1904-08-02

BILL WITHDRAWN.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 145) to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, 1903.-Hon. Sydney Fisher.

Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue) moved :: That the House do to-morrow go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :-
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Inland Revenue Act, In providing that :
(2.)Any license authorized by this Act may be cancelled in any case where a person who, being a manufacturer of any class of goods subject to a duty of excise, either directly or indirectly-
(a.) makes a sale of any such goods to a person who sells or intends to sell goods of that class in connection with his own business, subject to the condition that the^ purchaser shall not sell or deal in goods of a like kind produced by, or obtained or to be obtained, from any other manufacturer or dealer ; or
(b.) makes such sale upon terms that would in their application deprive the purchaser of any profit upon the sale of such goods, if they should so sell or deal ; or	,
(c.) consigns any such goods to another person for sale upon commission, upon such terms that the consignee can profit by such sale only if he does not sell or deal in goods of a like kind, manufactured by, or obtained, or to be obtained, from any other manufacturer or dealer.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 148) to amend the Dominion Elections Act of 1900.-Mr. Fitzpatrick.	;
i On section 1-proclamation by returning offcer.
Hon. CHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: I beg leave to move tbat the words ' the east riding of Algoma, in the province

of Ontario,' be struck out. There will then be no reference at all to Ontario.


Mr. MONK.: I understand that in the counties of Gaspe and Chicoutimi and Saguenay elections are not to be held on the same day as in other counties.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no change with respect to Quebec at all. We leave the law as it is, that is, it is optional with the returning officer to have the election on the same day or to defer it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Our provincial elections are held on the same day all over the province. I am not quite sure as to Chicoutimi and Saguenay ; but in the county of Gaspe provision is made for communication by telegraph between the Magdalen islands and the mainland. The means of communication are better than they were formerly, and if it is possible under the provincial law to hold the elections on the same day, it seems to me that it is equally possible under the federal law.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The conditions are not at all the same. The electoral district of Gasp6 under the provincial law does not include the Magdalen islands. They are a separate district, as are also the counties of Chicoutimi and Saguenay. There are four counties instead of two. Any one who knows the geographical conditions in the province of Quebec knows that in winter time it is absolutely impossible to hold the elections in Chicoutimi and Saguenay on the same day as in the other districts. It is impossible witbiu the eight days after the nomination to deliver the ballot boxes and papers from Tadousac to the straits of Belle Isle, a distance of GOO miles.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do uot think my hon. friend is right as to the extent of the territory. I understand that between the Magdalen islands and the mainland there is provision in the provincial law that the proclamation may be sent by telegraph.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: With regard to the districts in British Columbia, I understand that the general elections of 1896 in Yale and Cariboo were held at the same time as in other parts of the Dominion. Does the Minister of Justice know whether that is the case or not ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My information is to the effect that in summer it is quite possible to hold the elections in those localities at the same time as in others, but that in winter it is a physical impossibility. It must be borne in mind that this is all discretionary with the returning officer. If the conveniences are such as to enable him to hold the election on the same day as in other districts, there is no reason why he should not do it ; but if tbe elections take place in winter, we ought not, by any Act
of ours to deprive any important portion of the community of the right to vote.


Robert Laird Borden: What does my hon. friend think is the difficulty in the way of holding the elections ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The ballot boxes are in the possession of the returning officer on nomination day, and he has to distribute them and the ballot papers in the eight days between nomination day and the day of voting.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the observations of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice are hardly pertinent. The only difficulty I can see is about the posting up of the proclamation. I do not think the polling box comes into it at all.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Why ?


Robert Laird Borden: Because section 29 says :
In the electoral districts of Algoma, in the province of Ontario, of Gaspg and Chicoutimi and Saguenay, in the province of Quebec, and of Burrard and Yale and Cariboo, in the province of British Columbia, the returning officers shall fix the day for the nomination of candidates, and also the day and places for holding the polls ; the nomination in the said electoral districts shall take place not less than eight days after the proclamation hereinbefore required has been posted up,-neither the last day of posting it up nor the day of nomination being reckoned ; and the day for holding the polls shall be at as early a date thereafter as possible, but not less than than seven days after nomination, and at a general election it shall, if possible, be the same day as that fixed by the Governor General for the other electoral districts, but not sooner.
Is not the whole difficulty with the distribution of the proclamation ? You go on apparently the same as in other constituencies, with some discretion, I admit, allowed the returning officer. If an election in Yale and Cariboo was held in 1896 at the same time as in other parts of the Domiuion, surely we may conclude that the same thing can be done again. Tbe very argument wliick the Minister of Justice used in answer to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is a strong argument in favour of my contention now. Importance is attached by the minister to the fact that in the provincial election one of these counties is divided. Well, Yale and Cariboo are divided into two districts. If that is an important circumstance in connection with Gaspe or Chicoutimi or Saguenay, it is equally important in British Columbia. In other words, if you could hold in November, 1896, a general election for the whole of this enormous riding at the same time as in the other constituencies, is there any possible reason, when that huge constituency is divided into two, why you could not hold elections in the two subdivided ridings on the same day as in the rest of Canada, more

especially as to-day the means of communication are considerably better than they were eight years ago ? The memorandum I have before me says that since that date further transportation, facilities, such as the Crow's Nest Pass Railway and steamboat communication, have been introduced.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: Just to set the leader of the opposition right, let me tell him that the constituency to-day is quite different from what it was in 1890, even although it has been divided. In 1896 it did not take in these outlying points. Many mining camps have sprung up throughout the district, many miles beyond the limits of Yale and Cariboo, since the election of 1896. In 1900 the elections were not held on the same day, but the constituency has been divided. I am well conversant with the riding, and I know that if the elections are held at any time when the weather is unfavourable, it will be impossible to get the ballot bdxes into a number of the districts on time. Possibly the most central point will -be Kamloops. It will be impossible to get the ballot box into the Chilicoten country and the Stuart lake country if the weather is at all unfavourable. Drive from Kamloops to BarkerviUe, and even under the most favourable conditions, it would take a week to reach there from nomination day until polling day. Then again in the eastern portion of the country and north of the Revelstoke country, It would be physically impossible to do the work in Yale and Cariboo in seven or eight days. I have driven through the country and know it fairly well, and the fact is this, that if you have very good weather you might get through in time, but with unfavourable weather that would be impossible.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, you may have weather in any part of the country which may prevent a number of people from voting. That applies to every constituency in Canada. I dare say there have been hundreds of voters prevented by the weather all over Canada from depositing their ballots, but you cannot alter the law to meet every individual case ; and what I am suggesting is that Yale and Cariboo, divided as it is and enjoying better means of communication, is just as capable of having an election held on the same day as many other constituencies in Canada. I do not see how it-possibly can be otherwise. It is divided in two and you have better means of communication. When you give all possible importance to the fact that fresh settlements have sprung up, can you possibly say that the conditions are not in these as good at present as they were for the whole riding in 1896 ?


Robert George Macpherson: No better. The same communication exists to-day as existed forty years ago in the different parts of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: These are the means they had in 1896 ?


Robert George Macpherson: But the settlements did not then go nearly so far back.


Robert Laird Borden: They generally have means of communication where there are settlements. If there were means of communication forty years old, that indicates that there have been settlements there for forty years.


Robert George Macpherson: I said that the communication now is no better than it was forty years ago. It is just as good as in 1896, but the settlements go further. There is no better means of communication than horses to-day and pack trains.


Robert Laird Borden: There are places forty years old in that riding to which there has been the same communication as forty-years ago, by means of roads. I suppose the new settlements have good means of communication now ?


Robert George Macpherson: They have pack trails.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a means of communication to which the hon. gentleman has already referred. These are used a good deal in the western country for the conveyance of freight. What is the great difficulty in getting a ballot box from some central point to every outlying place in the district in three or four days ?


Robert George Macpherson: It cannot be done.


Robert Laird Borden: You have seven days.


Robert George Macpherson: You cannot do it in seven days.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The condition of things amply justifies legislation. And my -present information is that there has been no change in the conditions which would justify any departure from the law as we have it.


Mr. ALCORN.: Referring to all the constituencies in which it is proposed to postpone the election, it has always appeared to me that the objection with regard to posting proclamations before the nomination and notices afterwards, and the distribution of ballot boxes, is one that has very little merit. It is a mere matter of placing that work in the hands of a sufficient number of men. It is true that, as a matter of practice, the returning officer for the sake of earning the extra mileage connected with the posting up of these documents does the work personally or with tho assistance of one deputy. If he employed three or four, or half a dozen men, surely, in any of these constituencies, the work could be done in eight days. Therefore, I do not see that there is any force in the objection as to these outlying districts. I fancy that, if the plan were adopted of em-

ploying a large number of men, if the returning officer did not insist in earning all the mileage himself, the difficulty would disappear.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I have said on a previous occasion practically all that I have to say on this subject. I only now repeat that my desire is that all the people in the constituency which I now represent and which has been divided and which will hereafter return two members, will in the next election, however remote they may be from railway travel have an opportunity to vote. As representative of that district I do not propose to take the risk, by being compelled to have the elections seven days after the nomination, of having some person deprived of the opportunity to vote. Without going into the matter further, this is my reason and my only reason for the course I have advocated.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 3-nomination and polling days in certain districts,


Robert Laird Borden: Before this is carried, I would ask the Minister of Justice whether he has come to any conclusion about two Bills introduced by the hon member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) one with regard to the Northwest Territories Representation Act and the other with regard to the Yukon Territory Representation Act. That hon. gentleman pointed out that grave abuses existed under the law as it is at present, and proposed what seem to me very moderate and reasonable amendments. And there was an arrangement, if I remember rightly that there should be*an opportunity of discussing them.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think the arrangement was that we should allow these Bills to stand over in the expectation that something might be done in the way of legislation proposed by the government. The Bill was prepared, but, by the time I was ready to introduce it, the session had so far advanced that I thought it better to drop it for this session.


George Oscar Alcorn: With regard to section 29 and the amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice, it seems to me extremely desirable-and I believe that no one will gainsay the desirability-that elections throughout Canada should be held on the same day. And it appears to me that, under existing circumstances, there is no practical difficulty in the way of attaining that object. The work to be done by the returning officer we are more or less familiar with. His duties are set forth in the statute, the principal being the posting up of the proclamation before the nomination and posting up in the same places afterwards his notice of the holding of the poll. His other duties are clerical and occupy
practically no time. We are all aware that, although the statute speaks of a large number of particulars with which he has to acquaint himself for the purpose of issuing his proclamation, yet in practice, the returning officer merely obtains a copy of the last proclamation, provincial or Dominion, and from that he can in a short time possess himself of all the knowledge necessary to issue the proclamation. As I observed, if, instead of posting up these proclamations and notices himself, he will employ a sufficient number of men he can have the documents posted within the prescribed time. For the purpose of obviating any difficulty of that kind in the excepted ridings, I have drawn up an amendment to section 29 which I will take the liberty of moving. I think this amendment ought to commend itself to the Minister of Justice and to the House, for it seems to me it obviates any difficulty which can reasonably be assigned to holding the elections throughout Canada on the same day. The statute as it stands provides that the Governor in Council fixes the day of nomination in all the constituencies except those named in that section, and also the date of polling. By section 29, the returning officers fix the date of nomination and polling in the excepted ridings. I propose to do away with that by providing that both these dates shall be fixed by the Governor General, but that the time between the holding of the nomination and the polling shall be enlarged in the case of the excepted ridings. The usual practice, I understand, is to allow thirty days between the issuing of the writs of election and the polling day. I propose practically to cut that time in two and allow half of it before the nomination and the other half after it. Thus, instead of allowing seven or eight days-it is seven in reality-as now, for the returning officer to do his work after nomination, I would allow fourteen days on each side of that date. I move that clause 3 be struck out and the following substituted :
In the electoral districts of Gaspe, and Chicoutimi and Saguenay, in the province of Quebec ; and of COmox-Atlin, Kootenay and Yale-Cariboo, in the province of British Columbia ; the day for the nomination of candidates so to be fixed by the Governor General and named in the writ of election, shall not be less than fourteen clear days next before the day also so fixed and named for holding the polls, and the day for holding the polls shall be the same day throughout Canada.
Amendment (Mr. Alcorn) negatived.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not gather exactly what the view of the government is with regard to these amendments. As X said before, they seem to be very moderate. For example, in the Northwest Territories this provision with regard to the enumerator names a time within which the electors may conveniently find him. He is to be

present at a certain place for two consecutive hours in every day of eight days preceding the election for the purpose of enabling them to apply for certificates. The certificates referred to are certificates of the authority referred to act as agent. The difficulty that has arisen is that these have been used, as I am informed, for the purpose of enabling personation to be carried on. It is merely desired that those safeguards that seem to me reasonable shall be adopted in order that personation shall not be carried on, and that the persons representing both candidates shall have an equal opportunity of applying for these certificates.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Perhaps if my hon. friend will renew his question to-morrow morning at eleven o'clock, in the interval I will endeavour to look over the Bill and see what can be done.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps in the meantime the hon. gentleman will look over both Bills, Nos. 117 and 118.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In regard to the province of Quebec, the Minister of Justice said there were four counties out of which he constitutes two counties for federal purposes. Is he quite sure of that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As I read the last election Jaw of Quebec, Gasp6 and the Magdalen Islands form two separate constituencies, but Chicoutimi and Saguenay are one constituency. It has been suggested to me from the district of Quebec, by people who are more competent than I am and perhaps as competent as my hon. friend and as conversant with the geography of that interesting district, that it is not at all impossible to have the elections at the same time in those two large constituencies if authority were given by statute to the returning officer to make his proclamation and to obtain the results of the election by telegraph.


Charles Fitzpatrick: How would he send his ballot boxes ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: He can do that before. The objection pointed out to me was made on behalf of the Magdalen Islands, and my hon. friend will understand it. We have communication with the north shore of the St. Lawrence, and in the Magdalen Islands we have communication by telegraph. But the peculiarity of the Magdalen Islands is that it is impossible to cross over to them between the 15th of December and the 20th of May, and provision has to be made for such a contingency. The consequence is, for instance, that if we had an election this fall, as some people insinuate we may have, the Magdalen Islands in the county of Gaspe would not be represented in the next session of this parliament until after the 20th of May. "


Robert Laird Borden: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: It may not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It might not be, as my hon. friend says, and possibly it might be. But what was represented to me by my friends in the district of Quebec was that such a regrettable want of representation might be obviated by giving the returning officer power in those districts to act by means of telegraphic communication.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That suggestion must have come from Quebec, and not elsewhere.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The representation I am making on behalf of these people is a serious one. There is no doubt that an amendment could easily be made giving him that power. There would be then no possible contingency in which the county of GaspS would not have its duly elected representative, even between the period from the loth of December and the 20th of May. I am not prepared with an amendment, but my hon. friend I think could easily prepare one which would enable .us to have the elections in the province of Quebec all over at the same time.


Mr. CHARLES MARCIL.: I undertook a few moments ago to give some explanations in regard to the county of Gaspe, where I had the honour of being a candidate some eight years ago. The county of Gaspe in the summer time is much easier of access than it is in winter. In summer we have navigation on both shores, we have navigation also to the Magdalen Islands ; but in the winter time this disappears entirely ; and we have no railways. The first parish in the "county of Gaspe is forty miles from the nearest railroad station, and the mainland is 320 miles long. There used to be in the old Election Act a provision as regards the Magdalen Islands that if the election was held in the winter time the proclamation could be cabled over to the islands and the deputy returning officer on the island was authorized to prepare with a pen the proclamation necessary to bring on that election and the ballots as well. The first difficulty that would exist between the nomination and the voting would be this, 111 at as soon as the candidates are nominated the returning officer must go to Quebec or send to Quebec to have the ballots printed as there is no French printing office nearer than Quebec.
There may be a local printing office in Rimouski and perhaps another at' Rivi&re du Loup but generally the ballots are printed at Quebec. Before the ballots are returned to Perce there is generally a lapse of three or four days. Then the returning officer must cover the whole area -of 320 miles which lies between Cap Chat and Newport. I had the pleasure of covering that district on snowshoes or rowing in an open boat in March of 1897. It took me eight

*weeks day after day to cover the county of Gaspe from end to end, and then I had the satisfaction of being beaten by six votes. My opponent at the time was the Prime Minister of the province and he had fixed one clear month between nomination and voting. Voting used to come one or two weeks after the nomination but in that year there was apparently a premonition that something would happen to the party in power-as it did happen-and instead of putting the voting later than the general voting, the voting was placed on the same day but the nomination was fixed one month earlier. There is no human possibility of holding an election in Gaspe between November and May unless you give the returning officer at least two weeks in which to send to Quebec to have his ballots printed and to distribute the ballots, and I am sure if you refer the matter to the returning officer himself he will place one month between nomination and voting. As far as the islands are concerned, I believe the old provision exists that you can wire over the proclamation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I find there is already a provision in the Elections Act of 1900 section 151, that information of the result of the voting may be made by telegraphic communication between Chicoutimi and Saguenay and Gaspe, and that after obtaining such information by telegraph the returning officer may make his proclamation. As he is allowed to make his proclamation' by telegraph I do not see that there is very much difficulty. Of course the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) knows more about the district than I do, although I still maintain that I know as much as the Minister of Justice, but as regards the time that must elapse between nomination and voting my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) is mistaken, because according to the last Quebec electoral law, the law of 1903, as I read section 7, the voting must take place eight days after nomination. There remains the questions of printing of the ballots.


Charles Marcil: The whole year around or only in the summer time ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The whole year except in the Magdalen Islands. No election can take place in the Magdalen Islands between December 15 and May 20 but if telegraphic communication can be legalized by statute of course that can be obviated.
There remains the important questions of the printing of the ballots which of course can be easily overcome if there is a printing press in the Magdalen Islands. As that locality is progressive there may be one before long, and in the provincial statutes it is provided that the elections shall take place as indicated under section 97 if possible. Those two words could be introduced into the Federal Act with the amendment I have suggested, and as soon as the difficulty of printing the ballots could be obviated then the elections could be held all over at the same time.


Charles Marcil: The best way to deal with Gaspe is to leave the matter open and let the returning officer be the judge. Circumstances vary with the season. In the summer you can cover the whole district easily, but from November until May it is difficult. The maritime road on the south shore is sometimes closed in winter and it is impossible to cover the distance in four days from Cap Chat to Cap Gaspe ; you must send to Quebec to get the ballots printed. It is not the distribution of the boxes, as this might be done days before. You have to wire the names of the candidates to Quebec, and have the ballots printed, brought to Gaspe and then have them taken to the different subdivisions by horse or sled or dog train, on the south shore. It is impossible to cover that great area in eight days;


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The means of communication are increasing every day and with such a very able representative as my hon. friend the district should be able to secure good communication. I am afraid my hon. friend conceived a gloomy impression of the peninsula in 1897.


Charles Marcil: I must admit that the communications in the summer time are improved, but I am sorry the Solicitor General is not present. He would point out that we have now a splendid steamship service on the south side, which we had not in 1897 and we also have a service on the Bay de Chaleurs side. Then we have 100 miles of railway in Bonaventure county and that is being extended, but all these while they are good in the summer, but we have only the railway in the winter.


George Oscar Alcorn: I am very glad indeed to hear the hon. member for Bonaventure state that fourteen days was sufficient time to allow between nomination and polling.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.



FISHERIES ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 74) to amend the Dominion Fisheries Act (Mr. Prefontaine) was read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
1. The * Fisheries Act,' chapter 95 of the Revised Statutes, is amended by inserting the following section immediately after section 6:-
' 6o. No one shall, at any time, engage in the manufacture from whales of oil or other commercial product, and no vessel or boat shall be employed in the whale fishery, except under license from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, under a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and not less than three hundred dollars.
[Stage Direction]
" 2. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries may issue licenses under this section, for a period in each case not exceeding nine years, under the following conditions:-
*	(a.) No license shall issue until the site of the factory has been approved by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and no site shall be approved within fifty miles of any other whale factory, < or in such proximity to any inhabited place or places as, in the opinion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, may cause any danger or detriment to the public health;
' (6.) No license shall be issued until the applicant therefor has given assurances to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, of a satisfactory nature, that he (the applicant) is in a position to convert any whale captured into commercial products within twenty-four hours of the landing of such whale, and that he is also in a position to conduct his whale factory and business in such a manner that no noxious or deleterious matter will be introduced into any public waters, bays, creeks, rivers or harbours.
' 3. The holder of any such license shall not operate more than one whaling steamer in connection with the whale factory under license.
' 4. The license shall become void and forfeited unless the factory named therein is erected, equipped and working within two years from the date of the issue of the license.
' 5. The fee charged on each such license shall be eight hundred dollars for the first year, one thousand dollars for the second year, and twelve hundred dollars for the third and each ensuing year, and the fee on all subsequent licenses for the same factory shall be twelve hundred dollars; such fee shall be payable to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, first on the issue of the license, and on the first day of July in each year thereafter: Provided that the Governor in Council, after the first two years, may exact, in lieu of such fee, a sum equal to two per cent of the gross earnings of each factory, which shall be payable as aforesaid.
' 6. Every license, upon cause shown, after one month's notice in writing to the licensee, shall be liable to forfeiture for any infraction of this section, or any regulation under it, or for failure to fulfil and carry out the assurances required under paragraph (&) of subsection 2 of this section; and in the case of forfeiture, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may, without any suit or other proceedings at law, and without compensation, cancel the license.
*	7- The Governor in Council may, from time to time, make such regulations as to him seem necessary for carrying out and enforcing any of the provisions of this section, and for controlling and regulating the manufactures carried on in the licensed factories, and the disposal of all refuse therefrom.
' 8. Boats known as ' tow-boats ' shall not be used by any one in the prosecution of the whaling industry, and no vessel other than the vessel from which the whales have been captured or killed, shall, by any method or contrivance, bring or tow into port any whale for manufacture or other purpose; but nothing in this section shall prevent any one, other than the holder of a license, or his employees, from towing any dead whale to land, ajid having it manufactured or otherwise disposing of it in accordance with the provisions of this section.
George Oscar Alcorn: *	9. No one shall pursue, capture, shoot or kill any whale within the distance of one-half nautical mile of any vessel or boat not at anchor or engaged in any kind of fishing, or within one nautical mile of any vessel or boat at anchor or engaged in any kind of fishing.
' 10. No one shall have in his possession, or use in the catching or killing of whales, any contrivance which does not include a harpoon, with a whaling line attached thereto, fixed or fastened to the boat or vessel from which the whale is captured or killed.
*	11. Every one who violates any provision of this section, or of the regulations made hereunder, for which violation no penalty is herein specially provided, shall be liable to a fine exceeding two hundred dollars, and not less than fifty dollars.
' 12. All machinery and apparatus, and all vessels and boats, and their tackle, apparel and furniture, used in violation of this section, or of any regulation made hereunder, shall be confiscated to His Majesty.-Mr. Prefontaine.


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: Up to the present we have had no regulations with regard to our whale fishery, which has of late years become an important industry on the Atlantic coast and which we hope will also become important on the Pacific coast. In the United States there are no laws regulating the whale fishery, but there are laws in Newfoundland which have proven very satisfactory, and which have helped a good deal to develop the industry in that colony. We have copied the Newfoundland law almost word for word. [DOT] In Scotland there are laws bearing on the subject and these were amended at the last session of the British parliament, also in the direction of the Newfoundland laws. By this Bill we intend to regulate the whale fishery so that it may be carried on under such supervision as will prevent it from being a menace and nuisance to other fishing industries. The locations will be secured from private individuals, or from the Crown, or from the provincial authorities, but it is provided that no vessel will be licensed to fish within fifty miles of another location. It is also provided that the license shall issue for the one whaling boat so that four or five tugs cannot be employed on the same location, which might tend to create a monopoly of the industry and cause a nuisance by the carcasses of the animals not being properly disposed of after the oil and other valuable parts are secured.


Mr. HAGGART.: Does this apply to Hudson bay ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: To all Canadian waters.


John Graham Haggart: You claim Hudson bay exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Dominion as Canadian waters ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is some question between us and the government of

Newfoundland on that point. We have received from Quebec twenty-two applications; from Nova Scotia, seventeen ; from New Brunswick, one ; from British Columbia, eleven. We have received no applications for whaling privileges in Hudson bay.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Of course any controversy there is as to the jurisdiction over Hudson bay is between the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland. There is no question at all as to British jurisdiction.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: None at all. There are some parts of Hudson bay about which there is correspondence at the present time with the Newfoundland government, but as regards Hudson bay proper, there is no doubt at all that it is under Canadian jurisdiction.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Quite so.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The following amendment has been suggested, after the words 'nine years' in the section:
Provided always that the licensee shall be entitled to have the said license renewed from time to time for periods of nine years, upon giving six month's notice thereof in writing previous to the determination of each period.
Those engaging in the industry may have to spend $50,000 and more, so that if they were exposed to have their licenses taken away without cause after nine years, it would be a bar to their engaging in the industry.


Mr. CLANCY.: I see that $1,200 is the maximum license fee and although the industry might be found to be very profitable, you do not provide for charging a higher fee on the renewing of the license.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is a provision in subsection 5 :
Provided that the Governor in Council, after the first two years, may exact, in lieu of such fee, a sum equal to 2 per cent of the gross earnings of each factory.
This will amount to a very much larger sum than $1,200.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Graham Haggart: How are these licenses to be awarded-by priority of application upon the conditions being performed by the applicant?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Priority is always taken into consideration.


John Graham Haggart: Does the minister understand the effect of the other amendment? Is the renewal of the license forever, in periods of nine years, upon the performance of the conditions ? The renewal should be optional with the government, and the government should be able to change the regulations and conditions.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We might change the word ' shall ' to ' may.'
Mr. GOURLE1. I think the Act should go further. If a man invests a large amount of capital in the industry, it should not be discretionary with the government to renew the license or not.


Mr. MORRISON.: It seems to me that the hon. member for Colchester has struck the exact point which the minister intended in the first amendment ; that is, when a licensee invests all the way from $00,000 to $100,000, it is only fair that he should have some claim to a renewal of his license after a period of nine years. Under the remarks of the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), that claim would be taken away, anil the government might arbitrarily refuse to renew the license, and the man's whole investment might be swept away.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I agree with the hon. gentleman. I think the party who has invested his money should have a choice.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I would like the committee to remark also that by the provision of section 5 the government is well protected because there it is provided that the Governor in Council after the first two years may exact, in lieu of such fee, a sum equal to two per cent of the gross earnings of each factory, which shall be payable as aforesaid. If the industry proves very important and increasing, we can apply section 5.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think you will really deter people from going into the industry if you only give them nine years.


John Graham Haggart: Under the clause as the minister proposes, it is a lease in perpetuity, renewable every nine years, upon the party performing the conditions. The remedy which the minister says he has under clause 5 is no remedy against the individual at all. The remedy must apply' to all the parties who will fish under these regulations. It must be a general regulation.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If these words were out, you would put this industry entirely in the hands of the Governor in Council without taking into consideration at all what has been the investment, and that might deter capitalists from investing at all in the industry.


James Clancy: I suppose the assumption is that the Governor in. Council will exercise its power. Or does the hon. gentleman propose to give up that power and give a lease in perpetuity ? The committee will assume that at the end of each period the government may take such action as will be just to those engaged in the industry and in the interests of the country. To give a lease in perpetuity would be to give up absolutely that power which ought to reside In the hands of the executive.

