1905-05-08

QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEFURGEY-by Mr. A. Martin- asked :
1.	What work does the government contemplate with regard to the further carrying on of the herring industry experiments at Canso, Nova Scotia ?
2.	Has the work thus far been satisfactory, and is it the intention to have the fishermen of that locality and elsewhere instructed in this industry ?
3.	Is there a Mr. Cowie employed by the government in connection with this industry ?
4.	If so, at what salary, and how much has he received up to date ?
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Continuing the experiments of last year.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Five dollars per day whilst engaged in connection with the work. Mr. Cowie has received, up to date, $1,585.


TRADING STAMPS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. STOCKTON-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation during the present session, with a view of suppressing what are known as trading stamps (itimbres de commerce) ?
2.	If so, when will the Bill be introduced ?
Rt.   H@: The question is under consideration. An answer will be given at an early day.


IMPORTATION OF DREDGING PLANT.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	How many dredges, dredging scows, and dredging plants were imported into Canada in the years 1902, 1903 and 1904 ?
2.	By whom, respectively, were such dredges and dredging scows imported 1
3.	By what names, numbers or other method were such dredges and dredging scows described in the entry ?
4.	What was the valuation placed on each dredge and dredging outfit ?
5.	What was the amount of duty paid on each dredge or dredging scow ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Dredges, dredging scows and dredging plants imported into Canada have not been classified in the Trade and Navigation tables under these headings. Dredges, dredging scows and dredging plant are not mentioned under these terms in the customs tariff, and when entered for duty are classi-172-
tied as ' manufactures of wood,' ' machinery,' &c., according to material. The extent of the importations in 1902, 1903 and 1904 could not be ascertained without a lengthy examination of entries at various ports covering these years. It is not usual to disclose the particulars of individual entries made at the custom-house.


GOVERNMENT DOCK, SAULT ST. MARIE.
Mr. BOYCE asked :: 1.	What was the total amount expended by-the government upon purchase, construction and extension of the government dock at Sault Ste. Marie, and to whom were suoh amounts paid, respectively ?
2.	How was the contract for construction of extension (1904) let ?
3.	If by tender, were there more tenders than one, and was the lowest tender accepted ?
4.	Was the contract let to the firm or person whose tender was accepted ?
5.	Was the work carried on and completed by the person or firm to whom it was let ? If not. why not ?
6.	What was the contract price, and did it include timber ?
7.	Who was the contractor, and who supplied the timber ?
8.	Were any extras allowed ? If so, what was the amount of same, and of what did such consist ?
9.	Was any dredging included in said contract or incident thereto ? If so, what amount, at what rates ; and was such dredging performed according to plan and specifications ?
10.	Under whose immediate local supervision was the work performed ?
11.	What salary or remuneration was paid for such superintendence ?
12.	During construction of extension of dock was a wharfinger employed ? If so, who was he, and at what rate was he paid ?
13.	Does the government maintain a cartage system in connection with the dock ?
14.	Has the government granted exclusive privileges to any person or corporation of draying and carting freight delivered on the dock ? If so, to whom and upon what terms, and when was it granted ?
15.	What applications, if any, have been made to the government by steamship lines or other persons or companies for privileges of (a) landing and storing coal on said dock, (b) landing passengers and freight ? If so, upon what grounds were applications based for storing of coal on said dock ?
16.	Have any such applications been granted 1 If so, upon what ground, to whom, on what date, and upon what terms ?
17.	What rates of dockage are charged on freight landed at the dock ?
18.	Is there a dockage tariff now in existence? If so, when was it framed ?
19.	What were the running expenses and revenue of dock during years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1904 ?
20.	Has any application been made to the government for construction of a warehouse or other building on said dock ? If so, when, and by whom ?
21.	Is it the intention of the government to erect any such warehouse, offices or other buildings thereon ? If so, has any contract for such been let, to whom and upon what terms ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Total expenditure to date, $49,415.32. Paid W. H. Plummer, purchase price, $7,000; Joseph Battle, on contract, $41,500 ; advertising. &c., re contract, $441.32 ; O. A. Boyd, inspector, $474 ; expend ture incurred from date of taking possession of wharf, in 1888, and the letting of contract for extension in 1904, $9,894.78.
2.	Contract given by public tenders.
8. Twelve tenders received ; contract given to lowest tenderer.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	$65,000 ; yes.	-
7.	Joseph Battle; contractor supplied timber.
8.	Yes ; $1,200 ; quarter oak walling not provided for in contract.
9.	No.
10.	Under supervision of Geo. A. Boyd.
11.	$3 per day.
12.	The wharfinger appointed by the De partment of Marine and Fisheries was retained in office. George A. Boyd. He was paid at the rate of $142 per month during the season of navigation, to be paid out of the fees collected by hdn. The wharfinger pays for all necessary assistance.
13.	No, so far as the Marine Department is concerned.
14.	No, so far as the Marine Department is concerned.
15.	None, so far as the Marine Department is concerned.
16.	No, so far as the Marine Department is concerned.
17.	The rates fixed by the tariff of tolls contained in the regulations for the government of wharfs, piers, &c.,. under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
18.	Yes ; 1892.
19.
Collections. Expense.
1899-	1900 ....	$1,612	98	$1,017	851900-	1901 ....	2,093	18	1,253	751901-	1902 . . ..	4.163	75	3,498	711902-	1903 ....	3.120	21	1,759	981903-	1904 ....	1,321	30	1,211	6820.	Yes, by town council, on the loth February, 1905.21.	Matter under consideration.


GOVERNMENT DOCK AND STOREHOUSE, MIDLAND, ONTARIO.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: Who are the tenants of the government dock premises and storehouses thereon at Midland ? What rent is annually paid therefor ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: The storehouses at Midland are occupied jointly by Playfair, Preston & Company and the wharfinger. The rent is $100 per year, fixed in accordance with value thereof, as estimated by resident engineer.


REPORTS PRESENTED.
[Stage Direction]
Report of the Board of Civil Service Examiners for the year ending December 31st, 1904.-Sir Wilfrid Daurier.
Report of the Secretary of State for the year ending December 31st, 1904.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

Sir WILFRID DAURIER.: Mr. Speaker, some few days ago my bon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) asked me a question with reference to a rumour to the effect that all the shipping space available in the harbour of Montreal for the shipping of cattle had been obtained by the Armours, of Chicago. The inquiry I made leads me to the conclusion that there is no foundation for the rumour. I have received information to this effect, dated 28th of April. Regarding the cattle situation, there is no space let to American shippers, either on the Cana dian Pacific Railway line, the Allan line, the Dominion line, the Donaldson line or the Manchester line. For the month of May there is available at the present time 9,000 spaces, and probably 100,000 for the season.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I may say in reply to the Prime Minister that he deals altogether with the shipping of cattle. I spoke of freight space.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood the hon. gentleman referred to the space for cattle alone.


George Taylor: No ; freight space.


POSTMASTER AT WAVERLY, ONTARIO.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Waverly, Ontario ?
2.	Does he personally conduct the office ?
3.	Does he reside at the post office premises ? If not, how far therefrom ?
Hon. Sir WILLIAM 'MULOCK (Postmaster General) :
1. Mr. John Anderson.
2 and 3. The department has no information as to whether the postmaster personally conducts the office or resides at the post office premises or elsewhere.


Mr. BOYCE.: 



PRIVILEGE-RECORD OF DIVISION ON AUTONOMY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GILBERT ,H. MCINTYRE (South Perth). Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up tlie time of the House for a moment on a question of privilege, to deal in the matter relating to myself. The question is as to the accuracy of the report of the proceedings of this House. I find in the Votes and Proceedings that the motion for the second reading of the Autonomy Bill last night was declared agreed to on the same division reversed as the amendment. As I heard the decision of the chair here in my

place and this chamber is not an easy one to hear m-I thought that the decision was that die main motion was carried on division. It is well known in that House that I expressed myself in opposition to the main motion. There was no call for the yeas and nays, nor did I feel especially called on, or desirous indeed of opposing the government though I did call ' lost ' when the second reading was put. But, if as a matter of I act, the form in which the question was decided was that the main motion was agreed to on the same division reversed it unfortunately places me in the position'of apparently speaking one way and voting other, which was not my intention nor dul 1 do so in fact. It may be that, some time before I get through with my political life, I will be guilty of doing that. If I have apparently done so at this time, it was inadvertently.
Mr. SPROULE.: The hon. gentleman succeeded admirably in doing it this time.


Mr. A. B. INGRAM.: In the case of the vote taken last night, when the main motion was put to the House, according to the ' Hansard to-day it says, ' Carried,' without saying whether it was carried unanimously. It leaves it to be understood that it was carried unanimously. Every one knows that the division took place on the amendment, and the main motion was carried on the same division reversed exactly. Now the Votes .and Proceedings show the names of the first division, and according to the practice usually adopted in this House the names should have been recorded on the second division, because every lion, gentleman in this House should be placed on record exactly as lie has voted. It is a well known fact that according to the custom of this House the hon. member for South Perth voted for the Bill, as every hon. gentiemau did who voted against the amendment. Therefore I say that the Votes and Proceedings ought to be amended so as to show the names twice instead of only once, as thev are now shown.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I remember. the suggestion was made to declare the motion carried on division, and then I think the leader of the opposition said, ' Carried on division reversed if there is no objection,' and no objection was made. But with regard to my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. McIntyre), it is well known that he had stated that he intended to vote against the Bill, and his position is quite correct and well understood.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I always understood it was the right of any member of this House to have a vote if four other gentlemen stand up with him, then a division must take place. It is assumed that when no, person stands up to vote no one desires a division, and therefore the question goes.


Mr.   I@: I would think that the case is even stronger than my hon. tnend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has put it. As a matter of fact, the method which was adopted last night is often adopted purely for convenience. We have adopted it in this House on many occasions, particularly in the numerous divisions which took place in connection with the government Bill relating to the Transcontinental Railway. It was declared ' Carried by division reversed ' or ' Carried on the same division.' However, the system has been adopted purely for convenience. As last night we were here until about a quarter to two o'clock in the morning, I suggested that the main motion should be carried on the same division reversed, purely as a matter of convenience, not having in'mind my hon. friend from South Perth, and that was done. It diil not need five gentlemen to rise and call for the yeas and nays, all that was necessary for my hon. friend from South Perth to have done was to stand up and call for the yeas and nays, because the division had already been granted by the Speaker. I beret ore it was a matter for himself to determine whether w7e should have another division or not. There may be some excuse for him as a new member, but he could, simply by raising his voice, have had a vote taken in the -way in which he says now he would like to have had it taken, '


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is hardly correct. The hon. member for South Perth could not have exacted the yeas and nays, because he was alone, though'he could have objected to the motion being declared carried on the same division reversed, and he could have insisted on having it carried by division. But at all events, I think the hon. gentleman has made his position clear, and we all understand it.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What 1 thought was
that when a division had once been assented to by the Speaker any hon. member could call for the yeas and nays on that division.


Andrew B. Ingram: What I would like to know particularly is if the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday can be amended in order that the names of hon. gentlemen may be recorded as having voted on two different occasions, because it is a subject that will be referred to very frequently in the future, it was one of the most important votes ever cast in this House, and every member of this House should be placed on record so that there will be no dispute as to how he voted?
I think the Votes and Proceedings need to be amended.


Wilfrid Laurier: I doubt if we can do that now.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I do not see how the Votes and Proceedings, which are now correct as a matter of record, can be amended.

They state exactly what occurred, and any one reading them can ascertain exactly how the division came about. As a matter of record, the Votes and Proceedings are correct.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand you to say that it would not be correct to have the names appear twice on the Votes and Proceedings ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Ves.


Andrew B. Ingram: The record is correct as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough, because it only shows the names in one division, whereas there were two divisions.
Mr. MeINTYRE. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker is entirely correct in what he says ;
I have made inquiry and find it is so. 1 only regret that I did not hear the motion distinctly put, and being somewhat ignorant of the proceedings with regard to divisions- we have had so few of them this session-
I was not aware that I had such privileges as the leader of the opposition says I had.


Robert Laird Borden: I may be permitted to make a suggestion to his honour the Speaker. The question came up once before on, I think, a precisely similar matter, and the decision was-I am speaking from memory-that as the method adopted in the House was one purely of convenience, a record of the Votes and Proceedings should be made precisely in the same way as if the division had taken place. It was only a method of saving the time of hon. gentlemen in this House. But when it comes to recording the names, they should appear as if the division had taken place ; that is to say, that you should have a record as if the House had actually voted, because every one in the House is supposed to consent to the course adopted.


Mr. FIELDING.: I am not quite disposed to agree with the leader of the opposition. If you were to record the names, you would place the hon. member for South Perth in a false position. Probably the best way we can do is to let the matter go as it stands, because if the names were again recorded and his name was recorded as voting for the Bill when in reality he wanted to vote against it, it would only make the matter more difficult. I think that as a matter of record the other form would be more convenient.


Andrew B. Ingram: What about the other ninety-eight members in this House '! Have they no rights at all ?


William Stevens Fielding: They have not expressed any dissent


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose that if any member of this House desires another vote he has to show that desire by standing up and asking for a division, and when he does


Robert Franklin Sutherland: not do that, and no other member has done it, we assume that he is satisfied.


Hon. DAVID TISDALE.: It seems to me that if we are to declare this record correct, we must hereafter always have the two divisions, because I am quite certain that the gentlemen on this side of the House would have insisted on another vote if they thought they were not to be recorded again. Of course the Speaker must decide that. If the practice is that we must have a new division under these circumstances in order to get a record of the names, then we must always put the House to that trouble. I had always understood, though I have not bothered my head much about these rules, that when it was a division such as was agreed to last night, the names were recorded the second time, and that when we consent to the division in that way the names are always to be recorded, because the object of the division is to have a record of the names. But if that is not the case, then my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) is right, and the minutes ought to be amended, if we have power to amend them. I do not know myself what proceeding we ought to take.


Mr. HAGGAJRT.: Mr. Speaker, you surely ought to be informed as to what the practice of the House has been. This has occurred a hundred times in the House and in my opinion such votes have always been recorded as if the vote had been given at the time. You can very well find out what the practice has been and if the practice has been as I state then it is your duty to see that the Minutes of the House are revised and printed in accordance with the practice.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I desire to inform the hon. member (Mr. Haggart) that I have asked the clerk what the practice has been and he states that the practice has been to record the vote as it has been recorded and not as the hon. gentleman suggests.


Mr. U. WILSON.: I would have asked for a division last night on the main motion had I not understood that these names would be recorded again, only reversed, because I want it distinctly understood that I am opposed to the Bill from beginning to end.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think we understand it.


Uriah Wilson: And I want the people to understand it.


Mr. LENNOX.: 'Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty evident to the House that the lion. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) proposes to dispose of this matter altogether too lightly. It is an important matter and an important question of practice. Although I have not been a great many years in this House. I feel that
5433	MAY 4, 1905	5434
on this point I do understand the practice.
I wish to protest very distinctly against the proposition suggested by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I believe we are entitled, after what occurred last night, and it was the understanding of the House generally at that time, that the votes of members should be recorded as reversed from the former division. It is the right of every hon. member to have his vote so recorded. It would be unfair and a dangerous practice to depart from that position to-day. I know it to be perfectly clear, so far as the last four or five years are concerned, that upon an occasion of this kind the practice has been such as is asked for by my hon. friend from 'Elgin (Mr. Ingram). The hon. Minister of Finance says, forsooth, that because of the inconvenience it might occasion to the minority of one, the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. McIntyre), to have the vote recorded in that way we should depart from what has been the practice of parliament. The practice of parliament must be well understood by the older members of this House.
I think it is well understood on this point by almost every member of this House, and I think it is the right of the House to have the vote recorded in the way my hon. friend from Elgin has proposed.


William Stevens Fielding: I only speak again, Mr. Speaker, with your permission. I am afraid the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has entirely misunderstood my point. I rather agree as a matter of intelligence and convenience with the suggestion made by hon. gentlemen opposite as to recording the names the second time.
I think it would be the better way, whether that changes the practice of the House or not. But when my hon. friend declares that we must have the practice of the House and not what the Minister of Finance suggests, he is wrong and I am right because Mr. Speaker has told us this is the practice of the House. The particular point that I was drawing attention to was that if we recorded the names in the way suggested you would place my hon. friend from South Perth (Mr. McIntyre) in a position which would be unfair. That was the only point of my observation.


Haughton Lennox: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, a word in reply to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), I wish to make it very distinct that, with all deference to what Mr. Speaker may have suggested, having regard to the practice which has been followed for the last five years, what was suggested by my hon. friend from Elgin has been the practice in matters of this kind.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Mr. Speaker, as has been remarked, this is rather an important matter, and no doubt all of us on both sides cf the House are desirous that our votes
should be correctly recorded. I draw attention to the * Votes and Proceedings ' of yesterday and also to the ' Hansard.' In the ' Votes and Proceedings ' we find that :
The question being put on the main motion, it was agreed to on the same division reversed.
That certainly expresses the intention clearly and without equivocation, but when I turn to ' Hansard '-and I am not reflecting upon 1 Hansard ' at all, because, it is not recording words spoken by an hon. member-I find that 'Hansard' reports it thus :


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
In the country that might be quoted against me. I may be told that because I did not vote against the Bill I voted for it and I think, Mr. Speaker, that you should direct, that, in the Revised ' Hansard ' the wording should be changed so that it will convey the intention, at least of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: It is perfectly clear that a change will have to be made in the ' Hansard ' report. I did not observe that before, but obviously it conveys an entirely wrong impression, and it is the document which is more likely to be used in connection with this vote than the formal record of the proceedings of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I agree with the suggestion that ' Hansard ' ought to be revised and can be revised, and it will convey exactly what took place, but I do not think we can change the ' Votes and Proceedings.'



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST-SUBSIDY TO ALBERTA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolutions providing for the payment of an annual subsidy to the province of Alberta.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
1. Resolved, That the following amounts shall be allowed as an annual subsidy to the province of Alberta, and shall be paid by the government of Canada, by half-yearly instalments In advance, to the said province, that Is to say
(a)	for the support of the government and legislature, fifty thousand dollars ;
(b)	on an estimated population of two hundred and fifty thousand, at eighty cents per head, two hundred thousand dollars, subject to he increased as hereinafter mentioned, that is to say :-a census of the said province shall be taken in every fifth year reckoning from the general census of one thousand nine hundred and one, and an approximate estimate of the population shall he made at equal intervals of time between each quinquennial and decennial census ; and whenever the population, by aiy such census or estimate, exceeds two liundre and fifty thousand, which shall be the minimum on which the said allowance shall be laleulated, the amount of the said allowance shall be increased accordingly, and so on unul -he popu-
[Stage Direction]
lation has reached eight hundred thousand souls.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we ought to have an explanation from the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
Sir \\ 1LFRID LATJKIERj. R.esoiution (a) provides, for the support of the government and the legislature, $50,000. That is based upon the figures of the British North America Act. It is the same as Manitoba. Then, in regard to the proposed subsidy of 80 cents per head of the population, I may say that by the British North America Act it is enacted that Ontario should be paid 80 cents per head of the population of 1861, which was then in round numbers 1.400,000 souls, or 1,396,000 souls. It is distributed equally. Quebec received 80 cents per head of the population upon the census of 1861, which showed a population of a little over 1,110,000. Then, all the other provinces, that is to say, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and so on, were paid 80 cents per head until they reached the maximum of 400,000 souls. It was obviously impossible to accept this maximum for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, because already the two together have a population which exceeds the minimum limit of 400,000 souls, so we have suggested that the gradation should go on until they have reached in each province a population of 800,000. You have to fix some arbitrary figure, but it seems to me that the figure that has been arrived at is as near justice as can be expected.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to be a very arbitrary arrangement after all. Do hon. gentlemen know on what it is really based ? If I remember aright in Nova Scotia at the time of confederation when the people were very much opposed to entering confederation, the cry was that we were being sold for 80 cents a head.


William Stevens Fielding: The price of a sheepskin.


Mr.   R.@: L, BORDEN. Y'es, for the price of a sheep skin. How is this SO cents a head arrived at ? Why is it that the allowance now is so- much smaller in this instance ?


William Stevens Fielding: Eighty cents a head was simply an arbitrary rate reached in order to allow what was thought to be a reasonable sum on the population to assist in the maintenance of the local government. There has never been any particular question about that because it was 80 cents all around ; the real difficulty that has from time to time arisen with the provincial governments is with respect to the limitation on population.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I was asking about.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


William Stevens Fielding: That is the real difficulty, and I confess I have never been able to understand the precise reason why these limitations were put on the provinces. It would seem reasonable that if the provinces were to receive a proportion of their income from the federal treasury, their needs would increase with their population, and that whatever that population might be in the future, they should be paid an allowance per capita, although not necessarily the same allowance, because one can conceive that if tlie population increased very largely a proportionately smaller rate per head might serve as well for the purposes of government as a larger rate would in a thinly populated country. The reason for tlie limit of 400,000 souls in Nova Scotia and 800,000 as we. are now making it in these provinces in order that it may correspond with the general principle of the Act, has never been made very clear, and I do not know if any of my bon. friends have ever heard a reason given. It is the cause at tliis moment of very considerable dissatisfaction in all the provinces and it has been proposed from time to time that that limitation should be removed, and that as the provinces increased in population the amount of their allowance should also increase. But inasmuch as in the past there has been a fixed limitation in the provinces we are making this analogous to it, making a liberal allowance for the growth of the provinces.
Mr. SPROLfLE. There have been many applications from Quebec and tlie other provinces for a. readjustment of their subsidies and we know that from the maritime provinces in the last few years there have been representations of this kind. In the first instance, as I understand, they ail received 80 cents a head and they were to receive that up to a limit of population ; that was regarded as a fixed and proper sum which each should have. In view of these repeated applications from the different provinces does the government think that_ they are justified in fixing the new provinces at the same sum now ? If the experience of the past has proven that that is not enough, would this not be the proper time for them to consider what is a proper amount and fix it at that sum for the new provinces at the present time, rather than have to go over the whole question when applications are received from the various provinces for an increase of their subsidy ? If you consider applications from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island. Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, you would have to consider the case of the Northwest Territories as well, and this may occur next year. It seems to me that our experience ought to enable us to determine very well whether this is the correct sum or not, and if it is not a large enough sum we should strike the present rate for the

new provinces at what in our judgment is a correct amount, and then let the others level up to that.


Wilfrid Laurier: For my part I would not concur with the view just now enunciated by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). Speaking for myself personally. I think that the whole system of giving subsidies to the provinces is one subject to very serious objection, but we have adopted it at the time of confederation and wrong or right we have to abide by it and live up to it, although it is wrong in principle. As has been said by the lion. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) it is not a system satisfactory to the provinces. I agree with the Minister of Finance to this extent that if you adopt this principle of going by estimate-it is wrong, but you have adopted it, you have put ' it in your Bill, and the reason for it was that the Dominion took away from the provinces their sources of revenue, customs and excise. If that be the case there is strong reason to support the view of the Minister of Finance that there should be no limitation to population, that there should be a system of adjustment which would work automatically, whereby the subsidy of 80 cents per head would increase with increasing population. That is a view of the case which is well worthy of consideration. The province of Quebec has complained against the present system it is true, but the province of Quebec is not alone in that complaint; all the provinces have complained, and without at all committing the government, speaking for myself. I think it is one of the questions which will have to be taken up by the federal government in conjunction with the provinces at no distant date, but I do not think at this present time, as we are legislating within the corners of the British North America Act, that it would be advisable to depart in favour of these provinces from the principle which has been applied to the other provinces. There is in the other provinces a limit of population beyond which their subsidy does not increase and so long as this is the case for the other provinces, I think there ought also to be a similar limit imposed upon the new provinces which we are about to create.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting to the limit of population because that seems to be on the same principle throughout, but 1 want to draw attention to what the hon. member himself has admitted. What is the cause of these repeated applications from the provinces? They are made because we took away from the provinces their sources of revenue. Need I draw attention to the fact that their sources of revenue were customs and inland revenue, and what they could make from their timber, lands and mines? We did not take from the other
provinces their timber, their lands and their mines, but we have taken these assets from these new provinces, and whereas we took away only a portion of the sources of revenue from the other provinces, we are taking the whole of the sources of revenue away from these new provinces, and yet, notwithstanding that, we only allow them the same proportionate rate as we allowed to the provinces which retained part of their sources of revenue. It is true that we give them for the. land-


William Stevens Fielding: We are allowing them for the land besides.
Mr. SPROULE

it is true we give them something in lieu of the lands, but we are assuming that they have a certain number of acres of land and we are putting an arbitrary value on that which would be about the lowest value you could put on land in the Northwest ; not the value of lands there at the present time. The estimate of the land is not at all the amount of land that is within their territory nor is the arbitrary value the value that the lands could be sold at in that territory to-day, because if the lands were left in the possession of the new provinces and they could sell them at the price which they might fairly realize for them to-day they could secure a very much larger sum for them. But after a while, when a portion of the lands are sold, the crowding of population becomes greater and the lands inereasq, in value to $10 or $15 or $20 an acre, and yet there are millions of acres of land in their territory unsold, but held by the Dominion government, what about these people ? They are not allowed the advantage of the revenue derived from those lands nor are they receiving any part of their enhanced value. That will be a source of annoyance to them in the future, and will probably be a reason why they will come back here and ask a readjustment of the subsidies. Therefore I think we should fix the subsidies on some principle that will be a finality. I remember on two different occasions, when this question was being considered in this House, and additional subsidies were being granted to the provinces-I think it was in 1884. when we granted additional subsidies, that we were told that the arrangement then made was to be a finality, as the previous arrangement wa s understood to be ; and yet the matter was brought up again afterwards, and the Hon. Edward Blake said this was a finality of a finality, and it was never to be taken up in this House again. And yet we are likely to take it up again, and the right hon. the First Minister himself is admitting the justice of the claim. Is it not better to settle the matter on some basis that will be a finality, and let the provinces understand that they must adopt some other means of raising a revenue and keep their expenditure within that revenue, otherwise they cannot expect to come back to the

Dominion government from time to time and ask to be recouped in the form of an increase in their subsidy -which might represent-I do not say it does-extravagance rather than a wise and economic expenditure of money. I think we should adopt some principle with reference to the new provinces that would not be subject to the same difficulties and drawbacks that have occurred in regard to the other provinces. I think experience has proved that the principle we have acted upon is not a good one, and we should learn from that experience and shape our policy accordingly.


