St. JoTin), Desjardins,
Erb,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Fortier,
Gallery,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Pringle,
Richardson,
Robinson (Elgin), Roche (Marquette), Rosamond,
Tolton,
Vrooman,
Wilmot,
Wilson.-40.
NAYS :
Messieurs
LeBlanc,
Lovell,
Loy,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacKinnon,
Maclaren
(Huntingdon), Macpherson,
McCarthy,
McCreary,
McGugan,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Madore,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Matheson,
Mayrand,
Mignault,
Morrison,
Mulock (Sir William), Parmelee,
Paterson,
Power,
PrSfontaine,
Proulx,
Puttee,
Reid (Restigouche),
Girard,.	Ross (Ontario),
Gould,	Ross (Rimouski),
Grant,	Russell,
Harty,	Schell,
Harwood,	Scott,
Heyd,	Stephens,
Holmes,	Stewart,
Hyman,	Sutherland (Essex),
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Sutherland (Oxford),
Kendall,	Talbot,
Lang,	Tobin,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tucker,
Lavergne,	Turgeon,
Law,	Wallace.-87.
PAIRS :	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Calvert,	Taylor.
Logan.	Lefurgey.
Dyment,	McCormick.
Emmersoji,	Fowler.
Charlton,	Tisdale.
Guthrie.	Porter.
Wade,	Avery.
Wright,	Culbert,
Smith (Vancouver),	Broder.
McEwen,	Sherritt.
Bureau,	Smith (Wentworth).
Sifton,	Sproule,
Roche (Halifax).	Robinson (Northum-
	* berland).
Brown,	Ball.
Tolmie.	Reid (Grenville),
Farquharson,	Gourley.
Monet.	McIntosh.
German.	Osier.
Copp,	Brock,
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck). Cartwright (Sir Richard Johnston (Lambton) McCoIl.
Fraser,
Ross (Victoria). Costigan,
Lewis.
Riley.
Gal'liher,
Meigs,
Angers,
Laurier (L'Assomption), McCool,
Turcot.
Ross (Yukon),
Douglas,
Dugas,
Martineau.
Ingram,
Tupper,
Simmons.
Ward,
Bell.
Ganong,
Hale.
Halliday,
Johnston (Cardwell), Thomson (Grey), Roddick,
Leonard,
Maclean.
Calvin,
Lavell.
Kemp,
Alcorn,
Seagram,
Hendry.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into . Committee of Supply.
Experimental Farm, $90,100.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Wliat amount was expended on eaeli farm ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: The central farm at Ottawa, $50,000; the maritime provinces, $11,000; Manitoba, $10,000; North-west Territories, $10,000; British Columbia, $9,000. The Ottawa farm includes the main staff.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the hon. minister ever considered the advisability of establishing a model farm in the province of Quebec, which would be more easily acceptable than the experimental farm here ? I have several times brought this matter to his attention.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I believe that the money which would be required for such a farm could be used more effectively in other ways. When the farm at Ottawa was established, it was considered that it would serve the two provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The climate and conditions in Ottawa are similar to those of a great part of the province of Quebec and also Ontario, and I think that the experiments carried on here are as useful to the farmers of Quebec as they are to the farmers of Ontario.
Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville.) (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, we should not lose sight of the fact that the province of Quebec is essentially agricultural. The maritime provinces could dispense with an experimental farm more easily than we could. I have ascertained by myself that the Ottawa farm is useful to our farmers. A great number of those who do not live very far from it are pleased to come and visit it every year ; but, as it will be admitted, that farm is of no easy access to the many. Therefore, I hope the government will have this matter under serious consideration, and that the province of Quebec will, before long, get that farm to which, in my opinion, it is rightly entitled.


Thomas Osborne Davis: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If I remember well, the last time this question was brought up the hon. minister said he would give the question consideration. I do not know whether a register is kept of the farmers from the province of Quebec who visit the experimental farm, but there is no doubt whatever that a model farm, one that would not cost anything as excessive as the institution here, centrally situated in the province of Quebec and easy of access, would be of immense benefit to the young farmers of the province. It seems to me that three or four years ago, when the minister said that the matter was engaging his attention. Has he given it any further thought ?


