1904-08-03

Mr. L. N. CHAMPAGNE moved :: That the third report of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the official re-Mr R. L. BORDEN.
port of the Debates of this House during the present session he adopted.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I understand that the report of the committee is for the appointment of two additional members to the staff, for the purpose of making a new index. This, I think, is unnecessary, and is going to involve a great expense to the country. I voted against it in the committee, and I vote against it here. I object to the adoption of the report.


Louis Napoléon Champagne: In answer to the hon. gentleman and for the information of the House, I will give a few words of explanation in support of the motion now before you. The report recommends :
That in addition to the regular index to the Official Report of the Debates of the present session, an analytical index covering the several volumes thereof be prepared and issued in a separate volume and a sufficient number of copies of the said index he printed and bound for distribution to those entitled to receive bound copies of the Official Report of the Debates.
This is the first portion of the report. The second portion is to this effect:
That Mr. Daniel McGillicuddy be appointed to prepare the index in question to the English Revised Edition, and Mr. Marc Sauvalle to the French Edition, said work to he performed apart from that of the present staff, and that on the final completion of the above work, the foregoing be paid for their services the sum of $750 each.
The first portion of the report bus been considered for some time by those who have taken an interest in the efficiency of the Report of the Debates of this House, and who desire an index to 'Hansard' as complete and as perfect as can be secured!. To attain that object an analytical index has been suggested. During the present session and during previous sessions the matter has been discussed before the committee, and recently a sub-committee was formed to consider the subject. The report of that sub-committee is in substance what is now submitted to the House. Most of the hon. members of the House have had an opportunity of judging for themselves of the importance and the advantage of the improvement now suggested by reading the sample sheet which has been sent to them since the report of the committee was laid on the table the other day. This is an analytical index of the debates of the House during one of the sittings of the present session, both in English and French. It contains in condensed form the substance of every speech delivered on a certain subject, and the names of the members who addressed the House. At the end of each session a separate volume called the analytical index of ' Hansard ' will be published and distributed to those entitled to receive the

' Hansard.' Tills book will. I am sure, be of considerable value, and a great improvement on the present system. Let me quote from the sample sheet, which lias been ordered to be prepared by the Debates Committee, and you will see the difference between the present index and the one which we are now suggesting. One subject, a very important subject, was discussed before this House a few weeks ago ; it was the alien labour question. The hon. leader of the opposition made a speech on that question, and it is indexed as follows :
Borden, R. L. (Halifax).
Promise of general alien law given under pressure from Opposition-3498. In the case of the Crow's Nest Pass the exclusion of alien labour was specially applied to that branch of C.P.R.-3500.
The following are samples of the indexing of other speeches on the same subject :
Bourassa, E. (Labelle).
The exclusion law should not apply indiscriminately-3457. If foreigners are to be excluded let it be understood that only Canadian engineers shall be employed- 3459.
Clarke, E. F. (West Toronto).
American law respecting the employment of foreigners on subsidized or public works quoted ; New York State-3482. Illinois, Idaho, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California-3484. Crow's Nest Pass could not be compared with Transcontinental-3485. The efforts of Mr. Taylor, M. P., to obtain labour legislation praised-3485.
Fitzpatrick, Eon. Clias. (Quebec County).
Government is anxious to protect labourers on subsidized works-3496. All complaints will be investigated-3497. Organized labour will be protected within the limits of what is right-3498.
Now, M r. Speaker, the present index is well made, and it is not the intention to do away with it. An Important improvement was introduced this year by which a partial index is issued from time to time as the session progresses. This, I think, has been found very convenient, but it contains a, mere reference to the subjects discussed and to the names of the members taking part in the debates, without giving any idea of the nature or substance of the speeches delivered. We now propose, as I have said, to publish an analytical index in a separate volume at the end of each session, giving the substance of every speech delivered on every subject in the House. As to the gentlemen to whom we propose to give this work, Messrs. McGillicuddy and Sauvalle. they are undoubtedly well qualified. They are both distinguished journalists, and most competent to undertake this work, and the remuneration suggested is far from being excessive. The work is to be tried for the present session, and this trial experiment will not bind the House for future sessions
in ca.se it should be found unsatisfactory. It was suggested in the committee to have an analytical index made for every session since the publication of ' Hansard ' ; but, as I have stated, we expect merely to have the work done for the present session as a trial.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by ill'. Taylor-asked :
1.	What is the estimated cost of the wharf at St. Mathias, county of Rouville ?
2.	What amount has been expended on the said wharf to date ?
3.	What was the amount of the contract for its construction ?
4.	What is the cost of the shed on the said wharf ?
5.	What were the wages fixed in said contract of construction in regard to the different classes of workmen ?
Hon. CHAS. HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	$3,500.
2.	$4,727.55.
3.	Work was done by day labour.
4.	It is impossible to give the exact cost of the shed ; the wharf having been built by day labour, it would be difficult to separate the labour chargeable to the shed from that chargeable to the wharf.
5.	There was no contract, the work was done by day labour.


I.C.R.-TUNNEL AT RIVIERE DU LOUP.
Mr. GAUVREAU asked :: 1.	Is the Honourable the Minister of Railways aware that the town council of Fraserville passed a resolution, which has been sent to the Department of Railways, asking, as a matter of public safety, that a tunnel be constructed at the Riviere du Loup station, on the Intercolonial Railway ?
2.	If so, has the engineer-of the department paid a visit to the locality ?
3.	Has any report been made regarding the cost of the work to be done ?
4.	If so, what is the amount ?
5.	Does the Department of Railways intend to meet the desires of the public, as expressed in the resolution by the town council of Fraserville ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways) :: 1.	The minister is aware that a resolution from the town council of Fraserville on this subject was received in 1890.
2.	Yes, many times.
3.	Yes.
4.	$52,657.
5.	It has reached no decision on the question at present.


GOVERNMENT STEAMER ' QUADRA.'
Mr. EARLE asked :: l.	Have any complaints been received at the Department of Marine and Fisheries respecting alleged ill-treatment of the crew of the Dominion government steamer ' Quadra ' ?
*	2. If so, what is the nature of these complaints ?
3.	Are the members of the crew of the [DOT] Quadra ' paid their wages regularly ?
4.	What is the arrangement regarding pay for the men ?
5.	If, when the ' Quadra ' is absent on a cruise at the time the monthly pay falls due, has any arrangement been made whereby the families of the men can draw their pay ?
6.	Who selects the supplies for the ' Quadra '?
7.	From whom are supplies for the ' Quadra ' purchased in British Columbia ?
8.	Is the government aware that members of the crew assert that the food is of inferior -quality, and is often insufficient in quantity ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: 'Hie department has received no complaints. All that we know about this question is what we have learned from the reports of the papers.
I	intend, when I go to British Columbia, to investigate, myself, the condition of affairs.


ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into Committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution
That it is expedient to provide that the Animal Contagious Diseases Act of 1903 be amended as follows
That paragraph (e) of section 2 of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act of 1903, chapter
II	of the Statutes of 1903. be amended by adding after the word ' farcy ' in the third line of the said paragraph the words ' maladie du coit '.
That subsections 2 and 3 of section 12 be stricken out, and the following substituted therefor :-
' The compensation, if any, shall be two-thirds of the value of the slaughtered animal before the same became affected with infectious or contagious disease, or came in contact with, or in dangerous proximity to animals so affected ; provided that when it is clearly shown that an animal has been slaughtered on insufficient grounds, and that the slaughter was not in accordance with, or justifiable under this Act, the owner shall he entitled to compensation at the full value of the animal so slaughtered.'
That subsection 4 of the said section 12 he amended by adding at the end thereof the following :-
' But shall not exceed, in the case of grade animals, $150 for each horse ;	$60 for each
head of cattle ; or $150 for each pig or sheep ; and in the case of pure-bred animals, $300 for each horse ;	$150 for each head of cattle ;
or $50 for each pig or sheep.'
He said :	I beg to say that this resolution has been communicated to His Exeel-
Mr. EMMERSON.: lency the Governor General and that he has approved of the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolutions :-
1.	In these resolutions, unless the context otherwise requires, the expression ' cost ' means the actual, necessary and reasonable cost, and shall include the amount expended upon any bridge, up to and not exceeding $25,000, forming part of the line of railway subsidized not otherwise receiving any bonus, but shall not include the cost of terminals and right of way of the railway In any city or incorporated town ; and such actual, necessary and reasonable cost shall be determined by the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and upon the report of the Chief Engineer of Government Railways, certifying that he has made or caused to be made an inspection of the line of railway for which payment of subsidy is asked, and careful inquiry into the cost thereof, and that in his opinion the amount upon which the subsidy is claimed is reasonable, and does not exceed the true, actual and proper cost of the construction of such railway ?
2.	The Governor in Council may grant a subsidy of $3,200 per mile towards the construction of "each of the undermentioned lines of railway (not exceeding in any case the number of miles hereinafter respectively stated), which shall not cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, and towards the construction of each of the said lines of railway not exceeding the mileage hereinafter stated, which shall cost more on the average than $15,000 per mile for the mileage subsidized, a further subsidy beyond the sum of $3,200 per mile of 50 per cent on so much of the average cost of the mileage subsidized as is in excess of $15,000 per mile, such subsidy not exceeding in the whole the sum of $6,400 per mile
1.	To the Bracebridge and Trading Lake Railway Company, for a railway from Bracebridge, in Muskoka, to a point at or near Baysville, Ontario, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 7 of section 2 of chapter 8 of 1900, not exceeding 15 miles.
2.	To the Bruce Mines and Algoma Railway Company, for the following lines of railway
(a.) For that portion of its line of railway from Bruce Mines Junction southerly to the town of Bruce Mines, on Lake Huron, a distance not exceeding three miles :
(b.) For the 6 miles of railway constructed from Gordon Lake station, being the end of its line as subsidized by chapter 7 of 1901, northward to Rock Lake, a distance of 6 miles ;
(c.) For 12 miles from Rock Lake northward, a distance not exceeding 12 miles.
The subsidies to the said lines being granted in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 38 of sec- -tion 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 21 miles.
3.	To the Nipigon Railway Company, for the following lines of railway :-
(a.) From a point at or near Nipigon station on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway to Nipigon Lake, not exceeding 30 miles ;

(b.) From a point on Nipigon Bay of Lake Superior to a point on the west of Lake Helen on the line of the said Nipigon Railway, not exceeding 3J miles ;
(c.) From a point on the line of the Nipigon Railway at or near the crossing of the Fraser River, to a point on Lake Jesse by way of Cameron's Falls, not exceeding 1J miles ;
(d.) From a point on the north shore of Lake Nipigon northerly, not exceeding 45 miles.
The subsidies to the said lines being granted in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 33 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 80 miles.
4.	For the construction of a branch line of railway beginning at the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's main line at St. Philippe d'Argenteuil Station, or at a point between there and Grenville, thence in a northerly direction, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 49 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 3 miles.
5.	To the Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company, for a railway from a point in Hoehel-aga ward, Montreal, to i. point on the Great Northern Railway in or near the Town of Joliette, passing through the Town of L'Assomp-tion, Quebec, together with a spur line into the said town, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 32 of section 2 of chapter 8 of 1900, not exceeding 42 miles.
6.	To the Great Northern Railway Company of Canada, to enable it to extend its railway from Arundel to a point in the municipality of the united townships of Preston and Hartwell, Province of Quebec, in lieu of the subsidy granted to the Montford and Gatineau Colonization Railw'ay by item 6 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 30 miles.
7.	To the Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company, for a branch line from a point on its main line to or near Charlemagne, thence northerly and westerly to a point on the Montford and Gatineau Railway at or near Morin Flats, in lieu of the subsidy granted to the Montford and Gatineau Colonization Railway by item 41 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 22 miles.
8.	To the Ottawa River Railway Company, for a line of railway from a point at or near Ste. Agathe des Monts Station towards the Township of Howard in the County of Argenteuil, passing near Lakes St. Joseph and Ste. Marie, in a southerly direction, in lieu of the subsidy granted to the Montreal Northern Railway Company by item 58 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 15 miles.
9.	To the Ottawa River Railway Company, for a line of railway between a point in the Parish of St. Andrews, in the County of Argenteuil, and a point in the Parish of St. Lawrenpe, in the County of Jacques Cartier, passing through the Parishes of St. Placide, St. Eus-tache and St. Martin, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 10 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 38 miles.
10.	For a line of railway from Lardo towards tipper Arrow Lake, British Columbia, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 28 of section 2 of chapter 7 of 1901, not exceeding 30 miles.
11.	To the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company, either for a line of railway from a point at or near Spence's Bridge on the Canadian Pacific Railway to Nicola Lake, or for a line of railway from a point at or near the Village of Coutlee, southerly towards Princeton and Headley, in lieu of the subsidy granted
by item 26 of section 2 of chapter 57 of 1903, not exceeding 45 miles.
12.	To the Western Alberta Railway Company, from a point on the United States boundary, west of range 27, north-westerly towards Anthracite, in the District of Alberta, in lieu of the subsidy granted by item 40 of section 2 of chapter 7, 1899, not exceeding 50 miles.
3.	The Governor in Council may grant the subsidy hereinafter mentioned towards the construction of the bridge also hereinafter mentioned, that is to say :-
1. To the Chateauguay and Northern Railway Company, the balance remaining unpaid of the subsidy granted by item 33 of section 2 of chapter 8 of 1900, for a single-track standard railway bridge, with two roadways 10 feet wide, for free vehicular traffic, the same as upon a public highway, from Bout de L'lle to Charlemagne at the junction of the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers, a sum not exceeding $51,000.
4.	The subsidies hereby authorized towards the construction of any railway or bridge shall be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and may, unless otherwise expressly provided in this Act, at the option of the Governor in Council, on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, be paid as follows :-
(a.) Upon the completion of the -work subsidized ; or
(b.) By instalments, on the completion of each ten-mile section of the railway, in the proportion which the cost of such completed section bears to that of the whole work undertaken; or
(c.) Upon the progress estimates on the certi ficate of the Chief Engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, that in his opinion having regard to the whole work undertaken and the aid granted, the progress made justifies the payment of a sum not less than $30,000 ; or
(d.) With respect to (b) and (c) part one way, part the other	,
5.	The subsidies hereinbefore authorized to be granted to companies named shall, if granted by the Governor in Council, be granted to such companies respectively ; the other subsidies may be granted to such companies as establish to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council their ability to construct and complete the said railways and bridge respectively ; all the lines and the bridge for the construction of which subsidies are granted, unless they are already commenced, shall be commenced within two years from the first day of August, 1904, and completed within a reasonable time, not to exceed four years from the said first day of August to be fixed by the Governor in Council and shall also be constructed according to descriptions, conditions and specifications approved by the Governor in Council on the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and specified in each case in a contract between the company and the said Minister, which contract the Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, is hereby empowered to make. The location also of such subsidized lines and bridge shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.
6.	The granting of such subsidies, and the receipt thereof by the respective companies, shall be subject to the condition that the Governor in Council may at all times provide and secure to other companies such running powers, traffic arrangements and other rights, as will afford to all railways connecting with the railways and bridge so subsidized, reasonable and proper

facilities in exercising such running powers, fair and reasonable traffic arrangements with connecting companies, and equal mileage rates between all such connecting railways ; and the Governor in Council shall have absolute control, at all times, over the rates and tolls to be levied and taken by any of the companies, or upon any of the railways and the bridge hereby subsidized.
7.	Every company receiving a subsidy hereunder, its successors and assigns, and any person or company controlling or operating the railway or portion of railway subsidized hereunder shall each year furnish to the government of Canada transportation for men, supplies, materials and mails over the portion of the line in respect of which it has received each subsidy, and whenever required, shall furnish mail cars properly equipped for such mail service ; and such transportation and service shall be performed at such rates as are agreed upon be-tw'een the Minister of the Department, of the Government for which such service is being performed, and the company performing it, and, in case of disagreement then at such rates as are approved by the Governor in Council ; and in or towards payment fcr such charges the Government of Canada shall be credited by the company with a sum equal to 3 per cent per annum on the amount of the subsidy received by the company hereunder.
8.	As respects all railways and the bridge for which subsidies are hereby granted, the company at any time owning or operating any of the railways, shall, when required, produce and exhibit to the Minister of Railways and Canals, or any person appointed by him, all books, accounts and vouchers, showing the cost of constructing the railway or bridge, the cost of operating it, and the earnings thereof.
9.	The Governor in Council may make it a condition of the grant of the subsidies herein provided, or any heretofore authorized by any Act of Parliament, as to which a contract has not yet been entered into with the company for the construction of the railway, that the company shall lay its road with new steel rails, made in Canada, if they are procurable in Canada of suitable quality, upon terms as favourable as other rails can be obtained, of which the Minister of Railways and Canals shall be the judge.
10.	Whenever a contract has been duly entered into with a company for the construction of any line of railway hereby subsidized, the Minister of Railways and Canals, at the request of the company, and upon the report of the chief engineer of government railways, and his certificate that he has made careful examination of the surveys, plans and profiles of the whole line so contracted for, and has duly considered the physical characteristics of the country to be traversed and the means of transport available for coostruction, naming the probable and reasonable cost of such construction, may, with the authorization of the Governor in Council, enter into a supplementary agreement, fixing definitely the maximum amount of the subsidy to he paid, based upon the said certificate of the chief engineer, and providing that the company shall be entitled to be paid, as the minimum, the ordinary subsidy of $3,200 per mile, together with the 60 per cent of the difference between the amount so fixed and the said $3,200 per mile, if any ; and the balance, 40 per cent, shall be paid only on completion of the whole work subsidized,


Henry Robert Emmerson: and in so far as the actual cost, as finally determined by the chief engineer, entitles the company thereto ; Provided always :
(a.) That the estimated cost, so certified, is not less on the average than $1,800 per mile for the whole mileage subsidized ;
(b.) That no payment shall be made except upon a certificate of the chief engineer that work done is up to the standard specified in the company's contract ;
(c.) That in no case shall the subsidy exceed the sum of $6,400 per mile.	,
He said : I beg to state that these resolutions have been communicated to His Excellency the Governor General and that he has approved of the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Rt.   H@: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a general desire on both sides of the House that prorogation should take place at an early date. If possible we will try to have His Excellency prorogue parliament on Saturday of this week, but it cannot be done unless the Order Paper is considerably curtailed. Therefore,, 1 beg to move that the following orders be dropped :-



INTRODUCTION OF BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
An Act to amend the Civil Service Act.
An Act respecting the Naval Militia of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 98) respecting the Harbour of Port Arthur, in the province of Ontario.
Bill (No. 125) for the inspection and sale of
seeds.
Bill (No. 151) respcting the incorporation of Seed-growers' Associations.
Bill (No. 99) respecting the Harbour of Fort William, in the province of Ontario.
I may say that the Naval Militia Bill is ready, and that there is an item in the estimates providing for the necessary steps to he taken, if it is found possible, but it may not be possible to have the ships ready for this winter while the fishermen are at leisure. It will be impossible to have these ready this winter and the intention is to propose this measure again early in the coming session.
Mr.  E. F. CLARICE@: May I ask the right lion. "Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to expedite the passage of Bill (No. 135) respecting Labour Union Labels ? I think an assurance was given that the Bill would be taken up by the government and passed.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: There are numerous public Bills which are not amongst government orders on the paper, the passage of which the government have Keen asked to favour, but at this late period of the session I think it would not be possible to

pass these Bills, and I think this one must share the fate of the others. I regret that the Bill has not passed, but 1 think it will come up early next-session.


Mr. NAT. BOYD.: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion, I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the late date at which this session has been called, as well as the session preceding this one. I do not wish to take up the time of the House reading the speeches of the right hon. gentleman on this question when he so sarcastically ridiculed the government of the day for bringing the House together at a much earlier date than he called this session or last session, in fact, on the average much earlier than he has called the House together since he has been in power. As I said before, when 1 took occasion to speak on this mattter, the majority of the representatives in this House are from agricultural districts; the majority of the men occupying seats in this House are engaged in the active industries of the country, and every man occupying a position in this House comes here at a great disadvantage at the date at which parliament has been called together during the last two years. Out of some seventeen months since March, 1903, we have been kept here about thirteen months. For hon. members who. live in Ontario and Quebec it matters very little. It would be quite immaterial to a number of them if the session lasted the whole year, because many of them can go away from here on Friday morning and come back on Monday or Tuesday, thus having an opportunity of attending to their business. But for men coming from distant portions of this country it is an outrage-no question about it -for they are brought here in the spring, say in March, when they should be going home. They are kept here during the season of opening of business-the opening of every business. The man who comes here from a distanat constituency loses his whole spring, and, losing the spring, he loses his whole year. The leader of the government smiles at this, yet he, in his time, severely criticised others who did what he is doing to-day. If I wished to take from my desk and read his speeches-he does not want me to or I would do it-I could show how he wished that the gods who rule over us could come down and tell us why they do these things. We might pray that the gods who rule over us to-day would come down and tell us why this inconsistency. Here we are, at the end of five months, with some of the most important legislation of the session to be rushed through, forced through, at the last moment in order that we may close the session. We have some $12,000,000 or $15,000,000 yet to be voted, and this is to be put through in
a day or two. And many important measures are to be dropped from the order paper. But, when a larger number of members come from the western portion of the country, as will soon be the ease, they will demand an earlier calling of the House together. I claim that parliament should be summoned to meet in November. A great deal of the legislation could then be introduced, so that we might know what work is to be done. We could adjourn over Christmas, and then meet after the holidays and get through with the business. If the business of this House were put before us in proper time more attention could be given to it, and more of it would be put through and in better shape. If we come here in the spring and are kept here during the summer, men are bound to try to get away from this chamber as much as they can, and so business is not attended to as it should be. The government is not doing its duty to the people; it is certainly not doing [DOT] its duty to the representatives of the people, who have to come here at very great sacrifices from long distances. And the government will have to reckon with the people from the western portion of this country in the very near future. I would like to hear from the leader of the government what excuse he has to offer for keeping us here, because he is mainly to blame for it


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Nathaniel Boyd: Hon. gentlemen opposite may laugh. But they know well the cause of "our being kept here so late in the season. They know how late important and debatable legislation has been introduced this session. And they know the legislation that was introduced last session at a very late hour. They know what enormous expenditure we have been called upon to vote. Last session it ran up to no less than $250,000,000. This year it is about $80,000,000, which is about double what the leader of this House used to gaze upon with horror when the people, as his friends said, were being bled white. It took three and a half or four months to vote the $37,000,000 or so required in those days. And the voting of money is about all that we are really called here for. If the government could get the money, I fancy they would not care if wo never got together. Now, we are faced with estimates of about $80,000,000, and hon. gentlemen opposite find fault if we spend four and a half months over the business of the session. And they will come down with estimates of $15,000,000 within three or four days of the close of the session and ask the representatives of the people to push the votes through. And then they will laugh because of the length of the session, and attribute delay to this side of the House.

Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Boyd: These hon. gentlemen may laugh, but they will find that when they undertake to discuss this matter with the electors of the country those electors will not be inclined to find fault with the length of time taken up in discussing the expenditures proposed by this government. Why, Mr. Speaker, instead of spending only four or four and a half months, six months could be profitably occupied in discussing the measures that have been brought before this House this session, including the Supply Bill, covering the enormous amount of money called for by this government. There are few members in the House who have taken up less of the time of the House than I have.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Nathaniel Boyd: Not but that sometimes I would have liked to take more part in the discussion, and sometimes felt that I ought to do so. But I was anxious that business should be expedited. But, anxious as I am to avoid a moment's delay and even at this late hour, I enter my solemn protest against the lateness of the date at which this parliament has been called together, and against the delay in bringing down a great deal of the important legislation which has been placed before us.


Mr. E. D. SMITH.: I am sure the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has brought up a very important question. He speaks for the west. But I think it is equally important for us in the east that the sessions of parliament should be called in good time. I see no reason why we should not adopt a similar method to that followed in the United States-callifig the session in the autumn and earying on the business through the winter. Our legislation is not of a character making it impossible to control the time of the meeting of our parliament. Most of the members of this House are engaged in some business, and their acceptance of membership in this House as a rule entails great sacrifices upon them. It seems to me that the ministry should change the time of our sitting. Even the fiscal year might be changed, if necessary, from the 30th June to the 30th April, or even to the 31st of December of the previous year, in order to facilitate the business of this House. It would be an enormous convenience to a people like those of Canada -who are practically all workers and whose time is valuable. I have never heard any good reason why we should not adopt some such method.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) has asked me to give what excuse I can for keeping him here so late. I do not think I am altogether blamable for that. I may be held responsible for the time when he was called to the
.M. BOYD.
session of parliament, but, as to the reason why he is kept here so long, if he will look around him he will see more than one whom he should blame for that. I have not forgotten the speeches I used to make. And I am still of opinion that there was, and is, an unwritten law that parliament should be called together early in the year. But, as head of the government, I have not found it practically possible always to comply -with this law. I have no excuse to offer except the one I offered last year. Last year we deliberately postponed the sitting until a great measure which we wished to submit to parliament was ready, I think that, under the circumstances, that -was a sufficient excuse. With regard to the suggestions made that parliament should meet in November instead of in January, that is a question upon which the government is ready to receive information, and to learn what are the views of the members of the House. But, taking it all in all, I think it would be inconvenient to bring members together early in November, only to separate for the Christmas holidays, and then force them to come back again. The best method of all, in my humble judgment, would be, to call [DOT]parliament for the despatch of business in the early days of January and, so far as I am responsible for the action of parliament, I will try to live up to that law.
Mr. R, L. BIORDEN. I am inclined to agree with the Prime Minister that he is not alone to blame for the lateness of the session or for the delay we have suffered since. I am disposed to admit that other members of the government are just as much to blame as he.is.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I suppose that was what the right hon. gentleman meant. It is very desirable that we should get together earlier in the year than we have done. What the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) and the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. E. D. Smith) have said on that point is absolutely correct. There is a certain leisure time during the year, and for practically ail classes of business that time is the winter months. It is more convenient to the great majority of the members of this House to meet at that season than at any other. We waste that time Ipraetically. then we come here just as the busy season begins. I have heard some suggestion that the delay is very often due to the inability to make up the public accounts and get business ready. If that be the case, would it not be better to make the fiscal year end on the 1st of April or May or March instead of 1st of July, so that we might be sure of beginning business every session early in January at the very latest. I would not be disposed to think unfavourably of the suggestion of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) that we might

get through part of the work in November or December and settle down to the real work of the session early in January, but if that is inconvenient, we ought to be able to begin not later than the second week in January. And if it were necessary to change the fiscal year for that purpose, I would heartily support a proposal to that end.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) moved third reading of Bill (No. 153) to further amend the Post Office Act.
Robert Laird Borden: There is a very unusual provision in this Bill, one of which I had no notice, and which was moved in committee when I happened to be out of town. It relates to certain powers to be assumed by the Postmaster General with regard to advertisements of a certain character in newspapers or periodicals. There was very little consideration given it. Would the bon. gentleman have any objection to our going into committee again and giving it further discussion ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I think it is an important addition to the law and deserves full consideration. It would be better perhaps to let the clause stand for the present, and next session we shall be in a better position to decide on its merits.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate very much the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. I have received a great many representations with regard to it, and no great evil could result by our deferring action until another session. Of course, I do not wish to be understood as being opposed to the spirit of the amendment, but I am of the opinion that we might let it stand over for consideration during recess, and we would then be in a better position to devise a provision which would secure what we all desire.


William Mulock: I quite understand that the suggestion of my bon. friend does not indicate any opposition to the general object aimed at, but that it may be Jjetter to learn during recess the views of the country and take the matter up again next session. In accord, therefore, with the wishes of my hon. friend, I move that the order for the third reading be discharged and the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to amend by striking out the clause referred to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
House again went into committee on the Bill.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved to strike out the following clause :-
It shall he lawful to transmit by mail any books, magazines, periodicals, circulars, newspapers or other publications which contain advertisements representing marvellous, extravagant, or grossly improbable cures, or creative or healing powers by means of medicines, appliances or devices referred to in such advertisements.
Motion agreed to, Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 5) respecting the Militia of Canada.-'Sir Frederick Borden.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: I have looked over the amendment suggested yesterday by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan), and I think it might be adopted with one or two verbal changes. The provision of the Bill is that the civil authorities by whom requisition is to be made are, first, the mayor of the town or of the municipality within the limits of which a riot has occurred or is anticipated; second, in case of the refusal of the mayor or warden, then by a judge of the county court or of a district judge; in default of a county court judge, that is to say, in those provinces where there are no district or county court judges, then it would be a judge of the superior-court; and in default of these persons, that is to say, of the warden, the county court judge, or a superior court judge, then a stipendiary magistrate or police magistrate, and two persons having the jurisdiction of justice of the peace. In order to adopt this amendment we will have to withdraw sections 79, 80 and 81. I therefore move that they be struck out and the following clauses be substituted therefor : 79 is practically the same as printed in the Bill now.
79a. The civil authorities by whom such requisition may be made are :
(a)	If the place where such riot or
disturbance occurs or is anticipated is municipally organized, the mayor or warden, or other head or acting head of the municipality, unless he has declined or is unable to act, and in that case the county or district court judge, or one of the county or district court judges, having jurisdiction in such place, or if there is no such county or district court judge, any judge of a superior court who has jurisdiction there ;	...
(b)	If the place where such riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated is _not^ municipally organized, the county or district court judge, or one of the county or district court judges, having jurisdiction in such place, or if there is no such county or district court judge, then any judge of a superior court who has jurisdiction there.


Mr. HAGGART.: Is the phrase ' mayor or warden of the municipality ' used ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: A municipality would include a town or other corporation.

Instead of tlie words ' having jurisdiction,' I would substitute the words, ' who has jurisdiction.'
2.	Wherever under section 1 of this section a judge is designated as the civil authority by whom a requisition may be made, and there is no such judge, or the judge, or all the judges, who might have acted are absent, or are unable to >aet, the requisition may be made by any judge or magistrate having jurisdiction at the place where such riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated, and who may do alone whatever is authorized by the Criminal Code, 1902, to be done by any two or more justices of the peace.
3.	Where the requisition is made by a judge, any statement of fact contained therein shall be final and binding upon all parties in any way concerned.
4.	Where the requisition is made by justices of the peace, any statement of fact therein contained shall not be open to dispute by the officer upon whom the requisition is made.


Mr. CLARKE.: Does this mean that if the mayor of a municipality or the head of a municipality declines to act, refuses to act because possibly he does not see any occasion for calling out the militia or for requisitioning the district officer, then the militia may be called out on the order of a judge, notwithstanding the fact that the municipal authorities declined to act ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: With the greatest possible respect, I think that is a very grave departure from the present rule.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would be a great improvement on the present rule.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I doubt that, with the greatest respect for the hon. gentleman.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What is the present rule?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The present rule, I think, Is that two justices of the pence, or three justices one of them the mayor, shall requisition.


Charles Fitzpatrick: ' May ' is the word.


Robert Laird Borden: Formerly it was ' may,' it is now ' shall.'


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the mayor' and his associates in the council see no good reason why the militia should be called out, I do not think the militia should be called out; that is my judgment, unless


Mr. LOGAN.: Under the present law, even though the mayor may refuse or may protest against calling out the militia, the militia can be called out by any three magistrates.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think if the militia are called out against the wishes of the municipality, that the military authorities should pay the expenses. The practice has been in Ontario, so far as I am aware, that Mr. FITZPATRICK.
where there is a board of police commissioners, one of whom is the mayor, the requisition shall be signed by the board of police commissioners. It is a high-handed proceeding, unless a riot is imminent, where the municipal authorities do not think it necessary, that any other authority should have power to call out the militia. In this connection I may say that I think the time has come, if we have a military force, that that force should be used, wherever practicable or possible, instead of the militia; and if a law is to be enacted that the municipality shall pay the expense of calling out the militia, that the law should be enforced. I do not think this is proper legislation. I do not think it should rest with a judge. 1 do not think he should be the sole arbiter to determine whether the militia shall be called out in cases such as are contemplated under this Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: For years and year i the statute-book has contained an enactment to the effect that in case the mayor refuses to act any three magistrates ma.v call out the militia. We have had no word of protest against that law, and now because we are trying to improve it in the direction of protecting the municipalities, giving them additional protection, my hon. friend objects.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Probably all the wisdom is not contained under the hon. gentleman'? hat, and I do not think he has the right to say thgt because he is trying to improve the law, I object to its improvement. I do not Object to the improvement of the law, but I challenge the accuracy of the statement that the proposed amendment is an improvement. I say that so far as the municipality of which I have the honour to be one. of the representatives is concerned, the board of police commissioners, consisting of two justices of the peace and the mayor, have always been willing, where they felt it was necessary in order to preserve public order and safety, to call out the militia. I think it is a retrograde rather than a forward movement, to give the power to a judge in case the municipal authorities refuse to act. In my judgment, it is a retrograde movement to give the authority to a judge to call out the militia, and to place the expense of maintenance on the municipal athorities.