William Stevens Fielding: The lands clause will come up a little later, when that question may very well be considered. I mentioned, In the remarks which I addressed to the House on the second reading of the Bill, that I might desire to make some changes in the financial clauses, not as affecting their amounts, but as to their form ; and when we come to the land clauses, I will have a suggestion to offer which may perhaps in part meet my hon. friend's views in reference to the lands. We are hardly in a position to-day, however, with this measure before us, to take up the general question of a readjustment of provincial subsidies. That is a very large question, and will require very careful consideration.


Mr. BERGERON.: Is there any proposal to do that ?


William Stevens Fielding: The provinces have no question in their own mind that they want it, but there is no proposal at present with the government to deal with the matter, although it is constantly agitated. My hon. friend the Premier lias expressed the opinion that the day is not far distant when that question will have to be considered, not merely on behalf of Quebec, but on behalf of all the provinces; and if a change Is made, it must be on some principle that will apply to all. The essence of the proposal of the provinces was that the limitations with regard to population should be removed. In the resolutions which were adopted by the provincial premiers some years ago in Quebec, I think they included a provision that they should receive eighty *cents per head up to a certain population, but that where a population was thickly settled and its needs would not be so great as those of a population sparsely settled, the subsidy for the additional population should be sixty cents a head.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When was that ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think that was at the conference in 1887, and it was adopted by ail the provinces. I think their demand is now practically a revival of the demand of that conference. The last conference was about a year or eighteen months ago, when the provincial premiers of the day, Colonel Prior of British Columbia, Mr. Roblin of Manitoba, Mr. Ross of Ontario, Mr. Mr. SPROULE.
Parent of Quebec, Mr. Murray of Nova Scotia, Mr. Tweedie of New Brunswick and Mr. Peters of Prince Edward Island, met here. Although the record will speak for itself, my impression is that they simply revived the resolutions of the Quebec conference, the substance of which I have stated. To take up that whole matter and determine it finally is a large question, and as the Prime Minister said, some of these days we may have to do it, but I do not think the House is ready to do it to-day. In the meantime, it is admitted that we must proceed with this Bill with regard to the Northwest provinces, and we might as well deal with them in the same* way as we have dealt with the other provinces ; and if, one of these days a change is made, it must be made on some principle that will apply equally to ail.


David Henderson: While I do not agree generally with the hon. Finance Minister, I quite agree with him that the principle of granting subsidies to the provinces is all wrong. There was no other reason why eighty cents a head was paid to the different provinces than the fact that the revenues of the different provinces, which they derived from customs and excise had been taken away from them ; and, in order to make good to them the revenues which they had lost by coming into confederation, they were paid eighty cents per head of their population, fixed I may say in a rather arbitrary manner, because, so far as the subsidies for Ontario and Quebec are concerned, they still remain on the basis of the population of 1861, while the subsidies to the other provinces are not so fixed. I am not complaining of that. The Minister of Finance has said that a country sparsely settled requires more per head than a country thickly settled. Assuming that the province of Quebec doubled its population, I do not ' know that it would cost very much more to govern it than it does at the present time, because the population might not be increased by reason of more territory being populated, but by reason of the population becoming more dense in the ctities, towns and villages. However, what I want to draw attention to is this, that the principle is bad. I do not blame the fathers of confederation for the system they adopted in 1867 Possibly it was the only way out of the difficulty that they had to deal with. But we are on a different basis to-day. We are dealing with a province which has neither customs nor excise revenue. Why apply to such a province the same principle that was applied to the old provinces ? It seems to me that an opportunity is offered now of getting rid of a bad principle, something we do not approve of, but the only one which so far as we can see could be acted upon in 1867.
I do not see anything in the argument that the principle which we think is not the best should be applied to the new provinces un-

der entirely different conditions, X think there ought to be some other way of getting out of the difficulty and that a splendid opportunity presents itself for adopting another principle and possibly one that by-and-by might be applied to the older provinces when the whole matter is brought under review by the government. We propose to take away the lands, or rather retain the lands. I should prefer myself to use the expression ' take away the lands,' because we are taking the lands which belong to the provinces and giving them a consideration in return. When we do this can we not, on some broad principle, come to an arrangement by which this plan of handing over in a bulk sum eighty cents a head to these people would be got rid of ?
I do not say for a moment that we should be niggardly in starting out these provinces in their new sphere. I think it would never do to adopt any plan which would not give these people sufficient revenue, but we must admit the principle that where one government is collecting the revenue and another government is spending it, there is not the same inducement to the spending government to act with economy as if they were collecting it and directly responsible to the people from whom they took it. If we can in some way hold those people responsible to those who contribute the money, we would be making a radical change which might be taken advantage of at some future day possibly with regard to the other provinces. At" any rate I think we would be starting out on a basis that would conduce more to economy than the principle we are adopting at present. I do not think that in the province to which I belong, the province of Ontario, it was ever conducive to economy in the administration of that province to have simply one million or one and a half million dollars taken out of the pockets of the people generally, chiefly through customs revenue, handed in a bulk sum over to its local government. The local government of Ontario arc not responsible to the people of that province for the taxation by means of which that money was raised, and consequently could not be called to task, as they should be, for any extravagance in the expenditure of it. I would hope that the right hon. gentleman, who no doubt has given great consideration to this question, could by some means or other devise some other plan which would be in advance of that which the fathers of confederation felt compelled to take, and more especially as we are now told that the conditions in those new provinces are quite different from those which prevailed in the older provinces in 1807. I must confess however, that although I have thought over the matter a good deal, I am not prepared to make any suggestion. Neither should I be called upon to make one because X am not one of the governing party in the country. We are in a minority of eighty-one
and look to the other side to provide a policy. I would be glad however, to make a suggestion, and I submit this suggestion to the right hon. gentleman for what it is worth. We are starting out these new provinces under new conditions, and I believe we can devise some plan under these new conditions, which would be more acceptable and perhaps more profitable in the end to the people in that new country as it would throw them upon their own resources entirely. If they were permitted to know now just what their revenues will be and had to work out their own destiny with what we give them now for all time, and if they were not in a position to come back time after time and ask for more, the new local administrations about to be established would naturally be more economical in the administration of their affairs, and that of course would inure largely to the benefit of that great country.


Wilfrid Laurier: For my part I agree very largely in everything said by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). If we had a condition of things jvith which we could deal ourselves on the line he believes to be right and I believe to be right. I would agree at once to his suggestion : imt unfortunately we are confronted with the same difficulty as confronted the fathers of confederation in 1S67. The principle he has laid down that those who have the spending of the revenue should also have the responsibility of collecting it, is so obvious and true that it is a matter of surprise to those who look through the debates of 18(55 and the Act of confederation as it is. that the fathers of confederation should have consented to depart from a principle so true and obvious. Why then did they depart from it ? Simply because it would have been impossible to get any one of the provinces to enter confederation unless it was given a subsidy to meet its own expenses. The people of this country are afraid of taxation, and especially of direct taxation, and it was the spectre of direct taxation which forced those who were responsible for framing the Act of confederation to agree to the plan adopted. Some forty years have elapsed, and since then I do not think that the people of any of the provinces would be disposed to part from the principle there laid down, and agree to telease the federal treasury of the subsidy they receive every year. The conditions are exactly the same in the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatcnewan as they were in the older provinces. It is true that these new provinces have not to surrender their excise and customs to-day ; but if they were not in confederation, they would be free to collect their own excise and customs. Therefore when they came into confederation they surrendered, as did the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the right to deduct excise and customs duties,

5444:
and are consequently, for all practical purposes, in the same condition as were these In 1867. Whenever a province enters confederation, that very day it surrenders its right to collect excise and customs and places itself in the same condition as that in which were the older provinces. Suppose you were to say to-day to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta : Will you agree to come into confederation without compensation or subsidy at all ? They would reply no. Of that there can be no doubt, and the gentlemen who represent these provinces to-day will agree in what I say. What is to be done under such circumstances ? We are not introducing a new principle but simply applying that which was accepted in 1867.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And which has been found a failure for the object in view.
Sir IVILF ItID LAURIER. I will not discuss that now. But suppose it were a failure, where would you apply the remedy ? Would it not be where the failure had taken place? That failure has not taken place in the new provinces, but in the provinces that exist to-day. If you are to introduce the principle of reform, you ought to introduce it, not where there lias been no failure, but in all the provinces generally. 1 agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that it may be that the question of principle may' have to be taken up at some future day. For my part, I think we shall have to revise the subsidy question. If I propose the present plan, it is not because I am satisfied that it-is the best that could be. It is not the ideal. But we have to conform to the measure the people will accept, no more. But the day may come, probably at no distant time, u hen the whole subject of the provincial subsidies will have to be taken up in a more radical way than any in which we can deal with it to-day. But, as a matter of fact, it is not possible to take it up today'. We have to legislate within the four corners of the constitution, not only within the good elements, but within the blemishes also. Even though there may be a blemish, we must accept it and carry it out loyally. I have to repeat what I had occasion to say on introducing this Bill, that confederation was, above all things, a compromise. It was almost a superhuman effort to get the several provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario to agree to surender theii identity' and merge it in a common whole. And those who wanted that conclusion had to sacrifice a good deal to gain it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I may not-quite understand it, but it seems to me that the entry of the original provinces into confederation and the entry of the Northwest Territories into confederation are not the same thing


Wilfrid Laurier: at all. Confederation was a union of sovereign provinces who made a compact. They existed before confederation, and they had their sources of revenue, and. before they gave these up, they exacted something from the common government, demanding so much per head of their population. It was fixed at 80 cents per head. I do not know why it was fixed at that figure, but it was the consideration agreed upon. But the Northwest Territories are not, in the proper sense, provinces coming into confederation. They are Territories, they are lands w'e have bought. We. the Dominion of Canada, the province who form confederation are the buyers, or the owners, if I may use that word, of these provinces which were for a long time Territories. Those Territories are peopled by some who were formerly inhabitants of the older provinces and also by many immigrants who have come in from all over the world. We are deciding to-day to erect them into provinces and to give them autonomy. But we are not in the same position with regard to them as we were with regard to the older provinces. So, it has struck me, as it lias struck my hon. friend from Hal-ton (Mr. Henderson) that we do not owe these new provinces SO cents per head on their population for the same consideration that we owed that money to the older provinces. I would not say that I am opposed to giving it, because I can imagine that some strong consideration must have-actuated the government in deciding upon this proposal. But it seems to me that the argument of the hon. member for Hal-ton is a very strong one. As to any change in the allowances to the provinces generally, we have heard of that for many years. I should have thought that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance would have been able to give something of the reasons for the demands made upon the Dominion government to increase the allowance, he having taken part in the conference of some years ago. I think the allowance proposed was to be $1 per head.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) may be right. It was a good many years ago.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The reason why I think it was .$1 per head was that I recollect it being stated that sfl at the time of the conference -was about the same as 80 cents at the time of confederation. There must have been an answer from the Dominion government to the demand made by the conference. What was the answer ? I think that was in 1888 or 1887.


William Stevens Fielding: It was in 1887.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The right hon. lender of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at that time was sitting on this side of the House. Since he has been in power I can

understand, though, of course, X do not know, that the same demands have been made again upon the government, and this government must have given about the same answer as the previous government gave.


Wilfrid Laurier: They gave no answer at all.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is more embarrassing. Apparently they could not find an answer.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: it was completely ignored by the government.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: X do not wish to express an opinion now, as I understand the question may come before the House. But it seems to me that it is a question to be handled with a great deal of care. The fathers of confederation, when they fixed tlie powers of the provinces on the present basis had in mind that the provinces would impose just what my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said a moment ago they were so much afraid of-direct taxation. That is why they were not given a great deal of power. I understand that one man who was looked upon as a great authority on the Liberal side at that time, Mr. Holton, expressed the opinion that it was the duty of the provinces, and their safeguard, to impose direct taxation. I imagine why the government came to the conclusion of granting the provinces their demand. It would be only for a few years. But it is the way in which they carry on their finances, that is the cause of tire difficulty in which the old provinces are to-day. Of course, that is not the subject under consideration, and I do not want to discuss it any further. But X wished to say that, in my opinion, there is a good deal in what my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) said, that if we gave 80 cents per head of population to the older provinces it was because we were taking something from the provinces, but that we are taking nothing in the same way from the new provinces.


Mr.   I@: There is force in the remark of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) that these are not sovereign political entities, and therefore up to the present they have not had the right to collect customs and excise revenues for themselves. But, looked at from the practical standpoint, as to the giving to them of revenue derived from the Dominion, I agree with the Prime Minister, and would not make any distinction between the position they occupy and the position of the older provinces. If they were created into provinces by the imperial parliament outside of this confederation, we should find them collecting excise and customs as the older provinces did. So, whether we give 80 cents per head or not,
we must give them something equivalent to what was given to the other provinces. Behind that altogether is the very important point which was raised by the hon. member for Halton and referred to by the hon. member for Beauharnois, the question of the principle on which to determine the allowance to the different provinces. And the Prime Minister has made the very important statement, if I understood him correctly, in suggesting that it may be the duty of the government in the present year to consider the position of the subsidies to the provinces, which now constitute the confederation. I should have thought that, if that is the position of the government, it would have been extremely desirable to deal with the question at least concurrently with the measure no\v before the House. There will not be so good an opportunity in the history of this confederation to deal with this question as that which now' presents itself.
In the creation of these new' provinces you have the best possible opportunity of dealing once and for all with the question of what shall be the subsidy to be allowed by the Dominion to the provinces. I quite agree W'ith the Prime Minister in his criticism of what was done at the time of confederation, though I am disposed to admit that I do not see exactly what could have been substituted for that arbitrary allowance. It seems to be entirely arbitrary. It is said that it was in lieu of! the customs and excise. Well, then, surely it was Illogical to fix an arbitrary amount and to fix the limit of population. I submit that for two reasons. The province of Nova Scotia is limited to
400.000,	and the province of New Brunswick is limited to 400,000. The province of Nova Scotia may reach a population of
800.000,	and when it does, the amount which it will contribute to the customs and excise will be very much greater than the amounfwhieh it contributes when it has a population of only 400,000. The same is true witjhi regard to! the population of Quebec and Ontario, and with regard to the amounts payable to them. But'there is another reason why this allow'ance made to the different provinces is absolutely illogical. Every lone who has made the slightest study of political economy knows that the producing power of money varies from time to time. Therefore, 80 cents per head of the population of the provinces in 1905, is an absolutely different thing to what 80 cents per head was in 1867. In this connection I may say that one of the provinces of confederation is at the present time making a claim which, perhaps, may be entitled to some consideration, whether W'e agree with it or not; the province of British Columbia is making a claim at the present time, as I understand, upon this government for the reason that it costs so much more to construct public

works there than it does in the eastern provinces, and also because the cost of living and the rate of wages are much higher than they are in the east. We should not be unmindful, in dealing with these two new provinces, of two considerations, one of which is that probably it will cost more there to carry out public works-as it does now in British Columbia-than it costs in the eastern provinces ; in addition to that, we have to remember the sparse population and the necessity of spreading out public works over a large area. These are considerations which we ought to take into account. But what I want to come down to is, after all, the practical question, that is, the entire absence of any principle which, apparently, has been found to guide the government in fixing the subsidies "for these provinces. Along what lines have they proceeded, upon what principle have they acted in selecting the figures of 800,000 of a population as the limit upon which they fix the allowance ? There may possibly have been considerations which would have induced them to fix that at a larger amount, such as the higher cost of public works and the sparse population spread over a great area. They have departed from the limit of population fixed for the maritime provinces, and they have departed also from the limit of the population fixed for Ontario and Quebec, and they have adopted a somewhat middle course. But I cannot see upon what principle they fix that particular limit of 800,000 population for the new provinces. Is it based on any principle whatever, or is it simply arbitrary, as was the limit fixed for Nova 'Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, in the first instance ? How is it arrived at ? Is it simply a guess at the. amount which should be considered proper, or is it fixed as a sort of half-way house between the 400,000 for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and the 1,400,000 for Quebec ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a fair question. When we came to discuss this clause we would have been glad to know what principle the population limit had been fixed for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick at 400,000, and for Manitoba at
400,000.	The record shows us uothing at all about that. But looking at the history of the case, we found that this sum was given, as has been stated already, to start the provinces with, to give them some compensation for what they were losing in entering confederation. The first thought evidently of those who framed the Quebec resolutions was to take the basis of the population as it was in the census of 1861. They did that for Quebec and Ontario. But at that time the population of the maritime provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, was very small, if I remember right about 100,000 each.


Robert Laird Borden: 


William Stevens Fielding: 330,000 for Nova Scotia and 250,000 for New Brunswick.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, the Pmit of population was fixed for them at
400,000,	beyond which their subsidies could not be increased. Therefore it did not seem unreasonable that we should fix a limit double that amount for these new provinces, which have so much larger an area, so much more territory, and which already start with an estimated population of 250,000 each. With regard to Manitoba, the case is absolutely hopeless. Everything with regard to Manitoba seems to have been done in a purely arbitrary manner, without any principle which we can discover. Therefore the best thing we could do was to say that we will give these new provinces subsidies on an estimated population double that which has been fixed as the limit for Nova [DOT]Scotia and New Brunswick. Can the hon. gentleman suggest anything better than that ?


Robert Laird Borden: We do not claim on this side to have given the matter the same consideration which the government have given it in framing this Bill. Only by way of criticism can we endeavour to arrive at some better conclusion, if any can be found. But it would seem to me that the reason which the right hon. gentleman advanced is not so much one which would lead us to fix their limit at 800,000 as it is one which would lead us to give them a larger per capita allowance in the first instance, when the population is sparse and the territory very great. I do not see that you will logically reach the result claimed by the hon. gentleman, if you follow the statement of the case which he has made. In the commonwealth of Australia there is an appropriation for customs and excise by the federal legislature, but if I recollect rightly, the provinces receive, not an arbitrary sum, but a proportionate part.
It may be impossible-I am not suggesting it would be possible-to carry that out here because goods to a very large amount, entered in one province, are eventually consumed and indirect taxation upon them is possibly paid, to some extent, at least, in another province. I do not know that you could get a great deal of comfort out of that, perhaps, but still the basis of proportion, would naturally appeal to one as a somewhat more logical basis than the arbitrary basis which was adopted by the fathers of confederation and which has been followed ever since. The difficulty, of course, is to suggest wliat we would substitute, but that only brings me back once more to what I pointed out in the few remarks that I made a moment ago, and that is the extreme importance of dealing with the whole question as far as all the provinces are concerned, if it is really proposed to deal with that question, at
. 5449 MAY 4, 1905 5450	
the time we are creating these new provinces. We would not want in the slightest degree to he unjust to the new provinces. I am not suggesting that. We want to be generous to them in every possible way. They are deserving not only of fair but of generous treatment from this parliament. I am merely suggesting this for the purpose of convenience, because when, parliament is creating these new provinces, it would be much more convenient, it seems to me, to treat the whole subject from the standpoint of some better principle, if it can be found, than it will be years afterwards, or even one or two years afterwards, when these provinces may be calling upon this government to make good certain claims which my hon. friend the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sit'ton; foresaw in respect to the question of lands, for example. I do not know whether the government have taken the question of the revision of subsidies sufficiently into consideration to give to the House any information as to what their proposals are at this moment. I would infer not, from what my right hon. friend has said, but I can only express my regret that the government have not been able to overtake that question, if they do propose to deal with it, in time to present it to the House concurrently with the question we are now considering. It may be that it is impossible to do so. I know how much political duties interfere with administrative and executive duties on the part of any government, but still I think it is a matter for verv great regret that the question is not dealt with at this time if it is proposed to deal with it in the near future. # Mr. BERGERON. I hope my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has some other reason than the one he gives, because it seems that he wants to give the committee to understand that he came to the conclusion to double the limit of population of the Northwest Territories because these new provinces were starting with double the population that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had at the time of confederation. Sir WIEFRID LAURIER. More than double the territory. Mr. BERGERON. I understood my right hon. friend to say that we are going to double the limit of population in these Territories because they are starting with a great deal larger population than the maritime provinces which were limited to 400,000. He was reminded immediately by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had together more population in 1867 than the new provinces have to-day. Therefore, my right hon. friend must have another reason than the one he gave for doubling the limit of population in the Northwest Territories. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Perhaps I did not express my idea correctly. The popu-	iatiou of these two provinces must eventually be much larger. They have each a population of 250,000 notv and they are only commencing to keep house. They have ten times the territory that the maritime provinces have, and therefore, as they must have a much larger population, they require more revenue. Mr. BERGERON. That is later on, but my right hon. friend will remember that they have not so many people to-day as the maritime provinces had in 1867. Mr. FIELDING. It must be admitted that there was no logical reason for adopting the 400,000 limit in the original Act of confederation and there is no very logical reason for adopting the 800,000 in this. It is an estimate of the probable growth, and we know that in these Territories the growth is likely to be much more rapid than in the maritime provinces, but my own judgment is that before this arrangement has been in operation a few years the whole question will have to be considered in the light of what has been said to-day, and then perhaps the system will have to be general in its application. In the meantime, with all the weakness of the system, what can we do to-day but conform to the principles laid down in the British North America Act V Mr. SPROULE. I wanted to ask the hon. Minister of Finance if he had collated any data regarding the finances of the different states, as to what they do in regard to their financial arrangements and whether, in view of our experience-because it was an experiment for us and our experience has not been perfectly satisfactory-the government have considered any other plan for supplying a revenue, and if there is any correspondence between Mr. Haultain and the government of the Northwest Territories and this government in regard to the subject V Sir WILFRID LAURIER. No. Mr. FIELDING. I think I am correct in stating that in the United States they have no system in regard to subsidies at all but that each state has to regulate its own finances. I admit that there is something to be said in favour of the provinces doing so here if we could start afresh. I want to say a word in defence of the fathers of confederation, and I am not very much given to defending the fathers of confederation in Reference to the financial arrangements that were adopted at the time of confederation. If we had been dealing with the provinces as we are now dealing with the provinces of the west we might have demanded from them such terms as we pleased. We might have said : Get your taxation in any way you please. But, that was not the condition in 1867. Each ot these provinces was an independent body when it was asked to come in,_ and the fright at the idea of direct taxation which

my right lion, friend the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) lias referred to undoubtedly had a great effect on some public men. They said : Each of these provinces levies excise and customs duties, and if you take away from us our excise and customs duties you must give us some portion back. I do not think that was an unreasonable thing.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Not for the old provinces.


William Stevens Fielding: If we admit that it was a reasonable tiling for the old provinces, what position are we in to-day ? Shall we say to the new provinces:	We gave a
portion of the excise and customs back to the old provinces but we will uot give it to you '! We collect customs and excise from the old provinces and we give them some back; we will collect the excise and customs from the new provinces and we will in the same way give some back. This is the uniform practice to-day. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) wanted to know if any other plan has been suggested, and I am frank enough to say. that, notwithstanding that there is something to be said in favour of some other plan, I have no expectation that you can arrange the finances oil any other basis. There is no province which is willing to give up its subsidy. The system is a part of our constitution. It is provided for by tlie British North America Act wholly beyond change by ourselves and we would be obliged to go to the imperial parliament to change it. I believe that the provinces would be rivalling eacli other to get their delegates on tlie other side in opposition to the proposal if we asked for anything of the sort.
I fully anticipate that if any revision is made it will have to be on the lines of the present system. We may devise some system, which, while adopting the present principle, will work the details out in some other way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman said that originally, at the time of confederation, we dealt with provinces that were sovereignties having the power to levy taxation. Or, in other words, there were two parties to the contract. Then the one party might offer, but the other party might not accept, and it would be for the other party to make a counter offer and. between them, try to reach an agreement ; that is to say, one would accept what the other would he willing to give ; but in this case there is only one party to the contract. There is only one party, because the federal parliament is the owner of the Territories, and they are only establishing an outlying portion of those Territories which they may call provinces, and they are giving these provinces certain powers. They have scarcely consulted the representatives of those Territories in regard to other features of these Bills, although those gentlemen have been hanging around this parliament for three months. They did not even deign to take them into Mr. FIELDING.
consultation in regard to many other features, and why should they do so with regard to the financial feature ? I asked if any correspondence has been received that would indicate that they had foreseen some trouble in regard to this feature, or that they were satisfied with the government's proposals. I understood the minister to say that there was no conference.


William Stevens Fielding: There was no correspondence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, correspondence. I take it that if there were conferences, there would be some correspondence leading up to them.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is correspondence. Including the Haultaln Bill, which has been brought down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there is correspondence with regard to it, they must have set out the various features of what would he satisfactory to them ; the financial question is one of the important ones, and therefore I assume that if there is any correspondence with regard to the introduction of the Bill, there would be correspondence in reference to that aspect of it. Therefore, I say that that justifies what I have said, that there is no similarity between what we are doing to-day and confederation, because at confederation there were two contracting parties, but to-day only one party has the power and can withhold everything from the provinces that are being created. We have been carrying on an experiment for thirty years in this matter, and I say that the experience of tirru^ has shown that the experiment is not a good one. Am I not justified in supposing that a wise and intelligent government, having to deal with the same question with regard to the new provinces would endeavour to settle on some sound principle that would not require to be chang ed from time to time ? It seems to me that would be the part of wisdom and what you would expect from very astute business men. Experience must teach us something, and our experience with our system of division of revenues for thirty years should enable us to judge whether it is a success* or a failure. The Minister of Finance admits it is a failure.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood him to admit it was a failure, because the provinces are always coming back for a readjustment, notwithstanding it was declared a finality ten years ago. They have come back in the past time after time, and are coming back now, and are likely to come hack in the future, and does not this suggest -that the part of wisdom would be to adopt some new and sound system which would avoid the necessity of readjusting these subsidies from time to time, as we have been obliged to do in the past ?


William Stevens Fielding: I understood my hon. friend to ask if tliere was any correspondence from the Northwest government in regard to suggesting any other methods than this, and it was to that question I replied there was no correspondence. The government of the Northwest, in the Haultain Bill, has suggested precisely the same method of dealing with this matter as that which we have adopted. I do not understand that the principle of this matter has been a failure. What is the principle ? That the provinces shall receive some portion of the revenues which the people pay to the Dominion government. I do not think that principle has been a failure, and there is not a province in the Dominion to-day that would be willing to abandon it. The working out of the details has not always been satisfactory and the amount not always sufficient, but the principle that the government at Ottawa shall pay a subsidy to the provinces is a principle that has not been a failure. No province will admit that it is a failure, though they will all be glad to have a larger subsidy.


Mr.   I@: It is then a success pro tanto ?


William Stevens Fielding: That principle will certainly be retained, the only change that might take place being a re-adjustment of details. As to the point that we are not bound now in dealing with the Northwest as we were bound in dealing with the provinces which had the power to enter into a contract and to bargain, I admit my hon. friend's argument, that if we followed the principle to its logical conclusion we would not give the Northwest anything. We would say : You are not in a position to bargain, and we will give you nothing. That would be manifestly unfair, and I am sure my hon. friend would not pretend to take that view. Inasmuch as that principle has been adopted, and inasmuch as we give back a portion of our revenue to the provinces already constituted, it is only reasonable that we should give a portion to these new provinces in like manner.


