1905-05-10

LIBRARY AND PRINTING COMMITTEE.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I beg to move :

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House has appointed Mr. Bristol, member for the electoral district of Toronto Centre, a member of the joint committee of both House on the library and printing, so far as the interests of this House are concerned, in the room of Mr. Clarke deceased.



QUESTION'S.


Mr. CLEMENTS asked :: 1.	How much leaf tobacco was imported from the United States last year, and how much duty was paid upon the same ?
2.	How much for cigars and smoking, and how much for manufacturing into chewing tobacco?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: 1.	The number of pounds (standard) of leaf tobacco imported and placed in excise warehouse for the year ending 30th June, 1904, was 13,210,690, and the quantity on which duty was paid when ux-warehoused for use for the same period was 12,139,700 pounds, and the amount of duty collected was $1,278,455.09.
2.	The statistics kept by the Department of Inland Revenue do . not indicate the quantities used in the production of cigars, smoking and chewing.



MILITARY HOSPITAL ST. JOHNS, P.Q.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What are the names of those who tendered for the repairs executed hy the government at the Military Houpital in St. Johns, P.Q. ?
2.	What was the amount of said tenders?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded ?
4.	How much has been paid to the said contractor ?
5.	How much has said contractor claimed from the government for all work done by him at the said Military Hospital ?
6.	Were tenders asked through the newspapers? If so, through what newspapers ?
Hon. 'Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :
1.	Louis Bourassa and Peter O'Cain.
2.	Louis Bourassa, $286 ; Peter O'Cain, $320.
3.	Louis Bourassa.
4.	Main contract, $2S6 ; * extras, $163.05 ;
total, $449.05.	.
* While the contract was under way extra work was reported necessary by the engineer officer, and authorized as follows :
7 "3 square ceilings, col. sergts'
quarters, at	$6	 $43	80
16'5 square ceilings, hospital,
at $6	 99	25
Cutting through chimney for
ventilator	
4	00Repairs to plaster	
10	00Oiling floors	
6	00
$163 05 [DOT]
5.	$449.05.
6.	No ; tenders were asked by circular.

Mr. COSTIGAN asked :: Has any request been made to the Grand Trunk Pacific commissioners in connection with the preliminary surveys through the western part of Madawaska county, N.B., to examine a line up the St. John river to the mouth of Little river, in the parish of Saint Francis, N.B., and up the valley of the Little river, and on to or near the function of Blue river with the Saint Francis river, in the province of Quebec? If so, has any examination of that route been made ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	A suggestion was received by the Transcontinental Railway Commission that a good line could be had by leaving the St. Francis at or near the mouth of the Blue river, keeping east and north of Bau lake and striking to the river St. John by the valley of Little river or Baker brook.
2.	No survey was made by way of Little river, for the reason that it was considered by the chief engineer and district engineer that such a line would be longer than the one at present obtained by way of Baker brook.
BONDED warehouse for soft coal.


Mr. BOYCE asked :: 1.	Has the government established, or does it contemplate the establishment of, a bonded warehouse for soft coal at Sault Ste. Marie, to any company or individual ?
2.	If this has been established, to whom was the privilege granted, when, and upon what grounds ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Imported coal has been permitted to be warehoused at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. The warehouses are established on the application of an importer desirous of warehousing coal, as provided in General Order in Council of December 22, 1881.
No application for a warehouse of this class at Sault Ste. Marie is now pending before the Customs Department.
The privilege of warehousing coal at Sault Ste. 'Marie has been granted to New Ontario Dock Company in May, 1903, and to the Lake Superior Corporation in July, 1904, on the ground that the applicants were importers of coal desirous of warehousing same.



A. B. CASTONGUAY.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked :: 1.	Was one A. B. Castonguay dismissed from the Dominion Police Force within the past six or nine months ? If so, for what reasons ?
2.	Has the said Castonguay since been appointed to a position in the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?	,


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 3.	If so, what is the position which he now occupies, what salary does he receive, and under what clause of the Civil Service Act was he appointed ?
4.	Has the said Castonguay passed the Civil Service examination, either preliminary or qualifying ?
5.	Is it to be regarded as a precedent that when a man has been dismissed for cause from one branch of the public service, that he shall be appointed to a position in another branch of the service ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: There is no such person in the employ of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I asked first : Was one A. B. Castonguay dismissed from the Dominion Police force within the past six or nine months ?


Hon. CHAS. FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: A man named Castonguay was dismissed from the Dominion Police force for insubordination.


Samuel Hughes: Has he since been appointed to a position in the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.



INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY LINE FENCE.

Rt.   H@: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the matter which was brought yesterday to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from Kent (Mr. Clements) in which it appeared that different information had been given of a certain transaction which was said to have taken place in the Department of the Interior, I asked the Deputy Minister of the Interior, as I was the party who was made to give the information, to give me an explanation of what had occurred. I have received from him this letter, which I will now read to the House :
Ottawa, 10th May, 1905.
My Dear Sir Wilfrid,-Upon the 4th January last, acting under instructions from the then Minister of the Interior, I addressed a letter to the McGregor-Banwell Wire Fence Company, of Walkerville, Ontario, advising them that it had been decided to erect a fence at the boundary line in the Northwest Territories, one hundred miles of which was to be constructed this year and the balance next year, and asking that company to state the price for constructing a fence, known as a woven wire fence, to be 200 miles long, running east and west from Coutts on the boundary line south of Lethbridge ; to be made of No. 9 wire, with iron posts either solid or of pipe driven at least three feet into the ground, properly guyed and otherwise supported and built in a thoroughly substantial way having gates every fifteen miles. The price was to include the stringing of a telephone wire along the fence but not the putting in of instruments. The ^department was to furnish a surveyor to run the line.
In reply I was advised by the company that their representative v'ould he in Ottawa about, the 18th of January and submit a tender for the fence. On the 19th of that month their tender -which is shortly to the following effect-was submitted to the department :
To supply and deliver No. 510 fencing (as per the attached) 9 horizontals of No. 9 hard steel galvanized wire with uprights of No. 9 hard steel galvanized wire l22 inches apart, 51 inches high.
To supply and deliver posts required to be 6 inches or over in diameter at the small end.
To supply and deliver staples brace wire, braces, anchor pieces for end posts and all other material required to set posts 20 feet apart, to erect fencing complete in a substantial and thoroughly "workmanlike manner.
To supply deliver and hang ' all metal ' gates as required at the following prices :
Fencing, per mile	$550 00
Gates, each	 10 00
If this tender is accepted we agree to enter into a contract with the department covering the above work and the supply and delivery of above material.
The minister, Mr. Sifton, being then absent, I held this matter for submission to him on his return, hut, as you will remember, almost immediately after such return he resigned. I therefore decided to hold the matter for the consideration of his successor.
In the meantime letters were received here from different parties asking for information with regard to this fence, and my answer in all cases was that this matter was under consideration.
The only other action I took was to obtain from the Deputy Minister of Justice a draft of the contract which he would consider necessary to be executed by the company in this matter, so that I might be able to submit it, with my letters, the company's tender, and the other letters referred to and my replies to them, to the new minister.
A letter, dated 20th March last, was received here on the 22nd of that month from the Page Wire Fence Company, stating that they had heard of the government's intention of building the fence in question, and would ^like to know to whom they should apply for further information with regard to it. The secretary, Mr. Keyes, having on the 25th March last signed the letter to the Department of Justice asking for the preparation of the draft contract before mentioned, incorrectly assu ned that the matter had been settled and that the contract had been given to the McGregor-Banwell Fence Company, and replied on the 8th ultimo to the Page Wire Fence Company as follows :
Replying to your letter of the 20th ultimo, in reference to the, erection of a wire fence at the southern boundary of the Northwest Territories, I beg to state that the government has awarded the contract in this matter.
Yours faithfully,



W. W. CORY.

[Stage Direction]
The Right Hon.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Premier, Ottawa.
Ill addition to this, I received this morning another letter which I will read to the House, and the purport of which will be understood from the letter itself and from what transpired yesterday :
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, May 10, 1905.
Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Ottawa.
Dear Sir Wilfrid,-In view of the fact that my name was mentioned in the correspondence submitted to the House yesterday, relative to the Northwest Territories boundary fence matter, I think it proper for me to make a statement, which may be read to the House at the same time as any explanation is given on behalf of the government.
About the end of Mar^h, I received from Mr. Coatsworth, an employee of the Page Wire Fence Company, Limited, of Ontario, a letter intimating that the company had seen an item in one of the papers to the effect that the government intended building GOO miles of wire fencing on the boundary line between the United States and Canada, and asking me to secure information on the subject.
Having known that the Department of Railways did a good deal of wire fencing, I thought the minister of that department might know something about this matter, and on the 31st March I wrote a letter of inquiry to him. On April 4 he wrote me that if there was anything in the proposition referred to by Mr. Coatsworth it would not arise in his department. I then placed the matter in the hands of my secretary. Owing to there being no minister in charge of the Department-of the interior, and to the deputy minister being absent, he had a little difficulty in securing the information. He was finally informed that the matter was already under contract. On April 14 I accordingly wrote a letter to Mr. Coatsw'orth apprising him, as I had been informed, that the McGregor-Banwell Fence Company, of Walkerville, had been awarded the contract some time before, and the preparation of the written agreement was i# the hands of the Justice Department. On the same day, and in answer to a similar request just received from the McGregor-Ban-well Fence Company, I wrote a letter giving them exactly the same information. Mr. Coatsworth wrote to me a further letter, dated April 17, which I did not receive until my return to Ottawa after the Easter vacation. I replied to the same on April 27 along similar lines to my first letter. Then when the question was asked in the House," and answered by yourself, as Acting Minister of the Interior, I noticed the variation between the information I had received and, your answer. I asked my secretary to procure that portion of the * Hansard ' covering the question and answer, and he reported to me that on looking for it he could not find it therein. On making inquiries he learned it had been inadvertently omitted, but that the omission would be remedied. On May 5, therefore, I wrote a third letter to Mr. Coatsworth, informing him that the question had been asked in the House, and an answer given to the effect that no tenders had been invited for the work as yet, nor had any contract been made. On the same day I wrote the McGregor-Banwell Fence Company a similar letter.
So far as I am concerned, I knew absolutely nothing about the matter beyond what appears as above in this letter.
I was not at any time asked by, or on behalf of the McGregor-Banwell Fence Company, to assist them in securing the contract in question, nor -was I directly or indirectly instrumental in assisting them in the matter. I never saw the Minister of the Interior, or his deputy, or any oflicial in the department, on the subject. In fact, I knew nothing personally about the mat-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
ter until asked to make inquiries, as above, by both the firms mentioned, which inquiries I made through my secretary and answered in as definite and couteous a way as possible.
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
I have only to add, for further information, that for several years past, the ranchers in the Northwest Territories have been asking that a wire fence be put up on our side of the line so as to protect them against the incursions of American cattle. Some years ago the ex-minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) asked for a sum in the estimates to build some twenty miles of fencing ; hut upon further consideration he found that that would be absolutely insufficient and did not then pursue the matter further. From time to time, however, the builders of such fences were negotiated with in order to obtain from them quotations of prices, and amongst others latterly the McGregor-Banwell Company were asked to put in a tender, and theirs was the last tender which was submitted in January. The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) accepted their prices, but found fault with some part of their tender-I think the posts ; and the matter was in that position when he left office. The deputy minister of the department submitted to the Department of Justice a formal contract, supposing it would be awarded. The Department of Justice reported upon it, but rather suggested that such a fence ought to be built by the Department of Public Works after tenders had been invited, and the matter did not go any further. The secretary of the department, Mr. Keyes-a very good officer by the way-having referred the matter to the Department of Justice, assumed, when he received the letter from the Page Fencing Company, that the contract had been awarded, in point of fact no award had been given, the parties were not communicated with, nothing was done, and the matter rested there. So that in point of fact, when the question was asked of the government by my hon. friend from Kent (Mr. Clements) I made inquiry of the department and received the information I gave the House. I did not know anything of the matter, I did not know that there had been no contract awarded and no tenders invited. If hon. gentlemen will look into the estimates of this year, they will find there an appropriation for the sum of !$100,000 for the building of such a fence, and the policy will be discussed when that vote comes up. At present no contract has been given, the parties have not been so informed, and nothing has been done ; and the answer I gave the other day is quite accurate.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Would the right hon. gentleman state how many miles were embraced in the proposed contract and tiie price ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not such information.


Mr. HAGGART.: The price is in the letter you read.


Wilfrid Laurier: The price is $550 per mile and 200 miles are proposed to be erected-one hundred this year and one hundred next year.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: At what price?


Wilfrid Laurier: The price asked for was $550, but we have no appropriation for this at present. It has to be voted by parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems that this is a contract involving about $110,000 namely, 200 miles at $550 per mile. I do not know anything about the usual price. Some gentlemen have named as the usual price a sum less than one half that given by my right bon. friend. I do not know anything about it from personal knowledge; but what I do wish to call attention to is this, that except for the incident that the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) resigned in the month of February last, that contract would have gone through. My right hon. friend shakes his head. With what warrant does he signify his dissent? Tile matter had gone this far, that a contract had been asked for from one single firm and public tenders had not been advertised for at all as the statute required. A contract had been called for from one firm for the construction of 200 miles of fencing at what seems to be regarded as a very high price ; and the only reason it was not put through and the country did not become liable, to pay that sum, was the incident to which I have referred. Does the right hon. gentleman dissent from that? Is it not stated in the letter he has read that the matter had gone so far that a formal contract had been sent to the Department of Justice?


Wilfrid Laurier: What was the answer of that department?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know.


Wilfrid Laurier: I gave it.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend did not read the letter very distinctly. ,


Wilfrid Laurier: That was not in the letter. The Department of Justice, in reporting on the contract, suggested that if awarded, it should be awarded by the Department of Public Works after tenders had been invited.


Robert Laird Borden: Which shows that the Department of Justice is of some value to the country sometimes, if that be the case. But the intention of the Department of the Interior was there all the same. We have seen a great many instances of this kind where such an intent
has been fully carried out and has not been prevented by an application to the Department of Justice. The statute is in distinct terms. This throws a very strong light on the management of the Department of the Interior. Section 7 of the Public Works Act provides that the Minister of Public Works shall have the management and direction of telegraph lines, &e.,. and all other property which now belongs-to Canada and also the works and properties acquired, constructed, enlarged, repaired or improved at the expense of Canada. (Section 13 provides that the minister shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of all government works except in certain instances, with which the present case is not concerned-It seems remarkable that for a period of about two months the Page Wire Fence Company has been under the impression upon information furnished by the Department of the Interior-not only directly but through Mr. Speaker-that this contract had actually been let ? When the Department of Public Works received the opinion from the Department of Justice, they had already embarked on the policy of constructing this wire fence. Why did they not at once advertise for tenders, if they intended to carry out and comply with the law ? The matter was pressing in the month of January last, so pressing that one firm-a firm connected with a very strong supporter of the present administration-was invited to make an offer. There was haste then. They were getting ready for the approaching season ; and in the mcnth of March, or a little later on, the Department of the Interior ascertained from the Department of Justice that it was necessary to have this work carried out by the Department of Public Works and that tenders and advertisement were required under the law. Why was not this company which was making inquiry, not only directly, but through his honour the Speaker, informed of the decision of the Department of Justice and told that advertisements calling for tenders would appear in the public press very shortly? That is a very pertinent question. I do not know whether my right hon. friend will answer it by shaking his head. That is a very convenient way of disposing of these matters. I did not catch the date of the letter of the Department of Justice.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not got the date.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the early part of March?


Wilfrid Laurier: In the early part of March.


Robert Laird Borden: Two months ago and more, and ail this haste which was apparent in the month of January when this contract was proposed to be given to a sup-

porter of the hon. gentlemen opposite disappears in the early part of March as soon as information is obtained from the Department of Justice that there must be due advertisement for tenders. Not only is this company deceived, but the hon. Speaker of this House, representing the constituency in which I suppose this company carries on business, is also misled by the Department of the Interior. Why was he not acquainted of the facts when he had taken the trouble to go to the Department of the Interior and afterwards, as his letter shows, to send his secretary to the Department of the Interior ? Why is he placed by the Department of the (Interior in the position of giving incorrect information to one of his constituents ? It seems that the circumstances are absolutely unusual and peculiar and we cannot get rid of the impression that in some way the Department of the Interior intended to carry out its proposal In this matter in such a way that there would be no public advertisement and tender after all, and that the matter would be dealt 'with so that the interests of supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite would be regarded in the letting of this contract rather than the interests of the people of this country.


Mr. A. B. CLARKE.: I wish to say a few words in this matter. I had not the pleasure of being in the House yesterday, cud was very much surprised this morning when I found certain statements reported in ' Hansard.' The first is contained in a letter of April 18, 1905, addressed by the Page Wire Fence Company to the Hon. H. S. Clements, one of the members of this House. This letter says : '
We take the liberty of writing you regarding this matter, as our two members from the Essex riding are friends of the McGregor, Banwell people and we have reason to believe they were instrumental in putting the deal through.
I wish to say iu answer to that, as I am one of the members for Essex, that I never heard of the deal until I saw a report in the newspapers this morning. I did not know whether application had been made by the wire company or had been granted and this is the first I heard of it. The entire statement is groundless. I was more surprised, however, to see a statement of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) which I would ask him to explain. It is to be found at page 5789 of ' Hansard.' He says :
Politicians in that part of the country seem directly interested in the concern that is furnishing the wire.
I would like to know what the hon. member means ?


Mr. SPROULE.: I do not think I made the statement that way. If I did I certainly did not intend to, but I do not think I made it. I was referring to the connection of Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
the ex-member for the riding. Mr. McGregor and his family with this fence company, as I know they are connected, and with other attempts to operate in the west in connection with the late Minister of the Interior.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I am satisfied with that. I wish to say that I am not interested in any way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I had no intention of insinuating that the hon. member was connected.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Nor I think is any other member of this House.	[DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.


Mr.   CLARICE@: I wish to say in regard to these peoifie that they are a most reputable firm. They are friends politically, but the Page Wire Fence Company is also a reputable company and its Canadian officers with whom I am acquainted are also friends of this government, the majority of them, I believe being Americans.


Mr. H. S. CLEMENTS.: As far as I am concerned personally, I am very glad to hear the explanation of the hon. member for South Essex. With regard to the cor-icspondence, I must explain that it was placed in my hands, and as a member of this House I was in duty bound to bring it before the House, and I am very glad I did bring it up. 1 am free to say for the information of the government that we had men in the House yesterday who were familiar with the building of fences and they stated that a wire fence could be built for $125 to $150 a mile, and I was surprised to hear a statement from the minister that this contract is costing $550 per mile.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCIC.: There is no contract.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I think it is something well worth looking into.


Mr. EMMERSON.: There was no contract given.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there a price given ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. member
says he was surprised to hear from the First Minister that the contract given was to cost $550 per mile. I do not think it is right to have a statement of that kind go without explanation.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: There are fences and fences, and it is not the ease, I imagine, that all fences are of equal value. I am not so familiar with fences as some of my hon. friends opposite. I am not in the habit of sitting on fences.


William Findlay Maclean: Oh, William.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not so well informed. But seriously what I wish to point

out is that I take it for granted that all fences are not of equal value. Because Mr. Smith asks $500 for a fence and Mr. Brown $200, it does not necessarily follow that they are offering the same article. The essence of this question is that there is no deal and no fence ; there is no contract and no offence.


Samuel Hughes: And no defence.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no need of a defence because there is nothing to defend. It is pointed out in the correspondence which the Prime Minister has read that the Department of the Interior had for some time under consideration the question of erecting a fence at the boundary, or in the vicinity of the boundary, between the United States and Canada.


Mr. LAKE.: Might I ask the Minister of Finance to tell us the height of the fence, the number of posts, &c.
Mr. FIELDING, I am afraid that my knowledge of fences would not enable me to supply that information.


Richard Stuart Lake: What was stated in the contract ?


William Stevens Fielding: There is no contract, and therefore I cannot give the information.


Richard Stuart Lake: In the tenders I mean ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know if the tenders were given in letters which my right hon. friend read. If they were, they will be found in *' Hansard.' I am not arguing that the price of the fence is a fair one. i do not offer any opinion on that except to suggest that the prices of different fences might properly vary. But the principal point and after all the essence of the whole thing was this : that there was under consideration in the department a project for erecting a fence along the boundary line or a portion of it. The Minister of the Interior appears to have attached so much importance to it that he submitted an estimate to this House in order that he might obtain an appropriation. In the meantime the minister had been making inquiries as to the cost of these fences and as to the terms upon which he might obtain them, and the record shows that he invited a tender, according to the documents which the Prime Minister has read, from a concern. Whether or not he should have invited tenders from others is a fair question of debate, and if a contract had been made then undoubtedly that would have been a proper subject of discussion. But the deputy minister points out that after the resignation of the Minister of the Interior he had to deal with this matter, that he was collecting the papers together in order that he might submit them to the successor of the Minister of the Interior, knowing that the new minister would be obliged to submit them to Council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask then who submitted the papers to the Department of Justice to draw up the contract ?


William Stevens Fielding: The information furnished by the department is that one of the officers of the Department of the Interior sent these papers over to the Department of Justice and asked that they might be advised as to a form of contract.