Mr. GOURLEY.: If the municipal authority has acted wisely in refusing to call out the militia, the judge will refuse to call it out.	*


Hance James Logan: Under the present law the municipal authorities can protest as much as they please, and yet the militia can be called out by three perhaps irresponsible magistrates. The only difference now is that we propose that the first requisition shall be made by the mayor representing

the people who pay the hills. He shall first make the request, but if he refuses-


Robert Laird Borden: The mayor Roes not make any request to the judge. If he makes a request it is to the proper military officer and it brings the law into operation.


Hance James Logan: If he does not they will not be called out.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Whenever he makes a request that the militia shall be called out they come out. I a\n trying to understand my bon. friend, and I presume what ho means is that the mayor shall have the first opportunity of deciding. This statute and the former statute do not contemplate the same procedure. This statute speaks about some persons declining to act. What is the scheme ? Does some one go and make ap plication for the calling out of the militia, some irresponsible person ? I do not exactly understand the scheme of the statute.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Any three justices of the peace may now of their own motion call upon the commanding officer to call out the militia without any regard to the municipal authorities.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend obviously does not understand what I am talking about ; of course, that may be my fault. The present Bill contains this expression :
When thereunto required in writing by the chairman or custos of the quarter sessions of the peace, or by any three justices of the peace, of whom the warden, mayor or other head or acting head of the municipality or county in which such riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated as aforesaid, shall be one, unless he has declined or is unable to act.
My hon. friend from Cumberland has followed the same language. Who is to make the application ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Anybody who likes.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know about that. I want to know what the real meaning of the statute will be.


Mr. FIELDING.: Who makes it now ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no change.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Any citizen or any one who wants to bring the matter to the notice of the magistrates.


William Stevens Fielding: The magistrate may do if of his own motion.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that was the idea of the original statute. I think the idea of the original statute was that these justices of the peace, as conservators of the peace, could act of their own motion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course.


Robert Laird Borden: Could the minister tell me the clause in the original Act ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 34, of subsection 2.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, The words are :
When thereunto required in writing by the chairman or custos of the quarter sessions of the peace, or by any three justices of the peace of whom the warden, mayor or other head of the municipality or county in which such riot, disturbance or other emergency occurs or is anticipated as aforesaid, may be one.
That is exactly what I was coming to. I would think that that section to wliioh the minister has just referred me did not contemplate an application by any person at all. It contemplated that these men, as conservators of the peace, these three justices of the peace, of whom the mayor might be one, could act of their own motion. We depart from that idea by the clause which the Minister of Militia inserted in his Bill, and we are following out that same novel idea here in speaking of an application by some person. If you are going into applications-


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no application.


Hance James Logan: There is no application-It is the same language.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no reference to any application in the Bill, but when I spoke of that I understood the Minister of .Tustice to say that any person could go and make an application.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course.


William Stevens Fielding: Just as at present.


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so. But there is no expression in subsection 2 of the section of the present law to which I have referred, which speaks of their declining to act. When you speak of a man declining to act, that involves the idea of an application to some person.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If at the present time a riot is in progress to the knowledge of a person who, for instance, is interested in a factory where a disturbance may occur, he goes to the justices of the peace, calls the fact to their attention, and thereupon the justices act. He applies to the magistrates exactly as I could go to call their attention to a murder in the street. It is just a breach of the peace.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate what the minister has said. The justice in that case is not acting on the application of any person, but he may have had some information brought to his attention. He goes and investigates the matter himself and acts upon his own motion, and not at the instance or upon the application of any person. But when you change that and use an expression such as that found in the Bill as introduced by the Minister of Militia, and in this ameridment, speaking of a person having declined to act, it

does seem to me, with all deference to the view of the Minister of Justice, that that involves the idea of an application.


Hance James Logan: You have the reference to the mayor declining to act in the present law. The old section says :
Unless he has declined or is unable to act.


Mr.   E.@: If. BOKDEN. I think my hon. friend is mistaken.


Hance James Logan: I mean in the new Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I have just said that the minister introduced that for the first time in the present Bill. I think we ought to be a little careful in working out that idea. I admit what the Minister of Justice has suggested, that you get into difficulty the moment you begin to provide procedure and to deal with procedure, but if you provide a certain remedy in case the warden of a municipality has declined to act, I do not see how he could decline unless an application had first been made. If the warden has declined to act, and you go from him to a judge sixty or one hundred miles away, must you not have something on which to base the application to that judge 1 Surely you must have an application and something on which to go to the judge to prove, for example, that the warden has declined to act, and I should think that you must be able to show some good reason to the judge for acting if the warden has declined to act. It is practically an appeal from the warden to the judge, but are you going to trust to the judge, without any evidence, to overrule the warden and to do that which the warden says he does not think it necessary to do, although the warden is on the spot, cognizant of all the circumstances, and the judge is 60 or 70 or 100 miles away, 1 must confess that seems to present a good deal of difficulty.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Will my hon. friend suggest some remedy for it ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not say that I can at the moment; but I might also say that we have not had a great deal of time to consider how to remedy it. I am not criticising my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, but I think it right to point out these difficulties in the measure as proposed by the hon. member for Cumberland, and as approved now by the Minister of Justice. Does not the Minister of Justice see that there is some little force in them ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I see that if you lay down the rule of procedure to be followed you will end in interminable difficulties. That is my experience. When you have had a law on the statute-book for many years authorizing a magistrate to act, you can very well trust a judge to exercise the same discretion which you allow a magistrate to exercise now.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: I can see that. A judge is a justice of the peace, and if he is on the spot and has the situation before him, he can act as well as any other justice of the peace. The point I make is this, that when you give to a judge what is practically an appellate power to overrule the warden of the municipality, who has said, that it is not necessary to call the militia out, you ought to provide some safeguard as to the evidence which shall be placed before him before he shall undertake that very important duty. It is all very well for the minister to say you get into difficulties when you undertake to provide procedure. I answer that when you make procedure necessary and do not provide it, you get into still worse difficulties.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Might there not be a case iu which the mayor or the warden would be intimidated from acting or sympathized with the rioters, and therefore failed to act ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are trying to provide for that.


Robert Laird Borden: And I say that in providing for that, if you are going to make the legislation effective, you ought to establish some form of evidence or some way of making the application to the judge, and you ought to provide that some responsible jierson shall make that application.


John Graham Haggart: I would suggest that, if you give either the judge or the other parties power in the first instance, that would do away with the difficulty.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The question is whether we are going to leave the matter exclusively with the warden or the mayor.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the word ' magistrate ' used in a technical sense '!


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, if: is used in the sense in which it is used in section 541 of the Criminal Code.


Robert Laird Borden: That would eventually bring it down to a police magistrate or other official having the authority of two justices of the peace ; so that you do eventually come down to an authority which is perhaps not more responsible than the authority provided iu the law at present.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It practically comes back to that.


William Stevens Fielding: Apart from one point, which I think my hon. friend will find has been dealt with, I do not think it is necessary to establish any procedure in providing for the action of the judge. He would, subject to that one point, have to act on the same class of knowledge or information on which the justices of the peace would act under the provisions of the present Act; that is to say, he would have to obtain his know-

ledge, either from immediate contact with the difficulty, or from representations made to him. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in reply to that, says that you are creating practically an appellate court, and therefore you need a procedure. We have thought of that, for this reason, that it would be quite possible that a dispute might arise. Inasmuch as jurisdiction would only come to the judge after the refusal of the mayor or warden to act, it might be necessary to establish some method of absolute proof of that refusal. If you did not do so, you might get into difficulty afterwards, in case the judge were not possessed of proper jurisdiction. To get over that difficulty, we have introduced a provision that whether the judge acts on personal knowledge or information, his action shall not be challenged. The presumption is that the judge, when called on. has satisfied himself that the mayor or warden has refused to act. He can get that knowledg in any way that is reasonable ; but after he acts on the assumption that the mayor or warden has refused to deal with the difficulty, then his action cannot be challenged. I think my hon. friend will see that that meets the chief ground on which his criticism might be based. Apart from the question of possible jurisdiction that might arise, it seems to me that there is no special reason for providing procedure as to what the county judge shall do. He must obtain his knowledge and take his action in precisely the same way as the justice of the peace does now. As to the general theory and purpose of this amendment, I think it will meet the reasonable wishes of hon. gentlemen on both sides. There is a difficulty in the present law which the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) puts strongly, that is, that this is a matter involving taxation. The municipality may be subject to a heavy tax imposed upon it through the act of two or three magistrates, who, it is said, without being offensive to any individual, are not responsible persons. The calling upon three magistrates seems to be the outcome of old traditions, before our municipal institutions were as well organized as they are at present ; and in amending the law, we should adapt it to the modern conditions of popular government. Therefore the iirst application is made to the mayor or warden, who represents the public opinion of the community, and who specially represents the tax-paying power of the community.
In nineteen cases out of twenty we may safely assume that the mayor or the warden will stand for law and order and take the necessary step to call out the militia. But there may be a twentieth case where, under local conditions, the municipal authorities will decline or be afraid to act. It is quite conceivable that a municipal magistrate, the mayor or the warden, may be terrorized by the mob. What are
we to do in such a case ? Are we to say that there shall then be no power under heaven to preserve law and order ? We do not want to take that view. We take the view that there should be some power, in such a case, to step in and say law and order shall be maintained. Under this amendment, should the mayor or warden not act, an appeal may be made to a judge, and a judge is, in the proper sense of the word, a responsible officer. I think we may safely give to our judges power which we would not give to ordinary local magistrates.


Mr. PUTTEE.: We must remember that at present if the mayor of a municipality objects or refuses to act, that refusal is automatically set aside. As I understand the amendment, it provides that in case he refuses, the petition can still be carried over his head to a judge and the judge can reverse his decision. So far as that goes, it is certainly along the right line, but 1 am not sure whether I read the amendment rightly. It seems to me that it leaves the power exclusively in the hands of the mayor to call out the militia and does not require three people as the present law does. At present it takes three justices of the peace, one of whom may be the mayor. Would it not be preferable to still leave the power in the hands of three people than give it exclusively to any one man even though he be the mayor. Under this amendment the mayor may act on his own motion, so that you are giving power to one man of his own motion to call out the militia. I think we had better leave it to the three men, still giving an appeal to the judge if the mayor refuses to act.


Hance James Logan: Last night I suggested the very thing the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) has just mentioned, and as the government has taken this matter over and the Minister of Justice has drafted an amendment, I would suggest that there be added the words ' two justices of the peace ' before tt\e word ' mayor.' No doubt there is something in the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg that you are putting very large powers in the hands of one man. According to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, in nineteen cases out of twenty the warden or mayor will do his duty, but in the twentieth case he might be influenced to call out the militia when there is no need for it. If you add the words ' two justices of the peace,' that puts a sort of anchor to windward of the mayor before he can call out the troops, but if the mayor refuses to act, then an appeal can be had to a judge.


John Graham Haggart: A mayor in lower Canada is the head of the municipality. We have no such definition in Toronto. The head of the municipality is the reeve.


Hance James Logan: The mayor would be taken as the head of the town or village municipality.


Mr. MORIN.: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice what is to be done where there is only one justice of the peace? The amendment says there must be two.


Hance James Logan: There are very few places in Canada, where there is likely to be labour trouble, where there are not more than two magistrates. In our part of the country we have a great number.
Mr, MORIN. In my locality we have only one.


Mr. MONK.: I quite apreciate the desire of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) to improve the law. He no doubt has had the experience which I have had on several occasions. He no doubt has found great difficulty in getting the law in motion in a moment of disorder such as this provision contemplates. What I would like to point out is the way the proposed law will work out in practice. I venture to say that in nineteen cases out of twenty, a judge will be called upon to act. The chief magistrate of the city, the representative of popular opinion, will decline to act. He will say this is a matter for judicial adjudication, and there is- the judge to whom you can apply, and you had better lay the matter before him. The judge will refuse to act except according to SQme kind of procedure which is not indicated. He will require an application. No police magistrate- in Montreal would act in a matter of that importance without having an applicant. There at once you will meet very great difficulty. The chief magistrate, the mayor and justices of the peace, must act I spontaneously.


William Stevens Fielding: A judge can it' he will.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He can, but he will not. He is exercising an appellate jurisdiction, and he would require an applicant and absolute proof that the authority, who is temporarily charged with this important proceeding, has declined to act. It will be difficult to get the proof that the mayor has declined to act and still more difficult to get an applicant. And, moreover, let the committee consider this, that, if the judge, as is often the case in our province and probably everywhere else, is somewhat far removed from the scene of the commotion, he will require proof, he will make his proceeding a proceeding of record in order to be able to justify himself completely. This will entail great delay. So, although I quite appreciate the idea that, in the case

which sometimes piresents itself-of the chief magistrate of the city being reluctant to act, there is to be recourse, still, I think, the remedy suggested by my hon. friend from Cum-Mr. HAGGART.
berland (Mr. Logan) will not simplify, but will complicate matters. Then, of course, there is the principle urged by my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that all the taxpayers of the municipality are responsible for what action is taken, and I view with considerable fear the tendency of this amendment to vest in the judge power to initiate proceedings which may involve considerable cost to taxpayers. I would, therefore, hold that the initiative should rest where the responsibility rests.


Hance James Logan: But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) says that in nineteen cases out of twenty the mayor will fail to do his duty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If this law is amended as suggested by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) it will be natural for the mayor refuse to act. He will say : You have a judge who is better able to appreciate these matters ; go to him ; I have a peculiar responsibility to the ratepayers and I would rather not act. I understand the motive of my hon. friend from Cumberland, and I know that it is difficult to set the law in motion from my own personal experience in matters of this kind. But I think the government had better take this matter into consideration. I think the present law, though it does not always work satisfactorily, had better remain until the government has found some better remedy than that suggested, which, I believe, can be found.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not catch my hon: friend's (Mr. Monk's) meaning. I understood him to say that he wishes the matter to remain entirely in the hands of the mayor and the municipalities.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I say that it is better to leave the law as it is until some better remedy is found than that suggested in this amendment, which I think will not work, for the reasons I have indicated.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The modus followed in Ontario in cases where it is feared that f. riot may occur or where there is actual rioting is this : If the authorities who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order are satisfied that the police force that they have at their command is not sufficient to enable them to keep down disorder, they requisition the militia officer commanding the district for the troops which he may think necessary to assist them. But I contend that the proposed amendment will put too much power in the hands of one authority who does not know anything about the resources of the municipality and its power to put down riots, ignoring the persons best qualified to judge of these matters, the board of police commissioners, one of whom is the mayor and all of whom are justices of the peace. In case the mayor declines it is better to leave the matter in the hands of tlie police commissioners than to pass it

over to the county judge. I enter my protest against any power being given to the judge to act upon his own initiative to call out the militia, and throw the expense upon the muuiciaplity. We have an efficient police force in every city in Ontario, and that police force in every case is under the control of a board of police commissioners. It is not reasonable that this authority, with its knowledge of the resources of the municipality and the force it can bring to bear to quell disturbance, should be set aside and that a judge should be given the sole power to call out the militia, involving the community in turmoil and the municipality in expense.
Sir. FIELDING-. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is mistaken when he says that the board of police commissioners now have power. Under the law the power is not given to them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They have the power, because one of the members of the board of police commissioners is the mayor and. the other two are justices of the peace.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. but any other three justices of the peace have equal power to call out the militia. My hon. friend's (Mr. Clarke's) argument is based upon the assumption that the police eommissoners now control in this matter, and we want to change it. But the law is not as he states it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have never known a case yet where the board of police commissioners were ignored and irresponsible justices of the peace called upon to requisition the militia authorities to call out the troops. Why, it would be absurd to do so. These justices of the peace may be taxpayers also, but it would be ridiculous for them to overlook the authority whose duty it is to maintain law and order.


Arthur W. Puttee: But it is possible, and I believe that it has been done.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tuttee) favour handing over this power to a judge instead of to the municipal authorities in the first place ?


Arthur W. Puttee: No, but I think that if the head of the municipality refuses to act his refusal should count for something. At present, it counts for nothing. We want some better safeguard.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We have, under the present law, the safeguard that the militia can be called out only upon the requisition of two justices of the peace and the mayor, or three justices of the peace. I have knowledge of the facts for over a quarter of a centuary as far as Ontario is concerned, and I am confident that I am right when I say that the machinery of the law has never
been set in motion except by the police commissioners. And I say that it would be a retrograde movement to take the initiative of calling out the militia from the board of police commissioners. If the police commissioners refuse, then, other justices of the peace may act; but until the commissioners refuse to act, I do not think that any judge of the province of Ontario, however eminent, should be given the initiative, because he cannot have the intimate knowledge of the resources of the municipality and its power to quell riots that the police commissioners possess.


William Stevens Fielding: It seems to me that before we undertake to change the law we should inake sure what the law is. We are not discussing the practice in Toronto, but the law as it is before us.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The police commissioners proceed- legally.


William Stevens Fielding: I agree that it is legal for the police commissioners, if justices of the peace, to call out the militia, but it would be equally legal for any three justices of the peace to do so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I admit that.


William Stevens Fielding: It has always seemed to me dangerous to leave power in the hands of three irresponsible justices of the peace to call out the militia and impose large taxes upon the community.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Perhaps the hon. minister will permit me. If the government would amend the law so as to provide that in the cities of this province where we have boards of police commissioners the request to call out the militia must go to the police commissioners first, and that only when they fail shall resort be had to some superior court judge or two judges-theu, I could understand the proposal.


William Stevens Fielding: 'There is no such proposal before us. We have to deal with the law as it stands, and not with the practice in Toronto. .


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is the practice in other cities as well.


William Stevens Fielding: But my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) bases his whole argument upon the assumption that the board of police commissioners are now the body to be considered and that this amendment will brush them aside. That is absolutely fallacious.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What will this amendment do ?


William Stevens Fielding: First, let us consider the existing law. My hon. friend contended that the board of police commissioners now have that power, and that the amendment will brush that aside. His contention is entirely

erroneous. The board of police commissioners are not recognized by the existing laws.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 1 say that the hoard of police commissioners who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order in a municipality, and are at the head of the police force, consists of justices of the peace.


William Stevens Fielding: I say there are scores of justices of the peace who are not police commissioners, and any three of these justices of the peace can call out the militia in any part of the country, and thereby impose a charge and heavy taxation upon the whole municipality. That is the present law, and I do not think it has worked very badly. Perhaps it is open to some objection. It is contended that down in Sydney recently the militia were called out by persons who did not represent the wishes of the municipality-I offer no opinion of my own on that point. Then if the present law-not the Toronto practice-if the present law, which allows any three justices of the peace to call out the militia, is satisfactory, we do not need to amend it; but if it is open to an objection which may arise out of the oldtime habit of quarter sessions and justices of the peace governing the country before the days of popular and responsible government, then we should try to modernize it, and in trying to modernize it, the question arises, shall we leave the matter entirely in the hands of the municipal authorities, or shall we under exceptional circumstances provide some other authority, and if another authority, who better than the county judge ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentleman admits that the law has worked fairly well, there ought to be some reason given why this amendment should be persisted in. I have pointed out that while the contention of the hon. gentleman is quite true that three justices of the peace may be the persons to call out the militia, the practice has been, not only in Toronto but in every other city of Ontario where there is a regularly constituted board of police commissioners, to apply to them, because they are all justices of the peace, and the mayor is one of them. The amendment proposes to place the power in the hands of the mayor in the first place, and if he fails then to give it over to the county court judge. I think it would be far better, in the interest of popular government, to leave the power of calling out the militia to the police commissioners as at present, and not pass it over to the county judge.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend comes back to his old error. He says it would be better to leave it to the police commissioners. If it is left to the police commissioners, then it is left to any three justices of .the peace.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is quite true. But I say that in practice the experience has been Mr. FIELDING.
that these three justices of the peace are persons who have in their hands the administration of the police force, and who know what the resources of the municipality are, and who would not put the municipality to the expense of calling out the militia unless they were satisfied that they have not a municipal police force sufficient to deal with any riot that may be feared. That is the point I wish to make. It would be better to leave the power with these authorities who have 'been acting rather than take it out of their hands and pass it over to a judge. If the persons who have made the requisition will undertake to bear the expense, or if the government itself, in the maintenance of law and order, will bear the expense of calling out the militia, that is another matter.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We cannot base legislation for the whole Dominion exclusively on what has been the practice in Toronto. So far as this legislation is concerned, he will And in Ontario outside of Toronto, places where there would not be police commissioners, and in the province of Quebec, and I think in all the other provinces, any three magistrates can act without reference to the municipal authorities at all.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Many statutes are passed in this House which recognize local conditions and make exemption in favour of those conditions ; and no person has more skill and is better able to prepare legislation of that kind than my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. Now, if it is better to leave the calling out of the militia with justices of the peace, which practice now exists in Ontario, and if the spirit of the law can be put into force by justices of the peace who are police commissioners in the various cities, why not make the exemption ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Would you use the words ' police commissioners ? '


Edward Frederick Clarke: I mean the justices of the peace who are police commissioners.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: Is it not possible under the present Act for that application to come from three justices of the peace in Ontario ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes.


Ralph Smith: It is evident that lie object of the hon. member for Cumberland is to place the authority for calling out the militia in the hands of representatives of the city before that call is finally made. At the present time, if the manager of a factory or any person with capital had any trouble with his workingmen, it would be possible, under the present Act, to apply to justices of the peace altogether outside the police commissioners.


Mr. DANIEL.: I have no desire to hang on to the present Act, if anything can be suggested which will improve it. At the same time, I think it is important that, as

the municipality will have to pay the expenses of calling out the militia, that power .should be left largely in the hands of the representatives of the people in each municipality. At the present time, so far as I am aware, the Act calls for at least the signature of the mayor or the warden. As a matter of fact, and in actual practice, the position of mayor is one that is not fully defined in the statutes. But he acts in a measure, as one may say, for the King in all those cases where there are no statutes defining his action. He represents in his own person law and order; for which he is responsible, and he is looked upon by the people in the municipality for such action as may be necessary in cases of riot or mob violence. I endorse the argument of the Minister of Finance, I entirely agree that if the law is to be changed it should be changed in such a way as that the persons who are responsible to the people should bear the responsibility of calling out the militia. The argument is right, but his conclusion, it appears to me, is entirely wrong, because he concluded that the best authority to be charged with this power, in the sense of responsibility was the judge of the county court. But as I understand it, he is not responsible at all in that way. The point I wish to make is that the power of calling out the militia should be placed entirely in the hands of those who are the elected representatives of the people, and if the mayor or warden does not act, then I would place it in the hands of the provincial government tbiough the Attorney General, or somebody who is responsible to the people. I certainly think it would be much better to do that than to place this power in the hands of a judge, more especially since I have heard tlie remarks of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), and other legal gentleman whose speeches have convinced me that any judge would require to take certain legal procedure before calling out the militia.


William Stevens Fielding: Would not the Attorney General likewise ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: The Attorney General, I think, is responsible to the people, and he will have his eyes and ears open, and will know what is going on. I certainly think that if a change is made so as to place the power in the hands of any one outside the municipal representatives, it should be placed in the hands of some one who is responsible to the people, and has to be elected by the people. I take it that it would be better to place the authority in the hands of the provincial government through the Attorney General than to place it in the hands of a judge of county or other court. I think it is a matter that perhaps the government might take a little more into their consideration and see if they cannot prepare an amendment which would better meet the
wishes of the House. I think the arguments that have been advanced against the reference to a judge are very strong indeed.


Mr. ALCORN.: May I draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the use of the term ' Mayor or warden ' as designating the officers who are to act in the case of a disturbance. I think this term is entirely inapplicable to the province of Ontario. We have mayors of cities and towns and reeves of local municipalities. The warden is simply the head of the county council which is composed of a number of local municipalities. The warden may be resident in another municipality a long distance away from the seat of the disturbance and so would have no personal knowledge of the local conditions. I would suggest that the word ' reeve ' be substituted for the word ' warden.'


Arthur W. Puttee: I would like to point out to my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that his difficulties are not nearly, so great as he seems to imagine theyi are. If you put back the two justices of the peace with the amendment which has been proposed-


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has that amendment been accepted?
Mr. PUTTEE

that would meet the objection of the hon. member for West Toronto. If they have a police commission, they will follow precisely the same course as they have done before. The amendment would simply give the alternative of a further application to a judge in case the mayor or warden refused to act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Smith) asked what the law is. I will read the law :
The senior officer of the active militia present at any locality shall call out the same or such portion thereof as he considers necessary for the purpose of preventing or suppressing any such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance, or for the purpose of meeting and dealing with any such emergency as aforesaid, when thereunto required in writing by the chairman or custos of the quarter sessions of the peace-
I have not had the privilege of meeting that gentleman ; I do not know who he is.


William Stevens Fielding: I know him.
Mr. CLARKE-reading

	_
-or by any three justices of the peace of whom the warden, mayor, or other head of the municipality or county in which such riot, disturbance or other emergency occurs or is anticipated as aforesaid, may be one ; and he shall obey such instructions as are lawfully given to him by any justice of the peace in regard to the suppression of any such actual riot or disturbance, or in regard to the anticipation of such riot, disturbance or other emergency, or to the suppression of the same,

or to the aid to be given to the civil power in case of any such riot, disturbance or other emergency.
That is the present law. Three justices of the peace are required to support such a requisition, of whom the mayor or warden may be one, recognizing, of course, the consideration that ought to be shown to the local municipality in a matter of such vital importance to it. The amendment we are discussing proposes that if the mayor or warden refuses to call out the militia, a judge shall be appealed to. I think that is certainly not legislation that should be passed until we first of all exhaust the power of appeal to the local authority which is familiar with the capacity of the municipality to control in case of a riot. In each of the cities of Ontario we have an efficient police force. That force is governed by a board of police commissioners all of whom are justices of the peace and one of whom is the mayor of the city. It would be far better to leave the law as it is rather than to bike this power out of the hands of the police commissioners and place it in the hands of a judge.


Hance James Logan: Under the present law even should the mayor refuse to act you could call out the militia.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Justices of the peace are not going to act when there are police commissioners, who are also justices, who have control of the municipal police force and who are responsible for the preservation o; order.


Hance James Logan: The militia has been called out by justices of the peace when it should not have been called out, and under the present act it is a question whether the justice of the peace for Carleton county could not call out the militia in Toronto. If, in the past, mistakes have been made, we should endeavour to prevent those mistakes in future.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We have had a good deal of experience with regard to the calling out of the militia. We think that safeguards should be put in the Act to prevent the militia force from being called out needless ly, but we think that there might be a temporary augmentation of the police force to meet such an emergency. But, what I desire again to say is that wre should not, when we have justices of the peace acting as police commissioners, one of whom is the mayor, suspend the authority of the board and give the power to a judge of the county or of the Superior Court to call out the militia and have the municipality pay for it.


Hance James Logan: If the lion. Minister of Justice wTill accept the amendment I suggest, I think the difficulty can be overcome. My suggestion is that you add the words ' two justices of the peace ' before the word Mr. CLARKE.
' mayor.' That will meet the objection of my hon. friend because it will make it compulsory on the mayor to sign the requisition, whereas under the old law he can sign it or not as he sees fit.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the law as
it .is proposed by the hon. Minister of. Militia and Defence.


Hance James Logan: No. the law proposed by the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence says that even if the mayor refuses to sign, the justices of the peace can give the necessary authority. My sugestion is that we have the requisition made by two justices of the peace anil the mayor but that the mayor must sign the requisition.


Robert Laird Borden: That could be accomplished by a very much simpler process than the hon. gentleman proposes. It can be accomplished by striking out three or four words in the clause introduced by the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence.


William Stevens Fielding: That clause provides for no reference to the judge.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the government think of the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) ? I have not given very much consideration to it but it strikes me as rather practical ; that if we should go to the judge the attorney general should make the application.


William Stevens Fielding: No, that the Attorney General should be substituted for the judge.


Robert Laird Borden: The way it struck me was that if you go to the Attorney General first it will-


William Stevens Fielding: Would not time be against that ?


Robert Laird Borden: No more than going to the judge.


Hance James Logan: Take the Sydney case for instance.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: I am not at all wedded to the idea. I am only trying to grope my way to see /If we cannot arrive at some satisfactory settlement of the difficulty. Dealing with districts that are municipally organized would it not be right to provide that in all these cases you must have two justices of the peace and a warden ? I would not say anything about the necessity of a refusal by the warden before you go to the judge because as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has pointed out the requisition is conclusive as to the facts. But, there is the alternative of applying to the judge at the instance of the attorney general of the province although perhaps that is too cumbersome.


William Stevens Fielding: There is another difficulty in the matier. The hon. member

for St. John (Mr. Daniel) presses the doctrine of popular government a little farther than I am prepared to do, though I thought 1 was a pretty good Liberal in that respect. His idea is that the municipal authority must have the largest share in the matter and that if we depart from that at all he would appeal to the Attorney General of the Province, because the Attorney General represents public opinion. Let me remind my hon. friend that under British institutions in matters of the preservaton of law and order and the administration of justice, it is not deemed wise to have too close a con tact with public opinion. The British idea is that it is sometimes well to interpose something between public opinion and the machinery for the preservation of law and order and the administration of justice. Under the present law you have three irresponsible magistrates, if you call them irresponsible as the hon. member for St. John does, and to give the responsibility to the judges certainly gives a high class of responsibility. I may say the idea of entrusting the whole thing to the municipal authorities whether to the mayor or others and leaving it entirely to them, while in most cases it would work well might cause difficulty. In the great majority of cases the municipal authority would act. But circumstances might arise in which a mayor or warden would fail to act. It is to meet that case that you want some other authority and I do not think you can have any better authority than a judge.


Edward Frederick Clarke: My hon. friend must remember that the majority of these are life appointments.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman is still speaking of his police commissioners.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am drawing attention to the fact that these are municipal authorities. Two of them out of three are life appointments who control that particular department of municipal government, the police force, and now it is proposed to take away the power they have exercised.


William Stevens Fielding: We do not take it away, because they have not got it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They have in practice.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If thte mayor refuses what will be the effect? Suppose that there is a strike in a factory, and the proprietor goes to the mayor and asks for tile calling out of the militia. Then if the mayor refuses he goes to the judge, and the militia will be ordered out although it may be quite unnecessary.


William Stevens Fielding: Suppose the magistrate may be in the employ of the man or the company desiring to have the militia called out, as may easily occur in the case of large companies ?


Robert Laird Borden: Might I suggest- although I have not given it full consideration, but we must try to make some progress if we are ever going to get through -that the hon. member for Cumberland substitute for 79 a and b the following :-
(a.) If the place where the riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated is municipally organized, two justices of the peace, the mayor, or warden or other head or acting head of the municipality, or the county or district court judge, or one of the county or district court judges, having jurisdiction in such place, or if there is no such county or district court judge, any judge of a Superior Court who has jurisdiction there.
I do not think there is so much objection against placing jurisdiction in the judge, and I think perhaps something of that kind might be inserted.


Hance James Logan: I do not accept that. It gives an alternative so that they can go either to the municipal authorities or to the judge, and they would be sure to go to the judge. I only want the judge to be available as the last resort.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend does not fully grasp the meaning of his amendment. The amendment would read :
The mayor or warden or other head or acting head of the municipality unless he had declined to act .and in that case the county or district court judge,
And so on. The Minister of Finance has pointed out that if the judge says the municipal authority has declined, then it must be conclusively held that he has declined.