David Henderson: I do not think the minister is justified in inferring, from anything that has come from this side of the House, that we do not propose to give the new provinces anything ; that we do not propose to be generous to these new pro vinces.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not seeking to make that point.


David Henderson: No, but the remarks of the hon. gentleman might convey the impression that those of us who have taken part in this debate were not inclined to deal fairly with these new provinces.


William Stevens Fielding: I certainly did not so intend.


David Henderson: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman say so, but his words will be read. Permit me to say that I would favour no plan that would not deal reasonably, generously with the people of the west, for the reason that if we did not do so we would be immediately called upon to do something more, and there would be a continuous agitation. I am inclined to believe that we will require to be more than generous at the start if we are to have peace and contentment in that western country, because the people who live there are a people who will stand up for their own rights. Therefore, I wish it to be understood that I am not going to be parsimonious ; I do not propose anything of that kind, but I simply reiterate what I said before, that I think some new plan might now be suggested by which we could adopt conditions which would throw the responsibility on the people of these new provinces of conserving what they do get, would make it more to their interest to protect and conserve their revenues, and to economize with the moneys which come into their hands for the purpose of carrying on the government. It might be said that would perhaps he a sort of parental care, that we are a little too anxious. I think in the administration of the older provinces we have had some examples of lack of care to conserve the assets and revenues of the people. You may take, as an example, the province of Quebec ; I am afraid that in past years the people of Quebec received a severe lesson. There certainly was a time when they overrode all principles in their expenditure, when they were reckless and seemed to throw money right and left, until they accumulated a very large debt indeed, which is an undesirable thing for a province having a fixed revenue. A debt is a less serious matter to the Dominion, because we have a variable revenue.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


David Henderson: If we require more money we simply have to adopt the plan of the Minister of Finance, reduce the taxation and get more revenue. That is, we adopt a tariff for revenue only instead of a protectionist tariff in the interest of the people of this country. We simply adopt a plan to take more money out of the pockets of the people, and therefore a debt is not so serious a matter to the Dominion as to a province with a fixed revenue. What I said with reference to Quebec applies pretty much to Ontario, which has now a considerable nucleus of a provincial debt, as has recently been disclosed. 1 am sorry 1 cannot assist with a suggestion as to what direct method should be adopted. I believe it cmfld be worked out on the principle of allowing the provinces to retain their lands and work out their own destiny, instead of our acting the paternal part of taking care of their

lands and using them for Dominion purposes and giving the provinces a money consideration instead.


Wilfrid Laurier: Retaining their lands in Quebec and Ontario has not made them more economical.
Mr. HEiNDERSON. I think this case is somewhat different. The new provinces have the example of Quebec staring them in the face, and will possibly be warned by that. But leaving that aside, I think if they are asked to hew out their own destiny that properly belongs to them, the result will be better not only for the provinces, but for the Dominion. We must look forward to the time when these enormous subsidies are going to be a very heavy-charge on this country. What is to become of the Dominion if we are going year after year to increase the revenues of the provinces out of the Dominion exchequer? I look forward to a time when possibly the revenues of the Dominion, which have been swollen of late years, will not increase so rapidly, and when we may possibly be called upon to increase the debt of the country for the purpose of providing these large subsidies. I have made no calculation as to what additional sum would require to be paid by the Dominion on account of the creation of these new provinces, but I am under the impression that the amount would be somewhat alarming. I would be glad if some ban. gentleman who has made the calculation would inform the committee just what it is at the present time; and it is not to the present alone that we must look, but also to the near future. The population of that country will increase from year to year, and when it reaches 800,000 in each province, the subsidy at SO cents a head will amount to $040,000, or double that for the two provinces. a very considerable provision, apart from the allowance which we have to make to them because of the fact that they come in without a debt and that we have to pay them for the lands, with respect to which I shall have something to say when we ! reach the subclause. Having received the assurance of the Finance Minister that he did not wish to convey the idea that we were acting in an unfair manner to these provinces, I have nothing more to say at the present time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was about to say, when the hon. gentleman rose, that I did not mean to imply that we were not in favour of giving assistance to the Northwest Territories in the way of subsidies. That was not my intention at all ; but the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has put that nyitter right. I was directing my attention to another matter which I think ought to be considered at the present time, that is, whether our system has beer, a success or a failure. The Minister of Mr. HEN'-'VHSON.
Finance does not admit that it has been a failure ; he claims that it has been a success. But I remember distinctly that some years ago the Hon. Edward Blake declared it to be a failure. Sir Richard Cartwright said the same thing. He said over and over again that he was opposed to the principle, because it only created an ambition to beg for more. He also pointed out that it would inevitably lead a political party in a province, when the same party was in power in the Dominion, to appeal to the electors for support on the ground that they were going to get the provincial subsidy increased or get the Dominion to assume a debt which they had improvidently rolled up ; and thus they would have a powerful lever in their hands to induce the electorate to return them to power. Is it not a fact that a political party in the maritime provinces have run the elections more than once on that ground, declaring that if they were returned, their friends being in power in the federal parliament, they would have a better chance of getting the provincial subsidy increased than if the Conservative party were in power ? And the result was that they were successful. The same question was raised in the province of Quebec and the same party succeeded. We have had it knocking at the doors of the federal parliament for an increase in the subsidy, and we have had the declaration of the First Minister to-day that we must deal with that question in the near future. Is not that an evidence that the principle is an unsound one ? We should adopt a principle which would be a finality and under which we would not have this menace constantly before us. It is for these reasons that I draw attention to the matter to-day ; and when we are forming these new provinces, it seems to me a fitting time to adopt a correct principle with regard to them, and then try to deal with the other provinces on a similar principle. I asked if there was some correspondence, because I assumed that if there had been no correspondence before the financial details were announced, there would not be much trouble at the present time. The financial arrangement is quite liberal now, in view of the small population. At the present time, when each province is supposed to have a population of 250,000, it will give at least $1,100,000 to each province. Then a province of 250,000 people would be getting $1,124,000. That would be regarded as rather lavish taking into account the smallness of the population. But when they reach the maximum of 800.000. their revenue will be $2,200,000. How much did we give the Territories last year for government ?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot say off-hand, but perhaps some hon. member from the Territories can recollect it.


Mr. TURRIFF.: We do not get the maximum when we attain a population of 800,000, but when we attain a population of 1,200,000 in each province. When we get the maximum, or a little over $2,000,000, if the people of the Territories will then be paying as much revenue to the Dominion per capita as they are now, the Dominion government will be receiving from each of these provinces a sum of about $10,000,000 or $12,000,000, so that I do not think the debt of the Dominion will be increased by the subsidy.
. Mr. R. D. BORDEN. 800,000 is the maximum of the province we are speaking of.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Would the Minister of Finance be good enough to give an estimate of the amount that will be required to supply the necessary buildings to carry on legislation ?


William Stevens Fielding: There is a clause later on which deals with that, subsection 4, which will be reached in a moment. The whole sum paid to the government of the Territories in 1903 was $802,460. There are several charges in which the Territories share but the grant to the government itself was that amount.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did you not spend a lot on public works in addition ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Territories have shared in the various expenditure by the Dominiou. I am speaking of the sum paid the territorial government and which was under their control.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the cost of the government there to-day ? I remember pointing out last year what we spent. What we gave them to spend reached a little over a million, which would be at least $600,000 to each of the two. Now we make it $1,124,000, but this covers the administration of justice and everything else which entails a great deal of additional expenditure. Having regard to what it costs us to govern that country to-day, this is not a very extravagant amount to give them. But ten years hence, when there will be over a million people there, they will be back for a readjustment of their provincial subsidies, which seem to be lavish to-day ; and because of this fact we ought to devise some better principles than are embodied in this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be interesting to have a statement along the lines my hon. friend has mentioned. The government of Canada, by means of an allowance to the government of the Territories and appropriations for public works and otherwise, is spending a certain amount. How does that compare with the amount which _ the Territories will receive under this Bill ? It would be well to have a comparative statement in respect of their housekeeping in that regard. Will they be much 173
better off, or in the same position or worse off *>


William Stevens Fielding: The figures which I gave were taken from the public accounts of 1903, and. they show that we paid something over $800,000 to the government of the Territories in that year. Last year the sum was larger. I think my hon. friend from East Grey is right in saying it was something over a million ; and if you add the various charges which the Dominion bears in the Northwest, it will be still more. It is not easy to make up such an account as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition suggests because the Northwest shares in all the expenditure of the various branches of the Dominion service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was referring to those items they will be obliged to provide for the future and which we have provided heretofore.


Robert Laird Borden: How much does the government of Canada provide for the expenditure which must be paid in future by the government of the Territories out of the allowance we make ?


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: The figures I had at the time, given me by the representatives of the Territories, were as follows : The total revenue for the eleven months of their financial year ending the 1st of January, from January to November, was $1,104,842.07. Of that amount they had received from the Dominion $961,936.42. Therefore the amount collected from local sources was $142,905.65. I have since ascertained that the total amount received during the whole year, both from Dominion and local revenues, was $1,121,000 and their expenditure to the first January last was $1,053,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Will they, under the new conditions, have to provide out of their subsidies to meet expenditures which are now provided for by the federal government in its general administration of Dominion affairs, and how much ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: There are certain expenditures now made by the territorial government, the money being largely supplied to them for that expenditure by the Dominion. Then there are certain other expenditures now made by the Dominion government on account of services that will be under the coutrol of the provincial governments. Take, for instance, civil government. It is estimated that the total amount required to be paid in this connection will be $101,540, which is based on the actual expenditure by the territorial government. Then they give an estimate of the amount required for legislation. These two amounts are expended directly by the territorial government. To that must be added the administration of justice, part of which is now provided for by the



Dominion government, but expended by the -local government. And, in that connection you have an additional $65,000, this being paid by the Dominion government over and above what is expended by the local government. There are other expenditures now made by the Dominion government, such for instance, as court house, sheriff's office, Regina jail, and Prince Albert jail and all which will be required to be paid by the provincial government in the future. Then there is the item of public works. There is now paid for public works by the territorial government out of money supplied by the Dominion government, somewhere about $680,000. In addition to that, I need hardly -say, there is a large amount expended by the Dominion government, but that expenditure by the Dominion is for works that will remain under the control of the Dominion government. Then we have the details of what will be required for education and for agriculture and statistics. In -the latter, in addition to what is expended by the territorial government, there is $7,000 paid out by the Dominion government. Under the head of government in the Northwest Territories we have expenditures for lieutenant governor's office, registrars' offices and schools unorganized districts, and so on-these are met by the Dominion government, but hereafter will be a charge upon th * provinces. I think I cannot do better than give a summary of the expenditure made by the local and by the Dominion government for purposes which hereafter will come under the control of the provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what we want.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The figures are as follows for expenditures now made by the territorial government:
Civil government	$ 101,540
Legislation	 21,375
Administration of justice .. ..	29,000
Public works	 680,000
Education	 345,125
Agriculture and statistics .. . *	47,600
Hospitals, charities and public
health	 20,000
Miscellaneous	 68,175
Total	1,312,815
. To this you must add the expenditures being made by the Dominion government in connection with the same services:
Administration of justice .. ..$ 200,290
Public works	 215,000
Agriculture and statistics.. ..	57,000
Government of the Northwest Teritories through the Lieutenant Governor	 124,380
Total	 596,670
Adding these sums together you get a total of $1,909,485. This, according to the estimate prepared by the territorial author-


Charles Fitzpatrick: ities, would approximate the total amount. In -this they have included something like $200,000 for purposes that we thought were not necessary and that were deducted. There was $3,000 in connection with the administration of justice ; $8,000 in connection with the Edmonton jail, which will have to remain under the control of the Dominion government, because Edmonton jail is really a penitentiary ; $100,000 estimated for police service which cannot be included ; $38,000 in connection with roads and $100,000 for the construction of a proposed fence along the international boundary line of the territories. There is also another item which I cannot explain just now. The deduction of this amount of about $200,000 would leave about $1,700,000 which was the basis upon which we practi cally settled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That had nothing to do with the Yukon ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No. I have the public accounts which show the actual expenditure by -the territorial government and also the expenditure by the Dominion government last year. But I have not the figures here.


William Stevens Fielding: I will bear in mind what has been suggested and bring the memorandum so far as it can be done. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) says it has been -prepared and that he has it.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand it, the revenue of each province payable by the government will be $1,030,375, made up as follows :
Civil government and legislation	 $ 50,000
Allowance at 80 cents per head per capita on 250,000 population	 200,000
Debt allowance	 405,375
Allowance for lands	 375,000


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is based upon the population of 500,000 for both provinces. The allowance for the two provinces would be :
Civil government	 $100,000
Per capita allowance at 80 cents per head on 500,000 population	 400.000
Debt allowance	
Compensation for lands	 750,000
That would be a total of $2,050,000 or for each province, $1,025,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Did the representatives give to the government an estimate of the amount of money they were likely to receive from licenses, subsidies and succession dues ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: $143,000 from all sources was the estimate of territorial revenue, based upon the figures of the amount received last year, that is for the two provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: 
William Stevens Fielding: $1,123,125, substantially the same as the hon. gentleman's figures.


David Henderson: When the population reaches 800,000, 1 make the revenue for each province $1,652, 000.


William Stevens Fielding: But at that time the revenue which will come to the Dominion will be a very large sum, and we can weli afford to pay, them an increased subsidy.


David Henderson: If the member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) is correct, it will reach $10,000,000. But I think that is a mere guess because the population would have to increase very rapidly indeed to bring the revenue to $10,000,000. It -would have to increase more than twice as rapidly as it does now ; because if we take the revenue per capita of the whole Dominion, which is $8.87, and apply it to a population of 5,000,000, for each of those two provinces, it would not produce quite $5,000,000, which is a long way from $10,000,000, which the hon. gentleman said would be the revenue, possibly, when they reached the 800,000. An increase of 300,000 over 500,000 -would not make up the other $5,000,000. So I think we must not bank too much on this enormous increase of revenue to meet the very large expenditure. We will have to make a more careful calculation than was made by the member for Assiniboia.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I understand it, the proposition of the Territories was $1,396,000. So there is that difference between the government's proposition and that which the Northwest Territories submitted in their draft Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They asked altogether for $1,909,485, to include all the services that they are now responsible for, and the services that are provided for by the Dominion government directly. That was their request, $1,909,485. Now when we examine the details of the figures, we find that in that sum they include a sum of $3,000 in connection with the administration of justice, which they wanted added on, though it is already provided for. They included the sum of $8,000 for the Edmonton jail. That sum of $8,000 for the Edmonton jail will not be a charge on them at all. it will remain with us, because the Edmonton jail is to be treated as a penitentiary for the Territories. Therefore the financial obligations connected with that penitentiary will be upon us. and that sum is deducted from the amount they claim, as the jail will not pass over. Then in connection with the police service, they charged $100,000, which they wanted us to give them in order that they may provide for their police service. We did not think, in view of the fact that the Northwest Mounted Police is to be main-173;
tained by the Dominion government, that we ought to maintain the police, and at the same time give them $100,000 for the same service; because there is a provision in the Northwest Mounted Police Act that if they require the services of the police they can apply for them, and each municipality of the province can pay for, such service as they require from the police. Therefore that sum is also to be deducted. Then they charged, in connection with public works, a sum of $13,000, which we did not think ought to be admitted. They claimed in connection with colonization roads, the sum of $25,000, which we did not think ought to be admitted, because it is the intention of the government, so far as these colonization roads are necessary, to continue to make the expenditure ourselves, in view of the fact that a part of the Territories will still remain under our control.


David Henderson: Do you continue the construction of these colonization roads in the new provinces as a Dominion work ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In so far as it may be necessary to make colonization roads, it is our intention to make them, both in the new provinces and outside-if we deem it necessary to make any. Then in addition, they asked for $100,000 for the construction of a fence along the international boundary. We did not think that was necessary, and if it was necessary to construct it, we should do it ourselves. So we deducted that amount. Then there is another amount of $50,000 to be deducted, which they charged as the result, they claimed, of an examination of the Auditor General's Report of 1902-3. They seemed to think they were entitled to $50,000 more, which we also deducted. So that from this sum of $1,909,485 these deductions have to be made, and if these are taken into account, it will be found that the amount we have given to them to be derived from the different sources of revenue mentioned in the resolution, will practically meet all their requirements, of course, always bearing in mind that they have from their local sources a revenue of $143,000.
2. Resolved, That inasmuch as the said province is not in debt, it shall be entitled to be paid and receive from the government of Canada, by half-yearly payments in advance, interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of eight million one hundred and seven thousand five hundred dollars.


David Henderson: To my mind that is one of the most interesting resolutions in the schedule. I desire to ask the Finance Minister whether, if parliament should grant this allowance to each of the new provinces, that is an allowance of five per cent on the sum here mentioned, he wrouId still hold to the view that he holds in the case of Ontario, that the province could at any time call on this Dominion to pay over that $8,000,000 ? Now if it is not the intention of the govern-

ment that there should be a sum actually owing to these provinces, a sum of. money which they can call upon the Dominion for at any time, I think we should be extremely guarded in the wording of the resolution. I am not sure that the resolution as worded now will really carry out the intention of parliament. I do not know who the draughtsman was, whether it was the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) or the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I would rather have supposed that it was the Minister of Finance.
Mr. FIEiLDING. Is that because it is so good ?


David Henderson: It is so good.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You must remember that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was not consulted about this Bill according to the theory of hon. gentlemen opposite.


David Henderson: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has forgotten that this clause was not published or given to the House until after the Bill had been introduced, or until after my hon. friend the Minister of Finance had returned from his European trip.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not at all.


William Stevens Fielding: I will accept responsibility for it.


David Henderson: Well, now we know who the draughtsman is, and I am glad we do, knowing some of the opinions which the hon. Minister of Finance held in regard to an arrangement of a very similar character as between the province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada, and knowing that the hon. Minister of Finance, in regard to the large sum of $2,848,000 which the province of Ontario alleged for many years was an asset of that province, supported that contention, and that he held that at any time the province of Ontario had the right to call upon the Dominion to pay over that large sum of money. Knowing that fact, I may well suspect that there may be something in even the drafting of this clause that will allow these new provinces to call upon the Dominion for this sum of $8,000,000. Whether that is the intention of the hon. Minister of Finance or not I hardly think it is the intention, or will be the intention, of this committee. I rather think the intention will be to grant this $400,000 from year to year as a subsidy.
In the year 1884, the Dominion of Canada granted an additional subsidy to the province of Ontario of $142,414. based upon a capital sum of $8,848,000, which it was alleged was owing to the province of Ontario by the Dominion of Canada, alleged not as a matter of fact, but simply as a matter of calculation. The sum arose in Mr. HENDERSON.
this way : From 1867 to 1873, the province of Ontario was charged the interest on five-ninths of the excess of debt which the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada had over the $62,500,000, when they went into confederation. In 1873, a readjustment of subsidies was made and the Dominion government agreed to assume the entire excess of debt of $10,500,000 owing by the old provinces of Canada and to relieve the old jn-ovinces from the payment of interest. In other words they practically made the provinces- of Ontario and Quebec a gift of $10,500,000, because these provinces were for ever relieved from the payment of interest on that money. This seemed to be a very generous act on the part of the Dominion government, and it is just one of those things that I apprehend will occur in the administration of the affairs of these provinces when a demand is made for better terms. However, we will say nothing more about that now. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec were satisfied in 1S73 to get rid of $10,500,000 of debt and throw it on the shoulders of the whole of the people of Canada. Nothing more was said until 1884, when the demand was again made for better terms by the provinces and the government then led by Sir John Macdonald felt constrained to come to the relief of the provinces again. The words quoted by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule), I think, made use of by Mr. Blake, were very apt indeed. These applications came time after time, and we had the continual repetition of the same old story ; better terms, better terms and better terms. In 1884, it became necessary to conciliate the different provinces, because, I think, that was really the purpose for which the new subsidy was given, and it became necessary to find a basis on which the new subsidy could be granted. The fact was that the British North America Act provided no means for an increase of subsidy and it was necessary to devise some means. The province of Ontario said:	You assumed our excess of debt in
1873 and relieved us of the half yearly payment of interest. We had paid for the first seven years after confederation. Now, if you had the right to assume that excess of debt and relieve us of that interest in 1873, it was right that it should have been done in 1867, and you ought to refund to us the interest we paid during those seven j'ears. A calculation was made, because it was conceded by the government of the day that they would have to do something, and I think, the gentleman who made the calculation at that time was the present Auditor General, he having made it before he became Auditor General. The calculation was made that 134 half-yearly payments of interest at five per cent up to 1884 would amount to $2,848,000. In 1884, a Bill was passed by this

parliament granting new subsidies, or practically new subsidies, on the basis of five per cent on $2.84S,000 to the province of Ontario, and the other provinces all got what we commonly call a quid pro quo. No man in this House at that time assumed that that $2,848,000 was a debt to be paid over to the province of Ontario in a bulk sum at any time, but the province of Ontario, in 1S94, when their surplus practically disappeared, and being desirous of placing a good financial showing before the electors of the province, adopted the principle of capitalizing this sum of $'142,414 and said :	The Dominion of Canada owes
us $2,848,000 in cash. Year after year the matter was discussed in the province of Ontario, some holding one thing and some the other. I always thought that that $2,848,000 was not a debt owing by this Dominion to the province of Ontario. I was led to believe that from the fact that the Act that created that subsidy in 1884 declared that the $142,414 should be paid in half-yearly payments to the province of Ontario as an additional subsidy. It was so declared in the Act and as it was subsidy and not interest there was no authority for capitalizing it. With other questions in dispute between the old provinces and the Dominion of Canada this same matter was referred to arbitrators, and they declared that the settlement of 1884 should be held intact and that this subsidy should continue to be paid half-yearly to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. But, this is the point that I wish to draw attention to. At a later period the province of Ontario, still setting up the contention that this was capital owing to them, applied to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) for an interpretation of the statute and I think we have" it on record that the hon. Minister of Finance has given his opinion that the province of Ontario is entitled to call for that sum of $2,848,000, subject to certain conditions, but those conditions were conditions that could very readily be got over. If I recollect aright, the simple conditions were that they could be used in the construction of public works ; so that the conditions were of such a minor character that they would not constitute a defence for the Dominion of Canada in resisting payment of that money. Now what I fear here is that probably these new provinces may make a demand" in the same way, and that some day, when the Minister of Finance finds himself a little short of funds, when his surplus may not be quite so large, he will find each of these provinces coming down and asking him for the sum of $8,000,000 in solid cash. I desire to call attention to this matter because I think we should be mpst explicit in the language and I have never intended to find fault and I am not finding fault with the allowance. I am not
finding any fault with the province of Alberta, or the province of Saskatchewan get-ing a yearly allowance, on account of having no debt, of $400,000. I am finding no fault with that, but when we are enacting this law I think we should be very particular to see that the law is framed so that these provinces will not come down at a later period and make a demand on the Dominion of Canada for something that we never intended to give them, as has been done in the case of the province of Ontario.
I have no doubt that the draughtsman will be able to put that language in such definite and explicit form that there will be no danger of uncertainty, but I always thought that the language of the Act of 18S4 was extremely definite and very explicit indeed. It declared that the sum to be granted to the province of Ontario at this time, the $142,414 was to be paid as a subsidy and not as interest. Here we find that the resolution declares that there is a sum of interest to be paid half-yearly to this province. I fancy we will find as shrewd men in the Northwest Territories as we find in Ottawa and those men will come down to us and say : You are paying us half-yearly interest at the rate of five per cent on $8,000,000 ;	and if there is interest there must be principal, there cannot be interest without principal, and therefore without accepting your little sum of $200,000 a year we believe we are able to manage our own affairs and we want you to pay over the $8,000,000 at once. Now let there be no uncertainty about this. I would ask the Finance Minister before I sit down what the real meaning of the clause is. Is it to be left open, is it to be left in uncertainty, or is the government of the same mind as the Minister of Finance was of some two or three years ago, and is he of that opinion still, that under the wording of this resolution, the province of Alberta, or the province of Saskatchewan could at any time call upon the Dominion for the capital sum of $8,000,000 instead of getting the allowance of $200,000 per half year in perpetuity ? I make no objection to the grant of money or to the allowance only I say, do not let us fall into the mistake of 1884, if a mistake was made in 1884, and leave it in uncertainty. There is certainly more room for the contention in this case that the province would have a right to call for the capital sum than in the case of 1884, because the Act of 1S84 said that $142,414 should be paid as subsidy ; here it is paid as interest and as I said before if there is interest, the people there will say there is principal behind it. I submit this to the Minister of Finance and I hope he will make the matter clear, and if the language of the draughtsman is not sufficiently clear to protect us in the opinion which we desire to express, then I think the clause might be so amended as to place it beyond doubt and not leave us with a con-

troversy on our hands, similar to what has existed in Ontario for many years.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think there is much difference substantially between the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and myself with regard to the nature of these payments. His contention as I understand it is that they should be subsidies or annuities, that the sums are marked as interest simply with that intention.


David Henderson: I presume that the hon. gentleman's intention is that these sums will be paid as annuities in perpetuity, but I think the language of the resolution is not sufficiently definite to protect parliament in that contention.