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: The matter has been brought to my attention several times and I have discussed it in all its bearings. The hon. gentleman speaks of a record of the number of farmers from Quebec that come to the farm. No record is kept in that form. The great bulk of the farmers come here in excursions organized from one locality or another. I feel safe in saying that more farmers come from the province of Quebec to visit the experimental farm than come from the province of Ontario, and I say that with pride, as being a representative of the province of Quebec. It shows an interest in progressive agriculture amongst the farmers of Quebec that is most creditable and satisfactory.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What becomes of the butter manufactured in the experimental farm ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is sold in Ottawa.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is a record kept of the disposal that is made of it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. I am informed that the question was asked in the House some time ago and was fully answered.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think it was. I would be glad if, when the hon. minister's estimates are next before the committee, he would have his officials bring down the book containing the record of the sales of butter manufactured at the experimental farm. It cannot be a very voluminous document, and I should like to look at it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I shall be glad to do so.


Mr. WILSON.: For some years one portion of the experimental farm, two hundred acres in extent, has been set apart to be conducted as a farmer would conduct his own business. I would like to know the result, allowing a fair estimate of interest on the investment and also the expenses of working. I think this would be the most valuable Information the experimental farm could give, because it would show the working of a farm in the ordinary way. We get great reports of the experiments in the 143J
small plots and we sometimes think that more attention is placed with the small plots than a regular farmer could give. Therefore, it would be very interesting to get a report upon this two-hundred-acre farm.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That suggestion was made last session, and it is being carried out. But the year has not yet closed. A day-book is kept on the farm with a record of the work of every labourer. Labour, of course, is changed about from that part of the farm to the experimental farm and the same way with the teams. When the current year is closed, the accounts will be made up.


Uriah Wilson: I moved a resolution last year for a return of this kind. Either I did not make the resolution broad enough or the answers were incomplete. I did not get the information I sought. If the hon. minister would promise to give us, at the end of the year, the report that I have suggested, I think it would be satisfactory to the people.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not remember the exact terms of the resolution, but I remember the terms of the discussion. I think the information called for was in the form in which the book-keeping had been done up to that time-that is, each crop and field was reckoned by Itself. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilson) or some other hon. gentleman suggested the other method and that method is being worked out for the present year.


Uriah Wilson: In the return brought down a team taken from the ordinary experimental part of the farm and used so many hours was only allowed for at a certain rate for the number of hours employed. The same way with labour. But you could not run an ordinary farm that way. If you wanted a team of horses you would have to keep them the year round, and if you wanted a man you could not employ him for a few hours and then let him go.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: But when we charge by the hour in that way, we charge more than the actual cost of keeping the horses.


Uriah Wilson: But, the hon. gentleman must admit that the system hardly works out the fair result in comparison with the ordinary farm.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think it gives a result against the farm here at Ottawa. I know enough about the farm book-keeping to know that a team can be kept for the whole year at a moderate cost. The rate charged against the farm here, I believe, is S3 per day for man and team. If that rate were charged against the ordinary farm for the number of days' work done, the amount would more than cover the expense of keeping the man and team for the whole year.


Uriah Wilson: And interest on the investment also ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Interest oil the equipment is charged separately.


Uriah Wilson: In the next report, will the minister give us a full account of the total cost of working the 200 acres ?
The S1INISTER OF AGRICULTURE. I think in the next annual report we will have a full statement of the expense of working that 200.acres as a whole.


Sir. ROSS (Ontario).: The minister said a few moments ago that the number of visitors to the farm at Quebec was larger than from Ontario. Some persons might draw the inference that the farmers of Ontario were not as anxious for information as the farmers of Quebec. There are some facts to account for that. In the first place, the central farm at Ottawa is quite a long distance from the bulk of the farming population of Ontario, and they would require to be here over night. Probably most hon. gentlemen know that we have an excellent college farm at Guelph, to which pilgrimages are made during the summer by farmers' institutes all over the country. They can go and come back in a day ; therefore, they patronize that farm at Guelph rather than come to Ottawa. I have often thought that it was desirable that farmers' excursions should be arranged from some parts of central Ontario to visit the experimental farm. I know they already get the benefit of the reports that are distributed, but I think they would see something to their advantage if they observed the working of the farm.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Probably there are more individual farmers coming from Ontario than from Quebec; but the large excursions which visit the farm come more frequently from Quebec. What my hon. friend says with regard to the farm at Guelph is no doubt quite correct.
should take the whole 200 acres of land that is worked as a farm, and charge it with all the labour and work put upon it, and give it credit for all it produces. That is what we are trying to work out now, and which will appear in the next year's report. A record is now being kept of each crop or each series of crops. Hitherto we never took the whole of the 200 acres and treated it as an entity. We took each individual crop or field of grain- on that 200 acres, each individual cow or herd of cows, and dealt with them, charging everything that is spent upon them and crediting them with everything they produce. But in addition to that, I understood that the hon. gentleman asked last session that we should keep a book for the whole farm collectively, without reference to the individual fields and crops. We will still continue the old system of charging to the individual fields and crops, so that we will be able to work out what the hon. gentleman alludes to in the future as we have been doing in the past. To-day we know the profits of each crop of oats, of wheat, of roots, and of each cow in the dairy, and we will continue that system of accounts, because we think it is absolutely essential to good book-keeping. But in addition to that we are going to keep a separate account of the collective work of the 200 acres.