Hance James Logan: You would hardly expect the judge to say he had declined unless it [DOT]was the case.


William Stevens Fielding: It would still leave the application to the mayor and require him to refuse.


Robert Laird Borden: If the judge in his requisition declares that the warden has declined, that statement under the hon. gentleman's amendment is conclusive. Of course this is a mere alternative which I am suggesting on account of the view expressed bji the Minister of Finance. I am not wedded to the idea.


William Stevens Fielding: We are all trying to-find out how to do it.


Robert Laird Borden: I would strike out subsection 2 altogether, and substitute this which comes from subsection 3 :
All statements of fact contained in any such requisition shall be finally binding upon all parties in any way concerned.
I do not say I am wedded to this view at all. I am merely trying to assist.


Hance James Logan: I desire to move that the words ' two justices of the peace ' be inserted before the words ' the mayor.'


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has not considered the effect of that because



the result of that will be to make the justices necessary parties to the application before the judge. Under the reading of the section as it is at present, that is the effect of it although I do not suppose my hon. friend intends that. If my hon. friend looks at the section for a moment he will see this. The section will require to be remodelled, as the proposed amendment makes the justices necessary parties to the requisition of the judge. If he goes to amend the section in that blind way that is the result.


Hance James Logan: 
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I shall put the amendment of the Minister of Justice.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If we agree upon the amendment of the leader of the opposition it will not be necessary.


Hance James Logan: I do not think the leader of the opposition really presses his amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I have not moved it.


Hance James Logan: I will withdraw the amendment if it is going to expedite this matter and leave it as it is.


Arthur W. Puttee: That is worse than ever. If the two justices of the peace are left out, we are making the law worse than at present. ' We are giving all the power to one man and I do not care who that man is, it is not even as safe as the custor^ that has been followed. The hon. member for Cumberland last night asked that there should be three men, with the power to go to a fourth man in the event of their refusing, but now he asks to go to one man. The amendment in no way meets the case.


Hance James Logan: Half a loaf is better than no bread. I am trying to get the best I can. How would it do to say :
Two justices of the peace and the mayor or warden or other head or acting head of the municipality, unless they decline or are unable to act.


Mr. OSLER.: One of them might act and the other two decline.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It strikes me this clause has been drafted to meet a particular case, Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
and it might be well to give it a little consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: What case ?


Hance James Logan: There is no case.
At One o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three oclock.
Amendment to amendment agreed to.


Hance James Logan: I desire to move that subsection ' a ' be struck out, and that the following be inserted in lieu thereof :
If the place where such riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated is municipally organized, the mayor or warden or other head of acting head of the municipality, together with two justices of the peace, or, in the event of such mayor or warden or other head or acting head refusing or being unable to act, the county or district court judge, or one of the county or district court judges, having jurisdiction in such place, acting alone, or, if there he no such judge, then any judge of a Superior Court who has jurisdiction there.
As the clause in your bands does not include two justices of the peace, I think it was agreed this morning that this should be inserted to meet the objection of the hon. member for West Toronto. There was some question about the wording of the section, as to whether the magistrates were disconnected with the judge. In this we provide that the judge may act alone.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not know how that amendment is going to work ; but I do not propose to offer any opposition to it at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and Bill reported.
Mr. FITZPATRICK moved the third reading of the Bill.
Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks in regard to some of the minor details of this Bill which I presume can be regulated by Order in Council. First, with regard to the clause providing that the pay of the militia shall be 50 cents a day as a minimum, rising for good conduct to $1 a day. Hitherto militiamen have received 50 cents a day from the government, and in many counties, including my own, they have been paid in addition 25 cents a day by the county council ; so that they have received 75 cents a day. As the county councils suppose that the pay of the militia is now to be 75 cents a day or thereabouts, they have taken no action. In my own county, and I suppose in a good many others, the council lias thought it unnecessary to add the 25 cents a day. Therefore, unless the minister provides that the pay shall be at least 75 cents a day, it is quite possible that the men may get less than they did before. It seems to me that the minister should make it plain that the minimum will be 75 cents a day. I think any volunteer who is not

guilty of misconduct should get at least $1 a day. Then, my attention has been called by a militiaman to the fact that when men are called out to quell a riot or a disturbance, they are not paid promptly. I think that immediately after they are sent home, or before they are sent home, they should he paid as promptly as they are when on duty at their annual drill. There is a clause in the Act providing that a militiaman on leaving the country shall surrender his arms and accoutrements to the proper authorities. I think a similar provision should apply to a militiaman who leaves his military district. There is a grievance in the fact that a medical officer who is with a dismounted unit at the annual drill is not allowed to have a horse, though in time of active service or in Avar a horse is absolutely necessary to him. Therefore the complaint is made that he is not able to appear at the annual drill as he would appear if he were called to battle. In times past he had a horse ; then it was taken away ; and afterwards, owing to the many complaints that were made of the injustice to him, it was returned ; but now we have gone back to the former condition, and he is not allowed to have a horse on parade. Another matter to which I wish to draw special attention is the question to whom a militia officer who feels aggrieved is to apply for the redress of his grievance. I placed this question on the order paper a day or two ago, and received the reply that that came under section 42 of the Queen's regulations. That section reads :
If an officer thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer, and on due application made to him does not receive the redress to which he may consider himself entitled, he may complain to the Commander in Chief in order to obtain justice, who is hereby required to examine into such complaint, and through a Secretary of State make his report to Her Majesty in order to receive the directions of Her Majesty thereon.
There seems to be some difference of opinion with regard to the application of this section. In my own county there has been a case in which great injustice appears to have been done. The case is one of long standing, one that occurred some four or five years ago. Many militia officers know it well. It is that of Captain Colonel Von Wagner. That gentleman was in command of the Fourth Field Battery of Hamilton a great number of years. In 1889 that battery was a portion of the second * artillery brigade. Colonel Von Wagner was retired, but instead of being placed upon the reserve of officers, as an officer retired for honourable service during many years, he was practically dismissed. That Fourth Field Battery was not a separate corps but a portion of the second artillery brigade. The commanding officer of that second artillery brigade was a man who could have been retired, if he had served the proper 263}
length of time, according to the law regarding the tenure of command. Colonel Von Wagner was retired. He claims that there was an injustice and that he has a grievance and a very great grievance indeed. He took command of the Fourth Field Battery of the city of Hamilton when it was almost in a conditon of disbandment and brought to bear .on it great executive and military ability. This gentleman, with whom I am personally acquainted and for whose ability I can vouch, who was in every way fitted to command a battery, who was well acquainted with that district, the Niagara district, who was descended from the United Empire Loyalists, the best stock who brought this battery up to a high state of perfection, in the country,-this man, whose long and valuable service ought to have been regarded with favour by the government- was dismissed. What did he do ? He did exactly as this 42nd section of the Queen's regulations prescribes. He made application to the Commandership in Chief, General Hutton, and got no reply. He wrote a second time and got no reply. Failing to get any satisfaction from the commanding officer, he did exactly as the Queen's regulations prescribe. According to these regulations, the minster should have examined into his complaint, but Colonel Von Wagner has not up to the present known of any examination, and if an examination had taken place surely he would have known something about it. In a civil case at any rate, the complainant is always called into court. Surely that cannot be called an examination unless the complaint is heard and knows of the examination. But Colonel Von Wagner has certainly never heard of any investigation up to the present, and nearly five years have pased away. So that this section which refers to the Queen's regulations, is somewhat deficient apparently, if we are to judge by the example of Colonel Von Wagner, now on the retired list, but who ought to be on the reserve list.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I intimated to the Minister of Militia last night that I would draw his attention to a communication I had received asking why the cavalry regiments which have been established recently contain five squadrons while the old established cavalry regiments contain only four ? Why have these old efficient corps not been increased to five squadrons ? I understood the minister to say that he would obtain the information and answer the question, and this is the only opportunity given me to renew the question.


Wilfrid Laurier: I wish my hon. friend would not delay the passage of the third reading, and to-morrow if he renews the question I will see that it is answered.
Bill read the third time and passed.	,



SUPPLY-REVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL SITUATION.

["I 'assure you and the government, Mr. Speaker, that I am net going to occupy the time of this House at this period of the session at any length, all being desirous as we are that the work of the session may be brought to a close. But there are some things that should be said, and I shall say them as briefly as possible, adverting to some of the statements made by the Finance Minister who has just taken his seat. The Finance Minister told the old story that is said to have been originated by Abraham Lincoln, about fooling all the people part of the time, or all the time. I thought the story was a very apt one coming from the hon. gentleman, and I came to the conclusion that while the Finance Minister, with his figures, has been fooling the people of this country for a part of the time during the last eight years, he must now come to the conclusion that he is not going to be able to fool all the people all the time. He warns us against crying wolf, wolf, when, as he says, there was no wolf. Well, to my mind the people of this country are alive to the fact that the wolf is already upon us.\nThe hon. gentleman brought out the old worn out argument that we on this side of the House were not sincere in our protestations against the enormously increased expenditure of which we have heard so much this afternoon. He told us that whilst these many millions had been voted, practically we had not challenged a single item in all these estimates. Had he been in the House, as my hon. friend from Leeds remarked, he would have heard a lengthy discussion and would have witnessed a division on one very important item which we thought ,was altogether an improper item in the expenditure of this government. But allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the Finance Minister of something that he knows just as Well as I do. It is not the practice of an opposition to divide the House on expenditures in the estimates ; it was not the practice when the Liberals were in opposition for eighteen years prior to 1S96. Out of the $603,000,000 of estimates voted during those eighteen years, the opposition of those days contested only $437,074. Our duty as an opposition is sufficiently discharged when we criticise these estimates, when we point out to the country that these items are not required, that these expenditures are either Improper or extravagant. It is not our duty to divide the House from time to time, or to take a vote, knowing that the government would call in their supporters and vote us down on every occasion. But we have sufficiently discharged our duty when we have drawn forcible attention to the\n\nfact that these expenditures are improper expenditures. I am aware of the fact that there are yet about $15,000,000 of estimates to be voted. How are we, in the course of one or two days, going to be able even to criticise those estimates, apart from dividing the House on every one that we may consider an improper expenditure ? It is out of the question, and we do not propose to do it. In fact we will be utterly unable even to offer a criticism, and will be compelled by force of circumstances to allow them to go through, and leave the country to judge of the character of those estimates and the manner in which the government treats the opposition of the day by keeping back these large expenditures until they have fixed the closing hours of the session, thus precluding the possibility of our examining them.\nNow, let me place on record the history of the Liberal party in regard to voting on estimates. In 1879 a vote of $70,000 for civil government was moved against by the present right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce '(Sir Richard Cartwright). In 1880 and in 1881 not one dollar was moved against. The whole thing was accepted by the opposition of that day. In 1882 the payment of $8,000 damages to the steamer ' TJ. E. Upper ' was opposed by the late Mr. Mills, who moved that the item be struck out. The years 1883, 1884, 1885, 18S6, 1887 and 1888 all passed by, and not a single dollar was contested by the opposition of that time by their votes. Then, in 1889, a motion was made by the present -right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce to reduce an item for the Manitoba penitentiary by $10,526. In 1889 there was another vote involving the enormous sum of $500, moved by Mr., now Senator McMullen, in regard to the East Pictou river. Then there was a motion to reduce the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway by $200,000 moved by Sir Louis Davies. Then again there was a motion moved by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce to reduce an item for the Department of the Interior by $95,748, and there was another motion by Mr. Somerville to reduce the item of immigration by $50,000. You see how considerate the opposition in those days were in regard to. peopling the Northwest Territories. The sum of $95,000 was refused to the Minister of the Interior of that day. The small sum that we asked for in those days to encourage immigration was contested by the opposition, who said that it must be reduced to $50,000. We were compelled to accept from the House in those days a sum of not more than $120,000 or $150,000 for immigration purposes, and yet these hon. gentlemen contested that. They said it was too much. They would not permit us to have even this small sum of money for the purpose of promoting immigration, and then they tell us that we failed to bring people into the country, when they were\nopposing the policy of the Conservative party, who were endeavouring to people that country. We find that in 1889 also a motion was made to strike out $2,300 in connection with the salary of Mr. C. C. Chipman. That motion was made by Mr. McMullen. During 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894 and 1895 the souls of these economists rested in peace, and they did not move to strike out a single item. Yet, at this late day, the hon. Minister of Finance comes down and tells this House and the people that we, as an opposition, have failed in our duty because we have not moved to strike out every item that was improper. If we did that we would be sitting here until Christmas. We might sit here for fifteen months, and we would not succeed in getting through with all the improprieties that this government is endeavouring to foist on the country at the present time. I think this is a very sufficient answer to the very wise criticism of the hon. Minister of Finance.\nAt six o'clock, House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pietou).: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to move an amendment which I shall read at the close of my remarks. The opportunity given by the end of the session to review the conduct of the administration, particularly in reference to financial matters, is one that it would n'ot be well to allow to pass without taking advantage of it. In connection with this matter, it is impossible not to recall the attitude maintained during many years by the gentlemen now constituting the government, at the time when they were in opposition. At that time their attitude was entirely in favour of economy, of reduced expenditures and of lessening the burden of taxation. It may seem a somewhat hackneyed narration to refer to this matter, but there are good reasons why it is the duty of public men to keep the record of the gentlemen now in power in sight. It seems to me there is nothing more important to good government in a country which enjoys representative institutions than to carefully weigh the conduct of public men. It seems to me important that public men should avoid making any promises to the public which they do not intend to carry out, and that the people on the other hand should exact from public men in office a fulfilment of the promises made by them when in opposition. During a great many years, when the late Conservative adminstration was administering the affairs of Canada, the present occupants of the treasury benches, then in opposition, declared that the public outlay was too lavish, that the burden of taxation was too heavy. And in view of this attitude at that time, it is well for us to contrast the policy which these gentlemen then definitely announced with their performance in office. I need not go to the trouble of repeating all the different statements made by these gentlemen. It suffices to say that practically the whole of the opposition of that day, led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, took the ground that the administration of this country was costing too much. That right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) laid down the proposition that about $2,000,000 should be saved out of the expenditure made in 1893-4. In view of these facts, in view of the record of these facts, in view of the record of these hon. gentlemen, I propose to put on ' Hansard ' a statement showing how this government has proceeded to lighten the burden of taxation and make good their promises of economy and reduced expenditure and taxation. First of all, as regards the taxation of the people, beginning with 1890, I shall give the taxation


Wilfrid Laurier: collected for a series of years. That is taxation proper, the two sources of taxation being the customs and excise.



[Stage Direction]
1890		 1891				$ 31,587,072
1892		
1893		
1894		
1895		
1896		
Total			$200,453,434
Average.. ..		$ 28,636,205
It is noticeable,	in this connection, that
the tendency under	* this administration was
towards reduction of taxes, because in 1896, the taxes were less than in 1890 bv $2,-	
554,866.	
Now, coming to	the period of the present
government we find that the taxes under their regime were as follows :

[Stage Direction]
1897		$ 28,648,626
1898		 29,576,466
1899		 34,958,069
1900		 38,242,223
1901		 38,743,550
1902		 43,389,112
1903		 49,015,506
Total	$262,573,542
Average	$ 37,510,506
Liberal excess	$ 62,120,118
Average Liberal excess.. 8,874,301
Now, instead of showing any reduction, we find that the amount for 1897 was exceeded by the amount for 1903 by no less than $20,366,880, and by that of 1904 by no less than $24,697,994, an enormous increase, being nearly equal to the amount of all the taxes collected by the Conservatives in the year 1894. We have not the public accounts for the year 1904, still, we can gather the main facts from the speech of the Minister of Finance and the returns that have been brought down in the ' Gazette.' We find that for 1904 the taxes collected amounted to $53,346,620.06. So, if we take the last seven years of the present administration that is, from 1898 to 1904 inclusive, and contrast them with the last seven years of the Conservative administration which I have already given to the House we find that the taxes collected from the people by this government amounted to $287,271,536, an average of $41,038,791 per year.
It is not necessary, at this time to delay the House by drawing all the comparisons which may be drawn between these figures. I place them upon the pages of ' Hansard ' so that members can compare them at their leisure. It is enough to say that the taxation under this government, which promised economy and reduced taxation, is

practically double what it was under the Conservatives. To that matter I will refer a little later. Let me now turn to the expenditure. The following figures show the expenditure for the years mentioned. This is the total expenditure, and not that on consolidated revenue account alone :

[Stage Direction]
1890		$ 41,770,333
1891		 40,793,208
1892		 42,272,136
1893		 40,853,723
1894		 43,008,234
1895		 42,872,338
1896		 44,096,384
Total	$295,666,361
Average	-$ 42,236,052

[Stage Direction]
1897	$ 42,972,756
1898		 45,334,281
1899		 54,542,635
1900		 52,717,467
1901		 57,982,866
1902		 63,970,800
1903		 61,746,572
Total	$379,267,377
Average	$ 54,181,054
The excess of expenditure under this government over that under the Conservatives for the seven years is $83,601,016, or an average of $11,943,002. Now the Minister of Finance in his budget speech estimated that the total expenditure for 1904 would be $66,000,000. Adding that to the expenditure of the six preceding years in order to contrast these with the last seven years of the Conservative administration, we find that the total expenditure from 1898 to 1904 inclusive amounted to $412,294,621, an average of $58,899,232. This was in excess of the average of the last seven years of the Conservative administration by no less than $16,663,180 per year.
Now, it is not hard to account for these expenditures when we come to look at some of the items. It is impossible to go over the whole outlay of the country, so I have selected a few items of expenditure that we may make a contrast in order to learn how it is that this country, which is increasing in population at a comparatively moderate rate-only about one per cent per year-shows such an enormous proportion of increased expenditure :

[Stage Direction]
Administration of Justice	
Arts, Agriculture and Statistics	
Census, 1891	
Civil Government	
Fisheries	
Immigration	
Quarantine	
Lights and Coast Survey	
Miscellaneous	
Ocean and River Service	
Public Works	
„ Collection. Revenue	
Railways and Canals. Collection, Revenue
The House will see that under the head of miscellaneous the increase of expenditure has been 207 per cent. I may remark that this is a very suggestive heading, under which many questionable expenditures might be covered up ; many expenditures which could not find a place in any proper light or consideration in former days, could be gathered together, and the enormous increase under this head is suggestive of many things. In public works there has been an increase of 213 per cent. That is one of the departments of the government in which I think the administration has shown itself an adept, because it has succeeded in making this expenditure in

[Stage Direction]
1896.	1903.	Increase.	Per cent.$ 758,270	S 959,948	s 201,678	*266210,878	436.402	225,524	107549,992	1,149,879	599,587	1091,396,628	1,554,792	158,164	11427,251	527.829	lu0,578	[DOT]235120,199	642,914	522,715	435'95,247	263,331	168,084	177'466,058	964,144	498,086	107'172,363	528,231	355,868	207'181,452	417,137	235,685	1301,299,769 159.460	4,005,553	2,765,784	213'562,404	402,944 3,395,479	2533,826,226	7,221,705	913
such a manner as to help maintain itself in power ; because we find, if we look through the estimates to-day, that in respect of one matter which was constantly condemned by leading men of the Liberal party in opposition, that is, the erection of public buildings in various towns of Canada, we find that in that branch of the public service the present administration has shown itself exceedingy skilful. We find in the estimates of this year that instead of the few public works which used to be . erected by the Conservative government, and which evoked a great deal of keen criticism by the then opposition, there are no less than forty public buildings in var-
[Stage Direction]
ious small places in Canada provided for in these estimates. The hon. gentlemen opposite have evidently learned the lesson of constructing these public buildings in the most likely places to secure votes ; in that respect they have entirely eclipsed their teachers, if at any time the Conservative party might be considered their teachers in that respect. So we find under the head of public works, as might be expected, an increase of 213 per cent in the outlay of the country.
Now, it is true that during the eight years that hon. gentleman opposite have been in power there has been an increase in the population of the country, and to that extent they might plead justification for an increased expenditure. But the increase in the population during that period has only been about 8 per cent, or at the rate of one cent per annum. Therefore they might justify an increase of 8 per cent in the expenditure by a concurrent increase in the population ; but they cannot by any such argument justify an increase of 215 per cent. Under the heading of public works and collection of revenue, the outlay has been increased 253 per cent. In railways and canals, collection of revenue, the increase is 915 per cent. That, of course, is not so important, because these services have to be maintained, and in some cases the works are not money-making institutions, and we might reasonably expect that though there might be no increase of revenue, there would be a large increase of expenditure. But in respect to all the other items I have read, controllable items of expenditure, and reflected in the figures placed upon the public accounts, in respect of all these branches, the outlay has increased, not in proportion to the increase of population, but enormously beyond the increase of population. In so far as all these matters are concerned that I have now recited, and in regard to which the administration promised to reduce the taxation and to reduce the expenditure, they have illustrated in the most startling manner an administration of a totally different character. When they urged upon the people the advantages of low taxation and low expenditure, their intention was probably at that time, so far as we can determine by what we saw of their conduct, to pursue an entirely different course when they reached office, and they have done so ; they have practically almost doubled the taxation, and we may roughly say that they have almost doubled the expenditure of Canada. It will be remembered that the opposition at that time laid down the rule that Canada could be governed for a sum of about ?36,000,000 per year. But this last year, instead of reaching that point and giving Canada an administration costing 836,000,000, they have given us an administration costing 866,000,000, or very nearly double the amount.
Adam Carr Bell: Then there is another way of bringing the matter home to the understanding of the people, and that is by comparing the taxation and expenditure per head : Taxation and expenditure per head since 1895 have been as follows :
Year.	Taxation per head.	Expenditure per head.
	8	8
1892-95 	5 59	8'411896	5'40	8*141897	5 57	S'281898	509	8*031899	6-65	9'721900	7-19	9'951901	7 T9	10'7G1902	7'95	11'721903	8'87	11171904	9'44	11'74Now, that was not	the course followed	by the Conservatives,	although	they were
so keenly criticised. The Conservatives had really in view a reduction of the taxation and expenditure, because the average of the total expenditure from 1892 to 1896 was 8400,000 less than during the period between 1887 and 1891. The tendency of that administration was towards economy ; on the other hand, the tendency of' the Liberal party in power has been in the very opposite direction. They have not only increased the taxation and expenditure, but they have done so consistently

being consistent in that matter alone

they have increased it regularly in every year in which they have been in power, almost without exception. In 1903, it is true, they made a small reduction ; probably they expected at that time to go to the country, and wished to procure the merit before the taxpayers of making a small reduction. But the fact of the matter is, that while the premier confidently stated, and the statement was repeated by his lieutenants in the House, that if they ever got into power they would reduce the total expenditure by two or three millions, the fact is that not only did they not reduce the expenditure by two or three millions, but they have practically doubled it during the eight years they have been in power.
I suppose that, like another prophet crying in the wilderness, I might lift up my voice in protest for a very long time before it would have the slightest effect upon hon. gentlemen opposite. They seem to be rather confident that the country prefers high taxation and high expenditure, if we can judge from the course they are following. However, the hon. gentleman who is most particularly responsible for this policy, while the whole administration is responsible for it, is my hon. friend from my own pro-

vince, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I suppose he must feel that he is held responsible by the people of Canada to a large extent, not only for the surpluses every year, but for the annual bill of costs which he renders ; so that, 1 suppose, he must realize that at least in the province of Nova Scotia, as any where else, a great deal of interest is taken in this matter. I am going to turn back to a period in Nova Scotia history when the hon. gentleman and I had some dealings with each other, and remind him of the attitude,,taken in 1885 by the party led by that hon. gentleman on this very matter of expenditure. In 1885 a very important motion was made in the legislature of Nova Scotia based entirely upon the question of the taxation of the country. Mr. Fraser, the member for Guysborough, who was a very active supporter of the hon. gentleman, made the statement there that Nova Scotia was being overtaxed, that the province was actually being taxed to the amount of $3,093,466 per year, and that Nova Scotia was not receiving in return from the Dominion government an expenditure equal to the amount which she was contributing to the funds of the country. I did not agree with the figures that were presented in reference to the expenditure being made by the Dominion and witli which Nova Scotia was chargeable, nor do I agree with them now, but basing their argument entirely on the fact that the taxation then amounted to under $3,000,000, these hon. gentlemen went on to argue that Nova Scotia and Nova Scotians were in such a condition that they required to receive some relief, and that the imposition of taxation to which they were subjected at that time was one that justified them in seeking some relief somewhere, and of endeavouring to escape from that difficulty. Now, I am going to call to the attention of my hon. friend wliat the people of Nova Scotia, as represented in the local legislature, thought of the situation then, thought of this taxation, and the course they thought fit to pursue, and I am going to contrast that with the situation in which these Nova Scotians find themselves to-day as being under the control of a taxing master, then the hon. member for Halifax and premier of Nova Scotia, and now Finance Minister of Canada. Mr. Fraser argued that the taxes paid by Nova Scotia at that time were about $3,000,000. The population of Nova Scotia at that time was 442,572 persons, and multiplying that by the average rate of taxation, $6.60 per head, we find that the taxes paid by Nova Scotians amounted to $2,920,975, or a little under the amount estimated by the member for Guysborough at that time. But in 1903, the last year for which we can get the figures exactly, the taxes paid to the Dominion by these same Nova Scotians were not $2,920,975, but $4,264,856. No doubt the population has increased to a certain extent, but the people are actually paying more taxes. The population of Nova Scotia between 1885 and 1903
has increased 4T per cent, but the taxes have increased by nearly 27 per cent, so that the increase of taxes is entirely out of all proportion to the increase of population. Now, in order to show the people of this country, and the people of my own province of Nova Scotia, how this matter was regarded in 1885, I am going to read the resolutions that were moved in that year and in the year following by the hon. member for Guysborough, who had charge of this matter, and by the hon. gentleman who was at that time the leader of the government (Mr. Fielding), and I am sure I will not be troubled to appeal to the hon. Minister of Finance to give to this matter his most earnest consideration. It surely will not be hard to persuade him that this matter is of the greatest political consequence in the province of Nova Scotia, and there can be no doubt at all that the government will necessarily be held to account. At page 100 of the ' Hansard ' of the Nova Scotia legislature, session 1884-5, it will be found that Mr. Fraser moved as follows :
Whereas the financial and commercial condition of the province of Nova Scotia is in a very unsatisfactory state ;
And whereas, it is evident that the terms of the British North America Act, combined with the Canadian tariff and fiscal laws, are the principal causes contributing to this unsatisfactory state of the finances and trade of the province ;
And whereas, there is no prospect that, while the province remains upon the present terms of union a member of the Canadian federation, any improvement in the foregoing respects is at all possible ;
And whereas, it seems evident that the interests of the people of the several maritime provinces now incorporated with Canada are in most respects identical ;
Therefore resolved, that this branch of the legislature of Nova Scotia is of the opinion, and does hereby declare its belief that the interests of the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would be advanced by withdrawing from Canadian federation and uniting under one government ;
And further resolved, that, if the government of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and the people thereof will be found unwilling to withdraw from the Canadian federation for the purpose of forming a union of the maritime provinces, then this assembly deems it absolutely necessary that Nova Scotia in order that its railways, and its other public works and services, may be extended and maintained as the requirements of the people need therm ;l its industries properly protected ; its commerce invigorated and expanded ; and its financial interests placed upon a sound basis, such as was the case previous to confederation, should withdraw from the union with Canada and return to the status of a province of Great Britain, with full control over all fiscal laws and tariff regulations, within the province, such as prevailed previous to 1867.
And further resolved, that the government of Nova Scotia shall, after the prorogation of the legislature, take preliminary action for

the purpose of facilitating the wishes of the assembly by entering into negotiations with the respective governments of New7 Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, in order that the legislature of Nova Scotia may he fully advised during its next session, and be thereby enabled to place this vital and important question before the people at the approaching elections, for decision at the polls.
The whole basis of that resolution, aimin" at the subversion of the Dominion constitution, and the removal of the maritime provinces from confederation under the leadership of the hon. Minister of Finance and his friends at that time in power, was the fact that at that time the people of Nova Scotia were paying 86.60 per head in taxation. That was looked upon as an oppressive condition, and one that demanded an immediate remedy. In amendment to that the hon. gentleman who is now Finance Minister of Canada moved :
That all the words after ' whereas ' to the end of the question be left out, and that the following words be inserted instead thereof :
Previous to the union of the provinces the province of Nova Scotia was in a most healthy financial condition.
And whereas, strong objections were taken at the time of the union to the financial terms thereof relating to ithe province of Nova Scotia, as being wholly inadequate to meet the requirements of the various services left under the management of the provincial parliament.
And whereas, after seventeen years under the union successive governments have found that the objections which were urged against the terms of union at first apply with greater force now than in the first year of the union, and the feeling of discontent with regard to the financial arrangement is now more general and more deeply fixed than ever before.
And whereas, these' * facts have been brought to the notice of His Excellency the Governor General and the federal ministry by an address unanimously passed by the legislative council and the house of assembly, and also by the representations of a delegation from the provincial government, without satisfactory results up to this time.
Therefore resolved, that if the government and parliament of Canada fail to make provision during the present session of said parliament to place the province of Nova Scotia in a better financial position in the union, this House affirms that it will be necessary to consider the advisability of taking steps to secure a severance of the political connection between the province and the Dominion of Canada.
That was the end of that matter for that year but in the following session no change having occurred in the position of the country, the taxation not having been lowered, and the dissatisfaction with that taxation being about the same, Mr. Fielding as reported at page 384 of the debates of the Nova Scotia league for 18S6, gave the following notice of motion :
That he would move on a future day the following resolution :-