William Stevens Fielding: That is the contention I know that my hon. friend has always made in relation to the case in Ontario, and it has always been arguable. There is however a difference between the Ontario case and this case. In the case of Ontario the Act under which these increased sums are granted treated them as capital. I am speaking from memory but I think that is correct. The government of the day carried those sums to the credit of the province of Ontario, and they remained as a debt due by the Dominion to the province of Ontario and were so placed in the public accounts. This parliament passed an Act a good many years ago which declared-I am speaking from memory but I think I am correct-that where there is a sum available in the debt account of any province that sum may, on the application of the government of the province, be withdrawn for the purposes of public works. Under that Act various provinces of the Dominion did withdraw from their debt accounts sums of money, thereby reducing their capital sum and thereby reducing their annual revenue. When the question was raised in regard to the province of Ontario, my view was that, under the Act, Ontario could under certain conditions, which I shall state later, apply to the Dominion for that money, and that under those conditions the province might receive that money as a payment out of its own invested capital. Of course, I went on to say that it was not a practical question inasmuch as it was not conceivable that the province of Ontario would withdraw money earning 5 per cent when it could go out on the public market and borrow at 4 per cent or less. Therefore it always seemed to me to be rather more of. an academic subject which we were discussing, a matter not likely ever to take practical shape. But under an Act passed away back in, I think. 1874, provision was made that a provincial government might under certain conditions withdraw from its capital accounts at Ottawa sums of money for public works. I think that in the beginning of the_ matter when that Act was passed it was entirely a matter for executive action between the governments of the provinces and Mr. HENDERSON.
the Dominion. That is to say if the executive of the province made application for the money and if the executive of the Dominion should see lit to grant it, the money might thereupon be paid out for the purposes designated, always limiting it to public works. Later on, about the year 1885, the Act was amended to provide that a province could only make applications for money out of such funds when so authorized by the provincial legislature ; and, speaking from memory, I think that is the state of the law to-day. In order to draw money out of that capital fund, there must first be the authority of the provincial legislature supporting the demand of the provincial government, and then it becomes a matter of discretion with the Governor General in Council whether or not he will advance the money for the purposes stated. That was the substance of the answer which I gave to the government of the province of Ontario. As I said a moment ago I treated it rather as an academic question, lor I did not quite see how it could practically rise. The money was earning 5 per cent in the treasury of the Dominion, and as I said it was hardly to be supposed that the government of any province would withdraw that money when they could go out on the public market and borrow money at 4 per cent or less. So much on the general subject of the law. In the case of Ontario that sum was carried into the public accounts as a debt due by the Dominion to the province of Ontario. I admit that under the language used in this resolution it is not: declared to be capital, and perhaps there is some room to doubt whether under this we could capitalize it. I am rather disposed to take the view that it ought to be regarded as an annuity and not as a capital sum. I understand that is the view suggested by my hon. friend (Air. Henderson), that he thinks it ought to be an annuity and not a capital sum. There is a good deal to be said in favour of that view and before the matter is finally disposed of-I shall not regard it as final now,-I am inclined to think much might be said in favour of inserting wTords which would make that clear. I quite realize that these amounts which do not represent an actual debt, represent allowances made to one province or another in accordance with the various conditions of the public debt ; that these are all methods of bookkeeping. They were not actual debts ; but, by virtue of the terms on which these grants were made, in some if not all instances, they were carried into the public debt account of the Dominion. In that account they stand as debts due to the Dominion by the province, and I am inclined to think that the legal gentlemen opposite will say that if the province saw fit to make application to the Dominion executive, we could pay money out of that fund for the construction of public works. That was

our view with regard to the case of Ontario. Whether we should use other words to make it clear that this is an annuity and not a capitalized sum is worthy of consideration, and before the Bill is finally disposed of I will return to the matter again.


David Henderson: I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but there may not be another opportunity for some days to take this matter up. X never could agree with the Minister of Finance that that was a capital sum. It is a simple matter of bookkeeping. I know that in the Act of 1884 it is stated as capital, but the Act says that the interest at five per cent will be paid to the province as an annual subsidy. The sum of $4,SIS,000 was never owing by the Dominion to the province. It *was practically a scheme to provide a basis on which a new subsidy could be calculated. It was uo more a capital sum than the assessment of a town or village ; it was simply used for the purpose of determining what the subsidy should be, just as we use an assessment and an assessment roll in order to fix the rate of taxation. I believe that was the opinion of the judges of the Supreme Court when they had that matter under consideration. My recollection is that they decided that when the subsidy had been ascertained as $142,414, the capital sum dropped out of sight and was no more to be regarded as capital. But, as the Finance Minister has told us that he is prepared to modify, if necessary, the language in this resolution to make plain what the intention of parliament is, I am quite satisfied; All we want is to have it definitely understood, so that it will not be said in future years that we made a mistake in our legislation or left it an open question as to whether the province should call on us for $400,000 a year in perpetuity, or come down on us at once for $S,000,000. Perhaps if they got the $8,000,000, they might use it extravagantly. I do not say that they would, but I think it is better to give them an annuity in perpetuity. It will be better for them, because it will be equivalent to an investment at 5 per cent. But as the Finance Minister has promised to make the matter clear, I am satisfied.


Andrew B. Ingram: Up to the time of the introduction of this Bill I understand that the government of the Northwest Territories acknowledged that they were in debt to the Dominion. I notice in a speech delivered by the premier of the Northwest Territories in 1900, that he admitted $3,000,000 odd, made up of several items. This resolution reads, ' inasmuch as the said province is not in debt.' This would appear rather conflicting with the fact. I would like some explanation with respect to that.


William Stevens Fielding: In our detailed statement in the Public Accounts of expenditures on various public works and services throughout the Dominion there is a column headed ' Northwest Territories,' in which these expenditures for a long series of years are totalled up ; but the amount does not represent a debt due by the Northwest government, and we do not claim it as such.


David Henderson: How does the hon. gentleman propose to get rid of that in the public accounts?


William Stevens Fielding: It is not a debt and does not appear as a debt. It is only a statement of public services on which we have spent so much money. These are the items of expenditure in detail, but they do not represent debts, and they are not so claimed in the public accounts.


Andrew B. Ingram: My object simply was to find out why it was charged to the Territories.


William Stevens Fielding: It is an item for expenditure in the Territories but not a debt due by the Northwest government.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be one or two little matters that have not been explained in this connection. I am willing this should pass on the understanding that we may ask the explanations on the next item.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to propose an amendment to the next clause. It does not change the substance of these resolutions but only their form. Resolution 3 deals with the allowances for land. In the form as it is drafted, we have not only given the amounts we propose to allow but the arguments on which the allowance is founded. That seems unnecessary and I propose to amend the clause as follows :
19. Inasmuch as the said province will not have the lands as a source of revenue, there shall be paid by Canada to the provinces annually a sum based upon the population of the province as from time to time ascertained by the quinquennial census thereof, as follows :
The population of the said province being assumed to be at present 250,000, the sum payable until such population reaches 400,000 shall be $375,000 ;
Thereafter until such population reaches 800,000, the sum payable shall be $562,500 ;
Thereafter until such population reaches 1,200,000, the sum payable shall be $750,000 ;
And thereafter tile sum payable shall be $1,112,500.
2.	As an additional allowance in lieu of public lands there shall he paid by Canada to the province annually for live years from the time this Act comes into force, to provide for the construction of necessary public buildings the sum of $93,750.


Uriah Wilson: In the original you say twenty-five million acres.


William Stevens Fielding: We leave out both the quantity and the value of the lands and gWe the population, and the result is the same to the province.


Uriah Wilson: Do you think that will do away with future claims ?


William Stevens Fielding: It simplifies the matter. It is better drafting.
Progress reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved tne adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What may we expect on Monday V


Wilfrid Laurier: The resolutions and then the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Shall we continue with this measure before the budget is taken up ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at G.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 8, 1905.
The SPEAKER took -the Chair at Three o'clock.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I intend to draw the attention of the government and of the House to a matter of very great importance, and, in order to put myself within the rules of the House, I intend to conclude with a motion. The right hon. the Prime Minister is no doubt aware of a vacancy in his cabinet; he is also no doubt aware that there is a vacancy in North Oxford, and if he is loyal and true to an old and trusted colleague, there will be in a very short time, or there may already be, for aught I know, a vacancy in the city of London. At the same time the right hon. gentleman is endeavouring to put through this House a constitutional Bill, a Bill which, if once passed, can't be revoked. In a country where there is a constitution as we have in Canada, my idea is that any constitutional amendment of the gravity of the one for autonomy in the west now before the House ought to be submitted to the people in a general election. In the United States, if a great constitutional change is proposed, it must be submitted to all the states for consideration before it can become law ; and in countries organized under a constitution such as Switzerland, before a constitutional change can take place, there must be a referendum ; and the same custom prevails in a number of other countries where they have written constitutions.
Mr, FIELDING.
Now, in Canada, this Bill proposing great constitutional Issues, was brought down to parliament without any intimation to the people at the last general election that such a change was contemplated. In fact, the people were led to believe that no constitutional change was to take place ; but immediately the session was opened this Bill was introduced, a Bill that involves a great constitutional issue that to-day is disquieting the country from one end to the other. While I take the broad ground that this question ought first to be submitted to the people of the whole country, I certainly say, in view of the vacancy that has occurred in the cabinet, the vacancy that has occurred in North Oxford, and the vacancy that I think ought to occur in the House, if the right hon. gentleman has confidence in the hon. gentleman who has filled that office now for nearly two years-there ought to be a vacancy in London. In view, then, of these two vacancies, or one vacancy, whichever it may be, I say it is the duty of the right hon. gentleman to cause writs to be issued immediately for that election, or those two elections, in Ontario, and to give the people of Ontario, that province which has been charged by some hon. gentlemen in this House with being an intolerant province a bigoted province, a narrow-minded province-to give the people of that province an opportunity to answer the contention, which, I believe, is held by the Prime Minister, that he has Ontario at his back in this matter ; and certainly to give the Postmaster General, the acting Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Customs au opportunity to justify before the people of their province the policy which they are now advocating in this House. Until that is done, I say the hon. gentleman cannot ask that any progress be made in connection with this constitutional Bill now before the House ; in fact, I do not think this House will be justified in making any progress whatever, or progress of the most secondary character in a Bill of this kind. But, on the contrary, these vacancies ought to be filled, the writs ought to be issued for the e'ections, and an appeal ought to be made to the people of Ontario, and then we will know whether those hon. gentlemen are right, or whether their principal organ, the Toronto ' Globe,' is correct in the view which they take of this great constitutional changes which is involved in the school laws of the new provinces. The ' Globe ' says it is constitutionally wrong, that it is wrong as a matter of policy, whereas the hon. gentlemen say their policy is right and that they are prepared to justify it in the province of Ontario. Then they must justify it under these circumstances in these constituencies of Ontario, and-they must justify it now. If they hold back these elections, the inference will be that they are afraid to discuss their policy in that province. Surely there is no lack of men. I imagine that the

acting Minister of Public Works is ready to fight the cause in the city of London ; I am even told that the chief whip of the party <Mr. Calvert) for Ontario is ready to fight for the cause in his own constituency ; and we all know that the right hon. gentleman has a minister on tap in the city of Toronto, in the person of Mr. A. B. Aylesworth, who, it was some time ago reported, had joined, or was ready to join, the government, and he is ready, I believe, to replace either the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Justice when the Prime Minister asks him to join the cabinet. In view of all these things, then, I say, and I say it after full consideration, after visiting the province of Ontario, where I have tried to ascertain the opinion prevalent among the people, and after all that has been said in this House about opening seats, that it is the duty of the government, to themselves, to the country, to the Bill and to the constitutional principles which they have enunciated in connection with this Bill, to hold these elections in the immediate future, to con-suit public opinion, and in some way to obtain the views of the people of Ontario in regard to this great constitutional question ; and if they do not do so, it will be taken as an evidence of cowardice on their part. Now, let us have it out, let us have it out in Ontario, and let us have it out now ; and I make the challenge on behalf of my province-I am only speaking for myself- I make the challenge on behalf of the province of Ontario to submit that question before the people in two of its most enlightened constituencies, the constituency represented by the late Minister of Public Works, which is a country constituency, and in the city constituency of London, represented by the acting Minister of Public Works. Let them follow the constitutional practice of consulting the people on a question of this kind. Let the right hon. gentleman ascertain what view the people of Ontario take on this question, the people of Ontario, who, as I pointed out the other day in this House, have as much interest as those of any other section of the country in the great west. As I pointed out here the other night, the great west has been largely settled by people from Ontario, who have taken Ontario institutions up there, while Ontario capital has been poured lavishly into that western country ; and, therefore, it is that the people of this benighted province of Ontario, this intolerant province, have at heart the welfare of the west, and they claim that the people of the west should be given the same opportunity of deciding this school question for themselves as was given to the people of the older provinces prior to con-fedei'ation. All the provinces that entered the confederation had an opportunity of passing on the school question and of sayiug in what way they were to restrict themselves in regard to education, and the people of Ontario say that the same opportunity should be given to the people of those western provinces, that they should be consulted, and especially that they should be consulted on a constitutional amendment or a constitutional law which cannot be revoked. Surely we are to have in this country government by the people and for the people ; surely we are to have consultations with the people, and here is an opportunity for one. If hon. gentlemen get the endorsation of the province of Ontario, they may have.considerable reason for going on with this Bill ; but, in the meantime, after all that has taken place, after what the Postmaster General has said and the Minister of Customs has said, and the confidence they have expressed in their policy, surely there ought to be no hesitation in filling these vacancies, or at least in filling one vacancy and in making another vacancy, and of having this question threshed out before the people. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.


Rt.   H@: Mr. Speaker, I tun sorry that at this moment I have to say to my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) that in my estimation and judgment his remarks are in exceedingly bad taste.


William Findlay Maclean: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: It was only on Wednesday that our friend and colleague died and it was only last Saturday that we attended his funeral. The government will have to choose a successor, and we will have, at an early date, to make an announcement to the House, but when the hon. gentleman expects that we should be prepared to give an answer to his question to-day, I think it betrays a want of consideration on his part and that he asks a question to which he does not expect me to respond. I shall give him his answer in due time.
Motion (Mr. W. F. Maclean) to adjourn negatived.



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST-SCHEDULES AND MAPS.

Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before the House proceeds to the Orders of the Day, I would like the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in connection with the draft of the schedules w'hich he was good enough to send me last Friday, whether or not the schedules for Saskatchewan have yet been completed and if not when we may expect to receive them. There was a map sent of the constituencies in both provinces with the delimitations of one only. We only received the one. Do I understand that we may rely on that map ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say to iny lion, friend, that I trust that before bringing these schedules down and asking the House to pass them he will go carefully into the question himself. I am inclined to think he cannot have had correct information in relation to these schedules or he would not have presented them to the House. I do not pretend to know anything about them myself, but my hon. friends on this side of the House who came from the Northwest have looked into them pretty carefully and I am very much astonished indeed that my right lion, friend should seek to pass through the House these schedules if they are of the character which these hon. gentlemen have described to me. I have every confidence they are telling me exactly what they believe, and also that their belief is founded on a very careful investigation.
I would like to ask my hon. friend another question and it is this : It was suggested by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) when going to the west for re-election, that amendments, other , than that which has'been announced to the House by the government, might be made. I do not yet know whether or not we are to regard that as an informal notice that other important amendments are in contemplation by the government, but we have had some remarks in which there may be something or in which there may be nothing in the past few days that indicate that the remarks of the hon. Minister of the Interior were intended to have a certain significance. I would like to ask my right hon. friend whether there are any other important amendments now in contemplation by the government. I do not wish him to tell me that the Bills may be amended. I know that, but what I ask is whether there are other amendments now in contemplation by the government in respect to these measures which are before the House.


Rt.   H@: In regard to the first of the two questions which have been put to me by my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden). I have to say that my information in regard to the schedules is the same as his own. I got my information from my friends the same as he got his information from his friends. My information is very different from the information which he has received, and either his friends are astray, or my friends are astray, because they do not appear to agree. The constituencies have been marked on the map, and the work of describing them is merely clerical. The constituencies themselves which have been carved out seem to be fair as far as my information goes. In these matters, as in all matters, the government will always toe prepared to receive suggestions which will tend to improve the Bill. I do not say that these suggestions will be ac-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
cepted, but the government will be prepared to accept all fair suggestions made from one side or the other. I am aware that nothing is so delicate perhaps as to carve out new constituencies such as these in a new part of the country, and even in the older parts of the country in such a way as to give absolute satisfaction. This is a task, which, in our past experience, has not been found to be practicable, but 1 believe it is the intention of the government to do substantial justice to all parties concerned. In regard to the Manitoba Bill, if that were to be a precedent, the policy adopted was to leave the constituencies practically to the new provincial government. We thought this would be perhaps liable to very serious abuse, that it would not be acceptable, and we could not see that there was any other policy than to have the schedules prepared here and to have the constituencies marked out. In regard to the other question of my hon. friend, I may say that up to the present time the government have not considered any amendment to the Bill; I do not say that we may not. offer any, but. no amendment has yet been considered.


Mr. FOSTER.: Do I understand that these schedules will be printed ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: The Bills, I suppose, will not be pressed until they are in the hands of the members ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will not say that. The schedules will not give much information of themselves unless they are accompanied by maps. Maps are being prepared and the schedules will be printed very shortly. They could be printed by to-morrow if necessary.


George Eulas Foster: And the maps will bo placed in the hands of hon. members ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have sent one to my * hon. friend (Mr. R, L. Borden) and we can have a few more for hon. members. Without a map the schedules would not show anything at all.


William Findlay Maclean: I would like to ask the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether, when he says he has no amendments, he intends to amend the present franchise Act in regard to the way in which the voters' list is prepared in this country or whether he intends to continue the present system in these new provinces ? There is enough experience of our present Franchise Act, of the way in wThich the names of voters are put on, and of the way in which the lists are prepared to call for a large measure of reform. This is an essential part of this Bill. When we are talking about constituencies we must take into consider-

ation the manner in which the voters' lists are prepared. That is a very important question.


Wilfrid Laurier: My impression is that the elections will toe carried on under the territorial laws now in existence.


Robert Laird Borden: In regard to what my right hon. friend said respecting the information which will be placed on the table of the House, I did not observe his words, but I am informed that he spoke of having only three or four maps prepared to lay on the table of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: A few.


Mr.   I@: I think it would be very desirable to have a much greater number than that.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is impossible to have new maps printed or prepared. The only thing we could do was this : We have taken maps of the constituencies in the Northwest as they exist now, and upon these we have carved out and indicated the new constituencies. The thing can be understood at a glance. W'e will have as many of these maps prepared as we can but I cannot say as to the number.


Mr.   I@: As many as possible ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: It would be a very easy matter to take one of the departmental maps, have a plate made of it and run a lot of these maps through the press. It could be done in half an hour.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have taken the maps as they exist to-day. They are all marked in blue. The changes are marked in red in such a way that they can be understood at a glance.


Samuel Hughes: The right hon. minister could have a large number of them run off in this way. A man could do it in half an hour.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Is the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at liberty to advise the House who prepared the schedules for Alberta? Was it a committee appointed from both sides of the House ? He states that his friends advise him that the provision is perfectly fair. Were they friends from the east or friends from the Northwest?


Wilfrid Laurier: The maps were prepared by the Department of the Interior under my direction and under the direction of members of the cabinet.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPROULE-by Sam. Hughes-asked :
1.	How many grazing leases have been issued by the Department of the Interior in the Northwest Territories since January 1st, 1901 7
2.	What are the names of the lessees ?
3.	How many acres in each lease 7
4.	What lands are covered by said leases 7
5.	For what length of time are the leases issued 7
6.	Do any of the leases contain the proviso that the even numbered sections of land contained therein shall be exempt for the operations of the Homestead Law 7
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: The information asked for in the question is being prepared in the department and will be placed on the table of the House as soon as ready.


Samuel Hughes: In the meantime will the question stand on the Order Paper ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no ; it is answered.


EMIGRATION OF STATE CHILDREN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. URIAH WILSON-by Mr. W. J.
Roche-asked :
1.	Has the government, or any official on their behalf, had any correspondence with Mr. C. Kinloch Cooke, author of an article entitled :
' The Emigration of State Children,' published in the April, 1905 number of the ' Empire Review,' or any one on his behalf, or with any official of the imperial government, on the subject treated of in the said article ?
2.	If so, will the government lay such correspondence on the table of the House 7
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, copies of the phpers are being prepared. The information will be laid on the table as soon as possible.


BOUNDARIES OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.
Mr. CLEMENTS asked :: 1.	Has the government decided to erect wire fencing along the southern boundaries in the Northwest Territories 7
2.	If so, has the contract been let for the construction of same, and what firm received the contract ?
3.	Were tenders asked for by advertising, and what length of time were tenders open 7 If so, was lowest tender accepted 7
4.	If contract is let, what is the price to he paid per rod, and what style of fence, height, &c. 7


Rt.   H@: The government have that matter under consideration at the present moment,

but no tenders bare yet been called for nor contracts let.


THE LAKE FISHERIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Sam. Hughes-asked:
1.	Were any requests made to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries last year for the appointment of a commission to investigate the condition of the fisheries on the Georgian bay, Lake Huron, or Lake Superior ?
2.	if so, by whom were such requests made, and when ?
3.	What action was taken upon such requests?
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The fishermen of Georgian bay by a memorial dated February 22, 1904. '
3.	All the preparatory steps were taken for the appointment of a commission ; but owing to differences of opinion as to the most suitable season of the year for the sittings of such commission, the matter was held over until the present year. It is proposed to arrange for sittings during the present year.


PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST-SUBSIDY TO ALBERTA.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolutions providing for the payment of subsidy to the province of Alberta.
On clauses 3 and 4, of the resolution,
Resolved, That inasmuch as the public lands in the said province are to remain the property of Canada, there shall be paid by Canada to the said province annually by way of compensation therefor a sum based upon the estimated value of such lands, namely, $37,500,000, the said lands being assumed to be of an area, of 25,000,000 acres and to be of the value of $1.50 per acre, and upon the population of the said province, as from time to time ascertained by the quinquennial census thereof, such sum to be arrived at as follows :
The population of the said province being assumed to be at present 250,000, the sum, payable until such population reaches 400,000 is to be one per cent on such estimated value, or $375,000 ;
Thereafter until such population reaches S00,-000, the sum payable is to be one and one-half per cent on such estimated value, or $502,500 :
Thereafter, until such population reaches 1,-
200,000,	the sum payable is to be two per cent of such estimated value, or $750,000 :
And thereafter such payment is to he three per cent on such estimated value, or $1,125,000.
Resolved, That an additional compensation for such lands there shall he paid by Canada to the said province annually for five years to provide for the construction of necessary public buildings, one-quarter of one per cent on such estimated value, or $93,750.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance.) When the House was in committee considering this matter on Friday last I Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
presented an amendment by way of substitution for the third clause of the resolution granting an allowance in lieu of the lands. I desire to call attention to the fact that in preparing that amendment it was neglected to provide that the allowance should be paid half-yearly to the province. I wish to insert the words to make it clear that that allowance as well as other allowances to the provinces will be paid half-yearly in advance. The following is the amendment of which I gave notice on Friday :
Inasmuch as the said province will not have the lands as a source of revenue, there shall be paid by Canada to the province annually a sum, based upon the population of the province as from time to time ascertained by the quinquennial census thereof, as follows :
The population of the said province being assumed to be at present 250,000, the sum payable until such population reaches 400,000 shall be $375,000 ;
Thereafter until such population reaches 800,000, the sum payable shall be $562,500 ;
Thereafter until such population reaches 1,-
200,000,	the sum payable shall be $750,000 ;
And thereafter the sum payable shall be $1,112,500. .
As an additional allowance in lieu of public lands there shall be paid by Canada to the province annually for five years from the time this Act comes into force, to provide for the construction of necessary public buildings the sum. of $93,750.
I move that clauses 3 and 4 he struck out and that the above be substituted therefor. I also move that after the word ' Canada ' In the above amended resolution, the words shall be inserted ' by half-yearly payments in advance.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the subsidy that is paid yearly to Quebec and Ontario ?


William Stevens Fielding: The sum paid to Ontario last year as set forth in the Auditor General's report is : allowance for government, $80,000 ; subsidy per head, $1,116, S72.S0 ; interest on the amount standing to credit of province, $142,414.48, making a total payment to the province of Ontario last year of $1,339,287.28. These payments are usually grouped together under the head of subsidies to provinces, though in reality some of the payments are derived from interest on capital account. The payment to Quebec, including precisely the same class of items, amounted to $1,086,713.48.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My object in asking the question was to make a comparison between the amounts paid to the two largest provinces, and the amount that will be paid eventually to the new provinces.


William Stevens Fielding: We have to hear in mind that the land subsidy to the new provinces is a very considerable item which does not go to the other provinces because they possess the land. The clause we are now discussing is the allowance in lieu of the land.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the term ' per capita ' appear in the new resolution ?


William Stevens Fielding: The words ' per capita ' are not expressed in this part of the resolution, hut of course as the population increases the land allowance will change.


William Findlay Maclean: It does not fix any definite sum like 80 cents per head as in the case of Ontario.


William Stevens Fielding: The resolution is not dealing with the subsidy vote.


William Findlay Maclean: I know it is not.


William Stevens Fielding: When we deal with the subsidy of course the language is the same, but this is an allowance in lieu of land. There is- no corresponding legislation in respect to Ontario and Quebec and in that regard one can make no comparison.


William Findlay Maclean: But there will not be a vote per head as well.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, there is.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly, that is already done.


John Graham Haggart: The minister promised to bring down a statement of the lands in these new provinces which are at the disposal of the government other than those lands which were intended for actual settlers, free gift lands and homestead lands, and the value of them. A motion was submitted some time ago and pressed a number of times by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche) for information as to the location, area and value of. these lands, and the amount of these lands at the disposal of the government. We were promised a statement in regard to these matters. We have only the estimated value in regard to an estimated area of
25,000,000 acres without any information at all upon the subject, and even in taking the value of these lands, in making an allowance to the province for them, surely the cost of the management of that land ought to be deducted from the amount in making an allowance for each province.


William Stevens Fielding: In reference to the request for information to which my hon. friend referred, I was under the impression that we had brought down all the papers sought for. If there is a request for a return of the kind mentioned that has not been brought down I do not remember it. My hon. friend may be correct, but I have no recollection of such a request.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it not suitable that such a statement should be made, that we should take stock at the present time of the public lands at the disposal of the government for the carrying out of this arrangement with the provinces ? Surely the Minister of the Interior could give us a
statement or he could easily obtain one, setting forth how many millions of acres are at the disposal of the government for this purpose, say in the province of Alberta. We ought to know this, and also should have a statement showing what public lands are still not alienated in any way in the other adjoining provinces, which will be available for the payment of the money proposed in these resolutions.


William Stevens Fielding: The value of these lands is always a problematical question, and it may not be easy for any of us to put a value on them. In the early stage of the discussion a request was made for information and information was brought down which I think covers most of what my hon. friend seeks. If hon. members will look at sessional paper No. 97, they will find that information therein given respecting the areas of the provisional districts of Alberta, As-siniboia and Saskatchewan. All the information he desires, I think, he will find there except that as to the value. That is a question as to which each of us is free to form his own opinion, and in the amendment which we have put before the committee we have eliminated the estimate of the area and the value and have put in a specific . sum. AA'e avoid a discussion, for the purpose of the Act, of the value and area of the land.


John Graham Haggart: The cost of management should be deducted in allowing the interest on the value of the land. The minister too will remember that we had a promise from the Minister of the Interior when the Grand Trunk Pacific was under discussion, that a large quantity of these lands would be available for sale, and would realize to the government of this country nearly the cost of construction of the line across the continent. Has any provision been made for keeping apart lands for the fulfilment of the promise of the Minister of the Interior, that they could be used for the payment of the transcontinental railway ?