Mr. CLANCY.: Last year some criticism was made of the fact that in the statement furnished to the House by way of a return, $3 a day was charged for a man and a team. But there was no undertaking on the part of the government to account for all the labour that was paid for out of the vote that was given by this House to carry on the farm generally. The hon. gentleman charges $3 a day for a certain service, for a man and a team, but he does not show the cost of the whole outfit. That service might require the use of a roller, or of a drill, or a plough and harrow. We would like to know', not only how much the whole farm has paid, but how much each branch has paid or lost.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman ljas not told us what mode he follows of keeping the accounts. I understood him to say last year that at a later date the accounts would be presented at the end of the fiscal year which had been prepared in a different manner from the mode adopted hitherto.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It has been suggested that wTe adopt a new system of book-keeping. Under the present system each field is charged with the labour expended upon it, and credited with the returns obtained from it. For instance, w'e charge that field the number of day's *work, either of men or of horses. I understood the request last session was that instead of charging each crop, reckoning up against each crop what we put upon it, we


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is what we propose to try and do.


James Clancy: What stock has been purchased during the year past ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 have not got a list of all the animals. But we are constantly purchasing pigs, for instance, and selling them. During the last twelve months. I have directed that some French Canadian cattle should be purchased for the farm. Speaking from memory, we have not purchased any other thoroughbred animals except five head of French Canadian cattle, a bull and four cows. I think we purchased one or two grade animals, but we purchase and sell them according to the exigencies of the time, or according to what we require of


Hon. Mr. FISHER.: them. I am speaking without reference to the number of steers that we purchase every fall which we feed and sell again as beef.


William Ross: Is it the intention to make this farm pay as a farm, or are the experiments that are there conducted regarded as a part of the revenue ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think that perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Ross, Ontario) may not remember that about three years ago I divided the farm, taking 200 acres of it and setting it apart as' a farm with a regular rotation of crops and without any reference to the experimental work. That was put in charge of the agriculturist, Mr. Grisdale. He was informed that lie must buy no manure and that he must keep as much stock as he could feed and see whether he could improve the fertility of that 200 acres, and show that it could be done at a profit. The whole farm includes 465 acres, and of this 200 is treated as a farm. The other 265 acres, including the orchard, arboretum, woodland, roads and buildings, as well as the land, are devoted especially to experimental work.


Uriah Wilson: I look upon the 200 acres as the more valuable part of the experimental farm. I think that we ought to get information not only as to the crops that it pays best to raise, but as to the kind of stock that can be kept on a farm of a given number of acres, the number of cattle, pigs and sheep and the kind of implements the farmer requires. We should have all this information, because I think it is the most practical part of the experimental farm, and I think it would be of more interest to the farmers than anything else.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman.


Mr. BLAIN.: May I ask the hon. minister if he is making any special experiments at the farm, or is the same routine work carried on every year ? Perhaps the hon. gentleman could tell us of some line of work that was carried on during last year. There are consttmt improvements and changes going on in regard to the farming interest and we would naturally expect the experimental farm would be in advance of every other farm.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not off-hand give the hon. gentleman details of all the experiments that are being tried this year. There are certain classes of experiments which extend over a long term of years. Experiments have been carried on as to the fertilization and treatment of soils. There was an exhaustive series of experiments conducted in regard to the fertilization of land by growing clover crops, and it took eight or ten years to prove the results, although we saw the effect earlier. We required to take that time to be sure that the effect of this treatment will
be permanent. There are during every year experiments iu the different methods of treating soil and in the growing of grain crops. These experiments are going on every year and we are steadily accumulating an immense mass of information which is from time to time worked up by the officers of the farm into details of the results and these results are published in bulletins and in the annual report. I do not at the moment remember any new thing that has been started this season. I was out at the farm the other day and was shown by the agriculturist an experiment tided for the first time in regard to the width between the rows or drills in sowing grain. Instead of sowing the drills all the same width apart, we have alternated the spaces. In one instance one of the spouts of the seeder is stopped and in another the whole of the spouts are used. Last year we tried very considerable experiments in ridging up part of the field and leaving it ridged up during the winter to show the effect of frost and to ascertain what the result would be in the spring in drying off and preparing the soil for the crop. One piece of land was rigged up and another left in the ordinary way. We are trying things of that kind all the time and they are explained in detail by the officers of the farm who come before the Committee on Agriculture of the House. They also appear in the annual report every year.