Mr. PREFONTAINE moved the following amendment :-
Provided always that the Governor In Council may from time to time renew such license for periods of nine years upon giving six months' notice thereof in writing.


John Graham Haggart: That makes the Governor in Council give the notice.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The intention is that the licensee shall give it.
Mr. FITZPATRICK!. Better let that stand and we will make it right at another stage.
On section 2,
Subsection 7 of section 14 of the said Act is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor: -
7. No one shall use a bag-net, trap-net,, pound-net or fish-weir of any kind for capturing fish, without a special license from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ; and no such license shall extend to the capturing of salmon by such means : Provided that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may grant licenses for the capture of salmon in specified waters in the province of British Columbia by the use of trap-nets.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Chapter 95, 49 Yictoria (Consolidated Statutes) section 14, subsection 7, says :
No one shall use any bag-net, trap-net or fish pound, except under a special license granted for capturing deep-sea fish other than salmon.
This question has been debated a great deal amongst the people of British Columbia.


Mr. KAULBACH.: Is that confined strictly to British Columbia waters ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. We are seeking to amend this section to provide for the installation of trap-nets legally under the Fisheries Act, in order to be in a position to compete with the Americans who have been using the same kind of apparatus to catch the salmon for the last seven or eight years, to the great detriment of those interested in the canneries and fisheries of British Columbia as has been strongly urged by their representatives. These trap-nets are already in existence in the northern part of British Columbia under permission granted, I think, ten or twelve years ago. The same question came up at that time, and, from the information I have gathered, the fishermen in British Columbia are divided as to the use of trap-nets, one section wishing to have them allowed and the other section opposing tneir use. While this question was pending, the then Minister of B'ish-eries, being under the impression that the question would be settled so as to allow trap-nets, allowed parties to construct and use trap-nets. And, when the law was introduced, this party threatened to make a claim against the government of Canada for a very large amount. Under the circumstances,


James Clancy: it was thought proper to allow this man to iun these nets till the lumber used in the construction of them should be destroyed by time. But the party is still fishing with these trap-nets. It is stated that this does not interfere with the fishermen of the Fraser River. It is a very important question in British Columbia, and there is a good deal of divergence of opinion as regards the use of these trap-nets, but the majority of the people seem now to be in favour of the use of these nets, that is why this legislation is being introduced.


John Graham Haggart: What has been the effect of the fishing there ? Are the fish diminishing ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It cannot be said that they are diminishing. It takes about four years for a salmon to grow into condition to be used in the canneries. The extraordinary fact has been observed that it is only once in four years that the fishing is really good. This year, it is expected, It will be less than in any other of this quadrennial period. Next year, being the fourth year, it is expected that the fish will come in large quantities. Different suggestions have been made of improvements being adopted to increase the number of the fish, and I think we have about arrived at the point where we shall be able to act jointly with the provincial authorities and be able to adopt means which will put this great industry of British Columbia on a proper footing, not only for one year in four, but for every year.


John Graham Haggart: How long does this license last ?


Mr.   P R E F O X T AIN E.@: It is renewed
every year. I should explain that these trap-nets are very costly. There are different arguments in favour of them, but the best is that if, say 20,000 salmon are caught In trap-nets and the owner of the nets is not able to either sell them or pack them within a certain time, they can be set free without injury, to be caught by somebody else, whilst, with the other apparatus, every salmon that is caught must be canned or else it is lost.


Mr. WM. ROSS (Yictoria).: Is there not danger, in using trap-nets, of reducing the catch of salmon, so that ultimately the salmon fishery will be destroyed ? We in Nova Scotia set trap-nets for herring, mackerel, cod-fish, haddock and so on, but if a salmon happens to get into the net it must be set free again. If the fisherman is greedy enough to sell that salmon, his license will be taken away from him. Under these circumstances, only a few can be taken. What I fear is that the wholesale way of catching salmon in British Columbia will greatly injure or destroy the fisheries.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I regret very much indeed the policy adopted by the Minister of

Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine) concerning the salmon fishery in British Columbia. With all due deference to him and his predecessors, my opinion is-and it is backed by statistics and the results of scientific research-that the catching of salmon in trap-nets is utterly indefensible. I am sure that the minister has not in his department any evidence that would reasonably justify the course which he is adopting in this instance. The commissioner of fisheries, in roy opinion, is responsible for this grave step on the part of the government. I do not wish to shift the responsibility from the shoulders of the minister, but I know that the practical working out of these matters in the department hinges very largely on the advice of the commissioner of fisheries. Now. the commissioner, in my opinion, knows practically nothing about the requirements of the fisheries in British Columbia. That he knows very little is evidenced by his reports and his advice as to the habits of the salmon in British Columbia. He knows very little indeed,-taking the same means of arriving at a conclusion as to what he does know-he knows very little indeed as to the views of the fishermen as a whole in the province of British Columbia with respect to this important industry. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who has never been in British Columbia in his capacity as a minister, has stated that the majority of the people in British Columbia engaged in the fishing industry are in favour of this method of fishing. That is not the fact. The minister has evidently been so advised by the commissioner who has on several occasions gone to the province, and, in my opinion has bungled the thing in every instance, advising the minister wrongly, and, in consequence of the advice of the commissioner of fisheries, and perhaps other officials, the government have taken-this erroneous step. So far as the fishermen in the province of British Columbia are concerned, I venture to say there is not a man of them who is not opposed to trap-net fishing. The people who want to install these traps and who have succeeded to a limited extent in getting them installed, are 1he capitalists in Montreal and Toronto. Mr. Porteous of Montreal, Mr. Cronyn and Mr. Aemilius Irving of Toronto, who are controlling the British Columbia Packing Association, men who are engaged in salmon fishing in British Columbia, but who know nothing about it personally, except to the extent of making dividends and profits out of it, and exploiting this important industry to its ultimate ruin.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Bloated capitalists.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: No, I am not going to talk about bloated capitalists at all. I think we ought to encourage capital, and if there is one province in the Dominion of Canada which requires capital more than another,
it is British Columbia. But there is such a thing as getting capital at too great a cost, and in this case that is so. I do not wish to detain the House further in expressing my strong objection to this clause, and I move that all the words after ' means ' in the 49th line be struck out of subsection 2.


John Graham Haggart: The minister will agree to that.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: I urge that there is not sufficient evidence before the minister to justify him in making such an important amendment to the fishery laws as this clause involves. What I have been urging for a long time upon the minister is that he should visit the province himself and investigate matters before he adopts this legislation.


John Graham Haggart: The minister says he wants to make the present law so that it can be enforced.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: No, he has granted licenses to several people to fish by this trap method. I cannot understand by what authority he has done so. There is Mr. Todd of Victoria, for instance, who got a trap license, and he is to-day fishing salmon with a trap-net.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: I would like to state that the reason why the practice of trap fishing was initiated by the minister was due to the fact that for many years fishing by traps has been very extensively carried on on the sound. If there is anything in the argument at all, it is that the waters are likely to be depleted by the practice of trap fishing. As a matter of fact traps are extensively used on the American side of the Sound at the present time. The great object in adopting the practice of fishing by traps on the west coast of Vancouver Island is to meet the practice of fishing by traps that is carried on on the American side at the present time. That is the object. Of course my hon. friend from Westminster (Mr. Morrison) very properly considers that this will interfere with the fishing industry, and in time will very materially affect the interests of Westminster. But the fact remains that at the present time an extensive method of trap fishing has been adopted and is in operation in the United States ; and if it is true that a depletion will take place by that method, it will equally take place if practiced by American fishermen. The only remedy, and it is a complete one, is to operate this method on both sides of the line, and if the result follows as has been stated, then parties on the other side will have just as much interest as we have in coming together to consider some other method of catching fish.


Mr. SPROULE.: After the fish are already caught.



COMMONS '8156

Ralph Smith: The fish are being caught by the Americans now, and whatever injury is being done, it is done to their advantage. If it is a good thing for them to catch fish by traps, it will not be a bad thing for us to catch fish by traps. If a remedy is sought to this destructive method of fishing. I think it will be brought about more quickly by adopting the same system.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.
Progress reported.



THE MILITIA ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 5) to amend the Militia Act.
Hon. DAVID TISDALE.: Before the motion is adopted I wish to move the amendment of which I have given notice. I may say that were it not for the importance of this measure and especially of the very drastic alterations introduced into the Bill by the minister, I would not detain the House at this time with any lengthened remarks. In order to bring the matter clearly before the House, and to permit of its being discussed without going beyond the record I shall read the amendment which I am about to propose which sets forth not only the alterations I propose but also the clauses in the Bill which I wish to strike out or amend. The motion reads as follows
That the said Bill be not read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole House with instructions to the committee to strike out section 7 of the said Act, which reads as follows : -
7. The Governor in Council may appoint a militia council to advise the minister on all matters relating to the militia, which are referred to the council by the minister. The composition, procedure and powers of the council shall be as prescribed.
And also to strike out section 30 of the said Act, which reads as follows :-
Section 30. There may be appointed an officer who shall hold rank not below that of a colonel in the militia or in His Majesty's regular army, who may be, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the minister, charged with the military command of the militia, and such officer shall have the rank of major-general in the militia, and shall be paid at such rate, not exceeding $6,000 per annum, as is prescribed ; and substitute therefor the following :-
30.	There shall be appointed an officer who holds the rank of colonel or rank superior thereto, in His Majesty's regular army, who shall be charged, under the orders of His Majesty, with the military command and discipline of the militia, and who, while he holds such appointment, shall have the rank of major-general In the militia, and shall be paid a salary at the rate of $-1,000 per annum, and any addition thereto in lieu of allowan-Mr. SPROULE.
ces, such sum, not exceeding $2,000 per annum, as is determined by the Governor in Council.	,
And also to strike out section 31 of the said Act, which reads as follows :-
31.	There may be appointed an officer who shall hold rank not below that of colonel in the militia or in His Majesty's regular army, who may be, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the minister, charged with the military inspection of the militia, and such officer shall be paid at such rate, not exceeding $6,000 per annum, as is prescribed.
And also to strike out section 32 of the said Act, which reads as follows :-
32.	The duties and authority of each of the officers respectively referred to in the two next preceding sections shall be defined by the Governor in Council.
And substitute therefor the following :-
32. The Governor in Council shall from time to time make such orders as are necessary respecting the duties to be performed by the officer commanding the militia, by the adjutant general, by the quartermaster general and by the officers of the militia generally.
Also to strike out section 36 of the said Act, which reads as follows :-
36. The Governor in Council may establish a general staff, headquarters staff, and district staff, and may appoint a chief of the general staff and such officers to the respective staffs as are deemed necessary, and shall define their duties and authority ; and substitute therefor the following : -
36. His Majesty may appoint staff officers of the militia with such rank as from time to time is found requisite or necessary for the efficiency of the militia service, and such staff officers shall have such rank and authority in the militia as are held relatively in His Majesty's service, and their duties shall be such as are, from time to time, prescribed, with power to the committee to make such other alterations, if any, as shall be necessary to bring the Act in accord with the above changes.
1 shall now briefly explain the nature of the amendments, and their application to these sections.
Section 7 which deals with formation of a militia council is a new section. I am asking to repeal that absolutely.
Section 30 is a new section, which differs from the corresponding section ii* the existing law in two respects. The new section provides that it shall be optional with the government whether such an officer is appointed or not, and secondly it provides that the officer shall act not only subject to the regulations, but ' under the direction of the minister.' Now these are both significant changes, and I shall remark on their nature and application later.
Section 31 provides for the appointment of an inspecting officer to the militia. As my motion will, if accented, restore the General Officer Commanding as under the existing law, i move to strike that out, believing that the general officer will he able to perform the inspection as well as his other duties as be has done in the past. Thus we will save the expenditure of $6,000 a year,

although we might prevent some lion, gentleman who is looking for a new position with a large salary at the country's expense from attaining his desire.
Section 32 which I ask to repeal, and for which I propose to substitute another clause, involves a very material change also. The present law vests in the Governor in Council power to make such ' orders as are necessary with respect to duties to be performed by the General Officer Commanding.' This new clause authorizes the Governor in Council to define the duties and authority of the General Officer Commanding. Under the present Militia Act the Orders in Council which are authorized to be made are only ' respecting the duties to be performed by the General Officer Commanding.' A most important difference and in my opinion is one of the greatest safeguards if properly carried out, against, the introduction of political influence into the the militia. The present law hands over to the General Officer Commauding the command and discipline of the militia. It authorizes the Governor in Council to make orders as to the performance of his power. The high court of parliament have passed upon that, and the Governor in Council cannot override the action of parliament for an Act of parliament is above an Order in Council.
There has been very general discussion on the law and regulations governing our militia system, and in view of the lateness of the session I shall not enter into a further discussion, but shall refer those who wish to understand the subject to the records of the House. When the Minister of Militia first introduced this Bill, he told us that he would defer the consideration of it until he could consult the home authorities. Well, he did consult the home authorities, but since that consultation -and since the introduction of this Bill this year very drastic changes have been made in it affecting the organization of our military system; changes far more important than those which the minister thought it well to consult the war officer about last year when he first introduced the Bill, and yet the hon. gentleman presses these charges this year after admitting yesterday that he had not consulted the Imperial authorities about them. Now as to the introduction of politics into the Canadian militia, it is admitted by the [DOT] best authorities in the colonies as well as in Great Britain, that a cardinal principle in the perfection of a military organization is the exclusion of politics in every shape and form. Let m'e state here that I never knew or heard of the slightest attempt to introduce politics in any manner whatever into the administration of the Militia Department during the long years of the Conservative regime. In order that this statement of mine may be endorsed, I quote from the ' Military Gazette ' ; the following extracts from speeches delivered on September 19th.
1899, at a banquet tendered by the Montreal Garrison at the Windsor Hotel to Sir Percy Girouard.
In reply to the toast of our guest, Sir Percy said:-
' Canada has as good a fighting machine as could be found in the world, but he would emphasize the fact that it should be free from political trammels. (Cheers.) The militia have perfect faith in their commanding officers, district officers commanding, and, above all, their general, who should rule with a perfectly free hand, which means and reads, success.
Hon. Dr. Borden said :
I have only been Minister of Militia for three years, and the militia forces of this country have been in existence for twenty-five years, but I think it is only due to the gentlemen who have preceded me that I should say that I do not believe that they have abused their positions in order to introduce politics. ' I say,' proceeded the Hon. Dr. Borden, ' that every battalion in the Dominion of Canada has been untrammelled in the selection of its officers. No man can say to you that the lieutenant-colonel of any battalion has been dictated to by the government at Ottawa. Will any one tell me that there has been gross abuses of this kind in Canada ? I don't believe it. Of course, in the first instance, when the Canadian provinces, in 1868, felt the necessity for having a military force, and Sir George Cartier took the matter in hand, it was necessary to choose persons to take command who were not in the regular army. It was the best force that was available, and from that time the people have given their money and their time for the privilege of serving the flag of the country. That being the case, what was more natural than that the head of the department of the government should have had something to do with selection of the men who have been in command of the battalions. No doubt, that has been done, but it has not been done for the last twenty years, and there has been promotion from the lower grade to the higher grade officers in the regular course. There has been no gross abuse on the ' part of the ' civil head ' in any branch of the service. I make this statement in justice to those who have been at the head of the department in the past-not for myself, for I have only had my present position for three years.'
I quote this in order to show the contrast between the administration of the militia under the Conservative regime, and the present unfortunate state of affairs.
The Minister of Militia claims that for the old system he has substituted his new plan of a military council, based on the British Army Council recently adopted in England, but I think I will be able to show that such is not the case. I think it would be fairer to the minister and less subject to dispute if I read a short extract from his speech in Committee of the Whole. He said :
In view of the course which has been pursued fey the War Office, I have thought it advisable to provide, in the Bill now before parliament,, the machinery by which the government of this country may follow the example of the imperial government. Under the



new system, there will he a Militia Council corresponding to what is in England called the Army Council. That council will be composed of the Minister of Militia, as chairman of the council, with four military men and two additional civilians.
The Militia Council, as I say, will be composed of seven members, as is the Army Council-four military, three civil. The Minister for the time being will be the chairman; the principal military officer will be known as the Chief of the General Staff. Then there will be the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster-General and the Master-General of Ordnance. The two additional civilians would be the Deputy Minister and, probably, the Chief Accountant of the department.
Under the system there will be no General Officer Commanding. There is no Commander in Chief in England to-day and there will be no General Officer Commanding here. There would be a first military officer known as the Chief of the General Staff, the most important military officer in the country as he is to-day the most important military officer in England, except some of the generals commanding in chief in some of the large districts.
Now, the first thing I will do will be to explain briefly the new reconstruction scheme in England. It is composed of : first, the Defence Committee ; and secondly, the Army Council. In regard to that, and as an indication of the importance and duties of these committees, I will read from the ' Reconstruction Committee ' report with which the hon. gentleman compares his scheme. The report says, at page 9, of section 15 of part 1 ;
Speaking broadly, the distribution of duties must be as follows;-
A.	Secretary of State.
B.	1st Military Member.-Military policy in all its branches. War staff duties, intelligence, mobilization, plans of operations, training, military history, higher education, war regulations.
C.	2nd Military Member.-Recruiting, pay, di* * cipline, rewards, peace regulations.
D.	3rd Military Member.-Supply, clothing, remounts, transport.
E.	4th Military Member.-Armaments and fortifications.
F.	Civil Member.-The parliamentary Undersecretary of State. Civil business other than finance.
G.	Civil Member.-The Financial Secretary. Finance, audit, accounting, estimates.
The naming of these different members and the reading of the importance and extent of their duties shows enough for the purposes of my argument. I read from part 1, page 14, part of section 5 :
The Army Council is to administer and not to command the army. Executive command being vested in generals outside the War Office, who will be responsible for the training and efficiency of all troops within their districts, an independent Inspection Department must be provided for the information and the protection of the Council.
The next is the Inspection Department. The Inspector General has under him the following inspectors : Cavalry ; Horse and Mr. TISDALE.
Field Artillery ; Garrison Artillery. Engineers ; Mounted Infantry. Next comes the Decentralization Committee, and under this England is divided into five territorial divisions, which are subdivided into a great many more districts. Each of these divisions Is commanded, not by a Commander in Chiel. but by a General Officer Commanding in Chief. The next department is that of Military Finance. The next is that of the Chief of the General Staff, which is a department itself. The next department is the Department for the Promotion and Selection of Officers. The Inspector General is the president and the General Officers Commanding in Chief are members. Each of the above departments has a separate council and organization. In addition, there are the following three great departments : Adjutant General's Department ; Quartermaster General's Department ; and Department of Master General or Ordnance. Each has several branches under it, assisted by one or more councils or committees. What do these great councils have charge of? About 500.000 regular soldiers, largely on a war footing, some small portion in reserve, and an expenditure of $175,000,000 ; and I am credibly informed that to-day there is a committee sitting in the old country under the Duke of Norfolk, to provide a scheme for their volunteers in addition. Now, what is our existing system ? It is founded on the idea of two branches, one civil and the other military, each having restricted authority, with some joint or dual authority. They act separately in many things. Each in many cases has to approve of what the other does. In many cases they act independently of each other. The general is to have charge of the military branch and the minister is to have charge of the civil branch. He is to have the command, the discipline, the education, nomination, promotion and selection for appointment of officers ; the preparation and maintenance of plans of defence, and the regulation and mobilization of the militia. He is to advise the Minister of Militia on all military Questions. He is to have the control and supervision of the military branch. The minister, on the other hand, is the head of the civil branch. He has the financing and the initiation of all matters that lead to the expenditure of money.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Is my hon. friend stating the present condition of things in Canada as he understands it ?


David Tisdale: Yes.


Frederick William Borden: The minister, then, is the head of the civil branch only ?


David Tisdale: Only, except in this way. If you will look at the Act and the regulations, you will see that the discipline of the militia is in the charge of the General Officer Commanding and that the power of

the Governor General in Council is one of regulating or supervising. There are two branches the duties of which run necessarily more or less together, the military and. the civil ; hut the command and discipline of militia, the nomination of officers and matters of that description exclusively belong to the general, subject to the approval of the minister. He must have the minister's approval ; and if the minister refuses, then the responsibility is on him and he *will have to reckon with parliament. But the idea underlying the present system is that you should have two capable, honest men at the head of the militia who will have above all things the interests of the service at heart. And if that fundamental principle fails, no legislation can be perfect. The minister should have the initiation of all matters involving the expenditure of money. He will have charge of the financial aspect of all questions of supply, works and buildings, arms, ordnance, &c., and especially the control of the civil branch and supplies, the Governor in Council being authorized to make orders respecting the duties of each and as to certain of their subordinates. The military branch being in short under the general and the civil branch under the minister. The military branch to command, train, educate and organize the militia for war. The civil branch to clothe, arm, feed, transport and look after the business end in general. An experienced general officer to train, command, organize and discipline. The minister to look after the business and expenditure of the department. After all what is the object the law should aim at ? It is to attain the greatest efficiency combined with the greatest simplicity and the least expense. Just consider the subject matter of our present system. You have 2,000 men at the most on a war footing, to be largely used in detachments or as schools of training for the militia. And you have 45,000 men, who are expected to appear under arms once a year and train from twelve to sixteen days.
Now, let me quote the minister in the Committee of the Whole against the existing system :-
Without troubling this committee by going into details, 1 think I may say, without fear of contradiction, that it is quite obvious that the system which has been in existence in this country ever since confederation has not worked well. I am not going to animadvert upon or criticise any officers who have been sent out here to assist us in administering the militia of this country. I do not propose to do that, but I think that every one will agree that the system has not worked well, and I am prepared to blame the system much more than the individuals who have attempted to work it. I believe it is an impossible system. I believe it is absolutely and entirely impossible to get on with the system which we have attempted to work in this country since confederation.
Strong words ! Statements merely. In reply I will content myself with giving past experience of the existing system :
Established in England in 1793. Kept in force there without change until 1870. Change when made then was more on account of the magnitude to which the army-had grown and the increase of expenditure than anything else. The English system lately again changed under the reconstruction report.
In neither case was there any change in the principle of having a general officer charged with the responsible command and discipline of the army in the sense we understand it here.
Since confederation the existing system has been in force, 37 years-25 under Conservative sway, five under old Liberal rule (old school), Alexander Mackenzie ; under present minister eight years. In the 30 years only with one general officer commanding was there any serious friction. This minister in eight years has disposed of four: Generals Gascoigne, Hutton, O'Grady-Haley, and lastly, Dundonald. Boasted of the efficiency lately of the militia when Dundonald came and of the great improvement of the militia in the last three years. For the expense expended upon them our militia will compare favourably with any militia in the world. The existing system has been in force on the same principle as to the military branch as I have mentioned in England and Canada continuously 111 y-ears. Constitutional authorities show it was not only introduced to prevent abuses, but will be successful, if fairly administered. Today Scotland is under a general officer commanding in the sense we understand it in perfect parallel in principle with our present scheme. What is good enough for Scotland should be good enough for us in a military sense.
Before going further into this question, let me point out one or two specific matters. While the minister says there shall be no more a General Officer Commanding in Canada, yet he retains the option to appoint one. Under the present system there must be an officer in command of our forces who holds the rank of not less than colonel in His Majesty's regular army. In discussing this question the other day the hon. minister was misleading. He made the charge that under the present Act our Canadian militia were being discriminated against. Sir, there is no question of discrimination, but simply a question of qualification. It is true that before a Canadian could be appointed General Officer Commanding under the present law, he would have to obtain the rank of colonel in His Majesty's regular army, but that after all is simply a question of qualification. No man thinks more of the rights of Canadians than I do or of the militia,

but I say that this is no discrimination
against Canadians, nor do I believe that our Canadian militia look upon it as such. Canadians are not conceited as a rule-although you will find some glaring exceptions-and I do not think you will find any Canadian pretending that an officer in the Canadian militia could possibly have the same opportunities of training to become a General Officer Commanding as are enjoyed by an officer in the British regular army. I hope that the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) will not disagree with me on this point. That hon. gentleman is a colonel of a militia regiment and a very good officer, much appreciated by his own battalion and by the men of mine as well, and I am sure he will not say that he has had! had as' good opportunities of gaining the knowledge and experience which we look for in our General Officer Commanding than would a man have, whether from Canada or elsewhere, who holds a commission in His Majesty's regular army and has risen in the ranks through his own efficiency. And you must not forget that nowadays promotion can no longer be obtained by purchase in the British army, but must be gained by sheer force of merit. I am in favour of exacting a still higher qualification than that of colonel for the man who is to take charge of our forces. I think that he ought to have a rank above that of colonel. I think he ought to have the rank of a brigadier or general of a higher rank. And if the pay be not sufficient, I am prepared to take the responsibility of voting for an increase. When we increased the pay a few years ago, and very properly increased it, under my hon. friend's administration, we did so on the understanding that if possible we would get an officer from the old country of higher rank than that of colonel. Let me say further that the militia of Canada do not want this change. What they want at their head is a man possessing the best qualifications ; and if the men and officers of our militia were not in fear of being disciplined for exercising the right of speech, you would have ninety-nine out of a hundred of them protesting against this change in this Bill. What we require at the head of our forces is a man who has had experience of war itself, and we can always find plenty of such, and very desirable ones, in the old country if we take the proper steps. Our force is good enough to have the best man that money can obtain. We are not afraid of rivals in this Canadian country. We are prepared to stand on our merits.
I propose here to briefly contrast the ministers new scheme or system with the new English scheme and point out some of the important matters in that connection.
I have briefly explained both these schemes. Sir, let us briefly examine as to their similarity. The English scheme is for a great regular army of 100,000 men-always Mr. TISDALE.
under arms and maintained whether on a peace or war footing. The cost being the vast sum of $175,000,000 per year. Efficiency and readiness being the first object at whatever cost.
Under seven great committees, each with different members, each with defined duties, some mixed but largely separate, and permanent organizations. In addition the three great departmental organizations of the adjutant general, quartermaster general and master of ordnances, any one of which latter three has more and larger duties and many times greater expenditure than the whole Militia Department of Canada. Each of them with sub branches and assisted by one or more committees. This ' plain plebian Canadian,' as he ostentatiously called himself the other night (though he has a Sir to his name), with a chief of staff, adjutant general, quartermaster general, master general of ordnance, deputy minister, and chief accountant, all to be nominated by himself and all to be under his control and direction, claims to have formed and constituted a system and organization for the management and control of our militia, on all fours with the great imperial one which I have briefly described.
Another misleading statement is that made by the hon. gentleman that there is no commander in chief in England. Technically he is within the truth, no doubt. There is no one in England known by that particular name. But in every one of these divisions there is a commander in chief as much as there ever was. The hon. gentleman (Sir Frederick Borden) may laugh, but a laugh is not proof. And I regret to see the hon. gentleman indulge in such levity. I am talking for the minority in this House. I have not a majority behind me to declare my words to be right, whether they be right or not. I speak here under a high sense of duty. Nothing else could have caused me to claim the attention of lion, members at this stage of the session. But this is a life-or-death question with us. this question of defence. Each one of these five heads of divisions in England is equal to almost any commander in chief he could get. The principle is the same. And, I want to tell the hon. minister further that every one of them is vested with all the powers, in a military sense, that, I claim, the General Officer Commanding has and ought to have whether he is a militiaman or whether he is qualified by being in the regular army. And I will bring proof of that presently. I know that the hon. minister has either not looked into this matter far enough to understand it, or that he must be trying to mislead us. Now, for the proof. This is from the report I have allude I to and upon which my hon. friend claims to have founded his scheme