Mr. LALOR.: Let me ask why it was that the Page Wire Fence Company were notified that the contract had already been given ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is evidently a mistake. The Prime Minister has read the letter of the deputy minister who states distinctly that that was a mistake. Ho\y that mistake could arise has been explained, namely, that the secretary of the department, being aware that a draft of contract had been sent over to the Department of Justice, had assumed, erroneously, that the matter was settled, and he so informed the Page Wire Fence people.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the right hon. gentleman any explanation as to why that incorrect answer given to the company and to his honour the Speaker as well, was not corrected during the interval between the early part of March and the present time ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it may be that the secretary himself did not become aware of that. I cannot answer that question. There seems to be a misunderstanding between the deputy minister, who perhaps should have known of these matters, and the secretary who wrote that letter. But whatever the cause of it was, there is the fact that the contract was not awarded, no contract has been signed, not a penny of the public money has been pledged, nothing has been done beyond collecting the information which the deputy minister says he desired to place before the new minister, so that it might be dealt with in the usual way. Meanwhile the Department of Justice, in considering the draft of the contract submitted to them, reported that the matter properly belonged to the Department of Public Works. There the whole matter ends. Nothing further was done, no steps were taken, no contract was awarded, nobody has the fence, nobody has the deal, there is absolutely nothing whatever beyond collecting the information to be dealt with at the proper time through the incoming minister,


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON.: Possibly I owe an apology to the House for a statement which I made yesterday. Speaking from recollection, I stated that I did not believe that an estimate had ever been passed by this House to provide for the expense of this fence, and therefore I thought it was not a proper transaction for the government to enter into, not having received the sanction of parliament for the expendi-

ture of this money. After making that statement, which I made in good faith, trusting to my memory, however, I was shown a copy of the estimates of the current year in which it is set forth that the sum of $100,000 is asked for, or is to be asked for when these estimates are voted for the year 1905-6, for the construction of a fence along the international boundary of the Northwest Territories. But accompanying that statement in the estimates of the current year, in the proper column, there is also set out a statement that $100,000 was voted last year, which entirely misled me, and I rose in my seat to apologize to the House yesterday for having made a statement which it appeared, by the estimates which are before us now, was not correct. * I now find out on inquiry, and am credibly informed that no estimate was voted last year at all, and that the estimates that are put in our hands this year are not correct. Why that $100,000 is inserted as having been voted last year I am entirely at ,a loss to know. I would not like to say. but it seems to me there is a history to it. The hon. the minister had been attempting to let a contract, a contract in advance of an estimate, without the sanction of parliament, and in order to cover up the transaction, apparently, the estimates which are placed in our hands are so filled up as to give the impression that $100,000 was voted last year for this purpose.


Wilfrid Laurier: What page ?


David Henderson: Seventy-three of the estimates of the current year, under the term ' miscellaneous.' Now I find that the apology I made yesterday was quite unnecessary, that my first statement was correct, that there was no estimate, there was no appropriation in the previous year, that no appropriation existed for the construction of this fence, and that whoever was undertaking to let a contract-because there was an attempt to let a contract for the construction of this fence-was certainly proceeding too rapidly,, not knowing whether this House would approve of the matter at all. Now whilst I make this apology for having as I then believed misled the House, I think some member of the government owes an apology to me for having misled me. I do not know what explanation can be given of this error-and I will not call it by any other name, I assume it is an error, but certainly it was a very misleading one. Under all the circumstances it seems to me that possibly there might have been a purpose in the error, owing to the fact that an attempt was made to let a contract for the construction of this public work, when no parliamentary appropriation had been made. Now I assume I am quite correct in saying that there was no appropriation last year. I think I understood the right hon. gentleman who leads the House to say, when speaking a few moments ago, Mr. HENDERSON.
that there was no appropriation ; and if I am in error, and I do not think I am,
I think my information comes from a correct source, I have not examined the Supply Bill of last year, but I am assured that such a sum does not appear in the Supply Bill, that no appropriation was voted last year for this purpose.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know whether that is correct or not.


David Henderson: Probably the Minister of Finance will be able to explain the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I must not answer offhand, I am having the matter looked up at this moment ; perhaps before my hon. friend finishes his speech I may be able to answer more definitely.


David Henderson: At any rate, this information has come to my hands since the House met this afternoon. I have not had time to verify it, but my information comes from a source that I am perfectly satisfied as absolutely correct. Now as a number of hon. gentlemen did not seem to take in the meaning of this letter fully when it wTas read by the Prime Minister, I propose to read the letter again, and perhaps to make some comments on it as I proceed. The letter is addressed to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, dated Ottawa, 10th May, 1905, not a very long letter. The letter is signed by ' Yours faithfully, W. W. Cory.' I take him to be the Deputy Minister of the Interior.
My Dear Sir Wilfrid,-Upon the 4th January last, acting under instructions from the then Minister of the Interior-
And here I think a mistake was made,
I do not understand that the Minister of the Interior had anything to do with this contract or should have had anything to do with it. I think it was a matter properly coming under the care of the Minister of Public Works.
-I addressed a letter to the McGregor-Banwell Wire Fence Company of Walkerville, Ontario, advising them that it had been decided to erect a fence at the boundary line in the Northwest Territories, 100 miles of which was to be constructed this year and the balance next year, and asking that company to state the price for constructing a fence, known as a woven wire fence, to be 200 miles long, running east and west from Coutts on the boundary line south of Lethbridge; to be made of No. 9 wire, with iron posts, either solid or of pipe driven at least three feet into the ground, properly guyed and otherwise supported, and built in a thoroughly substantial way, having gates every fifteen miles. The price was to include the stringing of a telephone wire along the fence but not the putting in of instruments. The department was to furnish a surveyor to run the line.
Now I have heard this fence frequently spoken of as a barbed wire fence. Let me say that a woven fence could not possibly be a barbed wire fence, and the fact that it

was to be made of No. 9 wire proves conclusively there was no barbed wire in y:. It is, to my mind, a very much better fence than a barbed wire fence. I hope if the government ever construct a fence along the boundary line they will not be so barbarous as to construct a barbed wire fence, one of the most barbarous erections that ever was constructed on any man's farm.
In reply I was advised by the company that their representative would be in Ottawa about the 18th of January and submit a tender for the fence. On the 19th of that month their tender-which is shortly to the following effect -was submitted to the department :
To supply and deliver No. 510 fencing (as per the attached) 9 horizontals of No. 9 hard steel galvanized wire with uprights of No. 9 hard steel galvanized wire 22 inches apart, 51 inches high

That would be a fairly good height for a fence, perhaps a very proper height, I think the regular height and No. 9 wire would make a fairly strong fence. I think that throughout the province of Ontario Nos. 9 12 and 13 are the ordinary numbers of wire used for the purpose of erecting fencing; No. 9 being a coarser wire than No. 12 oils would make it stronger than if it were made of No. 12 or 13 wire.


Mr. FISHER.: Does it say how many horizontal wires there are to be ?


David Henderson: 9 horizontals of No. 9 hard steel galvanized wire with uprights of No. 9 hard steel galvanized wire 22 inches apart-
That ps a considerable distance apart. It would not make a very strong fence to have the uprights 22 Inches apart. It is pretty nearly 2 feet. If a fence were to be erected I would recommend something stronger than a fence with uprights 22 inches apart.
To supply and deliver posts required to be 6 inches or over in diameter at the small end.
I presume that would be wooden posts.
To supply and deliver staples, brace wire, braces, anchor pieces for end posts, and all other material required to set posts 20 ieet apart, to erect fencing complete in a substantial and thoroughly workmanlike manner.
To supply, deliver and hang ' all metal ' gates as required at the following prices :
Fencing, per mile	$550 00
According to my calculation that would make $1.72 per rod. In my judgment that is a pretty expensive fence, a pretty good price for a fence. This, I understand, is to include posts. The gates are charged for separately. I presume it includes hanging the gates so that $1.72 per rod would be a very good price for the fence and I would be indeed surprised, if competition were invited for the construction of that fence, if it could not be built for a figure lower than $1.72 per rod. One dollar per rod for a woven wire fence, or wire woven on the
ground, I think would be an outside price and I believe McGregor and Banwell could supply a fence at $1, which would be a very good price. That leaves 72 cents for the posts.
Gates, each	 10 00
If this tender is accepted we agree to enter into a contract with the department covering the above work and the supply and delivery of above material.
The minister, Mr. Sifton, being then absent, I held this matter for submission to him on his return, but as you will remember, almost immediately after such return, he resigned. I therefore decided to hold the matter for the consideration of his successor.
In the meantime letters were received here from different parties asking for information with regard to this fence, and my answer in all cases was that this matter was under consideration.
The only other action I took was to obtain from the Deputy Minister of Justice a draft of the contract which he would consider necessary to be executed by the company in this matter, so that I might be able to submit it, with my letters, the company's tender, and the other letters referred to and my replies to them, to the new minister.
A letter dated 20th March last, was received here on the 212nd of that month from the- Page Wire Fence Company, stating that they had heard of the government's intention of building the fence in question, and would like to know to whom they should apply for further information with regard to it. The secretary, Mr. Keyes, having on the 25th March last signed the letter to the Department of Justice asking for the preparation of the draft contract before mentioned, incorrectly assumed that the matter had been settled and that the contract had been given to the McGregor-Banwell Fence Company, and replied on the Sth ultimo to the Page Wire Fence Company, as follows :
Replying to your letter of the 20th ultimo, in reference to the erection of a wire fence at the southern boundary of the Northwest Territories, I beg to state that the government has awarded the contract in this matter.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. W. CORY.
The whole matter seems to be involved in a great deal of mystery. Has the government entered into arrangements, or taken into consideration tbe erection of a fence the cost of wbicb, to my mind, must run away up into hundreds of thousands of dollars,' and all this without ever consulting parliament as to whether parliament would approve of the erection of a fence in that section of the country ? That, I think, in tbe first place, was an improper thing. Then, an undertaking such as that, I certainly say, should have been given the widest publicity. Tenders should have been advertised for all over this country, because fence building companies are not rare. I wonder what the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Telford) will think of supporting a government which would undertake to do a work of this kind in this way. In his town. I think, there is a fence company that would be very glad to tender for a work of this kind. Yon find them here and there through-

out the country>
and this is a matter in which we could have had very considerable competition. Therefore, I say that if the matter is to be consummated, wide pubicity should be given to it and I rather think that the government will not require to expend very much money now to give publicity to it because I think it will be heard of from ocean to ocean through the information which will go forth from this discussion, but at any rate, if they do propose to enter into a contract it would be well that all fence companies should have an opportunity of tendering. I think I have put myself right in regard to the seeming blunder that I fell into yesterday. I thought I had made a mistake. X at once corrected myself so that I would not mislead the House, but I found in the correction I made, I unwittingly fell into another [DOT]blunder. I do not hold myself responsible for that second blunder ; I hold the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) responsible for that because he should have known that his estimates were incorrect Somebody was responsible for it. I would not like to say that the hon. Minister of Finance was responsible for it, but it is a matter of finance and either he or the officers of his department certainly should have scanned these estimates thoroughly before they were laid before the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I could not very well have scanned these 'estimates, because I was 3,000 miles away. That, however, makes no difference ; I am responsible for my department and I do not want the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) to think anything else. I find the statement which my hon. friend made, and which I myself made a few moments before, that the estimate for this work came in this session, was correct, and that the figures that conveyed to my hon. friend the impression that there was a sum asked for last session are not correct. The estimates are correct in regard to the sum that they ask for, but in the comparative column, there is an error. X did not observe it until my hon. friend spoke. I sent for my official at once and he points out that these figures which were intended to appear in two columns had been moved over to the left. The sum of $100,000 appears in the appropriation column for 1905-6. So far correct. Then it should have appeared In the right hand column under the head of ' increase.' I am not prepared to say whose fault it is. but in the printing of this item, instead of appearing in the column for the appropriation for 1905-6 and in the column of increase, it appeared in the appropriation column and in the comparative column of votes last year. This comparison should be correct and I *ant to explain how the error occurred. When my hon. friend said yesterday that there was an estimate proposed I understood that he spoke of the estimate for the coming year, because I had no recollection of the previous year. The moment he drew attention to-day to the com-Mr. HENDERSON.
parison, I sent for my official and the explanation he gives is that these two items of $100,000 each should be moved over to the right. They are misleading, so far as the comparison with last year is concerned, and X can only express my regret that they have appeared in this way. They should not appear.


Mr. TAYLOR.: And when the estimates for this year would come up, the Minister of F mance would say that this was a revote.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly it has that appearance and to that extent it is misleading.


Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER.: That removes one of the difficulties out of the road, and I would not take it upon myself to say tliat the fact of the figures being in the wrong column was due to malice prepense. Such a mistake is apt to occur either through a little carelessness in such a mass of estimates on the part ot the clerk, or perhaps in the printing office. I would not look upon that as a serious crime, but that very fact gives an added importance, to the question we are discussing. The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sii'ton) dominated that department-whether he has dominated outside of that department or not-for a number of years. Has any one the shadow of a doubt that the minister having taken all the initial steps necessary to award the contract, that contract would have been absolutely awarded and would have been in effect to-day, had that minister been in Ottawa ? The fact that the contract was not awarded is due to the accidental circumstance that the minister was obliged to be absent, and that for some.reason there was delay in either waiting for the minister or for the advent of a new minister. This is wbat has occurred so far as we can judge.
A project was on hand to build a line of costly wire fence. That project had its inception in the Department of the Interior, and without any appropriation being asked for or obtained from this parliament, the responsible minister of the department decided that the work should go on ; work for which there was not a dollar of money voted. He decided that 100 miles of fencing should be built immediately' and that ain other 100 miles should be built after the first 100 miles had been finished or under way. The minister sitting in his department, without any reference to his colleagues, without any authorization of council, without any vote having been given by this parliament, presumed upon himself to award a contract, and he virtually did award this contract for the erection of 100 miles of wire fencing at an expenditure of $550 per mile. If 200 miles of fencing had been erected as was the intention it would have meant an expenditure of a good deal over $110,000 including the gates, &c. Has it been the practice heretofore, that each minister of himself and of his own motion, can without reference to or authorization by council, plunge this .

country into an expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars and do it simply on his own initiative and of his own will ? What authorization is there in law for such a thing as that ? Have we any laws in this country regulating the giving of contracts entailing the expenditure of public* money, which this government feels it is bound to obey in the spirit as well as in the letter ? There surely is no authorization in law for any minister undertaking to give a contract -for a public work costing $200,000 without having the authorization of ills colleagues in council, and yet this minister undertook to do it and had he not been absent from Ottawa it would have been done. Has it also been the practice, and is it so considered by ministers, that they can do this without a dollar being appropriated by parliament, superbly confident that whatever they have a. mind to do they can do it and afterwards come down to the men who sit behind them and say : it is all right, trust the government. And these gentlemen do trust the government and they will see the government through blindly. But what is the administration of public business in this country coming to if such has been the rule and if such can be carried out ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It has not been carried out.


George Eulas Foster: It has not been, but what a poor quibble that is, and I must say what an unworthy quibble it is. Why has it not been carried out ? Was it because the intention was not to carry it out ? No. The only reason why it has not been carried out is, that the minister being absent one of his clerks formally asked t he Department of Justice to prepare a contract. A contract had been decided on because the McGregor Company had been informed that their tender would be accepted, and then all that was necessary was a form of contract which the official of the Interior Department applied to the Department of Justice to make out. And it was only when the Minister of Justice in looking at the contract came to the conclusion that the work did not belong to the Interior Department at all but to the Department of Public Works, that he drew the attention of the government to the matter. We want, and we ought to have, all the papers in connection with that transaction. The time for putting notices of motion on the Order Paper has passed, but I have no doubt the Prime Minister will bring down at once all the papers in connection with it. We want not only the correspondence between the government and the wire fence company, but we want the correspondence between the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice, or any other department with which they communicated. Apart altogether from his evident desire and intention not to call for public tenders in a matter involving the expenditure of $200,000 of the people's money ;
apart altogether from the evident intention which the Minister of the Interior had to put that through ; apart from all that, there comes this question, and I would like to have the answer of the Prime Minister : whether the ministers of the different departments have power or have taken to themselves the power of entering into contracts for public expenditures involving $100,000 or $200,000 without having the authorization of council V That is a point which I do not think the Prime Minister has met and which I would like to ask his opinion on before we go further.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has my answer already as to that He knows that a Bill was introduced and passed during this session stating that all transactions above $5,000 should be awarded, not by by the minister but by the Privy Council.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is an Order in Council.


Wilfrid Laurier: There was an Order in Council, but we make it a law of parliament now. That shows what the views of the government are on this subject.


Samuel Hughes: And on public tender ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly, on public tender.


Mr. BERGERON.: Did not that Order in Council exist before ?


George Eulas Foster: Certainly it did.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is one thing in which I can agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) and that is that parliament is entitled to have the fullest light on this subject. I think all the papers should be brought down, and they will be brought down.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this question that has not been brought out. This is an international question ; we are dealing with an international issue, and I do not think the right hon. gentleman can give a single precedent for any action being taken concerning an international boundary without consulting parliament. < With regard to the boundary posts between the United Sates and Canada, a commission was appointed, parliament was consulted, congress was consulted, and a joint arrangement was reached ; and if an international boundary fence was to be erected, it would certainly be good financial policy to consult with the adjoining party as to the style of the fence and as to a division of the cost. That is the way farmers deal with each other when they want to build a boundary fence between their farms. I would like to ask the Postmaster General, who represents a farmers' riding, and the Minister of Agriculture, who is supposed to conserve the in-1 terests of the farmers of this country, whe-

tlier they consider that the way to serve the interests of the farmers is to pay $550 a mile for a woven wire fence. Farmers are building wire fences every day for half that amount. I thought the high price might perhaps be due to the character of the posts, but it turns out from the letter read that the posts are to be wood and not steel. I ask hon. gentlemen who represent farmers' constituencies, like the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller), the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Seagram) and the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. McIntyre), if they in their consciences can approve of such a policy as we have heard of to-day-of a fence being built at a cost of over $500 a mile, without competition, and without even an appropriation having passed the House. Is that in the line of the Liberal policy which we are accustomed to hear praised in this country as being economical and in the interest of the people ? If hon. gentlemen who profess to represent the farming interest of this country can approve of any such policy, and go back to their constituents and justify it, I shall be very much surprised. I would especially like to hear the hon. member for South Grey, who has such an active conscience, and who has exhibited it so often before this House, express his opinion in regard to this matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: Just one word in answer to my hon. friend with regard to the question of international policy. I may say that the question of policy will come up when the estimates are before us. No contract has been awarded, and the whole issue will be before parliament. But, in anticipation of that discussion, I may say to my hon. friend, if I am not out of order, that it is not proposed to build the fence on the boundary line, but on our own territory, as a precaution against the invasion of United States cattle. The whole correspondence, which will be brought down, will show the reason and the justification of that.


George Eulas Foster: 1 would like to suggest that in bringing down the correspondence, the right hon. gentleman see that the original papers are brought down, because we would like to see the notification and the instructions.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.


Mr. SPEAKER.: 1 think the discussion is running a little out of order. There is no motion before the House.


David Henderson: Mr. Speaker, with your consent-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: With the consent of the House.


David Henderson: With the consent of the House, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance-because I may have judged his department improperly-whether he can in-Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
form the House that this error in the estimates occurred in the printing office or in the department-that is, placing the $100,000 in the wrong column ?


William Stevens Fielding: Since my hon. friend spoke of the matter, I have sent for the original sheet of that portion of the estimates, and it shows that the clerk who prepared the estimates had put the figures in the proper columns. Just how they became transferred does not appear. I do not wish to make the accusation against the printing office without further inquiry ; but to all appearances it would seem that they were transferred in the printing office. But even so, that would not relieve our department of responsibility for the error, because my assistants should have noticed it in the proof reading.


John Graham Haggart: But the additions were made in the Finance Department, and they show that the error occurred there.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is really mistaken. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) knows that the additions are made on the printed sheet, and if the figures were erroneously transferred originally the error would be carried out in the printed sheet.


William Findlay Maclean: The final addition would justify you ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, there is a balance struck in the end.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister say in what form the estimate came from the Interior Department-in what column were the figures ?
,Mr. FIELDING. The departments do not always make these comparisons. We usually make them in the Finance Department. But I shall have a further inquiry made.


David Henderson: I just wish to point out to the hon. Minister of Finance-


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Unless there is a motion, the discussion is becoming entirely irregular.