James Clancy: How many teams of working horses, how many other horses and how many cattle have you on the farm ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I could not off-hand say how many horses or cattle are on the farm. I have just asked the director and he cannot from memory state positively. There are between thirty-five and forty milk cows, about sixteen horses, four or five bulls and about two hundred pigs and about forty sheep. All these details are in the annual report which hon. members have.


James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman tell the committee how many thoroughbreds there are on the farm and how many grades?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are, I think, about twenty pure bred cows. Then, all the bulls are pure bred.


James Clancy: How many ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There are five pure bred bulls, one Shorthorn, one Ayrshire, two Guernseys and one French Canadian. There are four French Canadian cows, six or seven Guernsey cows, eight or nine Ayrshire cows, and about five Shorthorn milking cows and some that are going to be milking very soon.


James Clancy: Has there been any pure bred stock bought during the present year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I bought five French Canadian animals.


James Clancy: Are they considered pure bred ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Certainly. They are registered animals, and the purest blood there is on the continent of America.


James Clancy: I understand that you had some of that breed years ago ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes ; ten or twelve years ago, but none remained.


James Clancy: What was the result with these French Canadian animals ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The result was to show that the French Canadian cow is a very economical producer of butter, giving a rich milk and costing comparatively little to feed.


James Clancy: How do they compare with the other breeds ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot speak as to the result of the tests in detail. I cannot say positively whether the French Canadian cows ten years ago on the farm showed up better than the short horns or the Ayrshire*.


James Clancy: The minister must have had some reason to continue the experiment.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am pretty familiar with the breed myself in the province of Quebec, and know how excellent they are. The general average of milk in the province of Quebec is extremely rich, and the French Canadian cow has played a very important part in rendering the butter production of that province so high. At the Buffalo exhibition, in a dairy test lasting six months, the French Canadian herd made so fine a showing as to attract attention from one end of the continent to the other, with the result that there are now large sales of French Canadian cattle to the United States, as well as to the other provinces of Canada.


Mr. ICAULBACH.: Which breed would it be advisable for a farmer'to keep for general purposes ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I would not presume to answer. It depends on the farmer's taste and the markets he has to supply.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: We find Shorthorns and Ayrshires crossed to be about the best.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Some people do.


James Clancy: What has been the result of your experiments in regard to the causes of soft pork ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The whole matter was fully published in a Hon. Mr. FISHER.
special bulletin which was issued two years ago.


James Clancy: We had the gentleman who prepared that bulletin before the Agricultural Committee, and his evidence was of the most unsatisfactory kind.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Whom do you refer to ?


James Clancy: I have forgotten his name, but he has been in the department long before the minister.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I suppose it was Mr. Shutt, who, with Mr. Grisdale, conducted the experiments.


James Clancy: An experiment was being made in one of the packing bouses in the city of Ottawa, and Mr. Shutt prepared a report, which was published broadcast from one end of this country to the other, of a most damaging character, if it was true. Mr. Shutt, when he appeared before the committee, was unable to verify the statements he had made in the report, and was compelled to admit that the reasons he had given why the pork was soft were mere conjectures. The bulletin contained the statement that a number of small pigs had been purchased in the corn district, and, without having any evidence as to their having been fed on a single grain of corn-in fact, they were of the age when they could not be fed on grain of that kind-he came to the conclusion that because they had come from what was alleged to be the corn district, that was the reason their pork was soft. It seems to me that a statement of that kind ought not to be made in the country, because it would convey the impression that all the pork brought from the west would be soft. I would like to ask the minister if these experiments have been since continued, or if he considers the case closed on the report of Mr. Shutt ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I must say that I am very much surprised at what the hon. gentleman says. The report speaks for itself. The officers who worked out the experiment consider that the report settled the matter, as far as an experiment of that kind could settle it. What the hon. gentleman says as to some of the hogs having been bought in what he calls the corn belt is perfectly true ; but that does not imply that they were fed on corn. The question was whether pigs which had been fed very largely on corn for a generation or two were practically born with a predisposition to make soft pork instead of hard pork ; and to test that question we bought some of the pigs we were experimenting with from the corn belt. Borne of these pigs were fed on one thing and *6me on another, and the results were worked out in the report. I cannot repeat the conclusions exactly, but the hon. gentleman knows them as well as I do.