Page 10, section 10-
We strongly hold that the training and preparation of His Majesty's forces for war should

be the first and, as far as possible, the undivided duty of general officers commanding-inchief.
Page 12, section 27, part 2, as stated in paragraph 10 the primary duties of the generals commanding-in-chief

' Generals ' not ' general.'
-will be the training and preparation of the regular and auxiliary forces for war. The discipline of all officers serving in the command, including the power of convening and confirming the sentences of general courts martial, wi'l he vested in them. They will also deal with the promotions, transfers and retirements of regular officers up to the [DOT] rank of major of the units territorialized in the district under their supervision.
Page 15, section 18, part 1. A selection board should be created composed of general officers commanding-in-chief, who should make a recommendation to the Secretary of State and the army council for all promotions and appointments of officers above the rank of captain, with the exception of officers of the general staff who should, as in Germany be centrally advised and administered.
Further to emphasize my statement in regard to retaining this power in England, 1 may say that, since the appointment of the commander in chief in 1793, they have never lessened the authority or control of the commander in chief so far as concerns 'the military branch in any material degree below that of our General Officer Commanding. If you go fully into the change made in 1870 and the reasons for it, you will find that it was to meet the conditions growing out of the magnitude of the army and the expenditures whioh its great size made necessary, but it did not weaken, as the hon. gentleman would have us believe, the power of the military authority in regard to the military branch for the purposes I am discussing and claiming. While the hon. gentleman can find the statement that the Secretary of State was to be put over the general, I defy him to show that the regulations were of the character he contends. The fact is that the regulations like this army council business were such that if the duties of each were properly performed if there was no interference by one part of the establishment with another, the whole was entirely under the command of the military branch, as we have it under our system.
Now, iet me point to a very glaring dissimilarity between the ministers new scheme and the English scheme to which he says his is similar. Take the head and front of the great scheme, the defence committee itself. This committee does not attempt the selection of any one of its permanent members except the secretary. Let me read :
9. The permanent nucleus of the defence committee should consist of :
I.	A permanent secretary who should be appointed for five years renewable at pleasure.
II.	Under this, officials two naval officers selected by the admiralty, two military officers
chosen by the War Office and two Indian officers nominated by the Viceroy, with, if possible, one or more representatives of the colonies. These officers should not be of high rank and the duration of their appointment should be limited to two years.
This indicates the proper appreciation of such matters that is shown by those in charge of them in England. They do not desire to grasp power individually. It is one of the glories of their government, and one of the bulwarks of their national safety, that this spirit exists in England. Our minister, this ' plain plebeian Canadian,' not only proposes to nominate all the members of his militia council, but to have them under his control as well as any General Officer Commanding, or other commander if one is appointed. And more than that- what do you think ? He limits their power to the giving of ' advice.' And, even at that, he may seem to fear that they may be too familiar, because he limits them to such matters as he may ask their advice about. The section says :
The Governor in Council may appoint a militia council to advise the ministers in regard to all matters relating to the militia-
It would be somewhat sensible if it stopped there, but it goes on

-which may be referred to the council by the minister.
While I have shown that the minister committed himself in his speech absolutely to the militia council scheme, with the chief of the general staff for >his principal military adviser, he had so little confidence In that scheme that he provided an alternative scheme with a General Officer Commanding to command the militia. He had so little confidence in his militia council scheme that he provided an alternative scheme, with a General Officer Commanding as commander of the militia, showing a want of confidence, on his own part, in the scheme of his own making, before he had even tried the first. Why, we heard him declare the other day that there was to be no commander-in-chief. Yet so fearful Is he of this militia council scheme with these officers of the department nominated by him and under his control, that he puts an alternative in his Bill, which amounts, as I have said, to a vote of want of confidence in it. carried by himself before he has tried it-declaring with one breath that his scheme was similar to the English scheme, and at the same time providing that there might be a General Officer Commanding after all. Imagine a minister abolishing a system which has worked so well as our present scheme, and introducing in its place one of which he has so little knowledge that he dares not confine himself to it, and provides in the same Bill for an alternative if the other does not work. It would be laughable if it were not

so serious. Does he imagine the people of this country are going to put up with this sort of experimental legislation ?
On the money question alone, it is very serious. What are the facts ? I notice that a number of newspapers have b<jen commenting on the largeness of our expenditure upon militia, and they put it at $2,000,000 a year. These gentlemen are much mistaken, it is almost double that. The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thompson) boasted the other day that the minister had spent $10,000,000 in the last three years on the militia, and jeered at the Tories because they had spent so little when they were in power. And what did the Minister of Militia say last year when he was asking us for $3,750,000, which we ungrudgingly gave him after he outlined the magnificent scheme of defence, which we now know was prepared by the late General Officer, he said he could cot expect to ask for less for five years. When I questioned him, he finally admitted that he was doubtful whether he could ever lessen it. This year he is asking for $4,105,447.10 ; and it is whispered in the air that there are $3,000,000 yet to come down in the way of supplementaries. Now, I agree with him that if this scheme is carried out in proper shape and by competent hands, it is a great scheme ; and there will be a great responsibility on him if it is a failure. We never had a General Officer Commanding here equal to the late one-my hon. friend knows that. No one has ever attempted to master the whole system of defence and lay out a scheme such as he did. We know he was competent, we know he was submissive, and if I had time I would refer to the report. He allowed his report to be pigeon-holed, he allowed his report to be cut and carved by the Minister of Militia, and then sent it, modified at the minister's request, back to the minister, and the minister, without his knowledge or consent, cut out pages and paragraphs of it and then published it. Is not that a patient sort of gentleman to have to deal with ? There is one thing plain. W'hether the minister adheres to his own plan or tries the plan of the General Officer Commanding, he has taken mighty good care, to use his own language of last year in the House, to say that he will be * boss ' of the situation. The Bill provides that the General Officer Commanding, if one is appointed, as well as the chief of the general staff, must act under the direction of the minister, no question of limit. What is the use of having a competent man in charge of the Militia Department ? My hon. friend knows that there is no necessity of a Minister of Militia having any military rank or knowledge of military matters. I am forced to the conclusion from recent events that the best qualification he can have is to be ignorant of military matters. Get a competent military man, give him fair-play, give Mr. TISDALE.
him a fair supply to meet the schemes he evolved, and there will be less trouble. Shut out the politicians, and there will not be any trouble.
Is it not intolerable we should have forced through the House a double-barrelled alternative scheme to be experimented upon to the tune of $4,000,000 ? He declares that it is similar to the great English scheme. Surely the authors of the English scheme will be proud of such a child. No wonder he did not dare submit it to the home authorities before bringing it before parliament. The ' boss ' of the militia council, the ' boss ' of the chief of staff, the ' boss ' of the General Officer Commanding, if he tries to run both functions at the same time-anything is possible with the minister holding these powers, except our present ' impossible ' scheme, as he calls it, which has worked so well in England and here for 111 years, and which, according to my contention, is still working in England, and has worked well ever since they put a strong hand on the King and compelled him to make his appointments by merit and keep the politicians from unduly influencing the military, so that the army of England might become what it is and has been for ages past. They asked it in the early days. Well, he is to be our military expert whether we like it or not. I am trying to fancy the manoeuvering of troops under the General Officer Commanding, under the direction of the Minister of Militia. It will be a refreshing exhibition of military movements. Let him catch the General Officer Commanding or chief of staff even speaking of a report, annual or ' special,' until they have the minister's sanction, and then after he has received and mutilated it to his heart's content he will probably suppress or declare it private. I say it is monstrous to give such authority to a man with no military qualification, compelling the General Officer Com manding, or any self-respecting chief of the military staff, in command of the organization and training of our militia, to come under the direction of the minister. He has not the qualification of a first lieutenant, I mean the military qualification, I am speaking in no other sense. I venture to say he could not pass the examination to-day for that appointment, and yet the Minister of Militia is to be the military expert. Imagine the hon. gentleman in this House applying this violent expression to the late General Officer Commanding.
A more highly concentrated exhibition of egotism and self-assertion cannot, I believe, be found in the English language.


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear.


David Tisdale: Sir, the colossal magnitude of the hon. gentleman's belief in his own capacity and opinion is beyond my comprehension. But will not the boys behind him be glad ? He is the master.

He is the dictator, but I warn them to look out ; he may become the tyrant. Dictators often become tyrants. I know one gentleman who will be happy, the Minister of Agriculture, who I hope is present. Surely on the general staff or the headquarter's staff or the district staff or some other staff, the hon. Minister of Militia will find an opportunity to appoint him to some position. Surely his warlike attitude on the Dun-donald debate deserves consideration. Staff position means cocked hat and feathers. By all means let it be a large hat, to suit the head, many feathers, small saddle, big spurs and a great sword.
The correspondents of the press gallery have been commenting on the hon. Minister of Agriculture rather familiarly lately I fear. When he dons this ' war paint ' they better beware of such ' quibs,' as the following which appeared during the Dundonald debate. I have more but this must suffice.
It was worth a trip to Ottawa to hear little Syd. say : ' it is MB.' The bad grammar aside, the House roared at the cocky little man.
He has exhibited lately a principle which I admire ; he has shown gratitude for the free hand he was allowed with the 13th Light Scottish Dragoons. I have heard that he appreciates the present position of the Minister of Militia sufficiently to be aware of the probability of that minister's great difficulty in getting a self-respecting chief of staff or general officer commanding under these present powers. It is reported he has published a want ad. in the papers. I am certain it is in the papers, but I am not prepared to state that he is responsible for its publication. However, it is very applicable and I shall read it.
Wanted.-A tame G.O.C. Warranted safe for children and fools to play with. Trained to recognize his ' superiors ' by the constitutional label, and to be subject to the regulations. Will not let Tories pet him. Apply to the Minister of Militia at Ottawa-or, better still, to the Department of Agriculture. No telephone messages answered.
This really sets forth the situation and I hope that he will secure such an officer.
In conclusion I wish for a moment to refer to the extraordinary position of the minister in not communicating with the British War Office or the home authorities in reference to the late changes in this Bill. It will be within the memory of hon. gentlemen that two or three years ago at the colonial conference in London the imperial authorities evinced a keen interest in the formation of a scheme of defence which would include the colonies. It will be remembered that while the government did not agree to contribute anything directly they took it upon themselves to establish a strong militia defence scheme in Canada. When my hon.
friend brought in his Bill the changes proposed in it were of a minor character compared with the Bill as it now stands. This year at the commencement of the session tie introduced practically the same Bill, but he held it up in committee for some time, and now he has brought it back again with the very drastic changes I have mentioned. By the new Bill he departs entirely from any system of defence which we have had in Canada since confederation. It involves a whole change of system, and not only an absolute change of system but an absolute separation in every detail of our system from the imperial army or any imperial defence system. I say that I am startled and astonished that he saw fit not to communicate with the imperial authorities before making these changes. What does it mean, and is he fair to us ? It is a very serious thing.
If as the member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa) wishes, we are merely to have a militia force in this country to aid the civil power in police matters, then I agree with him that we are spending too much money on our militia. But, if on the other hand, we w ant to have a national force, then we should pay great heed to the magnificent scheme of defence of the late General Officer Commanding under which we would have 45,000 trained men with a possibility of increasing the establishment to 100,OOO. and with trained officers, and non-commissioned officers who could supply a second line of defence of another 100.000, making m all 200.000. Not only the Canadian militia, but the British army and navy are to be considered in our defence scheme, and it is unfair and unjust to the British army and dangerous to ourselves that our Canadian military force should not be in a position to render them effective assistance.
I believe in the responsibility of government, but at the same time I believe in common sense. We have the army and navy of Great Britain at our back, and I say it Is not treating the imperial authorities fairly, in view of what they have done for us, that this government, in proposing to change the whole system of our defence, has not thought it worth while to communicate with them. That is a mistake and it is against the best interests of Canada. I have shown beyond all question that the new scheme proposed by the Minister of Militia, has no resemblance to the British army scheme, in form or in substance. Under this new scheme of his, the Minister of Militia will be absolute dictator not only in lis department, but in the militia of Canada :	he can do everything with the solitaiy exception of ordering out the militia for active service. It is beyond all question that no better scheme could be devised to invite political interference in the militia. We have the whole Department of Militia with one man dominating even the mi-

litary commander, who' should have control of the military part if there is any intention of making our militia system a success. The clothing of the Minister of Militia with such powers can only result in the introduction of politics. The scheme of the Minister of Militia is alternating, experimental and uncertain. I am against investing lany man pr any political party .With such powers in connection with our militia. No political party should ever be entrusted, nor should any political party ever ask to be entrusted with such powers over the militia of Canada. I protest against them as arbitrary, unreasonable, subversive and destructive of the best interests of the militia. 1 protest against the scheme as bearing on its face an unpleasant suggestion of separation from our brotherhood in the imperial army. I therefore, beg to move the motion of which I have given notice.


Hon.   S@: At this late stage of the session, and in view of the fact that I have discussed on several occasions precisely the subjects which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tisdale) has brought to the attention of the House, I shall endeavour to make my statement on this amendment in the fewest possible words. I trust that my hon. friend will not, because of the brevity of my remarks, think that I wish to show him any disrespect, or that I do not fully appreciate his earnestness. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Tisdale) has been in the habit of appearing before us in a more or less pathetic mood, and we are accustomed to see him exhibit himself rather as a man of sorrows, but to-day he has come before us in an entirely new role. To-day he Is humorous, delivering to us a little bit of wit-my hon. friend beside me says they should be labelled so that we might know they were witticisms-but at ail events the hon. gentleman has given us little bits of wit which smell very strongly of the mid-night oil, and bear evidence of the expenditure of a very great deal of time upon them, which I think the House will agree with me in believing was time not very well occupied. My hon. friend objects to my proposals. He first complains that there is no evidence that I have submitted these proposals to the imperial authorities, and he intimates that there has been bad faith. He tells us that a certain Bill was introduced last year and re-introduced this year after having been discussed with the imperial authorities, but that later on it was changed without consultation with the war office. Well what happened ? After the Bill was introduced this year, or about the time it was introduced, the Esher Committee appointed by the Prime Minister of England to report upon the organization of the war office, presented its report, and about the month of March last, the war Mr. TISDALE.
office took this report up and the imperial government adopted it.
What opportunity had I to introduce these amendments in my original Bill ? I had none. At the earliest possible moment, immediately after the first consideration of the Bill, I gave notice of them, and on three different occasions since then this Bill and these proposals have been under discussion. But, forsooth, I have not submitted the amendments to the imperial authorities. I have not submitted them formally, because I am perfectly aware that the imperial authorities will be delighted to know that we have adopted the new policy which they have adopted. We have been in the habit, in all matters of administration in the militia of this country, to follow closely the lead of the imperial war office-why ? Because if a great war ever occurred, in which Canada was engaged or interested, we would be working side by side with the authorities in the war office. Therefore, as a matter of convenience', the policy has always been followed in this country, and we propose always to follow it, of adopting from time to time the schemes which are adopted by the war office. I may say that I have had correspondence of a private character with the Under Secretary of State for War, Sir Edward Ward, and I have authority to say-I am sure he would not object to my saying it-that he is in entire sympathy with us in the proposals we are making. Let that be the answer to the charge of disrespect to the imperial author! ties. No greater compliment could be paid to the imperial authorities than the course we have pursued. No stronger indication of our sincere desire to remain in the closest possible touch with the war office could possibly be shown than the course which we have pursued.
The hon. gentleman has undertaken to move an amendment which, as he himself has stated, substantially means that we should continue in the condition of things which now exists, that we should not change, that we should not follow the war office in its change, il will not follow the hon. gentleman in his discussion of what he considers the great advantages of the present system.
The hon. gentleman has laid down the proposition that in this country at present the Militia Department is under dual control. The hon. gentleman by that statement has shown that he has failed absolutely to grasp the conditions. The Militia Department is not and cannot be under dual control. There can be only one head to the Militia Department under any system that can be adopted in this country which is under responsible government. The minister who receives the warrant from the people to occupy the position of Minister of Militia must be the head of the Militia Department, and he alone can be its head.

The hon. gentleman has animadverted upon certain words which are introduced into the Act now before the House. Well, it seems necessary and proper that the fact as it exists should be put in the statutes, and so the words ' under the direction of the Minister ' are inserted. The hon. gentleman has referred to the condition of things in England. He has referred to the Statute of 1870, and has attempted to show that the condition of things in England is a condition of dual control. Eet me read to the hon. gentleman an extract from an Order in Council passed in the War Office under the Act of 1870 :
As it is expedient to define the duties of the Field Marshal Comamnding the Forces under the Letter of Service issued by Her Majesty's direction, by the Secretary of State for War, on the 15th of July, 1856, I have the honour to request that, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for War and to his responsibility for the administration of the Royal Authority and Prerogative in respect of the army-the said officer shall-
-do certain duties.
That language is unmistakable : ' subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for War and to his responsibility for the administration of the royal authority and prerogative in respect of the army.' Why, Mr. Speaker, it seems necessary every week, and almost every day in the week, to repeat and reiterate in this House to the hon. gentleman and some of his friends the fact, which is well known to everybody acquainted with the principles of responsible government, that the minister at the head of a department is responsible to parliament and the country, and that every man in that department is subject to the control of the minister.


Robert Laird Borden: Let us just understand what the hon. minister means. X understand that under the system in Great Britain at the present time-take, for example, the selection of officers-the Secretary of State, as a member of the Army Council, acts solely upon the recommendation of one of the military members of the council. That is the case, is it not ?


Frederick William Borden: No. If my hon. friend will look at the report of the war office


Robert Laird Borden: I will read the report, and let us see whether it bears out what the hon. gentleman says. I read from page 11 :
The selection of the military subordinates in each branch shall he made by the Secretary of State upon the sole recommendation of the responsible member of the council.


Frederick William Borden: It passes to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State makes the recommendation. Therefore, as I have said, the Secretary of State is in control and is solely responsible.	1


Robert Laird Borden: I said that he acted solely upon the recommendation of the military officer charged. I understood the hon. gentleman to dissent from that. What difference is there between that and the system we have been pursuing in this country ?


Frederick William Borden: Let me ask a question. How does that in any way disprove the statement I have just made, that the minister has control of the department ?


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, he has control, but he acts upon the advice of an expert upon matters in regard to which the advice of an expert is essential.


Frederick William Borden: That may be ; but the statement I made was that the minister is responsible and that the minister controls. Responsibility and control go side by side and hand in hand. Now, the hon. gentleman has wandered very widely afield. He has talked about political interference, in which I will not follow him, except to say that if he and his friends were disposed to be as fair as I was in the speech which he quoted as having been made by me in Montreal, a great many of the groundless charges which have been made against my administration would not be made. I have always endeavoured to be fair, and I would recommend my hon. friends opposite to emulate to some extent the course which I have pursued in that respect. If I saw fit, I could find many cases of hardship in which heads of the department in former times were guilty.
1 do not think it is in the public interest that we should come to parliament to ventilate these cases. It is far better that we should join together in the endeavour to work out a system which will be an improvement on the present one. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I need not make any further references to this matter. I have a list I could use which would disprove very fully the charge made against me of having abused my position in connection with appointments either in the permanent force, the headquarters staff or the militia generally. I shall content myself with just one statement. I challenge anybody, in this House or out of it, to show a single instance in which I have abused my position in order to do injury to any officer or benefit any friend by making a political appointment against the rules and regulations of the militia.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister be good enough to tell me what his understanding is of the manner of appointing and promoting officers of the auxiliary forces under the new scheme in Great Britain ?


Frederick William Borden: I read the report very carefully, but am not prepared to say what the details may be which will be adopted by the militia council to be

appointed. I am dealing with the reorganization of the headquarters of the department, and I shall leave to those skilled men the task of advising whoever may be the minister with reference to the regulations which, should be formulated.
To come back to the question of the departure from our present system and the adoption of the English system, 1 am satisfied that the present system is unworkable. It has been found unworkable in England, and I think the experience, not only of myself, but of previous ministers in this country, abundantly prove that it is not workable here. If the system of utilizing commander-inchief is not workable in England, it is much more likely to prove unworkable in this country. The imperial government, after trying in vain for about half a century, to make the system effective, has come to the conclusion that it is absolutely unworkable.
I think I may perhaps on this point read the conclusions reached by the Esher Committee in this regard.


Robert Laird Borden: The conclusion is arrived at upon the ground of the desirability of decentralization.


Frederick William Borden: It was recognized both by the Hartington Commission and by the members of the War Commission who signed the minority report, that the high office of Commander in' Chief, as hitherto defined, is inconsistent with the principle of the administration of the army by the Secretary of State and a board or council. Attempts to combine the administrative and executive functions of the army have led to confusion, to reduplication of work, to expense, to dual control, to divided responsibility, and ultimately to the conditions revealed in the evidence taken before the Royal Commission on the South African War.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the bon. gentleman not see that is put upon the ground that its jurisdiction is too expensive? Therefore, it is divided up into eight in the hope that in that way the office of commander-inchief can be filled in a manner beneficial to the army and the country :
In order to secure effective control, the commander should be in constant touch with the units of his command. Owing to the wide extent of the King's dominion, this necessary condition cannot be fulfilled by a commander in chief.


Frederick William Borden: Here is the quotation I was looking for. It is on page S, section 8 :
8. The relations of the Secretary of State to the military heads of the War Office are not such as to enable him to discharge his duties to the best advantage. The centralization of a vast number of incongruous functions in the Commander in Chief results in the neglect of work of primary importance. The War Office, as was pointed out by the 'Hartington Commission,' has no thinking department, and the branches concerned with preparations for a Sir F. W. BORDEN.
campaign, and with the collection of necessary information, are weak, and not sufficiently in touch with the Secretary of State. At the same time, the duties and the responsibilities of the military heads are ill-defined, and their relations to each other and to the Secretary_ of State are not such as effective administration demands. No distinction between policy and routine work exists, and the military heads, absorbed in work with which they have nothing to do, have no time for the proper consideration of questions of real importance, or for exercising foresight and initiative. Leaving out of consideration numerous minor flaws in the machine, the above conditions alone fully suffice to account for evils ramifying through the whole structure of the army, and rendering it inefficient for war. No scheme of reconstruction can be worthy of the acceptance of His Majesty's government unless it provides substantial and permanent guarantees against the continuance of these conditions.
9. The Hartington Commission stated that ' the complete responsibility to parliament and the country, of the Secretary of State for the discipline as well as for the administration of the army must now be accepted as definitely established.' At the same time, it was premised that, in practice, ' the responsibility of the Secretary of State appears to be still, in some respects, less real than that of the First Lord' of the Admiralty. It is now clear from the evidence given before the War Commission that real power has been divorced from responsibility, with results injurious to the military advisers of the Secretary of State, and fatal to his authority with his colleagues in the cabinet.
And I may say that in the speech which Mr. Arnold-Foster recently delivered, in bringing down the war budget, he makes the following statement:
It is absolutely necessary to make a change in the organization, composition, and- distribution of the army.
The late war, and the commission on the war, which has recently reported, have made it abundantly clear that the army in its present form is not suited to the requirements of the country, or adapted for war.
All branches of the army are raised on a system which exaggerates the difficulties that must always attend purely voluntary enlistment, and, both in the regular and auxiliary forces, there exist endless sources of friction which lead to wasteful effort, to bad work and, in some cases, to discontent and misunderstanding.
Then he goes on to say :
His duty is to provide a remedy for the evils that exist. Not a partial, but a complete remedy; not a remedy for one, but for all the evils complained of; not a remedy for want of organization only, but a remedy for over-expenditure as well.
Can such a remedy be found ? The answer is, * Yes.' It can be found if both parties are prepared to consider the question of the army outside the arena of party discussion, and if successive administrations are prepared to agree upon a scheme of reform, and to carry it out consistently and progressively. On no other terms can the army be reformed and its * cost diminished.

Now, Mr. Speaker, returning to what 1 was saying with regard to the experience in Canada I am sure that it must be abundantly clear, from the experience of Canada from the day of confederation down to the present moment that the system which my hon. friend has praised so highly is not a system that is workable in this country. You find general officer after general officer making the attempt and failing ; and I do not so much blame the general officers as I blame the system.
Let me refer to some of the advantages which, I think, will follow the adoption of the new system. The hon. gentleman says that my proposals are not even similar to those of the war office. I have not claimed that they were identical : If the hon. gentleman will examine the statement which I made in this House and from which he made quotations, he will find that I do not pretend to say that they are identical. But I do say that I think the idea of appointing a council was a good one, and, that, so far as under the altered conditions, it can be adopted in this country, so far X think it would be of advantage to the Militia Department. And that far, and that far only, I propose to go. It is more or less a tentative scheme. The hon. gentleman has called it an experiment. Possibly he may not have been so very far astray in that. But the experiment being made by the imperial authorities perhaps. is not so much an experiment as here, because they have had in the admiralty department of Great Britain a similar system for about a century. Well, Sir, we must make experiments sometimes, and I believe that we are justified in this case, in view of all that I have read and in view of my own personal experience and of that of 'every Minister of Militia in this country, in making a trial of this new system. It is true that we have called it an advisory board. We have appointed a board to advise the minister. My hon. friend says that I have restricted the subjects dealt with by the board. It is true that they are only to advise upon the questions submitted by the minister, but it is equally true that the Governor in Council is given the power under this Act to provide all regulations which shall control the action of the board and which shall control (the powers (of the members of the board. What are the advantages of this system ? Let me emphasize those advantages by referring to the disadvantages of the present system. One of the chief disadvantages of the present system is perhaps, that under it each new officer who comes to this country seems to feel it to be his duty to condemn everything that has been done by his predecessor and to mark out an entirely new line for himself. So that, under the system that we have had there has been absolutely no continuity of purpose. Under the system which I propose the militia council
will be composed of seven men. The minister will be the chairman. The four leading military authorities of the country will be members, as also will the deputy minister and the chief accountant of the department. In this council, composed of these seven men, with the Minister of Militia in the chair, all matters pertaining to the welfare of the militia will be under discussion, and there we shall have face to face the men who are responsible foV the well being of the militia. Under the present system the minister knows-or is permitted to know-not very much about what is going on in the department. I will not detain the House by giving examples, but examples have been given here, and I can assure the House that one of the things which the General Officer Commanding thinks he has a right to do is to keep absolute and close control of everything appertaining to the military branch and only to allow the minister to know that which it pleases him to allow the minister to know. Now, clearly that is not in the interest of the country. Clearly it is to the interest of the country that the minister should know what every one of the various officers in the headquarters of the Militia Department know. And this new scheme will give that opportunity. There the minister will sit with his advisers about him face to face, so that he can put important questions before that council and have the advantage of hearing the different arguments with reference to them. More than that, there will be a record kept of what takes place at that council and, so, when a conclusion is reached that conclusion will be made a matter of record, not only for the benefit of the minister for the time being, but for the benefit of future ministers. Thus, if, at a future time some suggestion is made of an amendment or alteration, the record will be taken up and the reasons which induced the minister to come to the conclusion will be there exposed to view. Surely this will be an enormous advantage [DOT] i over the condition of things, to-day, there is no co-operation among the different heads of the department, absolutely-I was going to say absolutely none, but certainly I am justified in saying that there is very little. Under this system, every branch will be brought before the council and will be discussed there, so that each member of the council will be more or less under the necessity of becoming acquainted with the work pertaining to every branch of the headquarters staff.