David Henderson: I presume I shall have an opportunity of pointing this out again. It will only take a moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


David Henderson: I rather think the hon. minister's answers are misleading, because when you add up the column in which you find this $100,000 improperly set, you find that you have to include that amount to make the addition which appears at the foot of the column.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend missed what I said, that these additions are made on the printed sheet, and if the figures were carried into the wrong column, they would be carried in the addition.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems that there is some blame attachable to different departments.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I must again call attention to the fact that there is nothing before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I shall put myself in order by moving the adjournment of the House. I say it appears that there is blame attachable to different departments. There is to the Department of Finance, which controls the estimates. Several times this session and last session I drew attention to the incorrectness of the estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: Very seldom it occurs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Several times items were put in as revotes which were not revotes. I think this was a case in which the item was put in as a revote although there had been no vote before. I drew attention to the irregularity with which the estimates were made up, their incorrectness, and the loose business methods that seemed to prevail in the various departments. There is certainly blame attachable to some person in the Department of the Interior for the attempt to let a contract, involving an expenditure of over a quarter of a million dollars, without inviting public tenders, without the money being voted, and in advance of any action by parliament. That is entirely improper, irregular, loose and unbusinesslike. Yet there is no denying the fact that it took place, and had the Minister of Justice not stopped the deal, it undoubtedly would have gone on. We are in the habit of abusing the Minister of Justice, and I want to give him credit for this action. I do not know whether it was done out of his overflowing love for the Minister of the Interior or out of his burning desire to protect the public treasury. I am bound to assume that it was the latter, because that was a more praiseworthy motive. At any rate, he accomplished it, and the expenditure is not going on to-day owing to the astuteness of the Minister of Justice and his close attention to business.
But I want to draw attention to another fact. Why was the Department of Justice invited to send to the Department of the Interior a draft of contract, if the tender was not accepted, if the transaction was not practically concluded and the contract practically let ? That the transaction was practically concluded is the only conclusion we can come to, because otherwise the Department of Justice would not have been invited to draft a binding agreement. A most reprehensible looseness is shown in every step in connection with this matter up to the moment the Minister of Justice interfered and put a stop to the further proceedings. Whatever his motive may have been, he was certainly right in doing this. But I want to draw particular attention to another feature. I listened to the conditions of the tender submitted by that McGregor Company, and I find that although the specifications are sufficiently plain with regard to the number of strands and the distances apart at which the posts should be placed-one post at every twenty feet- there is nothing to show of what material the posts were to be made. I presume they were to be made of wood, but what kind of wood ? The kind of wood is very important. The most common wood in that country is the poplar. That is very plentiful, and would come up to the size required ; but it is well known that in the ground it rots very quickly in a very few years, and that it rots quickly either in the ground or out of it. If these posts were to be made of cedar, they would be much more durable ; but there is not a word in the letter regarding the class of wood. Therefore, it was optional with the contractor to supply any kind of posts he chose, and he would naturally supply poplar, because that is the cheapest he could get, although it is likewise the moist useless. This indicates the looseness with which these contracts are made, if it indicates nothing worse ; and there must have been an understanding that the contract would be drawn in this way, leaving the contractor to supply whatever kind of posts he liked, and providing a very nice opportunity for a rake-off for somebody. And I have no doubt that in the end there would have been something of the kind. I draw attention to these features which have come out in this debate. First, there was no public invitation for tenders, and consequently no competition, although there was an expenditure of about a quarter million dollars of the people's money involved. The Order in Council which is always invoked, and which provides that no contract shall be let for over five thousand dollars without first advertising for tenders, was completely ignored. Then there is the private letter written to a company intimately associated with the minister of the Crown, and which had done many jobs for him before, and that invitation was the only competition invited for this contract involving an expenditure of $225,000. Again, this contract was entered into and the expenditure incurred before the money was voted by parliament. The right hon. the First Minister has told us that when we are askeu to vote the money will be time enough for us to consider the conditions of the contract as an international affair. It seems to me that good business foresight would rather have dictated the considering of that matter beforehand, and that to leave its consideration to the last moment, when it is likely to be' dealt with in a perfunctory way, is not an evidence of good business acumen. When we consider all these things, when we consider that the contract was practically let. in the way I have mentioned, we cannot fail to conclude that there was something very detrimental to the public interest be-

bind the whole transaction. The only credit in the whole matter that can be given to anybody must be given to the Minister of Justice for having prevented this contract finally going through.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know whether the Minister of Justice is entitled to all the credit which my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) gives him. True, he took particular pains in the drafting of this contract, but his motive may have been to get even with the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) for the course that gentleman took with regard to a certain other matter in which the Minister of Justice was the draughtsman. It may possibly be that his objection was not so much to the contract in question being drawn up in a particular way as to the Interior Department making that contract at all. The Public Works Department was the one he desired to have control of it, and that department is the one which handed over $109,000 of the public money to the firm of Conmee, Bowman & Company for work at Port Arthur last year, done without any contract at all. The hon. Minister of Justice was not so particular on that occasion to see that a contract was signed, sealed and delivered, and the conditions explicitly set down in it before allowing the work to be given that firm. However, I give the hon. gentleman credit in this instance for seeing that the contract should go to the Public Works Department, and that his bosom friend, the exMinister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), was turned down.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Samuel Hughes: He did not get the giving of the contract, at all events. The Minister of Finance has been called in, and it is a very lucky thing for the government that it has that minister at its bidding, because he can make, better than any other hon. gentleman, a satisfactory explanation of any matter, however open to criticism or suspicion. The deal was exposed, and the Finance Minister had to be called in to make it appear that the department was all right. Nevertheless, the methods of the department have been laid bare. We have not yet had an explanation of how the Department of the Interior got the name of this one particular firm which made the tender for this wire fencing, but I presume that will appear in the correspondence. The system adopted in the matter of giving contracts and calling for tenders is gradually becoming understood throughout the country. Tenders are asked for from the particular friends of the ministers and contracts given to them without any conditions being imposed, and they go on and do the work just in what manner they choose. It is very opportune that the omission from ' Hansard ' has been supplied. It is found -in the ' Hansard ' of Monday-just a week's delay-and the explanation given by the Mr. SPROULE.
letter read by Mr. Speaker to-day explains how that omission took place. To say the least, it was a very unfortunate omission. The Prime Minister's error has been corrected before the House by the reading of the correspondence of the deputy minister of the department. Now that we find that the Department of Justice was on the alert when the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) was concerned, and now that we have the explanation of the Finance Minister, we can proceed, when che estimates come down, to discuss the matter still further ; and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that this fencing should not simply be a four-foot three inches fence. For an international fence that is entirely insufficient. It is not even sufficient for an ordinary fence. No ordinary farmer would put up a fence less than four feet six inches, with wooden posts, where there is a possibility of fire running. He would see that tlie posts were made of cement or iron. Tbe right hon. gentleman has friends in the cement and iron business ; and if public contracts must be handed over to the party favourites, at ail events let the country get some value, and let us have these posts made of either cement or iron. At all events, this matter will come up later on, and we will then be given a further opportunity of studying the methods and plans of the Department of the Interior. I must again compliment the Minister of Justice on having checked the Interior Department, even though he may have been actuated by some other motive than the welfare of the country at large. I only regret that he has not seen fit to insist on the contracts of the Public Works Department being as specific and being made in as strict compliance with the law as he has done in the case of this contract of the Department of the Interior.


Mr.  E. B.@: O SUE It. We have here certainly a very singular combination of errors, if errors they be. We have first the Minister of the Interior-and this is not an error there is no question about that- writing to one firm asking for a bid, not a tender, saying that the government have a certain work to do. We have shortly afterwards the agent of that firm coming down to Ottawa and we find him making an agreement with the Minister of the Interior I presume, with the department, for a work for which we on this side yesterday thought perhaps $250 a mile would be an exaggerated amount to name, but $550 a mile when uncompleted is tbe price agreed upon by this firm without tender for work involving an amount of money that may go into a quarter of a million dollars. We find that agreement so far completed that it is sent to the proper depart-irnent to have a contract drawn for cementing that agreement. We find shortly afterwards other firms writing asking to

be allowed to tender on work which they hear is to be done by the government. We have them informed officially that the tenders have been let and therefore that they are out of the field, and that it is of no use their tendering. The Speaker is written to on this matter by a firm wanting to tender, and he is misled and writes informing them that the contract has been awarded. It is only when a question is asked of the Prime Minister-and he apparently is the only innocent man in the whole government, innocent to the extent that he knows nothing about these enormous contracts-that he learns there has been any correspondence or any tender or any contract to be agreed upon1. The Prime Minister answers that no tender has been let. He leaves the impression on this House that there has been no negotiation for such a contract, that no tenders have been asked for and that the matter is simply one that has been discussed by the members of the government. We find that the Prime Minister's answer is left out of ' Hansard,' a most extraordinary thing. The whole proceedings, one step after another in this transaction is so extraordinary that I think the country will require an explanation which will be so full that there can be no suspicion, as suspicion must now rest upon this transaction and on somebody in connection with it. We even find, to cap the whole climax, a most extraordinary error in the estimates. We find that the estimates as printed and put before us show that a sum of $100,000 was voted last year. We have from the Finance Minister a very simple and reasonable explanation that the figures have been transposed and if this had been only one case it would have been accepted without question or any hesitation, but the additions show $733,000 which necessitates the inclusion of that $100,000 in the column of the estimates of last year. The Finance Minister's explanation of that may be accepted, that it is added up after the figures are printed. Now even that explanation would be accepted, but let us turn from that to the summary showing the total expenditure published by the Finance Department, and here we find the total is $62,179.344 and it requires that $100,000 which is in error put into the estimates of last year, to make those figures. It cannot be possible that the Finance Minister has put forth to this House and this country financial statements that simply on the first blush, the first time attention is called to them, show an error of $100,000 in the grand total. If that is the case I say that the figures which we have submitted here are not to be taken by this House or the country as being correct in au.v shape or way, because if the Finance Minister will issue his financial statement showing on the face of it an error of $100,000 in the capital addition I say that the figures we 181
have here are not to be relied upon. It is either gross carelessness on the part of the men who prepared the figures or this is done for some other purpose. When we find an error of this amount there is something radically wrong in the manner in which these accounts are kept and printed.


William Stevens Fielding: I think when you have regard to the large number of items in the estimates, the marvel is not that once in a while some error occurs but that errors are so few, and I think I may say in justice to the officers of the department, many of whom have been there a great many years, that they are in every case capable, painstaking- and careful officers. But an error wall once in a while happen.
I think it is unfortunate that this has occurred. I have sent for my officers and I have now the original item as it came from the Department of the Interior and I find in that original item there is no sum placed in the column for 1904-5 ; the sum of $100,000 is placed in the column of 1905-6 and it is also carried into the next column to the right, showing it to be an increase. Therefore the error in the estimates was not made in the Department of the Interior and 1 must at once relieve the Department of the Interior from that charge and say that the error occurred in the Finance Department, or rather it occurred in the Printing Bureau, in the printing of the estimates, but in the proof reading it should have been the business of the officers of the Finance Department to discover it. I say most positively that so far as the Department of the Interior is concerned, they sent the item over in proper form.


Mr. OSLER.: Is there no check made at all on the correctness of the figures in the summary that is given to us ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. As to the effect of this error upon the other figures, that will take more time to look into, and I will look into it. But there is a check on every column and every item of figures, all the checks which ordinary care can apply. In this instance a mistake has occurred, notwithstanding.
Mr. OSLER, And the same in the summary as well ?


William Stevens Fielding: I will have to look into this to see the effect on the other figures. But my chief object in rising is to place on the table for inspection the original item of the Department of the Interior, which shows there is no fault on their part in sending over the estimate.


Mr. INGRAM.: The right hon. gentleman referred to some Bills passed this session dealing with public contracts. I want to point out that section 2 of these Bills introduced the present session, which makes the law different from what it was previously, reads as follows :



*Whenever, in the case of any work, tenders are required to be, or are, invited, the minister shall submit all tenders received therefor to the Governor in Council and the contract for the work shall be awarded under the direction of the Governor in Council.
Now I take it that if the Department of the Interior wanted to call for tenders for this fencing, they would have to recognize that section of the Act passed during the present session of parliament. But what do we find them doing ? Writing to a firm asking them for their figures regarding the building of this fence. The First Minister has not stated in his correspondence on whose recommendation it was that the Department of the Interior wrote this firm of MeGregor-Banwell. That does not appear in the correspondence brought down. Mr. Speaker, in the correspondence he has given tc the department, says he had nothing to do with it, the member for South Essex says he had nothing to do with it, either by recommendation or otherwise; but the (First Minister has not given us the information. Now it would appear that the department wrote to the MeGregor-Banwell Company to come to Ottawa, they come on the 18th, cn the 19th they submit their figures ; and could any one pretend to say that the Department of the Interior, after writing to this firm to come to Ottawa and submit their figures for the construction of this fence, and then afterwards advertising for tenders, did not intend to give these people some advantage after putting them to all the trouble of coming to Ottawa ? Would if. not occur to any reasonable mind that the object was to defeat this very section 2 of this Bill, because after getting this firm to come to Ottawa and getting their figures, they could give them this work to do, and by that means they would not have to submit this tender to the Governor in Council at all. So, coupling that with all these other mishaps that have occurred from the commencement, we are driven to the conclusion that the Department of the Interior intended to do something crooked in tlie transaction. 1 think there can be no doubt about it, because Mr. Speaker has been misled, the First Minister himself has been misled, the figures in the estimates contained a mistake, and we are confronted with mistakes on every hand. In fact, there are more mistakes in connection with tliis transaction than in any other transaction I have heard of in this House for many years.
An lion. MEMBER. And a mistake in the ' Hansard.'


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes, the ' Hansard ' mutilated, I must include that too. Taking all these things into account I am sure the First Minister will not condemn the members of this House when we say that this transaction is a very crooked transaction, it does not show very well up to this moment.


Andrew B. Ingram: Now, when these Bills were before this House, I took occasion to ask if the amendment introduced by the Minister of Justice was intended to interfere with work done in different counties of the Dominion, on harbours, for instance, where they are not doing work under contract, where they are not recognizing the Order in Council requiring that contracts over $5,000 shall be given by contract, because there are hundreds of thousands of dollars expended today throughout the country on works not given by contract, done by day work and otherwise ; and I thiiik we have a right to assume that the Department of the Interior fully intended to get around this section 2 by simply communicating to this firm in Walkervilie and having them come here and give their figures, and then having this money voted through parliament, after which these parties would receive the work of constructing this fence at these enormous prices. If they intended otherwise, what would they have done ? When, on the 4th of January, 1905, the Minister of the Interior intended to have this work done, lie would naturally have called for tenders, he would have advertised or have instructed his department to advertise, so that tenders could be offered by different parties manufacturing wire fencing, and then he could have got his figures in, he could have submitted them to the Governor in Council as the Act requires, and the transaction would have been perfectly straight. But lie has not done that; and I repeat that coupling together ail these mishaps that have occurred, the whole tiling seems to me to be a very crooked transaction indeed.


Mr. COCICSHUTT.: This subject appears to be a very unfortunate one in respect to blunders. Now I wish to press further the question I raised yesterday, and which has been touched upon to-day by the member for 'South Y'ork (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), that is with regard to this being a boundary fence between the United States and Canada.
I have not been able to hear the Prime Minister very well to-day, but from what I understood him to say in reply to the member for South York, no correspondence had been held with the government of the United States in regard to this boundary line fence. If that is the case, I think it is a very unfortunate circumstance. We all know what boundaries mean, we all know they are more fruitful of discord among friends, discord among neighbouring farmers, and discord among those who own territory alongside each other, than any other thing that can be mentioned. Now it appears no ordinary precaution has been taken.


Wilfrid Laurier: This fence, I may tell my hon. friend, is not intended to be a boundary fence, it is not to be placed upon the boundary line, but is to be erected 100 feet from the boundary line.


William Foster Cockshutt: I understand the position, I think the remarks of the Prime Minister do not alter my contention in the least. This was treated by the Department of the Interior as a boundary fence between the United States and Canada. Here is the correspondence that was read yesterday :
Replying to your letter of the 20th ultimo, in reference to the erection of ,a wire fence at the southern boundary of the Northwest Territories, I beg to state that the government has awarded the contract in this matter.
Now the clerk in the Department of the Interior writing that letter treats it as a boundary fence. I want to point out to the bon. gentleman the position I -understand he is going to be in with regard to this fence. This fence, he says, is not going to be right on the boundary, he is going to leave a strip of no man's land, he is going, to run a fence 800 miles long, 100 feet from the boundary. I suppose the hon. gentleman is taking the precaution to place this fence on the south side of the line, on the south side of the Canadian boundary, because if he places it on our side, he will run the risk of giving 100 feet of land along 800 miles in length to our neighbours to the south for all time to come. Everybody knows that when a piece of land is outfenc-ed for some years, it becomes the property of the man whose land it adjoins outside the fence. The very first principles of fence building are to notify the neighbour that a line fence is about to be built, if it is not a line fence it is not a boundary fence. But what is the reason of this government building a fence 800 miles long for the benefit of private property ?-Because that is practically what it amounts to.
If it is not an international fence, upon what system, or upon what line of public policy is this government intending to build that fence ? There is no justification for the building of this fence at all. This fence is to all intents and purposes an international boundary line. As such it should be surveyed. If it is not surveyed you will either alienate a long strip of land, or else you run the danger of trespassing on your neighbours, and in either case you are in danger of stir ring up trouble. It is a difficult matter to explain and you will incur a considerable amount of danger by establishing a boundary line of 800 miles between the United States and Canada. The very first step should be to notify the government of the United States, the proper authorities, that a boundary fence is about to be run. Whether they are going to take part of the cost or not it matters little, but by reason of the fact that the fence is built there it will become known as the international boundary line and as such it becomes a very important public work. If the hon. gentleman is not going to run it upon the exact boundary then he is throwing away a part of the territory of this country to the United States, because it will 181}
be known as the boundary fence and ultimately that line may be claimed by our neighbours on the south. ' The government has not justified this work in any other way than as an enterprise for the protection of private property. It is supposed to be for the protection of the boundary line. If it is only to keep off cattle why should these gentlemen who own the land adjoining the boundary line have their fences built for nothing when all other farmers in the Northwest Territories have to build their own fencing '! There is no system of reasoning by which it can be justified other than as an international boundary line, and I say that although the danger may appear small to lion, gentlemen opposite there is nevertheless the danger of international trouble. We know what boundary lines are. We had a question of this kind up in Alaska only recently and we know how quickly the country is aroused when it is asked to part with one foot of territory that it thinks belongs to it. The first principle of fence building is to establish the line correctly between the neighbours whose property is 'being divided, and this being upon the international boundary it becomes still more important to do this. Therefore, I trust that the right hon. First Minister will not treat this as a light matter. I think the very first thing that should be done is to notify our neighbours that this line is about to be established and let them become parties to the erection of this fence, because otherwise, you may have the fence torn down and be told that it is not on the line. I think the matter should be very carefully gone into before this imaginary line, as this fence will be, is placed between the United States and Canada.
Motion (Mr. Sproule) to adjourn, negatived.



APPOINTMENT OF MR. NIXON.

George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. ' Oliver) to some information which has just come into my hands. It never rains but it pours qnd this is one of the little showers after the larger one. What I want is to find out whether the information is correct or not. The information is that shortly after the government took power a gentleman by the name of Nixon, an ardent Liberal, a shoemaker, was appointed land agent in or near Macleod. He performed the duties of his office for some time and it is stated that moneys which ought to have reached their proper destination did not. Thereupon a celebrated and somewhat notorious gentleman from Manitoba by the name of Leech was sent to investigate and it turned out that there was a defalcation to the amount of $600. My information then goes on to say that Mr. Nixon discreetly resigned before the investigation was brought to a completion and that the

$600 of shortage was made up. No punishment seems to have been given, if this state of things as alleged is true, except that a not altogether unusual punishment has been meted out by the present government, namely, that he has lately been appointed to a higher and more lucrative position as immigration agent in southern Alberta. I commend this statement of alleged facts to the minister and I would like very much if, to-morrow, he should be abie to make a statement to the House as to whether it is correct or not.



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Robert Laird Borden: I thought we were going to have a statement in regard to clause 2 and then finish the discussion later on in connection with that clause ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I thought we were to reserve clause 2 until we reached clause 16. My hon. friends were discussing the two clauses together. It seems to me that the question raised by my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) last night is intimately connected with the provisions of clause 16.


Robert Laird Borden: What I understood was that we would have a little discussion about clause 2 for the purpose of obtaining some information from my hon. friend the Minister of Justice which I thought would be of service in facilitating the discussion on section 16 when we reach it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am quite agreeable.


Robert Laird Borden: I rather understood that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice would in that connection be able to say to the House, or would undertake to state to the House to-day what the effect of section 16 upon section 2 would be. My hon. friend did not understand that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No. I do not mean to discuss section 16 until we reach it.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I would like to make one or two observations in regard to section 2. My hon. friend is not ready to discuss that particular feature of the question.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Whatever may suit my hon. friend's convenience I am willing to agree to. I am willing to take up section 2 now if he chooses to do so. I thought I had said almost all I could say on this subject of any value to the committee, but at the same time I am quite willing to conform to anything the hon. gentleman suggests.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that I fully understand the exact position the
government takes with regard to the combined effect of sections 2 and 16. There has been a good deal of diversity of opinion on the subject among gentlemen who are versed in the law and to whose opinion some attention should be paid. I would like, however, to make one or two observations as to whether or not it is proper and expedient to discuss this question from the constitutional standpoint, and I do so because certain gentlemen in this House have seen fit to make severe criticism upon the mode in which I dealt with this question. I refer more particularly to words that proceeded from my hon. friend for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Laurence) My hon. friend from Colchester was good enough to suggest that I had dealt with this question from a constitutional standpoint because I lacked the courage to deal with it in anv other way. Well, I do not know that I regard that taunt very much from the hon. gentleman, because I do not know that during his career, of which I have some knowledge, he has been specially conspicuous for any unusual display of courage. Be that as it may, I would commend him to the words and arguments of the Prime Minister who, both on the 21st of February and on the 22nd of March, made his argument in this House solely from the constitutional standpoint. I would like to ask my hon. friend from Colchester, whether or not he attributes that course on the part of his leader to that lack of courage which he was good enough to impute to me. My hon. friend from Labelle gave a description of himself in this House -he is very fond of describing himself- and on this occasion he came before the House, to use his own words, as ' a cool and common sense outsider ' ; and as a cool and common sense outsider, without particularly referring to me by name, he made some observations which were evidently intended for me. I regret that tuat )hon. gentleman, as usual, is not in the House, and I do not know that I would have any opportunity of making these observations if I waited for his return, so I shall be obliged to proceed in his absence. The hon. gentleman was very tender at this particular part of his speech to those who had displayed what he called passion and prejudice. He said that those emotions proceeded from the noblest feelings of our nature, although later on he used very strong language with regard to any display of passion and prejudice. At this portion of his speech it suited him very well to say that he did not object to passion or prejudice, but he was particular to criticise those who had dealt with this qusetion from a constitutional standponit. He said :
The men who are committing a crime against this nation are those who having opinions of their own are trying to shelter themselves un-