James Clancy: I can inform the hon. gentleman that there was no such conclusion drawn from the report as that from the long feeding of pigs on corn in the corn belt they had an inherent tendency to make pork that must necessarily be soft.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I did not say that any such conclusion was drawn. I said that we bought the pigs for the purpose of ascertaining what the results were. The results are shown in the report: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman what those results were.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows what that report contains. The hon. gentleman knows that it is a pure assumption that because these pigs came from the west that must be the reason the pork was soft. There is no evidence to support that assumption. There is nothing to show that on the farm from which they were taken they were not fed on mixed food. It was boldly assumed that by reason of their coming from that locality, the pork would necessarily be soft. Attention was called to this in the committee, and Mr. Shutt was compelled to admit that this was merely a conclusion of his own. I do not think the case should rest there. I think the matter is of such importance in the west, where large quantities of pork are being produced, that it should not be put under the ban of such a shadow of suspicion as that. I do not think it is fair to that part of the country, and I would like to know whether the hon. minister is now prosecuting the matter, or whether he intends to leave it in the shape in which it was, I think unfairly, left in the report.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My answer is that the report speaks for itself. I am not going to dispute with the hon. gentleman as to quotations from the report, as I do not remember it sufficiently to quote from it.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I do not think that is a proper answer to the hon. member for Both-well. As he contends that the report was altogether in error and misleading, and against the interests of western Ontario, particularly that part of the country in which corn is grown, he wants to know whether the minister is going to prosecute this inquiry further, to see whether or not his officers are mistaken. If he is not, he can tell the hon. member so ; but if he is determined to prosecute the inquiry further, it would be very interesting to members from the west to know that their interests are still being looked after by the Minister of Agriculture.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: What I say is that I cannot quote the report, but my memory of it is that it contains no such reflections on the corn-belt pigs as the hon. gentleman supposes.


David Henderson: We do not expect the hon. minister to remember the report. He pays so little attention to his department, being sometimes in England, sometimes in France, and sometimes in Japan, with a deputy minister who perhaps does not know the difference between hard pork and soft pork, and with a chemist who perhaps even does not eat bacon, but requires something a little more fanciful, we do not expect that the minister is going to be able to keep in mind these particular things which interest the farmers so much. We want to know, whether the hon. gentleman is going to send broadcast throughout this country reports of a flimsy character, which are misleading and calculated to do a great deal of injury to the agricultural community ? We want to know whether he is going to spend some of this money in making further investigations with a view of having the matter entirely before the country ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The report is not a flimsy one but the result of two years investigation by the most competent officers in the department. Professor Shutt is a man whose standing no one would dare dispute, Professor Saunders is the man who organized the whole farm and worked it up from the beginning. It ill-beeomes the hon. gentleman to east unfair reflections on these officers. I am only the political head and do not take credit for this work, but to say that it is a flimsy affair is a statement which, to any one who knows the two gentlemen in question, refutes itself.


David Henderson: There can be no doubt that the report is against the interests of the farming community.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think so.


David Henderson: I think it is, and the opinion of men just as well posted as the hon. minister is that the report is not a fair one. The investigation should not stop where it is, but further inquiry should be made to determine whether these men were mistaken or not. I am not casting any reflection on the officers of the department, but I do not know that a chemist is the best man to determine that particular thing. A practical farmer could investigate a matter of that kind just as well as a chemist. I do not see where chemical knowledge is required in such a matter. Mr. Shutt may be an excellent chemist, but I am not aware that his chemical knowledge would fit him better for a question of this kind than that of a man who is every day engaged in the feeding of hogs and the work of a farm generally. No doubt these are men well qualified to discharge technical duties, but I cannot see that because this opinion has been given by a chemist, it should have any more weight than if given by a butcher