William Stevens Fielding: It seems to me that provision is made. AAre keep the whole of the lands, not a part, we keep them all.


John Gillanders Turriff: Over a year ago, I made an estimate of the amount of section lands that would be available after all the land grants which railways had earned or would earn had been applied for, and I estimated that there would be probably 50,000,000 acres of odd sections available. It would however he impossible, I think, for any one to put a value on that land, simply because a great deal of it is not surveyed, and we do not know of what character it is. In reference to what the Minister of the Interior said about selling lands for the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific he did not make a statement of the kind attributed to him. He said that the building of that

road would open up the country and the value of the land would be enhanced.


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. gentleman deny the statement I made that the Minister of the Interior made that statement ?


Wilfrid Laurier: He said nothing of the kind.


John Gillanders Turriff: I did not deny any statement; I simply said that the statement made by the Minister of the Interior was that the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific would open up the country and that the enhanced value of the land opened up would be equal to what the road would cost.


John Graham Haggart: He made a direct promise to the House that the land there could be disposed of for the purpose of recouping the country for the building of that road. However, while I am on my feet, let me draw attention to the return brought down by the Finance Minister. It simply gives the joint area of undisposed lands in the provisional district of Alberta as 38,190,964 acres, and of Saskatchewan at 51,832,240 acres. These lands may be included in the free lands and homesteads and when these *are taken up there may be no land at all at the disposal of the government.


Mr. LAKE.: I think the return which was brought down to which the Minister of Finance referred does give a considerable amount of information on this question which has been raised, although the return is couched in such a way that it is very difficult to get the information that it contains clearly into one's mind. What I would like to suggest is that although it is perfectly true that the basis of calculation is eliminated from the resolutions, still I think the only way in which we can arrive at a right understanding of what the calculation should be is by making a calculation based on a definite area of land and a definite value to be given to that area. It seems to me that is the only way in which we can arrive at anything like a safe calculation, and therefore I would like the Minister of Finance to give us some such calculation as that or to say whether he considers we ought to abide by the calculation which was made in the original resolution. I find that in this report which was brought down it is stated that there is a total of 277,931,790 acres of land still undisposed of in both provinces. I suppose for the purpose of rough calculation we may divide that into half, attributing one half to each province. That would mean nearly
139.000,000 acres of land in each province still undisposed of. Of course, I am quite willing to admit that it would be very difficult to make a close calculation as to the value of the whole of that land ; but in that return we have the statement showing an estimate given by the Surveyor General as to the condition of these lands. He has Mr. TURRIFF.
! made a statement containing these various items : Lands suitable for grain growing ; lands requiring irrigation ; lands suitable for ranches and other descriptions of farming ; and water. These are the figures at which he arrives :
Saskatchewan. Alberta.
Sq. miles. Sq. miles. Lands suitable for grain
growing	 86,000	80,000
Lands requiring irrigation.. 32,000	41,000


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many acres ?


Richard Stuart Lake: The figures iu this part of the return are given in square miles and not in acres.
Sq. miles. Sq. miles. Land suitable for ranches or
other description of farming	
106,887	113,559Water	
27,000	20,000
Take the case of Saskatchewan ; and I presume there will be no objection to our discussing either one province or the other. Take Saskatchewan, there has been, according to this return, about 22,235,385 acres of land disposed of. Supposing the whole of this were wheat land, that would still leave 31,804,615 acres of wheat lands at the disposal of the government, and in addition a very large amount of land which would require irrigation, and an enormous tract fit for ranching, according to the estimate of the Surveyor General. I would like to have some calculation made of the value which should be put upon these lands. How have the government arrived at this capital sum of $37,500,000, upon which they are going to distribute interest to the new provinces, according to population ? What was the basis of that calculation ? We find that wheat lands in the Northwest are selling at a far greater value than $1.50 per acre. Take the sales by the Canadian Pacific Railway in January this year, the average price obtained for the land was $4.10 per acre. I have looked through the report of the Department of the Interior for the years 1903, and 1904, and find there a statement of the lands disposed of by the various land companies in the Northwest-the Hudson Bay Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway and other companies-and I find that the average price obtained by the Hudson Bay Company for their lands was $5.50 per acre, by the Canadian Pacific Railway $3.50 per acre, and that the average price for the lands sold during the previous eleven years was about $3.50 per acre. It turns out, on totalling up these figures, that the grand total of the lands sold by the land companies during those previous eleven years amounted to 10,512,349 acres, and that the sum for which they were sold totalled just about the sum which is to be allowed each of the new provinces as compensation for 25 million acres of land. That is to say, the amount received by the companies

amounted to $36,992,482. Thus the land companies, during the eleven years previous to the 30th June, 1904, sold something under eleven million acres of land for nearly $37,000,000. Those are the returns given in the report of the Department of the Interior. What I want to get is a definite idea of the basis of the calculation which was made by the government in arriving at this sum to be allowed the new provinces as compensation for their lands.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman will say just what information he wants in order to arrive at a basis for his arguments, I shall be very glad to order it to be prepared. I thought that the information submitted would be sufficient ; but if it be not, and I am definitely informed what will be sufficient, certainly such a statement will be prepared. I may say that the question is not so much what a certain quantity of land in the Northwest Territory could be sold for as a question of how much money is required to carry on the government of the new provinces in comparison with the amounts which are available for the other provinces to carry on their provincial business. As stated in the resolution, it is not a matter of buying and selling lands, but of providing for the support of the provincial governments in proportion to that given the governments of other provinces from Dominion- subsidies and the sales of land. We wish to place these new provinces in at least as good a position as the older ones.


Robert Laird Borden: If that he the case, what is the use of any recital respecting the lands ? I do not see the force of it, yet the resolution was based altogether, in the first instance, on the amount of land and a certain value per acre. That has since been modified by the amendment introduced by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance for the purpose of getting rid of the difficulty suggested 'by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), who said that these new provinces, having their right to the lands recognized by the terms of the proposed statute, would continually come back upon the government with the plea that the lands had much improved in value, and there would consequently be constant friction between the Dominion government and the new provinces. But my hon. friend has put the matter in a new aspect; and I do not see why, if he is speaking with the concurrence of his colleagues, the Minister of Finance should have introduced the amendment in its present form, and wrhy lie should not simply eliminate all reference to the lands and put the matter in the form of a subsidy for the reason suggested by the Minister of the Interior, namely, that it is necessary for the carrying on of the governments of the new provinces, to make a certain additional grant to them.


Frank Oliver: That is exactly what is being done by the amendment, as I understand it. This is a special allowance in view of the lauds. There must be some reason given for making such an allowance different from what is given J:he other provinces, and that is the reason ; and the question of the value of the lands is not the main question to be considered, as the amendment introduced indicates. I was going to allude to a remark made by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) as to the value which has been received for lands sold by the land companies. On that value he proposed to base a comparison with the value of other lands in the Territories. I point out that the lands sold at that value were lands specially selected by the railway company, lands that, in many cases had been specially advantaged by the construction of the railway. The value of these lands, of course, is no fair basis of comparison in estimating the value of the lands remaining. The fact that these lands have been selected and taken out of the possibility of revenue for either this government or the provincial government absolutely reduces the value of the remaining part of the lands.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would suggest that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has forgotten that I included the lands of the Hudson Bay Company which were not specially selected. And the price received for them was $5.50, as against $3.50 per acre, which was obtained for the lands of the railway company which the minister says were specially selected. I might mention a further basis of calculation in the school lands which have been sold recently in the Northwest. These are not specially selected either. The school lands are simply two sections in each township. And the average price for which they sold was about $9 per acre. The average price for school lands in As-siniboia was $9.69 and the average of all, I think I am correct in stating was over $9 per acre.


John Gillanders Turriff: In the case of the school lands it is only the best lands that have been sold, in most cases. A high valuation is placed on the school lands, and if they do not bring that price they are not sold at all. In the last sale of school lands in Assiniboia, the lowest price was $7, and anything that purchasers did not think worth that was not sold, but still remains the property of the government. The same thing applies, to a large extent, to the Hudson Bay Company's lands. The company put a high price per acre and hold these lands until the particular part of the country in which they are becomes well settled, and so they get a high price. This policy is carried out even when it is necessary to hold the lands for many years. And, in case of the school lands, the government still hold the lands which will not bring a good price.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In view of the argument of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. COMMONS
Oliver) with reference to the value being placed on the lands that are already held by the other provinces, I would call attention to the remarks made by the hon. gentleman on the 24th of Nlarch last. He said :
I find that the province of Ontario, with a population of two and a quarter .millions in the year 1902, derived from its lands $1,499,000.
We find, by the arrangement that has been made with these Northwest provinces, that when their population reaches that of the province of Ontario, they will be deriving two and a quarter millions in respjot of their lands.
He was leading us, as I understand, to believe that the provinces were receiving two and a quarter millions for their lands whereas Ontario was only receiving $1,499,000. If he is basing bis argument on the value of tlie lands in that Territory, I think he would find that his statement is not in accordance with his present argument.


Frank Oliver: What is the objection ?


George Eulas Foster: Some explanation may have been given when I was not in the House, and if so I would not like to call upon the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) to give it again. But I do not remember having read It. There must have been some method by which these figures, as to either the quantity of land or the valuation of the lands, were arrived at. I would like to know from the Finance Minister what that method was. Take, for instance one province. Would the Minister of Finance tell us by what method he and the government arrived at the quantity of lands that would be fair to allow in comparison with the total area of the province. And then I would like to know by what method he and they arrived at the conclusion that a fair valuation of the land would be $1.50 per acre. I do not imagine for a moment that the government assembled around the Council Board would arrive at a conclusion as to the quantity without first going into the quantity of lands in the province. Nor would they reach a conclusion as to the value to be allowed without taking the different grades of lands and values of those different grades. Having done this, I should think they would come to the conclusion that, if they did not give the lands in toto to the province, they ought to make a compensation of a certain number of acres. Then they would make an estimate, based upon the best data possible, of the average value of these lands. Now, if we had the method by which the government arrived at these figures, we should be in a position to reach our own conclusions as to the justness of the grant and the fairness of the valuation. If something like that was not done, if the government made no investigation and took no trouble in regard to the matter ; if they simply came to the conclusion, as the Minister of the Interior hinted, that a certain amount was necessary for a revenue for these provinces Mr. ARMSTRONG.
iu lieu of these lands, and, without calculation of any kind, put it at a round figure
25.000.	000 acres and, without estimating the value of the different kinds of lands, wheat lands, grazing lands and the rest and averaging the whole simply jumped at a valuation, of course that is a wholly different case. If they simply said : We want to give them $37,500,000, and we will play at valuation and play at estimates of area, and will put a formula before parliament very dignified and very satisfying to the eye, but merely an excuse-and under that will give $37,500,000 in lieu of lands, then why all this pother and bother about the quantities of lands or valuation per acre ? If all they wished to do-and it is the only thing the Minister of the Interior intimates they sought to do-was to give $37,500,000, what is the use of this arrangement of $1.50 upon
25.000.	000 acres of land ?
Now the province of Saskatchewan has either a right to all these lands or it has a right in compensation to a certain proportion of its lands at a fair valuation ; or if you are not going to take the lands into account at all, it has a right to ask you to say what amount of money you will give it per year, simply that and nothing more. What is the use of going to Saskatchewan or to the other province and telling the people :	We have given you
25.000.	000 acres of your land, which is a certain proportion of all the lands in Saskatchewan, at a good average valuation of $1.50 per acre, if you are doing nothing of the kind ? If 25,000,000 acres is a fair proportion of all the lands, in the province of Saskatchewan, that is to be, get at the proper valuation of them, not a rule-of-thumb valuation, and give the province which is to be, the value of those lands on what is a fair valuation. Now is $1.50 a fair valuation of the average lands in the province of Saskatchewan ? That is what I think the Minister of Finance is bound to ascertain, unless be admits what the Minister of the Interior intimated- but of course the Minister of the Interior was not there at the time, and he may just have thought that that would be the easiest way by which a minister could accomplish such an object, and therefore there is nothing in it but the idea of giving so much money and making an arbitrary basis upon which it was to be given. But I do not like to think that the government has come down to this parliament, under show of making an elaborate calculation, and given the proper proportion of lands in the province to the province, and given them without a valuation which is fair and just in commutation. I would like to hear from the Minister of Finance as to whether he is right in this respect, or as to whether the Minister of the Interior is right, as to whether my first supposition is right, or as to whether the supposition that one would take from what the Minister of the Inter-

ior has said, is correct. Are we say in" to the provinces :	You have so many inib
hons of acres of land in all, an average proportion of these we are giving to vou as compensation, and we are putting a fail-valuation upon the average proportion that we are giving you ? That is what any gentleman from one of those provinces would think was being done, by virtue of the long detailed resolutions which, if they infer anything at all, infer an absolute and well proportioned classification as to the quantity of the lands, the proper valuation, and the proportion which should be given out of that quantity.
8;Jr WILFRID LAURIER. My hon. friend is aware that in the preparation of this Bill w2 took the position that the government of the new provinces was not entitled of right to the lands. We took the position that the lands fairly belonged to the Dominion. At the same time we had to take into consideration the fact that the lands which were given to the older provinces, not to Manitoba, were to them a valuable asset which enabled them to .carry on their business. We thought there fore, since we retailed the lands, we should do as was done in Manitoba, we should give something in money in lieu of the lands. But my hon. friend knows better than I do, because he was long connected with the government which dealt with Manitoba, that Manitoba was not dealt with upon any rule which is known, at least, to the average mind. From time to time Manitoba was given some advantage, but they were always given in the absence of any principle which could be properly explained, which, so far as I know, lias never been understood. When we came to discuss what would be a fair compensation 

I do not like to use the word compensation in regard to this matter


George Eulas Foster: That is the word you have used.


Wilfrid Laurier: I know it, still we sometimes use words when we think we might use better ones. The word v compensation ' is ,not a word I would like to use. At all events, what I have in my mind was this, that when we came to consider what we should give to the new provinces as an equivalent in money if we retained the lands, we had to find a basis for a calculation as to the value of the lands. As to the number of acres, we have had calculations made more than once, my former colleague, the present member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) has stated to the House that there were 50, 000,000 acres of land available in the two provinces, that is to say, between the province of Manitoba and the Rocky mountains. We did not imagine that we had 50,000,000 acres immediately available for settlement, but that is the quantity which
could be disposed of apart from the homestead lands.


John Graham Haggart: is that apart from the homestead lands ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is outside the homestead lands. We calculate we have 50,000,000 outside the homestead lands which can be disposed of ; at all (nents, that is the way I understood the calculation. With regard to the price of these lands, I think it is not possible to ascertain a fair average value by what lias been realized by railway companies in the disposal of their lands, and -what has been realized by the disposal of school lands by auction, or what has been realized by the Hudson Bay Company for their lands. The Hudson Bay Company chose its own time to sell its lands, at a time when it thought the best price could be obtained. The school lands are all disposed of at auction, they are not disposed of indiscriminately, they are put up at auction always with a view of realizing the best possible price. Then with regard to lands disposed of by the railway company, we know that they always dispose of them with a view of getting the best price, and they dispose of only such lauds as have increased in value by railway facilities. The hon. member 'for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) will admit that we could not take the prices obtained for their lands by these various companies, as a fair average price for the whole 50,000,000 acres. That would be no fair basis of comparison. But we thought we would have a fair basis of comparison in the transaction that took place some years ago between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the government when, if I remember right, the government redeemed 6,000,000 acres of their land at a price, I think, of $1.50.


George Eulas Foster: They realized $10,000,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: That was the basis of our calculation. There were some
6,000,000 odd acres of land disposed of by the company to the government, and the price realized I think was $1.50 an acre. It is possible that to-day the lands in question might be sold for a little higher, or possibly they would not bring as much. But since that time we have undertaken national obligations, and we count upon this land as an asset to help us meet those obligations. I do not pretend to say that we could dispose of all the lands we have to-day at $1.50, I think we ought to realize more. The government will not dispose of them immediately, they will be sold from time to time as the country develops, and I daresay they will bring to the government enough revenue to enable us to meet the liabilities we have undertaken. But,
I believe that if you put it as a fair business,


Richard Stuart Lake: In reference to what the right hon. gentleman said. I should be perfectly willing to admit that you could not put fifty million of acres on the market at this moment and obtain for them the price of $1.50;per acre, but I do firmly believe that if these lands are husbanded carefully we shall in the long run get fully the price which has been realized by the land companies1 for their lands and fully the price of school lands and even more than that price. He has taken the estimate of the late Minister of the Interior that
50,000,000 acres would be about the amount *of land comprised in the odd numbered sections which will be available for disposal by the government. I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman that it would be only right to take also the estimate which the late Minister of the Interior put upon the value of this land in his remarks on the occasion of the Grand Trunk Pacific Bail way debate. He stated that within ten years from the completion of this railway these 50,000,000 acres of land would he available, and I think he must only have referred to the lands which would be opened up by the railway. He further said that within ten years from the completion of the Tailway-I am only speaking from memory, hut I think I am perfectly correct; if I am not some gentleman may put me right-20,000,000 acres would have an accrued value of $3 per acre. That is the basis that we ought to go upon. If these lands are not going to be thrown on the market in one block at once the value which they will 'have in the future should he given to them. Further than that I may quote from a remark which was also made by the late Minister of the Interior during the debate on the second reading of this Bill. When, speaking in reference to the value of the school lands fund, he stated that that was a fund which would be worth $50,000,000. 1 may point out that the school lauds are something less than one-seventeenth part of the whole of the lands included in these two provinces. I cannot suppose that the late Minister of the Interior would make a statement. of that sort unless he had some ground for believing that at some day in the future the amount to be received for these lands would reach that sum.
. Mr. FOSTER. I think, if I can judge from what the right hon. Prime Minister stated, that the inference, if not the statement, of the lion. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) is the correct one. It does not seem to me that there was any calculation made at all, and that all the specious putting *out of quantities of land and the estimating Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
of prices simply have no significance at all except that you want to have a sufficient number of acres of land to multiply by $1.50 to make up the sum that you have come to the conclusion you would give to each of these provinces for its government-$37,500,000. If so, why should you bring in the land at all ? The land evidently had nothing in the world to do with it. What the government were evidently looking at was this : What is the amount that we should reasonably give to eacli of these provinces to enable it to carry on its financial affairs ; $37,500,000. You gave that. You have denied that they should have their lands. You say the lands should belong to the Dominion government. They do anyway. You say that the provinces as formed shall not have any rights at all oyer their lands : You deny any right or title at the present time to the people of the Northwest in these lands which may be all right and you deny any right to their lands after they are formed into provinces, when as provinces they, I think, ought to have their lands and the management thereof, for various reasons. But, you deny both of these premises. Then, why do you make the specious pretense of having anything to-do with lands at all ? Why do you not simply make your resolution read in this way : That the Dominion government does not propose to give over to these provinces their lands, and yet, recognizing that they must have money to carry on their public works, you give them the amount of $37,500,000 to be paid in a certain way. That would be a fair, open, clear exposition of tbe real facts which the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has inadvertently let out. The hon. Minister of the Interior, being young, is less wily and less skilled in the arts of concealment than his older colleagues. I sincerely trust that his virgin modesty and openness will always remain the same, and that he will be a shining example of a minister who is frank and outspoken, who will call a spade a spade, and who, when he makes a resolution to give money for any purpose, will not attribute it to some refined method of calculation as to the quantity of land and the present and prospective value of land, but will just simply say in his resolution, as he says before the committee, that he proposes to give these new provinces $37,500,000 each. This other is all subterfuge and a specious application of the wily arts of the politician to lull the sentiments and probably the rightful sentiments of the people in the Northwest. The hon. Minister of the Interior has been good enough to say that we should have the information. I would like to know the quantity of lands there is in each of these provinces that are considered to be arable lands, the acreage that is considered to be grazing lands and the area that is put in the category of mineral lands. I suppose there are certain portions of these lands, of which you already have made surveys and In regard to which

you have information, that are put down as mineral areas and which are more or less large. Then there will be outside of that some timber areas, and I would like to know what amount there will be outside of the agricultural, grazing, mineral, and timber areas which would probably go as waste lands which cou'ld not be counted on at the present time and may not be counted upon as much in the future. The hon. Minister of the Interior must have that information, of course, and if we had these areas we would be able to tell a little better in reference to this resolution, so long as it has been put upon the ground of compensation for these lands, if a fair division has been made with the provinces.
I dare say the hon. Minister of the Interior has that information now. If he has I would be very much obliged if he would give us that information before we take up the clauses of the Bill. We will get as much as we can while we are going through the resolution, and I have no doubt that will leave a large surplus of information to be brought down when we come to take up the clauses after the resolutions have been passed.


Frank Oliver: I think perhaps the hon. member (Mr. Foster) might have saved himself a good deal of argument if he had been in a little sooner. There is no question before the committee of calculation in regard to the land at all. The clause to which the hon. member objects my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has proposed to amend so that that question does not arise. I do not know whether the purpose was to avoid such trouble ns that which has come to the mind of the hon. member, but whatever trouble there may be attaching to 'the Bill, it does not attach in any way such as he suggests after the amendment proposed by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has been made. In regard to the specific question the hon. member has asked as to the amount of grazing, timber, mineral, agricultural and waste land,
I do not know exactly the basis upon which he asks that question. If the hon. gentleman were very well acquainted wdth the conditions in the Northwest Territories, he would' know that it is entirely a matter of opinion as to whether land is purely grazing land, or purely grain growing land, or purely timber land, or purely mineral land. These are all questions which are decided ultimately by experience, and in the meantime they can he only matters of opinion. No white man has ever explored a great part of that country, and so it would he impossible to give the definite information which the hon. gentleman asks. As to the part of the country which has been explored I can bring ten different men to give ten different opinions as to whether a certain piece of land is purely grazing land or purely agricultural land. Some of the timber speculators in this city and vicinity can bear testimony to tlie fact tiiat land which they paid their good money 1744
for as timber land is not timber land at all, and the same may be said with regard to mineral speculator's. If the hon. gentleman means that he will prevent the Bill passing until definite information is given him on this point, it simply means that the Bill will not be permitted to pass at all, because it would be impossible to give such information. If he will be satisfied with a fair estimate made by the officers of the department he can have that estimate at the earliest possible date.


George Eulas Foster: We all know that until a man has exploited a certain area of land he does not know what it is best suited for, and that no information with regard to such a matter can be absolutely accurate. What I wanted was an approximate estimate, and in looking through the papers I find that the Surveyor General has given an estimate of the lands suitable for grain growing, the lands suitable for grain growing after irrigation, and the lands suitable for ranches or other description of farming, so that in reality there is a pretty fair idea given as to the information I wanted. The only thing that Is not given is the area of waste lands, and that I suppose can be ascertained by deducting the areas mentioned here and the area of water from the total area.


Frank Oliver: Does that estimate include the organized districts of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Assiniboia, or does it also include the district of Athabaska which is now included in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta ?


George Eulas Foster: It gives tbe areas in the provinces of Alberta aud Saskatchewan, and I suppose he means all that is included in these provinces.


Wilfrid Laurier: What does my hon. friend mean by ' waste lands ' ? [DOT]


George Eulas Foster: Such as are not timber, mineral, grazing or agricultural lands.


John Graham Haggart: Lands unfit for settle' ment.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that there is very little waste land in these provinces which would not come under one or other of these descriptions mentioned by tile hon. gentleman. In Manitoba there was a good deal of swamp lands, but I am told by the members from tbe Northwest that there are no swamp lands in the new provinces or only a very insignificant quantity.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Deville has been a long time surveyor and I would rather have his estimate so that personal views may be eliminated as far as possible. I understand that the minister will get that information with respect to Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Frank Oliver: Certainly.


George Eulas Foster: It will not take Mr. Deville long to do that.


William Findlay Maclean: This discussion indicates that the time has come for a better system ol' book-keeping in reference to the public lands of the Dominion. When one comes into a rich heritage the first thing he does is to take stock, and it is high time that the Dominion of Canada should take stock of the actual land it has in the Northwest, with its possibility value and its possibility for utilitarian purposes. In that way we will gradually collect a lot of useful information, and the time has come when no alienation of public land should take place and no grant should be made to any one without our knowing what we are giving away. The province of Ontario has alienated its Crown timber lands without keeping any account, so that now they do not know what the residuum is, they speak of it as wilderness and all that, but they should have an exact account kept of it in the provincial legislatures just as the Dominion legislatures should have an accurate account of the lands we own in the Northwest. I would suggest to the new Minister of the Interior that he should take steps to have a reliable system of book-keeping instituted in this respect. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman,' whether all the patents have yet been issued to the Canadian Pacific Railway for their land grant '!


Frank Oliver: I have been only a day or two in the department but I have made inquiries on this matter, and I will be able to answer the question in a few days.