Adam Carr Bell: That, previous to the union of the province of Nova Scotia was in a most healthy condition ;
That, by the terms of the union the chief sources of the revenue were transferred to the federal government ;
That strong objections were taken at the time of the union to the financial terms relating to the province of Nova Scotia as wholly inadequate to meet the requirements of the various services left under the management of the provincial legislature ;
That, an appeal was made to the imperial government for repeal of the union as far as it related to this province ;
That, when they refused to assent to such repeal until a further trial of the union was had, the imperial government, in the Colonial Secretary's despatch of the 10th of June, 1868, to Lord Monk, requested that the government and parliament of Canada would modify any arrangement respecting taxation, or respecting the regulations of trade and fisheries, which might prejudice the interests of Nova Scotia ;
. That, on the 6th day of October, 1868, the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, in a letter to the Hon. Joseph Howe referring" to the above despatch, stated as follows :-
' The Canadian government are not only ready, but anxious to enter upon a full and frank discussion of these points, and are prepared, in case the pressure of taxation should be shown to be unequal or unjust to Nova Scotia, to relieve that pressure by every means in tlieir power. They are also ready to discuss any financial or commercial questions that may be raised by the Nova Scotia government or yourself and representatives of Nova Scotia in the parliament of the Dominion.'
And he further said : 'You may remember that I suggested to the committee that Mr. Annand, the Finance Minister of the province, or any other gentleman selected for the purpose, should visit Ottawa and sit down with the Finance Minister here for the purpose of ascertaining whether any inequality or injustice exists, the extent of such inequality and the best remedy, and I now reiterate the assurance I then gave, that the government here will consider the question not in a rigid but in the most liberal spirit, with a desire to do even more than justice for the sake of securing the co-operation of the people of Nova Scotia in working out a new constitution. We will enter upon thie inquiry whenever it will suit your convenience, and the government engage to press upon parliament, with all the influence they possess, the legislation required to carry out any financial readjustment that may be agreed to.'
That, the Dominion government and parliament have never carried out the request or desire of the imperial government and the promise of Sir John A. Macdonald as above quoted ;
That, after nineteen years under the union, successive governments have found that the objections which were urged against the terms of the union at first apply with still greater force now than in the past years of the union, and the feelings of discontent with regard to the financial arrangement is now believed by this House to be more general and more deeply fixed than ever before ;
That, Nova Scotia previous to the union had

the lowest tariff and was, notwithstanding, in the best financial condition of any of the provinces entering the union ;
That, the commercial as well as the financial condition of Nova Scotia is in an unsatisfactory and depressed condition ;
That, it seems evident that the terms of the ' British North America Act,' combined with the high tariff and fiscal laws of the Dominion are largely the cause of this unsatisfactory state of the finances and trade of Nova Scotia ;	,
That, there is at present no prospect that, while the province remains, upon the existing terms of union, a member of the Canadian federation, any satisfactory improvement in the foregoing respects is at all probable ;
That, previous to 1867 negotiations were in progress for a union-of the maritime provinces, but were interrupted by the negotiations for the larger union ;
That, it now appears, as it did then, that the interests of the people of the several maritime provinces now incorporated with Canada are in most respects identical ;
That, the members of the branches of the legislature of Nova Scotia are of opinion, and do hereby declare their belief, that the financial and commercial interests of the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would be advanced by these provinces withdrawing from the Canadian federation and uniting under one government ;
That, if it be found impossible after negotiations for that purpose, to secure the cooperation of the respective governments of the sister provinces in withdrawing from the confederation and entering instead into a iharitime 'union, then this legislature deems it absolutely necessary that Nova Scotia, in order that its railways and other public works and services may be extended and maintained as the requirements of the people need them, its industry properly fostered, its commerce invigorated and expanded and its financial interests placed upon a sound basis such as was the case previous to confederation, should ask permission from the imperial parliament to withdraw from the union with Canada and return to the state of a province of Great Britain, with full control over all fiscal laws and tariff regulations within the province, such as prevailed previous to confederation ;
That, this House thus declares its opinion and belief in order that candidates for the suffrages of the people at the approaching elections may be enabled to place this vital and important question of separation from Canada before them for decision at the polls.
Now since that state paper was prepared by my hon. friend there has not been any lightening of the burden of NoVa Scotia so far as taxation is concerned. At the very time that this discussion was being carried on the Dominion government was using its whole power and risking its existence in order to introduce that national policy which has been such an immense advantage to the province of Nova Scotia. They had at that time introduced the system of bounties on iron under which the great industries at Sydney have grown up. They had placed a tax upon the importation of coal so that the production of coal in our province has grown
from a comparatively insignificant amount to large proportions the market for it having been extended to Quebec, and almost to Ontario. About that time the Dominion government was extending railways through Cape Breton and was then and ever after willing to contribute by subsidies to the construction of railways in Nova Scotia, so that there was really no ground at that time for the statement that the Dominion government was not doing what was fair for the province of Nova Scotia. The whole basis of this argument, as raised first by the member for Guysboro and as afterwards taken up by the Minister of Finance, was that Nova Scotia was being overtaxed, and was being taxed out of proportion to other portions of Canada, that the people of that province, being large purchasers of imported goods, large consumers of taxable articles, were paying more than their proportion of the whole taxes, and the agitation carried on very successfully for a term of years in that province was only put a stop to by this very resolution which I have read to the House. It was put a stop to by this resolution because as soon as that was put to the people and voted on, the absolute insincerity of the advocates of repeal was made so manifest that no man has ever dared to whisper repeal there since. Practically the whole ground of dissatisfaction was the large taxation imposed on the people by the Dominion government. They reminded their hearers of the low tariff previous to confederation, the 10 per cent tariff, and asked the people to contrast that with the 30 and 35 per cent tariff. Now what is the state of affairs ? Whereas in 1883, the year to which I have referred, the taxation per head in Nova Scotia as elsewhere in Canada was $6.60 and the amount of taxes collected by the Dominion government $2,929,000, in 1896 tin? last year of Conservative administration, the taxation per head had fallen to $5.46, and the people of Nova Scotia paid in that year $2,485,348, as against $2,929,000 in 1883, so that under that enlightened administrationn of the Conservative party the ground of discontent, if it could ever have existed at all, was being removed and the burdens of the people were being lightened. What has been the experience since the gentleman who led the agitation has assumed power and become the tax master, the great publican, the great tax collector of this country 1 In 1903 the taxation per head had risen to $8.87 from $5,46 in 1896, and the taxation paid by us oppressed blue-noses, had risen to $4,0S6,710 and in 1904 under a Nova Scotia task master, as I might well say, whose little finger is thicker than the waist of the Conservative administration, who, if they punished the people with whips is now punishing them with scorpions. The contribution of Nova Scotia, which was $2,485,348 in 1896, has grown in the past

year to $4,366,915, which has gone to swell the surplus of my hon. friend. Now, I do not think I should appeal in vain if I appealed to my hon. friend, to give up his portfolio in this government, and return to Nova Scotia and assist in leading the people of that province opt of this condition, which, contrasted with that which prevailed in 1885, might truly be called intolerable. I am reciting these facts for the purpose of showing how enormous, how pole-wide is the difference between the promise of the Libera] part in opposition and the performance of the Liberal party in power. If it be a great and commendable thing in this year of grace 1964 that the revenue of this country has practically doubled and that the surplus of which the Finance Minister boasts has risen to the amount of $16,000,000, how can it be a good thing that the people of Nova Scotia have contributed to this result nearly four and a half millions of dollars, if the condition of affairs in 1885, when they contributed about $3,000,000, was such as to justify them in endeavouring to break up this Dominion ? If the condition of things in 1883 was an intolerable grievance, justifying the armed resistance of the citizens of Nova Scotia to this Dominion, how can it be a plea upon which the hon. gentleman is going in the course of a few months to claim credit from the people of that province, that he can show that this enormously increased taxation [DOT] has been taken out of their pockets ? "Could there be a more extraordinary spectacle than that which my hon. friend will present in placing himself at the lead of the people of Nova Scotia as their champion and banner-bearer to vaunt the administration which has increased their taxation by 50 per cent, and asking their credit for having a surplus so far ahead of those of Conservative administrations ?	.


Mr. WM. ROSS (Victoria).: He will get it, too.


Adam Carr Bell: I do not think he will. However, prophecy is cheap. I have recited a few of the heads of the expenditure to show how the expenditure has increased. Now I am going to point to one or two items which will account for the enormous increase in the taxes of the people of my province items in which the people of my province are specially interested, in respect of which they contribute their full share of the taxation, and in respect of which they are justified, with every hope of success, in asking the Finance Minister for relief from their burdens ; because he voiced their indignation and their sorrow in the past, and he ought to be prepared to listen to their petitions with a very favourable ear now.
My hon. friends opposite, when engaged in political discussion, spend a great deal of their time in dwelling upon two subjects, or one subject and its corollary : that is, the good times and the surplus.' Now, how is Mr. BELL.
the surplus got, and why did the Conserva tive administration not have a large surplus ? Well, I think it was because, in the days when the Conservatives were iu power, they took reasonable and sensible views of finance. They shaped their tariff policy so as to collect from the people a sufficient sum of money to pay the bills of the country, and as soon as they found that the receipts were in excess of the requirements of the country, they proceeded to lighten the burdens of the people ; whereas this administration, which came into power in 1896, when the general improvement in business was becoming manifest, imposed new taxes, and they have maintained them in full force and effect in all the years since, when, owing to increased business and high prices, the imports of the country have greatly increased in value, and the revenue has proportionately increased. During all that period, instead of doing anything to alleviate the burdens of the taxpayers, the Finance Minister has kept the screw on in its full force, and has taken from the people a large sum of money for which he claims credit, instead of coming to them with apologies for the exacting manner in which he has treated them.
Let us take the article of tobacco, which is in this country an article of universal consumption. There are no people who use more tobacco than the shore fishermen of Nova Scotia, who are constituents of my hon. friend. The quantity of tobacco they consume is something enormous. The people along the whole shore line of the fishing counties of Nova Scotia certainly do pay more than their fair share of the tobacco taxes of this country ; and the burdens of these people have been very much increased by this administration. Not because the money was needed to carry on the affairs of the country, but in order that the Finance Minister might stand up here year after year and boast of a surplus. In the four years from 1892 to 1895. the Conservative administration collected the following amounts on
tobacco :
Excise-
Tobacco	$ 9.660,843
Cigars	 2,673,919
Customs-
Tobacco and snuff		197,406
Cigars and cigarettes	 918,572
Total	$13,450,740
Now, let us contrast the results in those four years with the four years from 1900 to 1903. the last four years recorded in the accounts, under the administration of the
present government:
Excise-
Tobacco	$13,878,665
Cigars	 3,558,851
Customs-
Tobacco	and	snuff	
555,787Cigars and	cigarettes	
1,539,170Total	$19,532,473
This shows an increase in the four years years of $6,081,733. That much of the surplus is accounted for by the increased taxes in four years on the article of tobacco alone. Now, if we allow that there has been an increase in the population, and that $1,000,000 of this increase might be fairly accounted for by the increased number of persons using tobacco and cigars, these figures show that in four years this government have taken $5,000,000 out of the people of this country, or $1,250,000 a year, more than the Conservatives,-and a very large proportion of it, out of the men who live along the shore front of the province of Nova Scotia. So that it is not very hard to account for some part of their surplus. Tobacco, these hon. gentlemen may say, is an article the use of which ought to be controlled and kept in check ; but if they mean to do away with the consumption of tobacco, they will have to increase the duties a great deal more. They have not done that. They have not raised the tax to a point which will reduce consumption, but have judiciously kept it at a point which will produce the highest quantity of revenue. So that they are making use of an article, which is an article of universal consumption, as a means of raising an enormous revenue all of which goes to swell their boasted surplus.
There is another article, which is practically of universal consumption, and which is certainly not an article the use of which should be condemned by any one. That is sugar. When Mr. George E. Foster was Finance Minister and had an abundant revenue, he took the duty off sugar. He al-loved the householder to buy his sugar at a reduced rate. He left the money in the people's pockets and was content to do without a surplus. He was content to leave the surplus with the people. Let us take the four years of Conservative administration and see how they handled the sugar business as compared with the administration of these gentlemen. From 1892 to 1903, the revenues derived from the duties on sugar were as follows :
1892	$190,300
1893		 148,130
1894		 150,955
1895,	 302,302
Total

In four years of Conservative regime. Contrast that with the revenue which hon. gentlemen opposite have derived from sugar :
1900		$2,381,875
1901		 2,541,191
1902		 2,823,956
1903		 2,714,318
Total	$10,461,340
So that the present government in four years took from the people in the shape of
sugar duties $10,461,340, whereas in the corresponding four years of the late Conservative administration they only collected $791,687. In four years this administration now in office, which does not like increased taxation, which does not care to bleed the taxpayers white, which aims at relieving the burden of the hard working man, which wants to add to the comfort of our toiling citizens, which wants to enable our working people to enjoy some little luxury-this administration so full of promises has taken in the four years out of the pockets of the people $9,669,653 in the shape of sugar duties. It is not at all wonderful that these gentlemen should have a surplus, but it will be most amazingly wonderful if the people who are paying the piper will be foolish enough to be grateful for it. In these two items alone, and there are many others which represent smaller figures and could be utilized for the purpose of relieving the burdens of taxation-in these two items alone of tobacco and sugar the present government have taken in four years $15,751,386 or nearly $4,000,000 a year taken from the people unnecessarily. Their own blue-books convict them of the fact that they took that money unnecessarily. It is there in the form of a surplus. It is there in order that they may boast of it and adorn that threadbare garment of worn out policies with which they are clothed with a fringe called a surplus. I need scarcely say that this particular expenditure bears heavily on the province of Nova Scotia. Of these very items of sugar and tobacco, the people of Nova Scotia consume more in proportion to their number than the people of any other part of Canada. Unquestionably the amount of tobacco consumed by the fishermen is entirely out of proportion to that consumed by the average citizen, and a large part of this bleeding of the people is absolutely not required for the use of the country but is simply done in order to enable these gentlemen to boast of a surplus. A large part of that surplus is taken unnecessarily from the pockets of men who earn their livelihood in the most dangerous and trying avocation followed by any of the citizens of this country-men who go out to the sea to gather its harvest in the stormy waters that beat upon our Nova Scotia coast. And these men who are compelled to submit to the greatest hardships in the pursuit of their livelihood are thus being bled in order that the administration at Ottawa may boast of a surplus. We could not want more conclusive proof that this administration, instead of studying our finances from the point of view of a conservator of the interests of the people, look upon the whole thing from the standpoint of the publican and their chief aim is to exact from the people every dollar they can possibly get. What are the prospects for the future? Are

things going to be any better ? Not at all. Not until the people have an opportunity to speak will there be a change for the better. The estimates of last year and the current year show that these gentlemen have not repented of their sins. Instead they have hardened their hearts, and instead of making the task of making the cost of living any easier for the people they are going to make it harder. * Excelsior ' is their motto. Higher and higher let us climb the heights of taxation. Let us go forward and onward, and while the estimates voted last year, including those voted this session for the use of the last fiscal year, amounted to $70,000,000, they are not satisfied with that amount but are still increasing it. And that is done by these people who proclaimed that this country could be governed for $36,000,000, and that the men who did not do it for that sum were self-confessed incompetents. Yet these gentlemen are not satisfied with their expenditure of $70,000,000. They believe that another turn of the screw can be made successfully and they are going to spend $77,000,000 in the course of 1905. I shall read to the House the figures of the estimates. These figures are not mine, but have been supplied by hon. gentlemen opposite. In 1903-4 the expenditure was as follows


ESTIMATES.
[Stage Direction]
Main-Consolidated Fund...$56,789,514	61
Main-Capital	
11,602,387	95Supplementary-Consol. Fund..	..	1,568,975	41In session, 1904-05-Capital. 296,663	89Further Suppl.-Consolidated	..	..	10,000	00Further Suppl.-Consolidated	..	..	21,000	00
[Stage Direction]
For the year 1904-5, the estimates voted or to be voted are as follows :

[Stage Direction]
Main-
Consolidated Fund	$55,017,238	84Capital	
7,918,100	00
Supplementary-
Consolidated Fund	 7,065,266	31
Session, 1904-05-[DOT]
Capital	
4,774,004	41Probable addition	
3,000,000	00
[Stage Direction]
Here we have the startling sum of practically $18,000,000, and that for a people who were represented in 1896 as staggering under an expenditure of $38,000,000. Our estimates to-day show an expenditure of more than double the amount that provoked the fury, the indignation, the sorrow, the tears almost, of these hon. gentlemen when in opposition. In ten years they have shown their sincerity, they have justified the confidence that the Liberals of the country reposed in them, by doubling an expenditure Mr. BELL.	.
which they pronounced cruel and unnecessary and an indication of incompetence on the part of the men who were undertaking to govern the country. No hon. gentlemen have ever done more, to show that they look with the most supreme contempt upon their utterances of previous years. And, no doubt they look with the same contempt upon the idiotic constituencies that could be humbugged by such promises as theirs. For what respect can they have for the voters who listened to their talk almost ten years ago and to whom they go with the record of their performances to-day and who cannot but see that they have outheroded Herod, that they have more than doubled an expenditure that they pronounced cruel, barbarous and a mark of incompetent administration. They will put their tongue in their cheek and wink at one another as they did before. What must they think of the people of Canada to whom they submit their performances of 1904 in contrast with their promises of 1894 ? These hon. gentlemen must go before the people of Canada, a land of common schools where every man knows something about arithmetic. Why, to these people who believed their promises when in opposition, the results that they have brought about will seem worse than a storm or an earthquake-they are nothing less than a cataclysm. If the taxation of former times was such a grievous injury to the people this doubling of it will seem to the people like a convulsion of nature wiping out of existence themselves and their property. It classes itself among the great misfortunes to which men and countries may be subjected. It is not an ordinary increase, not an increase in proportion to the population of the country, but abnormal, phenomenal, unheard of. I do not envy the hon. gentleman who went to the people or Canada and talked of the sins of the Conservatives with their expenditures ot $38,000,000 in 1894 going back to the same people with an expenditure of practically $78,000,000 in 1904-5.
Mr. PATERSON.: Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) speaking of the expenditure or estimates ?


Adam Carr Bell: Estimates. But let us take the hon. gentleman on that point. Last year parliament voted $68,300,000. and the government spent $66,000,000.-That is their expenditure fell $2,300,000 short of the estimates. For this year, the estimates are $77,774,609.56. Allowing for a proportionate difference between expenditure and esti; mates, the expenditure for this year would be not less than $75,000,000. I must remind my hon. friend also that I have compared estimates throughout and that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) denounced the expenditures under the Conservative administration, he

also criticised the estimates and not expenditure, dealing with the matter on the same basis on which I deal with it now. Now, to show exactly what the government can do, let me point out what has been voted this session.
Total votes for the year 1904-5. ..$77,774,609 56 Voted this session for the year
1903-4	 1,896,639 30
Total	$79,671,248 86
So, we have here practically $80,000,000 voted this session.


William Paterson: Part of that was last year's estimates.


Adam Carr Bell: Yes, but it is all voted this year. I think I made the matter perfectly plain.
Now, I believe this country is going to get relief. Not from the gentlemen in power, because their faces are set steadfastly towards taxes and higher expenditure. Even my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) with all his painful recollection of the impoverished condition of the people of Nova Scotia in 1896, with an intolerable expenditure of $0.60 per head, will cot change his course. But the people will secure relief as soon as they are given the opportunity. For, here is a record that cannot be presented to a population brought up in the common school, acquainted with the ordinary rules of arithmetic, without making certain the condemnation of those who have made that record. These figures will appeal with the most eloquent tongue to the electors when they are called upon to decide in whose hands they shall place the control of their business affairs. Will tll'ey choose an extravagant, reckless party absolutely forgetful of their promises and pledges, ignoring everything they ever said in the way of promise, and showing no desire to relieve the people of their burden of taxation ?

a party who have not realized to the slightest degree the strain upon the taxpayers ? Or will they turn with gratitude to the party whose record in power was one of declining expenditures and reduced taxation, of sympathy with the people and desire to show that they were capable administrators by managing the country's affairs upon as small a sum as possible, while furnishing all the public works and services necessary to secure for our country its proper place among the commonwealths of the world ?
Now I need scarcely say that there are many other subjects with which I would like to deal for a short time, but I must bring my remarks to a close, for X find I have already spoken longer than I intended. Last
year we called the attention of the House to the fact that, adding all the expenditures together, the estimates, the railway subsidies, the Grand Trunk Pacific-and I do not suppose we had them all-practically the government of the day had voted away money, or pledged the credit of Canada in the course of one session, to the extent of $256,000,000, or a sum equal to all the debts that have been accumulated by all the men of British race who, under the British government, have occupied any part of this Dominion or of the provinces out of which it was built up ; I say that all the debts of all the provinces and of the Dominion put into one sum would just about equal the amount of money which this administration last session voted away, or to which it pledged the credit of this country. Now this session they have done nearly as much. They have re-imposed the bvirden of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and have increased it; instead of calling it now $150,000,000, we may, in view of the higher estimate of the cost as given by the Finance Minister, in view of the knowledge that we are going to guarantee a larger part of the bonds, and a larger portion of the interest, and for a longer period of years, we may fairly enough call it to-day $175,000,000 as the burden that must be taken up by the people before that project is carried to completion. Then we have 471 miles of railway to which bonuses of $8,200 per mile are to be paid this session ; adding 10 per cent of that to those which will exceed in cost $15,000 per mile, we have a sum of $1,657,920. Then there is the bridge near the Premier's old college at L'Assomption, $51,000 ; in all, $1,708,000 voted away this year in the railway subsidies. Then there are in the estimates over $79,000,000 ; there is the sum of the bounties which this government has given with the greatest liberality. They give bounties to nearly everything ; iron, steel, silver, lead, binder twine, oil, all that at the expense of the taxpayers ; there will be a million and a half dollars paid by the people of this country in bounties. Then there are the enormous rebates. I have a table here showing the rebates which I will give in order to show the extent to which this government are assisting various industries, and I do not know but that we on this side might regard it as a merit in hon. gentlemen opposite who were so eloquent in opposition in their desire to cut off every kind of assistance to any industry which was given at the expense of the rest of the country ; and we find that these gentlemen have travelled very far in the direction that was followed by the Conservatives. I subjoin the following table, giving the details of the bounties and rebates :


BOUNTY-BARS-STEEL INGOTS-IRON PIG.
[Stage Direction]
-	Pig Iron.	Steel Ingots.	Bars puddled. *189S	8 165,f>54	8 54,412	8 7,7061899	187,954	74,644	17,5111900 	238,290	64,360	10,1211901	351,259	100,058	16,7031902	(193,109	84,610	17,7101903	070,340	721,924	9,5412,306,612	1,100,008	79,292Grand total, 1898-1903	
1904-Add Bounty, Iron and Steel	3,485,912 922,104 4,380
4,412,396

[Stage Direction]
-	1901.	1902.	1903.	Total.Duties returned.. Drawback	8 228,875 138,948	$ 203,399 327,650	8 243,081 152,336	8 675,355 618,934 1,294,289
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I beg to sum up the foregoing arguments in the following motion :-	i
That all the "words alter the word ' that ' in the main motion he left out and the following substituted therefor :
While the total taxes collected for the year ending 30th of June, 1897, were $28,626.11, viz.:
Customs	$19,478,247.19
Excise	 9,170,378.92
(Public Accounts, 1903, page 54).
Or $5.57 per head of population, notwithstanding the pledges of the Liberal party in opposition to reduce taxation, the total taxes collected for the year ending June 30th, 1903, were $49,015,505.90, viz..
Customs	$37,001,726.90
Excise	 12,013,779.00
or $8.87 per head of population.
And further it appears from the statement of the Finance Department that the total taxation for the year ending 30th June, 1904, is $53,346,620.06, viz.:
Customs	$40,449,608.57
Excise	 12,647,011.49
and when full returns are received may reach a total of $53,800,000, or $9.57 per head of population.
That the government maintains the expendi-diture of"the country at a figure out of proportion to the increase of population so that the total expenditure for the year ending June 30, 1904, as stated in the Budget Speech by the Minister of Finance, has reached the vast sum of $66,000,000, viz.:
Adam Carr Bell: Consolidated account	$54,500,000
Capital account	 11,500,000
exceeding the total expenditure for the year ending June 30, 1897, by $23,027,244.
That the total estimates for the year ending June 30, 1904, are $77,774,609.56, and that of these estimates nearly $15,000,000 have been submitted on or after July 25th, when a careful consideration of the items is no longer possible.
This House regrets that notwithstanding the pledges of the Liberal party in opposition to reduce taxation and expenditure, the government is maintaining a policy of high and steady increasing taxation and expenditure, and is thus setting an example of wasteful and extravagant management of a character which must work serious injury to the people and interests of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who was credited with the well known observation that you may fool all of the people some of the time, that you may fool some of the people all the time, but that you cannot fool all the people all the time. It occurs to me that that which Mr Lincoln regarded as impossible is what my hon. friends opposite undertake in these annual motions with respect to the public expenditures. Year after year we go through this proceeding, which, so far as hon. gentlemen are concerned, I might almost de scribe, without using the word in an offensive sense, as farcical. Each succeeding year, at the same period near _ the end of the session, some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House undertakes to present a dreadful picture of the financial condition of this country. He rolls up all the possible votes he can fiud, he searches the estimates, the statutes, the railway subsidies and everything of this kind, he rolls them up into one tremendous whole, he puts them up before the public eye, and he says : See these vast expenditures that the country is being committed to, see how extravagant and reekles i the government of this country is, see how the finances of the country are going to the dogs ! The hon. gentleman who formerly led the opposition, and who is now no longer a member of this House, Sir Charles Tup-per, began this policy in the year 1896, before this government were well settled in their seats, by presenting a picture of the dreadful prospect in store for this country at the hands of a Liberal administration, a picture of reckless financing, of ruin to the public credit and of destruction to the financial reputation of the country. Each year towards the close of the session some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House repeats something like the same story, adding these extraordinary statements as to the expenditures that are about to be made, and calling upon the country to witness that this Dominion of Canada is in a dreadful position in regard to its finances, or will be at the time at which the current year shall end. But as each year rolls around, as the end of the year is reached, as stock is taken and as the accounts are closed, these

lion, gentlemen are brought face to face with the very gratifying fact that the finances of Canada have been flourishing to a greater degree than at any previous period in our history. And then, as the session rolls on, and we reach the last week, again we have the same old story repeated, the same magnified account of the position which the government are in, and the same dire predictions of all that is going to happen to the Dominion finances under the administration of a Liberal government. I would remind my hon. friends opposite of the old fable of the boy who cried ' wolf, wolf.' He cried ' wolf, wolf ' when there was no wolf, but when the wolf did come we know what happened. If, perchance, as years roll on, this government should at any time become reckless and extravagant, and if hon. gentlemen opposite should wish to give the alarm to the country, they will be reminded that they cried ' wolf, wolf,' in times of prosperity, and they will be told that they are not to be trusted when it comes to the criticism of the public finances. I .said that there was something farcical-I use the word in no discourteous sense-in the course of my hon. friends opposite, and when I said that I had in my mind the contrast between the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite as manifested in solemn resolution and speech, and the policy which they have manifested by their course throughout the session. Have these hon. gentlemen opposite, who are now the advocates of economy, made one proposition for the reduction of taxation ? Have they made one proposition for the reduction of expenditure ? If you searched with a microscope the records of this session you might find some place where they asked to strike out a dollar and a half, but I do not think you could find any considerable amount which they have asked to be struck out. I cannot at the moment recall any motion in which they have proposed to strike out of the estimates during the present session any sum of money. II They have made some motion of that kind, I venture to say the amount involved was very small.


George Taylor: Was the hon. gentleman here the other night when a motion was made to strike out $60,000 ?


William Stevens Fielding: Did the hon. gentleman divide the committee on the question of striking that out of the estimates ?


George Taylor: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, then I am willing to be* corrected to the extent of $60,000. Then let it be known throughout the length and breadth of the land that out of this enormously large appropriation, which hon. gentlemen place anywhere at from $200,000,000 to $250,000,000 per annum they did, on one occasion, move to strike out $60,000 I want them to receive credit for that, and I trust that none of our friends will hereafter make that statement, but will recognize the fact that to the extent of ninety-nine per cent of these estimates they are allowed to go without challenge, and that only about one per cent, a very fragmentary amount as compared with the whole, is challenged. For every case In which my hon. friends opposite can show that they proposed to reduce a single dollar of the expenditure, we will show proposals to increase the expenditure of the country by $10 coming from the other side of the House. We have found again and again, on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, demands for increased expenditures. I need not go into the minor branches, but we are constantly reminded in the criticism of the estimates that in some part of the public service' there is need of a larger expenditure. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) did me the courtesy of handing me yesterday afternoon a copy of his motion. He handed it to me during a friendly conversation we had in the corridor. I came into the House five minutes after I had obtained this motion of my hon. friend, and I heard one of the chief lieutenants of the opposition standing in his place opposite me denouncing the government for not spending more money on the militia of the country. I heard him with scorn and indignation say that we were only spending thirty-seven cents per head of the population on the militia of the country, and that there were only two other countries that were spending so little-Corea and Costa Rica My hon. friend from Pictou, when dealing with this resolution, had conveniently forgotten that the echoes of the voice of my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) had hardly left the room, wherein he demanded that we should expend larger sums on the militia. These hon. gentlemen, on a general vote, condemn our expenditures, hut again and again their voices are loudest in demanding that we shall increase our expenditure. I see my genial friend from South Lanark (Mr. Ilaggart) sitting opposite me. He is going to vote for this resolution declaring that we are spending too much money, but my hon. friend accompanied a deputation the other day to this government to demand a new expenditure upon a great public work which is estimated to cost $100,000,000.


An hon. MEMBER.: He will not vote for this motion.
Mr. FIEiLDING. My hon. friend may vote for it, because he is a good party man, but I know what his opinion would be. Hon, gentlemen opposite, though it may be to a lesser degree and in respect to smaller sums, are constantly demanding that this government shall make further appropriations. Again and again these demands have been made. I remember a year ago, when making a similar speech, I had occasion to remind one of my hon. friends opposite that his chief grievance was that we would not spend



a great deal of money in sending out an expedition to search for the North Pole, and we were condemned for not doing it. All along the line there have been demands for increased expenditure, and lion, gentlemen opposite are not able, except in the one case to which the hon.- member for Heeds has referred, to challenge the propriety of any of these expenditures.