Robert Laird Borden: If I may be allowed to interrupt, I would say that I think that very desirable ; but what I do not understand is why that could not be done now without amending the law.


Frederick William Borden: If my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) had been in my place for the last eight years with an im-

pei'ial General Officer Commanding in the same department, he would know. X assure him, in all frankness and sincerity and honesty that, under the present system, it is absolutely impossible. It cannot be done -it never can be done with a General Officer Commanding in the same building. But my hon. friend from South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) has told us that there are still commanders in chief in England, and his relation of the case was somewhat pathetic. While we had supposed that Mr. Arnold Forster had succeeded-I will not say in getting rid of-but in dispensing with the commander-in-chief at the war office, my hon. friend says that, on the contrary he has five of them. And I felt inclined to sympathize with Mr. Arnold Forster.
But what is the fact ? My hon. friend has missed the point altogether. There will be commanding officers to command the militia in every district of the Dominion, and under this system greater power will be given to these commanding officers than they possess now, necessarily so. To-day, as the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) has said more than once in this House, a district officer commanding is little better than a first-class clerk ; he has very little power, almost no power. Under the new system which will be worked out on the lines of the British system later on, much greater power will be given him, and a certain amount of decentralization will take place which will enable these district officers commanding to get the experience which they so much need in the command and control of their respective districts. Those are the officers to whom my hon. friend refers in England as being the commanders-in-chief, they are the commanders of the different districts.
But my hon. friend has said that I am inconsistent ; he says that I am still keeping on the statute-book the power to appoint a General Officer Commanding, and so I am. Whoever heard of an army without a general officer commanding, and without a commander in chief ? In time of peace the administration can be carried on more advantageously, I believe, by a chief of the general staff and a military council ; but in an emergency it is absolutely necessary, it seems to me, that the government should have the power of appointing a man to the supreme command of the militia. Under the law there is a provision as to what should be done in time of war. In time of war when imperial troops are co-operating with our troops, the King would appoint an imperial officer ; in time of peace, in an emergency, in a riot, if it were necessary to call out a large number of troops from the different districts, it would be necessary to have a commanding officer. Anything occurring in any one district could be dealt with by the district officer commanding: but in case of riot or threatened invasion it would be ab-Sir F. W. BORDEN.
solutely necessary for the government of Canada to have power to appoint a general officer commanding, and that is the reason why that provision is left upon the statute-book. Now I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that I need detain the House longer. I do not think it necessary to go over the argument which has been repeated five or six times in this House as to why the command of the militia of this country should be thrown open to a Canadian. I have repeated my views upon that point many and many a time.


Robert Laird Borden: Under existing conditions it is open to a Canadian officer, is it not ?


Frederick William Borden: It is not open to a Canadian officer.


Robert Laird Borden: It is open to a Canadian if he has the requisite training.


Frederick William Borden: To an officer of the Canadian militia, I should have said, to be more explicit, and that is what the hon. member for South Norfolk meant in his argument. He contended that it was no reflection upon officers of the Canadian militia to continue to exclude them from any hope of gaining the command. I must say, without wishing to repeat the arguments that I have stated several times here, that I think it is the very greatest reflection upon officers of the Canadian militia. Whether an officer of the Canadian militia will be appointed, I do not know. But we have many distinguished officers in the Canadian militia, and if we never undertake the work of command, Mr. Speaker, how shall we get experience in command ? Are we to go on for ever as at present in point only where they will Joe able to take command ? I think not. To use a simile which I used once before in this House, we would feel it was casting a very great reflection upon the judiciary of this country if, for' instance, we were voluntarily to place upon our statute-book a law saying that the chief justice of the Dominion of Canada must be an imperial lawyer, or jurist. Nobody would think of saying that it would not be an outrage, and a most severe reflection upon everybody engaged in the legal profession in this country. Well, I want to know if it is not just as much of a reflection upon the men who have spent their time and risked their lives, who have given up the whole of their time to qualify and fit themselves to be officers of the Canadian militia, to deny to them the opportunity, after having become qualified, of reaching the highest position in the gift of this country, namely, the head of the Canadian militia ? So far as I am concerned, I. am absolutely against any restriction of that kind. Now I think there is nothing further that I need dwell upon. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House will not accede to the motion of my hon. friend.


Mr. KEMP.: Before the hon. gentleman takes his seat, I would like to ask him a question. Under this Act, will members of the militia force be subject to military law or discipline, when not on duty; in other words, can a man join the militia force and still retain full freedom of speech and action when not on duty, the same as he enjoyed previous to becoming a member of the force ?


Frederick William Borden: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will read the clause which governs that matter, clause 72 of the Act :
The Army Act for the time being in force in the United Kingdom, the King's regulations, and all other laws applicable to His Majesty's troops in Canada and not inconsistent with this Act or the regulations made thereunder, shall have force and effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of Canada for the government of the militia, and every officer and man of the militia shall be subject thereto from the time of being called out for active service, and also during the period of annual drill or training under the provisions of this Act, and also at any other time while upon military duty or in the uniform of his corps upon or within any rifle range or any armoury, or other place where arms, guns, ammunition or other military stores are kept, or any drill shed or other building or place used for militia purposes, or during any drill or parade of his corps at which he is present in the ranks, when going to or from the place of drill or parade, and also whether in uniform or not at any drill or parade of his corps at which he is present as a spectator.
That refers to the active militia. Subsection 2 refers to the permanent force :
Officers and men of the permanent force and members of the permanent staff of the militia shall at all times be subject to military law.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that when a man is off duty he does not have the same freedom of speech that he had before he joined the militia force ?


Frederick William Borden: I have read the statute, and my hon. friend will have to draw his own conclusion.


Albert Edward Kemp: Will the hon. gentleman give us an interpretation of the meaning of the statute in fewer words ? Has he any objection to do that ?


Mr. H. A. WARD.: I am in entire sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale). I was rather surprised to hear the Minister of Militia say that the time of that hon. gentleman had not been well expended iu getting up the matter which he brought before the House to-day. I think my hon. friend will admit that there is always room fo two opinions on important questions of this kind.


Frederick William Borden: Hear. hear.


Henry Alfred Ward: I do not think any hon. gentleman expending time in working up
his own particular opinion on this or any other important matter brought before this House is wasting his time in any sense of the word. I was amazed to hear the Minister of Militia state that under the old order of things he had control in the same manner as under this Bill. Shortly afterwards the minister stated that he really had very little control on account of there being a general officer commanding in his department, that matters in connection with the department had been withheld from him by different general officers commanding in succession. I do not know that this ever occurred when the party on this side were in power, and I would point out to the Houso that during the 18 years when the Conservatives were in power and different Ministers of Militia were in control of that department, only four general officers commanding were required to assist the ministers of militia. I think that only one of these general officers commanding went home before his term had expired.


Frederick William Borden: I think that four went home before their time expired. General McDougall. General Guard, General Middleton and General Herbert.


Henry Alfred Ward: My hon. friend then will probably explain how it occurred that there were only four general officers commanding in eighteen years, as stated in the Mill* tia List.


Frederick William Borden: I was not there, I do not know.


Henry Alfred Ward: My hon. friend during his short period of eight years, has also had four.


Frederick William Borden: These are growing times you know.


Henry Alfred Ward: Undoubtedly, in regard to dismissing officers. The minister stated that a general officer commanding from England was quite as objectionable as a chief justice of the Canadian courts coming from the mother country. I cannot see the force of that comparison because I can imagine that a lawyer practising in this country is quite capable of fitting himself for any position on the bench. But we must consider that a general officer commanding requires to have had a great deal of service in tlie field if he is to qualify as general officer commanding the Canadian militia. It has always been so considered, and I think it is rather an unfortunate thing that this change is being made. I do not mean to say that Canadians should not take such positions because as the leader of the opposition has stated, the fact of making it necessary that an English officer should be appointed does not preclude Canadians from taking that position. Ever since the Royal Military College was established, and I ven



ture to say even before that, there have been Canadians going into the English army and many of them I have no doubt are now fitted to take the position of the general officer commanding, so there is nothing in that argument that I can see. I regret very much that this position of general officer commanding is to be done away with. It is not so stated in the Bill, but there is no doubt from the expressions which have fallen from the minister that this is the intention of the Bill. It seems to me that in doing away with the requirement that the general officer commanding shall be one of His Majesty's generals or colonels the minister is weakening the ties-and there are very few of them left-the open ties that bind us to the mother country. I am sure that we all regret it on that and on other accounts as well. The minister has stated that in establishing the council to assist him he has been following the lead of the imperial House of Commons. It seems to me that we are advancing too rapidly in establishing a council here. We might well have waited until we saw the effect of the council in the mother country. It is only an experiment there, and it seems to me that we might very well have put off establishing a council here until we saw how it worked in the mother country. The minister has also stated that it was found to be utterly unworkable in England to have the commander in chief working with the civil portion of the war office. It seems to me that England had gone on for a great many years before it was found out that this system was unworkable. Commanders in Chief have existed there for a great many years, as have also general officers commanding in Canada, and I think that on that account alone the minister's statement in this respect has not very much foundation in fact. I regret the establishment of this council because although the minister states that he had actual and free control of his department under the old order of things it seems to me that this new order of things is simply emphasizing that control and placing the control of the militia forces entirely in the hands of the minister. I think it cannot but have that effect, and no matter what administration is in power for the time being that is a dangerous power to give to any minister of the Crown. The general officer commanding as we all know had certain branches in the Militia Department to manage, of course under the direction of the minister, and those portions of the department which he managed, he managed I venture to say until this administration; came into power, absolutely without political control. I would like to see that order of things still continue, and I am sorry that it does not exist at the present time. If I were not paired, I would vote for the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Tisdale) with great pleasure.


Mr. EMMERSON  .@: 


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Militia has spoken of following the lead of the war office of Great Britain. It might be a very desirable thing to follow the lead o? the war office in Great Britain so far as conditions are the same, but you cannot always follow the lead of the war office in Great Britain because they have a standing army there and we do not want a standing aimy in this country. We can hardly call our small permanent force a standing army and therefore when you come to compare our system with the English system, you must look not at the standing army of Great Britain, but at the disposition of the auxiliary forces. If you take the empire as a whole, you have a standing army which is largely recruited in Great Britain and you have auxiliary forces in Great Britain and in different outlying portions of the empire, which in the event of difficulty in any part of the empire can be used in connection with the standing army. I would not like to say that I would follow the lead of the war office in every respect. Suppose, for example the war office should adopt the recommendations of the recent committee of which the Duke of Norfolk is chairman; the concluding paragraph recommends that for effective defence of the United Ivinkdom, universal conscription in Great Britain is desirable, if not necessary. I do not think that in this country we should be prepared to follow that lead of the war office in a matter of that kind. I would not go quite so far as the Minister of Militia in saying we must follow the lead of the war office in every respect.


Frederick William Borden: I meant as to the organization of the War Office itself; we have always followed that as closely as we could, mutatis mutandis.


Frederick William Borden: Everybody will admit that we can get very valuable suggestions from Great Britain, but we (must adapt them to the conditions which prevail in this country, and we must consider them in view of the fact that we have only an auxiliary force, a militia force, a force designed for the defence of the country, but a force which can work in harmony and in co-operation with the regular army in event of danger.
I cannot quite understand why the Minister of Militia desires to eliminate from the statute-book the words that now declare that the General Officer Commanding-if there is to be a General Officer Commanding -shall be charged with the military command and discipline of the militia. There has been a very important change made in that respect, and I venture to think that when we compare our auxiliary force with the auxiliary force of the mother country, we will find that no such change as is here proposed has been brought about in Great Britain. I say that after having read the

report of Lord Esher's Committee pretty carefully. Our present law says :
There shall be appointed an officer who holds the rank of colonel or rank superior thereto in His Majesty's regular army, who shall be charged, under the orders of His Majesty with the military command and discipline of the militia, and who while he holds such appointment shall have the rank of major-general In the militia.
The words in our present law make it abundantly clear that the minister is solely responsible to parliament, and that it is only in respect to the military command and discipline of the militia that the General Officer Commanding is specially charged. It seems to me that the situation is further amply safeguarded at present by the fact that in respect to recommendations for appointments, and in respect to matters of ex penditure, the General Officer Commanding can only recommend and the minister himself must in the end decide. That is absolutely the law of Canada at present, and it offers all possible safeguards to the absolute authority of the civil power in respect to Such matters. That position has been asserted over and over again, not only by the present Minister of Militia, but by former Ministers of Militia, and it is not necessary for me to elaborate it. I believe that the military command and discipline of the militia might very well continue vested in a general officer commanding, who is at present charged with it. He may not control the expenditure ; he may not even make appointments further than to recommend, but the military command and the discipline of the militia are matters that should be vested in a general officer commanding, rather than in a minister who may hold his position for three or four years, who may not be a military man in the first instance, and who may be succeeded by some one who has no more military experience than he. There must be some object in changing the existing law to the following proposal in the new Bill :
There may be appointed an officer who shall hold rank not below that of colonel in the militia or in His Majesty's regular army, who may, subject to the regulations and under the direction of the minister, be charged with the military command of the militia.
What is the object in leaving out the word ' discipline,' and why should we change a statute which amply guarded the civil power ? The minister has made something of a point in stating that the change makes a colonel in the Canadian militia eligible for the position of commander-in-chief. I look upon that question from the standpoint of qualification. If we have opportunities in Canada by which a gentleman holding the position of colonel in the militia can acquire the necessary training and experience to enable him to act effectively as commander-in-chief, then by all means let us make the change. When this subject came up for
discussion early in the session I said to the Minister of Militia that if he would convince me that the Canadian militia affords the means of qualifying a man for such a position, then I would at once assent to the proposal. I do not at present feel convinced that service in the Canadian militia affords opportunities of that kind. For example, let us take the case of Sir Percy Girouard, a very eminent officer, who is, I think, a colonel in the British army. If Sir Percy Girouard had his sole military experience as a colonel in the Canadian militia, I would doubt very much his qualifications to command our militia in time of war ; but with the experience which he, a Canadian, has acquired in the British army, he may be, and no doubt would be, eminently qualified for that purpose. There is an object lesson at once. It is not any discrimination against Canadians; it is simply a question as to training. Any Canadian is to-day in a position to acquire that necessary training in the regular army. If he can acquire it in the Canadian militia, well and good: let us have him, and let us give him the first choice, but until we are absolutely sure he can get that training and experience in the Canadian militia, let us not be in a hurry to change the qualifications for that office which have existed in the past.
Let me also point out to the Minister of Militia that he has not in this Bill followed the course which is pointed out by the report of Lord Esher's Committee. The minister desires that everything shall be under his command and direction. That is the object of the new legislation. Let us see how these matters are dealt with under the scheme of Lord Esher's Committee, which the minister says he has followed. We are not to look to the regular army ; we are to look at the disposition made with regard to the auxiliary force, and if the minister will consult part III., page 7 of the Esher report, he will see :
We have recommended that the training of the auxiliary force should be supervised by the general officers commanding-in-chief, who should also deal with the promotion, transfer, and retirement of officers. Inspection of the auxiliary force should be carried on by these general officers, or by officers deputed by them. Administrative questions affecting the auxiliary force should be dealt with by the major-generals commanding the eight districts.
So far as the auxiliary forces of Great Britain are concerned, matters are left, by the proposal of this committee, very much more under the military branch than they are left under the military branch in Canada to-day. In Great Britain the General Officers Commanding are to deal with the promotion, transfer and retirement of officers, while here the General Officer Commanding only recommends and the minister appoints. So far as I can understand it, the Minister of Militia is altering the law in exactly the opposite direction to that recommended by



S187 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Lord Esher's Committee in respect to the auxiliary forces.
Frederick William Borden: That is not the report of the Esher Committee.


Robert Laird Borden: It is. It is the report of the War Office reconstruction committee of 1904, of which Lord Esher was chairman.


Frederick William Borden: That is the one.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the Minister of Militia has given his attention too much to the recommendations of that committee so far as they are concerned with the regular army of some 500,000 men, but according to this report the auxiliary force of Great Britain, numbering 30,000 men, is to be dealt with by a very small portion of the machinery provided for in the report of this committee.
In attempting to create this council in Canada, are we not simply taking the name and taking none of the substance ? The council in Great Britain is an absolutely different thing from that which the minister proposes here. So far as the object of the minister is concerned, of having a consultation between those who represent the military part of the department and those who represent the civil part, I sympathize with him, but it seems to me that he may accomplish that without any statute, and so far as the constitution of his council is concerned, it is as different as night is from day from that which is proposed by Lord Esher's Committee. What have you there ? You have the Secretary of State through whom the council speaks to parliament. The Secretary of State speaks to parliament upon the recommendation of the other members of the council. There is first a military member who is charged with military policy in all its branches ; there is another military member, who deals with recruiting, pay and discipline ; the third deals with clothing, remounts and transport ; the fourth deals with armaments and fortifications ; there is a civil member who deals with civil business other than finance : and, lastly, there is a civil member, the financial secretary, who deals entirely with the question of finance. These members are all coordinate in the council, but they can only speak to parliament through the Secretary of State ; and in speaking to parliament he is guided solely by the recommendation of the member who has charge of the particular department which is referred to. The council proposed by the minister is not along that line at all. While the object is all right, it does not seem to me that we should establish a council in Canada simply because they have established one in Great Britain, which is absolutely different in its constitution, which has to deal not only with the auxiliary forces in Great Britain, but Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
also with a standing army of some 500,000 men.
I do not know that there is anything further that I need say, except this. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat suggests that if the council in the united kingdom is to some extent an experiment, it might at least be well for us to pause a little and see what the result of that experiment will be, rather than to rush in and appoint a council ; that it is unadvisable to follow the recommendations of this committee of Lord Esher's in some respects, and not to follow them in other respects, and insist on starting an experiment ourselves because an experiment has been begun in the United Kingdom. It may be that the report of this committee if acted upon, will result in great good. That remains to be seen. But it does not necessarily follow, even if that should be granted, that the experiment which the Minister of Militia now proposes to make is one that will result in any very great good.
With regard to friction between the head of the department and the General Officer Commanding, I do not propose to deal with that at present, except to say that it will not do for any one of us to imagine that because friction exists the other party is always absolutely and entirely at fault. There may be a little fault on both sides. I suppose that where differences occur in this world there is very often fault on both sides ; and perhaps the difficulties that have occurred have not been so much the result of the system as the result of lack of tact on one side or the other, or on both 'sides, in trying to carry that system out. At all events, it does not seem to me that any crisis has occurred in this country to make it necessary to depart from that which has worked fairly well in the past, and which might do fairly good work in the future. I do not propose to detain the House further than to say that it does seem to me, in view of what I have heard both from my hon. friend from South Norfolk and from the Minister of Militia, that we are not wise in departing hastily from that which has served us well up to the present time.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with a good deal of interest to the minister's explanation, and also to the addresses on this side of the House. I think the address delivered by the hon. leader of the opposition has convinced the minister that after all it would be advisable for him to hold over the clause in the Bill relating to the council, until he can adapt it more closely to the British, law, or at all events until he sees how that law will be worked out. The chief advantage claimed for the council is that it will afford an opportunity for these gentlemen to meet together and discuss various questions that arise from

time to time. One of the chief arguments advanced for gettng rid of an imperial General Officer Commanding is that he controls the Militia Department. Well, Sir, if the facts were inquired into, I think it would be found that the General Officer Commanding, at all events the last one, has not been treated with the courtesy due to a gentleman occupying, that position. From the various papers which the Minister of Militia has from time to time laid before the House this year in regard to the department, we find that the large number of letters and orders which have passed between the Minister of Militia and the General Officer Commanding have passed through the deputy minister. I am free to say that that is an entirely improper course. I have no hesitation in saying that communications passing between the minister and the General Officer Commanding should be direct, and not through the deputy minister. If the minister wanted to have this council, why should he not summon these gentlemen to his presence at any time-the General Officer Commanding, the quartermaster-general, the deputy minister, the adjutant-general and the director-general of ordnance ? These are all capable men, they are all at his disposal at the present time, and there is nothing to prevent him summoning them to his presence at any time, and having an informal and unofficial chat with them. I understood from the minister that when the Bill passed the committee stage and came up for its third reading, the details of this council would be submitted to the House, and the duties, powers and restrictions of each member of it would be determined.
The minister says he is going to bring down the regulations at some subsequent time. I purposed at the time asking, in case the council Were determined upon, that the minister should make the chief staff officer of that council an imperial officer with high imperial training, and I thought that in the statute the duties of these officers should be determined. That is very important, and had the minister done that it would have removed any opposition which might have developed against the proposition in certain quarters. However there is another argument which is used from time to time as a plea for getting rid of the necessity of having an imperial officer as General Officer Commanding. One may just as well look things squarely in the face. There is no man who has the monopoly of the right to express his own ; opinions, and I am satisfied that if in this j and other countries certain matters in controversy had been temperately discussed before they came to a final issue, a great j deal of mischief and evil would have been avoided. The policy of drift is a policy j fatal to the interests of any people or individual. Had the British government faced the South African issue long years 1 ago in a kind, firm and effective manner, we .
would not have had the later troubles to deal with. If these Russian and Japan troubles had been faced years ago, there would have been no necessity for these two nations to have gone to war. If in the United States the difficulties between the north and south had been boldly faced at the proper time, that disastrous civil war would have been avoided. The same remark applies to troubles we have had within our own country. One of the links which joins this country with the empire is the appointment of an imperial officer to the command of our militia. There are only a few links left. We have the Governor General, we have the right of appeal to the Privy Council, and we had the General Officer Commanding, and that is about all. We are getting rid of the General Officer Commanding and in this measure there are certain changes, which while they may not affect the practical operation of the law, certainly jar upon our national sentiment as Britons. We have for instance the omission of the name of His Majesty almost entirely ; though it may be argued that the omission does not really make any practical change, still it touches the sentiment of the people and we know that sentiment plays a strong role in national affairs. Then we have these hon. gentlemen claiming our right to make our own treaties, and we are promised a Bill for the establishment of a Canadian navy, and we have the provisions in this Bill restricting the sending of our militia outside of Canada-; and taking all these things together, they lead to the conclusion that th'e policy of hon. gentlemen opposite is ultimate independence of Great Britain by evolution if not by revolution. The way to put a stop to that process of disintegration is to educate the people. I have faith in the people. I believe that if the advantages which accrue to Canada through its being part of the great British empire were fully made known in every part of the Dominion, there is not a man who values the best interests of this country who would not rally to the support of that principle. For that reason I shall be delighted if my hon. friends opposite will discuss this matter temperately here in the House so that both sides may be fairly presented to the people. If that line be pursued, I have sfficient faith in the people to believe that no appeal to race of fanaticism will prevent their standing firm by the old flag which has brought freedom, liberty and justice to all classes in the Dominion. We frequently hear the question of imperialism raised and are asked, are you going to keep a British officer in command who wants to build a line of forts along the border and build up imperialism and go in l'or all sorts of nonsensical extravagance ? And these gentlemen will point us to the United States as an instance of what a country should do in relation to military matters. Sir, I cannot employ the time



of the House better than give it a little record of the history of the United States- just a brief summary of the wars during the last hundred years, since 1793. Would you believe it, Sir, that democratic republic has spent, not millions, but billions more of money in war, military and naval expenditures, than has the whole British empire. I know that is a statement which will at first sight seem astounding, but the facts are easily ascertained. Here is a statement of the various American wars :
United States Wars.	Men.
Revolution, 1775-83	 395,330
N.W. Indian, 1790-95	 8,983
French naval, 1798-1800	 4,593
Tripoli naval, 1801-1805	 3,330
First Creek Indian, 1813-1814	 13,781
1812, Great Britain, 1812-1815	 576,622
First Seminole, Nov., 1817, Oct.,	1818..	7,911Black Hawk, Apl., 1831, Sept., 1832..	..	6,465Cherokee 1836-1837	
9.494Second Creek, May., '36, Sept.,	'37....	13,418Florida, Dec., '35, Aug., '43	
41,122Aroostook, '38-'39	
1,500Mexican, Apl., .'46, July, *48	
112,230Apache, Navajo, Utah, 1849-1855	
2,561Second Seminole, 1856-1858	
3,687Civil, Jan, 9, 1861-June 23, '65..	..	....	2,778,303Spanish, 1898	
298,913
So that if those who point out that if we would cast in our lot with the United States or become independent, we would have very little military expenditure, will look at the facts, they will find them startling. I have here a li^t of the wars of Britain in the same period. From 1793 to 1815, when Britain fought the whole world, her actual expenditure amounted to $4,155,000,000, and still Britain's war expenditures are not much more than one-half the expenditure, of the United States during the last hundred years. Canada has taken part in the wars of 1812 and 1837. and in the Fenian Raids, oif 1866 and 1870 ; the Red River Rebellion of 1870, the Northwest Rebellion of 1885, and in the South African war.


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: And the Canadian voyageurs on the Nile expedition.


Samuel Hughes: I am very proud of the Canadians who went on that expedition, but I did not include that, because th^y were not under arms. They did excellent work, but they went, not as soldiers, but as voyageurs.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: But they helped in the campaign.


Samuel Hughes: However, I shall be glad to include the Nile voyageurs. But add that item also, and you find that all the money that has been spent on the militia and in the wars of the Dominion of Canada is less than $70,000,000, counting from the first settlement of the country to the present time. Now, since 1791 and up to 1882 the United States spent in war no less than $8,839,527,573. I refer, for the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
figures to the American statistics, and^ I have the works here for reference. This sum included pensions up to 1866. Since 1866, the pensions paid have amounted to ,$3,037,826,080. On the army and navy from 1883 to 1903, the expenditure of the United States has been about $2,000,000,000. That does not include the incidental expenses connected with the Cuban*and Philippine wars. On this account I am satisfied you could add at least $300,000,000 to this sum. Then there is an extra amount of $3,000,000,000, the indirect expenses of the great American civil war as estimated by ^ the best statistical authorities. Take these items together and we find that from 1793 up to the present time the United States has spent no less than $16,877,353,653. This is against something over $70,000,000 in a bundled odd Years for Canada. The cost of war to Great Britain has been $13,000,000,000. Now, the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Armand Davergne) asked what was the average per head. The population of the United States is fifteen times that of Canada. The war expenses of the United States have been $281 for every $1 spent on war or the militia bv Canada. ' In other words, the United States have spent $20 per bead in war since tbeir establishment as a nation. But let us take the annual cost of the United States army and navy for the last year, and we find'these are the figures. These figures do not include anything for the state militia or national guards.



ANNUAL COST OF UNITED STATES ARMY AND NAVY.

[Stage Direction]
Total. Per head.
trmy	$115,734,049	$1	30Navy	
78,856,363	1	00Pensions	
141,752,870	1	75Total	$336,342,282	$4	05
Note.-For this year the United States estimates are much higher, being $96,000,000.
Last year, Canada spent thirty-seven cents per head-or, say forty cents per head -for militia and defence generally. As against this forty cents per head for Canada, Great Britain spends $6 per head, including the cost of the navy and the army for the whole empirfi ; and the United States spends $4.05 per head, as I have shown. Now, Canada's export and import trade amounted to $467,064,685 last year , Great Britain's trade to $4,388,150,265 ; the United States trade, imports and exports was $2,445,889,552. The revenue from the United States last year was $560,396,674 or $7 per head, of which they spent for war last year, $4.05 per head. The revenue of Canada last year was, say $15 per head
Mr. TALBOT.: Nine dollars.