John Gillanders Turriff: The patents have not all been issued. There is a large amount of the land that has been selected by the Canadian Pacific Railway scheduled' to them, but the land is not yet1 surveyed and the patents are issued just as quickly as the land is surveyed and the patents approved. In the meantime they have selected the land.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. It is unnecessary to say at this stage of the discussion that we on this side of the House are very much opposed to the Dominion government obtaining the lands in the new provinces. I wish to point out that the returns do not appear to have been brought down in such shape that one can possibly arrive at a conclusion as to the basis on which the government have proceeded. In the returns that were brought down the respective areas were given of the districts of Saskatchewan, Assiniboia and Alberta, but nothing was said of Athabasca, which is to be taken into the new province. It is almost impossible to figure from these returns just what the area is of the respective provinces. I have been attempting to do that, and I arrive at these figures, that there are in the proposed province of Alberta 249,000 square miles, ; and in the proposed province of Saskatche-


Frank Oliver: wail, 258,400 square miles. In the province of Alberta we practically have 159,000,000 or 100,000,000 acres. Why, then, are these calculations to be made on, the basis of only 25,000,000 acres ? No reasonable explanation has, I think, been given of that, and yet the right lion, the First Minister tells us that there is no waste land in Alberta or, practically speaking, in Saskatchewan either. Why, then, should the estimate be made on only 25,000,000 acres, when we have in Alberta alone, practically speaking, 1C0,-000,000 acres ? From the return it is impossible for us to find out how much land has been alienated from the province of Alberta. This return shows the number of acres alienated within the districts of Saskatchewan and Assiniboia, but it does not tell us what proportion of this has been taken out of the province of Alberta or the province of Saskatchewan, and it is practically impossible for any man to work out any calculation without having this information before the House. With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), a number of reports have been made as to that country by different surveyors, which would furnish very valuable information to nave before the House while this discussion is in progress. But what I object to particularly is the attempt to withhold these lands from the new provinces ; and then, if they are to be withheld, we desire to know what compensation is to be given to the new provinces for them. I have been endeavouring to figure out just what was allowed to the province of British Columbia for the 20-mile strip on either side of the Canadian Pacific Railway track, which was alienated for railway purposes by the Dominion government, and, according to my figures, I find that there is annually paid to the province of British Columbia the sum of $400,000 for lands that were handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Estimating the area of that 20-mile strip on either side of the Canadian Pacific Railway track, we find that this $100,000 is paid to the province of British Columbia for practically only 13,000,000 acres, whereas, in the new provinces, we are not getting one-quarter the compensation, and even when our population is doubled we do not get one-half. What I desire to point out is that the land in the province of British Columbia is land taken along the railway track, a great part of it in country which is practically worthless, and yet a much more liberal allowance is made to the province of British Columbia for that land which was taken away from it than is being made by the present administration for land that is just as much taken away from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.. I find that these figures for the area of this land in British Columbia work out as follows. taking the line as straight between the different points: Stephen to Beaver foot. 22 miles ; Beaver foot to Beaver mouth, 42

miles ; Beaver moutli to Glacier, 24 miles ; Glacier to Revelstoke, 35 miles ; Revel-stoke to Salmon arm, 52 miles ; Salmon arm to foot Skuswap lake, 20 miles ; foot Shuswap lake to bend above Kamloops, 30 miles ; bend above Kamloops to Ashcroft, 52 miles ; Ashcroft to Lytton, 36 miles ; Lytton to Hope, 62 miles ; Hope to Port Moody, 62 miles ; total, 437 miles. The railway mileage from Stephen to Port Moody is 508 miles. It will be seen that an error would be incorporated if the railway mileage was taken to calculate area of belt, the difference is owing to crooks in line-71 miles. 437 X 40 = 17,480 square miles. When near coast, for 30 miles from Port Moody, only 10 miles in width can be obtained to south of line owing to international boundary, a deduction of 300 miles. Another deduction of 10 per cent must be made for lands alienated-and it is to be borne in mind that such alienated lands represent the best of the lot. Making these two deductions from the total of 17,480, we got 15,462 square miles, and multiplying this by 640 (the number of acres to a square mile) we get an acreage of 9,895,680, to which we must add 3,000,000 acres given in Peace River, making a total of 12,895,6S0 acres, or, for convenience, say 13,000,000 acres. It will be noticed that no deductions are made for water areas, nor have any been taken out of area of Alberta, which is 160,000,000 acres. For this 13,000,000 acres in British Columbia $100,000 was paid annually to the provincial government, and this land is in the Rooky mountain belt. There is no comparison of the treatment and there is discrimination against the new provinces. Thus, I desire some information as to why the government should only estimate the lands in that country at 25,000,000 acres if there are no waste lands, and no explanation has been given as to that. Until these figures are brought down and some information or knowledge given the House as to how the government arrived at the amount, it is practically impossible for us to discuss the matter on an intelligent basis.


Mr. BOLE.: I wish to ask the hon. gentleman if, in his opinion, the sum set out now for the government of the provinces is sufficient or insufficient ?


Mr.   M.@: 8. MCCARTHY. In my opinion it is insufficient. It is not, however, a question of sufficiency or insufficiency. I have stated my position in regard to these lands before in this House. It is not only the allowance we are getting for the lauds; there are other inconveniences to which we are subjected by reason of the determination of the Dominion administration to retain the lands. I have, however, gone over that ground fully before and I do not propose to do so again. But I will say that the chief of these inconveniences is the distance which we are from the seat of
government. The non. gentleman may. not know it, but we cannot amend even our Mechanics Lien Act or any Act dealing with lands at all without coming down to this parliament. Another objection is the small representation we have in parliament at present. We have only ten members here from that country to-day, whereas if the lands were left in the hands of the local administration we would have fifty members looking after the administration of those lands for the benefit of the people. Another objection is we may have, by the retention of these lands here, a check on local enterprises. AVhat is there to be gained by these provinces in assisting the developing of coal mines for instance, which is only one instance. There is no inducement for them to assist or encourage any local development. But as 1 have already fully stated my views, I do not propose to detain the House discussing them again. Let me say that the action by this government is contrary to the principles they have hitherto preached. It is contrary to their policy of decentralization. As Mr. Blake says, it is overturning the principles of the union ; and as Mr. Mackenzie said, the very year the release was taken from the Hudson Bay Company, no person will pretend that after we have a government in these Territories, we will continue to administer these lands from Ottawa. That is the position I take.


David Wesley Bole: I have no right to make any suggestion to my hon. friend as to the line of argument he should take ; but it seems to me that if he thinks the sums allowed are not sufficient for the requirements of the new provincial governments, he should confine his argument along that line, because the amendment eliminates the whole question of acres and dollars and so forth from the Bill. In view of that fact, the hon. gentleman should confine himself to discussing the sufficiency or otherwise of the sum set apart for the purposes of these provincial governments.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume that my hon. friend from Oalgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) is looking at the basis on which this legislation was introduced in the first instance. That basis is this. Inasmuch as the public lands in the said provinces are to remain the property of Canada, there shall be paid by Canada to the said provinces, by way of compensation therefor, a sum based on the estimated value of such lands. That is very simple and plain. Then it goes on to state what that sum is. My hon. friend from Calgary is argu-iug that that sum is not a fair value, if you take the lands as a basis ; and notwithstanding th.e statement of the Minister of the Interior (Mr, Oliver), I have not yet heard from the Prime Minister any annunciation of policy different from that con-

tained in the resolution as at first introduced. It is true that the wording of the resolution has beeu amended in order to meet the difficulty suggested by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). But the basis upon which the government proposes to proceed has not yet been departed from, so far as I understand. Well, then we might look at the condition, as outlined by a very important meinebr of the government at that time, the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), in 1903. What is the basis the government has laid down ? The basis is that we are to pay to the provinces annually, by way of compensation therefor, a sum based upon the estimated value of the lands. I suppose that that is in line with the position taken by members from the Northwest, for example, my horn friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott), who no doubt has urged on the government the view he announced some two years ago in these words :
The people of the Northwest Territories contend that the public lands of those Territories are now simply held in trust by parliament until such time as new provinces may be created in that area.
That is the view, I suppose, that the government is taking or else my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) would not be supporting it. Therefore we must get at the value of the lands for which we are proposing to compensate these new provinces, in the words of the resolution as at first introduced. When it was important to show that these lands were so valuable that the country had a very great means of revenue in them, the government, through its then Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) spoke in these words :
But we are now arriving at that position when, I fancy within the next two or three weeks, a final arrangement will be closed, under which the railway companies which have claims for land grants, including the Canadian Pacific Railway, will have those claims finally settled. I am pleased to say that as a result of this, an enormous quantity of odd numbered sections will come back to the government and be available for disposition in any way which the government may be authorized by parliament to adopt. We shall no doubt have in the neighbourhood of fifty million acres of odd numbered sections to dispose of in such manner as parliament may authorize.
That is to say, we will hold in trust for the people of the new provinces, as my hon. friend from ATest Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) put it, not only fifty million acres of odd numbered sections, but also fifty million acres of, even numbered sections which must be reserved for homestead interests. The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) then continued :
I propose at an early day to submit a measure providing for the disposition of these Mr. R. L. BORPBN.
lands. The first principle of which will he the actual settler on an even numbered section alongside an odd numbered section shall have the preference in buying that piece of land at a price to be fixed in the manner provided in the Act.
I have no recollection that that Act, which was to be introduced in a few weeks, has yet made its. appearance. But continued the then Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) :
Of these fifty million of acres of odd numbered sections-the even numbered sections are kept for the poor man's homestead-twenty million or twenty-five million at present so far removed from communication as to be absolutely of no money vailue whatever. But in my judgment, within ten years from the time this railway is completed, twenty million acres of land owned by the government at present will have acquired a value at least of $3 per acre. That is not a thing about whioh there is any question.
AArell, if the government is holding these lands as trustees for the people of the Northwest Territories, even if they do uot hand them over to those for whom they are holding them in trust, what is the position? They themselves admit by the terms of. the first resolution, that they are making compensation by this provision to the people of tlie Territories. Do they base that compensation on the valuation of $60,000,000 or $75,000,000 ? The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) desired to keep within bounds, and according to one of bis estimates it would be $60,000,000. and according to another estimate, which 1 have just read, if would be $75,000,000 w'hich these' lands will be worth in ten years. Upon what basis do the government propose compensation? Upon the basis of twenty-five million acres? The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton)) said those lands would be worth $3 per acre in ten years or $75,000,000. But the government propose to compensate the Territories, not on the basis of $3 per acre, but $1.50 per acre.
And I venture to think that there is every reason indeed for the criticism of my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) and my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). AVhat is the position of the government ? Do they recognize that they stand in any way in the position of trustee for the people of the Northwest Territories in respect of these lands ? My hon. friend from Western Assiniboia cannot support them unless they take that view. That was his solemn declaration, made, I am sure not once, but many times, and certainly made in parliament. AA7ell, they apparently carry out that view by providing that there shall be compensation. But when they compensate the provinces for the lands, they compensate them on the basis of fifty cents on the dollar. What justification has the government for that ? It does not make any difference whether ic is enough for the requirements of the

Northwest Territories or not, if the basis which I have just suggested, is the one on which the government is proceeding. And, if the government is proceeding on any other basis, we would like to know it. They have not suggested any other basis, except that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) declares that it is only a question of what the Territories require. But the government, by their resolution, declare that it is only a question of doing justice to the Northwest Territories in respect of lands which we hold as trustees for them. And, notwithstanding the declaration of the Minister of the Interior, we shall hold them to that until we have some announcement from the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the contrary. Here is a declaration on the part of the government that we should compensate them for these lands on the basis of $37,500,000 for each province, or $75,003,000 in all. What possible justification is there for departing from the figures that were given by the Minister of the Interior, when as we must suppose ; lie was endeavouring to place before the House and tire country the fair value of these lands, a fair estimate of the number of acres and also a fair statement of the resources this country as a whole possessed for the purpose mentioned in these lands ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think that the argument of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is somewhat defective so far as touching the particular point he speaks of is concerned. He spoke of the value of these lands ten years hence. It they become more valuable than now, it will largely be because of the large expenditure by this government, and it would not be right to compensate the provinces- if compensate is the word to be used, though 1 do not admit that it is in view of this amendment-that compensation should not be on the value ten years hence, when that value will-be to a large extent the result of the expenditure of money by the people of the Dominion. I think the hon. gentleman will see that his argument does not reach the conclusion to which he has pointed.


Robert Laird Borden: To what expenditure does the hon. minister refer ?


William Stevens Fielding: Expenditure in the construction of railways, for instance ; and the vast sums of money which we are expending, and will continue to expend, on immigration ; and all the various expenditures which will flow from the national treasury to the benefit of that Territory, and which, owing to the nature of the country, must be on a liberal scale.


Robert Laird Borden: I have never understood that the National Transcontinental
Railway was to be built solely for the purposes of the Norttiwest Territories. Op the contrary I have understood the position of the government and its supporters to be that this railway was to promote the general interests of Canada, the eastern provinces as well as the Northwest Territories. Therefore, I cannot see any very good reason for charging the whole of that expenditure against the Northwest: Territories. That does not seem to me a fair basis. So far as the value of the land is concerned, it is true that the exMinister of the Interior says that in ten years these lands will be worth $3 per acre. But he does not venture to say that they are not worth more than $1.50 per acre at present. And the hon. gentleman, (Mr. Fielding) will notice by the terms of the resolution that the value upon which we are to pay the Territories in ten years from this time is not raised to $3 per acre, but remains for all time at $1.50 per acre on 25,000,000 acres. According to the former view of my hon. friend from Western Assiniboia-and it seems very much borne out by the terms of the resolution-it is not so much a matter of compensating the people of the Northwest for the lands as endeavouring to do simple justice to them in giving the entire benefit of their lands. At least, that position ought to be adopted if the government accedes to the view which the hon. gentleman put forward at the time. It might be provided, that, for the first ten years, an advance would be made to those for whom we hold these lands in trust. But the mere fact that you are only making an advance for ten years is no reason, in my judgment why you should not do full justice to them at some future time. With their increased population and their increased necessities we should certainly bring the value of the land up to the figure which the exMinister of the Interior himself has suggested.


Mr. SCOTT.: It is my opinion that the resolutions before the House do substantially meet the views I expressed four years ago, and three years, and two years ago. Even if that were not the case, even if the hon. gentleman's interpretation were the one to be accepted, in his statement that it must then be impossible for me to accept the resolutions, he is setting up a standard for me which he does not allow to govern himself on all occasions. If I recollect aright, on the 22nd of March last, he put on the record in parliament in the form of a resolution, his view that full autonomy should be granted to the Northwest Territories


Mr.   I@: Hear, hear.
Mr SCOTT

full autonomy with regard
to" schools and also with regard to lands.

But in less than an hour front that time, he suggested that the people of the Northwest Territories should he asked to relinquish a measure of autonomy with regard tc the lands, that they should accept the lands with a string to them, the string suggested being that they should accept responsibility for the administration of the lands, but they were to give away the even numbered sections as free homesteads, and to continue to sell the odd numbered sections according to the policy which is in force at the present time or that which was foreshadowed by the ex-Minister of the Interior in his speech on the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill a couple of years ago. Let me say to my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) who made a comparison with British Columbia, that if we allow ourselves to drift into comparisons of details with respect to the several provinces, we shall find between every province in Canada just as acute differences as he finds between the way British Columbia was treated with regard to a strip along the Canadian Pacific Railway and the way the new provinces are being treated in regard to their lands. In fact, the hon. gentleman overlooked the most striking case of all, that of Prince Edward Island. That province is allowed $45,000 a year, as I understand, not exactly in lieu of lands, but on account of the fact that she had not any lands. Now see what scope there is in that citation for the purpose of comparison. Take the case of Manitoba. I recollect reading a statement made by the Prime Minister of Manitoba a couple of weeks ago, in which he pointed out that the maximum revenue provided under the arrangement made by a Conservative government of this Dominion with that province, would be $648,000, that would be the maximum revenue they would receive under the existing arrangement when that province reached the maximhm population provided for. He then pointed out, with every appearance of a deep sense of grievance, that these new provinces will have a maximum revenue of $2,207,000.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), to whom I listened with much interest this afternoon, was much mistaken in thinking that these resolutions were agreed to without serious consideration of the matter of the lands. The revenues derived by the other provinces come from the Dominion treasury in the form of cash subsidies, and from the amounts which they are able to derive by administering, selling and otherwise disposing of their public domain. In considering the provisions for these new provinces, attention was naturally given to these two aspects of the case, we endeavoured to reach the proper amounts of ordinary cash subsidies by looking at the amounts the other provinces receive. Then we endeavoured to arrive at what would be a proper amount to allow the Mr. SCOTT.
new provinces in consideration of the fact that they are not going to have in their actual possession the source of revenue which the other provinces except Manitoba, have in tlieir possession, that is to say, the public domain. Of course there were two points of view, there was the federal point of view and the point of view of the people of the new provinces. Now let me say to the hon. member for North Toronto and the hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Haggart), or to any one else who may think that too much money is being granted by these resolutions to the new provinces, that they may set their minds at rest in that regard. While we have not perhaps the actual measurement in acres of the quantity of land, while perhaps we are not able to arrive at an absolute estimate of the value of these lands, I think no person has any doubt about the fact that we have an enormous public domain out there, and that if a private corporation had that domain in its possession and treated it entirely from the point of view of revenue, they would consider it worth a great deal more than the $75,000,000 which is specified in these resolutions for both provinces. If this government decided to treat that public domain strictly from the point of view of revenue, I venture to think they would be able to dispose of it fcr a considerably larger amount than $75,000,000. Even if we knew the exact number of acres of wheat lands, the exact number of acres of grazing lands, the exact area of timber lands, and of mineral lands, we could not be much further ahead than we are at the present time. I do not suppose there are any two individuals who would agree as to the value to be put upon this enormous public domain. I might say, as the ex-Minister of the Interior said with regard to these 50,000.000 acres, that in a short time they may bring $3 an acre. Probably he was light. Or I might be disposed to think that they may be worth even $5 an acre : and by stretching the time a little, that in twenty-five or thirty years hence, if some of these lands still remain in possession of the Dominion government, they may be worth $30, $40 or $50 an acre. As I say, it is impossible to agree upon an estimate with regard to their value. When we were in consultation about this matter we had the advantage of the presence with us of the hon. gentleman from East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) who until recently was the Commissioner of Dominion Lands ; and I suppose he has as much information about that public domain as any one else in Canada. He told his colleagues, and the members of the government who were in consultation, that there were, to the best of his knowledge or that there would be, available from time to time, in addition to the even numbered sections which are set apart for free homesteads, in the neighbourhood of 50,000 000 acres of odd numbered sections available for sale. Some members of the government

Pointed out that against that calculation it must be remembered that the homestead lands had to be administered, and that their administration cost a considerable amount from year to year, and that even if $3 an acre was considered a fair value for the 50,000,000 acres, the cost of administration of those lands also ought to be deducted. It may be pointed out too,-I think it was pointed out once or twice, that there was a tacit understanding that the Dominion government was going to continue the mounted police force in those two new provinces, which at present means an expenditure of some hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. There were occasional allusions to the fact that it was the intention of the government to continue the immigration policy, which last year I think cost in the neighbourhood of $600,000 or $700,000. On the other hand, we had to remember that in addition to these odd numbered sections amounting to 50,000,000 acres, there were considerable areas of timber lands, considerable areas of valuable coal lands, and perhaps some other mineral lands. It was not in the mind of any person taking part in these consultations that we could arrive at any hard and fast understanding of the actual value. The idea was to reach an approximate value by comparing the conditions in the other provinces, and keeping in mind the revenues derived from the public domain by those provinces, and in that way arriving at what would be fair amounts in the way of land subsidies to pay out to these new provinces.
Alluding to the question of values, and having regard to the statement made this afternoon by the hon. member for Calgary {Mr. M. S. McCarthy) ond the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Cake), it may not be out
ol place for me to recall what I said in speaking on the second reading of the Kill, that up to the present time the Dominion of Canada has not reaped any net revenue from the administration of the public domain iu Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. Some time ago I asked the Deputy Minister of the Interior to have a statement prepared for me in that regard. In my speech of a few weeks ago I gave a resume of this statement and if the committee has no objection I would like the privilege of handing it in full to the ' Hansard,' as it is long, and would take me a considerable time to read.


George Eulas Foster: That is all right, .


Samuel Hughes: I requested a similar privilege some time ago, and the First Minister refused. I must object.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. member (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is right.


Thomas Walter Scott: I wish to put in the whole statement, it was sent to me by the deputy minister on the 11th of March. * He says : '
Inclosure :
Ottawa, 11th March, 1903.
Dear Mr. Scott,-In compliance with the request contained in your note to me of the 6th instant, I beg to inclose you herewith a statement of the approximate revenue and expenditure in connection with Dominion lands in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories from the 1st of July, 1870, to the 30th of June, 1904, and also a statement showing the arrears due the government on account of Dominion lands on the 30th of June, 1904.
Yours very truly,


W. W. GORY,
[Stage Direction]
Deputy Minister.
Walter Scott, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Statement showing the Arrears due the Government on account of Dominion Lands in Manitoba and the
North-west Territories on June 30, 1904.
Dominion Lands Sales.	Timber Dues, Grazing Rent, &c.	Grand Total.Princ'pal.	Interest.	Total Sales.	$ cts. 280,205 95	$ cts. 85,723 21	8 cts. 305,989 16	$ cts. 14,828 30	-5 cts. 3S0.817 40
W. W, Cokv, Esq.
Deputy Minister of the Interior,
Ottawa.
Department os- the Interior, Accounts Branch,
Ottawa, March 7, 1905.

[Stage Direction]
Accountant.
[Stage Direction]
Statement of Approximate Revenue and Expenditure the Northwest Territories from
in connection with Dominion Lands July X, -1870, to June 30, 1904.
in Manitoba and
Eiscal Year.
1809-1870	I
1870- 1871..../
1871-	1872	
1872-	1873	
1873-	1874. ...
1874-	1875	
1875-	1876	
1876-	1877	
1877-	1878	
1878-	1879	
1879-	1880	
1880-	1881	
1881-1882	
1882-	1883	
1883-	1881	
1884-	1885....
1885-	1886	
1886-	1887	
1887-	1888	
1888-	1889	
1889-	1890....
1890-	1891	
1891-	1892....
1892-	1893	
1893-	1894	
1894-	1895....
1895-	1896	
1896-	1897	
1897-	1898....
1898-	1899.	. .
1899-	1900	
1900-	1901	
1901-	1902	
1902-	1903	
1903-	1904....
Less refunds.
Dominion ! Dominion Lands	Lands
Revenue. Expenditure.
$ cts.
26,239 45 29,980 80 27,641 15 8,545 94 3,799 S6 19,424 86 23,828 09 125,115 51 136,162 24 1,755,144 03 1,017,765 20 960,857 00 405.689 05 234,806 85 192,657 56 187,286 53 205,622 88 147,482 19 192,966 65
255.043	66 214,383 58 158,555 25 130,852 69 132,437 24
152.044	69 211,060 47 242,586 24 248,035 58 289,497 45 367,903 93 811,935 31 796,535 82 *
9,711,887 75 329,950 00
9,381,937 75
8 cts.
65,110 00 79,399 00 113.247 00 159,398 00 163,927 00 181,165 00 220,396 00 212,160 00 201,943 00 181,342 00 164,983 00 130,307 00 131,553 00 128,100 00 124,708 00 108,888 00 106,846 00 90,315 00 89,708 00 108,533 00 138,082 00 163,812 00 197,317 00 267,568 00
Capital
Account
Expenditure.
3,528,807 00
3,528,807 00
8 cts.
57,277 00
117,963 00 235,356 00 282,696 00 185,218 00 212,841 00 90,521 00 87,628 00 91,773 00 147,802 00 334,681 00 511,882 00 562,221 00 728,441 00 283,300 00 106 500 00 114,800 00 89,285 00
87,000	00
93.700	00
68,200 00
52.700	00
96,000	00
129,000	00 91,600 00 69,330 00 72,168 00 83,727 00 108,332 00 167,367 00 209,540 00 272,871 00 348,929 00 679,487 00
6,870,136 00
Excess of Revenue over
Expenditure.
8 c.s.
Excess	Net Excess
of Expenditure of Expenditure over
over
Revenue.
1,163,863 03 342,297 20
6,870,136 00
8 cts.
57,277 00
117,963 00 209,116 55 252,715 20 157,576 85 204,295 06 86,721 14 68,203 14 67,944 91 22,686 49 263,628 76
Revenue.
	41,537 95
	52,858 15
	142,538 44
	114,158 47
	83,320 12
	127,559 81 40,216 35
72,036 66	
	13,169 42
	98,544 75
	85,455 31
" " 37,018 47 44,546 24	45,780 76 26,969 31
	27,864 42
	58,124 55
" 265,689 31	68,779 07
	150,519 18
	
1,998,468 91	2,685,524 16 329,950 00
1,998,468 91	3,015,474 16
* Dominion Lands expenditure from 1870 to 1880 included under Capital Account. Scrip not included above, 83,758,490.	,
8 cts.
1,017,007 25
1 trust that my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton is interested in these figures which lie has compelled me to take the time to read. There were only seven years since 1870 in which there has heen a net revenue in -the administi'ation of the public domain in Manitoba and the Northwest.
John Graham Haggart: That does not include immigration? That is only the management of the lands ?


Thomas Walter Scott: The management of the lands alone.


George Eulas Foster: Does that include the head ofiice management here ? I should judge not.


Thomas Walter Scott: 


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend from Eastern Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) states that it includes a portion of the head office management.


Richard Stuart Lake: X suppose that is quite distinct from the expenditure in the Yukon ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Yes, the Yukon is excluded from the statement. It alludes to Manitoba and the Northwest Territories alone. I would further say to my hon. friends from Qu'Appelle and Calgary that I should not be so enthusiastic in favour of this proposition for the Dominion government to retain the lands and to pay these amounts to the provinces in lien of the lands if I were satisfied as to how the local gov-

erumeuts were to be able to run tbeir business during tlie initial years esi>ecially if tlie lands in lieu of these moneys are transferred.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: I would like to ask' the bon. member if be did not advocate up there for years tbe retention of tbe land by the provinces ? Did he not claim for years that the laud belonged to the provinces and should be administered by them ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Is that the hon. gentleman's whole question?


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Yes.


Thomas Walter Scott: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Well then, why does he repeat it ? Not only to-day, but en a previous occasion he has sinned in .common with other members from the Northwest in this respect. Why does he endeavour to quote me as only making that proposal and no other proposal in the first instance ? It does not seem to me a very high type of discussion to degenerate into that. I will read to the hon. gentleman what 1 said, and I stand by it to-day. 1 said this and I will not go back to the debate in February ; I will only go back as far as the debate in March :


Thomas Walter Scott: Yes, I did in common with a very large number of people in the Northwest Territories, in common with practically all the members of the legislative assembly, and I venture to say that today a very large majority of the members of the legislative assembly-I speak from knowledge ; I have seen them and they have told me so themselves, in fact members of the legislative assembly told me so before last New Year's, before these negotiations commenced-hold the same opinion now that I hold now. Together with them I have to some extent changed my mind in that regard, but if my hon. friend will read the statement that I made in the House three or four years ago he will find that what I laid particular stress upon was not so much the plea that the land should be turned over to the provinces as the plea that the government should put these provinces on an even financial plane with the other provincial governments in Canada. Let me a.sk my hon. friend where he thinks the local governments will get their revenue if they are not given the amounts that are provided for in lieu of lands ? If the lands were turned over to them with the string attached that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) proposed in this House, how would the governments of the provinces get the moneys necessary to carry on their business?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for AYest Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has made that statement three or four times. Surely he understands the proposal I made. 1 have pointed out to him before two or three times what I said, but still he persists in repeating what he has twice repeated today. He has distinctly twice to-day said that the only proposal I made in regard to these lands was that they should be handed over with certain restrictions. Is that the hon. gentleman's statement ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I certainly understood the hon. gentleman to suggest that.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman answer me fairly? Does he understand that to be the only proposal or the first proposal I made ?
So far as the control of the lands is concerned,
I adhere to the opinion I before expressed in this House, that the people of the Northwest Territories, when they are granted , provincial rights, are fully capable of dealing with these lands, and that they are entitled to the control of these lands just as much as the people of the eastern provinces of Canada are entitled to the control of their provincial domain. X see no. distinction.
That is the proposal I made, not only then, but in February. I went on further ; it had been suggested in the Liberal press that these kinds would be open to land grabbers in the Territories to a greater extent than they would be open to the attacks of land grabbers here, and I said X did not think that would be the case. I referred to the fact that the Prime Minister stated that if these lands were given to the provinces there might be interference with the free homesteads and with the present low price of government lands, and I said 1 thought there ought to be no difficulty ou that score, because the people of the Territories were chiefly interested in the question of immigration. I continued :
May I not further suggest that if there was any danger, and I do not think there is, it would be the task of good statesmanship to have inserted, if necessary, a provision in this Bill with regard to free homesteads and the-price of these lands, and obtain to it the consent of the people of the Northwest Territories.
I did not agree with the position of the Prime Minister, and I said that even if 1 did agree with it, then I thought it would be the task of good statesmanship to do as I proposed. My own proposition in the first instance was that these lands should be handed over to the control and administration of the people of the Northwest Territories.