George Taylor: What about the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Grand Trunk Pacific ? Why the hon. gentlemen have out-heroded Herod there. After denouncing the Grand Trunk Pacific, they propose another scheme for a few days which would have enormously added to the debt of this country. I do them the justice to say that after a very short time they became ashamed of it and it is never mentioned now.
*[DOT]	Oh, no, they never mention it,
It's name is never heard.
As a substitute for it we had our hon. friends recently declaring that they would build the whole of this Grand Trunk Pacific as a government work. As a government work it would probably cost a great deal of money and my hon. friends can hardly make a reputation for economy by declaring that they want to build the Grand Trunk Pacific as a government work. My hon. friend (Mr. Bell) who has moved this motion has constantly spoken about the enormous increase of the expenditure. He says that from year to year the expenditure is increasing. Well it would not be a remarkable condition in a country like Canada if the expenditure did always increase. But as a matter of fact my hon. "friend is not correct. In the last blue-books which have been placed on the table of this House with regard to the public expenditure we find that in 1902, our gross expenditure of all classes aggregated 63,970,799, and in 1903 our gross expenditure of all classes aggregated $61,746,591. Thus according to the public accounts of the last year that have been laid before the House there was in that year not an increase of expenditure but a decrease in expenditure to the extent of $2,224,000. My hon. friend referred last year to these enormous estimates and he proposed to treat them all as something coming on us immediately ; and he made them out-I was going to say about two millions, but he has gone a little better to-day in his figures and says $250,000,000. That was the tremendous bill of fare he offered, the dreadful alarm he sounded a year ago, before the intelligent people of this country. What must be their astonishment when they find that the year has ended and although the accounts are not finally made up to the last cent, I have been able to announce that instead of spending the enormous sum of $250,000,000 or anything like it, the actual expenditure for the year Mr. FIELDING.
was $66,000,000. My hon. friend tried to scare the life out of the people last year with his dreadful story of a probable expenditure of $250,000,000. My hon. friend may say that he never said it was all going to be spent in one year, but he was not very particular to explain that, and I think that many who heard him or read that speech would conclude it was proposed to spend $200,000,000 or $250,000,000 in one year. These expenditures to which my hon. friend refers covered a number of years. Take for example the expenditure for railway subsidies. Some of these appropriations are not expended at all. In many cases the companies are not able to do the work promptly and there is delay. Occasionally they have not been able to do the work at all, and the appropriations have lapsed. But in the meantime they are placed on the statute-books. My hon. friends make the most of them as a large and alarming expenditure. Now it is worth while bearing in mind that the large revenue which we are constantly enjoying is not received entirely from taxes. My hon. friend of course, is aware that we receive besides what are called taxes, that is the customs and excise duties, very considerable sums from other sources, and it is an interesting fact that the proportion of our revenue which we are taking from the people to-day by way of taxes is smaller than it was a few years ago. In 1890 the taxes collected were 79-21 per cent of the revenue. In 1896 the taxes were 75-81 of the revenue. In 1903, the last year for which we have exact figures, the taxes were 74 22 per cent of the revenue, which goes to show that our large expenditures are leading to large returns in other branches which are not to be regarded as taxation. That which we receive from the post office and railways and public works is not in the ordinary sense of the word, taxation, but payments for services rendered, and these figures show that we are getting a larger percentage of our revenue from these other sources than our predecessors obtained. Then it is not for a moment to be presumed that increased amount of taxation means an increased burden on the people or an evidence that the country is suffering any serious disadvantage. An increase in the rate of taxation would be a burden to- the people, but the fatal error of the figures of my hon. friend is that he deals only with the amount of the taxation of the country. If the people were poor, as in 1895-6, if they were not able to buy the goods which they desire, the amount of taxation that would be paid would be much lower than it is now. But the enlarged taxation to which he refers, that is the enlargement of the volume of taxation or the amount of revenue collected, is one of the evidences of the growth and progress and prosperity of this country. Up to a certain point a man is obliged to pay taxes. A man must up to the point of

a reasonable living expense, pay the taxes on the things he consumes, but when you pass that point, which I suppose is not the same with different people, one man's needs rot being the same as another's, the man becomes his own assessor, he taxes himself pretty much as he wishes. He then elects out his greater prosperity to buy many things which he otherwise would not buy. He indulges in greater comforts, in luxuries, and he does this with the knowledge that he must contribute to the revenue of the country. Now since he is his own assessor, the increased taxes he pays, instea'd of being evidence of his enduring a burden, is one of the evidences of his greater prosperity and his better position as a citizen of this Dominion. My bon. friend said that under the late government the tendency was towards a reduction of taxation, by which, as he explained, he meant that the rate of taxation per head was falling under the late government and as he described it that was a very happy position. The country according to his view would be most happy when the rate of taxation collected per head was lowest. In 1S99, the rate of taxation as he computes it, per head of population, that is the revenue collected from customs, was $5.11. In 1895, it had fallen to $3.50 per head. According to the argument of my hon. friend that should have been a happy and prosperous year for Canada in 1S95 because the taxation of the people for customs fell from $5.01 in 1889 to $3.50 in 1895. That was the happy year for Canada if my hon. friend's theory is correct. In 1896 the figures were a shade higher, $3.90. In 1904. the revenue collected from customs, as far as we can compute at present, is about $7.50 per head. My hon. friend treats that increase of taxation of $3.50 per head in 1895 to $7.50 per head in 1904 as a great evil of the country. Which year would Canada most gladly have, the year 1895 with a taxation collected of $3.50 per head, or the year 1904 with a taxation of $7.58 per head '
My hon. friend must see that his whole argument is fallacious to the last degree.
The condition of prosperity which he describes would be a condition of adversity, a condition of distress. Will any reasonable man say that the condition of Canada in 1895, when the people paid only $3.50 per head, was as good for all purposes-as good for the present, as good for the people, as good for the future making of this country -as the year 1904, when we confess that we collected $7.58 per head ? That is the argument that runs all through my hon. friend's speech. He claims that the increased amount paid by the people is an evidence of burden. I deny that, and I say that the increased taxation which the poopie have paid is one of the evidences of their prosperity ; and, far from regretting it, we should rejoice that the people have not 264
fallen back into the dark days of 1895, when they were only able to pay $3.50 per head.
There is another view of the matter which, I should like to present. My hon. friend, points out that the taxation per head collected by the late government was less than, th.at which we have collected. We frankly admit that that is so, and we have given some reasons for it. But there is another reason that might be given. If we had pursued the same policy as the late government in a very important matter, we might have got along with less money. The late government collected less money per head, but plunged the country Into a heavy debt. They added enormously to the public debt of the country, and left that as a burden on posterity. We have not done that. To the best of our knowledge and belief, we have not added one dollar to the publ-.c debt of Canada. Tbe figures given in the Budget speech are not final ; but, so far as we can judge at present, we beliere it will be found at the close of tbe year, wher. the accounts are made up, and tbe record of our eight years is completed, that substantially there has been no addition to the public debt-that if there is any. it will be a mere trifle. Is it fair to compare the record of a government which out of its revenues carries on enormous public works and pays its way, with the record of a government which took less taxes from the people, but put a burden upon them which will last as long as grass grows and water runs ? If the Conservative government had paid their way, they would have increased the taxation enormously. I do not say they should have imposed enough taxes to pay their way ; perhaps they were wise in not doing it. But they must not make it a virtue that they do not increase the taxation when what they did was to add largely to the public debt of the country.
This government, they say, has spent money lavishly. We admit that we have spent liberally. On railway subsidies, on public works, on civil government, in every department of a great and growing country there has been and necessarily must be some increase. It would be a rare thing if you could carry on the government of a country in these days of progress without some increase of expenditure in the various departments. We have spent money on railways, on canals, on great public works ; we have paid the cost of sending the boys to South Africa ; we have paid every ordinary expenditure, ' every special expenditure, every capital expenditure, bounties, railway subsidies-everything that could be gathered into the net-and paid it all out of these taxes which my hon. friend talks about; and we come out at the end of tbe eight years with the record that whereas in 1896 the net public debt of the country stood at $50.61 per head, if our anticipations of-last year's operations prove to be correct, as we



know they substantially will, we shall stand with a debt of $46.31 per head. So I have shown that the increased taxation to which my hon. friend refers is simply the increased volume of money which, as my hon. friend the Minister of Customs said on one occasion, is generously offered by a grateful public, which steps up to the custom house and asks the Minister of Customs to be good enough to receive this money and apply it to the public affairs of this Dominion.
But, Sir, the total volume of the taxation is of no value for the purpose of comparison in the manner in which it has been used by my hon. friend, because, as I have endeavoured to show, far from being an evil, it is one of the evidences of our prosperity. But we may with great propriety consider what the rate of taxation has been, and there we are able to meet my hon. friend. With the exception of one or two items, which are chiefly, if not wholly articles of luxury, we have reduced the taxation all along the line. The hon. gentleman may search all the items of our tariff with his microscope, and he will find that the items in Which there has been any increase of duty are very ( few, and chiefly articles of luxury, while there has been a large reduction in the rates of duty on articles generally. Sometimes hon. gentlemen have charged us with not reducing the rates of duty, and we had to go over the tariff item by item and show the large reductions we had made. But let us take the total. In 1896, when this government came into office, the customs duties collected on dutiable goods amounted to an average of 29-942 per cent, whereas in 1903, the last year for which the figures are complete, the customs duties on dutiable goods amounted to an average of 27-064 per cent, a reduction of nearly 3 per cent.


Mr. CLANCY.: That includes the preference ?


William Stevens Fielding: The rates of duty actually paid by the people, no matter where the goods came from. Taking the total imports the average rate of duty paid in the year 1896 was 19-109 per cent, and the average rate in 1903 was 16-468 per cent, or a reduction of about 24 per cent; and yet my hon. friend would convey the impression that this government has increased the taxation of the country. The rates of taxation have not been increased ; they have been reduced; but the people, owing to their greater prosperity, have been able to buy much more largely than before, and as a consequence they have cheerfully paid more money into the general treasury, even at the lower rates.
Mv hon. friend said that the late government feeling that they had more money than they needed, had reduced the duty on sugar. The late government never had more money than they needed. If they had, they would have applied it to paying the current expenditure instead of adding $6,500,000 per


William Stevens Fielding: annum to the debt of the country. My hon. friend said the late government had made sugar free. There never was free sugar under the late government.


Mr.   BEIL.@: I never said they made sugar free. In fact, I gave the figures of the duties they collected on sugar in those years.
[ said they had reduced the duty on sugar.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend said that they had taken the duties off sugar. My hon. friend probably said a little more than he meant, because as a matter of fact they did not take the duty off sugar. They took the duty off. raw sugar, and left the duty on refined sugar, which is the sugar the people use. That duty was reduced, but it is a mistake to say that the late government took the duty off sugar, or that the duty is higher to-day than it was under the late government. This government has made a change in the sugar duties, and it has made that change for two purposes. One purpose was to change the scale so that instead of a flat rate on all classes of refined, irrespective of quality, the duty should vary and operate the same as an ad valorem duty. Therefore we adopted what is called the polariscopic test, whereby the rate of duty varies according to the strength of the sugar, and that is regarded as the most scientific method of levying the tax. Then we made a change for the purpose of granting a preference to the British West Indies, and for a time there was an increase in the duties levied on sugar. But I am advised by the customs officials-although the figures are not in a condition to use in any volume -that while in 1896 the duty on refined sugar was $1.14 per hundred pounds, the returns of last year will show that the people are only paying $1,114 per hundred pounds. So that we have actually reduced the duty on sugar and not increased it. To prevent any misunderstanding, let me say that I am now speaking of the duty on refined sugar. But raw sugar is not used by our people. There was a time, even in my memory, when the brown sugar of the West Indies was largely used by the people, but that time passed away to a large extent even before the present government came into power ; and with a better condition of the people, with the people getting higher wages than before, they do not use the West India sugar in its raw condition, and even the poorer classes consume very largely the products of our Canadian refineries. There-, fore, So far as the consumer is concerned, we need not bother about the duty on raw sugar. The refiner has to look after that. And on the refined sugar the duty now is $1,114 per hundred pounds as compared with $1.14 per hundred pounds in 1896.
My hon. friend had something to say about tobacco. He wanted to know what my constituents were going to say about the increased duty on that article. Well, my

constituents have spoken on that subject. There was no question more discussed in the the last election campaign than the duty on tobacco. We had to acknowledge there was an increase, but we went to the people and explained that there are things more important than the duty on tobacco, and that although there was an increase in that duty, the increase was imposed in part for the purpose of guarding against any loss in revenue, arising from the changes we were making in the tariff, and also for the purpose of encouraging an important industry in Canada. And I am glad to say that Canadian tobacco is being more largely used by our people and they are beginning to appreciate it more than they did before. I was able to show to the people of that section, as I would to any other section of intelligent people, that the duty on tobacco was only one item, and that if they would look over the whole list they would see that the policy of the government actually decreased the taxation of the people. And should I have occasion to go down and discuss the question with the people of my constituency, and should I happen to be asked why we put an increased duty on tobacco, I could very well reply : You can well afford to pay an increased duty on tobacco because of the many things this government have done for the people, and no better evidence can be found of what this government have done than in Nova Scotia and in my own constituency. I might say to them that whereas from year to year in the time of the late government, they sought in vain the conveniences of railway communication which were to be found in most parts of the Dominion, whereas in those days these two counties on the sea shore had no railways, all that is changed. We can go now to a part of that country by railway and the day is close at hand when the two counties will have a railway running through them. And if there is no more serious charge against the government than the increased duty on tobacco, I will be able to show in that as well as other parts of the Dominion, by the general record of our administration, that the condition of the people has been improved, that higher wages are paid the labouring classes, that progress is made on every side, and all this will more than counterbalance that increase of duty. But my hon. friends opposite have saved us the trouble of meeting that charge. Only a few days ago they brought forward and voted for a resolution asking that the duty on tobacco be increased. After these hon. gentlemen had gone down into the fishing sections and denounced the government for its policy on the tobacco question, after they had denounced it for increasing the duty, we had the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) coming forward with a motion declaring that the protection we are 2641
giving Canadian tobacco is /not large enough and that the duty on foreign tobacco should be increased.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is the second time my hon. friend has misrepresented me. I advocated last year an expenditure for the sending of an expedition to the North Pole and at the same time I advocated reducing the grant of $1,000,000 for importing useless immigrants into this country, spreading disease and making competition to our working men. In the second place, I advocated a change of the duties upon tobacco. I advocated an increase of the custom tTuties and a reduction of the excise duties, which would simply change the nature of the burden and develop a patriotic industry. But developing a patriotic industry is something my hon. friend does not understand.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know that my hon. friend is the embodiment of patriotism, or that he is so regarded by the hon. gentlemen with whom he associates. We need not, however, get into a discussion on that point. I am content to take his statement that he was advocating an increase of the customs duties on tobacco.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And a reduction of excise.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not the excise on Canadian tobacco that my hon. friends opposite have been denouncing in the maritime province, but the increased duty on foreign tobacco. And my hon. friend advocated an increase in that customs duty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And a reduction of the excise.


William Stevens Fielding: Exactly. But we are not discussing the excise. The excise duty is not discussed among our fishermen. When the hon. gentleman's friends go down by the sea and denounce the government on this tobacco question, what they complain of is the increase in the customs duty. It does not always help us to be able to show that we are building up a Canadian industry and that there is a better quality of Canadian tobacco now being produced. These hon. gentlemen opposite will not give us credit for that, but complain of our increase of the customs duties. We advise our people to use the Canadian tobacco and I am glad to say they are using it largely, but many of them do not like it. The complaint of our opponent has been that we have increased the duty on the foreign article.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I want the excise to be diminished, so that the Canadian article will be cheaper.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not objecting to any encouragement given the Canadian tobacco industry. That industry has received more encouragement under this government than it ever did from hon. gentlemen opposite, and the Canadian tobacco industry

is developing in a way it never did before. While it was depending on hon. gentlemen
opposite it made but small progress.
These hon. gentlemen complain of taxation, but is not their whole policy to increase the burdens of the country ? Is not that their policy when they advocate increased protection ? Is there anybody so foolish as to deny that increased protection means increased taxation ? It may mean increased taxation and increased revenue, or it may mean increased taxation, not for the benefit of the revenue, but for the benefit of the manufacturers. But in either case it means increased taxation. How these hon. gentlemen can call us to account for increased taxation under the circumstances, is something I cannot understand.
In dealing with the expenditure my hon. friend spoke of the increased cost of the census Well, that has been fully discussed already, and I do not think it would be wise to occupy much time with it. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) who has charge of that department, has entered very fully into that question, and has shown how the'census which has recently been taken differs in character from the census of the previous period. He has shown that t volume of information is much larger and that there was necessarily an increase ot expenditure. That has been fully explained, and I will not dwell upon it. My hon. friend
referred to expenditures on public works.
But I would remind him that, while he de nounced these expenditures generally, it is seldom indeed that he or his friends can be found to challenge any particular item ot expenditure and move to strike it out. _
Now, what are the other branches in which there has been an increase ? For, of course we admit that there has been a great increase. But many of these increases are only in appearance. Some of them are only cross-entries and so mere matters of book-keeping, while some bring back revenues vastly in excess of the increase of expenditure. ' For instance, we increased the payment for kinking fund by $565,000 in 1903 as compared with 1896. But that is money which simply passes from one pocket to the other. It comes from the ordinary revenue and goes into investment. On Railways and Canals chargeable to collection, the increase in 1903, as compared with 1S96. was $3,395,000. That swells the total expenditure on which hon. gentlemen dwell so strongly. But they forget to sav there has been an increase of revenue on tills account of $3,334,000, so that the actual increase on that account is not very great. We have expended on quarantine. as my bon. friend said, more than our predecessors. But I am satisfied that the government would not be condemned for that by members of the House who understand the matter. Why, we have heard some hon. members in this Mr. FIELDING
House complain because we have not shown greater diligence, because we have not made a larger organization to prevent the bringing in of diseased immigrants and other persons. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has this moment said that he advocated a reduction on the expenditure of immigration. I shall have a word to say about that in a moment. But, if immigrants and other persons are to come into our country, there must be proper arrangements for the protection of the public health by means of quarantine. I do not think that any one who understands the question will complain of the government on that score. We have expended a large sum on the Yukon ; no such sum was expended by the late government. This expenditure of ours in the Yukon is added to the other expenditures to swell the total, but these hon. gentlemen who dwell upon that increased expenditure always forget to tell us that for every dol ai we have spent on the Yukon practically we have got a dollar back. In fact to a recent date we have made money upon the Yukon. I do not recollect what is shown by the more recent statements, but, I believe that, except for some expenditures on capital account, the Yukon has returned every dollar that has been spent upon it. So, while hon. gentlemen try to make this expenditure a means of alarming the country, we have made it the means of opening up and developing a territory that was unknown to them when thev were in power. We have expended more on fisheries. As between 1896 and 1903, there has been an increase of about $100,000. Are we to be condemned for that . Have we not heard hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House, during this very session, express the opinion that larger expenditures should be made upon fisheries, that experiments and investigations should be carried on in order to enable us to develop and utilize the fisheries of British Columbia and the maritime provinces ? Wlitere is the member of this House who will vote to reduce the expenditure devoted to the development of the fishing industry of this country ? We have increased the expenditure on customs by $332,696 in 1903 as compared with 1S96. But that increased expenditure represents the cost of collecting an increased revenue amounting to no less than $17,168,447. Does anybody expect that we are to collect a revenue of $37,000,000 in customs in 1903 for the same amount that was expended in collecting a revenue of $19,000,000 in 1896 ? We have increased to a small extent the expenditure on excise. The expenditure in 1903 was $8,114 more than that of 1896. But the receipts during that time have increased to the extent of $4,087,773. Does anybody mean to say that you are going to collect $12,000,000 in 1903, as against $7,900,000 in 1896, and yet add nothing to the expenses of collection ? We

have increased the expenditure on post offices between 1896 and 1903 by $440,167. But the receipts of that department, in the meantime, have increased to the extent of $1,430,000. We have increased the expenditure on militia, as between 1896 and 1903, to the extent of $826,295. These sums are all given in the grand total which my; hon. friend rolls up with a view to alarming the country. Yet, only yesterday, as I have said, we had the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) complaining, not that we expend too much on the militia, but that we expend only 37 cents per head when we ought to be spending at least eight or ten times that amount. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has referred to the expenditure on immigration. If there is anything that this government should be proud of it is the policy of the Minister of the Interior with regard to immigration and the results of that policy in bringing immigrants into this country. I am glad that my hon. friend made allusion to that. It is true that in 1896 they expended on immigration $130,000, and that in 1903 we spent $642,913, an increase under this administration of more than half a million dollars. But, for the little that hon. gentle-ment opposite spent in 1896 they had nothing to show, except that certain immigrants came into the country and travelled through our country to the United States. To-day we can point with pride to a record of lu0,000 people coming into the Northwest every year, adding vastly to the wealth of the territories and to the wealth of the whole Dominion. When my hon. friend speaks of the expenditure on immigration as something to be condemned, I tell him it is something that every member of this government and every supporter of this government means to speak of from this day on with the utmost pride. We have increased the allowance for the government of the Northwest Territories. In 1896, the sums which the late government provided for the carrying on of the government of the Northwest Territories amounted to $330,702. We plead guilty to haying appropriated for that service last year $802,466, an increase of $471,000. We are arraigned by this resolution for having expended that money. We are told that these expenditures are lavish and extravagant. But it is useless to talk about these expenditures in bulk ; it is only by going over them item by item as I have done that you can discuss them intelligently. And, when we go to the people of the Northwest Territories, and tell them that, having due regard to the increasing population of that country, recognizing the great needs of that country for development, and voicing the determination of the people and parliament of Canada to deal liberally and generously with the new territory, we do not intend to apologize in the face of the hon. gentleman's motion, for an increase of nearly half
a million in the grants to the Northwest Territories.
My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) did me the honour to allude to some discussion which took place in the Nova Scotia legislature some years ago. He represented that I had alleged that Nova Scotia was not then getting her fair share of Dominion taxation. Well, without entering into the question as at that time, I think it can be fairly said that Nova Scotia to-day is receiving a fair share of the taxation that is collected.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) endorses that. I am glad I have his endorsation, and I want to have his words taken down in ' Hansard. I am going to find them valuable.


John Graham Haggart: So am I.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman says, ' so am I.' The object is plain. While my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) will seek to convey the impression to the people of Nova Scotia that they are being burdened with taxation without receiving a fair share of the revenue, my hon. friend from South Lanark and others will go into Ontario to try and show that NOva Scotia is getting too much. All these things are foolish. I did not say that one province is getting too much or that it is getting too little. This government is willing to consider the needs and claims of all the provinces. In one department one province gets more, and in another department another province gets more. But if you examine the matter fairly you will find it is about even, and that each and every part of the Dominion is receiving recognition in accordance with its needs.
My hon. friend and I threshed out these questions in Nova Scotia many years ago. 1 do not know whether he or I have the more painful recollection of it. He thinks I have a painful recollection. I do not know that either of us should be pained ; but I am satisfied that if pain there is on the part of either one of us, my hon. friend will share as much of it as I do. At all events, we threshed these questions out year after year, we took the verdict of the people of Nova Scotia upon them, and that verdict never failed to be in accordance with the policy which I endeavoured to pursue. My hon. friend has referred to the finances of the province. I tell him that at that time the government of which he was for a short time a member, left the financial affairs of that province in a condition which was viewed with considerable anxiety and distrust. But under the administration of the Liberal government the condition of the province was improved, order was brought out of chaos, the finances were advanced, new projects were started, projects which the hon. gentleman's friends fought to the utmost, but projects which have been the

means of restoring that province as to its financial affairs until to-day it is one of the most prosperous provinces of the Dominion of Canada. Let me say that the Nova Scotia 'Liberals having brought their own province into a better financial position, have been glad to have an opportunity, as my friends from that province will say, to come to Ottawa and assist their friends in the other provinces in bringing the Dominion out of the slough of despond in which it had been placed by the government of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Last year I reminded my hon. friend, as I must do again, that he fails to realize the great change that has been brought about in this country. The Canada of to-day is not the Canada of 1896. The Canada of 1896 would hardly be recognized by people who look upon the new Canada that has grown up under a Liberal administration. Why, in 1896, in every part of this Dominion, there was a condition-shall I say of depression ? That is too strong a word, There was a condition of discouragement, the people were not satisfied with their condition under the advantages which hon. gentlemen alleged they gave them as a consequence of their policy. It must be said that the condition of Canada in 1896 under the Conservative party was not a satisfactory one. Some progress indeed had been made ; you cannot prevent a country like this from making some progi^ss, but it was very small. Just take a few items, they are not new, they have been given before, but they are never old. The Canada that he speaks of, the Canada of 1S96, which he used for a comparison, had a total trade of $239.000,000 ; the new Canada which has grown up under the Liberal administration has a total trade of $470,000,000. The Canada of that date had deposits in the savings banks and chartered banks of $183,000,000 ; the new Canada of to-day has deposits of $423,000,000. We might go through all the items of trade and commerce. I have dealt with them before, but I ask my hon. friend, in making these comparisons, to remember that the Canada of 1896 is a vastly different country from the Canada of to-day. This government have recognized the changing conditions ; and I have no doubt that the legislation which we have introduced has in some degree-in how large a degree may be a matter of debate-but it has in some considerable degree been one of the instrumentalities by which this greater progress has been made. My hon. friend must remember that in making these comparisons he shuts his eyes to the old condition as compared with the new. He must remember that under a Liberal administration Canada has made enormous progress, and if we have expended these moneys we have expended them to the advantage and development of the country ; we have expended them also for reasons that will commend themselves to sound financiers. If hon.


William Stevens Fielding: gentlemen opposite spent little money, they spent more than they had and ran into debt ; the lesser sum that they spent was extravagance ; the more that we spend is economy, because we have lived within our means.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: I 'assure you and the government, Mr. Speaker, that I am net going to occupy the time of this House at this period of the session at any length, all being desirous as we are that the work of the session may be brought to a close. But there are some things that should be said, and I shall say them as briefly as possible, adverting to some of the statements made by the Finance Minister who has just taken his seat. The Finance Minister told the old story that is said to have been originated by Abraham Lincoln, about fooling all the people part of the time, or all the time. I thought the story was a very apt one coming from the hon. gentleman, and I came to the conclusion that while the Finance Minister, with his figures, has been fooling the people of this country for a part of the time during the last eight years, he must now come to the conclusion that he is not going to be able to fool all the people all the time. He warns us against crying wolf, wolf, when, as he says, there was no wolf. Well, to my mind the people of this country are alive to the fact that the wolf is already upon us.
The hon. gentleman brought out the old worn out argument that we on this side of the House were not sincere in our protestations against the enormously increased expenditure of which we have heard so much this afternoon. He told us that whilst these many millions had been voted, practically we had not challenged a single item in all these estimates. Had he been in the House, as my hon. friend from Leeds remarked, he would have heard a lengthy discussion and would have witnessed a division on one very important item which we thought ,was altogether an improper item in the expenditure of this government. But allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the Finance Minister of something that he knows just as Well as I do. It is not the practice of an opposition to divide the House on expenditures in the estimates ; it was not the practice when the Liberals were in opposition for eighteen years prior to 1S96. Out of the $603,000,000 of estimates voted during those eighteen years, the opposition of those days contested only $437,074. Our duty as an opposition is sufficiently discharged when we criticise these estimates, when we point out to the country that these items are not required, that these expenditures are either Improper or extravagant. It is not our duty to divide the House from time to time, or to take a vote, knowing that the government would call in their supporters and vote us down on every occasion. But we have sufficiently discharged our duty when we have drawn forcible attention to the

fact that these expenditures are improper expenditures. I am aware of the fact that there are yet about $15,000,000 of estimates to be voted. How are we, in the course of one or two days, going to be able even to criticise those estimates, apart from dividing the House on every one that we may consider an improper expenditure ? It is out of the question, and we do not propose to do it. In fact we will be utterly unable even to offer a criticism, and will be compelled by force of circumstances to allow them to go through, and leave the country to judge of the character of those estimates and the manner in which the government treats the opposition of the day by keeping back these large expenditures until they have fixed the closing hours of the session, thus precluding the possibility of our examining them.
Now, let me place on record the history of the Liberal party in regard to voting on estimates. In 1879 a vote of $70,000 for civil government was moved against by the present right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce '(Sir Richard Cartwright). In 1880 and in 1881 not one dollar was moved against. The whole thing was accepted by the opposition of that day. In 1882 the payment of $8,000 damages to the steamer ' TJ. E. Upper ' was opposed by the late Mr. Mills, who moved that the item be struck out. The years 1883, 1884, 1885, 18S6, 1887 and 1888 all passed by, and not a single dollar was contested by the opposition of that time by their votes. Then, in 1889, a motion was made by the present -right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce to reduce an item for the Manitoba penitentiary by $10,526. In 1889 there was another vote involving the enormous sum of $500, moved by Mr., now Senator McMullen, in regard to the East Pictou river. Then there was a motion to reduce the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway by $200,000 moved by Sir Louis Davies. Then again there was a motion moved by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce to reduce an item for the Department of the Interior by $95,748, and there was another motion by Mr. Somerville to reduce the item of immigration by $50,000. You see how considerate the opposition in those days were in regard to. peopling the Northwest Territories. The sum of $95,000 was refused to the Minister of the Interior of that day. The small sum that we asked for in those days to encourage immigration was contested by the opposition, who said that it must be reduced to $50,000. We were compelled to accept from the House in those days a sum of not more than $120,000 or $150,000 for immigration purposes, and yet these hon. gentlemen contested that. They said it was too much. They would not permit us to have even this small sum of money for the purpose of promoting immigration, and then they tell us that we failed to bring people into the country, when they were
opposing the policy of the Conservative party, who were endeavouring to people that country. We find that in 1889 also a motion was made to strike out $2,300 in connection with the salary of Mr. C. C. Chipman. That motion was made by Mr. McMullen. During 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1894 and 1895 the souls of these economists rested in peace, and they did not move to strike out a single item. Yet, at this late day, the hon. Minister of Finance comes down and tells this House and the people that we, as an opposition, have failed in our duty because we have not moved to strike out every item that was improper. If we did that we would be sitting here until Christmas. We might sit here for fifteen months, and we would not succeed in getting through with all the improprieties that this government is endeavouring to foist on the country at the present time. I think this is a very sufficient answer to the very wise criticism of the hon. Minister of Finance.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 159) respecting the Pacific Bank of Canada.-Mr. Galliher.


David Henderson: I was about to deal with the statement made by the Minister of Finance, which I confess rather staggered me, that the ability of the people to pay increased taxation was an evidence of prosperity, in other words that increased taxation was an evidence of increased prosperity. I confess that this is a new doctrine to me, and in order to see how much more -prosperous the people were under this system of increased taxation I have looked up a statement of the amount of money loaned by the loan societies in the Dominion of Canada on mortgage at a time wdien this taxation was not so great and also at the present time when it has nearly doubled. I find that under the system of higher 'protection and lower taxation there were loaned by the loan societies in the Dominion of Canada on mortgage security $115,734,852, but under a regime of higher taxation there is loaned - to-day, or was in 1902, the latest year of which we have a return. $118,118,553, or an increase of upwards of $2,500,000. I would like to know from the Minister of Finance if he considers that an evidence of increased prosperity. The people of this country have been taught to believe that mortgages were a dangerous thing and should be employed only as a

matter of last resort but here we have under this so-called increased prosperity an increase of millions of money loaned by the loan societies on mortgage security throughout the Dominion of Canada. I may say here that even under this increased prosperity-and I think this statement will he borne out by practically every hon. gentleman in this House-money for ordinary business purposes cannot be obtained to-day as readily as it could seven or eight years ago. I will undertake to say that the lumbermen, the business man. the man who wants to improve his farm, the man who wants money for ordinary purposes has more difficulty today in securing money than he had in those days. ,


Mr. HEYD.: Why ?


David Henderson: I will tell the hon. gentleman why. Because the government has been pursuing an improper system.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Well I declare.


David Henderson: The Minister of Finance boasted about the bank deposits. Our bank deposits are very large, and the policy of the government last year was to increase the number of banks. That was a policy which I then opposed and I am still opposed to it. East year I opposed the incorporation of new banks for the reason that I found on investigating the matter, that every new bank became a channel for sending money out of this country, for shoving the money out of this country into the United States for investment. I made the statement then, and I presume it will stand good to-day, that we had at that time, 12 months ago, $26,000,000, more money invested in stocks and bonds or other American securities than all the paid-up capital of the banks in Canada. That is the reason of the difficulty of getting this money. Under a policy that forces the banks to send money out of the country, money becomes more stringent and more difficult for the ordinary business man to secure ; consequently it is enhanced in cost, to the business man, to the lumberman and to the man who wants to get money for the ordinary purposes of every day life. The Minister of Finance told us that the Conservative party had added largely to the debt of the country. We do not deny it, we never denied it, we were a progressive party and were bound to make progress. Canada was a smaller country thirty years ago than it is to-day. It was in its infancy, comparatively, as a Dominion and we were unable to secure money to carry on public works unless the money was borrowed. We spent about $65,000,000 in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Is there an hon. member of this House to-day who will say that was a mistake ? I do not think you will find one even among the party who opposed its construction. I have read the statement of Mr. HENDERSON.
the Hon. George W. Ross in this House. He declared that it was a wise and proper thing to expend that money. Speaking some few years ago the Hon. George W. Ross said :
No one to-day would say that the building ot that railway was a mistake. Canada to-day would be weaker in the councils of the empire ; would scarcely be a federated Dominion as it is were It not for the Pacific Railway.
I need not argue that question ; that expenditure is justified by every man in public life to-day. We had to spend a very considerable sum in the building of the Intercolonial Railway, in the deepening of the St. Lawrence canals, in the deepening of the Welland canal, in the construction of the Sault canal, and in other large public works that remain to-day a lasting monument that the Conservative party ruled in this country for eighteen years. What have the Liberal party to show for the large amount of money they have expended? What monuments will they leave behind them when they go out of power next year to show they ever occupied the treasury benches of this country ? They will have several monuments. The hon. Minister of Agriculture will leave a monument of $500,000 additional cost for the taking of the census of 1901 over the cost of taking the census of 1891. I had a little curiosity one day to find out just what value we were getting for that increased expenditure. I was told there was a larger number of schedules, and consequently it cost more. I looked up the first volume of the census, the only one yet issued, and I discovered in looking into the social condition of the people, this important information, a portion of the information which cost us $500,000 more than the information contained in the census of 1891. in my county X found that there were six Mormons, one Pagan and no Protestants. If that is the kind of information that cost half a million dollars I hope the Minister of Agriculture will revise his first edition of the census. I was under the impression we had a good many Protestants there, because I find that on the 12th of July they make a good showing hut the Minister of Agriculture wanted to create a different impression. I belive it was a libel on my county.
Now, Sir, there are a few more monuments. The Minister of Finance charged us with not criticising them. Away up in the Yukon, on the Eldorado, a miner sank a shaft 222 feet deep, and, instead of striking better gravel, he struck a subterranean lake, causing an overflow. He telegraphed down to the Minister of the Interior asking what he would do about it. The Minister of the interior telegraphed back to him to plug the hole. They let a contract for $6,000 to plug this hole of three feet by four feet. After spending the $6,000. they found that the hole was not plugged. They threw bags of pease

and beans Into it ; where they went we do not know-I suppose to the bottom of the lake ; but the $6,000 would not plug the hole. f?o they had to spend more money. They spent $50,000 to plug the hole, and then they sent word down to the minister that the hole was_ not yet plugged. But the contractor said he would lease the water running out of the hole and pay the government 10 per cent of the profits. They are plugging holes all over the country, in Ontario as well as i'l the maritime provinces. Wherever votes can be made they are plugging holes. These are the kind of monuments the Liberal party are going to leave behind them. We had an instance the other day down at the Bay of Seven Islands, where $60,000 was wanted to plug a hole in a hurry before the elections came on : and at Grande VallSe they spent about $65,000 to improve the property of a private individual enabling him to make a good sale. These are the monuments the Liberal party will leave behind them when they go out of power-not a Pacific Railway or an Intercolonial Railway, or a Sault canal. The monuments of the Liberal party Will not be lasting monuments.
Hon gentlemen say they have reduced taxation. The minister of Finance told us some years ago that they never intended to reduce taxation, and I believed then that be was making an honest statement of what the policy of the government was. Here are his words :
It was of the utmost importance that we should maintain a strong financial position and in view of the uncertainties as to the amount of revenue that might be produced by this lower rate of taxation it became necessary that we should take some steps to make good any possible loss that might result. It was thought that it might fairly he met by providing for the raising of some additional taxation in order to balance, or make good, the loss occasioned by the reduction of duties .... It was necessary to have an increased revenue in certain directions when we were to lose revenue in other directions.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the date of that?