George Eulas Foster: der a constitutional pretence. The great argument which is being used by the opponents of this measure is, I may say, the shibboleth of provincial rights.
I would commend to my hon. friend from Labelle if be were here, the argument of bis own leader both on the 21st of February and the 22nd of March, in which lie proceeded solely upon the constitutional standpoint; the right hon. gentleman stood, as he said, upon the rock of the constitution. My hon. friend from Labelle, as I (will show from a later portion of his speech, has an intense regard for those who stand upon the rock of the constitution when they happen to coincide with his own views, but he has a particular desire to criticise and to impute motives to those who think they stand upon the rock of the constitution if their interpretation of the constitution happens to be a little different from his own. I would commend my hon. friend from Labelle to the speeches of certain gentlemen on his own side of the House in addition to those of the Prime Minister, I would commend to him the language of one of his own leaders, the Solicitor General (Mr. Lemieux). My hon. friend the Solicitor General was deprecating any display of passion or prejudice-and in that I absolutely concur with him-he made a very moderate and a very courteous speech ; he made a very good argument although I did not agree with all his conclusions ; he certainly made a speech to which no hon. gentleman on this side of the House could object in the slightest degree by reason of the tone he adopted; he was, as he is on all occasions, courteous to gentlemen on this side of the House from whom he differs. But, the Solicitor General made one observation which I commend to my hon. friend from Labelle and to my hon. friend from Colchester, and to certain minor legal lights from the province of Nova Scotia who have been dealing with this question from a constitutional standpoint. The Solicitor General said; ('Hansard,' page 5315):
And yet, Sir, that matter, or rather this difficulty is purely a constitutional one. It is in the light of our constitution that ihe question must be examined. To look at it from any other point of view is to err and to quibble. I
I specially commend these remarks to my hon. friend from Labelle and to my hon. friend from Colchester. My hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. Lavergne) took the same ground, that we must look to the provisions of the constitution in order to determine what rights shall be granted to the new provinces ; my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon), my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Grant), all took the view that it was after all a constitutional question. But, my hon. friend from Labelle can be
confronted with an authority which is more eminent in his opinion I am sure, than any I have referred to. It was very well to attack those who at least thought they had the right to make a constitutional argument and it was very well to say that they, and not those who were raising cries of passion and prejudice, were to be found fault with ; but a little later on, the hon. gentleman himself, in this House used this language which I commend to my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) as a cool and common sense outsider :
I took an active part in two elections in the province of Ontario ; I wras but a boy at the time, but I was proud to stand by Oir Oliver Mowat and help in his campaign for justice and equality. I was living on the borders of the province of Ontario and I crossed the river of my own free will without being asked by anybody, without being known by anybody, to do what I could in support ofjthe old statesman. What was the argument used by Sir Oliver Mowat ? He was prudent and he knew of the power of the appeals made by such men as the member for Hast Grey. When the system of separate schools was attacked in Ontario, Sir Oliver Mowat said -	' I shall not discuss the
relative merits of separate schools and public schools ; I am not any partisan of separate schools ; but separate schools have been established in this province under law, and therefore it is useless to agitate against the law of the land.'
It is all very well for Sir Oliver Mowat to stand upou the rock of the constitution when he agrees with the member for Labelle, but it is a very undesirable thing for one to stand by the provisions of the constitution if his views do not happen to agree with those of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa). That gives to the hon. gentleman an opportunity to impute motives and to use language, which, to say the least, is not very courteous to those on this side of the House. Then the hon. gentleman goes on to commend the wisdom of Sir Oliver Mowat and the high character of the stand he took in that regard, which was exactly the same as I take with regard to this measure, which has attracted so much unfavourable comment from my hon. friend from Labelle. I would venture to think that, although he has classed himself in the first instance, as a cool and common sense outsider, in view of his declaration in regard to myself in one part of his speech and his declaration in regard to Sir Oliver Mowat in another part, he cannot be regarded as a very consistent or sincere outsider.
With the gracious permission of my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Laurence) and my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), I shall proceed to deal once more with this question from a constitutional standpoint, for the purpose of obtaining some information from my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. I understand that a great many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the Housq,

men eminent in the law, have argued that words such as those which we have in clause 2 of the proposed Bill bring into force the Act of 1875, and therefore bring into force clerical schools, to which they object very much, although they profess themselves to be remarkably tolerant. For example, my hon. friend from North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) declares that clause 2 of Mr. Haultain's draft Bill and therefore clause 2 of this Bill, brings into force section 93 of the British North America Act, and with it perpetuates in the new provinces separate schools of a clerical character, to which so much objection has been made. My hon. friend from North Sirncoe (Mr. L. McCarthy) takes the same position. He says that if you leave clause 2 in the Bill, a more effective system of separate schools will be established than under clause 16. My hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Lament) has declared himself of the opinion that section 16 is necessary in order to prevent the establishment of clerical schools, which were imposed by the Act of 1875. He has declared that in two aspects-first, in dealing with the meaning of my amendments, and, in the next place, in dealing with the effect of clause 2-he finds clerical schools provided for in the Act of 1875. A great many other hon. gentlemen, such as the hon. member for Western Assi-niboia (Mr. Scott) and the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell), also find clerical schools provided for in that Act. When we advance a little in the discussion of clause 16, I shall be very glad to learn from some of those hon. gentlemen the exact words in the Act of 1875 on which they rely as bringing about that result. My hon. friend from West Peterboro (Mr. Hall) makes the same argument. He says in effect tnat if you leave clause 2 iii this Bill, you impose clerical schools on the Northwest Territories. My hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Grant), at page 4712 of ' Hansard,' expresses himself as rather of that opinion, although he is not so positive as some of the other hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred. My hon. friend from Guysboro' (Mr. Sinclair) takes exactly the same view. He declares, not by direct words perhaps, but by inference, that the effect of section 2 will he to bring into force and perpetuate in the Northwest clerical schools. My hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Bole) twice declares that, not by inference, but in so many words ; and I gather the same view from the words of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). These are rather important considerations for my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, who takes the ground, as I understand his argument, that apart altogether from section 16, the provisions of section 2 are sufficient of themselves.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Might be.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not notice that my hon. friend had very much hesita-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
tion about it. I understood that he concurred in the opinion of Mr. Clement to that effect, which he quoted.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, I did not concur in the opinion of Mr. Clement. My hon. friend cannot find words to that effect in anything I said.


Robert Laird Borden: I would hardly have expected the Minister of Justice to have cited the opinion of Mr. Clement in the way he did unless he concurred in it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not.


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: Of course, I accept my hon. friend's statement in that regard. The only comment I would make is this, that my hon. friend did cite the opinion of Mr. Clement, and did not express any dissent from that opinion. Mr. Clement unhesitatingly and1 positively took the view that under such words as we have in section 2 of this Bill the Act of 1875 is perpetuated as the organic law of the Territories, in so far as it restricts the right of the provinces to create an educational system without creating separate schools as well. Of course, I thoroughly understand, and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice understands as well, that when hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House without number have stated, as they have, that a system is being perpetuated, and is being perpetuated because it is an excellent system, they either have not studied the measure or the law very carefully, or else they have not taken very great care with regard to the language they use. So far as I understand the object of the legislation and the possible effect of section 2, and the effect of section 16, it is not the continuance of a system, but it is the imposition upon the Northwest Territories of a restriction in respect of any system which they may continue at present or may create in the future. A restrictive principle would perhaps be a good term to apply to it. That is the thing that is being continued. Apart from the continuance of that, the people of the Northwest in their legislature can deal with the school system exactly as they see fit. Now, my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, to whose remarks I shall devote some attention when we come to clause 16, took the ground that the Act of 1875 had been in some way restricted by the territorial ordinances, and he cited an opinion of Sir John Thompson on a question of the disallowance of those ordinances. Sir John Thompson did not deal with the question in the light presented by the Minister of the Interior at all. He was not dealing, as I understand his report, with the question of cutting down the rights of the minority in respect to the character of the public schools ; he was only dealing with the effect of the ordinances as making it unnecessary to establish separate schools in certain unorganized districts.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Making it impossible.


Robert Laird Borden: Making it impossible. I will read liis language in order to make that perfectly plain, because I tliink the Minister of Justice will agree with me that, apart altogether from any question of disallowance and apart from any question of remedial legislation, (which, as I think, did not exist), the ordinances could not override the statute of 1875. There might be some question as to how you would get at it in the courts, the ordinances might be i inconsistent -with the Act of 1875, but they could not in any way have any effect over that Act. If the Act of 1875 remains unrepealed and if we enact such legislation here as continues that statute as part of the constitution of the new province, then dsepite all the ordinances the Northwest Territories might make, the Act of 1875 would be in force in the future. There is no doubt * about that, in the opinion of lawyers who have carefully considered the question. The opinion of Sir John Thompson, to which I am referring, is this :
The ordinance respecting schools does not contain the provisions that the statute requires it to contain, hut merely contains the provision that the minority may establish a separate school in an organized public school district, thus placing the minority at the mercy of the majority, and only giving the minority the right to establish a separate school, if the majority think proper to organize a public school. It is necessary to point out that the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act, before cited, cannot be abridged by the ordinance and must be considered as still in force, notwithstanding the restrictive terms of the ordinance. In so far as it is attempted by the ordinance to declare the meaning of the Northwest Territories Act, the ordinance fails of that purpose, and is objectionable as being an interpretation by an inferior legislative body of the Acts of its superior.
The undersigned only refrains from recommending the disallowance of this ordinance, in consequence of its being merely a re-enactment of an earlier ordinance which disallowance would not affect, and which was allowed to go into operation, probably because attention was not called to this provision. The undersigned has the honour to recommend that the ordinance bringing these revised ordinances into effect, be allowed to go into operation.
That is all I desire to say about this question at present. I would ask the Minister of Justice what is his view as one of the law officers of the Crown with respect to the combined effect of sections 2 and 16 ? I may say also in that connection what has been already pointed out many times in this House, that the views of certain hon. gentlemen to which I have refered with regard to the effect of sections 2 and 16 would hardly seem to he borne out, having regard to the fact I am about to mention, namely, that the ordinances of the Northwest Territories themselves-those which are referred to in the amended clause 16 which we shall discuss presently-contain in so many words all that
is effective of the Act of 1875 for the purpose of establishing separate schools. The particular passage to which I refer contains the Act of 1875 in so many words. I refer to section 41. It contains that Act with the exception of the provisions for assessment which are contained in other portions of the ordinance. Therefore, so far as the ordinances are concerned, you have in them all the effective portion of the Act of 1875, which concerns the protection of the rights of the minority in respect of public schools. That makes it still more expedient that we should have-if not now at some date which will be convenient to my hon. friend-a statement of the views of the administration as to the combined effect of these two sections.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It will be my duty, when the amendment is moved, to explain the differences which exist between the amended clause and clause 16 in the original Bill. In the meantime I might point out my views of the constitutional question because in my judgment this is to a very large extent a constitutional question and has to be considered from that standpoint. Section 2 would bring into effect section 93 of the British North America Act, if section 16 were not in this Bill at all. If section 16 were omitted, section 93 of the British North America Act would be applicable ; but then we would meet this difficulty, a doubt arises as to whether section 93 can be considered as applicable to the Northwest Territories in view of the fact that in the first provision of that section the words used are ' the rights and privileges in force in the province at the union.' Technically while these Territories may have practically all the legislative powers of a province, they are not a province ; now within the meaning of section 93 of the British North America Act, and it was to avoid the difficulty that I substituted in section 16 in the first paragraph the word ' territory ' for ' province.' Then the other difficulty that would have arisen is what is meant by the words ' at the date of the union.' In my opinion there can be no doubt that the date of the union is the date at which the Territories came into the Dominion as a province and not the date at which these Indian territories were brought into the Dominion as territories. It was to make that point clear also that I amended the first clause in the way I did.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend regard section 16 as exercising upon section 2 the restrictive effect which hon. gentlemen on the other side have contended it does ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My argument now is that section 16, read in the light of these words in section 2, ' except in so far as varied by this Act '-is to be substituted for section 93 ; and section 93 is not applic-

able to the new province at all, because that section is varied by setion 16.


Mr.  R. I.. BORDEN@: I understand that perfectly whether we agree with it or not. But assuming that there was no doubt about the effect of section 2, assuming that there was not that doubt which the hon. gentleman now explained, would it bring into effect the Act of 1875 1


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would bring into effect section 93 of the British North America Act which would include the Act of 1875.


Robert Laird Borden: That is just it, I was taking the short line. Section 93 would have the effect of perpetuating the Act of 1875, in so far as it embodies what we call the restrictive principle. Does the hon. minister regard section 16 (which is substituted for section 2), in its amended form or in its original form as having the same effect ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In my judgment, section 93 as amended would bring in all the rights and privileges which exists in favour of denominational schools in the Territories at the present time or at the 1st of July coming. Those rights and privileges would include all those rights which are eoverered by section 1L of the Act of 1875 and any subsequent legislation up to the present time, and, in my opinion,-and I must say I have given this matter most careful consideration, and it is my settled opinion-it would cover all the privileges conferred by the Act of 1875, notwithstanding the provision of any ordinances that may have been passed by virtue of that Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Exactly my own view.


Charles Fitzpatrick: With regard to Mr. Clement's opinion, if my hon. friend will do me the pleasure of reading what I said the other day, he will find that I quoted Mr. Clement's opinion to the effect that if the present system of schools existing in the Territories were allowed to continue on until the Territories were brought into confederation as provinces, that that system then would be perpetuated for all time. That is the opinion expressed by Mr. Clement in confirmation of the opinion previously expressed toy George Brown and Dalton McCarthy. I was nor prepared to go that far, and I would not feel justified in endorsing that opinion. I do not refuse to discuss the amended clause, but as I attach a great deal of importance to that amendment, and I feel it my duty to explain the position as clearly as I can to the House, I do not want to discuss it before we reach it. It is a matter that involves a great deal of consideration, practically a consideration of all the Northwest school ordinances.


Frederick William Borden: So far as I am concerned, the hon. gentleman has very courte-


Charles Fitzpatrick: ously answered everything I wished to ask at this moment, and therefore I am perfectly willing to allow section 2 to stand for the purpose of convenience until we come to discuss, it in connection with section 16.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Justice, in his argument the other day in support of the contention that the Act of 1871 gave full powers to the Dominion, quoted an opinion-I dc not know whether he had the opinion or not-but he made a statement that Lord Kimberley, who introduced the Bill into the House of Lords, stated in support of his contention that the Act was not perhaps absolutely necessary, as the Dominion parliament had the power of passing an Act such as was introduced. I would like, if it is at all possible, to get the opinion of these two law lords, I think Lord Collier and Sir John Coleridge.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What I said was that at the time what we call the Doubt Removing Act-the British North America Act Amendment, 1871-was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Kimberley, he said, in introducing the Bill, that it was intended to confirm the Act of 1870-the Manitoba Act-in connection with the passing of which certain doubts as to their power to legislate had been expressed by the Canadian authorities ; that these doubts had been considered by the law officers of the Crown, who at that time were Sir Robert Collier and Sir John Coleridge, and that the law officers of the Crown in England had expressed the opinion that there was no doubt as to the power of the Canadian parliament to pass the Act of 1870. That is what I said. Naturally, when my attention was drawn to that statement of Lord Kimberley's, I inquired in the department as to whether or not these opinions were on file, and I was told they were not here. Immediately I wrote to our agent in London to get these opinions if they were deliberately expressed opinions, i have not yet heard from him in answer to my inquiry as to whether or not the opinions are on record in the Home Office.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, it would be important to know whether they are dealing with the general power of parliament to establish provinces or were dealing with a Bill in all its details. They might take either one of these courses.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My own opinion, reading the remarks of Lord Kimberley, which are very briefly reported in the debates of the House of Lords, was that the opinion expressed by the law officers of the Crown was in respect to the doubts which were expressed here and which doubts, I think, were limited, as far as I can gather, to the question of representation. I do not think they went beyond that ; at least I would not gather that from what Lord Kimberley said. My argument, however,

was not based on that, but largely on the power conferred by the Act of 1871 that was passed as the result of this application.


William Findlay Maclean: It is then the object of his Bill to carry into this Autonomy Bill the high-water mark, if we may use that term, of the rights and privileges enjoyed by the minority in 1875 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has a picturesque way of expressing himself, and he will pardon me if I cannot always follow him. My object was to use plain language which an ordinary man can understand, which I can understand. My object was really to apply section 93 of the British North America Act, which is applicable to every province in the Dominion, to these new provinces. That was my object, and to confirm the people of these Territories in those rights and privileges, mentioned in section 93, which they now enjoy, nothing less and nothing more.


John Graham Haggart: If I understand the hon. gentleman aright, clause 2 of this Act would not bring into force clause 93 of the British North America Act except for the special clause afterwards ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no doubt about that.


John Graham Haggart: He holds that clause 93 applies solely to the original provinces.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No ; I do not. My argument is that a province to be in the full enjoyment of all those powers which a province ought to possess, should be in the possession of the rights conferred by section 93.


John Graham Haggart: If you give to the provinces all the powers given by the British North America Act, except those which are by intendment applicable to particular provinces or groups of provinces, you must include the educational clause, unless clause 93, the educational clause of the British North America Act, applies solely to the provinces which are mentioned In the original British North America Act. U|ndjer my reading, I think that clause 2, under the recent decision as to the meaning of the word ' province ' on the delimitation question, which was submitted to the Supreme Court and the Privy Council, would be held to mean that the provisions mentioned in clause 93 would apply to the new provinces coming in, and the Minister of Justice, in order to cover any doubts upon the question, has included section 1C in the Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is exactly the difference.


William Findlay Maclean: The high-water mark 1


Charles Fitzpatrick: 'High-water marks' in educational matters and ' handsprings in legislation ' are things I cannot understand.


William Findlay Maclean: All I ask is that the Minister of Finance bow to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Finance said that this only intended the half-hour's religious instruction ; will he now rise in his place and defer to his colleague in regard to what the intention of this Act is ?


William Stevens Fielding: I did not understand my hon. friend the Minister of Justice had touched that point at all. I am quite well satisfied to leave the law in the hands of the Minister of Justice.


William Findlay Maclean: In other words, the Minister of Finance now accepts the high-water mark of interpretation put on it by the Minister of Justice, and withdraws the statement he made to this House some time ago.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I do not withdraw any statement I made.


William Findlay Maclean: But he says he accepts the opinion of the Minister of Justice, whatever it is.


William Stevens Fielding: I am willing to be advised by the Minister of Justice on law. There is wherein I differ from my hon. friend, who always takes his own law. We have not reached section 16 ; when it is discussed I have no doubt the Minister of Justice will show that it is entirely as we all understand it.


William Findlay Maclean: In other words, them the Minister of Finance has appointed the Minister of Justice as the keeper of his conscience.


William Stevens Fielding: I appointed the Minister of Justice, if appointment be necessary, my adviser in matters of law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be good so far as it goes. But the Minister of Finance should not forget this fact, that he treated this House to a very serious argument, or what he wanted us to accept as an argument, explaining that practically the system of schools they have in the Northwest Territories to-day was no system of separate schools at all, it was practically a system of national schools. He says that is the only conclusion the man in the street can come to. He says, let us take the common sense view of it, let us leave the constitution question out of consideration altogether. We believe that to-day, by the ordinances which have been brought into force, the Act of 1875 has been so amended from time to time that the schools to-day are practically no separate schools at all, that they are national schools; and we are asking this House to perpetuate them, and not perpetuate a system of schools that were intended to be put in operation by the Act of 1875. That was the gist of his argument, that was the inference which he wished the country to draw from the argument he presented to the House.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is drawing a distinction between separate schools and national schools which I did not draw, and which does not necessarily exist at all. A separate school may be a national school. The distinction which I attempted to draw, so far as I approached the question at all, because I was not dealing with it from the constitutional aspect-but the distinction I attempted to draw was between an ecclesiastical school and a national school ; and I stated that the system provided in the Northwest Territories, the system which we were going to continue, was a system which contained in it every element of national schools that is of any importance, that they were not ecclesiastical schools, and that the idea of separate schools is not necessarily inconsistent with the idea of national schools.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I remark to the Minister of Finance that the argument proceeded stage by stage upon this ground : What was our public school ? It was a national school. What was the provision for teaching in that public school, national in every sense of the word ? Then the distinction was drawn as betwen a public school and a church school, or separate school.


William Stevens Fielding: A church school and a separate school are not necessarily the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Finance declared that there was practically no difference between a separate school as established to-day under these ordinances and a national School otr a public	school,
practically no difference * whatever, except the half hour's religious instruction, that it was in every sense a public school or a national school ; and he explained that whatever was intended by the Act of 1875 in the way of a confessional school or a church school, that had all been done away with by the ordinances, and we have no such thing as an ecclesiastical or separate school, it was practically a public school, and that public school we regard as a national school. That was, as I understand it, the argument which he presented to this House. And yet we are told by the Minister of Justice that the ordinances do not take away any rights contained in that clause 11 of the Act of 1875.


William Stevens Fielding: My argument was that a church school and a separate school are not necessarily the same. A separate school and a national school may be essentially the same ; and I say that these separate schools which exist to-day in the Northwest contain every element of a national school ; they are not church schools, they are public schools under the control of the authorities of the separate schools still. They are public territorial government, but they will be schools under the authority of the Northwest Territories as administered to-day, and as we understand they are to be continued, and Mr. SPROULE.
they contain every element of a national school system though they are separate schools all the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We dispute that.
Mr. HAGGAItT. I have heard the hon. gentleman make that statement before in the House, that a national school may be a separate school. Let us call a spade a spade. A separate school defeats the very object of a national school. The moment you segregate a particular creed and educate them apart from the others in the community, that moment you defeat the object of a national school. Is it not well known ? All the writers upon the subject of education call a national school a school where all classes in the community mingle together and receive their education together. The moment you segregate one class or one creed in the community from the rest, you defeat the very object of a national school. What is the use of blinking the fact ? Roman Catholic writers upon the subject admit the principle that you defeat the object of a national system of education when you have a separate school in the community. But they argue on a different ground altogether, on the ground of morals, a higher conception of the Deity ; but they never argue on the ground of the Minister of Finance, that it is possible in a community to have a national system of education and at the same time have separate schools.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot discuss with my hon. friend what Roman Catholic writers say about separate schools. We are dealing with so-called separate schools in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Let us consider what those schools are, not what they may be elsewhere, not what Roman Catholic writers elsewhere may say, but what these schools actually are in the Northwest.


Samuel Hughes: What they may be under the law.


William Stevens Fielding: They may be under the law just what they are now. I have said, and I repeat, that the separate schools in the Northwest Territories, though they are called separate schools, contain every essential element of a national school system. If I may define what I regard as the essseutial elements of a national school system, I understand that if a system is created under a statute of the legislature, if it is administered by the public authorities, if it is brought under the same system of inspection as the other public schools, if the course of study is the same, if the teachers have to submit to the same examination, if the whole machinery is conducted in the same way as in the other schools, even though they may be separate schools to the point of having half an hour's religious instruction, they are in all respects the same, and are essentially national schools.