Thomas Walter Scott: Then I understand that the proposal of the Prime Minister being to retain the land here, the hon. gentleman's alternative proposal was to transfer the lands to the provinces ?


Robert Laird Borden: Absolutely.


Thomas Walter Scott: And my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) went on to say that if he could
not carry out his exact proposal, then it
551.1

would be the task of good statesmanship to carry It out with this string to it-


Robert Laird Borden: I said that if there was any danger, but I did not think there was any, then I would adopt that course.


Thomas Walter Scott: If the hon. gentleman can show that he has the backing of his party to transfer these lands unrestrictedly to the new provinces, then <we will talk business with him ; but, as I understand it, he is only speaking for himself.


Samuel Hughes: The Lon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is not the Minister of the Interior, and he has no authority to speak for the Northwest Territories.


Thomas Walter Scott: I have entire authority to speak in my position as member for West Assiniboia, which is a portion of the Northwest Territories. Taking my hon. friend's own words, that it would be tbe task of good statesmanship, if he were driven to it, to turn these lands over with his string to it, then I ask the iron, gentlemen from Calgary and Qu'Appelle to tell us how the provincial governments would be able to get enough money during the next five years, for instance, to build roads and bridges and maintain schools ?


William Findlay Maclean: When the hon. gentleman proposed that the new provinces should retain these lands, how did he think they were going to get the money ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I had not figured it out as thoroughly as I have since.


William Findlay Maclean: Have you figured it out now ?


Thomas Walter Scott: To some extent, and if my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) will pay attention to me, perhaps he will be able to throw some light upon the question. A portion of the $1,030,375 which each of these provincial governments is going to have from the 1st of July next, we trust, to devote to the services of local government ; a portion of it is the $375,000 to be given them In lieu of the lands


Mr. W. WRIGHT.: Could we not give them ail the subsidy now in this proposed measure and give them the lands as well, and come out ahead by over one million dollars ?


Thomas Walter Scott: If my hon. friend (Mr. W. Wright) can get his leader and the majority on his side of the House, as well as the majority on this side, to agree to that proposition, those of us from the Northwest Territories will jump at it. But at the present time the arrangement is that each of these provinces shall receive a little more than $600,000, and, in addition, $375,000 in lieu of lands. And if tile provinces are going to be given their lands, then this parliament will have to consider very seriously whether it will be justified in continuing to


Thomas Walter Scott: maintain the Mounted Police in those provinces. If we are going to put these provinces absolutely in tbe position of the other provinces, I suppose we could not maintain the Mounted Police which costs Parliament about one-half million doiiars in the whole Territories, and which would mean an ex-| penditure of about one-quarter of a million | for each province


Mr.   I@: May I interrupt my hon. friend here? There was something said about the Mounted Police, and as to some arrangement, which did not appear on the face of the Bill. Has the Prime Minister any announcement to make in that regard ?


Wilfrid Laurier: There has been no arrangement made.


Robert Laird Borden: I mean as to the intention of the government.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will come to that when I projrose the estimates for the Northwest Mounted Police. I shall announce the policy of the government then.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not ask that anything should be discussed out of its turn, but the question of the maintenance of the Northwest Mounted Police is relevant to the financial features of the Bill, as the hon. member (Mr. Scott) also seems to think.


Thomas Walter Scott: As the Prime Minister has suggested, we have the announcement with regard to the Northwest Mounted Police for the coming year in the estimates already before the House. Then there is the question of immigration. If the lands were entirely turned over to the provincial governments, would the leader of the opposition consent to have this parliament vote $600,000 or $700,000 a year for immigration ? Every one I have ever heard discuss this matter agreed that if the lands were transferred to the provinces, the provinces would have to relieve this parliament to some extent from the expenditure on immigration.


Samuel Hughes: Every session we vote money for immigration in the Lake St. John region, Quebec, and in Manitoba, and I never heard of any agreement with these provincial governments.


Thomas Walter Scott: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sam. Hughes) be prepared to state that he will vote to hand the lands over unrestrictedly to the people of the new provinces, and then continue to vote for an immigration expenditure of $600,000 or $700,000 a year ?


Samuel Hughes: I am not in the witness box. My hon. friend (Mr. Scott) seems strangely agitated this afternoon in the absence of tbe real Minister of tbe Interior, who is not here, and who apparently lias deputed the would-be Minister of the Interior to take his job. Let the bon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) make his speech and we will answer it in good time.
55.13


Thomas Walter Scott: I hope I am not displaying any undue agitation, but I do feel, and I have felt for a long time past, a great interest in this question. As I say, if with possession of the lands and without these land subsidies the provincial governments would be able to carry on their business without borrowing money in their early years, I would have less objection to the land being transferred. But I am satisfied, from the calculation I have given, that the provincial governments would be in very great difficulties, especially in their early years, if they had to accept the responsibility of the administration of the lands and not have the ready money from the beginning that is being provided for in these resolutions. Deduct the amount that is to be given in lieu of the lands, place the expense of the Mounted Police service on these provinces, saddle them with a part of the expense of the immigration service and, in place of having one million dollars per year to maintain schools and build roads and bridges, these provincial governments would find themselves each with a revenue of less than a quarter of a million dollars per year.


Richard Stuart Lake: The bon. member read a statement of expenditure on Dominion lands and amongst others was the expenditure chargeable to capital account. I happen to have the public accounts before me and I find that the expenditure on capital account is something over $0,000,000. I understood the hon. gentleman to state the amount at something like $9,000,000.


Thomas Walter Scott: No, the $9,000,000 will be the capital and the ordinary together. The capital expenditure was $6,870,136.


George Eulas Foster: I wish to supplement my list of inquiries by asking also for a statement of the quantity of alienated land in each province.


Frank Oliver: I shall have the inquiry made.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The hon. member from Western Assiniboia has thrown about as much light upon the objections to handing over the lands to the provinces as we have had from hon. gentlemen opposite up to the present time. He fears that there will be a conflict but does not the result of their argument lead them to this that there is an area set apart east of Saskatchewan in regard to which the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, and Saskatchewan are to be heard, as to their respective claims in that portion of country. Now then if these lands are given to the province of Ontario I assume that that province will then have the right to administer that public domain, but if that territory goes to the province of Saskatchewan or to the province of Manitoba, these provinces will not have the right, they will have saddled upon them the additional expenditure of the administration of that country, but they will derive no profit from these lands, it' some hon. gentleman opposite will explain how there is going to be any greater conflict by reason of that land falling into the hands of the province of Saskatchewan, and more than there will be if it falls into the hands of Ontario, then perhaps we may place some faith in the objections they are laising to this proposition. All we have l eard is that there will be some differences between the new provinces and the Dominion government in connection with the administration of the Immigration Department. will not the same difficulty arise in the cases of Ontario and Quebec ? Are there not vast areas of lands in the northern portions of those provinces to be opened up and settled ? Have not statements been made in this House, for instance last session, during the discussion on the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill by hon. members from Quebec and from Ontario lauding the great value of the great asset they had in the Northern portion of their provinces through which that railway was to run, and that all they needed to induce settlement and fill that land up was the construction of' a railway. Then I ask will there be any greater conflict in the administration of the Immigration Department between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario and Quebec than between the government of Canada and the new provinces in the west ? Further than that, from a large portion of the area part of which is to-day being created into provinces and which was acquired by the purchase of the rights of the Hudson Bay Company ha S' been handed over to the province of Quebec. Did it strike the Minister of the Interior then that in handing that land over to Quebec, to administer there would likely be a conflict between the provincial and the Dominion authorities in carrying out the immigration policy. I say that that objection does not hold, and I say further that I do not believe there is a member from the Northwest Territories sitting on that side of the House who in the west and until he came to this parliament, did not advocate that the lands in these provinces belong to the provinces absolutely and that the provincial government should administer them. I may be speaking in error, but if so I am subject to correction. I know that the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) lias for years advocated not only on the public platform, but in his paper the Regina 'Leader,' that these lands belong to the province and should be administered by the province. That is the position he took and the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) has made a similar statement. The hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Talbot)
I think has made similar statements, but now they come down here to this par in-ment and the only reason I have yet heard

advanced by them or any bon. gentleman opposite why these lands should not be handed over is that there would be a conflict with the Dominion Immigration Department in filling and settling up that country. I think the bon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Cash) said that he thought these lands should be retained by the government here for a few years and then handed over to the provinces. Why this delay ? Is it because they are in power and anxious to maintain their power by means of a political machine or is it because the hon. member wants to state to this country that the people in those provinces to-day are not tit to exercise the same measure of self-government that belongs to all the other provinces but one in this. Dominion ? What were his reasons '! Why are these lands detained to-day ? The member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) says that there would likely be a conflict, but I have pointed out before in this House (hat when he was in opposition, when the Conservative administration was in power, there was no man in Manitoba who advocated more effectually or more often, that the lands of Manitoba should be handed over to that province than the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). Thus, I say, that I think the people in that country are entitled to some further explanation as to why these lands are being withheld than has been, given by hon. gentlemen opposite.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. member is mistaken in saying that I advocated handing over the lands to the provincial government. Wh'at I stated on every occasion was that in the deal that we should make on provincial autonomy, we would either be entitled to the lands or to a fair compensation for them, and the reason I am supporting this Bill and this clause-and supporting it heartily-is because I consider that we are getting a compensation in lieu of lands that is better for the province than handing over the lands to the province ; what we are getting is a net revenue paid semi-annually in advance, so that we know exactly what we get and we get it for all time, and the Dominion government will, as has been pointed out if they choose to handle these lands from a revenue point of view, be able to recoup themselves for the subsidy they are giving in lieu of lands. I may say further that I have had hundreds of letters from my constituents since the Bills were introduced, and I have not had one letter from any gentleman in my own constituency objecting to the terms in lieu of lands or suggesting ihat we should have the lands instead of a subsidy that it is proposed to give.


William Findlay Maclean: The hou. gentlemen from tile west are like Saul of Tarsus :	they have seen a great light, [DOT] and
instead of slaying the demon they are now Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
ready to accept the situation. They were in favour of the provinces having these lands ; why are they not true to their principle ? It seems to be characteristic of a Liberal that once he has a principle he must abandon it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Like Paul of Tarsus.


William Findlay Maclean: They do not choose to be Paul ; they are always 'Saul. Do hon. gentlemen from the west pretend to say that a definite proposition, which would give a sufficient amount of ready money for these provinces, could not be evolved, based on the provinces taking over these lands. I am Quite sure that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), if he had a conference with the representatives of these provinces, could evolve a financial policy which allow the provinces to have the lands and give enough ready money for all their requirements. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) would be prepared to do it any day. I am in favour of those provinces receiving those lands and administering them and of evolving a financial policy based on the land which would give them lots of ready money; and I do regret to notice that how ready are those Liberals to abandon their principles whenever these principles come in collision with some question of expediency and of holding office. Surely they ought to elect to stand by their principles and by the Territories instead of coming down here and promising everything and then doing nothing. What is it they have not promised with regard to the school question and a financial arrangement with the new provinces. If there was ever a champion of national schools in this country, the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) was that man. He made his reputation on that question. He got into this government on it and expects to achieve higher honours still. But lie has abandoned all he ever said about national schools in Manitoba and has swallowed the mixture prepared for him without a protest. I never saw a more humiliating spectacle in this House than that presented the other day in that little duel between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the exMinister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). I do not know what influence was exerted, but the spectacle presented was not a satisfactory one for the country. Neither will the country be satisfied with the spectacle presented to-day by these hon. gentlemen opposite who for years have been going up and down the Northwest asking, arguing that the lands should absolutely belong to the- people of that country, inasmuch as the provinces were competent to administer those lands and should be given the same status as the other provinces. But now these same gentlemen say that they were

not well informed, and that after looking into the thing they are prepared to accept a compromise. If that he their view, it is not the view of the people of the west; and when they go back to the people and try to explain the compromise they have agreed to on all these questions, they will be taught the lesson they richly deserve. Everything, they now say, can be settled in a spirit of compromise, and they are here to make the best possible compromise. It was not for that purpose they were elected. They are prepared to do anything however to save their party. That is their sole object. But it seems to me that their object ought rather to be to vindicate their principles. Every effort they make, however, is to keep the Liberal party, by some means or other, in office, accept the dictates ol the Liberal chieftain, and compromise those principles which they used to advocate so strongly, to which they pledged themselves on every platform in the west, and which the people of the west hold so dearly. They made a pretense of .independence, but what did it amount to ? The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) bolted and Out went these hon. gentlemen from the west behind him. They then held a little caucus and said : We must have a change in the School Act. Then the ex-Minister of the Interior got up and said he would support what he considered to be a substantial change.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: I am only giving this as an illustration to show how cheaply these lion, gentlemen hold their principles. We have never yet been told on what compromise they came back to the fold and what is the difference between the original clause and the present one. Yet the compromise has been accepted ; and they have swallowed their medicine, and they are now striving to look pleasant over it. That is not a wholesome spectacle to show this country. Heaven only knows what other things they will be prepared to sacrifice before this debate is through. I believe that the people of the west want to control their own educational affairs and their own land, and I believe they are quite competent to control and administer both. Hon. gentlemen opposite are on record as having taken that view in the old days, but it is not their view to-day ; and I trust that the members- from the west will give this country a better reason for their submission than any they have so far given. I trust they will be able to give a better reason for consenting to have the new provinces deprived of their right to administer their own lands than that they do not see any income from these lands. There is an income to be derived from them, and it would be an easy matter for the provinces to base a system on which they could raise an income from those lands. Look at our
friends, the railway contractors. All they need do to finance these days is to pawn these lauds. Men like Mann and Mackenzie can go to the Dominion government and get their notes endorsed for $9,000,000 on the strength of their land grant. They go t'o the province of Ontario and their note is endorsed for $1,000,000. They can go to Nova Scotia and raise money in the same way. They can go to Manitoba, wThere there is a Conservative government in power, and their note, with these lands as security, is endorsed for $1,000,000. If these railway promoters can have their notes endorsed and financed in this way, surely these great provinces about to be erected in the west could evolve a financial policy based on their lauds which would give them ready money, and they would then enjoy the income that would naturally come from those lands. Speaking from a Dominion point of view and as a citizen of Ontario, I could justify the policy of the Dominion holding on to these lands ; but how a member from the Northwest can advocate any such policy I am at a loss to understand. This is but another instance of the abandonment of provincial interests and provincial rights in the interests of some outside concerns.


Thomas Walter Scott: It is perfectly true that the opinion of a good many people in the Northwest Territories has been undergoing a change with regard to this question of lands. I do not know that my hon. *frieud from South York (Mr. W.[DOT] F. Maclean) can be entirely relieved of responsibility for that fact. He made a statement on this question a little more than a year ago. Let me quote a part of that statement, which, perhaps he has forgotten :
The question of the autonomy of the Northwest has been brought uip. I stand in favour of government by the people. The people of the Northwest are ready to assume the responsibility of their own government, they are ready to tlo it as we in Ontario are determined to maintain the system we have here. Why cannot the people of the Northwest be given a government, of their own ? They are prosperous, they have schools and other things to carry on, and they can manage for themselves as well as this government can do it for them. Why cannot the Northwest Territories be erected into a province ? The people are asking for relief and they cannot get it, but if the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific want anything, you find the great Liberal party turning hand-springs to give them everything they want. There is no legislature in this country to-day doing anything for the people, but every one of them, is turning hand-springs to distribute the resources of the country among the great corporations.
What did that mean ? It could only mean that my hon. friend wanted other legislatures established,-new legislatures created in the Northwest.-and the public resources put into their hands, so that those legislatures could, as he says, turn handsprings to give these public resources to corporations. Was that not reason enough to lead

us to think again and perhaps revise our opinion ?
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess,
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
ill-. R. L. BORDEN. I -would like to ask the Prime Minister as to one matter that 1 do not think has been very clearly brought out by any information laid before the House, and that is what quantity of actually good land there is in the Northwest iii each of these provinces, suitable for agricultural purposes. The reason I ask is that a rather extraordinary statement was made by one of the hon. gentlemen from the Northwest, the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Talbot). In the first place he says :
There is another reason why it is best for the federal government to administer those lands. It may not be considered a good reason by some, but I think the experience of most of the other provinces will give some weight to it. It is this. We might at some future time haye a careless or extravagant government in one or both of the new provinces. If such a thing did happen our resources would rapidly disappear, and -we might in a very few years be compelled to appeal to extensive direct taxation.
I myself would not be inclined to think there was any greater danger in that regard from entrusting the lands to provincial control than from leaving them in the control of the government of Canada. There is certainly no more reason to apprehend a reckless or extravagant government in the Territories than there is to apprehend such a government in the Dominion as a whole. Further than that, the direct and immediate interest of the people, the circumstances that the disposal of the lands would be a matter of immediate local concern, would seem to me to give greater security in that regard if they were under provincial control than that which might be expected to result from Dominion control. However, the hon. gentleman of course is entitled to his opinions in that regard. But he went on to say something else :
Some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House would like to make the public believe that all the lands in these vast areas are agricultural lands. Such Is far from being the case. In fact only a small portion of those lands will ever be fit for agricultural purposes. Millions of acres are under water. Millions more consist of muskeg and slough, while millions more are sand hills and barren. There is no doubt there is an immense quantity of good agricultural land in the country, but it is only a fraction of the whole.
I would have been inclined to expect my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to rise in his wrath, as well as in his might, and assail the hon. gentleman who made that statement about the lands in the Northwest, but I have not heard from him in that regard up to


William Findlay Maclean: date. It is a pretty sweeping description. 1 am not inclined to agree with the hon. member for Strathcona so far as some of these statements are concerned, that is, from the information which I have been enabled to gather with respect to the quality of the land in the Northwest. I do not think that the hon. gentleman's observations are borne out by any information we have before the House at the present time. But when statements of that kind are made by hon. gentlemen who come here from the Northwest, they would seem to me to merit some attention from the government, and I think we should have some statement before the committee as to the proportion of good land available for agricultural purposes in the two new provinces.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry that at this moment I cannot give my hon. friend information as to the exact quantity of good land which is available for agricultural purposes in these two new provinces. I could, however, make an effort to have a computation made, which I will do, and hope to place in his hands at a very early date. Such information ought to be available. I agree witli my hon. friend that there is no more probability of a reckless government existing in those provinces than there is here at Ottawa. We remember that there has been a reckless government at Ottawa in the past, and there may be again. But if there is a reckless government at Ottawa, the consequences to the people in the depletion of their assets would be less grave than would be tiie case if there was a reckless government in the Northwest Territories. If the lands were left under the control of the provinces the temptation would be very great to waste them, as the lands would afford them a ready asset to meet their liabilities ; whereas if there were such a thing as a reckless government in Ottawa, they would have other resources to draw upon besides the lands. Therefore I should think the observation of the hon. member for Strathcona was not without some foundation. As to the character of the lands, I must say that I am a little surprised at the description given of them by my hon. friend from Strathcona. My Impression at the present time is that, with a very small exception, especially in the province of Saskatchewan, all the lands are available, either for ranching or for agriculture, by far the greater proportion. I do not know how much waste land there is. I understand there is very little swamp land, as there is in Manitoba. At the same time, I cannot give the information to my hon. friend he asks for, but when we take up this question again I hope to be able to give him the information.


Richard Stuart Lake: 
Mr. HERRON.: Before this resolution passes I would like to add a word to what has already been said in reference to the lands in the Northwest. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) state this afternoon that a great change has come over the people of the Northwest lately in reference to their lands. In my part o'f the country no change has come over the people. They are just as strongly in favour of having their lands to-day as they were one or two years ago, and I do not think anything will be done or anything can be done in this House to compensate the people in that country



for the lands taken away from them by this government. A good deal has been said as to what the provinces would do, should the lands be handed over to them, for money to carry on the government. I may state that there have during the last few years been large sales of coal lands made. That is one way in which a revenue could be obtained by the new provinces. I understand that within the last two years a sale of coal lauds amounting to about $300,000 was made to one man. That information may not be correct but I saw the report in several papers. If that is true it applies to a very small portion of our coal lands. I understand that large sales are being made continually to outside corporations. I understand that .Tint Hill has, in the neighbourhood of Pincher "Creek where I live, 10,000 acres of coal lands. I do not know what he has paid for them ; I do not know, in fact, whether he owns the lands or not, but it is generally supposed that he owns them, and if he paid the same price for these lands that other people are paying for similar lands the amount will be quite considerable. Other coal lands are being sold from time to time. That is one source from which a considerable amount of revenue would be received by the new provinces.
Another way in which, I think, it would be very expedient for the government to deal with a portion of the Northwest lands would be to grant a pre-emption to settlers. I do not know whether it is generally accepted in this country or by members from the Northwest Territories, but in my locality it is considered that a quarter section of land is not sufficient for a homestead. I think this government should take into consideration the selling to homesteaders the odd quarter section adjoining their homesteads. As I understand the policy of the department at the present time there is no land for sale in the Northwest Territories to any person. I believe that is the present policy of the government No doubt they will sell in time, and I do not see any reason why they should refrain from selling land to settlers. We know they have been selling it to corporations. I am quite sincere in what I say in reference to placing these odd sections at the disposal of homesteaders in addition to their homesteads. I think the government could sell this land at a good price, and I do not think they could sell it to any better people than the homesteaders, selling it to them at the price of railway lands, for instance. I say the time will come very soon, when, if even the Dominion government retain these lands, they will be putting up the price ; they will not be giving these lands as free homesteads. I do not think it is justice to the pioneers who have gone in and settled that country, taken up land and advanced its value until to-day it is worth $5 to $10 an acre, in fact from


John Herron: $7 to $20 an acre and then to allow new settlers to go in and get that land for nothing the same as the early settlers did.


David Wesley Bole: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Herron) advocate homesteading the odd sections ?


John Herron: Yes, certainly for the present, but I believe it will not continue very long. I do not think it should continue very long. The point I am making is that the land is worth from $10 to $20 an acre, and I do not think the government should continue very long to give that aw.ay.


David Wesley Bole: I was wondering where they were going to get the revenue to run the government.


John Herron: I have named one or two sources of revenue from which we could get perhaps as much money as we are getting under the present Bill. I believe we could derive a large revenue from the sale of our mineral lands in that country for some years to come, and with the revenue that will come to the provinces under this Bill, I do not see how they are going to provide for provincial services. The amount allotted for the first year under this Bill could be spent in my own district alone, and then it would not half supply the needs of the district in building roads and bridges and other things which are absolutely_ necessary. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House know that when the Territorial government was giving us $700,000 or $800,000 a year there were applications in for the expenditure of $15,000,000, which large sum could be very judiciously applied to meet the wants of the people.


William Findlay Maclean: This afternoon the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) read an extract from a speech of mine that I had


Wilfrid Laurier: Forgotten.


William Findlay Maclean: No ; but I was wondering how he could possibly make the views therein expressed' conflict with my present views. I did say something about the recklessness of legislatures voting away the property of the people, but I was speaking of all legislatures, including the Dominion parliament. It must be remembered that these legislatures, which so cheerfully gave away the heritage of the people, were nearly all under Liberal governments, but a change is taking place now. There has been a change in my own province, and two minutes ago I received this telegram from Toronto, which shows what a Conservative government is doing to protect the interests of the people :
Whitney announces that Order in Council granting Electric Development Company power to develop extra 25,000 horse-power will not be ratified.

A Liberal government in Ontario gave away three great franchises in connection with the development of power, and two days before the election they doubled the capacity of water that one of these companies was allowed to take, and in that reckless way the property of the people was handed out to exploiters. The Conservative government in Ontario is trying to remedy this. I believe, with the member for Qu'Ap-pelle, that there would be a more satisfactory administration of the public lands by the local authorities than by the central authority at Ottawa. The new Minister of the Interior has come into the House fresh from the west, and I would like him to tell us whether the opinion of the west is, as it was formerly, that the public domain shall be handed over to the new provinces. We are told here toy one or two members from the west that their views have changed, but I am quite certain that the views of the people of the west in this respect have not changed.


Frank Oliver: All of us who come from the west are anxious to have this Bill passed, and if we do not reply to every assertion that is made from the other side, it is rather because we wish to forward business than that we are particular about how gentlemen on the other side care to represent or misrepresent the position. By this time we have fairly well arrived at a conclusion as to what is the position of the opposition in regard to this question. They appear to be unanimous in the view that the lands of the west shall be treated as a source of revenue, and that the west should depend upon its lands for its revenue. That is the view that prevailed when the Conservatives were in power, and every member on the other side has reiterated that principle today. I need not remind the House or the country that under that policy, not only was the land not a source of revenue, but it was a source of direct loss ; it did not pay the cost of administration. It was not until the principle of the land for the people, the principle of free land to the settler, was adopted that the price of land in the Northwest increased. It is because of the policy of the land for the settler that land in the west has attained its present value. Just so sure as the policy of the land for revenue is adopted again, just so sure the result will be as before. With the experience we have had, it is late in the day for us to make the mistake of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. It is the free settlement of land that makes the balance of it valuable, and just so soon as you place the burden of support of provincial government upon the revenue derived from the sale of the land, just so soon you will depreciate the value of the land and injure the province and injure the country. I am fresh from the west, and I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) that I discussed this question with 175$
the people I have the honour to represent. He knows the result. This subject was persistently placed before the people, and the provisions of the Bill in this regard were, so far as I could learn, unanimously endorsed by the people. We do not want a policy of the land for revenue ; we want a policy of the land for the people, and the members who parade the fact that certain lands in the Northwest are to-day worth certain money are only giving evidence of the desirability, of the necessity for, and of the success of, the policy of giving away the land to anybody who will take it and use it. The idea that you could derive from the whole land of the country the same value that you can for a small part of it when you are using the greater part of it for the purpose of attracting settlers, is an idea that is absolutely absurd, and one which I think will not be approved of by even our western friends on the other side of the House.
As to the ability of the people of the Northwest to manage their own affairs their land or other matters, no question is raised by any person, but there is a difference in point of view as I had occasion to remark at another time. The provincial government, which circumstances compel to derive ultimately the larger part of its revenue from the disposal of its lands, is under necessity and stress of an absolutely different administration of its lands from the Dominion government which makes its money out of those lands by their settlement. As I said on a previous occasion, the Dominion government can afford, and well afford, not only to give the lands away, but to spend a million dollars a year in attracting settlement to those lands and still make lots of money for that country and for every province in the Dominion by doing so. It need scarcely be stated to the members of this House that the provincial government whose interest in those lands is from their sale and rental is not in a position to give them away, is not in a position to spend money in order to attract settlers to them, and give them the lands for nothing ; as is the Dominion government which derives its revenues from the customs duties on the increased trade due to the presence of these settlers in Canada. There is no question about the ability of the provincial government or the Dominion government; it is a question of the circumstances under which each government carries on its affairs, and again I say in answer to the hon. gentleman's question, we in the west appreciate thoroughly the necessity from every point of view of those lands being administered as far as possible in the interests of settlement and not in the interests of revenue; it is for that reason that we want those lands to remain under the administration of the Dominion which is able to administer them and still make a profit, and we are glad to receive a cash allowance in

place of the revenue that otherwise we would have to take out of those lands.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it not after all a mere matter of control?