William Ross: I remember very well reading this bulletin and I very well remember Professor Shutt appearing before our committee to illustrate by a bulletin the results of feeding different foods to hogs. I consider it an extremely interesting report, but perhaps I might agree with some of what is said by hon. gentlemen opposite. Possibly the experiment might be carried still further. The bulletin did certainly show that corn was the most excellent feed for hogs. That is the general result of the experiment, as I remember. I suppose that probably the best food for hogs is peas, as shown by the results, and one of the poorest foods is corn. It so happens that the western part of the country grows a great deal of corn and feeds a great deal to hogs, so that nearly all the hogs from that section are practically corn-fed. Of course, I make that statement, not from personal knowledge, but because large quantities of corn are grown in that section, and I presume it is fed to the hogs. The Industry is one we cannot afford to lose. It is probably one of the most profitable branches of farming to-day, and if the results are such as were shown, it means to some extent some reflection on the hogs produced in the corn belt. Therefore it might be as well for the department to consider the carrying on of the experiment still further. In the section I come from, our farmers feed largely peas and oats to their hogs, and our hogs are noted as being first class. I have seen in the local papers complaints from the packers that corn-fed hogs were not as good as hogs fed on other food. Experiments were made and the animals were slaughtered and inspected and put through a process of chemical analysis, but that might not be sufficient to prove that corn was not as good feed for hogs, and under the circumstances I think possibly that the request of the hon. member for Bothwell is fair and reasonable and the experiment might be carried still further.


James Clancy: I was a little surprised at the curt manner in which the hon. Minister of Agriculture dealt with this question. I am not aware that he occupies a position which exempts him from replying to fair inquiries or that it is much to his credit to inform us, as he did, in a supercillious way, that he knows nothing About the reports in his own department. But he asserted very strongly that this report did not contain any such insinuation as I have stated. Well, let me read from the evidence given by Mr. Shutt in relation to the particular case to which I referred a moment ago. On page 124 of the report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, Mr. Shutt was asked by myself, with respect to the hogs that were slaughtered for experiment at the slaughter houses of Mr. Matthews in the city of Ottawa.


David Henderson: Q. Then why did you assume in this case, that the mothers were fed on corn, to put it in your report ?
A. I do not think I made that statement.
Q. You made it.
A. I made a scientific conjecture, nothing more. I say that the unweaned animals, the young animals, may be affected by the milk of their mother, and X see no reason to hesitate to further say that supposing the mother be fed largely on corn, she having been brought up on corn, the fat of her milk would have a tendency to make flesh, or rather the fat of her young, soft.
Q. Have you made a test to show if that is true ?
A. No.
Q. Where did you purchase them ?
A. In Essex and Kent. I cannot give you the names of the parties from whom they were bought.
Q. I do not want that. That being the case, up to that stage they could not have been fed upon corn much, could they ?
A. No.
Q. Did you wish to give the impression that by the mere fact their mothers were fed upon corn that they were soft.
A. I did not state that as a fact, but I said that it was significant that these pigs were the softest two of the four young pigs examined. I think it is probable-it is quite possible, at any rate, that if the mothers were largely corn fed. the milk would at	outset give that
character to the flesh of fheir young. I infer that such wmuld be the case. In the light of our subsequent work I felt justified in saying so.
Q. Quite so ; have you any evidence that all the pigs in Western Canada are fed on corn ?
A. Oh. no. I have never said they were.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to read further to show that this gentleman came here and stated that this was a mere scientific conjecture, and from that, a report is sent out broadcast throughout this country as the hon. gentleman has stated, that contains on every page a condemnation which has no better ground than the statement of Professor Shutt on that occasion. That was an examination of which the hon. minister should have some knowledge. I am surprised that he does not know what is going, on in his own department, that he does not read the report of the committee respecting the department over which he presides and knows nothing of the evidence given before it, but must come here with the confession that he has not read the report and knows nothing of what is in it, knows nothing of the effect in the country of the evidence which his officers are sending out. And, yet, he lies back and, in an injured tone, refuses to answer questions. Now, may I be permitted to ask, with great humility, if he is disposed to let that libel stand uncontradicted without further evidence ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In the first place, I doi not know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has quoted me quite correctly. I did not say that I knew nothing of what occurred in the committee.