George Eulas Foster: The inevitable difficulties have arisen. When there was general speak-

ing in the debate on the second reading, the ministers of the cabinet could take absolutely different positions and take them some distance apart from each other, and with a proper steering arrangement they could keep from closely clashing with each other. But the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Customs and other ministers must have been very shortsighted not to know that there was coming a time when they would have to come to close quarters, that they could not simply divide themselves off by an hour between speeches and come to conclusions which were absolutely different from each other, but they would have to come to a point where they would have to fight at close quarters, they would have to fight between themselves and fight it out as it is now being fought out between two colleagues sitting on benches close to each other, the Minister of Justice who has to take the legal view, and the Minister of Finance who calls the Minister of Justice his legal adviser and who has got to square himself now before this House and the public, ff there was one thing in the argument of the Finance Minister it was this : What is all this pother about ? What are you Protestants talking about, anyway ? What are you opponents of clerical, separate schools talking about, anyway ? We are only going to perpetuate this Northwest system which, as it is working out to-day, is absolutely and essentially the same as national schools with the simple change that after half-past three you may have the different creeds assembled for clerical instruction or church instruction according to their creeds. The statement went, and it was meant to go, and it has gone from one end of this country to the other, that all that was to be given-in perpetuation was simply that and nothing more. Does the Finance Minister hold to that to-day ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, I hold to that today.


George Eulas Foster: He holds to that to-day. Now, the hon. Minister of Justice, who is the keeper of the legal conscience of the hon. Minister of Finance, which is probably not so difficult a conscience to take charge of as the other part of the hon. Minister of Finance's conscience, sits right alongside of the Minister of Finance and says that is absolutely incorrect.


William Stevens Fielding: If he said so, I did not hear him.


George Eulas Foster: He says that the very moment these clauses are passed and they become law the essence and power of the Act of 1875, which the hon. Minister of Finance says has since been whittled down to the little end of nothing, comes into force. There is an appeal on the other side and it is to be absolutely opposed to the appeal of the Finance Minister. Which of these two is right ? The Minister of Finance, because he has declared that the Minister of
Justice is the keeper of his legal conscience, if he is honest with parliament and the country, must state in accordance with the Minister of Justice that when we pass and finish this legislation, in the province of Saskatchewan, the essence and power of separate schools are included in the law of l*(o, that it is a constraining principle in tne province for all its future and that under it every man or any man in the Northwest Territories can demand the full tale of separate schools in the essence and power that were given in 1875. Otherwise the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice who sits beside him are juggling with the people of the country. What is the Minister of Justice giving to the minority if' what the Minister of Finance says is true ? Will the Minister of Justice rise and say that when this legislation is passed and when it goes into force and becomes the constitution of the province of Saskatchewan the minority in that country has no claim to anything else in the way of separate schools except the mere name and the privilege of religious teaching for half an hour of the legal hours of the school day ? I do not think he will. Now then to the ring-bolt these gentlemen have to come some time. They are a pair of noble brothers. These galleries have their eyes on them, the country has its eyes on them and in the interest of that frankness that the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) invoked when he said we must be frank and plain and say just what we mean, let us ask these two hon. gentlemen to take an hour or two together and form a statement which the two can sign as to what will exactly be given to the Northwest minority wnen these different sections are made into law. It will be an interesting hour's session. None of the sessions that have taken place for the concoction of this Bill will be a patch on the interest that will attach to the hour's session between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice, and it will be worthy of the most skilful draftsman in Ottawa to make a form of words that will reconcile the difference between these two ministers and will yet be plain so that the man on the street as he goes along will read and understand.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I sincerely hope that not only will the men in the galleries have their eyes on us, but that they will have their eyes on the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) and if they and the country will be good enough to read what has been said here by both the hon. Minister of Finance and myself (both of us will be content. I trust that they will read not only what we said but what my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) said. I must confess that I am embarrassed somewhat by the wealth of vocabulary of my hon. friends opposite. I have to deal with the high-water mark of separate schools, and with the ring-bolt of education and ' hand-springs of finance.' It is em-

barrassing. No man in this House knows better than my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) that I was speaking of clause 16 as it is in the present Act and that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was speaking of clause 16 as it is to be amended.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And my hon. friend is perfectly well aware-


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask my hon. friend-


Charles Fitzpatrick: Now, now, now. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) whose reputation is well established in this country as a most expert dialectician knows perfectly well that if his remarks are to be read by the people they will also be curious enough to look at the text from which he spoke, and they will consider what has been said by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and myself, with the result that he will find out that his remarks will not have the effect that at the present time they may appear to have.


George Eulas Foster: Let us have dinner now.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Justice one question. Has he, after all, come around to the view of the hon. Minister of the Interior that there is a very pronounced difference between the original and the amended clause 16 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: We will consider that at the right time, but I must make this observation and I make it in all seriousness : I am sorry to see that my hon. friend has turned away from the good training he had at the bar, because if he were still at the bar he would never have thought of proceeding in such an illogical manner. I must insist that he shall be relieved at the earliest possible moment from the position which he now occupies so as to enable him to go back to the bar and maintain the magnificent reputation that he there made for himself. Shall we dispose of section 2, or are we going to have another discussion on separate schools ?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot be here at eight o'clock and I will have to deny myself the pleasure of hearing that discussion.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. Minister of Finance going to bolt again, now that he finds that separate schools are really to be established V


William Stevens Fielding: No, the bolt is on the Other side.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Kecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 92) respecting the Ottawa and New York Railway Gompany.-Mr. Pringle.
On the preamble.
Mr. PRINGLE.: I might say a word or two with regard to this Bill. Under chapter 57 of the statutes of 1897, the Ottawa and New York Railway Company was incorporated and a railroad was built from the town of Cornwall to the city of Ottawa. On the American side of the line there is a continuation of that railroad which extends from the River St. Lawrence, southwards t .t Tupper Lake Junction in the Adirondacks. At the time the railroad was incorporated the directors were, I think, largely residents ot the United States. They received from the Dominion government the usual subsidy of $3,200 per mile, but there was expended on the railroad some $750,000 of American capital, part of which may have been expended on the bridge that was built from the north to the south shore of the 'St. Lawrence at the town of Cornwall. At the time these American capitalists invested their money, they were working under the provisions of the Railway Act, 1888, which permitted a majority of the directors to be aliens, and when the Railway Act of 1903 was passed, clause 109 contained a similar provision. In 1904, by section 5, of chapter 32, it was enacted :
The majority of the directors of any company which has heretofore received, or hereafter receives from t.he government of Canada by any Act of the parliament thereof, aid towards the construction of its railway or undertaking or any part thereof, shall be British subjects, provided that this section shall not until the 31st of January, 1905, apply to any company the majority of whose directors are not British subjects when this Act comes into force.
This law was passed when we were considering the construction of the Transcontinental Railway and up to that time there was no prohibition against aliens being directors of a railway company in Canada. The Ottawa and New York Railway is only some 56 miles in length, and it would be a great hardship to compel the New York Central Railway Company which has now acquired this railroad, to have a majority of its directors British subjects. Unfortunately the Ottawa and New York Railway has not paid, and it fell into the hands of a receiver and was sold and acquired last fall by the New York Central. The condition of the road at the present time is not good and it is necessary that a large amount of money should be expended to put it in proper condition, it; fact to put it in safe condition for traffic. The New York Central people are anxious to start this work as soon as possible. This is simply a Canadian branch of the New York Central, and I cannot see that it

makes any difference whether a majority of the directors are British subjects or Americans inasmuch as the railway comes under the provisions of the Railway Act, 1903, and would be under the control of the Railway Commission. Section 87, of the Railway Act 1888, which was in force at the time this railroad was constructed, reads :
The shareholders in a company, whether British subjects or aliens or resident in Canada or elsewhere, shall have equal rights to hold stock in a company and to vote on the same and shall be eligible to office in the company.
That section of the Act of 1888 is reenacted in identically the same words in section 109 of the Railway Act, 1903. I mention this to show that these people really have vested rights. They invested and expended their money in the construction of the road under the provisions of the Railway Act 1888, so that the legislation of 1904 is retroactive and would inflict an injustice on those who put their money into this enterprise.


William Findlay Maclean: The argument presented by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pringle) does not justify the passage of this Bill. For good and sufficient reasons we passed a general law that any railway in this country that had received or would receive government aid should have a majority of British subjects on its directorate. That enactment was passed by us for national reasons, and that being so, the law ought to be maintained in its letter and spirit. In view of the fact that all the stock of all the great railway companies is on the market to-day, what Canadians fear is that they may wake up some morning to find that our great railways have passed into the control of American railroad kings.
For instance, we do not know what day the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has been bonused so extensively by this Dominion, may he owned by Mr. Morgan, Mr. Vanderbilt, Mr. Gould, Mr. Rockefeller or their associates in the United States ; and the same thing is true of the Grand Trunk Pacific, so far as the control of the stock is concerned. If we are liable to that, we have a national reason why the majority of the board of directors should be Canadians. Mr. Vanderbilt and his associates who control the New York Central know what the Canadian law is, and if they want to purchase a Canadian railway, they must purchase it subject to Canadian conditions and Canadian laws. The Canadian end of the road would have to have a Canadian directorate, as is the case with the Canadian portion of the Michigan Central Railway. If the New York Central interest can come into this country and have the law changed with regard to this Ottawa and Cornwall road, they will be able to do the same tiling with regard to the Canadian Pacific-or the Grand- Trunk Pacific whenever they'
purchase either of these roads if they desire to do so, and they will use this Bill as a precedent. While I would like to see this connection made between Ottawa and New York, and while I have not the slightest objection to the Vanderbilt interest making it, still from the national point of view we ought to maintain the law which is intended to protect our national interests. Once you establish this precedent, there will hereafter be any number of applications for similar changes in the law. For these reasons, and not from any hostility to the project. for I -want to see this line improved, and I have no objection to the Vanderbilt money coming into this country to improve it, I ' do not think the law ought to be changed a single jot.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This Bill as introduced contained one clause. The Railway Committee added a second clause permitting the directors to appoint a managing committee of three. The Bill as introduced exempted this company from the provisions of section 5 of chapter 32 of the statutes of 1904. At that time it was the settled policy of parliament that all companies receiving state aid in Canada should have only British subjects as the majority of boards of directors ; and there was considerable feeling expressed by members on both sides of politics that Canada could not permit aliens to have control of any of her railways. It was further alleged that our neighbours to the south had adopted a similar policy, because no railway corporation in the United States can have on its board of directors any man who is not an American citizen. This being the policy of this country, it seems to me that it would be unwise to make any exception. If we establish a precedent by permitting this company to depart from the law, there is no doubt that parliament will be assailed day after day on behiilf of other railway companies to grant them a special provision of a like character. When this first clause is reached, unless it is withdrawn by those who are promoting the Bill, it will be my duty to move that it be stricken out. There can be no objection, however, to the second clause. I need not enter into a discussion as to the wisdom of this policy; it is the policy of this country, and we must observe it. It would be a very dangerous thing for us to have on the statutes of Canada a provision such as is contained in the Act of 1904, and in subsequent enactments grant exemptions. I think the good sense of the House will concur in deciding that this Bill should not be permited to pass- containing the first clause.


Mr. BARKER.: When the General Railway Bill of 1903 was before the House. I advocated. I am not sure that I did not propose, a clause providing that wherever this Dominion granted public money towards the construction of a railway in Canada a major-

ity of the directors of that railway should be British subjects. My recollection is that 1 desired to go a little further than that ; but after discussion it was decided that we should put in the General Railway Act the clause which is now there. If we are to abandon that principle with regard to this particular railway company, I should say wipe it out altogether. There can be no principle upon which it can be justified in regard to any company if it does not apply to this. One object I had in view was to bring within the control of this parliament every Canadian railway, if possible. I was prepared to concede what was urged upon the opposite side, that it was desirable to facilitate the expenditure of foreign capital in this country ; but it was as a compromise thought that wherever the public money of Canada was expended in assisting in the construction of a railway, those who owned the railway should accept that assistance with the obligation that a majority of their directors should be British subjects. Now, I see nothing in what has been stated in regard to this particular railway company to interfere with that principle. I think it is of far more consequence at the present time, when we have the Board of Railway Commissioners, than it was before. It is almost impossible in the practical operation of railways to control them wheu the administrative officials are in a foreign land. All the officials engaged in the active management and operation of this railway, one-half of which is in the state of New York and one-half in Ontario, may live in the state of New York.
Every document, every book, every record relating to its transactions may be in the state of New York. Under these circumstances, it would be extremely difficult to have any effective control over -such an administration. The only possible one that presents itself is to provide at least that some portion of the board which is responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the company shall be, if not Canadians, at any rate, British subjects. When the Bill was before the House, my own view was that they should be Canadians, but I yielded to the opinion of other gentlemen who were willing that they simply should be British subjects ; but I do not believe in abandoning that one sheet anchor and in giving away the last -shred of control that is possible to us. If the Board of Railway Commissioners should want to ascertain exactly what this company-half in the state of New York and half in Canada-is doing, where is there any person in this country superior to a station freight agent who can give us any information unless they can examine some British director whom we can get at ? Tile administration may be in the state of New York and never appear here at all, but we can perhaps get hold of a director who will probably be a Canadian ;


Samuel Barker: and however little utility that may be, I do not think we should give it up.


Mr. MONK.: Even admitting the -truth of all that has been said, I would -submit to the Minister of Railways that my hon. friend who is promoting this Bill has shown that tliis company is placed in an exceptional position which would authorize the House in dealing with it in an exceptional way. Under section 109 of the Railway Act of 1903, that provision about the directors being British subjects was only to become applicable after the 1st January, 1905. 1 take it that my hon. friend is correct when he states that while this Bill was going through the House those who were going to take in hand this railway had decided on the investment, and they had come to that decision under a law which did not make it obligatory for railway companies to have a majority of their directors British subjects. They are thus placed in an exceptional position, and I think that, under the circumstances, we ought to be lenient. Even if we had made the date of coining into effect of the law the 1st of July, 1903, probably this Bill would not have been necessary, as all the arrangements were made and the investments decided upon at the time when it would not have been possible for this enactment to apply. However good a general rule may toe, it ought not to be so rigid as to admit of no exception. My hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Barker) talks of the necessity of having the control of railways in Canada, as if the only control we could have was to have the railway directors, or a majority of them, British subjects. We have that -control as it is by other means ; and besides it is always easy to evade the law by creating directors who are British subjects and mere mandatories of those who actually control the railway. The ease with which that provision of the law is evaded is evident. If we had no other control upon railway companies which have foreign capital invested in them, we would be in a very bad position indeed ; hut we have absolute control over those companies by the fact that their works are here. The provision merely requires that the directors should be British subjects ; and if they should reside in England, what control have we over them ? We have none whatever. Our courts and Railway Coin-mis-sion have no jurisdiction whatever over their person. There are railways no doubt in Canada the majority of whose directors are British subjects, but no more under the control of our Railway Commission and other tribunals than would be directors residing in the United States. I do not think that the law in the United States is as exclusive as it is here. The railway laws of the United States -are entirely different from our own ; but I am not aware that they require the directors of railway companies,

at any rate, in all the states, to be American citizens. American railways are organized with our legislative 'enactment. They are private companies strictly. They receive no bonus whatever from the state, and I think those companies are absolutely independent as regards the nationality of their directors. Opinions may differ as to the wisdom of this section 109 of our law ; but it seems to me that my bon. friend who is promoting this Bill has demonstrated that the organization of this company was made at a time when we should be indulgent and consider it an exceptional case.


Mr. LENNOX.: We had this matter before us in 1903, and I recollect a good deal of the discussion then as to this section 109 of the General Railway Act. It provides that all shareholders in a company, whether British subjects or aliens, or residents in Canada or elsewhere, shall have equal rights to hold stock in the company and to vote on the same, and shall be eligible to office in the company. It was intimated then that later on-perhaps in that, or, at all events, the succeeding session-we would make provision in the line indicated by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). Accordingly, in 1904, after much consideration, parliament in its wisdom thought fit to amend the Railway Act by introducing section 5, that is section 5 of chapter 32 of 4 Edward VII. That section provided that the majority of the directors of any company which has heretofore received or shall hereafter receive from the government of Canada aid towards the construction of its railways or undertakings or any part thereof, shall be British subjects, provided that this Act shall not, until the 31st January, 1905, apply to any company, tiie majority of whose directors are not British subjects when this Act comes into force. It has been said that the hon. gentleman who is promoting this Bill has made out an exceptional case. But at the time we introduced this legislation, a year ago, we decided that there would be no exception. We decided that all railway companies which had received money from the public funds of Canada should be treated upon the same basis. These railway companies are not compelled to receive aid. They can stand by the provisions of section 109 if they so desire. If they will bring foreign money into the country and construct their railway as an independent enterprise, they are still at liberty to do it under that section ; but if they have come or are coming to parliament for public money, that money can only be granted them on the basis that the enterprise is peculiarly in the interests of Canada, and they must have on their directorate a majority of British subjects at least. I am inclined to think that if we have erred at all, we have erred in not going far enough. There may be a good deal in what has been suggested to the effect that we have not the desired control, even where
a majority of the directors are British subjects ; but if we make an amendment at all, I submit it should be rather in the direction of providing that they should be either Canadians or residents of Canada, rather than in the opposite direction, and that we shall not sweep away the only safeguard for effective control which we now' have in the case of difficulties in connection with railway enterprises.
Any one who watches the trend of railway legislation and of railway action must be convinced that the difficulties are not getting less, but are increasing from year to year and w'ill become greater still as time goes on unless we are very careful. This is a railway which has received aid and if these gentlemen wish to get over the difficulty it is a very easy thing, I suppose, for them to come to parliament and say that they will put themselves upon the basis of section 109 and repay to parliament the aid that lias been given. This railway, by the way, has had the attention of the public particularly directed to it in the matter of this same Cornwall bridge. It urns pointed out, 1 think by Mr. Pettipiece, that a peculiar condition of affairs exists in reference to the bridge, that is to say that the portion of the bridge which is in Canadian territory received aid to a very large amount from the Dominion government, but the other end on the American side received no aid and-although it may not be pertinent to this particular argument-wffien you travel on the Canadian end you pay 3 cents a mile, but on the American end you pay only 2 cents. It is not immediately relevant to the discussion and I do not want to arouse prejudice against the company, but 1 want to say that it would be very unwise to open the door to difficulties which might arise with other Canadian railways carrying on much vaster operations than this ; railways w'liieh controlling much gi eater capital and representing larger interests might bring to bear on this parliament a degree of influence that this railway cannot bring to bear. We may find ourselves in the position of being unable to control the situation, if we open the door now. I have no prejudice against this railway company ; I know nothing to their disadvantage, but we are trustees of the public in this matter and I feel that in indulgence to railways the people of Canada, through their representatives in the House of Commons, have gone as far as they ought-sometimes farther-in deference to the wishes of the railway promoters, and we should be careful, this matter having been partially discussed in 1903, and carefully considered in 1904, that on this first occasion when we are asked to go back on our deliberate action of 1904, we should not do so unless a much stronger case is made out we should refuse to make this innovation on the general law of the country.


Mr. TISDALE.: I think if it is necessary to make out an exceptional case, one has been made out here. It has been shown that the proprietorship of this railroad is exclusively American and as far as I am individually concerned-and I am only expressing my own sentiments-I was not in accord with the change in the Railway Act, because I believe that in this country, which is one of the greatest countries in the world, our one weakness in times past- and we are not beyond that condition of weakness yet-is the need of capital to develop our immense area, our great resources and the magnificent possibilities of our splendid country. Why should we not allow people of another country to come in with capital when in my opinion we can sufficiently clothe them under the system of international law that exists to control their own property which we allow them to acquire in this country, I think that at present and for many years to come, notwithstanding the magnificent development we are making, that one of the things of which we should he most careful, is the inducement of capital to come in here, to protect the capita) when it does come in and to give those whom we allow to become interested in enterprises, especially in large enterprises ir this country, a cordial welcome and control of what they are permitted to acquire. The time has not yet come, even in the mother-country, great as it is, thickly settled as it is, developed as it is, that they have found it necessary to enact laws of this sort to protect the interests of the country as against the capital of those whom they invite to enter that country. Therefore as I said my individual opinion was that it was a mistake to change the Railway Act even to the extent that we did, for as I understand the international law of all civilized countries, when people acquired property under the law of a country in which they invest their capital under the comity of nations, they do it with the full knowledge that in so investing they are subject to the laws of the country in which the investment is made. I think in a commercial transaction that is a sufficient protection. Under the circumstances that have been developed here I feel it is my duty to explain why I view this matter as I do and to justify the vote I propose to give in support of this Bill. I say that I invite American capital, I invite European capital. 1 believe the majority of the people of this country if they understood this question would agree with me that the capital of all nations should be induced to come to Canada. We want to control, we must pass the laws, we must regulate the actions of every one who comes into this country, and must see that the laws shall be obeyed by them, but we wish to have them here because so great are out national resources, so wide is this wonderful country as yet undeveloped, so confident am I of the institu-Mr. LENNOX.
tions of this country and of British institutions anywhere, that the people, especially those from the neighbouring country to the south who come in here, when they realize the justice and the fairness of our laws, when they have once become interested will become more deeply interested. On that line I want to say on a larger question although not pertinent to the matter at issue, that some people are questioning the wisdom of immigration from the United States, fearful that the voices of those coming in here and settling the vast millions of acres of undeveloped and unsettled lands that we have in our wonderful Northwest may be a menace to British institutions.
I want to say that from personal knowledge of those who come here having tried the institutions of the Northwest and other parts of the United States, when they perceive the equality upon which the poor man stands with the rich man, the prompt and impartial administration of our laws, I am satisfied that we cannot possibly get a better class of men to pioneer our Northwest than those from the United States. None will sooner become British subjects. They realize the great superiority of our administration of justice, the real equality of all men under our laws, and no men jvill support our institutions more heartily. Why then should we be afraid of them ? Are we Canadians so afraid of the competition of men of that sort that we will not allow them to acquire property ? We have set them an example, we allow any alien to acquire and hold real estate if he pays for it, and real estate is the most sacred of all property. We can place restrictions on them without compelling them to become British subjects. They have to obey our laws, and that is sufficient protection for us. If my views had prevailed we would not have changed the Railway Act as we did. But we are asked here to make an exceptional case. Why, even in the old state of New York they are benighted enough-and I use the expression advisedly in an international sense-in the great state of New York they won't allow a British subject to hold any land. It is a mistake, many people there are opposed to it.