Samuel Hughes: Surely, the revenue was more than $45,000,000. I think my 1 estimate was right, but let us say $12 per head-let us be safe and say $10 per head.

And, as against that we spent thirty-seven cents per head for the defence of the country.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: That is at least an indication of our common sense.


Samuel Hughes: We will come to that in a moment. Now the shipping of the world is compared as follows



SHIPPING OF COUNTRIES COMPARED.

[Stage Direction]
Tons.
Great Britain	 14,431,672
United States	 3,337,166
Germany	  3,138,568
Canada	 2,000,000
France	   1,519,922
Italy	  1,159,082
Norway	 1,632,757
Canada includes her coasting and inland shipping.
This is a comparison of the leading shipping nations of the world. And, for the defence of our shipping and of our empire country, Canada contributes the magnificent sum of thirty-seven cents per head. Now, a comparison of the expenditure of certain countries of the world of similar population to Canada will have an enlightening effect. And I would like you to note, Mr. Speaker which are the stable and which the unstable governments of this world. Colombia, which is included in the table I shall give, is the nation that, a little while ago sat idly by and saw the great Panama canal wrested from her and the independent state of Panama carved out of her territory. There are no other countries in the world, except Costa Rica and Corea, that stand on a par in expenditure on militia and defence. No other countries but these are so low in the scale for the preparation for defence as Canada.
Cost per Head.
Countries.	Popula- | tion.	J Army.	Navy. !	Total.
				$ cts.
Argentine	4,794	1-88	1 15	3 03Australia	4,740	[DOT]00	TO	1 00Belgium	6,799	1 65	Chili	3,050	1-54	1-35	2 89Colombia	5,000	[DOT]40	Denmark	2,464	112	280	3 92Greece	2,433	1-46	*60	2 06Netherlands	5,263	1-80	130	3 10Norway	2,339	1'64	[DOT]80	2 44Portugal	5,428	118	[DOT]80	1 98Koumania	5,912	1-27	' 15	1 42Sweden	5.175	1'94	[DOT]65	2 59Switzerland	3,315	1 71	1 71Canada	5; 371	[DOT]37	37
The population is given in thousands. 2G0J
In the case of Switzerland, which is paying $1.71 per head, I may mention that the rate is lower in recent years than in former years, because a great deal of the former expenditure was for the purchase of rifles and material. They now have these on hand as an investment, and all they have to do is to keep the supply good. Canada, as it will be seen, spends the magnificent sum of 37 cents per head for her militia. Now, Sir, a newspaper of Toronto, the ' Telegram,' said very properly the other day, in speaking of a recent speech delivered by the Postmaster General in that city, wherein he made a reference to ' the life-giving ploughshare ' and condemning militarism, had this to say :
Agriculture would see its products rot on the fields of Canada if Britain shared Sir William Muloek's one-sided love for the ' lifegiving ploughshare.' The agricultural preserving battleship enables the farmers of Canada to get the products of the ' life-giving ploughshare ' to the markets of the world. Every country needs ploughshares, but unless the despotism of a military nation is to rule the earth, the free nations must shelter the ' life-giving ploughshare ' behind the rifles of an army and the battleships of a navy.
Sir, you will search the record of all the countries of the world in vain, and except Corea and one or two of the semi-savage communities in Central and South America, you cannot find a nation so low down in the scale of military expenditure, and occupying so humiliating a position, as Canada does to-day in throwing almost the entire burden of her defence upon the British taxpayers. Take the United States as a fair example, and if Canada were to become independent, if she should cut adrift from Great Britain, she must be prepared for many years to come to assume an enormous burden of at least $4 per head of her people, to provide for self-defence, because then we should have to depend upon our own resources exclusively.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Samuel Hughes: I have been asked during recess by a number of gentlemen on both sides of the House to state the authorities I have consulted in making up my statement. I may say I have consulted the Financial Reform Association's ' Almanac of England,' one of the finest publications for statistical purposes, which takes a very radical view of all matters of this kind. I consulted also the ' Statistician and Economist,' an up-to-date publication from the United States. For data referring farther back, I consulted an old official publication issued for many years until 1889, the ' American Almanac', which was published by the Librarian of Congress and was thoroughly

accurate. Among other modem authorities I have consulted the New York ' Tribune ' almanac, the United States government reports, the Traue and Commerce Reports of Canada and the ' British Statistical Returns.' My figures I think will be found fairly accurate. I have left off the odd units.
(Mr. A. T. THOMPSON. May I ask my hon. friend a question before he commences his speech ? On what does he base his estimate of an annual expenditure of 37 cents per head in Canada ? Does he include the oapital expenditure for military purposes for this year 1


Samuel Hughes: No the figures I took were for 1903. X used the figures as published in the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce for that year. If the hon. member takes the figures of* the Department of Trade and Commerce for that year and divide them by the population he will find that I am within the mark.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Including the capital expenditure ?


Samuel Hughes: I am taking the figures published there.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I do not think it covers that.


Samuel Hughes: At the outside, I think the largest expenditure claimed is 46 or 47 cents for this year.
However, the point I want to make in connection with it is this. I have already given the tonnage of the Canadian shipping. I now purpose submitting a brief statement of nations having merchant shipping in every instance inferior in tonnage to the Canadian shipping and I will show the expense to which each of these countries is subjected for the sustaining of its navy for the defence of its shipping.
Country.
Argentine Republic.. Austria' Hungary..	..
Brazil	
Chili	
Denmark	
Prance	
Italy	
Mexico	
Netherlands	
Norway	
Portugal	
Spain	
Sweden	
Canada	 **
Mercantile	Cost of
tonnage.	navy.
95,000	% 5,516,000
556,000	7,558,000
158,000	13,408,000
113,000	4,003,000
538,000	6,875,000
1 519,000	61,359,000
1,159,000	25,400,000
18,000	2,285,000
612,000	6,675,000
1,632,000	1,615,000
106,000	4,187,000
784,000	7,188,000
	3,203,000
2,000,000	
Canada, with about 2,000,000 tons of shipping if we include our inland shipping, with her enormous shipping ranking fourth or fifth of the nations of the world, pays not one dollar. These are figures which I am sure will rather surprise the House and which will rather make those who talk very glibly around the country about Sevei-Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
ing the last ties that bind us to the empire and setting up our own flag as an independent nation, hesitate before they launch the great project of cutting the last tie that holds us to Britain and setting up our own establishment.
Canada's trade as compared with that of Great Britain last year stood in the proportion of about one to ten, her shipping about one to seven and her population about one to eight. Great Britain pays an enormous sum for the maintenance of her navy, I think $150,000,000. Canada profits by the protection afforded her throughout the world by that navy, yet she contributes not one dollar to its support. As has been aptly stated, Britain's fleet guards Canada's trade, Britain's army protects us throughout the length and breadth of the world. We profit by the fact that Britain has guaranteed our loans in the past and so saved the people of our country in straight dollars and cents large sums of interest money. Britain has given Canada vast military properties, forts and other public properties of the empire which Canada now holds. Britain conducts Canada's consular services and to it all we contribute one half the cost of maintenance of a little garrison at Esquimalt, and that is the sum total of Canada's contribution to the great imperial concern. Yet hon. gentlemen will hesitate as to whether we should allow ourselves to be considered as part and parcel of the great empire. Let us take another aspect of the case. Various plans have been proposed by the hon. gentlemen opposite for the defence of Canada. The Minister of the Interior in a very able speech delivered in this city, with much of which I heartily agree, said that it was his ambition to see a military rifle in the hands of every man in Canada with ammunition for practice and ranges where this practice might be carried out. This was the statement of the Minister of the Interior, one of the most progressive young members of parliament, one of the most progressive men in many respects in Canada, the Napoleon of the government. I find the Prime Minister himself-I do not know whether it was in a moment of weakness-on a very recent occasion when it was at all events congenial to take this line, stated that he wished to see volunteer companies, not rifle companies merely but volunteer companies in everv village, town, city and community in Canada. I find too, that the member for Labelle, speaking in this House has also endorsed similar views to those held bj the Prime Minister. These are the views held by these gentlemen. Now, Sir, on the other hand, I find the Toronto ' Globe ' with another line of defence.
The ' Globe ' has announced its defence policy. For land defence we will depend upon the kindness of our good neighbour, Uncle Sam. For maritime defence we already shelter behind the skirts of Great Britain. This

is definite, and, of course, carries with it a high spirit and a self-respect eminently suited to young Canada.
This is from the Toronto ' News ' whose editor is the chronicler of the Prime Minister. Now we will figure out the system of these hon. gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Militia himself has furnished the House this year with an estimate between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000, and yet as was announced only a year ago by the able young lieutenant, the member for Haldimand (Mr. A. T. Thompson) with all this expenditure on the militia we only have the shadow of the skeleton of a skeleton.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: For the whole militia ?


Samuel Hughes: I do not know the exact words the hon. gentleman used.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Might I ask the hon. gentleman to honour me so greatly as to read my speech. I can only deny what he said as I have already done in this House on several occasions.


Samuel Hughes: I understand the hon. gentleman referred only to the rural corps.	.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: My remarks referred only to the rural infantry, because owing to the extra pay for the horses, the cavalry and artillery came out at full strength.


Samuel Hughes: I will take the hon. gentleman's statement, I do not want to misrepresent him. But he referred to the fighting arm of the force.


Mr.   A.@: _T. THOMPSON. One of the fighting arms.


Samuel Hughes: Artillery is all right, cavalry is all right, but look at the records of any modern war and you will find that it is the man behind the gun, the man with the rifle, that does the execution. Nine out of ten killed and wounded in the present war, the records show, were killed and wounded by rifle bullets so that after all it is the rifle we have to depend on and the hon. gentleman admits that the infantry, the rural infantry, was the shadow of the skeleton *of a skeleton.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Will the hon. gentleman quote me a little further, and state what I said this session as to the government having provided the remedy which I suggested ?


Samuel Hughes: Notwithstanding that the hon. gentleman has taken it back this year, still it stands on ' Hansard ' in cold type.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I spoke the truth both times.


Samuel Hughes: In Canada there are 1,500,000 men capable of bearing arms, but let us say there are a million men available and if a rifle were given to each according to the suggestion of the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior, and the member for La-belle, (Mr. Bourassa), then there would be an immediate expenditure of $25,000,000 for rifles ; for ranges there would be an immediate expenditure of $50,000,000 because the rifles would be no good without the ranges, and for fifteen rounds of amuni-tion per man yearly there would be 50 cents a man, amounting to $500,000 a year or $5,000,000 running over a period of ten years. For the inspection and organization of these regiments and rifle corps the least sum that could be put down for a period of ten years would be $8,000,000, and I estimate this for ten years because none of these rifles will last longer than that period. Therefore for rifles we have $25,000,000 for ranges $50,000,000 ; for ammunition $5,000,000 for inspection and organization $8,000,000 which gives us a total of $88,000,000 during the first ten years for this rifle service alone. We would spend $88,000,000 in ten years or $8,800,000 a year for teaching the young idea how to shoot according to the policy of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. The subsidized press of the government charged the late General Officer Commanding with advocating the expenditure of $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 in three or four years, although that charge has never been proven, but here we have the Napoleon of Finance, the Minister of the Interior, the Prime Minister, and the member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) advocating a policy which would require $8,800,000 a year and remember that in this calculation is not included the expenditure for a navy nor for artillery nor heavy ordnance, nor saddlery, nor medical supplies, nor rations, nor horses, nor cost of organization, nor annual pay for the men. Following the custom of the present government in other matters there would be of course a large number of highly salaried officers looking after this organization and I have not included a dollar of pay for them. As to a navy, if we make comparison with other countries having an infinitely smaller shipping tonnage, fewer harbours, a shorter coast line, and less important interests in all parts of the world than Canada has, I am well within the mark in saying that our navy would cost us at least $8,000,000 a year if the policy of the men who would cut adrift from Britain were carried out. Then in addition we would require for equipment for the army $3,000,000 ; for artillery $5,000,000 ; and that would not suffice to fortify one harbour on the Atlantic coast, and one on the Pacific coast. There would be pay for officials and expenditure of various kinds which would amount at least to $10,000,000 a year, so that without one.dollar for equip-

ment and the various other things I have mentioned, we would have $34,800,000 every year, which this country must assume, and comparing it with the expenditure of other countries similarly situated, I venture to say it would he nearly half as much more rather than one dollar less. There is another aspect of the case. We have heard of lectures being delivered all over the country to the effect that Canada must cut adrift from Britain. I remember an able lecture delivered by my good friend Mr. Ewart, of Winnipeg, in which he pointed out a few disabilities under which we labour, and amongst others the right to appeal to the privy Council, and the denial of the privilege of making our own treaties, and the fact that we had an important officer commanding our forces. Nobody has ever heard of these things in the country, except in connection with the agitation gotten up by a very few demagogues. Let us compare the stability of government under the old British flag with that of other countries, and I will not go back further than one hundred years. The British constitution has not been changed for a hundred years, but what about France. X have always admired France and her people, because I understood the good qualities of the French.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, X am free to say that I am always glad to pay a tribute to the people of France. I chance to have a little interest in that people through ties of blood and relationship, and therefore I have no prejudices against them, paying little attention to the demagogic elements which display themselves at times among certain ones in Canada, and regarding their virtues rather than their little weaknesses. Since 1792 France has been in turn a kingdom, a republic, a directorate, a consulate, an empire, kingdom, a republic, an empire and a republic again. Within a hundred years she has had a dozen different constitutions ; she has been deluged with blood, her country has been devasted by war and her people have had to bear the enormous cost of all the dreadful struggles which in that time have agitated that beautiful country. The boundaries of France greatly changed in the same period. Alsace and Lorraine have been won and lost; the northern boundary has varied ; the Franche Comt6 has been added; she has added Savoy and Nice. At one time a part of Germany, the Netherlands, Holland and Belgium, were included in her territory, and afterwards were lost to her. She has also held part of Italy. Turn to Germany, and you find that South German Confederation, and the old Confederation of the Rhine were broken up, and various forms of government were established throughout the length and breadth of the country, largely owing to the operations of France. Prussia, Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
Pomerania, Brandenburg, part of Poland, part of Denmark, part Sweden, the free cities Bavaria, Wurtemburg, Baden, Elsass and Lothringen-these have all at various times within that period had constitutions of their own ; but they are all now within the great north German confederation. Their constitutions have changed. They too have been devastated with war and all its accompaniments. Italy within the same time has had included within its domains the following independent nations, such as Canada would be if she cut adrift from Britain : Sardinia, Piedmont, the Ligurian republic, tbe Cisalpine republic, Venice, Lombardy, Tuscany, the States of the Church, Naples, the Two Sicilies, and the little Kingdom of Italy. These were gradually absorbed one after the other ; and finally in 1870 when the war broke out between France and Germany, the capital which had been transferred from Turin to Florence ; was changed to Rome. The nations making up the kingdom of Italy have had a dozen constitutions during the century, and have been subject to all the disabilities that similar nations laboured under. Within a hundred or one hundred and ten years, the Netherlands and Belgium have changed. From the old Austrian Netherlands and the old province of Holland, they became part of France. then they were independent as the ' United Netherlands ' for thirty years ; and finally they became separated as Belgium and Holland. During that time then1 constitutions have changed, and they have suffered the horrors of war. I could go through the whole of the European states, and could point out how similar conditions have prevailed all over the continent.
Turning to the United States we find that she has been constantly enlarging her territory. In 1803 she obtained Louisiana from France by purchase. In 1819 she obtained Florida from Spain by purchase. In 1836 Texas, with the connivance of the United States, obtained its independence from Mexico, and in 1845 Texas was annexed to the United States the western part being purchased later. In 1846 the Oregon treaty established the boundary from the 42nd parallel and in the Rockies to the 49th parallel ; and in 1853 her territory was enlarged on the border of Mexico by the Gila -Gasden purchase; and in 1898 Porto Rico, and the Philippines were added, with Cuba independent. We find that the United States has preserved her constitution during that time, although her borders have greatly changed.


Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE.: How about Canada ?


Samuel Hughes: Canada is part of Britain, and in that time Canada has formed her confederation, a young nation, and is pursuing the co-operative line.


Mr.   R.@: I/. BORDEN. Development.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, the line of development. We are pursuing the co-operative plan, and we want to pursue it still further in connection with the mother country.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Will my hou. friend allow me to ask him a question? Have we not had changes in our boundaries?


Samuel Hughes: May be, I am not very well up in 'geography,' but I do not see where Canada has won or lost any territory-or at least, where Britain has lost any. Canada does not own any territory. Britain owns this country. It was British dollars and blood, not Canadian dollars and blood, that bought and won this country, and I fail to see that since then it has won or lost any territory. People in Canada have a perfect right to hold independence views if they choose, and some may wish to see Canada annexed to the United States ; but I am convinced that the great heart of Canada is in favour of a still closer union with the motherland, by which we shall become full partners in the concern, taking our fail-share of its burdens ; not content to spend simply 40 to 50 cents per head per year on the militia but not a cent on its naval defence, when every other country with a shipping not half of what Canada has, spends millions on its navy. If we were full partners in the concern, we would have all the advantages that belong to a cooperative society in business. We would have that prominence which has characterized Great Britain through the centuries, when the map of the world and the history of the world shows that all other nations have been the victims of chaos and disintegration.
In conclusion, I may point to this fact, that with such a union there would be an object lesson that would guarantee the peace and prosperity of the world, as that could be accomplished by no other union. In various countries we have heard of massacres of human beings within the year. In the Soudan, in the ten years preceding th'e British occupation of that country, upwards of 3,000,000 people were butchered in cold blood. Since Britain has taken possession of the land, the country has prospered, the expenditure has been far more than met by the revenue, and Canada as well as Britain has become interested in the trade of that country. The United States has brought the Philippines under the sway of civilization and modern government. Great Britain, united with her colonies, and standing shoulder to shoulder with United States, which I would like to see, could dictate terms to the people of any country who would tyrannize over their fellow men.
Take the case of Turkey, upwards of 40,000 people have been butchered in Turkey
within twelve months, yet Europe stands idly by unable to interfere on account of the jangling and quarrelling of European nations among themselves. But if Britain and her colonies were united and standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States, they could dictate to the Sultan of Turkey or to the government of any country that persecution must cease within the borders of that country, and that would undoubtedly at once put an end to it. Many years agq when amid the old Alpine mountains persecution was rampant, a message was sent by Cromwell-and the power of England was then not nearly so great as it is to-day -that if the persecution did not immediately cease, English cannon would be heard and English soldiel's would be seen, not in the Swiss mountains and Alpine hills, but in the streets of Rome and under the walls of that city, and on the receipt of that message persecution at once ceased. In like manner, if the civilized powers of the world, if Britain and her colonies alone, standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States, would take concerted action, that would bring about a condition of affairs which would make for the peace and prosperity of the world and put an end to these expensive wars.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the motion.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I draw the attention of the chair to the fact that there is no seconder to the motion.


Mr. INGRAM.: There is a seconder and as good a man as the one who raised the point.
Amendment (Mr. Tisdale) negatived on division.
iMr. HANCE J. LOGAN. I have an amendment to move, and before doing so I shall make one or two explanatory remarks. In so doing, I shall not follow the example set by the bon. member for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes), but will take up as short a time as possible in explaining the object I have in view. I propose to move that sections 79, 80 and 81 be struck out and another section substituted. These sections provide for the calling out of the militia of Canada in the case of a riot or disturbance., Under them the militia can be called out at any time by three justices of the peace sending a requisition to the district officer commanding. Such a request compels that officer to send the militia to the locality where the disturbance either occurs or is expected to occur. I do not think that such power should be given to three men who are not responsible to any one. Both in the United States and Canada, the militia have been called out when there was no particular need for their services. There is, for instance, great difference of opinion as to whether the militia was really needed at Valley-field. It was certainly called out against the protest of the civil authorities. There

is also some question as to whether the militia should have been called out a few weeks ago at Sydney. I have no personal knowledge of the matter, except that I know that question has been raised. We should endeavour to prevent its being so easy for men to be called out to shoot their fellowmen in order perhaps to carry out the behests of some corporate or private concern. I believe in the militia being called out when absolutely necessary, but I do not believe that we should leave it in the power of three justices of the peace, who are responsible to no one, to cause the militia of Canada to be called out in time of disturbance or of anticipated disturbance. In the amendment I propose moving, it is provided that where a disturbance is anticipated or a riot or disturbance has occurred, the first person to be approached must be the head of the municipality, for the municipality after all has to pay the Bill, if the militia is called out. In other words, if a disturbance should occur, the first person who shall have power to ask for the militia to be called out shall be the mayor or warden or other head or acting head of the municipality. In case the mayor or the warden declines or is unable to act, then an appeal can be made to the county or district court judge having jurisdiction in such place, or if there be none, to any judge of the Superior Court who has jurisdiction there. In other words, I want to provide that the first person who shall be called upon to bring out the militia shall be the one who is immediately responsible to the people. The people have to pay the piper, and should the warden or the mayor decline, possibly through influences that are not exactly proper, then an appeal may be taken to the judiciary of the country. I beg therefore to move the following amendment:
That Bill No. 5, intituled an Act respecting the Militia of Canada be not now read the third time, but be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to the committee to strike out clauses 79, 80 and 81, and substitute therefor the following
79.	The district officer commanding in any locality, if ha is present in the locality and able to act, or if he is not so present, or from sickness or other causes is unable to act, the senior officer of the active militia in 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, when thereunto required in writing by such civil authorities hereinafter mentioned ; provided always that so far as the permanent force is available, in the opinion of the officer upon whom the requisition is made, a sufficient number of that force is to be employed upon this duty before recourse is had to other militia corps.
79a. The civil authorities by whom such requisition may be made are-[DOT]
(a.) If the place where the riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated is municipally organized, the mayor, or warden or other Mr. LOGAN.
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 to any judge of a Superior Court having jurisdiction there.
2.	Wherever under subsection 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 unable to act, the requisition may be made by any five justices of the peace having jurisdiction at the place where such riot or disturbance occurs or is anticipated.
3.	Where the requisition is made by a judge any statements 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 shall not be open to dispute by the officer upon whom the requisition is made.
80,	In every such requisition it shall be stated that a riot, or disturbance has occurred or is anticipated, and that the service of the active militia is required in aid of the civil power.
81.	The requisition may be in the following form, or to the like effect, and the form may be varied to suit the facts of the case :- County of
To wit :
Whereas, it has been made to appear to our satisfaction that a riot or disturbance of the peace, beyond the powers of the civil authorities to suppress (or to prevent, or to deal with,) .and requiring the aid of the active militia to that end, has occurred and is in progress (or is anticipated as likely to occur) at (or in)	 a place
municipally organized (or not municipally or ganized).
And whereas (here state any other facts upon which the authority of the person or persons making the requisition depends, as, for example, that a mayor, &c., has declined, or is unable to act, or that any judge or all the judges who might have acted are absent or unable to act or that there is no judge with authority to act).	,
These are therefore to require you to call
out the active militia present in	
or such portion thereof as you consider necessary for the purpose of suppressing (or preventing, or dealing with) such riot or disturbance.
Dated at	 this	day of
	, 19	
(Here follow the signature or signatures of the civil authorities making the requisition followed by words or letters showing the capacity in which they act.
You will notice that under section 79a it is provided that in unorganized districts, where there is no judge, and where there is no

mayor or warden, five justices of the peace may call out the militia, but in all other parts of Canada, incorporated towns and municipalities, the militia can only be called out by a request, first of the head of the municipality or, in case he declines or is unable to act, by an appeal to the judiciary existing in that part of the Dominion. There is one point in section 79a to which X desire to call the attention of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), as I think he has before him a copy of this amendment. On mature consideration, I think it may be better to change this amendment somewhat. I think we might add to the mayor or warden two justices of the peace-but to providp that the mayor or warden must consent


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Why not two councillors?


Mr. BOGAN.: That has been suggested, but I am afraid it would not be practical in a large city like Toronto or Montreal. When immediate action is needed, as in these cases, you can always get hold of the mayor, and there are always magistrates in the district available. Under the amendment, as I at first proposed it, power is given to one man-the mayor. It might be that he would not be the proper kind of man-he might be excitable or be under wrong influences. It might hardly be wise to place it in the power of one man to bring out the militia possibly to attack his fellow-countrymen. So I think I will change this proposed amendment of mine in committee, so as to insert, after the words ' mayor or warden,' the the words ' and two justices of the peace.' Under our present law the requisition for calling out the militia must be signed by three magistrates, one of whom it is provided shall be the mayor or the warden. But it provides, further on, that if the mayor or the warden refuses, the other magistrates can proceed in spite of his refusal, or even his protest. Under the amendment, as I shall submit it to the committee, the mayor cannot call out the militia alone, but must be accompanied in the requisition by two magistrates, but he can prevent the militia being called out even if the two magistrates desire it. If he objects, there must be an appeal to the county court judge, or, in some parts of the Dominion, to the superior court judge.


Frederick William Borden: Before my hon. friend (Mr. Bogan) takes his seat, I would ask him to point out specifically the words of the Bill that are changed by his proposed amendment.


Hance James Logan: I will first read the old section.


David Tisdale: The hon. gentleman means the section of this Bill ?


Hance James Logan: There has been no change, as I understand it.


David Tisdale: Yes, I think there has been. I have had some experience. The senior officer present is ordered out-a captain can be ordered out in preference to a coloneb


Hance James Logan: That is not the point I was referring to. The question is, not to whom the requisition is directed, tout what civil authorities have the power to call out the militia. If I mistake not, the old and the new law are the same on that point.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It substitutes 'shall' for ' may '-it is ' shall ' in the new Bill and ' may ' in the present law.


Hance James Logan: I do not see much difference. Because if it is ' shall ' in the new Bill, yet if he refuses to act it does not make any difference, except that the fact is reported to the district officer commanding. In the old Bill the mayor 'may' be one of those to call out the militia, but under the new Bill he ' shall ' be one, but still, as I say, it does not make any difference, because when the report is made to the district officer commanding, that seems to end it, and the militia are still called out by the three justices of the peace. These three authorities could call out the militia under the old Bill ; by the amendment which I am placing before the House the mayor of an incorporated town or the warden of a county or district are substituted for the three justices of the peace and the chairman or custos of the board of sessions. It provides' further that in the case of the warden or mayor declining to call out the militia or is unable to do so, there is then an appeal to the county court judge in some parts of the Dominion and to the superior court in other parts.


Robert Laird Borden: An appeal-does the hon. gentleman mean a technical appeal ?


Hance James Logan: I would not call it exactly an appeal. But supposing a strike were under way

Mr. GOURLEY-Application would be the right word.