David Henderson: I think about the year 1900. We remember that the Finance Minister in 1897 did reduce the duties on certain articles-for instance, on scythe's, sickles, flails, reaping hooks, and that sort of thing ; but at the same time, to maintain a firm financial standing, he increa'sed the duties on rice and other articles necessary to the farmers. He said to a good lady, I reduce the duty on your silk dress, hut 1 must increase it on your fur cape. In that way he maintained a good financial standing-he took the duty off one thing and put it on another ; but he was always very careful to put a great deal more on than be took off, so that the balance would be on the right side.
With regard to the question of taxation, allow me to make a statement. I think ft
well, after what the Finance Minister has said, that a 'statement of this kind should go on record. I have carefully calculated what the average rate of duty was on goods dutiable and free in the year 1898, the first year under the tariff of the Liberal party. I find that the average was 18'61. In this I want to be fair to the Minister of Finance. 1 include in this the duty collected on all goods imported for home consumption. I exclude corn, which wa's practically not imported for home consumption ; hut I include the increased duty on tobacco, which, though practically an excise duty, was taxation all the same. It is immaterial, so far as taxation is concerned, whether an item is excise or customs duty. You might admit tobacco into the country free, and put it into a warehouse ; but when it is ex-warehoused, if yon collect excise duty on it, that is taxation all the same. Then, the government has added bounties, which are another form of taxation, and we must include these if we are to get a correct idea of the taxation on the country. I need not go through the years 1899, 1900, 1901 or. 1902; but I come at once to the year 1903, in which I find that the average rate of taxation was
17-	20 per cent. I go back for six yiears prior to the time the Liberal party came into power, and I make the calculation exactly on the same basis. I want to ascertain whether the people are paying less or more taxes now pro rata than they did then. The average rate of taxation in 1892 was 17-58 per cent, in 1893 17-45 per cent, in 1894 17-24 per cent, in 1895, 17-05 per cent and in 1896,
18-	42 per cent ; making the average for the six years 17-55 per cent. If we compare the six years prior to the tariff now in existence with the first six years of the present tariff we find this result; in the Conservative period, 17:55 percent. I know of no fairer calculation to get at the rate of duty than what I have given. I maintain, therefore, that the average rate of taxation on goods dutiable and free has not been reduced, but is higher than it was prior to the advent of the Liberal party to power.
Now, the hon. minister seems to confound taxation with protection. I regard taxation as one thing and protection as another. Tne trouble in the present tariff is that we have too little protection and too much taxation. It is the taxation the people complain of not the protection. We want more protection and less taxation ; and I hope that when the Minister of Finance is modifying his tariff, he will modify it along that line. I am glad that he has learned something in the last few years. To-morrow we may have an opportunity of discussing a measure to grant increased protection to a very important industry of this country, the woollen industry. Although the protection has been increased, I make bold to say that it will result in a reduction of taxation. That

is tlie line along which we want the Finance Minister to modify his tariff, so as tit) help the people of this country to make money-not to help the treasury to raise $80,000,000 instead of $4u,000,00. It is not the treasury we want to help all together : it is the people we want to help. We want to assist the people to make money. If we do not do that, how can we expect them to pay taxation ? I say I am glad the minister is going to put through a resolution In a day or two that will assist the woollen industry along the line of better protection, and I venture to -say that it will result in lower taxation to the people of this country.
Now, the hon. Minister of Finance told us that the government has reduced the protection on sugar. As I view it, the taxation on sugar to-day is considerably higher than it was when the Liberals came into power. They found raw sugar with a duty of half a cent a pound, but to-day the average is 041 cents per hundred pounds instead of fifty cents per hundred pounds. To my mind 141 cents per hundred pounds is an important increase in the duty on raw sugar. Converted into ad valorem, the duty on raw sugar in 1896 of fifty cents per hundred pounds was equal to twenty-three per cent, and the duty in 1903 of 64J cents per hundred pounds is equal to thirty-eight per cent, being an increase in the ad valorem of fifteen per cent on raw sugar alone. My idea is that when you increase the duty on raw sugar, you increase the price of refined sugar. When Mr. Foster in 1891 took the duty off raw sugar, which, if my memory serves me right was 11 cent a pound, the price of refined sugar immediately drop-ed all over the country. That duty was put on for revenue purposes. The policy of the present government is tariff for taxation, but the policy of the Conservative government was to take the duty off an article of that kind the moment it was not required for revenue purposes. Sir Leonard Tilley took the duty off tea and coffee when we did not require it and Mr. Foster took the duty off raw sugar. The result was the people got cheaper tea and coffee and sugar. Between the years 1891 and 1895, by a single stroke of his pen, in a period of depression, Mr. Foster gave back to the people nearly $19,000,000 which he might have collected, and which, if he had collected it, would have saved him from those deficits we hear so much about. But Mr. Foster was a statesman, he knew the requirements of his country. and he knew that the duty of a statesman is not to take taxes out of the pockets of the people when not called for. He understood his duty to be to assist the people in earning a livelihood and to give them as cheap as possible those things which are not produced in this country. We are told that the late government never had any more money than they needed. I am not very sure about that being an improper Mr. HENDERSON.
policy. What right has any government to have more money than they need ? What right has the Finance Minister to have $16,500,000 more than the needs of the country require ? That is bad financing.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: I am glad to know that I have one sympathizer, on the other side.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Protection run mad.


David Henderson: Let us see what the newspapers supporting these hon. gentlemen said in 1900. Here is what the Montreal 1 Witness ' said :-
Mr. Fielding says that we had last year a surplus of $4,837,749, and that this year there promises to be one of $7,500,000, and probably a greater one still to follow next year. Now, all this money is taken out of the pockets of the people by taxation and a surplus of revenue over expenditure for government purposes surely means so much money taken unnecessarily from the pockets of the people.
But I have other authority equally explicit. Let us see what the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) said away back in 1883. Surely he has not forgotten it. He then said :-
When the government find they have beyond a doubt a surplus, when they can calculate with certainty on having one, it is their bounden duty to reduce taxation.
But we see hon. gentlemen opposite doing the very reverse. We find them increasing taxation on tobacco, sugar and other things, and we look to our hon. friend to stand out boldly by tbe declaration he made in 1883. But the Minister of Customs said more than that. He said this :-
It is no part of the duty of a finance minister to extract more money out of the pockets of the public than is absolutely required to carry on public affairs.
I appeal to the hon. minister to tell his colleague the Minister of Finance that he is exceeding his -duty and that he has no business taking monesr out of the pockets of the people when he does not require it. But my hon. friend the Minister of Customs said something more still. In 1883 he made this further statement, and this is the most condemnatory of them all
What would be said of a chancellor of the exchequer in England if he could not estimate the requirements of the public services nearer than $82,000,000 ? He would be ridiculed as being unable to grasp the financial condition of the country.
I am sure that $16,500,000 is not greater, compared with the entire revenue of Canada, than $82,000,000 would be compared With tbe entire revenue of Great Britain. Therefore tbe Minister of Finance stands condemned by bis colleague. Therefore, ac-

cording to his colleague, he should be ridiculed as being unable to grasp the financial condition of the country. I am glad the Minister of Justice gave me his hearty response and approval of my sentiments. It was not the policy of the Conservative party to take from the pockets of the people more money than was required. On the contrary, they reduced the taxation on the necessaries of life whenever they found the money was not required, and that is the policy which this government should pursue.
Then the Minister of Finance talks of our having asked to have the protection on tobacco increased, because we voted for a resolution the other day submitted by our friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). The hon. minister said that while we were complaining about the increased duty, we were actually asking for further protection. Well suppose we were, does that necessarily mean, that we are asking for an increased duty ? Is it not possible to help the tobacco industry without increasing the duty? Does the hon. gentleman mean to tell me that the seventeen business men who form the government are actually unable to help the tobacco industry in any way except by increasing the duty ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: If the hon. gentleman went out of the House on a wet day, would he hurry over to the Minister of Finance and ask him to put an increased duty on hats in order to protect himself from the rain ? Would he not more likely go to a store and buy an umbrella ?


William Stevens Fielding: Or borrow one.


David Henderson: I think that would oe more likely. A few days ago we had a long discussion on the suppression of the dog-fish and the preservation or protection of the fish industry along the maritime coast. Would anybody ask to have ar. increased duty on fish in order to protect that industry ? Sir, there are more ways of protecting the tobacco industry than by, increasing the duty, and surely these seventeen hon. gentlemen who form the government can find some other means than by raising high taxation. In order to make plain the point I desire to make and to show that we are not inconsistent at all, let me read the resolution moved by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). It is in these words :-
The government has not given the tobacco industry of Canada the protection and encouragement it is entitled, to.
Is there anything there about increasing the duty on tobacco ? I do not think that the Minister of Finance or anybody else can find it. But the government are called upon, under that resolution, to further protect the tobacco industry of this country. And what does my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier want ? He wants the government to take the necessary means to destroy that tobacco trust which is eating the vitals out of the industry.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is what we want.


David Henderson: I am glad to know that the Minister of Justice is seized 'with a proper conception of the situation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hear, hear. Pretty good from you in view of the cabal that is going on.


David Henderson: Another statement of the Minister of Finance was that an additional allowance had been made to the Northwest Territories this year, and the hon. gentleman taunted us on this side with being opposed to increased expenditure and with practically denying to the people of the Northwest an increased allowance to carry on their government. I say that that was a very unfair conclusion. Why, the population' of the Northwest Territories during the last six or seven years. I presume, has doubled. Why should they not get a larger allowance ? If they pay more taxes into the treasury, should they not gei more out ? That is not an expenditure that we complain of, that is an expenditure that we approve of. The expenditures that we complain of are those made for plugging a hole, or for building a wharf at Grande Vallee and another at Seven Islands, and all these places where the money is spent, not' for the benefit of the public, but for the benefit of private individuals. We approve of the increased allowance for the Northwest; but we approve of more-we believe that these people are ready for selfgovernment, for home rule, if you like to call it so ; we believe that they should be no longer wards of this government, but that they should legislate for themselves. And I hope that even yet, before the guns fire for prorogation, the Finance Minister will introduce and have passed a measure that will give these people what they all demand. I believe that it is a universal demand there that the T)er!ratoiries should! have provincial autonomy. And I see no reason why they should be kept back, and a few hundred thousand doled out this year and a few hundred thousand more next year, treating those people as children or a# wards. That is not the way to make a people out of these western settlers. You must let them know that they are men fit to govern themselves, and give them a constitution that will enable them to control their own affairs. If that is done, I believe you will find a happier state of affairs in that western country.
The Minister of Finance referred to .the trade of the country to show how prosperity had expanded during the last seven or eight

years. We all glory in the fact that we have had a prosperous seven years. I hope that the forebodings of the Minister of Finance, when he told us that we were on the crest of the wave, are yet far from realization. I hope that the hon. gentleman himself takes a different view of our future, and believes that we are to have fair sailing for years to come. We all desire it. There are no blue ruin men on this side ; we do not preach that doctrine. We will help the government, so long as they are in power- and we believe that, thank goodness, it will not be very long-to give the country the best administration that they can give. And when they go out and we come in, I trust they will take a leaf out of our book, and, instead of decrying the country and its prospects, will render us what assistance they can. But I wish to draw attention to one thing which, I think, deserves passing notice. I believe that the prosperity and development of this country speak for themselves. But I have before me an extract from a speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) on the 10th of December last in Toronto. There are figures in that speech designed to show the percentage of increase in trade for a number of the leading countries of the world. Amongst them are Canada, Japan, Cape Colony, the United States, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Argentine, Switzerland, Great Britain and France. The figures show that the greatest percentage of increase in trade stands to the credit of Canada. We would be glad to know that that is the fact. The same matter is contained in ' Political Pointers, No. 4,' which is to be sent all over the country to educate the Liberals as to the prosperity of Canada.
1	do not know where this pamphlet was prepared, but it bears the ear-marks, to my mind, of the Department of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. ' Political Pointers,' 1,
2	and 3, I believe, were prepared in another department. These figures for the several countries I have named appear to make a comparison of the trade for 1895 with that i'or 1902. But, would you believe it, Mr. Speaker-I can scarcely ask you to beiieve it until you have verified it, as I have done by an examination of the Trade and Navigation Returns-instead of giving the figures for Canada for 1902, the Minister of Trade and Commerce gives the figures for 1903. And it- is by this means that the minister shows a higher percentage of growth for Canada than for any other country. The percentage of increase to the credit of Japan is 97 "20. And if you take the figures for Canada for 1902, you will find that we are outdistanced in the percentage of increase of trade by those seagirt isles in the Pacific now engaged in fighting the Russian bear. I do not say this as a reflection upon Canada, 1 should have been glad indeed if Canada had been able to make the best showing in this comparison of figures. But Canada is big enough and her increase in prosperity


David Henderson: is solid enough to make it unnecessary for us to use figures that we are not warranted in using. The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) asks me to give the difference between the figures for 1902 and for 1903. The trade of Canada for 1903 was $439.212,202 and for 1902 $392,499,953. This kilter is the figure that should have been given in comparing the trade with that of 1895, which was $200,204,242. The increase between 1895 and 1902 was $192,295,711, or 964 per cent, as against Japan's increase of 97-20 per cent. Why, we find that even Chili showed a better increase between 1890 and 1900. In saying this, I do not depreciate Canada, but, as I say, what I believe is that Canada's prosperity can stand upon its merits ; it is not necessary to make an unfair use of figures to demonstrate it. We boast of our prosperity, a prosperity that is world-wide, I am glad to say.
Joseph Chamberlain, speaking one time of the prosperity of Canada, said it was the result of the energy of its own inhabitants. Lord Strathcona and Mr. Balfour, at one time speaking on the same subject in England, said it was the result of elementary and higher education. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), whom we are sorry to see is not in his place in this House, but to whose words we have often listened in this chamber, made the statement that Canada's prosperity was due to causes beyond the control of any government. But, Sir, I believe that if legislation has anything to do with the prosperity of this country, we can trace it back further than the advent to power of the present government. I would like to know-this question has often been asked in this House and I do not think it has ever been satisfactorily answered-what legislative Act has been placed upon the statute-books of this country by the present government to enhance the prosperity of Canada ? Nobody answers. They used to tell us it was the preferential tariff. But, Sir, the preferential tariff is being attacked to-day, the Minister of Finance is cutting and carving the preferential tariff because it has produced ruin to one of the most important industries of this country.


James Clancy: And lie has threatened to withdraw it.


David Henderson: I had missed that. While I would not express my opinion on that question on a moment's notice, 1 have my own opinion as to what would be best in the interests of this country. But what I mean to say is that whilst the present government can not point to one single administrative Act they have placed upon the statute-book that has brought about our prosperity, we can go back to 1878 when Sir John A. Macdonald, the great chieftain who led the party who now sit on this side of the House, laid the foundation of Canada's prosperity when he adopted the

national policy of this country. And to-day that is the basis on which the present government is coming back to build on. they are discarding their preferential tariff and coming back to build again on the old foundation so well and truly laid by the old chieftain twenty-five years ago. Mr. Speaker, I claim your pardon and that of the House for the length of time I have occupied ; I do not expect that I shall, during the present session, except on one occasion, occupy much of your time.


Robert Laird Borden: Just one word before the vote1 is taken. I did not hear the whole of the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Finance, but they seemed directed towards taunting the opposition with not having moved to strike out a large number of items from the estimates brought down by the government during the past seven or eight years. That has been very conclusively answered by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). He pointed out that items aggregating less than half a million dollars were moved against by the Liberal party when in opposition from 1878 to 1896, although the estimates during that period amounted to about $603,000,000. Therefore the Minister of Finance was rebuking, not so much the opposition of the present day, as my hon. friend the Minister of Customs whom I see opposite, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is not in his place, and other members of the Liberal party who fought the battles of the Liberal party. During that time less than one thirteen hundredth part of the items brought down were moved against. We have a much better record than that, as I fancy the ' Hansard ' would show if it were examined. Therefore the taunt of the Minister of Finance is not so much directed against this side of the House as against his own political friends, who I think must have been somewhat displeased with his allusion.
, I did not however rise for the purpose of dealing with that, but with one observation of the Minister of Finance iwhich I thought somewhat inconsistent with the arguments I have heard him make on that side of the House. He said that we on this side of the House have advocated, and do advocate, increased protection ; and he said that increased protection meant necessarily higher taxation. He withdrew from that literal statement afterwards, because he said that the higher taxation might result from increased prices of goods which were manufactured in this country instead of being imported from abroad. I desire to take direct issue with the hon. gentleman on that point. I say that higher protection does not necessarily result and is not likely to result in increased taxation. I say that for these reasons. In the first place, it would obviously tend to decrease the amount of revenue- by shutting out foreign goods
which were brought into this country, and by substituting for them goods manufactured in this country, thereby giving employment to our own people.


William Stevens Fielding: At a higher price.


Robert Laird Borden: I have challenged the hon. gentleman across the floor of this House over and over again, and I have challenged his friends on the public platform of this country, to point to one single article manufactured in Canada, in regard to which there is a reasonable competition, which is not sold at a fair price in this country, a price which can be fairly compared with the price paid for the same article in a foreign country ; and until that challenge is answered it is not worth while for the hon. gentleman to take the position which he does. Does he not know that he is repudiating his own leader when he says that ? Because, within the last two years, his own leader, in deprecating any attempt to raise our tariff to such a standard as. that adopted in the United States, pointed out that in the United States they were cutting each other's throats, as he expressed it, by competition, and bringing their prices down to such a standard as would not enable the industries long to continue. That is the view which his leader takes of the result of increased protection in the United States. Yet my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, who I believe has put out the same view on some occasions at least, ventures to tell us now that higher protection will necessarily result in higher prices in this country. I say it will not necessarily do anything of the kind, but the very competition which results from increased protection will bring about fair prices and reasonable prices in Canada. I venture to think that there are manufacturers in Canada to-day, and I think that my hon. friend the Minister of Customs knows it, who are rather anxious that in certain lines at least there shall be no greater protection at present until certain competitors are squeezed out, and then they will ask the government for higher protection in order to make more profit.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Exactly.


Robert Laird Borden: Exactly, and yet my hon. friend the Minister of Finance says that higher protection must necessarily result-necessarily,	mark	you-in higher
prices.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Is'nt that what you say ?


Robert Laird Borden: Not for a moment. I say that if you give these men protection now which would prevent them from being squeezed out. the competition which will thus be created will prevent higher prices ; and if hon. gentlemen in this House cannot see that, all I have to say is that I do not

think they have bestowed much thought on that subject.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance takes credit to himself for having doled out a certain further amount to the Northwest Territories. Last year I moved a resolution declaring it desirable immediately to grant a provincial status to those - territories, and the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister, I forget which, expressed the opinion, or at least applauded the opinion, that provincial autonomy should not be granted to those territories for a good many years to come. The Northwest Territories of Canada contain, at the present time, I believe, from 400,000 to 500,000 people ; and by the end of this year, if the Minister of Finance is correct in his statement, they will contain not less than 500,000 people. If you had passed a statute at this very session for the purpose of conferring provincial rights upon that great country it is beyond doubt that before all the details could lie settled and the necessary arrangements made, that country would have a population of 600,000 people, and yet this session has passed by and the government has not said one word or indicated in any way its intention to grant provincial institutions at any early period to these territories. But my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is good enough to tell the House that between $200,000 or $300,000 additional are given to these territories in the way of additional revenue. I say that is not the way to deal with these territories. At the present time they have a population five times at least larger than the population of the province of Prince Edward Island. They have a population larger than the population of British Columbia by one hundred per cent and a population larger than the population of the province of Manitoba. They have as large a population as the province of New Brunswick and yet for some reason that has never been satisfactorily explained to the people of this country and especially to the people of the Northwest Territories they are treated by the government as my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) has stated as wards of this government and they are supposed to be satisfied with an additional dole handed out to them from time to time. I do not think there is any cause to congratulate the government on the attitude they have taken towards the Northwest Territories. I am very glad indeed to support an increased grant to them which will enable them to deal with the many public works which are absolute necessities in that country, much more necessities than they are to the people of the east, and which are particularly necessary to that country at the present time when so large an immigration is going in and when it is desirable not to disappoint in any way the men who are going in and making settlements and to whom the means of communication with different parts Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
of the country and especially the means of communication with railways are absolutely essential if they are to succeed in the business in which they are engaged.
I also rose to object especially to the practice which the government adopted last year and which they have again adopted this year of placing before the members of this House $10,000,000, or $12,000,000, or $15,000,000 of estimates to be voted with no criticism at all in the last two or three days of the session. I do not think that course is worthy of the government. This parliament began its present session on the 10th day of March and surely, if this government have any business instincts at all and they claim to be a business government, they could have had all these estimates down by the middle of May. If they could not have had them down by the middle of May surely they could have had them down by the first of June and if they had been presented at that time it would have been reasonably possible for hon. members to give them that consideration and criticism which is only their due ; instead of that, we have in the closing hours of the session estimates amounting to $12,000,000 or $15,000,000 thrown at the members of this House, with no expectation that they can or will do their duty by them, but in the expectation that in the closing hours of the session when members are anxious to get away to their homes, from which they have been kept for so many months, they will pass them through with hardly a word of protest. For my part I desire to enter my protest, against this course. If any reason had been shown for it, if my hon. friend the Minister of Finance had said one word on the subject or if any of the other members of the government could have said one word in support of it, I would have been ready to listen to what they had to Say in behalf of a system of that kind, but in the absence of any explanation I say the course of the government is wrong, that It is not in accordance with the spirit of the constitution and that it makes absolutely a farce of parliamentary government in this *country. I do not propose to detain the House further, I rose almost entirely for the purpose of protesting as I have just protested against that mode of transacting public business in this country.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Bell.
 YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,
Armstrong,
Avery,
Barker,
Eell,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyd,
Brock,
Bruce,
Kidd,
Lancaster,
LaRiviSre,
Lefurgey,
Lennox,
Leonard,
MacLaren (Perth), McGowan,
Monk,
Morin,

Carscallen,
Clancy,	,
Clare,
Clarke,
Cochrane,
Culbert,
Daniel,
Donnelly,
Earle,
Gilmour,
Hackett,
Henderson,
Ingram,
Johnston (Cardwell),
Osier,
Porter,
Pringle,
Richardson, Robinson (Elgin), Seagram,
Sherritt,
Smith (Wentworth), Sproule,
Thomson (Grey), Tolton,
Vrooman,
Wilmot,
Wilson.-48.
++NAYS
Messieurs
Arehambault,
Bazinet,
Beith,
Bdland,
Biekerdike,
Blanchet,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Bourassa,
Bourbonnais,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Bruneau,
Campbell,
Carbonneau,
Champagne,
Christie,
Copp,
Costigan,
Cowan,
Davis,
Delisle,
Demers (Levis), Demers (St. John), Desjardins,
Douglas,
Erb,'
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Fortier,
Gallery.
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gervais,
Gibson,
Girard,
Gould,
Grant,
Guthrie,
Harwood,
Kaszard,
Heyd,
Holmes,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.) Hyman,
Johnston (Lambton), Kendall,
Lapointe,	[DOT]
Laurier (Sir Wilrid), Laurier
(L'Assomption),
Lavergng'
(Drum. & Artha.), LeBlanc,
Logan,
Loy,
Macdonald,
Mackie,
MacKinnon,
Maelaren
(Huntingdon),
Macpherson,
McEwen,
McGugan,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Malouin,
Marcil (Bagot), Mignault,
Mulock (Sir William), Qliver,
Paterson,
Power,
Reid (Restigouche), Riley,
Rivet,
Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Ross (Yukon), Rousseau,
Russell,
Scott,
Stephens,
Sutherland (Essex), Thompson
(Haldm'd & Monck), Tolmie,
Tucker,
Turcot,
Turgeon,
Wright.-90.
PAIRS :
Ministerial.
Calvert,
Harty,
Wallace,
Cartwright (Sir R.), Lovell,
Law,
Opposition.
Taylor,
Reid (Grenville), Tisdale,
Tupper,
Kendry,
Casgrain,
Marcil
(Bona venture), Parmelee,
German,
Lang,
Lemieux,
McCool,
Meigs,
Prfifontaine,
Sinclair,
Stewart,
Dyment,
MeColl,
Emmerson,
Sutherland (Oxford), Wade,
Tobin,
Angers,
Bureau.
Johnston
(Cape Breton), Lavergne (Montmagny), Lewis,
Mathesoh,
Morrison,
Sifton,
Smith
(Vancouver).
Amendment negatii
Roddick,
Pope,
Halliday,
Bennett,
Birkett,
Rosamond
Tarte
Maclean
Northrup,
Robinson
(Northumberland),
McCormick,
Ward,
Fowler,
Haggart,
Kaulbach,
Kemp,
Ball,
Ganong,
Hughes (Victoria),
Lavell,
GouTley,
Hale,
Calvin
Roche (Marquette), Broaer.
red.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Civil Government-Railways and Canals- to provide for the salary of J. Proulx appointed at $900 to a junior second-class clerkship, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act to the contrary, $900.
Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a matter which was overlooked. This officer passed the examination but was over age.
Intercolonial	Railway-portable plant for
boring and cutting rails, $14,000.


John Graham Haggart: This seems a large amount for a boring and cutting plant.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a portable plant which is required, and will economize in laying the steel rails. We have not had one on the Intercolonial and it is necessary to have one. It is similar to what they use on the Grand Trunk.
intercolonial Railway-extension to Sydney Mines, $25,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to provide for an extension to the Intercolonial Railway to Sydney mines. Owing to the establishment of a large steel industry by the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company at Sydney Mines the town lias grown considerably and it is very desirable that a regular train service should be provided to connect Sydney Mines with the Intercolonial Railway. The estimated cost is $25,000.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: What is the distance ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A little over two and a half miles.


John Graham Haggart: What is the amount for land and what for the cost of construction ?	|	' * (


Henry Robert Emmerson: No final survey has yet been made and I have not the details. Two or three routes have been suggested and it is not yet determined which one shall be used. The land is not expected to cost more than $7,000 or $8,000.


John Graham Haggart: $G2,000 is a large sum of money for the construction of two and a half miles of road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to provide for stations and siding accommodation at both ends. A good deal of siding accommodation is required, especially at the Sydney Mines end.
Intercolonial Railway-to increase accommodation at Amherst, $16,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is for doubletracking the line at Amherst for 3,500 feet, for enlarging the yard and providing additional sidings. Amherst is a very important centre, there are large lumber yards there and it is the site of the ear works. The total cost of these necessary repairs is $30,-C00. We provided in the main estimates for 1904-5. $15,000, leaving a balance for the present year of $16,000.
Intercolonial Railway-diversion of the line at St. Leonard junction, $20,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a diversion that is necessary at St. Leonard junction. It will be about a mile and a quarter in length. There Is a very sharp curve here and the curve and bad grade on the approach to the bridge will he eliminated. At present there is a bridge at that point over the Nicolet river and that bridge must be reconstructed in the very near future, and provision is made for it in the estimates. It would be very inadvisable to have the bridge built on the present site and we will necessarily have to go up the river a short distance. In doing that it seems advisable to straighten the road, and to avoid a bad double curve. This is a reverse curve. Then we reduce the grade from 1.3 to .5 per cent; that is a difference of .8 per cent.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps this would be the proper time for tire minister to tell us what amount, since the purchase of that line of road, has been expended upon it on capital account. When it was purchased, we had the assurance from the minister that it was in an excellent state of repair and would require no expenditure.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the statement that the road was in an excellent state of repair was quite correct; but this is an improvement in the way of curvature and grading. Of course, that would not he involved in the statement as to the excellence Mr. EMMERSON. *
of its condition. That was recognized and explained at the time.


John Graham Haggart: I am very sorry to say that it was not explained at the time. We did not know the curvature of the different parts of the road ; but we had the jjromise of the minister at the time that a separate account would be kept for that particular part of the road, and we want to know what the expenditure on capital account has been since its acquisition.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There has not been a separate account kept of the capital expenditure for that road. It would be necessary for me to add up the several amounts year by year.


John Graham Haggart: Surely that is a question "which the minister expected to answer. We purchased a road which was said to be in first-class order. It was denied at the time it was up to the standard of the Intercolonial, and the promise was made that a separate account would he kept of the capital expenditure.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the information here. To ascertain the amount would be a matter of calculation. I can get the hon. gentleman the information if he desires it, but I cannot give it to-night.


John Graham Haggart: Surely I am entitled to that information. There may be a vote of $1,060,000 for steel rails, and we do not know whether they are laid on the Drummond County Railway or not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is no special capital account kept with respect to the Drummond County Railway ; but in the estimates each year the details as to the different sections are given, and it would be simply a matter of going over the estimates and adding up the different amounts.


John Graham Haggart: The estimates will not furnish the information at all. When a vote is taken for $1,000,000 for steel rails, how can you know, by going over the estimates, that a part of thqt was or was not spent on the Drummond County Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because the particulars show the expenditure of the different parts of it.


Mr. BARKER.: The hon. gentleman must see that because a minister tells us that he intends to spend money in a particular way, it does not follow that he will spend it in that way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It must necessarily go there.


John Graham Haggart: Then I understand from the minister, notwithstanding the promise which was given to this House, that there is no separate account kept of the capital expenditure on that portion of the road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nothing more than is contained in the Auditor General's Report as to the expenditures at the different points on the Intercolonial. There is no special capital account for what is known as the Drummond County Railway.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman tell us whether there was any capital expenditure on the Drummond County Railway last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, there was.


Samuel Barker: How much ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the statement.


Samuel Barker: After what the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) says, I think we are entitled to ask that the hon gentleman shall tell us before the item passes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The only way I could get it would be by referring to the Auditoi General's Report of last year.


Samuel Barker: I should think that the minister would have felt himself responsible to the House for the expenditure, and after the statement which has been made by my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) regarding what was said when the road was acquired, we surely are entitled to know how much was spent on that road on capital account last year. It is not for us to say where the hon. gentleman can ger his information. We simply ask him for what he should be able to give us.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think I made myse'f clear that there is no separate capital account kept of the Drummond section.


Samuel Barker: I thought the hon. gentleman said we could find it out in the Auditor General's Report.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated that we could refer to the Auditor General's Report and pick out the items of capital expenditure.


Samuel Barker: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will pity our ignorance and tell us the facts. The railway was bought by the government on the assurance that no capital expenditure would be required. The hon. gentleman tells us that he has been making capital expenditure ; and when we ask how much he laughs and says he does not know.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not tell you, because there is no separate capital account kept for the Drummond section of the Intercolonial.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose there is no separate account kept of the receipts and expenditure ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


John Graham Haggart: And there is no way of finding out what the receipts and expenditure are on the Drummond Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Drummond section of the Intercolonial is no more separately identified than the St. John or Moncton section, or the section from St. John to Point du Chene. They are all portions oi the Intercolonial, and are not kept separately.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose you could furnish them in a little time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not tell how much money was earned on the Drummond section and how much on the other section.
Intercolonial Railway-diversion of line at Mitchell, $25,100.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a diversion or one and a half mile. When it is complete the line will be shortened. A very sharp curve will be got rid of and a better approach obtained.


John Graham Haggart: Where is that Mitchell station ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is the first station to the east of the Nicolet river. It is on the Drummond road, 86 miles from L6vis.


John Graham Haggart: Will this complete the diversion, or is there a vote in the main estimates ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This will complete.


John Graham Haggart: Both St. Lfionard junction and Mitchell ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Is this contract work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This will be done by contract. There is to be a bridge built, and so on.	-
Intercolonial Railway-to reduce curve at Birch Cove, $84,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a very bad ' S ' cuyve on the line between Bedford and Halifax.