Samuel Hughes: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if they allow British subjects to hold mortgages on property in New York ?


David Tisdale: They do indirectly, but they do not allow them to hold land. They allow them tb hold mortgages because mortgages do not vest the land. But in most parts of the United States they have a better state law. Mind you, that is a state regulation, not a federal regulation, and they allow aliens all through the undeveloped portions of the United States to hold lands, to buy lands and to hold them, to my knowledge. Those who want development, those who invite capital, those who want settlers, remove the restrictions, showing that even in their

view it is wise to do so. Again, I am not m favour of retaliation, upon commercial principles. I am in favour of protction because it is an expedient proposition. But in a larger sense I am opposed to those restrictions, because we want to get capital to come here. In this case when these gentlemen own it, wnere they are subject to our laws, and if we want their railroad we can expropriate it by Act of parliament, I see no reason why we should place any other restriction upon them. I am opposed to narrow restrictions that will prevent a man coming into this country and investing his capital. Jvo independent Canadian would go into a country and invest his capital if he could not control it afterwards. I think it is a narrow view, one that will not benefit us in the end. What we want first of all is capital; and if we want it should we not be willing to give it a fair show with ourselves ? I shall have great pleasure in voting for this Bill.
_ Mr. PRINGLE. Some hon. gentlemen, judging from their remarks, seem to be alarmed simply because the word American has been used. One hon. gentleman says that when this clause was added to the Railway Act it was understood that there would be no exception to that law. I would hke to point out to that hon. gentleman that last year he sat in this House and acquiesced in some ten Bills that went through making exceptions to the general law of this country. Last session alone we put through ten Bills which were exceptions to the general law of this country. Now, if there ever was a case made out justifying an exception it is this case. In 1897 some Americans came into this country under a law that then existed, passed in 1888. They expended $750,000 in building that railroad from the river St. Lawrence to the city of Ottawa. As I said before, unfortunately it has not been a profitable venture. They had vested rights. This parliament in 1003, did -what is very unusual, they passed retroactive legislation which seriously affects those vested rights. Now I say we have made out a strong case why there should be an exception to that general law. It is not as if Americans were coming in here to-day and asking for a charter to build a road ; then of course they would have to come under the law passed in 1003/ But we find them here with the end of their system, 56 miles long, which is of no use to any other railroad corporation in this country, but which is connected with their road on the American side by the bridge which crosses the river St. Lawrence at Cornwall. It is the only company that can really make that road profitable, which can make it a road that will serve the people the counties of Stormont and Russell through which it passes, and it is now a road that is doing good to the city of Ottawa. They are in a position, having the on the American side, having control ot the bridge which crosses the river, to 182
take this road and make it one of the best short systems in the Dominion of Canada. Now what is their position ? The New York Central is no small corporation, it is an enormous corporation having railroads all through the state of New York, and simply because they want to come into this country and operate that 56 miles of railroad, the hon. member for York is afraid thev are going to run away with the country. They have got to come in here and operate under the provisions of the Railway Act They come under section 23 to section 25 and they come under the control of the Railway Commission. What great harm is going to be done if they come in here and expend half a million dollars improving that railway , assisting the town of Cornwall and giving to the people of the county through which that road runs a first-class railway service ? I cannot see where the harm is, and I think it would be most unreasonable to ask that company to make a majoritv of their directors British subjects. This is an international road. Do the United States make the Canadian Pacific Railway, running thiough the state of Maine, change their board of directors and make a majority of their board American citizens T No. The directors are Canadians, they are British subjects and they operate through the State of Maine. I submit we have made out a strong case why there should be an exception to the general law in this instance.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is sought to be shown that this is an exceptional case. In 1903 and in 1904 there was very strong opinion expressed on all sides that it should be the policy of Canada to exclude other than British subjects from the boards of control of our railways in Canada. We enacted certain legislation both in 1903 and 1904, but we were careful as respects the conditions which then prevailed, and we added a clause giving to those companies which had aliens on their boards time to remedy the difficulty. We fixed a time limit and we made that time limit the 31st January, 1905. This corporation was in existence at that time. We passed this legislation with the full knowledge of this corporation as it was then constituted. We recognized the conditions which prevailed and that corporation at that time was just as much American as it is today. The only difference there is between that corporation at that moment and the same corporation at this moment is that there is a difference in the personnel of the shareholders. Why should the present shareholders have any rights which you would not grant to the shareholders of that day ? On the contrary the shareholders of the present day became such with the full knowledge of the Canadian statute. We must presume that. UQhey purchased this road with the knowledge that it was part of the Canadian law that only British subjects should sit upon their directorate board. Certainly this is not an exceptional ease. In-



deed, if there are any exceptions about it, if there are any special reasons attached to it at all they are in the direction of refusing this special legislation, assuming that the parliament cf Canada was in earnest when it passed this general legislation of 1903 and 1904. I therefore think that if you want to give force and effect to the general law you cannot at all times, here and there and every other moment, be making exceptions to that general law.


Samuel Hughes: Could the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmer-son) inform me if the statement made by my hon. friend from Stormont (Mr. Pringle) is correct that the Canadian Pacific Rail-wav has not a separate company for its line running through the state of Maine '	1
understand that the Canadian Pacific Railway must have a separate company. At the ' time of the construction of the road througn the state of Maine I am aware it had to have a separate company and I think that the hon. gentlemen is entirely wrong in his statement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have.


Mr. MACDONALD.: The proposition contained in this Bill is of an exceptional character. The proposition which this House crystallized into legislation last year requiring a majority of the directors of the companies which had received subsidies from the government of Canada to be British subjects was in line with the whole history of legislation in regard to the rights of aliens in the British empire. In Canada-more particularly in the province of Ontario-we have departed from the general principle which is recognized in England as one of the fundamental principles of the common law and we have extended to aliens various privileges in regard to real estate and otherwise which are not to be found in England or in other portions of the empire. The other provinces of the Dominion have not gone as far as the province of Ontario in this respect, but when we come to consider whether or not our lines of transportation should be under the control of a board of directors, the majority of whom are British subjects, I say we come to a situation in which this House should stand by the general principle of the legislation adopted a year ago. While I listened to the eloquent words of my hon. friend from Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) I am bound to say that his logic did not commend itself to me. It is true mat we have a great country and that we are realizing to-day, perhaps, more than ever before the possibilities of Canada. This is true notwithstanding the fact that we are turning aside from the realization of those possibilities and taking up our time with the consideration of questions which will not conduce to the prosperity of this country. It is true that we occupy more time with such questions than we should, but if we realize, as I believe we all, on both sides of this House, do, the importance of our future, we must also be impressed with the importance Mr. EMMERSON.
of keeping all the important elements which are going to make our future greatness within the control of the Canadian people. It is all very well to talk about American enterprise and American capital coming into this country to develop it and open it up. Why are they coming ? They are coming because those who are behind them want to get everything that Canada has to give them and because they want to make money out of Canadian possibilities. Canadian legislatures and parliaments should not be anxious to relax a wise rule of the common law by extending to aliens any more rights in this country than they should possess consistent with the principle which have always governed our legislation in this and the mother countrv. I submit that this House a year ago, after full deliberation, having settled upon a line of policy in regard to that question, no case has been made out here to-nigh to warrant us in this particular instance in departing from the sound principle which we recog'nized a year ago.


Mr SPROULE.: We may very reasonably ask what object parliament had in view m passing the law. It was to get more effective control over the railways. We required not only more effective control over the rau-wavs into which the state had not put anj money, but it was doubly necessary that we should have control over railways into whicn he state had put money. This is one of the *oads of which the state paid a share ot the ,ost and if there is any road in the country liat the state ought to have a proper control jver it is the road which the state helps to ouild That is the case in this instance. My ion. friend from Stormont (Mr. Pringle) savs that this is an exceptional case. What s' exceptional about it? Nothing at all. These people came and got a charter, as soon as they got the charter they wanted government aid and the government gave them aid and assisted in building the railway. There is nothing exceptional in the situation from what we can find all over the country. We have companies that are standing on exactly the same footing and in the same relationship to Canada and we have made this law apply to the whole of them. If it applied to other companies under similar circumstances what justification is there for saying that it shall not apply to this one ? My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) rather amused me. He said you might as well give it to them because it is so easy to get over the law. If it is so easj to get over the law why should we give it to them ? If they can get over the law without any trouble there is no object in making the exception which they ask. Therefore, I say that is an argument in favour of retaining the law as it is.
So long as we are not able to control our railways better than we have controlled them in the past, we should respect the provisions of this Act. The Canada Southern is in a similar position to the Ottawa
and New York, but it keeps up its Canadian board and when the Grand Trunk Kailway goes through Michigan it has to work under its Michigan charter and Michigan directorate. The hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Tisdale) said that we were anxious to get American capita] and that we should be generous and not put any obstacle in* the way. I am quite willing to contrast the liberality extended to Americans investing capital in Canada, with the liberality that the United States extends to Canadians who invest * in that country. Look at how they treated the Canadians who went to fight for them during the Civil War ; only a few years ago the United States federal government passed a law compelling the pensioners to live in the United States or otherwise they would get no pension. That is not liberality. These men having fought for the union were entitled to the gratitude of the nation, and the treatment accorded to them was not generous. There has been nothing shown so far that would justify us departing in this case from the law we made only a few years ago, and which was intended for a good purpose.
The hour for Private Bills having expired, the Speaker took the chair.



PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY IN THE NORTHWEST.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed in committee on Bill (No. B9) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On section 2,
Mr.   W.@: parliament of Canada existing at the time of the first readjustment hereinafter provided for, continue to be represented in the House of Commons as provided by chapter 60 of the statutes of 1903, each of the electoral districts defined in that part of the schedule to the said Act which relates to the Northwest Territories, whether such district is wholly in one of the said provinces, or partly in one and partly in the other of them, being represented by one member.
He said : This clause is intended to provide that so far as the present parliament is concerned the present representatives from the Territories shall continue to occupy in this House the seats they now occupy notwithstanding that some of these seats are partly in Alberta and partly in Saskatchewan.
Mr. SPROULiE. How long are they to continue to represent their present constituencies ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Only during the present parliament. In section 5 I provide tor the redistribution that must take place after the next quinquennial census.


Samuel Barker: What will be the procedure in the event of the death of a member or in the event of any legal proceeding involving the vacating of a seat ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: So far as any existing seat is concerned, that is not at all affected by this legislation.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. After the 1st of July the provinces will establish their own courts. Then, if it were desired to tile an election petition, in what court would the proceedings be taken 7 In the case ox a riding partly in both provinces, would proceedings have to be taken in the courts of both provinces ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Would'it not help the proper consideration of this Bill if we dealt with one clause at a time ? When we take up section 15, which provides for the organization of the courts, we can take up-that question.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I only pointed that out as one of the minor difficulties that are likely to occur.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When we reach section 15, I may say that I intend to move an amendment which will make the provl-sions of that section wider than they are now. But if there is any doubt about tit at, i would like hon. gentlemen to consider it, and I will make it absolutely clear.


Mr.   M.@: 'S. McCarthy. There are other objections. If you continue the present representation for the next four years, you will have six representatives from the province of Saskatchewan and only four trom the province of Alberta.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I can see no way of providing for the existing state of affairs +i,on	-n-fiv 1 nnve nvovided.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman provide any method of carrying on the legal procedure in contesting the validity of the seat of any member ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is not in question at all. There is no provision necessary. That is provided for in the Controverted Elections Act. So far as the existing constituencies are concerned, their present representatives in this House will continue to occupy their seats.


Samuel Barker: After the 1st of July next, with the provincial jurisdiction in force and provincial courts established, does the hon. gentleman say that there will be no difficulty in carrying on any contest affecting the validity of a member's seat ? Take, for instance, the case of a member of this House whose seat is partly in one province f nd party in another, and whose seat may be contested in the courts of one province or in those of another.
Mr.' FITZPATRICK. My hon. friend will find that under section 15 the present courts are continued.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose a vacancy occurs, would you have a re-election in the same constituency ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, until the next general election. That is provided for in section 5.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Samuel Hughes: You might abolish the seats now and let them be contested >ver again.	.


Frederick William Borden: When is the quinquennial census to be taken ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In 1906.


Robert Laird Borden: Though it is extremely probable that that census will be taken before this parliament will be dissolved, we have to look at the legislation from the standpoint of a possible election taking place in the meantime. How would that work out ? Would not the objection raised by the hon. member for Calgary involve some difficulty ?
Mr FITZPAffiRICK. I have endeavoured toprovide for that contingency by the concluding words of section 5, which provide that the present constituencies shall continue to exist so long as the present parliament exists.


Mr R L BORDEN.: So far as section 4 is concerned, I do not think I have any further observations to offer at present; tut as the clause is a new one, I suppose there will be no objection to refer to it afterwards ?


Mr FITZPATRICK.: I am quite willing to leave the section stand if my hon. friend wishes.
Section 4 allowed to stand.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good ; and we might take up section 5 now.
On section 5,
Mr. FITZPATRICK moved to substitute lor section 5 the following :
i5. Upon the completion of the next quinquennial census for the said province, the representation thereof shall forthwith be readjusted by the parliament of Canada in such manner that there shall be assigned to the said province such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population ascertained at such quinquennial census as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec as ascertained at the then last decennial census ; and in the computation of the number of members for the said province a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded, and a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number shall be deemed equivalent to the whole number, and such readjustment shall take effect upon the termination of the then existing parliament.
2. The representation of the said province shall thereafter be readjusted from time to time according to the provisions of the fifty-first section of the British North America Act. 18-67.


Robert Laird Borden: That hardly seems to meet what I was suggesting to the minister a moment ago, and that was the possibility of a general election taking place before the quinquennial census of 1906. Suppose we should have a general election before the census of 1905, where will we be exactly in that regard ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The present condition remains until the dissolution of this parliament, and if, at the dissolution of this parliament, the readjustment provided for has not taken place, there is no provision for changing the constituencies.


Robert Laird Borden: Would there be any practical difficulty in working the matter out ? Even taking into consideration the fact that part of a constituency is in one province and part in the other, I do not think that there would ; but sometimes we meet with difficulties that are not foreseen when we come to the practical working out of a stipulation which involves conditions we have not had before.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not see how we can provide for it, and I do not see exactly what the difficulty would be. Of course, it is an anomaly that a member should represent a constituency partly in one province and partly in the other, but there really is nothing to prevent that, because the franchise for the election remains under our control and all the machinery connected with the election.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Is -this not the very best evidence that the boundary has been crowded a little too far west ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: What difference does that make ?


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. You could put the boundary where it would obviate that difficulty except a small part of West As-siniboia.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would be rather a curious departure from all principle that we should settle the boundary of a province according to the boundaries of a constituency.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: When dividing the country two years ago, you apparently thought that that section had a community of interest in the riding now in the western province ; but according to the present dividing line, you apparently have changed your mind.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask the bon. minister if he can give us a fair idea of what he thinks the population of this province will be at this quinquennial census to be taken next year ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The census of 1901 gives Alberta a population of 72,924. The estimated population on January 31st, 1905, is 173,043. The figures are all given in the ' Hansard ' of yesterday, up to July next.


William Findlay Maclean: Will it be fair to estimate that Alberta will number a quarter of a million when its census is taken next year ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Something in that vicinity.


William Findlay Maclean: Me are making provision for an addition of at least ten members to the House of Commons in the next parliament. At present the maritime provinces have 35 members ; Quebec, 65 ; Ontario, 86 ; Manitoba, 10 ; the Territories, 11 ; and British Columbia, 7 ; or a total of 214. With this quarter of a million population added, Alberta will be entitled to at least 10 members and the adjoining province to about the same, so that there will be an addition of 10 seats in this House. Then the maritime provinces will have 35 ; Quebec, 65 ; Ontario, 86 ; Manitoba, 10 ; the Territories, 21 ; and British Columbia, 7 ; or a total of 224.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The unit of representation will remain the same-23,000.


Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN, So that if the new Territories, at this coming census, should have a quarter of a million, they would each be entitled to 10 members, and the ' forthwith ' means that the census will be taken next year, so that either next session or the succeeding session that increase will take place.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We might allow sections 5 and 6 to pass, with the understanding that if it be necessary to make provision for the difficulty mentioned by the

leader of the opposition, we could draft a section for that purpose.
Mr. LAKE, in what month of the year will the next quinquennial census take place ; and what is the meaning of the phrase ' the completion of the next quinquennial census ' ? Does that mean the date at which the actual computation of the population is completed ; and, if so, would it mean that the redistribution will take place in the session of 1906 or 1907 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The taking of the quinquennial census is provided for in a Bill which went through the House this session. I do not think there is anything in the laiw which provides for the taking of a census in any particular month.


William Findlay Maclean: It is a much simpler census than the decennial one. I think it is just a census of the population.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 8 subsection 2 provides :
A census of the population and agriculture of the province of Manitoba and of the provisional districts of Alberta, Assiniboia and Saskatchewan in the Northwest Territories shall be taken by the office under the direction of the minister, according to speciaf'forms and instructions to he approved by the minister on a date in the month of June in the year one thousand nine hundred and six, to be fixed by the Governor m Council, and every tenth year thereafter.
Of course that will have to be changed when the Territories become provinces, but it applies to the present Territories and must be changed so as to affect Manitoba and the new provinces.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It will be necessary to make a change in this law because I find it does not refer to the provisional district of Athabaska, and iu view of the fact that the financial clauses are dependent upon the quinquennial census it will be absolutely essential to make that clear.


William Findlay Maclean: Why is it necessary to take it for Manitoba ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: For financial purposes.


William Findlay Maclean: Not iu order to afford Manitoba increased representation although Manitoba may be growing more rapidly than these western provinces.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The same principle applies to Manitoba.


William Findlay Maclean: But not as to representation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, the conditions of the representation of Manitoba have been based on the quinquennial census as well as the decennial.


William Findlay Maclean: This re-adjustment may add more than ten members to Manitoba.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That has been the law in regard to Manitoba.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think it will be good policy to stick to this Bill. I have as much as I can do to attend to it.


William Findlay Maclean: There is going to be a very far reaching re-adjustment of representation not next year, but the year after.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The arrangement as far as Manitoba is concerned is just the same ; it has been so ever since the erection of that province.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the Minister of Justice considered whether this legislation does not clash to a certain extent with section 51 of the British North America Act. Of course it seems equitable enough that the representation should be increased in a district where the population will increase so rapidly, but the terms of section 51 which affect the method of redistribution amongst the different provinces can only take effect every ten years. Under this legislation after live years there would be a complete redistribution for these two new provinces outside of any consideration of the other provinces altogether. Is my hon. friend still of opinion that there is no clashing or contradiction between that legislation and the disposition of section 1 of the British North America Act ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, I do not think it. Section 51 of the British North America Act my hon. friend will notice, was adopted in section 5. And then if my hon. friend will look at the Manitoba Act he will find the same principle applied there as far back as 1870, because we simply proceed upon the lines laid down in the Manitoba Act.


William Findlay Maclean: Does not section 52 cover it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 52 will cover it after the next quinquennial qpnsus ; after-the first re-adjustment.


Robert Laird Borden: I was somewhat impressed by the observation of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)
I do not know whether I caugbt exactly the idea that be put forward, but it seemed to me to be this. It is quite competent under the Act of 1S71 to provide at any time for increased representation or re-adjustment of representation of the Territories. When you have once constituted these Territories into provinces does not section 51 of the British North America Act come into force and can you after you have constituted them into provinces give them an extension of representation except upon a decennial census. Do you not limit your power as to that when you once establish them into provinces.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The conditions now are quite exceptional. We give to the Territories a representation not based upon a principle which is applicable to other portions of the country. We have given them ten .representatives practically without regard to their population. When they come in as provinces it will be necessary to fix their representation upon the same principle as is applicable to the other provinces. We make provision that after the first quinquennial census when we have an opportunity to ascertain what their true population is, we shall then redistribute upon the basis of section 51 of the British North America Act which is applicable to the conditions existing in Quebec at the then last decennial census. When we have ascertained what they are really entitled to, they will get whatever representation they are entitled to and the representation will be re-adjusted upon a decennial basis. It is really fixing the period at which will be ascertained what the new provinces are entitled to and then the general law applies.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may be that' you will then reduce the number of representatives.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If it is found that by their population they are not entitled to ten why should the representation not be reduced ? Why should we, when after we have established these two provinces, not deal with them absolutely in the same way as we deal with the other provinces ? If they are entitled to ten members let them have ten, but if they are not entitled to that number then their representation should be reduced.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have always allowed greater representation to thinly settled districts of country than to densely populated sections. For instance, make a comparison between the representation of Toronto and that of the rest of Ontario. When the hon. member and his friends were passing the last Redistribution Act the basis of representation in Toronto was made about 45,000, whereas in other portions of the province it was only 30,000.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot have made myself clear. Of course with respect to the provinces they will be entitled to their proportionate regular number of representatives and the distribution of these will be made within the provinces and you can make what distribution you like.


Samuel Hughes: You simply take the unit of Quebec and divide the population of the province by it.