Hance James Logan: An application would be an appeal, because a man who thought his property was in danger in an uncorporated town would go to the mayor and ask him to call out the militia ; if the mayor refused, in that sense he could appeal to the judge of the county court.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I hope the Minister of Militia will see his way to accept the substance of this motion. I have not had time to consider the language, but that is immaterial. Now my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) said there was very little difference between the section in the new Act and the section in the old, and I concur in that. While the old Act names the officer commanding in the district, the new Act still enlarges the number of militia officers from which that choice can be made. But none of the militia officers can act ex-

cept upon requisition of three justices of the peace. Now that is the point I want to make so far as Nova Scotia is concerned. When this Act was originally passed there was an entirely different state of affairs in the maritime provinces. In 1868, when the old Militia Act was passed we had no municipal authority in Nova Scotia, we had the court of sessions with a custos at the head of that body. Now this Act to-day repeats the anomaly of referring to the custos. That is an anomaly that should not appear in the Act, for so far as the maritime provinces are concerned, there is no custos at all, and there is no part of the country then to which that refers. It is an utterly obsolete phrase. The point I wish to make to the minister is this, that at the time the custos was referred to he was the governing authority of thq municipality, he was the head of the body that had to pay the bills, and it was very proper then that the Act should vest that authority in the person who was responsible as the head of the county for paying the expenses of calling out the militia. Now that there are new conditions existing X want the new Act to correspond with those conditions. At the present time there is no custos responsible to the people of the county, and no court of sessions, but in their stead we have erected a municipality, so that to-day in every town or municipality the authority belonging to and exercised by the old quarter sessions or custos is now exercised absolutely by these new bodies. Therefore as the law placed that authority in the custos a few years ago-because he was the representative man and he was the head of the body that had to pay the bills-it should now be placed directly in the hands of those who have to pay the bills. For surely if a town is to be charged with a large expenditure of money it should have something to say, and have some responsibility in connection with incurring the debt. Now I have not been able to read the motion and only understand it from having heard it read ; but the genius of the motion is one that should be incorporated in the new Bill. I must say, however, that I think, as my hon. friend has taken up the idea, he should perhaps have carried it to a more logical conclusion, that is, he should have vested the authority, in towns, in the mayor and say three councillors. This story of not being able to get the councillors together-why, every town council or the majority of them, can be called together in half an hour in every incorporated town in Nova Scotia. These riots do not occur in a moment; they are the subject of discussion for weeks and weeks, and then they culminate. There would never be a sudden' disturbance in which you could not get the municipal' body together. Supposing a riot was threatened in a town over which a municipal council has authority. All Mr. GOURLEY.
the counties are supplied with telephones. I could inform everybody in Colchester in an hour by using the telephone in an emergency. Therefore, I think there is no advantage in this provision, as you could reach them almost as quickly as you could reach any three magistrates in the county. While I concur to a large extent in the motion, I think where there are regularly organized municipalities, the authority should be vested in the mayor and, say, three councillors, or perhaps the council should be called together and this should be decided at a special meeting of council called, say, on twenty-four hours' notice. In the case of a county council forty-eight hours' notice might be required, and in them the authority should be vested. This idea of putting a great power like that into the hands of three irresponsible magistrates is not right. The magistrate to-day in the province of Nova Scotia is utterly irresponsible to the public. He is simply a quasi criminal judge exercising summary jurisdiction not responsible to any one on earth ; and to put this enormous power into the hands of three magistrates is a mistake. Very often these magistrates are men in the employ of the very companies who desire them to exercise this very authority. In the case of the recent strike at Sydney I am told that all the authorities were in the employ of the company, and now the town of Sydney will be visited with an enormous expenditure because the militia were called out. If the council of the town of Sydney had been consulted, a body of representative men, elected by their fellow-citizens, lawyers and business men, who would know exactly the responsibility they were assuming in this matter, the militia would not have been called out. But they are passed over, and three magistrates, utterly irresponsible characters in the employ of the company, set about ordering out the militia, putting the whole cost, perhaps $50,000, upon their fellow-citizens. It is a wonder they are not mobbed. I think the hon. member for Cumberland has moved exactly in the right direction. The only thing is that we want the section drafted with care. I am not prepared to accept any exact wording as given without consideration, but the essence of his amendment should be accepted by the Minister of Militia, as far as the maritime provinces are concerned, because the whole circumstances have changed since the origins1 law was adopted. The other is a splendid idea. We have county court judges all over Nova 'Scotia and Supreme Court judges. If there is any question of any place not having a county council or a city council, then let application be made to one of the judges. A judge could be applied to anywhere in Nova Scotia within five hours, and a judge would be a fair-minded, judicial man, who would require an affidavit of some responsible person setting out the facts and would exercise a proper discretion, such as you could expect from the three magis-

trates. We must remember that the militia officer has no discretion at all. When the requisition comes to him he has to act; and, therefore, we should be careful to place the responsibility of requisitioning him to call out the militia in the hands of the most responsible people in the community. That is, perhaps, the most serious power the people can exercise, and it should not be put in the hands of three irresponsible persons. The Minister of Militia must know how irresponsible many of the magistrates who hold commissions in Nova -Scotia are. You can get three of them at any moment to sign a death warrant. X mean that while many of them are respectable men, you could pick up three of them who would call out the militia without proper justification. A company could go around and pick up the most worthless magistrates in the community and get them to call out the militia. The cost of so calling them out would be charged against the civil authority of the town who would not have a word of appeal in reference to the calling out. I sincerely hope the Minister of Militia will see that the principle of this amendment is accepted, and that the wording is properly arranged.


Mr. ARCH. CAMPBELL.: I desire, as a member of the House, to enter my protest against this proceeding. This Bill was introduced in the early days of the session. It was fully discussed and amended in committee, it was then reprinted and we have spent day after day over this Bill this session, when that time should have been occupied with more important business. Now, in the closing days of the session, on the third reading an important amendment is moved without any notice having been given. I do not know whether the amendment is good or not, but I say it is a wrong thing to thus take a leap in the dark and to accept a long and important amendment. I, for one, will protest against the passage of such an amendment to-night.


Mr. A. W. PUTTEE.: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the session is too far advanced to make a wise change such as this. I believe the amendment should be accepted ; I believe it is a necessary and wise substitute for section 79 of the Bill in its present form. When we were in committee I made a proposition very similar to the one now in your hands. I pointed out the weakness of section 79. It is provided there that the militia may be called out on the requisition of two justices of the peace and the mayor, and if the mayor refuses, his refusal is simply noted and the proceeding goes on. I pointed out that the mayor is the only man who represents the people who have got to pay, and if he refuses, it should take some superior power to override him. I believe that if this amendment is accepted it will work out very beneficially. It will place the responsibility upon the mayor and the warden. When in time of
emergencey, as often happens, people who are excited, or people who have some end to serve, come and ask for the calling out of the militia, the mayor would feel the responsibility of his position, and would proceed to exercise the power which he has as head of the municipality, and to s'wear in special constables to keep the peace. I claim that that plan is far preferable to having magistrates rush out the militia.
Sir FREDERICK; BORDEN. I wish to say that the amendment which my hon. friend (Mr. Hogan) has moved was not shown to me until a very short time ago, and I have been so much engaged in the debate this afternoon that I have not had an opportunity of examining it. However, as my hon. friend from Colchester and other members who have spoken upon the subject have said that there are merits in the amendment-and I quite agree in that view -and as I feel that the question is really one of the most important features of the whole Bill, I think that, even at this late date, it is desirable that due consideration should be given to my hon. friend's proposal. I sympathize very much with my hon. friend from York (Mr. (Campbell) in his desire to get on with the Bill. I dare say that I feel more strongly than he does on that subject, but nevertheless it is never too late to do the right thing, and if we have been here all this session and have failed to seize on the vital point that is necessary to make this part of the law what it ought to be, surely it is our duty to pause now and do whatever we have failed to do heretofore. I would therefore feel disposed to make this suggestion, that if it can be understood that the exact words of the amendment shall not be considered to be binding, but that the House can go into committee with the understanding that in committee a form of words may be agreed upon which shall include the principle which my hon. friend wdshes, we might go into committee.


David Tisdale: For a long period this power has been vested in the magistrates, but if the men now appointed to that office by the governments of the different provinces, deserve the character which has been given them in this House, it is time we should take the power out of the hands of the magistrates. Magistrates are now vested with great power over personal liberty, and it is intolerable to hear that such men are appointed to the office as. hon. gentlemen have told us of to-night. If proper magistrates were appointed, I would oppose this amendment, but in view of the generally expressed opinion that such magistrates are not appointed, they should not be entrusted with power under this Bill.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: There are many good magistrates appointed in Nova Scotia, but there are some who are appointed for political reasons only, and probably those who wanted to have the militia called out would

appeal to magistrates who are not the best of their class.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I have only a word to say. We know that to-day half of the strikes that are organized in Canada are incited by American labour organizations, and in view of that fact we should do nothing in this parliament which would make it impossible or difficult to have the militia called out in aid of the civil power to safeguard life or property. I do not care what means you take to do it, but there should be ample authority in this Bill to have the militia called o'ut when it is necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: When we were debating this section as far back as the 22nd of March last, I drew attention to the desirability of giving to the municipal body, which would have to pay the expense, a greater voice in the calling out of the militia in such cases. The Minister of Militia made no reply to that, but on the same day I asked the Minister of Justice whether he did not concur in that view. He very fairly stated that while he realized the importance of it, we must take into consideration the possible disinclination of municipal authorities to call out the militia in view of the fact that they would have to pay the expense. It seems to me that the motion of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Logan) is in the right direction, but its terms must be very carefully considered. The hon. gentleman desires to bring in the judicial authority in case the municipal authorities do not see fit to act where action is necessary ; but the manner in which that should be done will have to be carefully weighed. Is the judge going to act ex parte without notice to the rest of the community ? The difficulty is that if you do give notice to the rest of the community, in the meantime your riot is going on. If I were called upon to construe the amendment, I would not without great consideration be able to interpret what it means. My hon. friend spoke of it as an appeal, but obviously it is not an appeal. Is it the idea of my hon. friend, that the judge should act as a judicial officer upon evidence ?


Hance James Logan: My meaning is that the first application for the aid of the militia must be made to the mayor, and if the mayor declines or fails to call out the militia, then the parties who are aggrieved can go to the judge of the county court and apply to him in the same way as they would apply to the mayor in the first instance.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a question of being aggrieved. The idea in the first instance was, that three magistrates who are appointed to preserve the peace should as conservators of the peace call out the militia to aid the civil power if the civil power needed aid. It never was in-


Seymour Eugene Gourley: tended, and it should not be intended that any particular person who is aggrieved should have power to ask for the calling out of the militia. It is the public peace that had to be considered in the first place, but of course private rights are involved in that, because private property might be destroyed. My hon. friend (Mr. Logan) says that you are simply to tell the judge that it is desirable to call out the militia, and that you need not present evidence.


Hance James Logan: You would have to convince the judge. He would not call out the militia without being convinced of the necessity for doing so.


Robert Laird Borden: When you speak about convincing, you must mean the presentation of evidence.


Hance James Logan: There would not be time in the midst of a riot to give evidence.
iMr. R. L. BORDEN. That is what I think, and that is why I do not see how you could go to a judge as a judicial officer. The judge having jurisdiction in the district may live fifty miles away from the scene of the riot, and if you do not go to him as a judicial officer and produce evidence, how can he know of the circumstances of the riot ? The justice of the peace is supposed to see the riot before him, or to know, from his personal knowledge of the locality, that it is imminent. But a judge who lives fifty or sixty miles away will know only what some one may tell him or what he may read in the newspapers. I am not pointing this out for the purpose of defeating the object of my hon. friend from Cumberland, because I have already expressed my view in favour of that object; but I am pointing out that it is not an easy thing to deal with. We want to guard against the militia being made use of for purposes inconsistent with the original intention of the statute. We want to give the municipality a proper voice, but we do not want the militia to be called out for the purpose of coercing anybody of men in the interest of any person. We want the militia to be called out when there as a breach of the peace or a threatened breach of the peace, because we require the peace to be kept in this country. We want to safeguard all these considerations ; but it may not be so easy to state our object in plain language. I will support the motion to refer the Bill back to the Committee of the Whole, and if that is done, we may find a way out of the difficulty suggested, and put the statute on a better basis than it has at present ; because I thoroughly agree with that part of the remarks of my hon. friend from Cumberland in which he said that the statute in its present condition is not very satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and House went into committee.
\

Mr. LOGAN moved that sections 79, 80 and 81 of the Bill be reconsidered.
Motion agreed to.
David Tisdale: As I understand the amendment, it proposes, first, to give the municipal authorities entire jurisdiction in the matter, and, secondly, if they decline or fail to act, to give the jurisdiction to a judge.


Hance James Logan: That is right, so far as organized municipalities are concerned. There is a special section referring to unorganized districts.


David Tisdale: If you give the jurisdiction to the municipality, there are two things that ought to be observed. According to my view, we ought not to relegate it to the representatives of the municipality alone, because they are elected officials, municipal politicians, and they might be more influenced by considerations of expense than by the necessity of the circumstances. We must remember, or else there is no justification for this legislation, that life and-property are above expense ; and therefore we should consider not only those who are liable for the expense, but somebody in whom the legislature has confidence, and who would have a voice in regard to the larger principle of the protection of life and property.
Then as regards the judge, I think the suggestion an excellent one, judging by Ontario, that the county judges should be given the power. I assume that the protection of life and property is above the consideration of expense. We ought to have always some one at hand to whom we could apply to have the militia ordered out, some one who is disinterested in the sense of being neither a politician nor interested in the expense, and I do not know of any one who could fill the bill better than a judge.


Hance James Logan: If the mayor would refuse to call out the militia because he did not wish to take the responsibility, then the parties can apply to a judge.


David Tisdale: But in some of the districts, which are very large, would it be fair to put all the responsibility upon the judge ? He might be some weak man who would hesitate to act. Why should he not have some assistance in arriving at a conclusion ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The intention of the statute is to enable a militia corps to be called out in case of a riot or disturbance, and the question arises who shall call it out. Under the present law it is provided that the chairman of the quarter sessions or three magistrates, one of whom may be the mayor or warden, can requisition the district officer commanding, and that officer is obliged to obey their requests. When this
question was up for consideration it was argued that as the municipality would be burdened with the expense, it was but right that it should have something to say in connection with the requisition. It is to meet that difficulty that the amendment is proposed. I understand the amendment to provide that instead of the chairman of quarter sessions, whose duties have now disappeared, the mayor or warden may requisition for the troops, and in case they refuse then a judge of the county court or district court may act, or in default of either a judge of the Superior Court. These judges would perform the duties that are now vested in the three magistrates. It is further provided that in the event of the mayor or warden refusing to act and of there being no judge available, then five justices of the peace may requisition the district officer commanding. But the trouble would be to get the five justices of the peace.


Mr. EMMERSON.: WThy not make the sheriff the officer to determine ? He is charged with the custody of the peace in a municipality, and it seems to me he would be a very proper officer to act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If there are no other suggestions, I would move that the committee rise and resume consideration of the amendment to-morrow.
Progress reported.



FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 74) to amend the Fisheries Act- Mr. Prefontaine-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Aulay MacAulay Morrison: With the permission of the committee I beg to withdraw the amendment I moved.
Motion agreed to and amendment withdrawn.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I would like to withdraw the clause. I move that clause 2 be struck out.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does this mean that the proposition to use traps in British Columbia is not to be carried out?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This means that the section is to be dropped and the law to remain as it was.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are not traps now permitted to be used in British Columbia?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are traps there as I stated before dinner. They have been used in British Columbia for the last ten or twelve years, and they will continue to be used just the same.


Mr. EARLE.: Are any other traps to be allowed except those for which permission was given some years ago ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, there are others used at present, I understand.


Thomas Earle: Under license ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Thomas Earle: Are other licenses to be granted, or does this do away with the granting of trap licenses in British Columbia ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The law remains as it is.


Mr. CLARKE.: What is the law ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Where are the traps located that are now allowed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In the northern waters of British Columbia.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is a very satisfactory answer. We would like to know where they are, at any rate within a hundred miles.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That was explained fully before dinner, and also why they were tolerated.


Thomas Earle: Under what law or rule are they permitted to fish with traps in British Columbia to-day?


Charles Fitzpatrick: As I understand it, the l&w that we have had on the statute-books since 1886 has been construed, down to the present time, as authorizing the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to issue licenses for trap-nets.


Andrew B. Ingram: During certain seasons.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, without restriction. Going on that assumption licenses have been issued and I suppose it is intended to issue 'them in the future as in the past.


Thomas Earle: But is the law such that any one applying for a trap-net license would be able to obtain it ? Is it dependent on the will of the minister ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, the power is with the minister.


Andrew B. Ingram: We have here a peculiar state of affairs. What was the object of the minister putting this section in the Bill? The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison) condemned the clause the minister proposed and the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Ralph Smith) supported the minister. I understand that the other members from British Columbia strongly supported the minister in the legislation he offered to the House. Now, what has brought about these changes ? Has the minister changed his views ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: Or backed down ?


Thomas Earle: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I never back down. This clause was introduced in the Bill under the impression that it was necessary, and to regularize the position. On more fully considering the case it was found that the clause was unnecessary and I decided to drop it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, the minister in effect says that the advice given by his chief officials is wrong, and the hon. member for New Westminster is right. So, the minister is obliged to withdraw the legislation his officials have advised him to adopt.


Thomas Earle: As I understand the minister, some time ago when speaking to me on the subject, it was open, to any one who would comply with the regulations to obtain a license for trap fishing. I would like to hear from the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Ralph Smith) and the hon. junior member for Victoria (Mr. Riley) who were on the commission that investigated this question, and, as I understood, recommended that authority should be given for trap fishing such as was intended by this Order in Council. Now, it comes down to this, that we are in the position that we have been in for the last few years. I would like to understand from the members of the committee who are here what their views are with regard to the recommendation they made.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The section in the Consolidated Statutes reads :
No one shall use a hag-net, trap-net or fish pound, except under special license, granted for the capture of deep-sea fish other than salmon.
That was- sought to be repealed by the section that is now dropped. It appears that the minister can grant licenses to use trap-nets other than for salmon fishing. But, I understand that the proposition was for salmon.


Andrew B. Ingram: I take it that the minister is in favour of the Americans catching the larger portion of the salmon that comes up the Fraser river, seeing that he is not willing to let Canadians fish with the appliances that the Americans use.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: These are the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Ingram's) conclusions.


Andrew B. Ingram: These are the arguments advanced to-day, and the hon. minister has backed down.


Thomas Earle: I would like to know in what position those parties are who have gone to the expense of erecting traps. They tell me that they have spent something over $20,000 and their license enables them to fish for one year only. So. they will be at the will of the minister, whether they shall be able to use trap-nets in future or not. If that is the case, it is a serious matter1.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Those who took the licenses knew the law under which they took them.


Thomas Earle: The law, as I was given to understand it, since the Order in Council has been passed is interpreted by the minister in an entirely different way from what it was.


John Graham Haggart: I think the hon. minister from Victoria (Mr. Earle) did not pay attention to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) said. As I understand that bon. gentleman, he told us plainly that these traip licenses "were issued under an assumption of authority by the minister. And I think there can be no doubt about it. The law is as clear as possible. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has no power whatever to issue the licenses to catch salmon in trap-nets. He wanted authority to issue such licenses, but he now withdraws that clause and leaves the law as it was. If I understand the English language it seems as plain as possible that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, under the old Act, has no power to issue licenses for trap-net fishing.


Thomas Earle: In regard to the law, of course I am notable to speak authoritatively. But last year when an amendment to the Fisheries Act was introduced, the power to grant trap fishing licenses was included. Then, in obedience to some representations, or for some other reason, that provision was withdrawn ; and the minister, when questioned by myself, said there was power already in existence giving him authority to issue licenses to fish by traps. Now I maintain that if there is power to grant licenses to fish by traps, why not provide that any one complying with the fishery regulations shall be able to obtain a license to fish in that manner ?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. [DOT]
Andrew B. Ingram: I would ask thei minister whether he intends to allow these fishermen to continue their trap fishing for salmon ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: If the law does not give him the right, what authority has the minister to allow them to do so ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That construction of the statute has been acted on since 1886, and I do not suppose great harm will follow if that construction is continued to be acted upon.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I understand that is not the true construction of the law.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not say anything about that.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the minister in what position these trap-fishermen are at the present moment.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: They are in a very fine position.


Andrew B. Ingram: What about the gentlemen who are applying to fish with trap-nets ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They are also.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me there are some matters about this that might be considered a little. It is quite an unusual situation to have the Minister of Marine and Fisheries suggesting a particular amendment to the law, and then withdrawing it without any information whatever. It is not a matter to be passed over without some reason being given. If the Minister of Justice thinks that the law as it stands at present does not justify the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in doing that which he proposes to do, we have this situation before us, that the minister proposes deliberately to violate the law as understood by the Department of Justice. Well, does the hon. gentleman take that position ? It is not a very usual position for a member of the government to take, it is not a position that is to be passed by with a mere jibe or smile. I think the minister should take it a little more seriously, and give us some information as to why this Bill is carried in its present form. Moreover, if these licenses are to be granted simply according to the caprice of the minister, is that a very desirable condition of affairs ? I understood that was stated to be the case, in answer to the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Earle). Does the minister regard that as good administration ? He may, but I think there are some hon. gentlemen, even on the other side, who would not so regard it. A great many probably would not regard it as a very proper mode of administering public affairs. I think the minister ought to give us some explanation of this.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When I withdrew the amendment I gave an explanation as clearly as possible, and there is no necessity for the hon. gentleman reading me a lecture on what is the duty of the minister of Marine and Fisheries, or a member of the cabinet. I understand perfectly well my position. I withdraw the clause because I thought it was unnecessary. I think that is perfectly plain language, and means that the law asT it exists is sufficient.


Robert Laird Borden: Was not the minister advised that the law was not sufficient before he introduced that measure ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I was advised- not by the Minister of Justice-by some of my officials that it might be better to have this clause inserted. But after considering the whole question I have come to the conclusion that there was no need for it. That was my opinion at first, and I have come

[DOT]back to the opinion that this clause is unnecessary.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman think it was wise to act on the advice of his officers, contrary to his own opinion, without first obtaining the opinion of the Department of Justice ? Has he obtained any such opinion ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Robert Laird Borden: In view of the doubt that obviously has existed in his department, why does he not obtain an opinion from the Department of Justice ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I had never any doubt about it.


Robert Laird Borden: If the minister had no doubt, he took a most unusual course in proposing an amendment that has already taken up the time of this House for a considerable period-


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I did not lose much time when I discovered the amendment was unnecessary.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN-in proposing that amendment as to the uselessness of which he had no doubt. That is the minister's position. He knew that the amendment was not necessary, knew absolutely, never had any doubt about it; yet he has put this country to the expense of having it printed, and the House to the inconvenience of considering it for some time, when he had no doubt on the subject at all. Well, it is not wonderful that our sessions are prolonged when ministers of the Crown will act in this way.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Lecturing an opponent is very easy. But there is this fact. I have declared before this House that I introduced this clause on the advice of some of my officials, although I was perfectly satisfied there was no necessity for it. You see this every day, Bills introduced to test the opinion of the House. In this case it was a small clause introduced to test the opinion of the House. Where is the harm in that, or what is the use in losing an hour or two hours in cross-examining me about what I thought at the beginning, what I thought at the middle, what I thought at the end, and what I think at the present moment. I think this is a loss of time.


Robert Laird Borden: I am inclined, to agree that it is hardly worth while to consider what the minister did think at any of these periods, because it does not seem to have any particular value.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It had this value that the clause was withdrawn.
'Mr. R. L. BORDEN. And because it changed so very often.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No it did not.


Thomas Earle: Mr. Chairman


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The Bill has now been disposed of, and the hon. member cannot discuss it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why not ?


Peter Macdonald: He can discuss the propriety of rising.


Thomas Earle: I would like to enter my protest as strongly as I can against the course the minister has pursued in regard to trap licenses. If the course he has pursued and is pursuing is continued, it will be most unjust to the canners and fishermen of British Columbia. The commission reported upon the desirability of granting trap licenses.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: No, if the hon. gentleman will permit me, he is entirely in error in saying that. I happened to be a member of the commission and it reported nothing of the kind.


Thomas Earle: You did not report against it ?	.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: They reported against the desirability of admitting trap licenses.


Thomas Earle: That was a year ago, but not against granting them in the future, and I understand that the commission this year, consisting of the hon. members for Vancouver and Victoria were in favour of granting such licenses, and considered it was only fair they should be granted.


Ralph Smith: Do I understand the hon. member to say that the commission was appointed last year ?


Thomas Earle: Last year,


Ralph Smith: No there was no commission last year. The commission was appointed in 1901 and the commission did not report in favour of trap fishing.


Thomas Earle: I read the report, and I think it will bear out what I say that although you did not report in favour of granting trail-licenses that year the inference was that at a future date trap-licenses should be granted.


Aulay MacAulay Morrison: No ; quite the contrary.


Thomas Earle: Aside from that, it was decided to issue trap-licenses this year and trap-licenses have been issued. If so, why confine it to one or two people. Why not issue them if the applicants comply with certain regulations which the department may issue ? That is the complaint I have to make.


Ralph Smith: If the hon. member has read the regulations issued by the department he will see that every man complying with the regulations issued by the government can have a trap-license.


Thomas Earle: The minister does not say
Mr. PREFONTAINE moved the third reading of the Bill.


Ralph Smith: I am not talking about what the minister says. If the hon. gentleman will read the official regulations as published by the government he will see that what I have said is correct. I have a copy of these regulations. The hon. gentleman has seen this and he must see that any British subject complying with the regulations may apply to the minister and get a trap-license.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the hon. gentleman to favour the clause which the minister has just withdrawn.


Ralph Smith: Of course when the minister tells us that the Act as it was is as effective as it would be in the amended form, why should we make any change ? It does not matter so long as the license is legal.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that he was not aware of the minister's opinion until this evening ?


Ralph Smith: I thought that the minister considered this necessary or he would not have introduced it. I consider that when the minister has explained that m his opinion the old Act is effective, that is as satisfactory to me as if he had passed his amendment.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman think that under the present law traps can be established at the point advocated this afternoon ?.


Ralph Smith: I certainly think so-. I believe that the licenses and regulations issued by the government are effectual.


Thomas Earle: I must have misunderstood the minister because I understood him to say that if any licenses be granted they are only granted by the minister, that there are no regulations enabling anybody to put up traps and be ceftain they will be able to obtain a license.


Ralph Smith: If the hon. member will permit me, he has a copy of the regulations in his possession, and they will tell him plainly that the regulations passed by the Order in Council permit any British subject applying for a license for trap fishing and complying with these regulations to have that permission.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. member for \\ estminster has a right to complain. If the minister's contention is right and if the contention of the hon. member for Vancouver is right then the hon. member for Westminster is not doing his duty if he does not object to it, because that was the ground of Ins objection to-day.
Bill as- amended reported.
Amendments read the first and second time.


Robert Laird Borden: I have had my attention called to subsection 14 of section 7 of the statute which has been referred to. It is as follows :
No one shall use a bag-net, t.rap-net, or fish-pound, except under a special license granted for capturing deep-sea fish other than salmon.
Is the Minister of Marine of opinion that under that subsection he has power to grant a license to capture salmon ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 16 modifies it.