John Graham Haggart: Will this finish it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any amount in the main estimates ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, this is the total.


Samuel Barker: Is this part of the lino you double-tracked ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will be part of the line that will be double-tracked. We propose calling for tenders at once.


Samuel Barker: Do you propose to have that alteration in the track done separately from the double-tracking ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The new roadbed across the cove in Bedford basin will be double width. The man who gets the contract will make it double width to enable the doubletracking to be done, and it will be done immediately.


John Graham Haggart: How much for lanl damages ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nothing. It is practically filling in the waters of the basin.
Mr: DANIEL. What will be the length of the radius of the curve ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About 1,140 feet.
Double-tracking parts of the Intercolonial, $150,000.


Samuel Barker: When this work was referred to in connection with the main estimates, I told the minister I would ask him to produce all the papers about the work going on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There were two separate contracts, one to Reid and Archibald and the other to Reid McManus. On the Richmond section, that is, from Richmond to Rockingham, about two and a half miles, the grading is done under contract at schedule prices by Reid and Archibald, and there iwas work and material supplied by the railway and an amount for land claims. I will lay on the table the papers with respect to that.


Samuel Barker: Were tenders called for?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, in both instances.


Samuel Barker: One was a schedule price?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The first was. The last, that to Reid McManus, was a bulk sum.


Samuel Barker: Why was the change made in the system ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is simply a grading under contract at a bulk sum. The prices were asked in that way and the lowest tenderer was Reid McManus at $68,500.


Samuel Barker: How many tenders were received ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If I remember correctly, five. There was one at $70,000, one at about $75,000 and another at about $95,000.


Samuel Barker: Was that the bulk sum contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Samuel Barker: How much were the tenderers required to deposit with their tenders ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Ten per cent, I think -that is the usual figure. This applies to contracts up to $250,000. Above that not so large a percentage is called for.


Samuel Barker: That percentage was on the amount of the tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Samuel Barker: That applied to all the tenders ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


M. EMMERSON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr.. BARKER. Was any information given to those who were tendering as to the quantities and the nature of the soil ?
Henry Robert Emmerson: The specifications, as my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) will see, were pretty full. The parties were required to go and see the location themselves.


Samuel Barker: You gave simply the ;>
[DOT] file and cross section ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Had not the department any information as to the nature of the ground ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, the engineer had made his survey and prepared his specification.
Mr, BARKER. Was any information given to any of the tenderers as to the nature of the ground ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, they were to go and examine it for themselves. They were given the profile and the plans and specifications, and were invited with that infoi-mation and the information they could get themselves by visiting the ground to make their tenders.


Mr BARKER.: What I ask is, did the department give the tenderers the benefit ot the information the department had as to the nature of the ground ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Only as it is shown in the specification.


Samuel Barker: You gave them no information as to what knowledge the department had concerning the nature of the ground?


Mr EMMERSON.: That knowledge was imparted to them by the specification and the plans.


Samuel Barker: We will see what is in the specifications. But what I ask is did the department give to any tenderer any information in the possession of the department as-to the nature of the soil apart from what is in the specification ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, not to any one tenderer-no information that was not given to the others in the specification and the plans.
Mr. BARKER, I ask, did you give any information to any or all of them as to the information in possession of the department concerning the nature of the soil ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Only the information contained in the specification.


Samuel Barker: But I ask was any information given beyond that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No information was given beyond that. I think I speak plain English. The only information we gave

them is contained in the specifications and, the plans.


Samuel Barker: No other ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No other-I have already told the hon. gentleman. I hope he does not want me to swear to it.


Samuel Barker: I am quite ready to take the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Emmerson's) word but the difficulty is to get an answer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have answered it a good many times.


Samuel Barker: I asked whether outside the specification, did the department give to the people tendering the information they had in their possession as to the nature of the ground.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And I have repeated about ten times that the only information we gave is contained in the specifications and the plans.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister answered that a moment ago, after X had asked about half a dozen times.


John Graham Haggart: How much is to double tracked, and what amount will be required to finish the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Under contract now, there is two and a half miles by Reid and Archibald. Prom Bedford bridge to Windsor junction, is under contract to Reid McManus, a distance of just a shade under five miles. We propose also to go from Rockingham to Birch Gove, a distance of three-quarters of a mile. Then we propose to go from Birch Cove to Bedford, three and three quarter miles ; then we propose to go from Richmond twelve miles. The estimated cost is $303,257.75.


John Graham Haggart: Is that for that twelve miles or for the whole work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For the whole, and that includes the cost of a bridge at Bedford.


John Graham Haggart: How much for the bridge ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will cost about $45,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it an iron bridge?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Steel and stone. Then, we" propose to do two miles between Stel-larton and New Glasgow. That is found to be necessary on account of the coal trade at that point. The estimated cost of the work from Stellarton to New Glasgow would be_ about $46,000. Now we are asking for $150,000 additional, which includes everything.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total distance that you intend to double track ?
265J


Henry Robert Emmerson: Twelve miles is the total distance from Richmond to Windsor Junction, and adding the two miles at New Glasgow, would make fourteen miles.


John Graham Haggart: Surely there is more than that doing altogether. You say it would be $336,000, of which the bridge costs about $40,000, leaving $290,000 for double tracking, which would be over $25,000 a mile.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The estimated cost ot the work that has been done has not been exceeded. It was done by contract, after tender. They have kept within the estimates, and it has been proven that the estimates were correct, and I therefore assume that the estimates with respect to the balance are pretty nearly accurate. Of course you must take into consideration the new bridge at Bedford, that is $45,000. The cost of the two miles at Stellarton and New Glasgow is estimated at $46,000.


John Graham Haggart: That is about $23,000 a mile. The other part that you are double tracking would be about $25,000 would it not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It varies. On the Reid and Archibald contract it would be less than $20,000 a mile; on the Reid McManus contract it would be about $22,-
000.	Then from Rockingham to Birch Cove will be $23,700.
Intercolonial Railway-rolling stock (revote, $519,000), $1,000,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to acquire for the Intercolonial some twenty-two new locomotives, some new sleepers and first-class dining cars, postal cars and baggage cars, also some ballast cars and new parlour cars.


John Graham Haggart: What is the necessity for the new locomotives ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We need them very badly. The estimated cost of one class of locomotives is $24,000 each. Twelve of them will cost at least that much, and the others will cost in the vicinity of $22,000. We are getting them from Kingston by tender, after competition.


Samuel Barker: How many sleeping cars is the hon. gentleman going to get, and at what price ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We expect to get ten first class sleepers at $20,850.


Samuel Barker: How many will that make, with what you have already ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We require ten new ones. We had to get four on a rush order in connection with the new ' Ocean Limited' which is put on between Halifax and Montreal.


John Graham Haggart: How is that train paying ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It has only been on during the month of July, but it is well patronized, and is spoken of in the highest terms. Sir Sandford Fleming told me the other day that he had travelled from Halifax to Montreal in the ' Ocean Limited,' and he said that so far as his observation and experience went, there was not a train on this continent that excelled it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has that any connection with St. John ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, there is a train connects with it at Moncton for St. John.


John Graham Haggart: Then you have a good service between Halifax and Montreal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A first class up to date service. We think it is the best on the continent and the best is none too good.


John Graham Haggart: What does it cost per mile to run that train ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not answer that question offhand. It is a good paying train and it is carrying a large amount of traffic.


John Graham Haggart: What is the distance from Halifax to Montreal ?


Mr DANIEL.: What sort of cars are used on the St. John branch ? I have been told they are not of the same quality as are used on the line between Halifax and Sydney.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is not so. The same class of cars that are used elsewhere on the main line are used on the line between St. John and Moncton, the same class of sleepers and the same kind of first-class cars. There is a special train that we put on to accommodate tourists for the island of Cape Breton, which is called the Boston train. We have been short of cars, and there has been some complaint with respect to some of the cars we had to use on that train. There has been a good deal of complaint about the want of parlour cars. American tourists are accustomed to the luxury of parlour cars, and 'When ^oy reach St. John they find we have not these cars and they go on to Point du Chene m a very ordinary car. We think that should not be, and we are making provision for these up-to-date and modern cars.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: The minister said, when I asked him, that he had established a parlor car service from Point du Chene to Moncton.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I never made any such statement. I said I hoped to make arrangements for a parlour car service for the Boston train, and I had in mind this very vote.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 800 miles.


John Graham Haggart: It will cost about 60 cents a mile to run that train. It will cost to run the train both ways in the neighbourhood of $800 a day or about $250,000 a year, and this is for the purpose of running a train that starts almost at the same time from Montreal and Halifax as the Canadian Pacific Railway train.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: In regard to the accommodation provided for passengers coming in en the Boston train to Point du ChSne do the cars on the Boston train run direct ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They do.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Those who are coming by the parlour car have to change to the day coach at what place ?
(MV. EMMERSON!. This train, comes through at night and it has no parlour car, It leaves Boston at night, gets to St. John next morning and goes on to Point du Chfine. Of course, sleepers are on the train, but I think they are put off at Yanceboro as they belong to the Boston and Maine system. Then the train runs on to St. John and then to Point du Chene.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The Boston train going by way of Vanceboro to Halifax has no parlour car.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Boston train does not go to Halifax ; it goes to Point du Chene, it has no parlour car.


John Graham Haggart: I want the details of all you intend to purchase. In regard to the Halifax train, when does it start from Montreal, and does the Canadian Pacific Railway train start at the same time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The ' Ocean Limited ' leaves Montreal at 7.30 every night except Saturdays ; I think the Canadian Pacific Railway train leaves about eight o'clock. We run to Halifax from Montreal in twenty-four hours. In the morning the Montreal limited leaves at 8.45 o'clock.


John Graham Haggart: What time does the Canadian Pacific Railway leave ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 8.10 p.m.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There is no parlour car provided by the Intercolonial Railway from St. John ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is that not a peculiar state of affairs ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have not the cars. I am asking votes for them and my hon. friends are objecting to them.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not think they have been objecting to them very much. I do not think there has been much objection but I would like to have the matter remedied. What accommodation is provided for passengers coming down on this mag-


John Graham Haggart: nificent ' Ocean Limited ' when they are bound for Point du Chene?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Sleepers.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What accommodation provided at Point du Chene ? No sleepers are provided on the Point du Chene train.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have to change cars at Painsec Junction and they take the ordinary train from Painsec Junction to Point du Chene a distance of 11 miles.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The ordinary every day coaches that have been provided for the accommodation of tourists and travellers going by that line to Point du Chene are the most wretched coaches on the Intercolonial Railway and I would again call the attention of the hon. minister to this fact as I did some weeks ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What cars is the hon. gentleman referring to ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am referring to the cars that you transfer to at Painsec Junction in going to Point du Chene.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does my hon. friend say that the cars attached to the Point du Chene train are the most wretched cars that my hon. friend has ever seen ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I say that they are amongst the most wretched cars on the Intercolonial Railway. I read a resolution from the Board of Trade at the time when I spoke on this matter before, and I have now a resolution from the Charlottetown Board of Trade dated July 11. Possibly the hon. minister has received that and* has been interviewed by the Charlottetown members and others. I shall read the resolution so that he will have an opportunity of knowing what it contains.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have the resolution.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I shall put it on ' Hansard ' anyway.
Whereas the attention of the Charlottetown Board, of Trade has been frequently called to the unsatisfactory railway passenger service between Stellarton and Pictou, and whereas, upon investigation it has been ascertained that the said service is entirely inadequate to the requirements, 'for the following seasons, namely :-
That the passenger coaches in use are old and dilapidated and of a type long since discarded on the main line of the Intercolonial ; that the changing of cars at Stellarton causes great inconvenience to the travelling public ; that, although the distance between Stellarton and Pictou is only 13'7 miles, nearly one hour is occupied in making the run ; that there is an unnecessary delay at the Pictou station before the cars are sent to the steamer ; and whereas the said unsatisfactory condition is detrimental to travel and mitigates against the interests of the province of Prince Edward Island as a whole, and the city of Charlottetown in particular ; therefore resolved, that the Charlottetown Board of Trade protests against the present unsatisfactory state of the railway passenger service between Stellarton and Pictou, and respectfully requests that the Minister of Railways take steps to remedy the same at an early date, by putting modern first-class coaches on the through trains from Halifax and Sydney for the accommodation of passengers destined for Prince Edward Island, and that on arrival at Stellarton the said cars be sent forward to connect with the steamer for Prince Edward Island without delay. '
I consider that this is a very moderately worded resolution, because I have travelled over that line as have also the Charlottetown members and they can testify that the inconvenience to passengers and the delay in the train service is certainly intolerable. It says further :
Further resolved, that the Charlottetown Board of Trade does most heartily indorse the resolution passed by the Charlottetown Development and Tourist Association, having reference to the inadequate state of the railway passenger service between St. John, New Brunswick, and Point du ChSne, and requests that the Minister of Railways take immediate steps to remedy the grievance complained of by arranging to run a drawing room car in connection with the through train from Boston each day during its continuance, and that a copy of these resolutions be sent to the Hon. Mr. Emmerson, Minister of Railways, the Hon. Mr. Fielding, Minister of Finance, and to all the Prince Edward Island representatives in parliament.
I trust that I have not been too late in presenting this resolution and that the hon. minister will not get up and tell me that the petition has been presented by all the other members except the hon. member for East Prince as he did on another occasion. I wish to correct a misstatement made by the minister to the effect that I was perfectly satisfied with the minister's answer with regard to the shortage of cars for musselmud and wood during the last winter on the Prince Edward Island Railway. I want to say that I meant to convey no such impression to the minister.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That you were perfectly satisfied ? You made that statement.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: No I did not. I said that as the season had so far advanced nothing that could be done would be of anv avail with the people because the mussel-mud and wood season was over. I assumed that the minister had done all that could possibly be done for this season, that the damage had been done, as far as the mussel-mud and wood men were concerned, and that all the minister could do was to investigate the causes of the shortage of cars and possibly remedy it on a future occasion.


John Graham Haggart: We have not yet obtained information about all the cars.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given the information about the locomotives. We expect to get the following new cars :

No.	Class of car.	.Estimated cost
Each.
20 1st class day	coaches	 $15,000
4 2nd class sleepers	 11,000
2 dining cars	16,000
4 postal cars	 6,000
10 baggage cars	 5,000
130 ballast cars	 900
4 parlour cars	 20,000


Samuel Barker: Dbes the hon. gentleman say that he is going to pay $20,000 each for parlour cars ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have estimated that.


Samuel Barker: Do you really think you are going to pay that ? It would buy a sleeping car or a private car for a minister.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would make $1,375,000 worth of cars. We cannot expect to get them all under this vote and we are asking for a million.


Samuel Barker: I presume it is not intended to buy more cars than are mentioned ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Samuel Barker: Although the price may be high you will only buy the cars enumerated ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is only an estimate furnished to me as to the probable cost.


John Graham Haggart: Is this amount for rolling stock to be charged to capital, Intercolonial ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is capital account, Intercolonial Railway.


John Graham Haggart: You have no plan by which you will need any more than that in the future ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: What other cars we have asked for replacing cars, we have to pay out of income. This is additional equipment necessary for the Intercolonial Railway.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose .the increased business on the road necessitates it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The argument of my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island shows the necessity of this. The class of travel is such that they are very fastidious people. They will not go on the other cars. The new train is simply recognizing this demand.


Samuel Barker: What are you going to do with the old cars ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have to use these in connection with what we would call accommodation trains ?


Samuel Barker: It is not so much because the travellers are so fastidious as that you want extra cars ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: A certain class are not; our own people are not so fastidious.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes, they are. We cannot be expected to travel in the same cars as the people up here do, we want better ones.


Henry Robert Emmerson: These people demand more luxurious coaches, and we have to cater to that traffic.
Intercolonial Railway-steel rails and fastenings, revote, $495,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is simply a revote ; with this vote we expect to put down the heavy rail on about 270 miles.


John Graham Haggart: What weight rails ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Eighty pound rails.


Samuel Barker: Where does the minister intend placing these ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We intend placing them to complete the laying of heavy rails between the following points :
Distance
Between

	Miles.
Mulgrave and Stellarton	h	(about.)
Painsec Junction and Moncton. .. 1	"
Halifax and Stellarton	4	(nearly)
Moncton and Newcastle	511
Newcastle and Campbellton....107
Campbellton and Ste. Flavie.. ..22
Ste. Flavie and RiviSre du Loup. 80
Levis to Chaudiere Junction.. ..	6
That will cover the 270 miles.


Samuel Barker: How long have the rails been on those 270 miles-the rails that are there now ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About 14 years.


Samuel Barker: Is the hon. gentleman not going to charge any portion of the cost to maintenance when he is taking up an old 14-year old rail and replacing it with a new cne, or is he going to charge it all to capital ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not thought that any portion of this will be charged to income.


Samuel Barker: Although these rails have had 14 years' service 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not so sure that they have had 14 years' service.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman told us so.


John Graham Haggart: How are you to do the 270 odd miles with $495,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would cost about $1,000,000 for the rails, and we give credit for the old rails to the amount of a little ever $500,000.


John Graham Haggart: How much will it take, then, to complete the Intercolonial ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That will complete the Intercolonial with SO-p'pund rails, excfept about 400 miles. This would include the Cape Breton Railway, the short line from Oxford Junction to Pictou, and the portion between Moncton and St. John.


Samuel Barker: If the hon. gentleman were managing an important railway and were replacing rails that had 14 years' wear, would he not have to charge that wear and tear to ordinary income ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not prepared to give my hon. friend an answer.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman ask his manager, who is beside him, what an ordinary railway company would do under those circumstances ? Ask him whether it would not charge to income the making good of those 14 years of service. If he had done that last year, would not that have made a very serious difference to his disadvantage in the showing of the operation of the line ?
Intercolonial Railway-increased accommodation and facilities along the line, $68,500.


John Graham Haggart: Will you please explain where you intend to expend this ?


Samuel Barker: Before the hon. gentle man begins that explanation, I will call his attention to the fact that he has already taken $65,000 for the same purpose in the main estimates, and he will have to take the two together and explain them as one.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a different vote. Of this, $47,000 is a revote, and the remainder will be used as follows : Mitchell, a dwelling for the agent, $2,300 ; Villeroy junction, a station, $3,000 ; Laurier, a cellar and freight shed, $1,000 ; St. Charles junction, $500 ; St. Pierre, $125; Montmagny. an addition to the station, $2,000 ; L'lslet, further accommodation, $1,500 ; Ste. Louise, a dwelling for the agent and to enlarge the station, $3,000 ; Point Rouge, a small shelter, $150 ; Ste. Anne, a station building, $1,500 ; St. Andre, additional freight accommodation, because of a large industry that has been established there, $1,000; St. Alexis, to provide a water supply, $500 ; and contingencies.
Intercolonial Railway-inerease)d accommodation at Truro, $100,000.


John Graham Haggart: What are you going to do at Truro ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The engine house there now is a disgrace and we require a new one. We want also a coal handling plant and some additional land for the engine house.


John Graham Haggart: What will that cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are four different sites and I do not wish to state my idea of the cost ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The people there are very anxious to have a new engine house,
and I have had several letters asking me where that round house will be built.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would not do to make it known until the land is secured.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: As your friends have secured option on so many lots, it will make it difficult for you to select.


Henry Robert Emmerson: All the more reason why I should not tell now.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think that this sum is entirely inadequate. We want at Truro a station that will cost at least $150,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think my hon. friend from Colchester should get some water for his neighbour beside him.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: No, Mr. Haggart is doing exactly right. Truro is the shiretown in my riding and the most beautiful town in Canada. But we are really ashamed of our station. People on coming to that station carry away a bad impression of that beautiful town. All the gentlemen from Ontario who have visited Truro, say that while they have very presentable towns in their province, there is nothing like Truro in all Canada. There is a splendid Liberal party in that county and they will not be pleased with this government unless a new station is provided at once. I am going to make it an argument against the government that I have been pressing on them the necessity of this improvement, and I have been doing so on behalf of the Liberals, and that I have met with but indifferent success. I will go down and tell them that while this government pretend to be their friend, when they have an opportunity of showifig their friendship they will not do it. There is another and a greater grievance still, under which we suffer. The railway authorities own two or three acres of land all around the station which forms an esplanade and which the town is not allowed to touch. If we had that esplanade, we would make it an ornament to the city. In Truro we have a splendid system of surface drainage, by means of which the streets become dry in an incredibly short time after a rainfall. We were not permitted to touch this esplanade with our surface drainage, and the result is that in rainy weather, this esplanade, which is lower than the average part of the town, becomes converted into an enormous bog around the station, and people arriving on the cars, seeing this wretched marsh, go away with a most unfavourable impression. We had a little struggle with the late government, but we did not get them properly awake before they were out of office, so that we did not get much satisfaction.


William Stevens Fielding: Nobody was awake in those days. Everybody was dead.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The late government was so philanthropic that they went around

tlie country doing everything without being asked, and they would have done for us what we wanted if their attention had been called to it. But unlike the people of Quebec and Ontario, who look to the government for everything, we were doing things in Colchester ourselves and consequently did not press the late government to account. I want the minister to put in the estimates a sum of $10,000 to level up that esplanade. At present it is one and a half foot lower than the rest of the town. It is a disgrace to the Railway Department and a menace to the health of the people.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have deep sympathy for the requirements of Truro. It appears that for a great many years, while the friends of the hon. member for Colchester were in power, the people of Truro were entirely neglected. I have recognized their impoverished condition and the neglect shown them, and have ventured to put in the estimates the sum of $100,000 as a start. I hope in the future we may be able to do even all that Truro expects. My hon. friend cannot very well go back and make any point against the government because of the fact that the government is giving them $100,000 when his own friends gave them nothing. He ought to argue in favour of the government which has recognized the needs of the people in that locality, whereas the late government did not.
Mr. HAGlGART. The ikon, gentleman seems to be very anxious to get his estimates through, and yet on every little item he makes a political speech. We have heard those remarks about what the late government did or did not do ad nauseam, and if the hon. gentleman will apply them to one item, and not repeat them at every item, he will get his estimates through much more quickly. Let us be as concise and precise as possible, for we are all anxious to get the business through, but if the hon. gentleman will insist on obstructing as he has been doing, I am afraid that we may not be able to get away for two or three weeks. What are the proposed improvements and what is the amount you intend spending ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For additional land, water supply, drainage, ballasting, new en gine-house-which will cost, apart from land, something over $95,000, and will have a heating plant, a power plant and a coal handling plant-additional tracks, further freight shed accommodation and a car shop, which is very much needed. If we met all the requirements at Truro, it would take $266,000. This year we are asking a vote of $100,000, which is probably all we can expend during the current fiscal year.
Intercolonial Railway-to increase accommodation at Halifax, $250,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount that we have spent on capital account at Halifax ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: 


Samuel Barker: The minister has had a vote of $135,000 in the main estimates in addition to this $250,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
John Graham Haggart: With these other votes, say two and a half millions.
Intercolonial Railway-increased accommodation at Amqui (revote $2,550) $5,550.


Samuel Barker: There is another double item. In the main estimates we have an item for increased accommodation at Amqui of $7,000, of which $2,000 is a revote. And here we have another item for the same service with a different amount as a revote. Why could not the hon. minister give us all the facts with regard to such a work as this in the first instance ? Why could he not get from his officers a statement of what he required for the whole year and give it us at once ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is because of a change of site. The original estimate was based on the idea of having a station on a certain site, but on account of the need for additional tracks, and because the people are urging to have their convenience studied, a change was necessary involving an additional expenditure. The station and dwelling alone at Amqui will cost, according to the contract price, $5,500.


Samuel Barker: This comes a little too often. I think we have a right to complain of the way the hon. ministers officials- they are here, and I say it for that reason- bring their estimates before the minister Again and again we have this happen, that in the main estimates an item is asked for and, a week or two afterwards, in the supplementary estimates there is another vote for the same service. I think the minister should see to it that he gets the proper information when he is making his estimates, so that we may not be put to the trouble, expense and loss of time of discussing items twice over when, with proper care and attention, the matter can be dealt with at once.
Intercolonial Railway-increased accommodation at Antigonish, $14,000.


John Graham Haggart: How much is required at Antigonish, and what is it for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the total. It is to provide a new station. We shall use the present station as a freight shed. Antigonish is a rapidly growing place and the centre of a very flourishing country.


John Graham Haggart: It is a wonder that the road does not flourish equally with the country.
Mr. EMMEfRSON. This portion lof it does.

Intercolonial Railway-towards improving ferry service at Strait of Canso (revote) $23,400.


Samuel Barker: Here is another instance of the same thing. We have had this all discussed on the main estimates, and we have the same thing up again here and further money wanted, and only a few weeks between them.
Intercolonial Railway-siding at St. Romuald, $1,500.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Will the minister kindly tell us why this siding is to be built ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: To make a crossing siding, so as to facilitate the running of the trains. We want to put in 600 feet there and make a long siding, so that fast passen1 ger trains and others can cross at that point.
Intercolonial Railway-New Glasgow-increased accommodation at (revote $3,900) $30,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount for that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is $30,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is it for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is proposed to enlarge the yard and provide additional freight sheds. The cost will depend on whether additional land is purchased or not.
Intercolonial Railway-to increase water supply (revote) $3,500.


John Graham Haggart: Is this along the line ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, along the line.
Intercolonial Railway-additional sidings and spur lines, $23,700.


John Graham Haggart: Where are these ?


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister has already taken $118,000 for that purpose.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to cover a spur line from Fort Lawrence, near Amherst, to the new government wharf-that is one item. It is estimated that this will cost $15,000. It will not be necessary to do the whole work this year, but we are asking for $5,000 on that account. Then we propose to build a spur line at Trois Pistoles- that is, to provide and lay the rails and ties This will cost $10,-400. Another is near Riviere Ouelle station, where we purpose doing the same thing, at a cost of about $8,300.	.


John Graham Haggart: To whose places are these spur lines ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The one at Rivi&re
Ouelle is for the benefit of the Intercolonial, in order to get traffic. There is a large mill there.


John Graham Haggart: Whose mill ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Riviere Ouelle Pulp
Company's.	I. ii ijj


John Graham Haggart: How much is that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


John Graham Haggart: Are you in the habit of building spur lines to industries along the Intercolonial without a contribution ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are simply putting down the rails and ties, they do the grading.


John Graham Haggart: You don't charge it against their freight ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, we get the freight. They guarantee so many cars each year.


Samuel Barker: What is the distance ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: One Is about two miles, and the other two and a half miles. The other goes to the Trois Pistoles Lumber Company.


Samuel Barker: I suppose the hon. gentleman is going to use sortie of these; *|Hd rails that are standing in stores account at about $14 a ton. At that rate he won't have to spend $8,000 on that siding, if he is only putting down rails and ties.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is all we propose to put down.


John Graham Haggart: On this last item, I wish to draw the minister's attention to the enormous sum that he has taken for capital account on the Intercolonial this year. There are $2,563,000 in the supplementary estimates, and $1,651,500 in the main estimates, and $800,000 for the acquisition of the Canada Eastern. In other words, he is expending $5,000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway on capital.
Prince Edward Island Railway-to increase accommodation at Georgetown, $33,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Georgetown is the winter port for Prince Edward Island. It is proposed to enlarge the wharf by extending it fifty feet and increasing the width twenty feet ; also to enlarge the warehouse by an extension of forty feet and increasing the width. It will be necessary to do some dredging to give twenty feet of water at low tide.
Prince Edward Island Railway-survey from Souris to Elmira, $1,500.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: I would suggest to the minister to add the words ' or Harmony ' after Souris. I


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the interest of harmony I will accept the suggestion.


John Graham Haggart: You cannot do it without a message from His Excellency.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You cannot change the amount, but you can change the wording.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose the vote was for a certain expenditure in Toronto ; you

could not change that for an expenditure in Montreal or Halifax.


James Joseph Hughes: The circumstances are quite different. This is for an extension of the main line to Elmira, and Souris is a short distance from Harmony. It is merely a question of where it would be better to join the main line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Prince Edward Island Railway-branch line to Vernon River bridge, $50,000.
John Graham Haggart: What is the amount required for that altogether ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It won't exceed $75,-
000.


Mr. HACKETT.: Is this part of the main line between Southport and Murray Harbour ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a branch connecting Murray Harbour branch at or aear Lake Verde station, with a branch railway about four miles long.


Edward Hackett: Is not the Vernon river branch on the main line between Southport and Murray Harbour ?


Mr. MACKINNON.: I can explain that to the hon. gentleman. Vernon Harbour is on the main line and is the name of a settlement ; Vernon River Bridge is the name of the village. The spur goes over the main line to the village, three or four miles.
Prince Edward Island Railway-new station at Alberton (revote $985) $2,500.


Edward Hackett: Of what material has the minister decided to build tliis new station ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of stone.


Edward Hackett: Could the minister arrange to have this building placed iu a position that would avoid the Y nuisance V


Henry Robert Emmerson: That question has already been settled. We discussed that matter when the main estimates were under consideration.


Edward Hackett: I think the hon. gentleman said it was impossible to do away with the Y.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said it would cost somewhere in the neighbourood of $20,000 to avoid that Y. I also reminded the hon. gentleman that if the people in Ottawa could submit to the use of a Y, I thought the people of Alberton should be reasonable enough to accept the conclusion which we urged, that it was impossible to make the branch so as to avoid the Y, the cost being so great.


Edward Hackett: The hon. gentleman has had surveyors and engineers there, and they decided that it will cost $20,000 to avoid the Mr. HAGGART.
Y ? It appears to me that when you are erecting a building of stone that will last for years, it is only right that you should avoid this Y nuisance.
Prince Edward Island Railway-to increase accommodation at Charlottetown, $25,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is for a new station.


John Graham Haggart: How much will it cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The whole of the improvements at Charlottetown will cost about $109,000.


Edward Hackett: I would like to ask if the government have secured a site for this new station in Charlottetown and where the station is to be built ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has not been determined.


John Graham Haggart: What is the estimated cost of the site without mentioning where it is ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are two or three places in view and I find that the moment you mention the amount it has an upward tendency as to the cost. If you can put one site against the other you can generally come to a better understanding and purchase the land cheaper. My hon. friend will realize that.


John Graham Haggart: We will not ask the amount that you are paying for it. You are asking for $110,000 for increased accommodation at Charlottetown. How much of that is to be expended on the building ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: $55,000. It is a new station with a covered platform. My hon. friend must remember that this is the office building of the Rrince Edward Island Railway, the headquarters.


John Graham Haggart: Then there is $55,000 that the bon. minister is taking for the land ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, there are a lot of additional sidings and yards.


John Graham Haggart: We did not hear of those.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then there is wharf accommodation and dredging.
Prince Edward Island Railway-survey from main line to West Shore, $1,500.


Edward Hackett: Where will this survey he made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Somewhere in the vicinity of O'Leary or from whatever is the most feasible point.


Edward Hackett: And to the west shore either to West Point or West Cape ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Somewhere in that direction. We are going to survey that loca-

tion and determine as to what would be the best route and the best point to reach, and the best to start from.


Edward Hackett: Will the survey go on immediately ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.
Prince Edward Isl-and Railway-to improve water service ($20,800 revote), $26,800.
. Mr. HAGGART. That is a large sum for improving the water service. What is the total amount required ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are putting overhead tanks along the line of the Prince Edward Railway.


John Graham Haggart: How many ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Eight.
Prince Edward Island Railway-'Charlottetown, extension of railway track along water front, $5,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is that for.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Department of Marine and Fisheries have purchased a wharf and a large amount of goods is shipped from that point in the winter time. Boats late in the fall and early in the spring stop there and we therefore require to extend the Intercolonial Railway siding to the wharf.
Prince Edward Island Railway-branch line from Cardigan to Montague Bridge, $100,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total estimated cost is $195,000. We are asking for $100,000 this year.


Edward Hackett: What is the distance between Cardigan and Montague ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Six and a half miles.