1 said that I could not remember the particular question that he referred to. I think I know something of what is going on in the committee and of the evidence given by my officers, but I confess that I do not carry all the details in my mind so as to be able to refer offdiand to any point which the hon. gentleman may happen to mention. He asks me if this evidence ought to be allowed to remain without further investigation. I confess that, up to the present, I have believed-and I have not yet seen reason to change my mind-that the conclusions of that report were fair and just on the whole. I did not draw from the conclusions as I remember then) the inference which the hon. gentleman seems to have drawn, that those conclusions were an imputation against the pigs of a certain place in Canada; but I did draw from the inference that pigs fed almost entirely upon corn were more likely to be soft in their flesh, than pigs fed in another way.


James Clancy: What led the hon. gentleman to that conclusion ?
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE The facts in the report.


James Clancy: But, if the hon. gentleman will permit me, his own officer declares that that is a mere ' scientific conjecture.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has quoted one particular phrase used in describing the results of experiments covering several hundred pigs and many different investigations. I confess I do not know just what Professor Shutt meant by the words ' scientific conjecture ' but they apply to one particular incident, one of many parts of the evidence, which evidence tended on the whole to the conclusions drawn In that report.


James Clancy: I do not wish to disturb the hon. gentleman, but the hon. gentleman will remember, perhaps, from reading the report from his own department that these questions were on special incidents given in the report we are discussing. Examples were given of tests made without locating the quarter from which the pigs came. But this incident was selected, and Professor Shutt said he did not know what the mothers were fed upon, that this was a mere scientific conjecture on his own part.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot say if that was the case, because I do not remember the surroundings of the incident. But I do know that the conclusions were based upon the whole series of experiments. I think they extended over two years' work. All these pigs were bought as soon as they were weaned and brought here to be fed. That was the principle of the experiment. Some of these young pigs were slaughtered when they were first
brought here, to learn the condition of their flesh. Others were experimented on in feeding, and animals were slaughtered at different stages and their flesh subjected to examination. The hon. member for Haiton (Mr. Henderson) said he did not think the chemist the right man to do this kind of work. The chemist did only one part of the work. The animals were fed by the men in charge of them, and were slaughtered by the pork packers of Ottawa, who gave reports "from their practical standpoint as to the character of the flesh. The chemist came after and chemically analyzed the flesh of every pig and different parts of the carcass of every pig. One of the points we wished to arrive at was to know in what chemically soft pork consisted. The trade could tell us that such and such a pig was soft or such and such a side was soft. We wished to know the chemical characteristics of soft and hard pork. That is the reason the chemists took part in the experiment. And as he was the officer who took part In the whole thing, he made up the report and worked out the conclusions, based partly on his own work in the laboratory and partly on the reports of the other men engaged in the experiment. I confess that up to this moment I considered that the public at large, including hon. gentlemen opposite, had accepted that report as a final conclusion upon the subject. I want to say that as a result of that report and the information that was given by the series of experiments during the last two years, I think there has been much less salt pork in Canada than there was for the ten years preceding. I hear very few complaints on the part of packers of salt pork. I do not mean to say it is all due to the experiment; but I do believe that the result of that experiment gave information to the feeders of pork in this country which enabled them to a certain extent to have less risk in making salt pork, because it showed the food that seemed to be the best to make hard, and it showed some food which seemed to be objectionable for that purpose. If I find that the public wish further information, we should certainly inaugurate another series of experiments.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman had carefully read the evidence that was given by Mr. Shutt he would find that the chemical experiments have been thoroughly unreliable. I have no hesitation in making that statement in this House. What did we elicit in Mr. Shutt's examination ? For instance, he was asked if, when he made the statement in his report comparing pigs bought in the west and those bought in the east, they were all alike, or was there some cause from which salt pork was found in the same condition in both lots, and he answered that was the, case. If that is the case, how can you lay down any rule? It is dangerous for any one to set afloat statements upon mere scientific bubble-blowing. With

regard to the chemical experiments, I have pointed out the contradictory sections of that bulletin with regard to the oil test, as it is called, the temperatures and so on, where the temperatures were professedly the same and he got very different results. I make no apology for saying that it is a most unreliable and damaging report. There is no difference in the feeding conditions. People are not so stupid in the west, although they live in a corn belt where pigs are fed entirely upon corn, as not to know the*value of feeding mixed grains other than corn. It was unfair to assume that because a lot of pigs were bought in the west, they were fed on com any more than in the east. The farmers in the west understand as well as those in the east that it is to their interest to feed pigs upon mixed grains.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 1.35 a.m. Friday.

Friday, June 12, 1903.