Robert Laird Borden: Speaking hurriedly I would not think that section 19 which is a section of a general character giving authority to issue leases and licenses would interfere with the plain intent of subsection M of section 7 which seems to me to contain a direct prohibition against issuing licenses for the use of these implements in the capture of salmon. That would be my view, speaking very hurriedly of course and without much consideration. I would still recommend that the Minister of Marine should get the considered opinion of the Minister of Justice on this point.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolutions :
1. That It is expedient-
(a.) To authorize the .Governor in Council to purchase from the Alexander Gibson Railway, and Manufacturing Company, and to authorize the said company to sell and convey to His Majesty, the whole of the railway and undertaking formerly belonging to the Canada Eastern Railway Company, but now vested in the Alexander Gibson Railway and Manufacturing Company, the same having been sold, transferred and assigned to that company, pursuant to and by virtue of chapter 59 of the statutes of 1898, including the main and branch lines of the said railways and all buildings, fixtures and appurtenances appertaining thereto, together with all the rights franchises powers privileges and property held or exercisable in respect thereof or in connection therewith ; and that upon such purchase being effected the said railways and its branch lines shall become and form part of the government railways system and be operated as such.
(b.) That it be made a condition of such purchase that the said railway and undertaking shall be conveyed to His Majesty free and clear from all charges liens and encum-branches affecting the same under and by virtue or in respect of any mortgages, bonds, debentures, preference stocks or other securities or otherwise howsoever.
(c.) That authority be given for the payment for the said railway and undertaking
[Stage Direction]
*8223
[Stage Direction]
and other property as aforesaid out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of $800,000. a _ . .
2. That whereas the Fredericton and Saint Mary's Railway Bridge Company has made default in payment of the advances of money paid to it by the Governor in Council under the statutes of 1887, chapter 26, and of interest thereon which said advances and interest were made a first charge and lien and were duly secured by a mortgage on all the property, real and personal, of the Bridge Company, and by reason of such defaults all the property real and personal, and all the rights franchises, easements and privileges of the said Bridge Company became by virtue of the said last-mentioned Act and mortgage forfeited to the Crown, it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council, by his officers or agents, to enter and take possession of the said property, rights, franchises, easements and privileges on behalf of His Majesty and operate the same or any portion thereof as part of the government railway system.- Mr. Emmerson.
Henry Robert Emmerson: In presenting these resolutions I shall endeavour to be as concise as possible. I invite the attention ot the committee to the railway in question and to the conditions which prevail in connection with it. The Canada Eastern Railway connects the waters of Miramichi Bay at Loggieville with the River St. John and Fredericton. The whole distance of the line including the branches is 13G4 miles. The main line of the railway is 125 miles There is a branch known as the Nelson branch, and another known as the Blackville-Iudian-town branch, in length 91 miles. The first
portion of the railroad built was known as the Chatham branch, w'hich connected the town of Chatham on the Miramichi river with the Intercolonial Railway at Chatham Junction. That was built in 1875 and was subsidized by the Dominion government to the extent of $24,439.84 worth of old rails. There was no subsidy granted by the provincial government to that portion of the
road.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the amount of the subsidy ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: When that road was built it was the policy of the Federal government to aid the construction of railways by granting so many tons of rails per mile, and in this case the value of the rails granted was $24,439.84. That company was known as the Chatham Branch Company, and it was operated from 1875 to 1884 by a company, the principal member of which was Mr. Alexander Gibson, of Marysville, N.B., a gentleman widely known in his own province and indeed throughout the Dominion. Mr. Gibson organized a company known as the Northern and Western Railway Company, to build a line of railway from the Intercolonial Railway at Chatham Junction to the river St. John at Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
Fredericton, a distance of 108 miles. They built that road, and they also built a branch line from Blackville to Indiantown connecting at Indiantown with the branch of the Intercolonial Railway known as the Indiantown branch, which runs from Indiantown to Derby Junction on the line of the Intercolonial Railway. This Blackville-In-diantown branch was built in 1886 and the distance is 84 miles. The distance from Chatham Junction to Gibson on the banks of the river St. John is 108 miles and that line was built in 1884 and 1885. For a certain period, while the Chatham Branch made connection at Chatham Junction with the Intercolonial Railway and also with the Northern and Western, these railways were run as separate coporations and separate railways In 1890 or thereabouts, the Chatham Branch Railway Company amalgamated with the Northern and Western, and Mr. Gibson who was interested in the Northern aud Western united his interests with Mr. Snowball and his Chatham corporation, and they formed what was known as the Canada Eastern Railway Company. Then the whole line, including the Chatham branch, the Blackville-Indian-town branch, and the line from Chatham Junction to Gibson and across the Fredericton bridge to Fredericton, became known as the Canada Eastern. These forces were united for a number of years when, through some disagreement as to the management, Sir. Snowball retired from the corporation and sold out his interest in the Chatham branch, 94 miles long, for $200,000. In 1894 the Nelson branch, or Nelson loop as it was called, was, built, and it was 54 miles in length. In the same year, 1894, the line was extended from the town of Chatham to the terminus at Eoggieville, which is a fishing town in which large fishing and canning interests are established. That made the total length of the line 1364 miles and there are connected with that line sidings to the extent of 81 miles. The assistance given by the several governments to the construction of these several roads was as follows : The Dominion government gave in cash subsidy to these several lines $350,400 in all ; they also gave old rails to the value of $24,439.84, making a total subsidy contributed by the Dominion government of $374,839.84. The provincial government subsidized the line from Chatham Junction to Gibson to the extent of $400,000 as a total subsidy. It was then known as the Northern and Western. It therefore follow's that what is known as the Canada Eastern Railway, the railway w'hich it is proposed to purchase and make part of the Intercolonial Railway, was subsidized by the federal and provincial governments to the extent of $774,839.84.
In 1875. When it was proposed to construct the Chatham branch, the municipality of Northumberland voted a bonus of $20,000 for that branch ; but for some reason or

other, which I know not, the bonus was never pail, and was never collected from the municipality. The section of this line between Blackville and Chatham Junction, a distance of about twenty miles, was never subsidized by the Dominion. The Blackville Junction branch to Indiantown, a distance of eight and a half miles, got a subsidy from the Dominion only, and not from the province. That is to say, the Dominion subsidized from Gibson, on the bank of the St. John river, to Blackville, and thence on to Indiantown, but did not subsidize the Northern and Western line from Blackville to Chatham Junction where it made connection with the Intercolonial Railway. As I have stated, the Canada Eastern Company, becoming possessed of all these lines, operated them, and operated them very successfully. It operated the line in connection with the Fredericton bridge. I am sure that all the members of this committee are familiar with that bridge. It was a bridge constructed over the St. John river connecting the city of Fredericton with the town of Gibson. It was built by the Fredericton Bridge Company. The government of Canada made a loan to that company of $350,000, with interest at 4 per cent, and a mortgage was taken on the bridge. The Frederieton Bridge Company entered into a contract with the Canada Eastern Railway Company, whereby the latter secured running rights over the bridge, and connected their terminus at Gibson with the city of Fredericton by constructing an additional mile or thereabouts of railway.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it built as a railway bridge ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It did not get a subsidy ; it only got a loan ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It also got a subsidy later on from the Dominion government of $30,000. I think the Canadian Pacific Railway also secured running rights over the bridge, and operated it in connection with what is known as the Gibson line, from Fredericton or Gibson to Woodstock on the northern side of the St. John river.


John Graham Haggart: Who owns the bridge ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Fredericton Bridge Company, and the government has a mortgage against it. There has been no interest paid on that indebtedness from the time the loan was made down to the present, so far as I am aware.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was the loan made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The bridge was a steel bridge, built in 1888, and it connects by rail the Canadian Pacific Railway at the city of Frederieton with the Canada Eastern Railway at Gibson across the St.
261J
John river. I may state for the information of the committee that the bridge consists of six spans of 242 feet in length, or 1,452 feet in all; two spans of 165 feet, or 330 feet in all ; and one swing span of 245 feet; making the bridge over 2,000 feet in length. The loan was made in 1888, and before the bridge was completed the subsidy of $30,000 was granted.


Albert Edward Kemp: What amount is now due in interest compound yearly or half-yearly ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not made the calculation. Hon. members will find, in the return brought down, a copy of the mortgage to the government of Canada given by the Fredericton and St. Mary's Railway Bridge Company.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Are they practically the same people in interest as the railway corn-company ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not identically so. The total cost of the bridge is said not to have exceeded the amount of the loan and the subsidy, although I am not in a position to state that to the House as a fact, because I have not taken pains to find out particularly whether the bridge company did actually contribute something to the cost of the bridge or not.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the income from the bridge not been more than sufficient to keep it up, or why is the interest altogether in arrear ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is claimed that the income from the bridge has not been more than sufficient, if indeed sufficient, to keejj the bridge in thorough repair.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the income ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the return, and have not received from the company any return yet.


Albert Edward Kemp: Who had the right to fix the income ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The bridge company, subject to the Governor in Council, as regards the tolls.


Mr. E. D. SMITH.: In what condition is the bridge 'i


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is in a very good condition. One of the spans was injured some few years ago by a very severe ice pressure and that has been repaired, and in other respects the bridge is in a very sound condition. The business of the road, during the first few years, when these several roads were operated separately, was not very great. Indeed, for the first year or two after the amalgamation of the several railways unde) the corporate name of the Canada Eastern, the earning power of the road was not very satisfactory. But in 1894, in consequence ot the growing importance of the towns which that railway serves and of the attention

which was paid by the management to the business interests of that section, the road seemed to make very considerable progress. The gross earnings of the road and the expenditures and net earnings were .as follows : '
Year.	Gross Earnings.	Expenses.	Net Earnings.1894.	$ 96,000	$ 65,000	$ 31,0001895	108,000	68,000	40,0001896	122,000	77,000	45,0001897	127,000	83,000	44,0001898	127,000	86,000	41,0001899	127,000	91,000	36,0001900	137,000	99,000	38,000
These expenses included the expenditure generally, comprising the betterments. There had been established some pulp industries, one particularly at Chatham, a cotton mill also was established at Marysville, and several large saw-mills were built along the line of the 'Canada Eastern, all of which very materially swelled the earning power of the road. A difficulty arose, however, in connection with the traffic, and it became a question as to whether that traffic, say from Marysville, should seek an outlet to the market by way of the Canada Eastern to Chatham junction and thence to Montreal and the Ontario market, or whether it should cross the river and take the Canadian Pacific Railway. In the latter case, the earnings for the Canada Eastern would not amount to very much at all ; but as the traffic went by way of the Canada Eastern and sought connection with the Intercolonial, the earning power of the road increased.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. gentleman did not give us the earnings after 1900.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
Mr. II AGO  ART@: It is in the returns. I have it here.
Mr. EMMERSOiV There is a return- however, I shall come to that as I proceed, it arises in the order of my remarks. I have spoken of the rent of the road, the country if traverses and the business that has been done. It is material for us to know what amount of money has been invested in the road. I would invite the attention of lion, members to a report made by Mr. Schreiber, and also to a report of the engineers, giving a statement of the cost of the road. According to Mr. Schreiber the road and the rolling stock cost $2,098,412. or an average of $15,'429.50 per mile. This is the cost of the road from the returns made by the company and their presentation of the case. In All. Schreiber's report of May 9th, 1904, he gives us the cost of the road and then the cash cost per mile. The total cash cost he puts down at $1,768,000 or an average of about $13,000 per mile.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The road could never have been built for that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He draws a distinction in his report between the cost of the road and the cash cost.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The road between Truro and Windsor, one of the nicest countries in the world, cost $30,000 per mile. I have that direct.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Canada Eastern in their return state the cost of this road

at upwards of $15,000 per mile, while Mr. Schreiber gives the cash cost at $1,768,000 or $13,000 per mile. In that way he gives what is known as the present value of the road to be $1,221,220.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Does this include the rolling stock or not 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, that includes rolling stock.


Albert Edward Kemp: Has the hon. minister any estimate of the cost based upon the earning power of the road for the last five or six years ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Reference is made to that in Mr. Sclireiber's report. I have not that report before me. He does not figure out what it would be.
Mr. HAGGART, What does he value it at on its earning power ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He dops not put it in dollars and cents. He calls attention to the fact that the earning power of the road, taking into consideration the last two years, would not justify placing a high value upon it. I propose to deal with the matter from that standpoint. We must take into consideration conditions and circumstances, and we must bear in mind the history of the road. We must remember that this railway, like a great many branch lines in the maritime provinces, was constructed through an excellent country, but by people who did not anticipate that, after the road was built, there must necessarily be efforts made to keep up the standard of the road to retain traffic or to manage the road from the standpoint of creating business. The result has been that the road got into such a position that it was necessary to take every dollar that was earned-and more if they could get it-to maintain the character of the road after it had been allowed to fun down, in a measure, and after the earnings had been used, perhaps, not for maintaining the road, they were obliged to take all these earnings at a later date and attempt to recover the ground that was lost.


Albert Edward Kemp: What kind of business were they obliged to refuse to carry on the ground of the condition of the road?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were not obliged to refuse traffic. But the passenger traffic on that line has certainly not been, for the past few years what it should have been. If people intended to go from Moncton to Chatham and to the north shore, they would go by Canadian Pacific Railway to St. John and around to the Intercolonial Railway, ir preference to going by this road. The train service has been such, except for a few years, as would not induce travel. That section of the country is a splendid section, and, if the line were properly maintained. *
the tourist travel alone would be an excellent and paying feature. The railway, by reason of its condition, has not had even the freight traffic which other conditions would have secured.
I may say that if you take the business aspect of this railway, constructed as it was, maintained as it has been, running through a country excellent in every res-peet, rich in various resources, with the possibilities there are for a large increase in these directions-if you take that aspect of the railway you will realize that from a business standpoint it possesses potentialities that have never been realized, but which might be realized under different conditions. Now the nature of the traffic, the lumbering interests there, the mining interests, the connections that will be made with the coal fields, the pulp industries about being reestablished, the fishing industry which is a growing one-in all these lines there is a business aspect which should not be overlooked in considering this proposition. Now Mr. Schreiber, in a report which he made to Mr. Blair, speaking of the volume of business, says :
I am informed the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are in negotiation with the Canada Eastern Railway Company for the purchase of their road between Chatham and Fredericton. If such be the case, I suggest it would be greatly in the interest of the Intercolonial Railway traffic to head off any such arrangement, for, rest assured, that if it gets into the hands of such a powerful rival competitor as the Canadian Pacific Railway is, great inroads will most certainly be made into the business of the Intercolonial, more especially that which is now drawn from the Miramichi and Bathurst districts, and points north thereof, but so long as the Canada Eastern remains an independent institution, the Intercolonial can pretty well control the traffic along its own lines. I am not, as you are well aware, an advocate of government operation of railways, nevertheless, I do hold to the opinion that so long as it is the policy of the government to own and work railways, just so long should every effort be put forth to maintain the traffic of their roads, yes, indeed, in every legitimate way. If the ideas I have expressed meet your views, I may perhaps be permitted to suggest that rather than allow the Canada Eastern to pass into the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway, it would be a good move for the government to acquire the road, if it could be had at a reasonable figure. This road is said to be in a good running condition and the earnings according to the railway statistics exceed operating expenses, and have steadily increased from year to year, which is satisfactory, as it goes to show that there is an advancement in the development of the country, inasmuch as. the earnings of the road now are derived from local business.
Then lie proceeds to give a statement with reference to tliat :
It will thus be observed that in 1887-88 the gross earnings per mile of railway were $389.50, which increased in 1896-97 to $929.22, an increase of over twenty-five per cent.


John Graham Haggart: Would you mind laying that report on the table 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: You have it there, it is among the papers brought down. It is dated December 13, 1897. Mr. Mackenzie's report for that same year makes reference to the business of that road, and I would refer hon. members to the statements contained both in Mr. Schreiber's report and in Mr. Mackenzie's report as to the volume of business. Now in the resolution under the consideration of the committee, it is asserted that it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to secure this road, that is the effect of it, and to run it as a part of the Intercolonial system. It might be desirable for me to point out why the Intercolonial should want it, why this road should become a part of the Intercolonial system. It must be obvious to all that the geographical conditions surrounding that railway make it desirable that that road should become part of the Intercolonial system. When we bear in mind that the Intercolonial has a sphere of influence of its own, that is to say, that it runs down through the northern section of New Brunswick and controls the traffic of that whole section, running from Moncton to Riviere du Loup, it will be recognized that it would |be necessary to maintain its control .over that section at least. We recognize the fact that the railway is much longer than the Canadian Pacific Railway running through the maritime provinces ; we recognize the fact that the Intercolonial has to skirt that great stretch of country around the southern shore of the St. Lawrence river, and that it makes a bend until it strikes the waters of the Baie des Chaleurs and thence on down to Moncton. Now it controls to-day the traffic of those northern sections of New Brunswick, the Baie des Chaleurs, the Gaspe, the Miramichi, the Richibucto, all those waters and all those towns, and the traffic arising therefrom is under the control and within the zone of the influence of the Intercolonial. But the Intercolonial to-day has no connection with the heart of the province of New Brunswick; it does not reach that great, rich and flourishing section of the province, the St. John valley. It is true that the Canada Eastern has been able to make a very satisfactory rate, and if that were to continue it would not be so important, from that standpoint, to make this Canada Eastern a portion of the Intercolonial system ; but if it were to become the property of a rival corporation, the Intercolonial would be entirely shut off from the centre of the province. Acquire the Canada Eastern and you give the Intercolonial Railway not only the control of its present sphere of influence but you enable it to enter into the heart of New Brunswick and you put it in competition at Fredericton with other lines. It Mr. EMMERSON.
can get its portion of the traffic, it can reach the flourishing settlements along the shores of the St. John river, and more than that, you place it in a position whereby you are enabled to connect the government system with the coal fields of New Brunswick, because a railway is now being constructed from the heart of the New Brunswick coal fields, that is the Newcastle and Grand Lake coal fields as these are called, to connect them with the Canada Eastern at Gibson.


Albert Edward Kemp: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: Negotiations were in progress with the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Albert Edward Kemp: Has the hon. gentleman any definite knowledge with regard to that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, you will find a statement of that in the return.


Albert Edward Kemp: A statement by the officers of that railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, not by the officers of that road. The officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway were in negotiation for its purchase and they had an option on the road for $800,000.


Albert Edward Kemp: And they turned it down ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Subsequently there were negotiations with respect to this sale but a difference arose as regards the amount which the Canadian Pacific Railway were willing to pay. I need not detain the committee by referring to the importance of the Chatham and Fredericton sections. The industries at Chatham and at Fredericton are very important, and the traffic from them would be very considerable indeed. Last year alone there was an exchange of traffic at Chatham Junction of upwards of $125,000. Take the Canada Eastern away from its present owners and put it under the control of another corporation making connections with the American and western markets by means of the Canadian Pacific Railway and you cut off the earning power of the Intercolonial Railway very materially. If you refer to the report of Mr. Tiffin, or of Mr. Mackenzie, or of Messrs. Mackenzie & Burpee, you will see that the loss from freight and express business would be of very considerable importance. Under present conditions the Intercolonial Railway is enabled to get to the city of Fredericton by means of the Canada Eastern. Make that railway a part of the Canadian Pacific Railway system and the Intercolonial Railway is entirely cut off from Fredericton and the heart of the province. But more than that, you will have an invasion of the Intercolonial Railway territory by the Canadian Pacific Railway which would have a very material influence upon the earnings of the Intercolonial Railway.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Do you pay them anything for carrying the mails ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Just the same as we pay other roads. The Baie des Chaleurs trade and the Sliramichi trade is under the control of the Intercolonial Railway. That is a very considerable trade. Let us look at the matter of pulp wood alone. Gentlemen representing the capitalists who are now reconstructing that Sliramichi sulphide mill were here the other day with respect to freight arrangements over the Intercolonial Railway, and it was found that in and around their mill alone the daily tonnage to be handled would be ten cars of pulp wood, and three of coal inwards, and four cars of pulp wood outwards, making a total of 17 cars to be handled daily on which the railway would receive the freight earnings. The Intercolonial Railway can now control that traffic to the American market, and if they purchase the Canada Eastern they can control it either by way of the Canada Eastern or by way of Chaudiere. But if you permit the Canadian Pacific Railway to acquire these rights, they would invade that territory. They would be competitors with the Intercolonial Railway and by reason of the greater distance to the American market they would practically cut off entirely a great deal of the American trade which originates along the line of the Intercolonial Railway to-day in and around Chatham, Newcastle, Bathurst and other points on the north shore. As the Canada Eastern exists to-day it is a very great feeder to the Intercolonial Railway. As I stated a moment ago, 8125,000 represented the interchange of trade with the Canada Eastern at Chatham Junction. It is an important feeder and must become more so.


John Graham Haggart: The whole traffic of the road is only $116,000 for passengers and freight. How could they bring $125,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is only with respect to the $125,000 interchange at Chatham Junction according to the report of Mr. Tiffin, and of Mr. Mackenzie, the Intercolonial engineer, who make this report as to the interchange of traffic.


John Graham Haggart: Surely the minister must be mistaken in some way. The whole earnings of the road are only $116,000, passengers and freight, and how could there be an interchange of $125,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend will refer to the report ?


John Graham Haggart: I do not care anything about the report. I have your report in which it is stated the whole traffic from passengers and freight is about $116,000 per year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In Mr. Mackenzie's report I might read this letter. It is dated March 21, 1904, in which it is stated :
The inward business between the Canada Eastern and the Intercolonial Railway amounts to about $125,000.
That simply means the interchange of traffic at Chatham Junction which goes by way of the Intercolonial Railway to western points, and which does not represent either gross or net, the earnings of the Canada Eastern, but which represents the interchange of trade at that point coming from Chatham Junction.


Albert Edward Kemp: Coming and going ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Coming and going.


Albert Edward Kemp: Does that not represent charges that are earned by other road.) which may haul that freight 500 miles or 1,000 miles ? Does not that include the earnings of the other roads, only a portion of which goes' to the Canada Eastern ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That may be, but that does not effect the question. I am not putting that down as earning power, or as representing the gross business of the Intercolonial Railway ; but what it does mean is that the Intercolonial Railway, by reason of its connection with the Canada Eastern, is enabled to have this traffic over its line as far as it goes. A portion of it may go beyond Chaudiere junction and Lfivis to American points, or it may go to the eastern townships, but wherever it goes, if the Canadian Pacific Railway had connections there and could invade that territory and had control of that line from Chatham junction to the town of Chatham and to Loggie-ville, then it would be all lost to the Intercolonial Railway.


Mr. BARKER.: Does the minister say that his officers have told him that that $125,000 traffic could be taken away by any other line ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Certainly it could.


Samuel Barker: The greater portion of it must be for points on the Intercolonial Railway that the Canadian Pacific Railway could not reach.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There may be a proportion, but this represents the shipment from this point, and it is composed very largely of fish and pulp


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman tells us what the total traffic is. His officers could tell him exactly what the interchange is for points that the Canadian Pacific Railway could reach, but the minister is giving the whole traffic.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend mistakes the point I am seeking to make. It is not as to what proportion belongs to the Intercolonial Railway, or what is retained by the Intercolonial Railway to-day ; but it is with respect to the control of the traffic within that territory. The traffic originating at Loggieville and Chatham finds its market at American points.


Samuel Barker: Does the minister mean to say that the traffic originating at Loggie-ville or Chatham amounts to $125,000 a year interchange ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is what I said at that point-Chatham junction.


John Graham Haggart: You will find it is the total value of the products exchanged there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It says that the interchange of inward business between the Canada Eastern Railway and the Intercolonial Railway amounts to about $125,000 a year, which, if the Canada Eastern Railway were made a competing line, would be lost to the Intercolonial Railway, and that traffic, in stead of going up over the Intercolonial Rail way, would go by way of the Canadian Pacific Railway to Fredericton, and thence on to Boston and other American points by way of the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Boston and Maine Central. A portion of that goes to-day over that line, but if the Canada Eastern were to be secured by the Canadian Pacific Railway, no portion of that traffic would go by way of the Intercolonial Railway up to Quebec to connect with the Central, the Grand Trunk Railway or any other railway there. That is the point I am seeking to make, and that is the point the officers made in their report in respect to that.


Samuel Barker: What is the total interchange of traffic at the junction point, whether it is divertible to other lines or not ? The $125,000 includes everything '!


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have stated to my hon. friend that some of it goes by way of the Intercolonial Railway.


Samuel Barker: And could not go any other way ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It could go another way.
Mr. BARKER, There must be a very considerable traffic to points on the Intercolonal Railway that cannot be reached by any other line. .


Henry Robert Emmerson: For the twelve months ending the 29th of January, 1904, there were shipped from Chatham 169 car-loads to Canadian points via Fredericton ; that is, by way of Fredericton and the Canadian Pacific Railway to Canadian points ; there were 47 car-loads to Canadian points via Chatham junction, and 11 car-loads to United States points via Chatham junction.


Albert Edward Kemp: Surely the Intercolonial Rail way would get very little earnings out of that traffic at the present time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: But the Canadian Pacific Railway gets it, and if the Intercolonial Railway had control of that section of the line from Chatham to Chatham Junction instead of allowing that to go around by Mr. EMMERSON.
the Canadian Pacific Railway, they could take it from Chatham junction.


Albert Edward Kemp: But they take it now and lose money at the end of the year.


Mr. EMMERSON  .@: My hon. friend is anxious to take even the little express business and send it around by way of the Canadian Pacific Railway ; but I am actuated by a higher and, I trust, a holier motive ; I want to secure this business for the Intercolonial Railway ; I want to see that traffic come by the Intercolonial Railway to the Chaudiere and make connection there for American points. It can be done to the advantage of the shipper ; it can be done to the advantage of the Intercolonial Railway ; and it will not be contributing to American lines as is now the case, because when it strikes Yanceboro, on the Canadian Pacific Railway, it runs over the Boston and Maine system to Boston and other points.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a little more definite statement as to this in Mr. Tiffin's report, at page 58, of the documents brought down.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I asked hon. gentlemen to refer to that. For the twelve months ending January 29th, 1904, there were 141 car-loads shipped to New England an,d western points via Fredericton. You see, by reason of the arrangement which has existed, the Intercolonial Railway loses all that. There is no reason why all that Log-gieville and Chatham traffic should not be enjoyed by the Intercolonial Railway.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: That traffic is now enjoyed by the Canada Eastern ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Very largely ; it goes by the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: But the Canada East ern carries it from points on their own line to the Intercolonial Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: And to the Canadian Pacific Railway. The point is that the Intercolonial Railway can take that traffic originating along the line of the Canada Eastern at Chatham junction, and have the benefit of the haul over the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal in the case of western bound freight.


Samuel Barker: Where was that traffic from Loggieville destined to ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some of it to the
Canadian Pacific. 1 gave the exact number of carloads.


Samuel Barker: You have told us that is gross. It may have been going to a point where you would not receive it on the Intercolonial Railway at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The greater proportion of it came down over the Intercolonial Railway-15.000 as against 31,000 by the Canadian Pacific Railway ; but it takes its

origin in Canadian cities, very largely in Montreal.
Now, aside from the general traffic of the road, there is the Canadian express business, which, from the following statement, will be seen to t>e increasing quite rapidly :
Gross	Net
earnings.	earnings.
1895	$ 1,545.42	$ 695.431896	
1,671.29	752.081902	
2,371.42	1,067.141903	
2,822^0	1,270.01
It will be seen that these figures have doubled since 1895; and if the business were taken from the Canada Eastern, there would be still greater loss to the Intercolonial Railway, as tbe proportion of receipts accruing to the Intercolonial from this business must be greater than the proportion accruing to the Canada Eastern, on account of the much longer haul over the Intercolonial. This express business is growing. Tbe receipts of the Intercolonial from it amount annually to about $100,000 net. It is run on the co-operative principle, and that is about the proportion accruing to the Intercolonial. If we did not take over the Canada Eastern and it were to become a part of another system, the Intercolonial would not have the benefit of that express traffic, because there would be no way of getting into Fredericton or reaching the intervening points between Chatham Junction and Fredericton, or, for that matter getting into Chatham. If this were a matter for the consideration of a railway corporation, sound business principles would actuate it to endeavour not only to secure this road, but to prevent it being secured by another company, because that would shut them out from the volume of business which is principally to be shared by them ; and if a railway corporation would do this in consideration of sound business principles, why should not the government do it in this instance ?