Robert Laird Borden: That is all clear but there is something ahead of that. The situation is a little peculiar. When Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick, was coming im you had a territory which had no representation in this parliament.
But these Territories come in under peculiar conditions because they are already represented in this House as territories. The object to be attained is to give them representation in this parliament as provinces under the British North America Act. I suppose you can do that by providing that the representation which they have had as territories shall be continued as their representation as provinces although in doing so you will have constituencies which cross "the boundary line. That seems rather anomalous although I am not prepared to say that it could not be done. There is one step further. So far you have provided for their representatiion as provinces by declaring in the statute that their representation as territories shall be continued, you go just that far in section 4. Now you want to do something else, you want to provide for a readjustment, and the question about which I am still troubled a little is whether or not, having fixed their representation when they entered the confederation as provinces, you can readjust that representation except in accordance with section 51 of the British North America Act. I know the answer of the Minister of Justice, he says that he is practically doing it under the Act of 1871 by postponing the time. You are readjusting upon a quinquennial census although the British North America Act says you shall readjust under a decennial census. That is the point raised by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and about which I shall have a little difficulty, although I cannot say I have a strong opinion on the subject.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are doing what the hon. gentleman suggests and we are not doing it. He refers to the British North America Act and Prince Edward Island. IVhen the provinces of Prince Edward Island and British Columbia came in they were given a fixed number of representatives, they each received six, if I remember right. Then there was a provision for readjustment under the terms of the British North America Act purely and simply. That is to say, they had a fixed number when they came in, and after that they were to submit to the rule applicable to all the other provinces. Conditions are different here. Here we have a territory to which we have given a fictitious, an arbitrary representation. We have said, you shall be entitled to ten, no matter what your population is. Now they are coming into the confederation, and it Is important-and in this respect we are departing from anything done heretofore-it is important to ascertain the number of representatives to which they will really be entitled. There will be a quinquennial census taken next year by which we will ascertain what the true population of the two provinces is and when we have ascertained it that true population instead of having that arbi-

trary representation they have now, they will get their true representation, they will have the exact number of members to which they are really entitled. Now to that extent it is a departure from what has been done under the British North America Act. But ic is a method of ascertaining the true conditions so as not to allow this arbitrary representation to continue until the next decennial census, which would be the case if we adopted the principle of the British North America Act. It seems to me there is nothing improper in doing it, there is nothing unconstitutional. We are dealing with a real difficulty, and we are dealing with it in a way to give to the new provinces what they are really entitled to In the way of representation.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not criticising the policy, I think it is the most convenient way of dealing with it if we have the power. My criticism relates solely to the question of constitutional power. I do not know whether I can make it any plainer by putting it in another way.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 1 understand my hon. friend, he thinks it is settled by section 51 and that we cannot depart from it.


Robert Laird Borden: I mean that when you bring these provinces into the confederation you can establish what representation they shall have, That applies to tho.se areas already existing as autonomous provinces ; it applies also to territories, although those territories may have had representation in parliament before they were admitted to the dignity of provinces. I fully concede also that when territories having representation enter the confederation you may provide that the representation which they possessed as territories shall be continued as their representation as provinces, although the constituencies may cross the boundary line. I am not disposed to dispute that much. But it seems to me that when you have once done that, you have exhausted your power of readjusting that representation except by virtue of the terms of section 51 of the British North America Act. That is the difficulty that presents itself to me. I also think, and in fact the Minister of Justice has conceded, that in so far as this particular provision is concerned, we are going outside the terms of section 51, because we are providing for a readjustment upon a quinquennial census and not upon a decennial census.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I concede that this clause stretches to the utmost limit the accuracy of my theory with respect to our right to give the province a constitution. This goes to the extreme limit in this respect, that so far as the provinces are concerned we clothe them with such powers as we think proper, but we are now going beyond that, because we are dealing with the province in its relation to other provinces, and Mr. FITZPATRICK.
that is where the difficulty is in connection with this matter, that in creating this new province we are creating a condition with respect to its representation that may prove to be more favourable to that province than the conditions which prevail in the other provinces. A redistribution takes place upon the unit of representation based upon the population of Quebec as ascertained at the last decennial census. Now, notwithstanding that the population of Quebec will have increased in the interval, we will take that unit of representation ascertained at the last decennial census and apply it to the representation of this new province, and in that respect it will have a distinct advantage, because the unit will be smaller than it would be if there were a census taken in Quebec now. I admit that we are stretching to the utmost limit the application of the principle I contended for in connection with the organization of these provinces.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As I understood the Minister of Justice, at first I did not see that there was authority for this representation in the Manitoba Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think I was wrong. The provision of the Manitoba Act which has reference to this matter is section 4. The Manitoba Act provides for the representation of the province by giving it four members when it came in, and provided for a readjustment of the representation under the British North America Act. But there was no provision for a quinquennial census.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand upon what my hon. friend bases his view. I do not know that it is stretching our powers so far as they have been stretched in other cases. What I understand my hon. friend to say is that we are proceeding under section 2 of the British North America Act, 1871, which allows us to fix at present the representation of the new provinces in the House of Commons. But, as we do not know exactly what the population is, this law provides for a census which is to take place next year, and we, under our powers derived from section 2, declare that their representation shall remain what it is until that moment, now not remote, when we shall know what the population is. Then the representation will be fixed definitely under section 51 of the British North America Act. I can understand the position, but still it does not completely remove the objection that we are bound to fix that representation now, and if we leave it to be decided in a year or so there will have to be a new redistribution for these two provinces and the proportion between the representation of the province of Quebec and the representation of the other provinces will not be touched at that time. In other words, in 1906 there will be a redistribution in so far as these two provinces alone are concerned, having in view the representation of the province of Quebec, but the relation between the province

576a
of Quebec and the other provinces as far as representation is concerned will not be touched.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The relation between these provinces and the other provinces.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The relation between these provinces and the other provinces will not be touched.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would like to draw my hon. friend's attention to the wording of section 2. It says that we are to fix the representation, we are to make provision for the representation. There is another extraordinary clause which nobody appears to pay much attention to. By the Act of 1886, subsection 2 of section 2, we practically get power to deal with this question of representation in any way we like. I will just read that again :
It is hereby declared that any Act passed by the province of Canada, whether before or after the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this Act, or in the British North America Act, 1871, has effect notwithstanding anything in the British North America Act, 1867.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What section is my hon. friend reading?


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is subsection 2 of section 2 of the Act of 1886 where they give us power to deal with representation in any way we like in the future and they approve in advance of anything we may do.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did we not provide for the representation of Manitoba exactly on the same line? I think that we did.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I was exactly of the same opinion as my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) and if my hon. friend will look at section 4 of the Manitoba Act he will find that it provides for an initial representation of four members and then it goes on to provide for a readjustment of the representation under the provisions of the British North America Act. There is no special reference to a quinquennial census.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was either in that Act or in the Northwest Territories Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, it was in the Northwest Territories Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps it was. We were to take a census every five years and a readjustment was to take place on the basis of that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That was in the Northwest Territories Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If we can do it under the Northwest Territories Act it seems to me that we can do it here.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And may do.


Samuel Hughes: The Northwest Territories Act did not require the representation to be changed every five years.
Mr. FITZPATRICK, it provides for it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This section 2, subsection 2, of the Act of 1886 that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has referred to is in rather peculiar terms, no doubt, but it simply sanctions what parliament may have done.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And may do.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think it goes as far as that.
It is hereby declared that any Act passed by the parliament of Canada, whether before or after the passing of this Act for the purpose mentioned in this Act or in the British North America Act, 1871, has effect-
I do not think it applies to the future, but I would not like to be certain as to that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 'After the passing of this Act.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I quite agree with my hon. friend and it has been mentioned more than once during this debate that under section 2 of the Act of 1871 we must stretch our powers a little in constituting new provinces, but my hon. friend has gone further than that in the drafting of this Bill. My hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Brodeur) has stated that under this section 2 we could give almost any kind of a constitution to the new provinces, take away the powers which the new provinces ought to have under section 92 of the British North America Act and give powers which, under the scheme of confederation, are reserved only to the Dominion. I do not go as far as that. I think in the constitution of the new provinces, taking the view I take of section 2, we are not stretching altogether unduly our powers, but we are exercising them merely for a temporary object and in order to organize these provinces.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I think the point raised by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is a very important one. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has referred to the statute of 1886. I think if he reads the preamble of that statute' he will find that it does not apply to provinces but it applies to Territories.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend will read subsection 2 of section 2 he will find that it refers specially to the British North America Act, 1871.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: But you have to read the Act all together. Read the preamble :
Whereas it is expedient to empower the parliament of Canada to provide for the representation in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or either of them, of any territory which for the time being forms part of the Dominion of Canada, but is not included in any provinces.
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament as-

sembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows :
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, .make provisions for the representations in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, or in either of them, of any territories which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any province.
Then section 2 says :
Any Act passed by the parliament of Canada before the passing of this Act for the purpose mentioned in this Act shall, if not disallowed by the Queen be, and shall be deemed to have been, valid and effectual from the date in which it received the assent in Her Majesty's name of the Governor General of Canada.
It is hereby declared that any Act passed by the parliament of Canada, whether before or after the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this Act

Now the purpose mentioned in this Act


Charles Fitzpatrick: Read the words following :


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: -or in the British North America Act, 1871-


Charles Fitzpatrick: Exactly.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Well then let us get back to the British North America Act, 1871. It is clear that the Act of 188C is dealing with Territories, not with organized provinces.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What about the Act of 1871 ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Section 2 of the Act of 1871, says :
The parliament of Canada may, from time to time, establish new provinces in any territories-
And provides :
For its representation in the said parliament
But when you come to read the Act of 1S71 you have to read it with the last clause of the Act of 1886. The last clause of the Act of 1886 states that :
This Act and the British North America Act, 1867. and the British North America Act, 1871, shall be construed together, and may be cited together as the British North America Acts 1867 to 1886.
So that the Acts, being construed together and section 51 has to be read in to the Acts of 1S71-under section 51 of the original Act, 1867, a decennial census is provided for and the representation is based upon that. As I understand it, this section proposes that the representation will be fixed for these new provinces at the quinquennia] census.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Only the first oue.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Even so, it may be going beyond the provisions of the" British North America Act, because it may place the province of Ontario for example at a Mr. PRINGLE.
disadvantage in not having increased representation at the end of five years as these-two provinces shall have if their population Is increased.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When we reach the time when the population would justify an increase, I have no doubt we will have lots of trouble on our hands and a pretty strong fight against it. I think that could be-avoided by providing that the representation shall not be less than It is at present until the population increases.


Charles Fitzpatrick: - I would like to do that. If they are not entitled to ten members they ought not to have them and if they are entitled to more they ought to get them. Once they get the provincial status they should come in absolutely as the other provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The principle we have usually followed is to give sparsely settled districts over representation rather than under representation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are proceeding all through this legislation on the presumption that each province has a population of 450,000, and that would give about eleven members on the present unit of representation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is only an assumption as to the population. I do not suppose-any one thinks they have that population now.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The ascertained population is at least 170,000 in Alberta, the smaller of the two provinces.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Does it not strike the Minister of Justice that if he readjusts the representation of these new provinces under the quinquennial census, it would be almost impossible to deny the right to every other province to have its representation readjusted on the same census. Is not the whole spirit and intention of the British North America Act, that when you increase or decrease one province all the other provinces must fare likewise.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are not interfering with that principle.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Minister of Justice may intend to do that, but he will not accomplish it by this clause ; he may be doing it partly in the letter but he is not doing it in the spirit. The quinquennial census will affect the representation of these new provinces, but the representation of the other provinces will not be affected until a census is taken five years afterwards. The Minister of Justice said that we were stretching our powers as far as we. possibly could in this respect, but I would respectfully submit that if we are doing more than giving a fair application of the powers under the British North

America Act, it would be more correct to say that we are going beyond our powers. Speaking as a lawyer I do not quite see the difference between stretching your power and going beyond your power. To be within your power you do not need to stretch it, and the moment a lawyer, judge, or counsel tells me that certain statutory powers are being stretched, I would take it to mean that the statutory power is being exceeded under a fair construction of the law.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would like to withdraw that word.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do uot ask the Minister of Justice to withdraw it; what (I want to ascertain is if the Minister of Justice agrees with me that in this legislation we are not keeping within the powers given us under the British North America Act. The Imperial Act of 1871, and the Imperial Act of 1886 must be construed as dealing with the matters that were then being legislated on by this parliament, namely, the representation in this House and in the Senate of a part of the country that was not a province. The moment we pass this present Act, Alberta and Saskatchewan become provinces, and what may have been sanctioned in dealing with the representation of Territories which are not provinces has nothing whatever to do with our powers after we establish another province, whether it be in that same part of Canada or in another part. The moment we make that part of Canada into a province, I submit We must be within the British North America Act which makes no distinction between one province of Canada and another in saying that the representation must be readjusted every ten years. I submit that in calculating the basis of representation at any other period than at the end of the decennial census, the enactment is ultra vires of this parliament and is in fact amending the British North America Act, which we have no power to do,.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Let me see if I can make myself clear. What is important is to provide for the representation of the new provinces in this parliament. We now have an arbitrary representation of practically five members each for the two provinces. It would be necessary to ascertain the true population to fix their present representation and we provide that instead of doing that to-day we shall do it a year hence after the next quinquennial census. Having then ascertained what the true population is, we will make a readjustment on the lines laid down by the British North America Act. The initial representation having been settled in that manner, thereafter the representation shall be dealt with absolutely as in the case of every other province.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What causes the doubt is-the words used, that there will be a readjustment after the next quinquennial census. I suppose that if we simply enacted that the representation should remain what it is until the 1st of January, 1896, when the population would be definitely fixed until the next decennial census, it would appear less objectionable.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Perhaps so ; but I do not know that I can get a better word than the word ' readjusted,' because you have to readjust the limits of the electoral districts. It is a word consecrated by long usage, and it became familiar to my ear in the discussions which we had here some years ago.
Mr. MONK-. I suppose we would be strictly within our power if we declared that during this decade the provinces should be represented by such a number of members for the first four years and by so many for the balance of the decade ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: We would have that power.
, Mr. MONK. So long as we did not interfere with the operations that take place every ten years,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Suppose the Ontario government took a census on the same day that a census is proposed to be taken in' the provinces, and suppose it turned out that Ontario was entitled, under the spirit and the equity and common sense of the British North America Act, to have its representation in this House increased, say from 86 members to 100, it seems to me that if you invoked the British North America Act to deprive Ontario of that increase, you would also have to say that increased "representation should not be given to the Northwest provinces until the-end of another five years and the decennial census were taken.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-election of members of House of Commons,


Charles Fitzpatrick: This provides for continuing the existing franchise.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is not that franchise law very objectionable ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is in many ways; but I do not see how to provide for the election of a member before the redistribution without accepting it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The local member says it is so objectionable that-It is a scandal, and ought not to he recognized.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think myself that it ought to be changed.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. It would be difficult to make provision in the Bill to meet the objections that have been raised. The

Franchise Act of 1891, section 5, provides that ' for tile purposes of any Dominion election held within the limits of a province, except as hereinafter otherwise provided, the qualifications necessary to entitle any person to vote thereat shall be those established by the laws of that province,' provides for polling subdivisions, &c., and enumerates a number of other matters over which the province has control. The effect of section six of this Bill is to continue the law which we have at the present time in the Territories. While I see great difficulty in the way of placing in the Bill a section that would get over the objections which I am about to mention, it seems to me that if these matters were to be dealt with within the next year or two by the provincial legislatures, the powers should not be taken away from them to rectify any defects in the present law. The matter was brought up in the House last session by the bon. member who then represented Montmorency, and who introduced a Bill (No. 117) to get rid of some of those defects. The then Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) replied to him, saying, as reported on page 3993 of ' Hansard ' :
I have not had the opportunity to give the matter the consideration, in consultation with the members of the Northwest Territories, that I would like to have given, in order to ascertain how the law has worked. I would not like to express a positive opinion against the proposal of my hon. friend, nor would I, without looking into the matter, express an opinion in favour of it. I move the adjournment of the debate.
That apparently ended the discussion on the Bill, and no Bill was passed. The objections urged to the law as it existed, and as it exists to-day, in the Northwest Territories by the hon. gentleman who brought the matter up were : That the enumerators appointed to make up the list have power to issue certain certificates ; then, after they post up their list, which, under the law, they must do eight days before the election, there is nothing to compel them to remain in any particular part of the subdivision. Sometimes it is impossible to find them. Some polling subdivisions there are as large as some Ontario constituencies ; there are no voter's' lists in the country, and the enumerator goes around about a month before tlie election and makes up a written list. The law provides that he shall post it in two conspicuous places in the polling subdivision eight days before the election. The result is that not five per cent of the electors in some of these polling subdivisions see the list. If those-who do see it desire to have any names struck off or put on, there is no place where the enumerator can be found. That is an objection which has existed for some time. For that reason, last session, there being no member from the Northwest on the opposition side of the House, this Bill was placed in the hands of Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
the hon. member for Montmorency, and it did not become law.


Mr. LAMONT.: May I ask my hon. friend if there is any voter deprived of his vote by tbe objections which he bas raised ? Is it not a fact that a voter can go and poll his vote whether bis name is on the list or not ?


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Yes ; but there are a great many electors who object to going and voting when their name is not on the list. But perhaps the objection I am going to state will answer the hon. gentleman. As he states, even If a man's name is not on the list, he can still vote by going to tbe polling booth and taking a certain oatli, as set out in chapter 59 of tbe statutes of Canada of 1895. That oath is as follows :
You do swear you are of the male sex and a British subject, that you are not an Indian, that you are of the full age of 21 years, and have resided in the Northwest Territories at least twelve months, and in this electoral district for three months immediately preceding the issue of the writ of election.
He is not required to swear that he resides in the polling subdivision. There are qon-fiicting sections in the Act, and it is generally conceded that the man who does come to the polling subdivision in which he does not live can demand a ballot and vote in tbe division in which he does not live. That has been conceded in a great many ridings; and if we should come down to this parliament and desire to have that Act amended our amendment would probably meet with the fate of the Bill which was introduced by the former member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) last year. Tbe amendment he proposed simply dealt with one of the objections and in introducing it he said :
The object of this Bill is simply to amend the 48th section of the Northwest Territories Act so as to make it as nearly as possible similar to the sections of the General Act. The proposed Bill says :
Every enumerator shall attach to each of the two copies of the voters' lists which are by section 30 of this Act required to be posted* up by him within each polling division, a written notice which shall be signed by him and shall designate a place and time where and when electors may conveniently find him during at least two consecutive hours on every day, except Sunday, of the eight days next before the polling day, for the purpose of applying to him for such certificates.
That to my mind would not meet all the difficulties because the areas in the polling subdivisions there are so large that a great majority of the electors have no opportunity of seeing the lists at all. The law says they shall be placed in two conspicuous places, but what may be conspicuous to the enumerators are not always conspicuous to the electors In that polling subdivision. That seems to me therefore a matter which the local legislatures can best deal with. For that reason I would not like the section

to go through iu its present shape. The adoption of section six simply means that a Bill will be introduced in this parliament at the earliest opportunity providing for the desired amendment.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I quite appreciate the difficulties pointed out by my hon. friend but I would like him to suggest a more effective remedy than the one he has mentioned. Assuming that we were to make a franchise Act for the new province, that would be absolutely at variance with the principles which obtains in the other provinces. The principle that ought to apply to these Territories is that which we apply to the other provinces, namely, to allow the matter to be dealt with by the province after it is formed. If my hon. friend prefers to allow the matter to remain in abeyance, so as to consider the difficulty, I shall be glad to adopt any suggestion he may make to meet it.


Samuel Hughes: Why not accept the franchise of the provinces ?	[DOT]


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no provision for the meeting of the legislatures until six months after the new provinces are formed. Then there is no certainty that after they have met, they will make provisions for a franchise. They will not be under obligations to make any provisions for their election until after the first or second session. In the interval where will they be ?


Samuel Hughes: Why not make it read ' until such time as the new provinces establish their franchises.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: Because when the new provinces have provided their local franchises, the principle applicable to all the other provinces will be applicable to them, and it will be the duty of this parliament to make it applicable.


Samuel Barker: It appears to me that my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) has referred to two possible evils in the present system ; and we should not continue evils until a future date, if we can prevent them now. There were two matters referred to by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) when he introduced his Bill in 1904, which were not dealt with by parliament at that time, because the then Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) asked that the matter should be adjourned. That was equivalent to an admission that the subject required attention. Nothing however has been done since, and we are now practically declaring that these evils shall _ continue until another body shall provide something to the contrary. I am quite sure that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will recognize the very great evil which was referred to in 1904. An official, called there
an enumerator, has power to issue any number of certificates-tnere is no limitation whatever-to enable people to vote in a district where they are not known. A man can get a certificate from the enumerator entitling him to vote 100 or 200 miles away, where nobody knows him and the officials at that polling booth simply take that certificate not knowing who the man is. Hundreds of the certificates may be issued because there is no possible check upon their issue and the result may be the election of a gentleman to this parliament who has no right whatever to sit here. It is an evil which everybody who knows anything about elections must recognize. The enumerator issues these certificates for the poll clerk, or an official of that kind, or an agent; and I suppose 'agent' is the most indefinite description of an individual we can possibly give. Who is to say who is and who is not an agent ? That is left entirely to the enumerator who signs the certificate, and lie can give these certificates without limitation. He can recognize any number of agents for a particular polling place. In our owtf law that evil has been guarded against because it is expressly provided that the corresponding official-the deputy returning officer -can only give two certificates for each party. He can give two certificates to agents for the Liberal candidate and two for the Conservative. That is the express limitation, but in the Territories there is no limitation whatever. Instead of two, he can give 200. It must be apparent to anybody that such a power in the Territories is practically putting into the hands of an unscrupulous enumerator the power to elect any person he chooses. There does not seem to be any question about the danger from this if we are to judge the officials conducting elections in the Northwest Territories by samples of the same class we have had in Ontario, I can only say that if you were to give to certain officials in Ontario, as we know them, the power given in the Territories, those officials could elect any man they chose. I would ask the Minister of Justice whether he considers it is right that we should continue for one hour such a state of things ? I am talking in all seriousness.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot conceive it possible that my hon. friend would admit that there are any men in Ontario who would do wrong.


Samuel Barker: I am sorry to say that there are almost a majority of the people who support that sort of thing. Not quite a majority at the present time in Ontario, but a large minority who condoned that kind of thing for years. Not enumerators appointed for the moment, but officials holding responsible positions under the government of the province have been notoriously guilty in that respect.