Edward Hackett: Have surveys been made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, there has been a survey made.
Prince Edward Island Railway-Summerside, improvements at, $10,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like to know something about these improvements at Summerside.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot give the details. We are asking for a vote of $10,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is that for a new station ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I received from the Board of Trade of Summerside resolutions asking for improvements at that point and pointing out the great inconvenience resulting to traffic and to business chiefly in connection with the handling of freight. I have not had an opportunity to look into the matter ; but after conferring with the general manager I determined that we should ask for this vote of $10,000 and then
take into consideration the necessities afterwards by personally going there and looking into the question.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I have no desire at all to in any way oppose this vote of $10,000. In fact for the improvements that are needed there the amount is not half enough, but I understood that the Board of Trade asked for an extension of the railway to the Queen's wharf with shipping facilities there._ This may be for that purpose or it may be for a new station. When I last spoke in regard to the facilities required, on the *Prince Edward Island Railway I called the attention of the hon. minister to the fact that we required a new station at Summer-side. I pointed out that the station was In a most dangerous place being at the intersection of the street and railway wharf where the passengers to and from the steamer pass and several very serious accidents have occurred. I would like to know whether the hon. minister contemplates remedying this evil by this vote of $10,000. It would seem strange that a vote of $10,000 would be placed in the estimates and the minister not know what it is to be used for.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will not put it in if my hon. friend does not wish it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The hon. minister knows that I said at the outset that I had no objection to the vote at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well then let it go. 1 fairly stated to the committee that I did not know and could not tell what was to be done with it but that I was going there and would personally inquire into the conditions and that after having studied them we would endeavour to remedy any evils that may exist. I cannot say any more.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not wish to block the vote in any way at all. But it seems to me that the hon. minister, when he puts $10,000 into the estimates, should have some idea as to the purpose for which it is going to be used. The same condition prevails in Charlottetown. A large vote has been put into the estimates, but I do not think the hon. minister can tell us where the station is going to be placed. I understand that at Charlottetown they are getting options on the ground opposite the old station and judging from the prices that the people want for a good part of the ground the site will cost very nearly as much as if the station were opposite George street which would be a very much more convenient location for the people and where the majority of the people desire the station to be.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are not discussing that at the present time.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am pointing out that there seems to be a great deal of doubt in the minister's mind as to what the money voted in all the items for the Prince Edward Island Railway is to be used for. I see that

he also has an item of $5,000 for the extension of the track along the water front at Charlottetown. Five thousand dollars would come nowhere near paying for the extension of the track along the water fro'nt in Charlottetown.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will extend the track to the Charlottetown wharf,	'


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That would he pretty nearly as far as the site of the new station house. I do not wish to block the estimates at all. I am very glad to see that many of the things I have been advocating ever since I took my seat in parliament are now being taken up and that the government is at least making an attempt to carry out the promises the Liberal-Gon-servatives made iu 1806 in regard to the giving of these branch lines to the people. 1 know that on this side of the House the feeling is that the utmost justice should be done to the people of Prince, Edward Island in the matter of railway facilities and branch lines. I am surprised however, that the hon. minister has not been urged by his followers and has not put in the estimates upon this occasion a certain amount for a survey from North Wiltshire to Crapaud. For a number of years petitions for this branch line have been sent to the department. It *would serve an important section of the country and is very much needed.
P.E.I. Ry.-York station tor freight shed, $500.


John Graham Haggart: Allow me to congratulate the Finance Minister upon the splendid results he has secured for the maritime provinces in the shape of capital expenditures. When speaking a short time ago, he said that Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces were looked after now, that they had not been in the past prior to 1896. We have in the main and supplementary estimates, an expenditure for the maritime provinces of $6,000,000. That added to the expenditure on capital account and the deficit on the Intercolonial Railway for last year makes an amount for these two years of $8,700,000 and some odd. That is looking after the interests of Nova Scotia. The hon. minister may go down there and state to the electors in the different portions of the country my interruptions of ' hear, hear.'
I will take every opportunity, especially if I should be down in the maritime provinces, to point out the mismanagement, and the enormous expenditure on capital account on that railway which has been running for thirty or forty years, and which under proper management should not require the expenditure of one cent on capital or income account by the people of this country although giving as favourable rates, and as good accommodation as is required in that country. We have voted this year for these two roads $6,000,000 on capital account following a deficit of $2,700,000 odd last year.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 


William Stevens Fielding: I wish to thank my hon. friend for his kindly observation regarding the attention this government is paying the maritime provinces. I did not expect it from him. Still as he has been good enough to put it on record we will accept it. I may say that the observations I made this afternoon were made by way of a reply to an hon. gentleman who was painting a very sorrowful picture of the dreadful burdens under which the people of the maritime provinces were said to be suffering by way of taxation, and I simply desired to say that I thought the maritime provinces, not specially but in common with the other portions of the Dominion, were receiving their fair share of public expenditure, neither more nor less. I may say to my hon. friend that he need not lie awake at nights making calculations as to the proportions of interest on expenditure on the Intercolonial. We on our side in the maritime provinces are more generous. We vote millions to the canals and make them free, and no man on this side lies awake at night to figure out the interest which his province pays on the cost of the canals. Tfie canals are in the general interest of the Dominion and we in the maritime provinces appreciate that fact.


John Graham Haggart: We'with the rest of the Dominion pay the interest on the amount expended on the canals. We not only pay the interest on the $70,000,000 expended on railways in the maritime provinces, but we are now asked to supplement it with $6,000,000 this year on capital account, a loss to the people of this country of $2,700,000 odd.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do you pay it all 7


John Graham Haggart: Yes, we pay it all. We pay the deficit of $2,700,000 odd on the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway. That is the people of the Dominion pay it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought you meant Ontario.


John Graham Haggart: The people of the Dominion pay that interest on the $70,000,000 expended on these roads.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Who pays the interest on the $90,000,000 spent on the canals?


John Graham Haggart: The people of the Dominion pay that interest. The people of Ontario and Quebec pay four-sixths, I believe, of that interest, and four-sixths of the interest on the Intercolonial Railway. But we do not object to any expenditure for a useful purpose in the maritime provinces. What I state is that besides paying interest on the Intercolonial Railway and on our canals, we are paying off a deficit and we are asked to spend on capital account on that railway this year $6,000,000.


Mr. LEF  JRGEY@: I cannot agree with all the remarks of the last speaker, (Mr. AUGUST 3.. 1904
.Haggart) because I think Ontario gets a good deal of benefit from the Intercolonial Railway and that possibly one half of the deficit may be fairly charged to Ontario business, because the Intercolonial Railway while serving the upper provinces for the transportation of their manufactured goods down into the maritime provinces charges them nearly 50 per cent less for from one to 50 miles and 88 per cent less from one to 1,000 miles, than the large competing lines, the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway. If this additional amount was gaddled upon the goods coming down or if 50 per cent of it was saddled on these goods, the deficit on the Intercolonial Railway would be to a considerable extent lessened. I wish to again refer to the pension fund which very nearly concerns the employees of the Prince Edward Island Railway, and also the employees of the whole government system. I once before read a resolution from a meeting of the head men among the workmen on the Intercolonial Railway and the minister told me on that occasion that the right hon. the leader of the House was going to bring in a pension Bill this session and was doing everything he could to facilitate the matter so as to have it put through at once. Now I understand this matter has been entirely dropped.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It has not been entirely dropped, but like some other legislation it could not be gone on with.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We are at least not going to have it this session, and the scheme that the minister has been working at so faithfully for some time is kept over until the very last hours of the session when lit had to be shuffled off the order paper, if the minister had been very solicitous for the welfare of the employees of that system the Bill might have been through the initial stages long before this.


James Joseph Hughes: Does the hon. member for South Lanark consider the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway, ill-advised, unnecessary and undesirable ?


John Graham Haggart: What expenditure does the hon. gentleman mean ? If he asks me in reference to the $6,000,000 that is required for capital expenditure this year, I say that not one item of it except the $800,000 for the acquisition of the Canada Eastern should be charged to capital account. Bridges, sidings, repairs to stations, and everything else is charged to capital account. There is no justification for it. Look at the different railways ; take the Canada Southern, on which the whole track has been relaid with new rails, wooden bridges have been replaced by steel bridges, and not one cent of this expenditure is charged to capital account. What justification has the hon. gentleman for this expenditure ? We believe that the railroad, if properly managed, should yield, not an income to the country, because we do not expect that, but sufficient to pay the expenses of management and the ordinary expenditure on the road. Instead of that, from 1896 to 1904 there has been an expenditure of $24,000,000 on capital account, and this year we are asked to expend $6,000,000. Does the hon. gentleman justify it ? Does he think it is right or reasonable ? Does he think it is justice to the people of the Dominion at large that the whole surplus of the country from 1896 to the present day should be expended on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway ? Have the people of the other provinces no rights at all in regard to the distribution of the surplus which has been taken out of the pockets of the people generally ? Under good management you would have the rates for freight and passengers the same as they are now, and you would have no deficit on the railway. What we complain of is the enormous expenditures which are charged to capital account, a great many of which are of no necessity.


James Joseph Hughes: The expenditure on the railway in Prince Edward Island is for new work. The hon. gentleman objected to that.
Lachine Canal-bridge over canal on line of Atwater avenue, $40,000.


John Graham Haggart: Why are we obliged to put a bridge there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because we put the canal there.


John Graham Haggart: Was there a street there when the canal was built ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed that there was a street there. The traffic has become so great that an additional bridge is required.


Mr. GALLERY.: I would like to ask the minister what kind of a biyidge it will be- a swing bridge or a draw bridge ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A swing bridge.


Mr. BLAIN.: Will the hon. gentleman give us a statement in regard to the bridge -if the work is to be let by contract, and when it will be completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will be let by contract. We have not asked for the tenders yet. It will not be completed before next spring.


John Graham Haggart: Will the $40,000 finish it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, the bridge will cost about $80,000.	We shall have the
superstructure put on as early as possible next year.


Richard Blain: How much will you require for the superstructure ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About $40,000.


Mr.   POWLEE@: I cannot quite understand the necessity for this bridge. This canal has been built for some time, and there has been no bridge at this particular point. The hon. gentleman says there was 'a street there when the canal was built.


Mr. RIVET.: I can give some information to the hon. gentleman. This bridge is going to be built on the line of Atwater avenue, which is about the largest thoroughfare connecting the southern part of Montreal with the upper part. When the canal was built, tltat portion of the city of Montreal was not in existence, but since then the city has extended in that direction, and now there is a heavy traffic there. A petition has been signed by the manufacturers asking for this bridge, the want of which has been felt for many years, and the need for which is more urgent to-day on account of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has a yard there and heavy traffic is carried on in that part of the city. Very large interests require that bridge, and outside the interests of the manufacturers it is very much needed by the people.


Mr. FOWLER.: While the hon. gentleman has given good reasons for the building of that bridge, he has not given any reason why it should be built by this Dominion. At the time of the opening of the canal there was neither people nor traffic in that section, according to the hon. gentleman, but since the opening of the canal that section has become populated and a heavy traffic has grown up. While that is an excellent reason for the building of the bridge, it is no reason why the department should build it.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: At the time the canal was built there was a road there, but of course the population was not very largd. Since then on each side of the road the population has developed and large factories have been built. Besides the road is the boundary line between the towns of St. Henri and St. Cunegonde.


John Graham Haggart: Does that hon. gentleman say that there there was a road across the canal where the canal crosses there ?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: No.


John Graham Haggart: Because there was a canal there before 1800, but there was no road across it. The hon. gentleman should not give us as a justification of this vote the statement that there was a road across the canal before the canal was built, but he ought to state plainly that he is taking this vote for the purpose of accommodating the people.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understood there was a road there.


John Graham Haggart: Your information could not have been correct.


Richard Blain: 


George William Fowler: The minister expressly stated there was a road there, and I was satisfied he was mis-informed. Surely the ctiy of Montreal is large enough to build its own bridges without calling on the Dominion to build them.


Daniel Gallery: Last winter there was a road built right over the canal. That was during the time the other new bridge was being constructed. I may state also that this street is about the widest and one of the oldest in the city of Montreal. When the canal was built the population of Montreal was about 50,000 and to-day, taking in these two municipalities, its population is about 350,000. If the government has built all the bridges across the Lachine canal, why not this bridge ?


John Graham Haggart: That is the best ar-gament I have heard yet. The government -built the others, which they had no right to build, and why should they not build this one ?


Daniel Gallery: During your time-


John Graham Haggart: Oh, you will get lots of precedents.


Daniel Gallery: I think it is necessary this bridge should be built, not only for that part of the city but in the interests of transportation.


George William Fowler: I quite agree that the bridge should be built, but it has not been shown why it should be built by the Dominion government.


Daniel Gallery: Who would build it ?


George William Fowler: The richest city in Canada ought to build its own bridges.


Daniel Gallery: Would the hon. gentleman point out what bridge there is in the city of Montreal over the Lachine canal, to the building of which the city paid anything ? Why should we subscribe to build a bridge across the Lachine canal, when hon. gentlemen opposite built those bridges for nothing ?


George William Fowler: No number of wrongs put together can make a right. Every bridge must stand on its own bottom.


Mr. INGRAM.: Is it the policy of the government to build bridges over canals ? Is it their policy to build bridges over streets that may have been recently opened up in any particular town or city, which happen to be locations for canals ?


Mr. GERVAIS.: There is an answer to the contention of the hon. member for King's (Mr. Fowler). Where Atwater Avenue is now, there was a public road even before 1700, when Mr. Dollier de Casson, the superior of the Montreal Seminary, entered into a contract with Mr. de Catalogne for the building of a canal between Lachine and Montreal, This proposed canal was even

to be constructed for the benefit of the whole of Nouvelle France. In law the Dominion is bound to build that new bridge for this reason, Lower Canada has been instrumental in constituting a servitude upon .the island of Montreal, and this servitude, which was established by the building of the Lachine canal, was created for the benefit of the whole of Canada, and now Canada is bound not to make our burden of that servitude any heavier. That is why I said that Canada is in law and equity bound to build that new bridge ; it having been made a necessity by the very act of the government of the day in building the Lachine canal. We need now in the interests of Montreal a new bridge. It is the action of Canada which has caused the necessity for this bridge and Canada should have to pay for it.


George William Fowler: The same argument would apply to every canal in Canada. But surely the minister will not say that li is the policy of his department to builrl bridges over the canals wherever municipalities may see fit to lay out a road. The canal is already there, and in this case there was no previous road. If the plea of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gervais) is good, all a municipality need do is to lay out a road to the canal, then come to the department and have a bridge built. He will see how far he has to go to be logical.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: That is not the present case.


George William Fowler: I do not think the minister will agree with my hon. friend.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the minister answer my question ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The policy adopted by the department, so far as I know, is not to recognize the demand of the municipality to have bridges built wherever the municipalities think they should be put. But there is a great deal in the contention of my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) that there is a legal liability ; but I think it must be governed by reason, and not merely at the whim of the municipality. It would be very much on the principle of a railway crossing. Of course, there cannot be a bridge for every roadway. But at this point, it seems to me, there is very great reason why there should be a bridge, and very excellent reasons shown why it should be built by the government. The canal is operated by the government, and is there for the benefit of all Canada, as my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) says. There have been built up in that section some very large manufacturing establishments, and this bridge will offer a shorter haul fox the products of those manufactories between COte St. Paul and St. Gabriel ward and the west end of Ste. Anne's ward and Atwater street railway station. It will offer a shorter means of travel to employees in the west
end of the city, many of whom, to avoid a long and circuitous route, are now compelled to walk along the railway tracks. This item appears because of a petition sent to the department by twenty-five or thirty large manufacturing establishments in that end of the city. And it seems to me it is in accordance with what the department has done in the past. If there is any justification for what has been done in the past, *there is strong justification for this.


John Graham Haggart: The argument of the hon. member for Montreal, St. James division (Mr. Gervais), who, I believe, is a lawyer, is one of the most curious arguments I ever heard in this House. The argument of the hon. member for St. James division is right where the government make the canal crossing an existing highway, the ser vitude, to use a French term, devolves upon the government to provide facilities equal to those that existed before the canal was put there. But in this case there was no load, and so there is no servitude. There is no claim at all where no road existed previously.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not find fault with the representations as to the impoitance of this bridge and the necessity for it. I accept the hon. gentleman's statement for that. But this is a peculiar idea that he advocates, and, if it is adopted, the application of it cannot be restricted to Montreal. We are told that this bridge will cost $80,000, and that the Dominion is asked to pay for the whole work. If there was no roadway there oi'iginally, then the government might take a lenient view of the matter as to assisting the people. But when the city of Montreal asks for a bridge over the canal, the least they can do is to contribute. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) did not suggest that, but proposes that the government shall pay the entire cost. Apply that all over Canada, and you will see the difficulty in which you will land. A canal in this case would be in the same position as a railroad. For instance, in Toronto the people wanted to pass over the tracks, which they find are too numerous to be crossed constantly on the level, and they asked the railways to construct a bridge. Did the railways agree to do it ? No. But they said :	We will
contribute towards the bridge over our tracks if the city also will pay a portion. So it ought to be with the canal. I do not see why we should adopt a different plan in this case. I am not objecting because this is in the city of Montreal.
Trent Canal-construction, $300,000.


John Graham Haggart: Where is this money to be expended ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to connect Balsam lake with Lake Simcoe. We have al ready had voted in the estimates for 1904-5

a sum of $100,000. We are to spend this vote on hydraulic lift-lock No. 2, $250,000 ; section 2, Balsam lake division, $40,000 ; and engineering, $10,000.
Trent Canal-survey of routes, $11,000.


Mr. GRANT.: Will this be spent in surveying the route between Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is to survey at both ends of the Trent water-way.


John Graham Haggart: Where is that to be expended ? I do not know about forming any channel.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to be expended in forming a twelve foot channel from the end of Amelia street in the town of Cornwall to the old lock 17. The work will be done by contract.
Welland Canal-to deepen portions of summit level between Port Colborne and Thorold, $50,-
000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The estimate is about $150,000 to be expended the present year. The whole thing is to cost $450,000. This is to make fourteen foot navigation at level. The depth will be nineteen feet at the normal level of Lake Erie, and fifteen feet at low water. The surface of Lake Erie seems to be gradually lowering.


John Graham Haggart: Would not the guard lock at the entrance take you up to the level ? Is there a lift on the guard lock ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.
Elevator at Port Colborne, $400,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to commence an elevator at Port Colborne with a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels, which is estimated to cost $1,250,000. We are also deepening the harbour to twenty-two feet, it will afford a twenty-two foot navigation into the Grand Trunk elevator. The whole harbour improvements are estimated to cost $1,600,000, not including the elevator.


John Graham Haggart: I believe a portion of the work is being done by the Public Works Department.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The breakwater is done by the Public Works.


John Graham Haggart: Could you tell us the total cost of the breakwater and deepening ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, that would be in another department.


Richard Blain: Is this elevator to be constructed <pi a foundation that was put in by the Public Works Department ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, the Public Works have done nothing there. We have put in the foundation.


Richard Blain: When will this elevator be completed 7
Mr. EMMERSON


Henry Robert Emmerson: Plans are being prepared now and an engineer is at Port Colborne to make an examination for the foundation. We hope to be ready to ask for tenders for the whole work in a short time. We expect to have it completed a year from next fall.


George William Fowler: The canals are free now. Is it the intention that this elevator shall be free ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know, that is a matter over which this department would not have control.


George William Fowler: It is a matter of some little importance to the taxpayer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The question has not yet been determined.


George William Fowler: Do I understand that to mean that it has not been considered ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It occurred to me that the elevators might be free even if the canals were not. But I would naturally expect that the public who use these elevators should pay for them. It is a question of policy as to whether a private corporation should have the right to build an elevator, or whether it would be better for the government to do it. The policy adopted is that the government shall do it, there being so many different shippers whose interests might clash. Therefore, the government would charge the ordinary elevator dues. That would be my idea.


George William Fowler: I should think that if one company built an elevator and their charge was excessive, some other company would build one.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That question was taken into consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: The government tried for several years to interest companies in the matter, but the companies seemed to be unwilling to accept the conditions which the government thought necessary to impose with regard to the supervision of rates ; and if the enterprise was to go ahead the government came to the conclusion that they would have to take hold of it. But there were negotiations with the companies, and they were not willing to agree to reasonable conditions.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman might say whether the elevator is to be free ?


William Stevens Fielding: The question has never been formally submitted for decision. I never contemplated that the elevators should be free. I think the public should pay the ordinary elevator charges, just as if it had been put up by a private company.


George William Fowler: What style of an elevator is this to be ?
.
8381	AUGUST 3, 1904	8382


Henry Robert Emmerson: The plan has not been prepared, yet, but it is to be a modern style elevator.


George William Fowler: Will it be tubular or not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will be of the most modern sort .


John Graham Haggart: Have you had any correspondence with any forwarding companies stating that when a sufficient depth of water is provided at Port Colborne they intend to utilize this harbour ? I understand that there was some correspondence with a Glasgow or other Scotch firm that were going to put on a line of freight boats.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have heard that the completion of the works there and the erection of an elevator will bring traffic that does not now go that way ; but I have not been familiar enough with the conditions prevailing there to know as to that.
Galops rapids-to complete channel (revote) $28,000. *
Ml-. EMMERSON. You want that to stand ?


George Taylor: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Stands.
Lachine Canal-to widen road at Lower basin, $49,000.


John Graham Haggart: Will this complete it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to widen the road at the lower basin. This roadway between the basin and the roadways is so narrow that it is impossible to carry on the business.


John Graham Haggart: That is in front of the sugar refinery ?


Daniel Gallery: No, No. 1 basin is in front of the sugar refinery. It is necessary to have this road widened.
Lachine Canal-to complete paving of Mill street (revote) $3,500.


John Graham Haggart: Where is Mill street ?


Daniel Gallery: I think my hon. friend knows where Mill street is. We have already voted $75,000 for the paving of the street.


John Graham Haggart: Is this work nearly finished ?


Daniel Gallery: I think this will finish it.


George William Fowler: I do no.t quite understand why we are doing this paving.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The property is owned by the government.
Beauharnois Canal-rebuilding weir at Val-leyfleld, $15,000.


John Graham Haggart: Are you using the Beauharnois canal now ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.
266t
Rideau Canal-to rebuild dam at Poonamalie-lock station, $10,000.


George Taylor: There is the Poonamalie dam. Pass the other item and let that stand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Stands. We will now go back to item 9.
Extension of Rideau Canal, $50,000.


George William Fowler: What extension is that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the extension of the canal and building of locks to get to the mineral district. There is a great body of mineral which is inaccessible to railways and it is reported that by cutting through the canal and building two locks it will give about 17 miles of waterway into the lakes.


John Graham Haggart: What lakes ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From Desert lake to Devil lake.


George Taylor: It not only does that but it furnishes a supply of water which is not now available for the navigation of the Rideau canal.
Railway Commission-to provide for the maintenance and operation of thei Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, $60,000.


John Graham Haggart: What will the Railway Commission cost altogether, private car and all ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will cost somewhere in the vicinity of $60,000 a year.


John Graham Haggart: Wages and all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They will require a traffic expert and traffic clerks.


John Graham Haggart: What does the traffic expert get ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


John Graham Haggart: Who is he ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Ilardweli, formerly assistant freight agent of the Intercolonial Railway stationed at Montreal.


George William Fowler: Does the $60,000 cover the private car ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was paid out of last year. This will cover any expenses connected with the use of the private car.


John Graham Haggart: What are the other salaries ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is the chief engineer, $4,800, Mr. Geo. A. Mountain. Then there are two engineers, Mr. Simmons and Mr. Tessier who receive about $2,000 each. These two appointments have not been made but these two gentlemen have been [DOT]recommended. They are still in the department. The other items are :	Traffic expert and traffic clerks, $7,000 ; registrar and accountant, $1,800 ; law clerk, $2,500 ; filing and correspondence clerks, $2,500;



chief engineer and assistants, $9,000 ; chief inspector of accidents, $2,500 ; assistant inspectors of accidents, $400 ; stenographers and typewriters, $5,000; caretaker of the offices, $500 ; usher of their court and two messengers, $1,500; cook and porter on car, $1,300; official reporting for the board $3,000; travelling expenses for the staff, engineers, and inspectors, $7,000 ; printing and stationery, $5,000 ; advertising, publication of tariffs, publication of orders of the board, $2,000 ; general contingencies, $5,001; total, $59,660.


Edward Hackett: Besides that there are the commissioners' salaries and the rent of the building.


Henry Robert Emmerson: These items of course are simply the recommendation of the board. They have been acted upon only with regard to two or three of the recommendations.


Edward Hackett: It will cost more than the Supreme Court ? I hope the government will not be a party to such an enormous expenditure as that-, a useless expenditure.


George Taylor: It is an expensive luxury.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would not go so far as to sav that it is a useless expenditure, 1 think that it is a good expenditure and that the work they are doing has proved to be of advantage to the country. However that is neither here nor there. I think it was stated by the Minister of Railways of that day, when the Railway Bill was going through parliament, that he anticipated the expenses would be $100,000 a year.


Richard Blain: Have the Railway Commission the absolute power to purchase and engage and expend money as they see fit ?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not understand that.


Richard Blain: I understand there is some considerable conflict between the members of the government and the Railway Commission over this matter.


William Stevens Fielding: I would not say there was any conflict. All bodies like to get all the money for public purposes tliey can and it is the business of a bard headed Finance Minister sometimes to prevent them getting all they would like.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister has been pretty liberal.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend only knows what we grant, he does not know what we cut down.


John Graham Haggart: Fancy a law clerk and three engineers. It is perfectly absurd. It is an enormity I think almost as great as the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway.
Welland Canal-repairs, $35,000.


John Graham Haggart: What are the repairs ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: The repairs are in locks 12, 15 and 16 of the new canal. It is proposed to take out the present wooden floors and replace them with concrete, the walls and floors being badly undermined. The regulating weirs also require considerable repairs to their foundations.
Chambly Canal-additional lookmen, $3,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This will provide for two additional lockmen at each of the six locks from St. Johns. The staff at con-bined locks 7, 8 and 9 need not be increased. The additional cost for the ensuing years will be $3,780 instead of $3,000, the additional men being employed during seven months. Complaints came in from the shipping. There were some accidents, and it was necesary to increase the force at these particular locks.


George William Fowler: Has there been an increase in the traffic on this canal 7


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
George William Fowler: As a matter of fact, has not the traffic been less 7


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think not. I think the traffic has been increased over last year.


John Graham Haggart: It has fallen off considerably from what it was formerly.


Mr. BRODEUR.: The traffid, instead of decreasing, has largely increased in recent years. In fact all the pulp wood exported to the United States is passing through that canal. The pulp wood exported from Three Rivers district passes through it and of late years the traffic has certainly increased.


Andrew B. Ingram: I find by the Auditor General's Report that the receipts .have decreased $828.35 which does not show that the trade is increasing.


George William Fowler: For eleven years you have worked this canal with a reduced staff and now, without any increase in the volume of business you are putting on twelve additional men. I suppose that is another indication of the approaching election.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Complaints were made by the shipping interests to the department that the locks were not sufficiently manned and two or three accidents have occurred. In one of them a workman lost his life.


Andrew B. Ingram: I suppose the correspondence is in the department in connection with these complaints 7


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: The whole of the trips through the Chambly canal during the year is 3.323, and the total tonnage 296,709. 1'here is no more passing through that canal than through the Rideau.


Mr.  R. L.@: I'. DEMERS. I do not know what the statistics are, but I know tbe place and I know also the Rideau canal. If any of these gentlemen would go to the port of St. John, they would see a great difference between the trade on the Rideau canal and that passing through the Chambly canal. The Chambly canal is always filled with boats. Perhaps some of the boats do not carry goods both ways, which would make a difference in the tonnage, but the personnel employed on the locks have the same trouble and I am sure that this year the number of boats has increased. The shipping interests are complaining that the service is insufficient at night. I have received many complaints myself. They complain that one man is insufficient-at night and ask the government to return to the old system previous to 1893.
Superannuation-extra allowance to Mr. Wallace, expostmaster at Victoria, B.C., $240.


Andrew B. Ingram: How does this come ?


William Stevens Fielding: That is an old allowance that has been there for yea'rs. I think he was postmaster before confederation.


Andrew B. Ingram: And did not get the allowance he was properly entitled to.


William Stevens Fielding: It has been voted year after year, and I do not think I ever heard a question asked about it before.
Militia and Defence-chargeable to income- clothing, $100,000.


Mr. SPROULE.: That is an increase. 1 think that had better be allowed to stand.


William Stevens Fielding: Stand.
iirants to rifle and other associations, $45,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is there any list of the Clubs who receive these grants ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Yes, I have the list. While I am on my feet, I desire to say, with regard to the item for military clothing, that there is another item in the supplementary estimates, and perhaps this one that has just been allowed to stand could be passed with the understanding that anything that hon. gentlemen wish to discuss can be discussed, on the other item. And I would have the same understanding with my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) with regard to this vote for rifle associations. I will get the information he desires.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Campbell: Carried.
Dominion arsenal, $150,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice an item in the newspapers to the effect that there is going to be another arsenal established at head-266i
quarters at Ottawa and also probably one in the West


Frederick William Borden: I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) about that in a word. Nothing has been absolutely decided upon. But there is an English firm largely engaged in business of this kind which is disposed to establish at or near Ottawa a cartridge factory and also a powder factory. The department is not disposed to agree to any contract for the manufacture of cartridges unless the same company will undertake also to manufacture explosives, and there seems to be a strong probability that the company will he ready to undertake both. The capacity of the cartridge factory would be about 20,000,000 rounds per annum, and the company would expect the government to undertake to purchase a certain minimum quantity-of course nothing like 20,000,000, perhaps 5,000,000 or 10,000,000 rounds per year, and to take a certain number of tons of explosives that would be required for our own cartridge factory at Quebec, and any other explosives that might be required. There would be a contract made with this company to take a minimum quantity. The capacity of the company to manufacture wrnujd be considerably above, probably about double the quantity that the government would agree to purchase.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I understand it is the settled policy of the government to establish a factory ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.
Salary of superintendent of insurance, $4,000.


William Stevens Fielding: The business is all the time increasing. The expenses are paid by the insurance oflices; it is not a charge on the treasury.
Expenses in connection with the Canada Temperance Act, $500.


William Stevens Fielding: If there should be an election at any time under the Canada Temperance Act, we would want a little money to pay the cost.
Unforeseen expenses, expenditure thereof to be under Order in Council, $30,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase of 810,000.


William Stevens Fielding: The amount has stood at $20,000 for a long time. My hon. friend *will see that with the general growth of business it is a very small sum to have at the disposal of the government. I think the expenditure last year was much Jess ; but at any moment some unexpected thing might turn up, and it would be prudent to have a vote of that character ready.
Some resolutions reported.
I


MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) delivered two messages from His Excellency tlie Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the messages as follows :
Minto.
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons further supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion'for the fiscal year 1903-4, and, in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act,. 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, 25th July, 1904.
Minto.
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons further supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending 30th June, 1905, and, in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1S67, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, 25th July, 1904.
Mr. FIELDING moved that the messages of His Excellency, together with the estimates, be referred to the Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will take up the resolution of my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue respecting tobacco, then we 'will take up the resolution of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture regarding the contagious diseases of animals, and probably the resolution respecting the bounty on petroleum. When we deal with these three, if we find that we have any further time we will be at liberty to take any of the orders that are standing on the order paper at this stage of the session.


George Taylor: Would it not be wise to allow the proposed legislation of the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue to stand over V I have a letter to-night stating that a deputation from Kingston wish to come down and interview the minister, and I thought I could wire them upon the morning before the day on which the Bill is coming up.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think we might take up the resolution to-morrow and we will not dispose of the Bill until the day after Mr. FIELDING.
to-morrow. I will be very pleased to hear what the deputation have to say.


George Taylor: It would be a waste of time to take any proceedings until you hear the deputation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have had some representations on the subject, and I am bound to say that I do not think it would be possible to delay further consideration of this resolution. We will take it up to-morrow, and take the Bill afterwards.


George Taylor: As we will have another session in a few months, I think you had better allow it to stand. It will raise a whole day's discussion, and it will prevent prorogation until some day next week if we go on.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The question will raise some discussion, but if we are going to prorogue on Saturday even next week, we must take the resolution as soon as possible.


William Stevens Fielding: AVe had better go on to-morrow, and we will see how the thing develops.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.20 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 4, 1904.