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman explain what effect the Grand Trunk Pacific will have upon this line ? It cuts this line in two, and, according to the views of the hon. gentleman, it will give a shorter and more direct route. Is that going to improve the traffic ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is going to have an entirely different source of supply. I am glad my hon. friend mentioned the Grand Trunk Pacific, because it cannot find its way to Moncton without crossing this railway, and it will be of very great advantage to that road as a part of the Intercolonial to have a connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific at that point. My hon. friend may think that by making that interjection, he is overturning the argument which I am endeavouring to make as to the advantage the Intercolonial will have in being connected with the Canada Eastern. The Intercolonial gets its supply from an entirely
different source from that which will feed the Grand Trunk Pacific, and they will in no way clash or interfere with each other ; but it would be to the advantage of the Intercolonial to have the Canada Eastern, particularly during the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the development of that country and its coal fields. All this would be of very material advantage to the Intercolonial and to the country tapped by these roads at that point.
Now, it cannot be said that the price is too high. I do not for a moment anticipate that hon. gentlemen opposite will raise any very serious objection to the resolution now in your hands ; but if they did, somebody might say that the road was not worth the price which we are paying for it. It seems to me that if there ever was a good bargain, this is the one. For instance, we are not paying double the value of the rails and the ties on the road.


Albert Edward Kemp: The value must be on the earning power of the road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not necessarily so at all, and not fairly so. If that were so, there would be no railway subsidies granted in this country at all. Many railroads are built with the view of developing the country, and we give them subsidies because they are not supposed to be very successful transportation companies. In the development of a new country, there must necessarily be a loss in operating a line of railway in a new section, and the experience of this railway is not different in that respect from the experience of other roads. Therefore you cannot properly base the valuation of a road on its earning power ; it would be unjust and unfair, and has never been recognized in Acts of parliament or in the conduct of public affairs in this country. Just take the rails of that 136 or 40 miles, and you would have at the price of old rails to-day being realized by the Intercolonial upwards of $300,000 worth. And then you take the ties and you have nearly a half a million dollars worth.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: What is the weight of the rails ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Fifty-six and fifty-eight pounds, but mostly sixty, according to the report of the engineer.


Albert Edward Kemp: What amount will it require to bring the road up to the standard of the Intercolonial, both as regards the roadbed and the rolling stock ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not an engineer's estimate of that, but it -would not require very much money to make the road a first-class standard, though possibly not up to that of the Intercolon'al. It would not necessarily require to be up to the standard of the Intercolonial, because it is not a trunk line and never will be. Without getting a report from an engineer, I have been over

the road and am satisfied that $1,000 ] er mile will make it a splendid, up-to-date road, and in my opinion this road in the course of the next year or so, will be worth $1,000,000, especially considering the situation of the government as regards the Fredericton bridge. Here is the Fredericton bridge owned by the government, which has been there for years, and out of which the government have never realized anything. But by operating it in connection with this road, it will be of advantage to that section of country and the business interests of the whole Dominion, because it is important, not merely to that section but to Montreal and Toronto and other industrial centres of the Dominion, that the business advantages shall be increased at Fredericton and all other points, because at these places the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec find a very profitable market. On the other hand it will certainly be of advantage to Fredericton and the adjacent points to be put in connection with the markets of the west by railway competition.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Are there any large villages or small towns between Fredericton and Chatham ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, quite a number. There are Marysville, Boiestown, Loggie-ville, Blackville, Millertou, Indiautown and other points all along the line. There are some very large saw-mills at some of these points and a great many other industries.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Can the hon. minister give the total population in the towns and villages along that road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I should think there would be a population of about 30,0; 0.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Is it fairly settled all along ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, and it is very largely a lumbering country, and a very excellent agricultural country at different points. Mr. Tittin, in a report which he lhade In 1902, thus speaks of the traffic :
I find that for the year ending October 31, 1901, the total freight traffic carried amounted to 114,406 tons, on which their earning amounted to $88,958.18 ; passenger traffic for the same period amounted to $32,839.42 ; mails, $3,994.24 ; miscellaneous receipts, including express, $2,092.34 ; making a total revenue of $127,884.22.
He continues :
There are several good towns on the line, having fair populations and good business prospects. The most important of these is Fredericton, the capital of the province. Then comes Marysville with its large cottonmills, sawmills, &c. Chatham has a population of about 5,000, at which point are located a number of sawmills and two pulp mills, the largest of which Is unfortunately closed down through financial difficulties.


Mr EMMERSON.: By reason of tbis closing down the earning power of the Canada Eastern during the past three years has been very materially affected, but I am glad to say that the strongest possible hopes are held out that this industry is to be re-established on a larger basis with very strong capitalists behind it. Mr. Tiffin goes on to say :
Loggieville, the headquarters of Loggie Brothers, at which place there is quite a large fish industry ; Blackville with a population of about 1,000 ; Boiestown, which is the distributing centre for a large amount of produce that goes into the various lumber camps ; Doaktown, with a population of about 1,000 ; and the rest of the places on the line are all small villages, but all more or less fairly good traffic points.
On business interchanged with the Canadian Pacific Railway at Fredericton for the year ending October 31st, 1901 (and which is included in the total figures given above) the Canada Eastern's earnings amounted to on local business-that is business from Canada Eastern Railway points to points reached by the Canadian Pacific Railway or their connections-$15,-719.54 ; while the Canada Eastern's proportion on their business-that is business handed to them by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and which consists principally of flour and produce from western Ontario-amounted to but $473.33, so that the Ontario business handled via Fredericton is very small indeed.
I may say that the business for the year end-ding October 31st, 1901, is not as good as for the preceding years, owing to the closing down of the Maritime Sulphite Fibre Company's mill at Chatham, which was a big loss to the Canada Eastern.


John Graham Haggart: If the bon. gentleman is going to read over the rest of these notes, I propose that we adjourn, as it is nearly twelve o'clock. I perceive that he is not half through.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I am nearly through.


John Graham Haggart: I hope so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can sympathize with the hon. gentiaman. I am just as anxious as he to get through. I am simply calling the attention of the committee to these several reports and am only desirous of giving information.


John Graham Haggart: The information has been very meagre so far.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No doubt my bon. friend would say that if he had tons of it. But the information is there, and I invite the attention of the committee to it. There can be no very serious objection to this resolution. It is one fraught with a great deal of benefit to the section of country traversed by this line of railway. The idea of this purchase is not new to hon. members. A paper somewhat celebrated in the political history of tbis country, a certain confidential document which was rend by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), contained a passage setting forth the desira-

bility of securing the Canada Eastern as part of the government system. Hon. Mr. Blair the author of that paper is taken as an authority on these matters by hon. gentlemen opposite, and he gives very strong reasons why it is in the interest of the country as well as of the Intercolonial that the Canada Eastern should be a part of the government system.


Albert Edward Kemp: What did he say?


Samuel Barker: Read the paper.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Hon. gentlemen opposite have possession of that paper.


Mr. LENNOX.: My recollection is that it was the Canada Atlantic and not the Canada Eastern.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It made reference to the Canada Eastern as well. Now, we pay for the road less than $6,000 a mile.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) a question, if he would allow me. Has he calculated how much he will have to spend in addition to the purchase money, to provide rails heavy enough to carry his locomotives? I take it that he will have to increase the weight of his rail as he is doing on other portions of the line, and that the cost will be $500,000 less the value of the old rails-* a net increase in cost of about $300,Odd*. Then, perhaps he will tell us how much he will have to spend in increasing the strength of the bridges. Probably he will have to spend a million in addition to the purchase price.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) is disturbing himself unnecessarily. It is not proposed to make this a trunk line, but simply to run it as a feeder to the Intercolonial. In Cape Breton, for instance, and on other parts of the system, we are not increasing the weight of rails, nor are we putting on these large locomotives. I do not apprehend that it will be necessary in our day at least, to put on heavy engines on this line. Probably my j oung-lookiug friend-I will not say my fresh looking friend-will have passed away before that is necessary. I can see that it is a matter of dispute as to which one I lefer to.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think it must be me.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Both the hon. gentlemen (Mr. Gourley) and the hon. member for South S'imcoe (Mr. Lennox) are young looking. My hon. friend will probably not live to see the day when it will be necessary to put heavy engines on this road. This road should be purchased as a feeder for the. Intercolonial and also to protect the present traffic of the Intercolonial. For $6 000 a mile you are getting an excellent road-bed and a good line of railway, laid
with 56 pound to 60 pound rails. And you are getting a line of railway 72 per cent of tangent, and with curves and gradients that are certainly not excessive.


John Graham Haggart: Don't you call 80 feet an excessive gradient ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is true there are one or two grades that are heavier than might be desired, but in the main they are not heavy. And there are no very severe curves.


John Graham Haggart: The curvature is all right.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: As long as you get onto the curves you are all right.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Are there any iron bridges ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There may be one, but in the main the bridges are of wood. And the reason for the expenditure on the road during the past two or three years being so heavy is, ns hon. gentlemen will see if they refer to the report, that so many bridges have been rebuilt and renewed. Now I do not think that there will be any serious objection-I trust there will not-on the ground that this is an addition to the capital account of the Intercolonial. I know that that is a matter with reference to which some of my hon. friends opposite are very sensitive. Of course there have been those who were uncharitable enough to say that this was simply sectional.


John Graham Haggart: Is this purchase to be charged to the capital account of the Intercolonial ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Why should it not be?


John Graham Haggart: But is it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I should suppose it would be. This road becomes a Dart-of the government system of railways, and, as such, will represent the amount of money put into it. It is true we have about $70,000,000 invested in the Intercolonial. That is not for the benefit of that section merely. And, if you add to that capital expenditure by the purchase of the Canada Eastern, it will not be for the benefit of that section of the country merely. It may be said that there is a heavy deficit on the Intercolonial this year. Admitted. Are you to condemn the expenditure on the Intercolonial for that reason ? You might as well condemn the $90,000,000 spent on the canals. We spend, this very year over $800,000 on account of income, in connection with the canal system. No one complains of that, because the canals are necessary in the interests of commerce and navigation. They afford one of our means of transportation. The Intercolonial is another means. It is an investment by the Dominion in aid of the trade

of the country and to unite the separated provinces more closely together. There is no complaint because of the expenditure on the canals ; there should be no complaint with respect to the Intercolonial. Each of these agencies is doing its work for the benefit of Canada. And I believe that the purchase of the Canada Eastern Railway and making it part of the Intercolonial and opening the heart of the province of New Brunswick will be an advantage to the Intercolonial and to the people living there. But I believe also that it will redound to the honour and credit of Canada and to the advantage of the whole people, and I believe also that it will redound to the profit of the Dominion and very materially improve the earning power of the government system of railways.


John Graham Haggart: I will endeavour, in the short remarks I intend to make, to keep as closely as possible to' the commercial aspect of this undertaking. What is it ? It is the purchase of 136 miles of road in the province of New Brunswick, towards the construction of which the New Brunswick government, according to the statement of the hon. gentleman, gave a bonus of $400.000, the Dominion government, of $374,800, and a municipality contributed $20,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They did not pay it.


John Graham Haggart: I am taking the report
of the minister himself, in which he says the amount was paid.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, that is a statement of the subsidies that were given, but I wish to state to my hon. friend that that amount was not paid.


John Graham Haggart: I do not know whether it was or not, but I am taking his return for it, and it says that it was paid. You will find in the railway statistics of municipal aid, $20,000. So here are $774,000 paid by the province of New Brunswick and by the Dominion government to this road. Let us look at the financial position. There are 136 miles of railroad, that earned a total of $116,000 a year, or last year the net surplus was in the neighbourhood of $2,000. The hon. member accounts for the small amount of earnings over the expenditure by the .large expenditure upon the road for the last three years, bringing it up to its present magnificent standard. What is the amount expended for the last three years in repairs and everything else ? In the neighbourhood of $42,000 a year, or less than is expended by almost any railroad in Canada for repairs and maintenance for a similar length. The hon. gentleman says that his deputy estimated the value of the road at $1,200,000. He says that the parties who own the road have expended on it $1,500,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, the parties claim they have expended $2,098,000.


John Graham Haggart: Anyway, there is $800,000 of government money expended on that road, and there is a net revenue of $2,400. The hon. gentleman says it is a feeder to the Intercolonial. What possible feeder can it be to the Intercolonial ? There is a little fish carried from Chatham on the south shore of the Miramiehi river to the junction of the Intercolonial ; there is a little freight collected from Fredericton and Chatham Junction, and forwarded on the Intercolonial ; but as I stated, the total freight and traffic only amounts to $116,000. How would the collection of that amount of freight benefit the Intercolonial, if every particle of freight that is now carried only benefits it to the extent of $125,000, as the report says V It is true that the fish that is carried from Chatham to the junction of the Intercolonial may contribute'a small nmount to the Canada Eastern, and the long haul by the Intercolonial may give a larger amount. I see by the report the hon. gentleman lays on the table, signed E. Tiffin, traffic manager, a statement of what the tariff is. or is expected to be, from Canada Eastern Railway points :
Still another thing to be considered is the fact that if the Canada Eastern Railway were to pass into the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway, it would to a large extent shut us off from enjoying any traffic either to or from Canada Eastern Railway points. For the year ending 30th June, 1901, we handed to them 35,760 tons, on which our earnings were $58,877 ; and we received from them 12,886 tons upon which our earnings were $26,874.
That is the total amount of earnings that the Intercolonial Railway received from the Canada Eastern Railway from outward bound or inward bound freight. Fancy the rivalry between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the government of Canada as to who should assume possession of that road of 136 miles, with an earning power of $2,400 per year. Let me tell the hon. gentleman, what every railroad man knows, that a railroad that does not earn $850 per mile per annum cannot possibly pay running expenses and management. No railroad commences to be on a paying basis until it earns between $1,700 and $1,800 per mile per year. The traffic on that road is increasing, we are told ; in 1895 it was so much, and at present it has reached the enormous "sum of $116,000 per year. Just fancy that for a road of 130 miles. Imagine the difficulty that the poor fellows who own that road have to undergo to keep it running, to keep up the rails and ties, station houses and everything else on 136 miles, besides paying expenses of the men employed upon it out of $116,000 a year. Yet this is the magnificent bargain the people of Canada are going to get for $800,000. a


Henry Robert Emmerson: benefit that accrues not only to the people of the maritime provinces but to the people of Ontario especially ; they are especially to be benefited by the acquisition of that road down in that section of the country. If that was the end of it, we would not have so much to complain of. Here are $800,000 taken at the beginning, but what will come afterwards ? You will find in the acquisition of that road what you found after the acquisition of the road connecting the Intercolonial with Montreal, that instead of its being a benefit to the Intercolonial it is a drag upon it. A large sum will have to be expended to bring it up to the standard that the road should be in, and the expenditure must be greatly in excess of receipts. It is then not only an expenditure of $800,000, but you have to keep up the bridges, you have to keep the road in a good state of repair, and keep it running afterwards. I say it would be better that this $800,000 were pitched into the sea, or made a present of to the provinces down there and let them keep the road, than that we should enter into any such bargain as this. ' Oh, but we don't begrudge the people of the western portion of this Dominion the expenditure that has been made upon the canals ! ' The expenditure at the present day amounts to about $90,000,000. That is solely for the benefit of this section of the country and particularly for the Northwest provinces. Let me draw the distinction between that expenditure about which the hon. gentleman talks. The Dominion has made an expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway or $70,000,000. We pay the interest upon that : that is part of the national debt. Besides that this year we made an expenditure owing to loss in working the road, an actual expenditure, between it and the Prince Edward Island Railway, of $2,750,000. Where is there any such loss on the canals ? You only pay your proportion of the interest. We pay the same on $70,000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway. We have a larger portion in this section of the country and the expenditure of $90,000,000 on the canals is not at all to be compared with the expenditure of $70,000,000 on the Intercolonial Railway. Taking it even from that point of view the comparison is absurd.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is not the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway for Ontario as well ?


John Graham Haggart: Partially and only partially for Ontario. The great benefit of the building of the Intercolonial Railway is not the carrying of through traffic from Ontario to points in the maritime provinces but the handling of local traffic within the maritime provinces themselves. To a certain extent every part of the Dominion benefits from the operation of every railway. It is a mutual benefit. Has the minister persuaded any member in this
House that the expenditure of $800,000 for the acquisition of this road will be a benefit to the Intercolonial Railway in any respect whatever ? Does not the Intercolonial
Railway now benefit by the interchange of traffic with the Canada Eastern ? The express business on the Intercolonial Railway amounts to a net profit of $100,000 a year and he fears he would lose the express traffic on this section of the road. How would you lose it ? You would have the right to send express parcels over-the Canada Eastern or if it was acquired by the Canadian Pacific Railway you would have the right to send on that road as on any other road in Canada and no matter who had possession of that road they would be compelled to carry express parcels on fair terms from Halifax to Fredericton. Could you not establish an office to collect the express at Fredericton ? There is no use debating the question. You are paying $800,000 for an undertaking which is managed in the most economical manner by the parties now in possession and which realizes $2,400 a year. If this becomes part of the Intercolonial Railway the result of its operations will be the same as on the rest of the Intercolonial Raliway as it is managed to-day and we will have a far larger deficit than we have at present. What possible advantage is a branch of that kind to the Intercolonial Railway ? What possibilities or potentialities are there in it ? I should be glad to see the country between Fredericton and Chatham ten times as fertile and productive as it is. The minister talks of possible development in pulp wood and manufactures along the road. If there was a factory every ten miles of the road would the probabilities be any greater for the future than under the present conditions ? My protest against this on behalf of the people of my section of the country is that while we are willing to make any expenditure that is for a public utility which would be a benefit to the people of the maritime provinces we object to expenditures which are utterly useless and which will be a load upon the people of the country not only now but to the end of time, especially if the road is managed as it is at the present moment.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I also wish to protest against the purchase of this road. If the government are going to extend the system of government owned railways and to increase the area served by the Intercolonial Railway, they will do well to do it in a section of the country where there might be some traffic, but instead of that in this case we see they have selected on,' of the most unprofitable roads in the country. Its gross earnings on a length of 130 miles were only $116,000. There is not enough return to justify the expenditure of a single dollar upon capital account upon the road. I judge by the minister's remarks that the

road must be in an extremely dilapidated condition. He acknowledges that passengers have been obliged to go by St. John and around in that way to get to Chatham rather than travel over the road. What sort of service, what sort of ears, and rails must there be. He acknowledges that there are only fifty-six pound rails. We all know that no road that claims to be in any respect a first-class road, has rails of that weight. If the government purchase this road, we will immediately find the Minister of Railways coming to parliament to ask a large grant to rerail the road, and we will have to pay $300,000 to substitute eighty pound rails for the sixty pound rails. In all probability too the ties will have to be renewed and the present wooden bridges will have to be replaced with iron bridges. We will have an expenditure not only of the $774,000 of bonuses we have paid and the $800,000 we are paying for the road we will have to spend a large amount for the purpose I have mentioned. The minister says that the Canadian Pacific Railway had an option on the road for $800,000 but they did not regard it as worth that much. The minister steps in and proposes to pay that price for the road although the Canadian Pacific Railway were not willing to pay it. It was stated that some years ago the traffic was $20,000 or $30,000 a year more than it is now. That shows simply that the country was a timber country, that the timber has been stripped off and the road has become less profitable so this is a good time to unload it upon the government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to make a misstatement. There has been no statement that the earnings were $20,000 or $30,000 more a few years ago than they are to-day. They have not been reduced but the net earnings have beeu.


John Graham Haggart: The total earnings have been reduced. The statement of the minister was that that total earnings a few years ago were in the neighbourhood of $130,000 and now they are $116,000.
(Mr. E. D. SMITH. This railway is now-owned by a private individual who runs it to try to make money out of it, and no doubt he charges as high rates as it will bear, but immediately the government gets possession down, will come the rates, and the revenue will probably be thirty per cent less than at the present time. The truth is that this line will be an everlasting burden upon the people of this country. If its purchase would be beneficial to the people along the road, or to the people of any part of this Dominion, I would not hesitate to approve of its purchase by the government, even though it should be a loss ; but its purchase benefits no one except the private individual wrho has it to sell. I do not think it is the mission of this parliament to tax the people to benefit a private individual.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: The express service on this railway amounts to the magnificent gross sum of $2,400 a year and the minister is greatly afraid that if the Canadian Pacific Railway took hold of the road, the Intercolonial Railway would lose its share in this huge annual earning of $2,400. The fact is that the Intercolonial Railway will get the greater portion of that no matter -who owns the road, because that express matter must be mainly destined to points on the Intercolonial Railway or from points on the Intercolonial. It is the same way in regard to the freight. The minister stated that the interchange of traffic amounted to $125,000 a year, but three-fourths of that is destined to points on the Intercolonial Railway or from points on the Intercolonial, and cannot be taken by any other railway. The payment of $800,000 for the purchase of this railway is only the beginning of it, because wTe will have an annua! deficit on this road for all time to come, and the people of Canada will assume that burden to benefit a private individual. The Minister of Railways stated that in wishing to have the Dominion Express Company on the whole line of the Intercolonial Railway, I was in favour of a loss on the Intercolonial Railway. The minister has no justification for making that statement. I believe that if the Dominion Express is on the Intercolonial Railway system there will be a very large gain on account of the competition that will arise, and in addition to that the people living on that line will have an enormously better express service than they have now. It will benefit the fishermen of the lower provinces who can send their fish to tlie west; it will benefit the fruit growers of the west who can send their fruit to the east, and the consumers will be benefited by the lower prices of fruit brought about by competition. I believe that the Dominion Express Company have guaranteed that there shall be no loss of revenue whatever.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Have they done so ?


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I believe so; I am sure of it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It has not been done to my knowledge and I think I should know about it.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: If the minister will look into the matter he will find it has escaped his attention. I do not believe we are justified in buying this railway at any price. Even if it were cheap, we don't want it. It is just like certain ladies who buy goods at the bargain counters which they have no need for ; the minister thinks the road cheap therefore he buys it, no matter what the consequence to the taxpayer. The road will serve no good purpose and I enter my earnest protest against its purchase.


Albert Edward Kemp: We are asked to pay $SOO,OO0 for this railway, and the question is whether it is worth it or not. To my mind it is not worth it. I am not disposed to dispute

that this railway would act as a feeder to the Intercolonial Railway, hut I do believe it is not worth the money the government propose to pay for it, and I believe the government is making a very bad bargain for the country. Transactions of this kind are usually based on the earning power of the property purchased ; but the minister could show no basis of that kind, and he seemed to think that the hope for the success of this railway was in the future. That is not a businesslike way of approaching the matter at all. I repeat that this is an unfortunate bargain for the country. We may assume that the road has been run with the utmost economy, and that it will be impossible for the government to operate it as economically as it has been operated by the private owners. Last year this railway only earned $2,074, the year before there was a deficit of $9,uo0, and the year before that, the net earning's were only $12,400. There is no doubt it will be a losing concern under the management of the government. This railway is a white elephant on the hands of its present owners and the government has no valid excuse for paying this exorbitant sum of money for it. I enter my protest against the whole transaction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not a fact that this railway was offered for $400,000 by the banks that held the securities ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I don't know anything about that.


Mr. FIELDING.: I heard no such figure as that mentioned, but I did hear it stated that offers had been made at a lesser sum than it is now proposed to pay. I made personal inquiry into that, and 1 am in a position to state that it is not correct.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I heard the_statement made that it was offered for a little less or a little more than $400,000.


William Stevens Fielding: I may say to my hon. friend that I have communicated -with the bank referred to, and I have the distinct statement of the bank that it is not correct.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this road taken over in pursuance of any general policy pointing to the acquisition of similar roads in the maritime provinces, or is it a special case resting upon the special merits of this particular project ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This matter is dealt with solely on its merits, without regard to other railways.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not in pursuance of any policy of acquiring branch lines in the maritime provinces ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: One very good reason is that it is necessary to protect the territory of the Intercolonial from invasion by a rival corporation, and to siacure to the Intercolonial an entrance into the heart of the province of New Brunswick. If that
Canada Eastern road were in possession of the Canadian Pacific Railway, for instance, it would enable the Canadian Pacific to go into the territory which has been peculiarly the territory of the Intercolonial and to compete with it for its best paying traffic. That is the main reason why I advocate the purchase of the road.


Robert Laird Borden: What would be the net profit to the Intercolonial of the traffic capable of being diverted ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not an estimate ; but it would affect the traffic of the whole Intercolonial-the traffic reaching into Quebec and Montreal and the province of Ontario-and would take from the control of the Intercolonial that which it has to-day. There would be a direct loss, and in addition to that a far greater indirect loss.


Robert Laird Borden: It is of no value to the committee to say that it affects the whole traffic of the Intercolonial, because we all know that it cannot do anything of the kind. Mr. Tiffin's report, which covers the entire interchange of traffic between the Intercolonial and this road, gives $57,000 of freight in one direction and $27,000 in another direction; and if we assume that the whole of that traffic will be diverted, which we should not assume for one moment, it would be a loss of $84,000, on which I do not know what the net profit would be. It is useless to say that it affects the entire traffic of the Intercolonial Railway, which amounts to a great many millions of dollars. I understand the minister to say that this road was not taken over in pursuance of any general policy. If it is on the particular merits of the enterprise, I think I can point out other roads in New Brunswick which would be as desirable, which would afford quite as remunerative a traffic, and which would possess all the strategic elements this road possesses. I thought possibly the minister might announce to us that the government had decided upon a policy with regard to all roads similarly situated in the maritime provinces. I do not know any reason why there should be a distinction between this road and a great many others that might be referred to. It i seems to me that it should not be under-I taken except in pursuance of some general policy. The Intercolonial Railway is joined by a great many roads in my own province, for example, the Midland, the Dominion Atlantic, the road running through Inverness county, and there may be others that do not occur to me at this moment. In New Brunswick there are also a great number of small branch lines which join the Intercolonial, and some of which would I believe be more efficiently operated by the government than they are by the companies which own them at present ; and possibly they might possess some strategic value which the minister thinks is pos-

sessed by this road. It would have been more satisfactory to me to have known from the minister whether or not there is a general policy of that kind, because, otherwise, I do not quite appreciate the reasons which have induced the government to enter into this enterprise. I am sure the minister himself would have been the first to concede that there are many other roads in the maritime provinces which would come within, every possible reason which he has suggested to the committee as justification for the government taking over this road. Have there been applications to the government from companies owning other lines in the maritime provinces to take them over ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There were petitions circulated with respect to the line running from St. Stephen to St. John via St. George. That is the only line as to which there was any application that I can recall.


Mr. DANIEL.: Is that the line said to be owned by Russell Sage ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is the line known as the Shore Line road.
Resolutions reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.
Mr. EMMERSON moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 163)) authorizing the government of Canada to purchase the Canada Eastern Railway and to take possession of the Fredericton and St. Mary's Railway bridge.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Mr. FIELDING moved the ajournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business tomorrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand it is the intention to move that the House go into Committee of Supply early to-morrow so as to give my hon. friend from Pictou opportunity to move an amendment. But in advance we might agree to put the Militia Bill through its final stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.35 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, August 3, 1904.