Samuel Hughes: They even manufactured ballot boxes.
Mi-. BARKER. I am dealing with this fact that it has been found necessary even in the moral provinces of Quebec and Ontario-assuming they are more moral than the Northwest Territories, a point which I would not like to argue-it has been found necessary to curtail the authority of such officers so that they can give two certificates, whereas in the Territories there is no restriction whatever. It is especially important to have such restriction in a territory because in an old' settled province men who act as agents for candidates are generally pretty well known, but in a territory in a sparsely settled country, an agent may go to a poll 100 miles from his home where nobody knows him ; he may be enabled to vote although he may have no right to vote ; his name is not on the list at the poll wheie he votes, he has simply the certificate of an enumerator. No one knows who he is and no precaution is of*any effect, provided the accommodating agent is willing to take the oath. I protest, and I am sure the Minister of Justice will agree, that such a practise should not be continued for one hour, and that as we are dealing with this subject we should not allow it even until the provincial authorities choose to alter it. We should put a stop to it, and I ask the Minister of Justice to consider that question and make an alteration in the law.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Would my hou. friend suggest what ehauge I should make ?


Samuel Barker: For one thing I should suggest the insertion of the limitation that exists in our own Dominion Election Acts, that there should be not more than two certificates at any one poll granted for each candidate. And why should we not go further and make provision so that a candidate wanting a certificate for his agents should know where to find the enumerator. It was proposed that the enumerator should post a notice stating where he could be found for a certain number of hours daily previous to the election so that candidates who want him for any purpose may know where he is to be found, As the law stands it is said a candidate friendly to the enumerator can get all the certificates he wants, wholesale, even signed in blank, while the candidate of the opposing party does not know where to find an enumerator and is not able to get any certificates.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I understand the suggestion to allow clause 0 to remain as it is, but to amend the Northwest Representation Act on the line suggested by the hou. ex-member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) last session.


Samuel Barker: Practically.


Samuel Barker: 


Mr. TURRIFF.: I think the information of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is not exactly correct. In the first place the enumerator cannot give a certificate to
any one who is not a properly qualified voter and his name is on the list of electors and he can only give the certificate for an agent and that man can only act as an ,agent at any other poll if he has also a certificate as agent from one or other of the candidates and he cannot vote even then if he is not entitled to vote because if they have any doubt of his being entitled to vote or if he is not known either one of the candidates, or his representative is certain to have him sworn.


Samuel Hughes: Does that count up there ?


John Gillanders Turriff: So that he cannot vote (unless he is entitled to do so. No doubt there are some objections to the Act, but there is also this to be said that no man who is entitled to vote can be prevented from voting because if his name is not on the list he can appear at the polling division on election day and by there making an affidavit that he is entitled to vote he can put his vote in. There was a serious objection to the Act some years ago because prior to 1S96 if the enumerator failed to put a voter's name on the list he could not vote at all, but the Act was amended in 1896 or 1897. providing that if a voter's name is not on the list he could vote in the way I have mentioned. I quite agree with the suggestion that it would be much better, if it could be done, to provide that only two certificates should be given for each subdivision, but I want to say further that during the election last year, in my district at all events, I did not hear one complaint of any enumerator refusing to give certificates to the opposing candidate. I never heard a complaint from one end of the contest to the other in that respect.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Perhaps it was me other fellow that heard these complaints.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think if there had been any complaints we would have heard them on the platform at some time during the contest.


Richard Stuart Lake: I am afraid that what the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) says does not cover the fact which I believe took place in the recent election that enumerators did issue - certificates in blank, and a large number of certificates in blank, and they were placed in the hands of the friends of the party by whom the enumera

tor had been selected. But leaving that aside, his argument still does not cover the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) who pointed out that the oath itself was of such a nature that a man could go into any district without any certificate whatever and swear himself on to the list in that particular polling division.
.5773


John Gillanders Turriff: Might I ask my hon. friend if lie did not support this very law in tin local assembly when it was passed there? Is he not responsible for the law being in the condition it is ?


Richard Stuart Lake: This law is very different ' from the law of the legislative assembly in many particulars.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In what particular would it differ ?


Richard Stuart Lake: I will point out one particular. If there is any objection taken to a vote which is offered the returning officer may put the ballot into an envelope, and later on a court is held to prove whether the man who offered that ballot is a qualified elector or not. The ballot is still sealed up in the -envelope, and if it is proved that he was a qualified elector, it goes into the ballot box, and not otherwise. There are provisions of that kind which constitute a safeguard. But after all I do not see that what has been done in the legislative assembly is necessarily to be followed by this parliament, though I think we have some very good legislation in the Northwest Territories. iBut I want to point out that the objection taken "by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) is not met by the suggestion to restrict the number of certificates. A man can come from any polling division he likes and go into another polling division and swear himself in. I wish to point out further that the interpretation of that clause varies according to the sympathy of the man who is conducting the election. I remember in the year 1900 that the returning officer of tile district of East Assiniboia sent out instructions the day before the election, telling his deputies that they were not to receive any of these votes, that a man could not come in from any other polling division outside his own and swear himself in without having an enumerator's certificate. Now it was quite different at the last election. I found that the election clerk had sent a notice-to the different deputy returning officers telling them that they could take the oaths of people who came in to vote from other polling divisions outside of those to which they belonged. I may mention that the election clerk did not sign that notice as election clerk, but he sent it out as secretary of the central Liberal committee. He was acting in both capacities. I also found another thing in the present law, and that is that the enumerators were acting as Liberal agents. I met a man and entered into conversation with him, and he told me that the enumerator had been round, and he said, * he asked me which way I was going to vote, and I told him that was none of his business.' I know other cases of a somewhat similar nature. I also know of a case in which the enumerator left upwards of seventy names off one of the lists he drew up, and I happened to be present when one of my friends was trying to persuade him to put some names on the list which had been left off, though they were perfectly good names and there was a good deal of difficulty. In the long run I think most of the names were put on. However, i think the Minister of Justice has admitted that this is a bad statute. \\ e need not go much further into the reasons for that conclusion. I think it is a great pity that this system should be perpetuated for one moment longer than is necessary. I would ask the Minister of Justice whether an amendment to clause 6, something in this form, would not meet the case, instead of saying ' until the parliament of Canada otherwise provides,' simply use the words ' until the 1st day of July, 1906.' The effect iof that would be that after the 1st day of July, 1906, the General Elections Law of Canada would come into force. Of course I realize what the Minister of Justice lias said, that there is nothing compelling the assembly of the new provinces to pass a franchise law immediately ; but I think we may take_.it for granted that they will, and that if this provision is in force, that would be one of the first things they would do Putting the date the 1st of July, 1906. would allow them six months within which to hold their elections, and another six months during which they will meet and have an opportunity of framing their own franchise and election laws.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If they did not make that law where would we be ?


Richard Stuart Lake: I think the Dominion Election Law provides for any case where there there is no list drawn up.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think the reasonable suggestion was that of the member for Calgary, that we should take section 6 as it is, and amend the Northwest Territories Representation Act on the lines suggested last session by the then member for Montmorency. But before I adopt that suggestion I would like to hear from the member for Jacques Cartier.


Samuel Hughes: The Northwest Territories Representation Act works out badly in many eases. I will run over a few clauses. Section 4 describes who shall be qualified to vote. Now I do not know what the definition of an Indian is, I presume it is a treaty Indian ; but there are many Indians resident in the Northwest Territories who are not treaty Indians. I do not know whether the law would allow them to vote or not, but I think they would be entitled. Section 16 provides that another day for nomination may be fixed in certain cases if, owing to accident or some cause, the elections are not held on the regular day. I may point out in this connection that the election in the riding of Mackenzie furnished an instance. It was postponed, I do not

577&
know whether by chance or not, but a number of objections which have been raised by gentlemen on this side were found to present themselves in that election. Gentlemen from Manitoba, gentlemen from East Assiniboia, with long classic names, found their way in there. Nobody had ever seen them before or heard of them as living in that part of the country. They walked up by hundreds. I am told, and under the section of the law which allowed them to present themselves without being registered they voted. Section 26 regarding the appointment of enumerators is rather vague, and does not state that these enumerators shall be residents of the polling subdivision in which they operate. Section 31 is loosely drawn, it reads :
If,any enumerator at any time after posting up any voters' list, and before the polling day, is fully satisfied, from representations made to him by any creditable person, that the name of any qualified voter has been omitted

It shall be put on, and conversely, it shall be struck off.
If the enumerator, in like manner, is fully satisfied that there is on the list the name of any person who is not qualified as a voter in such polling division, he may draw erasing lines through such name.


John Henderson Lamont: When was that passed ?


Samuel Hughes: In 1886. The law has always been bad. But in 1886 elections such as we notw have carried on in this country were unknown in the Dominion of Canada. If the inference from my hon. friend's question is that this law was passed by a Conservative government and did duty for a Conservative government, he will search in vain to find any abuse of it under Conservative rule.


John Henderson Lamont: How is a man prejudiced by that section ? If his name is on the list, or if it Is left off the list, it does not make any difference, because he can go to the poll and vote any way.


Samuel Hughes: I am coming to that point. Section 34 provides for the posting of the notice. All the features in connection with the posting of the notice have been referred to by hon. gentlemen here, so that I will not dwell upon this section. Section 33 is as follows :
The deputy returning oflicer shall, while the poll is open, if required by any elector whose name is not on the voters' list, administer to such elector oath number one in the said form ' P ' ; and such oath having been taken, the deputy returning officer shall at once cause such elector's name to be added to the voters' list, with the word ' sworn ' written thereafter.
The form of oath is as follows :
You do swear that you are a bona fide male resident and householder within this polling division of this electoral district, that you are of the full age of 21 years, that you are not an alien or an Indian, and that you have resided in this electoral district for at least twelve Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
months immediately preceding the date of the issue of the writ for this election.
In the recent elections in the Northwest Territories a man could go and vote in any polling subdivision. All he had to do was to present himself at any polling subdivision. I can give my hon. friend any number of names throughout the Territories. I was told this by a number of deputy returning officers. A man could present himself at any polling subdivision and vote so long as he could claim that he had been a resident of the riding for twelve months. The instructions sent to the deputy returning officers were that they were to take the oath of -any man and give any man a vote who would claim that he was a resident, not of the polling subdivision, but of the electoral district. That is an abuse against which I protest.


Mr. ADAMSON.: Who was the returning officer ?


Samuel Hughes: It was some of the deputy returning officers who told me this.


Alan Joseph Adamson: Which returning officers ?


Samuel Hughes: My word Is all that the hon. gentleman should require to take here. He takes my word here. He will be good enough to remember that.
Mr. ADAMSON! We want to get the information.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman has the information, and he will get a great deal more if he wants it.


Alan Joseph Adamson: We want all the hon. gentleman can give.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman, before the end of the session, will get all he wants.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: He wants to get it correctly.


Samuel Hughes: If the message boy of Monseigneur Sbarretti will keep quiet, we will be obliged.


John Henderson Lamont: Does the hon. gentleman contend that the section which he has just read, which provides that the deputy returning officer shall administer an oath to the elector and enter his name in the list, has led to abuses ?


Samuel Hughes: I am showing what the practice was during the last election.


John Henderson Lamont: The hon. gentleman will surely give us some particulars.


Samuel Hughes: The law is as I have read it:	,
The deputy returning officer shall, while the poll Is open, If required by any elector whose name is not on the voters' list administer to such elector oath number one in the said form * P ' ; and such oath having' been taken, the

deputy returning officer shall at once 'cause such elector's name to be added to the voters' list, with the word ' sworn ' written thereafter.


Mr. SCOTT.: Does my hon. friend contend that it covers the case of a man from Manitoba ? He told us a few moments ago about gentlemen with long-tailed names from Manitoba voting in the Northwest Territories.


Samuel Hughes: That was in another section. That was where the election was postponed, on the borders of Manitoba and eastern Assiniboia. These gentlemen came in and, of course, the oaths were taken. They did not understand the value of an oath. I shall not discuss the question here. If the hon. gentleman wants me to enter into the details of it I will enter into them.


Thomas Walter Scott: Give us some of the names.


Samuel Hughes: Some of them are as long as from myself to the hon. gentleman-Galicians, and that class of people. No one could recognize one from the other. T am pointing out that men whose names were not on the roll, and who did not live in the polling subdivision, came forward and voted. I believe it would be proper to have a system by which any man's name left off the list in the polling subdivision could be added and that man allowed to vote, the same as they do in Prince Edward Island, but it should not be possible for a man to go from one part of the electoral division to another and vote in a polling subdivision, except the one in which he is resident and where he is known, and then he should be identified by some one living there. That is the feature of the ^system to which I object.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister of Justice to suspend the consideration of this section, and see if it would not be possible to cure what seems to have been admitted to be a very serious abuse. I can understand that in connection* with a Bill of this kind we are not going to unmake the Northwest Territories Representation Act, nor can we change fundamentally the franchise in the Northwest Territories ; but this is a particular abuse which it was intended to correct during last parliament by a very short enactment. The facts are related in ' Hansard ' of 1904. to which I will give a reference to the hon. Minister of Justice in a moment. I think it is well worthy of his consideration whether, in the transitory provision which I have no doubt we will have to introduce into these Bills, it will not be possible to cure this grievance. The Minister of Justice will find the discussion at page 3990 of 1 Hansard,' 1904. Mr. Casgrain, the member for Montmorency, moved the second reading of a Bill to amend the Northwest Territories Representation Act. The Minister of the Interior at that time (Mr. Sifton) admitted 183
that there were some grievances to be remedied, but the Bill never was fully considered. The session was coming to a close, or for some reason or other, it never was considered as far as I can see. Under our election law, which applies to the organized provinces of the Dominion, the returning officer can only give two certificates per poll. That is referred to in the discussion. Section 61 of the Dominion Elections Act says that he can only give two certificates to agents, and even in the province of Quebec, morally far superior to the other provinces, I think, if he could give more, we would see great abuses there ; but in the Northwest Territories every returning officer can deliver any number of certificates, and I am not surprised to hear that that has given rise to abuses.


Thomas Walter Scott: Will my hon. friend allow me to point out to him that I think the same condition prevails under the North-west Territories local law ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That may be, but it does not make it any better.


Thomas Walter Scott: There must be some reason for this.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That does not make it any better and it is certainly a very serious abuse. The Bill introduced in 1904 proposed to cure this evil, by amending the law so as to make it possible for a candidate only to obtain two certificates for each poll. I would suggest to the Minister of Justice that he consider whether it would not be possible to provide a remedy in the present Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is reasonable, and I will ask this clause to remain ita>
abeyance until such time as I have an opportunity of considering the Bill introduced by Mr. Casgrain last year. Of course I cannot undertake to say now that I would introduce such a Bill as that.


Haughton Lennox: I understood the Minister of Justice to virtually admit that the Northwest Territories Representation Act is not satisfactory. It was suggested by the member for East Assiniboia that a number of certificates could not be granted, but it appears from sections 40 and 48 of the Northwest Territories Representation Act that any number can be granted. Another difficulty pointed out was as to the blank certificates which is a very serious matter in itself,_ and it was shown that there was no provision in the law to compel the enumerator to be present in his office at certain hours when he might be required. I call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the suggestion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake).that instead of the words in the sixth clause :
Until the parliament of Canada otherwise provides.



It should read :	.
Until the first of July, 1906.
I think that might be found to work well if it were also provided :
Until the first of July, 1906, or until the parliament of Canada thereafter otherwise provides the qualification of voters, &e.
If it should happen that the local legislature did not in the meantime make provision, we then would not be helpless in any way. I was, much impressed by the suggestion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who, as he is not a lawyer, asked me if I would mention this matter again. As I appreciate that the Minister of Justice desires to get this in the best possible shape, might I make a suggestion on my own behalf. I do not profess to be very familiar with the territorial law, but as far as I understand we are providing for the qualification of voters and the procedure governing elections. I was going to suggest at first that we should provide that the new provinces should be governed by the Dominion Elections Act, but the difficulty would be that there would be no Franchise Act to act as a basis. Might I suggest to the Minister of Justice the view that as to clause 6 it should be provided that so far as the qualification of voters is concerned it should be based upon the Franchise Act in force in the Northwest Territories, but that so far as the election proceedings are concerned they should be governed as in the other provinces by the Dominion Elections Act.


Andrew B. Ingram: If I recollect aright they have no lists, and for my part I would not agree to have the local law adopted.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We had better let this clause remain in suspense and I will see how far I can go to adopt the Bill introduced last session.


Samuel Hughes: Inasmuch as it is very difficult to get around large ridings such as those in the Territories, why not have nomination day two weeks before election day. For my part I think it would be advisable to make that provision apply to all Canada.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Oh, we get enough of it as it is in one week.


Samuel Hughes: The trouble is that there is not enough time to get around with the notices in these large electoral divisions.


Samuel Barker: Does the minister propose to consider whether he can apply section 5 of the Dominion Elections Act to section 6 of the Franchise Act ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is what is in contemplation with respect to section 6, but my trouble is that I cannot do that until there is a'provincial franchise. The inten-Mr. LENNOX.
tion was to adopt it when it does come into force.


Samuel Barker: Will the hon. gentleman consider making it apply when it does come into force ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: We could not for a moment entertain the idea that we could treat these provinces exceptionally with respect to their franchise ; they must be in the same position as all the other provinces and come under section 5.


Andrew B. Ingram: When Mr. Oasgrain introduced his Bill last year he was simply dealing with existing conditions and had not in view the formation of these new provinces. Mr. Casgrain's Bill was brought up not only on the first of June last year, but also on the 14th of June, but because of the absence of Mr. Sifton, the Minister of Justice asked Mr. Oasgrain to postpone the Bill-Mr. Oasgrain agreed to let the Bill stand, but as it was the fault of the government that the Bill did not go on they agreed to take the r>ill up at a later date.*


Charles Fitzpatrick: Where is the evidence of that ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Here it is. The Minister of Justice said :
I think we ought to give my hon. friend (Mr. Oasgrain) assurance that if he will agree to postpone it now another opportunity for the discussion of it will be allowed because the postponement of it is to suit our convenience.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Does that mean that I agreed to take the Bill up ?


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Mr. OASGRAIN.: Very well, on that understanding, I agree.
It never came up afterwards.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Was that my fault?


Andrew B. Ingram: I will say this for the Minister of Justice, that when he makes agreements he generally stands by them and that was an agreement made between him and Mr. Casgrain.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That does not say that I agreed to take the Bill up. I agreed that he should have an opportunity to take if up.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is rather splitting hairs.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, that is ordinary English.
'Mr. INGRAM. I do not want to convey the idea that the Minister of Justice was to take the Bill over as a government measure, but the understanding was that it would be taken up afterwards by permission of the government. It could not otherwise be considered, because the time for public Bills was over. With respect to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-

Re,*e>
is to my mind tile best suggestion that has been made here to-night, and I think due weight ought to be given to it. I think it is preferable to the suggestion made last year by Mr. Casgrain, who had not the mapping- out of the province before him at the time. If the circumstances had been then the same as they are now, he might not have introduced his Bill on the lines he did.
Section 6 allowed to stand.
On section 7-executive council.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is from the territorial Act, and re-enacts practically clause 7 of the Manitoba Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-seat of government,
Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I would like to have that section stand. I may say that isome information has been asked for in connection with it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is right. It
is agreed that it is to stand.
Mr. McCarthy. Would it not be well to let it stand until schedule ' B ' is
taken up ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Prime Minister told me that section 8 was to stand until it suited the hon. gentleman's convenience to bring it up.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 9-powers of Lieutenant Governor and Council,


Charles Fitzpatrick: This section fol-'ows section 05 of the British North America Act, and is also practically a re-enactment of clause 6 of the Territorial Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The only thing that strikes me at this moment about it is that the powers of a lieutenant governor governing the Nortnwest Territories are not the same as the powers of a lieutenant governor governing the province of Alberta, and in this section it seems to me we are unduly limiting the powers of the lieutenant governor of the new province.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It provides that all ithe powers he has now will be continued, but that does not mean that he shall not have other powers.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The section of the British North America Act which this is supposed to follow gives larger powers to the lieutenant governor of the province, and if this section is intended to put that section of the British North America Act into operation, it does not do so.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is simply intended to carry on the powers he has now.


Samuel Hughes: Has the lieutenant governor of the Territories to-day greater 183J
powers than the lieutenant governor of a province ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The lieutenant gov-ei nor of the Territory now has powers which he exercises individually, but the only case that I know of in which he does that is with reference to commissions in lunacy. But whatever powers he has now we are continuing, in addition to the ordinary powers which he will have as lieutenant governor of a province.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would it not be better to say that he shall have all the powers of a lieutenant governor under the British North America Act ? I think you are making confusion by this section. The language here is not good draftsmanship, because it does not say that he shall have all the powers which a lieutenant governor of a province has under the British North America Act. I think it would be better to say so.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would be glad to consider any amendments that may be suggested, but I do not think I am as capable of dealing with the clause as the man who drafted it.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the minister if there are any powers given to the lieutenant governor of -the Territories in excess of the powers ordinarily given to the lieutenant governor of a province ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think there are.


Samuel Barker: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will explain what these are, so that we may consider whether we should give those extra powers to the lieutenant governor of the proposed province.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When this clause came before me for consideration, I put the very question to the gentleman who drew it which the hon. gentleman puts to me now. He used the word ' individually,' and the only powers which the lieutenant governor exercised individually that I could discover were with respect to commissions in lunacy, and I am not sure that that is strictly accurate. At one time the lieutenant governor practically carried on in his person the whole executive authority. His power became reduced from time to time until finally we come down to the representative institutions which they have to-day; but in order to meet any possible difficulty that might arrive, this clause was drafted.


Samuel Hughes: Under the old Territorial law, he had purely representative government and not responsible government. Surely these powers are not continued.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The laws enforced at present are all continued until they are changed. If in connection with any of these laws, he individually has powers to

exercise, he would exercise them until such time as they are changed. I would refer my hon. friend to section 15.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Section 12 allowed to stand.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
On section 15,


Charles Fitzpatrick: I want to amend that clause, but I would like to leave it in abeyance because I am consulting the representatives of the Territories as to the form in which this clause ought to be put; and until we finally agree on the terms, the amendment should not be proposed.
Section allowed to stand.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.

Tiiuhsday, May 11, 1905.