Frank Oliver: Certainly not.


Robert Laird Borden: Why not?


Frank Oliver: I have tried to explain.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps my hon. friend does not understand me. The Dominion he says pays a certain subsidy to the province and pays out large sums of money in respect of the administration of those lands.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, can we not very well hand the lands over to the provinces and give them that additional amount and still have local control? Why would it not be better for the Dominion to take that course? As far as the Dominion is concerned, there would be no loss of money according to the hon. gentleman's statement. That is why I said just now that after all it is a mere matter of control.


Frank Oliver: If that is the suggestion of the hon. gentleman I would certainly advise him to put it in the form of a motion and place it before the House and the country.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman support it?


Frank Oliver: I certainly would not, for I believe in the principle that if we are paying the cost of the administration of these lands we should administer them.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not suggest the contrary.


Frank Oliver: I have not followed the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: I suggested that Canada shall make a proper allowance to the new provinces, having regard to the fact that they must take over certain items of expenditure which now devolve upon the Dominion of Canada in connection with the control of these lands. The hon. gentleman surely does not object to the new provinces getting an adequate allowance to carry on the business which is entrusted to them. Coming from the west he does not take that position.


Frank Oliver: Certainly not.


Robert Laird Borden: Does it not come dov'n then to what I suggested ?
\r. OLIVER. Does the hon. member propose to ive the provinces the cash allowance we propose in this Bill, and also to hand over the administration of the lands and also to recoup them for any possible loss incurred in the administration of those lands ?


Frank Oliver: 


Robert Laird Borden: I say that if we impose on them under the terms of this Bill a certain expenditure, it is reasonable and necessary that we should make provision for that expenditure, and I have also said over and over again that I believe the provinces should be entrusted with the control of these lands. I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) had concluded his remarks so I shall not add anything more until after he has finished.


Frank Oliver: I have no hesitation in saying that the principle that the government which provides the money should have the control is one that I would always support, and that if the Dominion government had to provide the provinces with the money with which to administer the lands, it would be right and proper- and as a western man I would say it would be right and proper-that the Dominion government should administer that for which it pays. But to repeat, if I can make myself clear, it would not matter if to-day we handed over to the provinces the amount of money that we are proposing to hand over and then handed over to them the land and then handed over an additional amount to repay them for possible less on the administration of those lands, the principle would still remain that the Dominion government could afford to give the lands away and still make money, and that the provincial government could not afford to give the lands away and make money; and that therefore those of us who believe in the propriety and the good policy of administering these lands for the sake of settlement rather than of revenue, other things being equal, certainly want to see that administration remain in the hands of the Dominion government. Now in regard to a suggestion made by the hon* member for Alberta {Mr. Herron) as to the revenue that is being derived from the sale of mineral lands-and by inference he suggested that a sufficient revenue might be derived from the sale of mineral lands without trespassing on agricultural lands- I do not know what money could be derived from the sale of mineral lands, in the Territories ; I do not know what money has been derived in the past or can be derived in the future. I hope that a very large revenue can be derived from that source, but even supposing that there can be a considerable revenue derived from that source, it does not alter the principle I have stated, but we may judge possibly of this by comparison. The district of Alberta, as every one knows, is not what would be called a highly mineralized territory. There are important and valuable mineral coal deposits throughout the prairie country and in the Rocky mountains and these of course are of very great value, but certainly Alberta is not mineralized to anything like the extent that the adjoining i province of British Columbia is. There is

a province of larger area than the proposed province of Alberta, a province which is, I might almost say, entirely mineralized, which has coal, and gold, and silver, and lead, and copper, and iron, and every metal almost on earth, and has them in the greatest abundance. I suppose there is no other country of equal area that is as highly mineralized or mineralized with as valuable metal as British Columbia. British Columbia has timber and land and that province works all its natural resources for all they are worth as sources of revenue, yet if I have read the reports of the provincial government correctly, the total receipts from the sales of lands from all sources that I could gather in the province of British Columbia a year or two ago amounted to some $015,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Did they not collect royalty ?


Frank Oliver: Yes, this is all I could gather. I have here the revenue from sale; of mineral lands, timber lands and the rest, and the whole thing totals $015,000. If that is the total which British Columbia derives from the sale of lands and the rental and working of all its natural resources, I submit that we in Alberta cannot reasonably expect to support our provincial government from the sales of our mineral and timber lands.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say to the hon. gentleman that one of his arguments at least would lead to some extraordinary results. He says that whatever the Dominion government provides money for, they should control. Well, the Dominion government, under the terms of this Bill, provides money for the administration of justice in the new provinces, and for other matters which are under control of the provinces. All I was suggesting was that if the lands were under control of the new provinces, it would be proper to take into consideration the expense involved in the administration of those lands. He says you must not get revenue out of these lands as that would bear harshly on the people. But I did not observe him to rise here and rebuke the argument of his predecessor two years ago when he led us to believe that we would get from sixty to seventy-five million dollars out of these lands. Well, it will not bear less hardly on the people if that money be taken by the Dominion than if it be taken by the new provinces. I heard no word of repudiation from the hon. gentleman when the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) announced that policy. On the contrary, he voted in support of the government and in support of that argument. Are we to-day having a new policy announced ? Has the hon. gentleman decided to repudiate the policy of the government as announced by his predecessor, because
that is what his argument leads to ? Let me tell him that in the province of Nova Scotia, which has an area of only 21,000 square miles, and where a wiser policy has been pursued in respect of its mines than that which is being pursued in respect of its Crown lands, the amount of money received from mineral lands in the year ending 30th September, 1903, was $619,234, which is a very comfortable amount of revenue for a province with a small area, and which was within a few dollars of one half the total revenue of that province during that year. And I might add also that it is a province, only portions of which are mineralized. The Annapolis valley and other very large portions of the province, which are suitable for agricultural purposes, are of course not mineralized, but there is quite a large area- between one-half and one-third-which might be regarded as mineralized land. If such lands were handed over to the new provinces, probably some system of not giving away the whole of the mineralized land, but reserving a certain interest to the people in the shape of royalty, might be carried out with equally good results. In the province of Alberta, such a policy would contribute largely to the development of the country. The hon. minister may see possibly that there might be some room for reflection in the suggestion that the lands, even if the present system were maintained, would be of some use to the new provinces. The Dominion government did not propose to make $60,000,000 to $75,000,000 by doing away with the homestead entries. The predecessor of my hon. friend distinctly said that these homesteads must be reserved for the poor man, but he proposed to make this money out of the alternate sections which are not reserved for homestead sections.


Frank Oliver: What did he say ?


Robert Laird Borden: He said this :
But I would point to the fact that we shall enter upon the business of selling something like 50,000,000 acres of land in the Territories in a short time, and if we watch the manner in which the business of selling land by railway and land companies, has been going on, we have no reason to doubt that, if we choose, these lands will be disposed of with some degree of rapidity. What I desire to say is this : There is probably, out of that 50,000,000 acres of odd-numbered sections-the even-numbered sections are kept for the poor man's homesteads-20,-000,000 or 25,000,000 at present so far removed from communication as to be absolutely of no value whatever. Buit, in my judgment, within ten years from the time this railway is completed, 20,000,000 acres of land owned by the government at present will have acquired a value of at least $3 per acre.
And in the previous part of bis remarks be pointed out that by reason of the corporations selecting their land, the government would be free to dispose of the odd-

numbered sections, reserving the even numbered for the poor man's homesteads, and we would get $60,000,000 to $75,000,000 out of it.


John Herron: I might say with reference to the comparison which the hon, gentleman drew between the lauds of British Columbia and those of Alberta, that if we have no precious minerals in Alberta, still we have these immense coal deposits which are probably just as valuable as the precious metals. Some of the coal mines of Alberta have sold for as large a sum as some of these silver and copper mines of British Columbia. One of them sold for no less a sum than $3,000,000. Within twenty-five miles of the locality where I live, I suppose we have fifty coal mines just as good as the one I referred to, which sold for $3,000,000. Coal mines are being developed all over that country. Not more than a month ago, an eminent engineer reported on a mine newly developed within the last year, and in his report he said that there were ten million tons of coal above tunnel levels. That is only one mine out of fifty within twenty-five miles of where I live, It seems to me that a province with natural resources of that kind would have no difficulty in raising a fair amount of revenue. You might also take into consideration our fisheries, which may be of considerable importance. I think that if they were under the control of the Northwest government we should, not see them leased at $10 a year for 21 years. If they were handled in the proper way, they would be another considerable source of revenue. I consider the minerals of our country also very important. And I think we could make a law which would do more to promote the development of our mineral resources than can be done from here. The mining laws of the Dominion, I consider, very unsatisfactory to the people engaged in mining. And something should be done to remedy this difficulty.


William Findlay Maclean: 
Richard Stuart Lake: I believe that the consensus of opinion in the Northwest is in favour of the possession of the public domain by the people of the new provinces. It is curious to me that hon. gentlemen opposite say that they have not heard any dissatisfaction expressed in the country with the policy they now propose.


Thomas Walter Scott: Why did not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake) go to Edmonton and ask the people to endorse his view ?


Richard Stuart Lake: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott), if he has heard from any but his own political associates must have heard a good deal more on this subject than he is willing to admit. We have been told by hon. gentlemen opposite that they have heard hardly any objection to the educational clauses of the Bill. The hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) nods his head in assent to that. I can assure him that both with regard to the educational clauses, which we are not now discussing, and the land clauses I have heard a great deal of dissatisfaction expressed, and have had a large number of letters on the subject. I can well understand that hon. gentlemen supporting the government think that the Dominion should retain the land. The idea was expressed to me by a leading Liberal of the Territories before the recent election. He said to me :	' You cannot expect the
Dominion government to divest themselves of the enormous patronage involved in the the public lands of the Northwest.' But the point I wish to call attention to just now is

that referred to by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). That hon. gentleman asked the question which has not yet been answered. He wished to know if this territory bordering upon Hudson bay-most of it. I think, comprised in the district of Keewatin-is to be divided amongst the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, will that portion of the territory to be added to Ontario still remain, so far as the possession of the lands is concerned, in the hands of the Dominion government, or will the lands be handed over to the province ? And, will a difference be made in that respect between the part of the territory given to Ontario and that given to the new province of Saskatchewan ? That is a question to which I would very much like to hear an answer, because I think it has a very clear bearing upon the subject before us. We know that a few years ago a very large amount of territory was handed over to the province of Quebec-116,550 square miles.


Wilfrid Laurier: I beg the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Lake's) pardon,-nothing was given to Quebec.


Robert Laird Borden: There was a statute passed


Wilfrid Laurier: It was to settle the boundaries.


Richard Stuart Lake: There seems to be a great divergence of opinion between the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the local government of Quebec, because in the Order in Council which the Quebec government passed, upon which this Act of parliament was subsequently founded, it was stated that the definition of the limits which were proposed by the Quebec government meant an increase in area of 116,550 square miles. There can be no question, even if the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is right, and it was merely a new definition of the boundary, that it certainly drew the new boundary line far away to the north of the one which existed at that time. In any case, I think we should receive a definite answer on this point. Because only a short time ago, when the Minister of Justice was speaking on the Autonomy Bill, he said that in order to place the public lands of the Northwest Territories in the possession of the new provinces it would require a divesting Act by the parliament of Canada. So far as I have been able to see, there has been no divesting Act in regard, at all events, to that portion of the lands which the government of Quebec believed had been added to that province in IS 89.
When we were asking for information this afternoon as to the basis of the calculation of the money grant given in lieu of lands, the information which we got showed us pretty conclusively that it was based upon the idea that 50,000,000 acres of land of the odd numbered sections
are to be opened up and brought within the reach of civilization by the Grand Trunk Pacific. I do not think it can be said that any portion of the present district of Atha-baska would come within that scope. I think the whole of the district of Athabaska is really considered by the government to be of little value at the present moment. Would it not be good policy, if the government determines to retain possession of the land in the present provisional districts of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Assinibola, to hand over the district of Athabaska, at any rate, into the complete possession of the new provinces ? I think that would furnish a great incentive to the new provinces to try and open up this district. It seems to me that if a remote district of that sort is placed under the administration of a local government who have no beneficiary interest in the land, it would be a source of expenditure without affording any revenue. The provincial government might find a considerable amount of immigration going into the district of Athabaska, 300 or 400 miles away. These settlers would call loudly for the opening up of new roads and the building of bridges over some of the big rivers, and that would mean taking away a certain amount of money which would otherwise be spent in the more thickly settled districts nearer home. Therefore, it seems to me that the local government would not be very anxious to encourage settlement in the remote districts ; whereas, if the lands in those remote districts formed part of the province, the local government would do their utmost to encourage settlement there, because they would be enhancing the value of their own property. For instance if the minerals are in the possession of the Dominion government, the opening up of a new coal mine would bring some money to the Dominion government in the shape of royalty, but it brings no revenue to the local government; in fact, it is a source of expenditure, because the local government has to provide for the inspection of the mine and for the safety of the miners. Therefore, the opening up of an undertaking of that sort is a loss to the local government, although it is a gain to the Dominion government. But if the mines and minerals belonged to the province it would be quite a different proposition for then the local government woinci be anxious to develop its resources and make a revenue in order to repay for the extra expenditure they would have to make in providing for the inspection of the mine and safeguarding the lives of the miners.


Mr. MORIN.: In regal'd to this question of lands in the new provinces, I cannot understand why the government do not annex those provinces and then give them the milk and the cream, and let them go. What is the use of this government acting as a clerk of the new provinces ? Here is the federal government proposing to collect the

money for the sale of the land and hand it back to the provinces. Why don't you give them a quit claim to the land, and let the provinces take care of themselves ? If they can take care of themselves, they can take care of their own land. This is a childish policy ; it is as plain as A, B, C. Now, what will take place ? I may not live to see the day, but the day will come when this government will receive no revenue from those lands, and then the government will say to the provinces : We cannot pay you any more, because we get nothing from you. Then they will say to this government : Why didn't you let us alone in the first place ? Why did you rob us when we had something ? Isn't it as broad as it is long ? That is the way I understand it, anyway.


Frank Oliver: I think the hon. member has put his finger on the weak spot of our opponents' argument. He suggests that the time will come when the revenues from the lands will not be equal to the subsidy in lieu of the land. However, he is mistaken when he suggests (that at that time, if it arrives, this government will be able to say to the provinces : We don't get the money, and therefore we cannot give it to you. That is the advantage of this agreement to the people of the Northwest, that, whether that time arrives or not, if it ever does arrive, it will not be the privilege of this government to say that it will not pay that money, because it will have to pay that money whether it derives any revenue or not. That is why we are supporting this provision.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Very well. Will the hon. gentleman tell me whether the government proposes to act as a broker in this matter ?


Frank Oliver: The government is not
acting as a broker at all


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Call it any other name you please.
Mr. OLIVER-because it is merely continuing to transact the business that it has always transacted, and the transaction of which has been successful and satisfactory ; and the local government is going to continue to transact its business, in which its administration has been successful, but its revenues will be on a somewhat different basis from what they were before, and that is all the difference. I just want to make reference to a point mentioned by the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) and also by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. R. L. Borden), in reference to the revenue to be derived by the provinces, or that might be derived by the provinces in one instance, from the sale of coal lands, or royalties on coal and, in the other ease, from the sale of the odd numbered sections of land. The hon. member for Carleton read an extract from a speech of the late Minister of the ' Interior, in which he suggested the idea -that certain lands might be sold at the price, -Mr. MORIN.
as I understand the extract, of $3 per acre. I am not able to say how far the late minister was laying down the policy for the future conduct of the government.


Robert Laird Borden: He said that a measure would be introduced.


Frank Oliver: I will only say that the principle still remains the same' that this government can afford to give the lands away, and if it does not see fit to give the lands away it can afford to sell the lands to settlers better than the provincial government can afford to sell them if it has to sell them. He places the figures at $3 an acre of the land to be sold when land to-day is being sold at $6 per acre by railway companies. I submit that the provincial government under stress for revenue, as the government of every province in the Dominion is at the present time and as the governments of these provinces might very well be expected to be, would in the natural course of events, be apt to charge exactly what hon. members on the other side of the House have been suggesting during the whole of this day-the last cent the land was worth and wring the last cent they could get out of it for the purposes of revenue. That is the principle that hon. gentlemen opposite have laid down. That was not the principle laid down by the late Minister of the Interior. The principle was that there was a possibility of deriving a certain amount of money from the sale of land, but the price he suggested was under the present conditions, a low price, a price such as might be supposed not to be a bar to successful settlement. The same in regard to the sale of coal lands or royalties on coal. In their comparison between the existence of coal in Alberta and the existence of coal in Nova Scotia our hon. friends on the other side of the House do not seem to appreciate the source from which the value comes. Coal and land in themselves have no value. The value in the coal Is in the market that may be got for the coal, and the value of the land is in the demand that exists for the land. If nobody wants the coal or the land the coal and the land are worth nothing. In Alberta we have hundreds of square miles of coal practically worth nothing, because there is no market for it. Therefore, a comparison between the revenue that may be derived from coal in Alberta and the revenue that is derived from coal in Nova Scotia is not a proper comparison.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is there not a market ?


Frank Oliver: Because there is no great population dependent upon that source of supply. There will be, we hope, but there is not at the present time. To-day practically the area of coal land in the Edmonton districts is worth no more than ordin-

ary farm land because there is so much of it and because there is no outside market for it. The market is not large enough. What I want to say in regard to coal is the same as I said in regard to land, that the provincial government under stress for the raising of a revenue might very well place a royalty on coal that would be a bar to the development of the industry in the stages through which it must pass while awaiting the development of the market. At the present time there is a royalty charged on coal by this government. This royalty of ten cents a ton is levied on coal mined under land granted on certain conditions. Other and adjoining land granted under different circumstances produces coal, but pays no royalty and I am credibly informed, that the circumstances being as they are, the difference of ten cents a ton is sufficient to put out of business the coal mine-it is local mines that II am speaking of-that has to pay that royalty as compared with the one that does not pay royalty. I submit we cannot afford to have our coal industry any more than our land settlement placed in jeopardy by placing it in the danger of provincial government which might very well be in financial stress as is the government of every province of the Dominion at the present time-


Mr. BRODER.: Would they not likely be as anxious for development as the federal government ?


Frank Oliver: Surely, they might be anxious, but if they had not the means, they could not do what they might desire to do and the experience of every government of every province of this Dominion is that they are under financial difficulties. Their provincial revenues are not equal to their provincial expenditures in scarcely any instance, they are continually looking for other sources of revenue and under the circumstances it certainly seems very plain that the danger to the development of the natural resources of the country is too great. We cannot afford to take the risk. We have heard of the great province of Ontario. It is a great province and it has a great people. It has a great undeveloped area and in that great undeveloped area is a vast clay belt, we are told-a clay belt suitable for settlement, awaiting settlement and we have a vigorous government in the province of Ontario. We have had one for many years and we have one now, we suppose. Has the province of Ontario at any time, or under any circumstances, or in any way successfully placed one single settler upon that great clay belt of Northern Ontario ? Where has been the immigrant policy of the government of Ontario ? Where has been their policy of development of their great northern country ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think the late Liberal government claimed that they had created a New Ontario.


William Findlay Maclean: Ontario, Ontario.


Frank Oliver: They acquired this new Ontario, it is true, but what I am pointing out is that after they acquired it they have, just as we would be afraid would be done in the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, skinned it of its natural resources for the sake of provincial revenue. Show me where they have put money into the development of that part of the province of Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: We are sorry to hear that their policy was so unwise.


Frank Oliver: I am neither defending nor attacking the government of Ontario. I am stating what I understand to be the plain facts and it is open to any hon. member of the House to correct me if I am incorrect. I am laying down the principle that no provincial government is circumstanced to undertake the work of the de-velopement of a new country as is the Dominion government, because it derives its revenue from a different source and where the Dominion government has good and sufficient reasons for inducing free settlement by the expenditure of large amounts of money, no provincial government has any inducement or can afford to undertake that work and as a matter of fact does not undertake the work.


William Findlay Maclean: Alas, and alack a day for provincial rights in the House of its old friends. Apparently the new provinces can do nothing. They are not able to administer public lands or public trusts, and if they were given charge of their estate they would only squander it. That apparently is the view of the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Walter Scott: That is the hon. gentleman's statement.


William Findlay Maclean: No, it is the statement of hon. gentlemen opposite, and especially of the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). Later on in this discussion I intend to move a resolution something on these lines : that this clause be amended by the substitution of terms giving at least half the coal areas in each of the new provinces to the respective governments of those provinces. If there is any thing that the west is rich in it is in coal, and if there is anything the future, of the west depends on it is coal. Unless these settlers are assured for all time of the control of a cheap supply of coal, they run the risk of passing under a coal monopoly, as in the United States, where all the great cold areas, especially the Anthracite coal regions in Pennsylvania, have passed into the hands of barons, so that the people are paying $6 per ton for Anthracite coal when they should get it for $1.50 per ton, the cost of mining and transportation. Are we to repeat this mistake

in our western country ? The members from the west should Insist that at least one-half of the coal areas should pass to the provinces and be kept for all time as a fuel supply for the people of the west.


Thomas Walter Scott: Why not say the whole of
it ?


William Findlay Maclean: I am willing to give them the *whole of it, but let us at least make provision now for one half of it. Just as sure as there is a sun in heaven, that coal will be given away in grants of one kind and another, or sold for a mere trifle.


Wilfrid Laurier: It will be safe in the hands of the local government ?


William Findlay Maclean: I do not say that, but if we have two trustees like the Dominion government and the provincial government it might be better protected than if we had only one trustee. There should be an arrangement between the Dominion government and the local government ; that this coal land will be kept for all time for the benefit of the settlers.


Mr. LAMUNT.: Will Saskatchewan share In that ?	,


William Findlay Maclean: If Saskatchewan has no coal fields, then I am willing that she should have an interest in these coal areas. I preach the new doctrine in this House ; that the people of the west should be partners of the Dominion government in the ownership and control of this public domain, and I challenge any man here from the -west to deny that that is a sound proposition. Later on I intend to make a proposal that these new provinces should have at least one-half interest in the coal deposits of that new country.


John Herron: The Minister of the In terior suggested that the Dominion government would sell the lands cheaply for the purpose of developing the country, but I can point out to him that the sales they have made along the foothills have not bad that effect. There was a sale made six or seven years ago of 10,000 acres to a foreign company, another sale of 15,000 acres to another company a few years ago, and not one shovel full of earth has been turned since. That land will be valuable in time to come, and I do not believe it is a good policy for the country that the government should sell it now at a nominal figure and allow it to remain there undeveloped.


Frank Oliver: That proves that what we need in Alberta is a market for the coal in order to give it value, and that in the process of development we must be careful how the business is handled or it will check that development.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not look at it in that way. I would think that the people who take up these coal lands should Mr. W. F. MACLEAN
either develop them or pay a rental until the market does come. Why should they be permitted, without contributing one dollar to the revenue of the country, to hold for thirty or forty years, coal lands that will be worth millions of dollars and perhaps tens of millions of dollars at that time if the country is well settled ? I cannot understand why in the name of common sense such a policy should be adopted. In most countries where these matters are well thought out the coal areas are leased and not sold out right. If they are not worked so as to produce a royalty, the people who hold these lands must pay an annual rental, so that they shall contribute something from year to year in respect to the increased value that these coal lands acquire through their being held. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior stated this afternoon that these lands are of great im-jjortance to the people of the west, and that if they were handed over to them they would have to depend very largely upon these lands for revenue. They argued that the provinces would be less likely to take good care of them than would the Dominion government to whom these lands are of much less moment. I should think that argument would work the other way. These lands are of direct local concern to the people of the province, and in my view the province is more likely to take good care of them than is the Dominion. I do not know why we should suppose that the people of the Northwest are any more reckless, any less capable or any less honest than the people of Canada as a whole, or why the representatives of the people of the west assembled in their legislature would be any less capable, any less prudent or any less provident than the people of Canada as a whole. If they are not less capable, less provident, or less honest, surely they would be likely to take better and not worse care of these lands than the federal legislature.


Frank Oliver: I do not know exactly what the suggestion of charging an annual rental on coal property has to do with the subject under discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: I will tell you. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) said that these lands could not be developed because there is no market for the coal, and therefore, to follow out his argument to its logical result ; it is a -wise policy to sell these lands to speculators wTho will hold them until there is a market, and pay nothing to the public revenue while the increment of value is being added. I say that is not good policy, I say that in the meantime these speculators should pay ah annual rental to the public treasury in order to give at least some compensation for the enormous profits which they in the end will make out of these coal lands.


Frank Oliver: I am quite willing to argue what should be a proper policy to pursue

in regard to these lands, but I do not see what it has to do with the question as to whether the Dominion or the province should carry out such a policy.


Robert Laird Borden: I will endeavour to make it plain. I say that the people of the Territories are just as honest, just as capable and just as provident as the people of the res'! of Canada ; and seeing this thing occurring under their own eyes they would be much more likely to stop it than we seem to have been during the past ten, or fifteen, or twenty years.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not dispute and nobody will dispute that the people of the Territories whether they are represented in this House or in their legislative assemblies are the same, but my hon. friend will agree with me that the argument I gave him this afternoon is unanswerable.
Mr. E, L. BORDEN. I think it is, but in the very opposite direction.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend does not apprehend the argument; it is this, that if a government, whether it be a local or a federal government, gets in trouble financially, the Dominion government has more resources to fall back upon than a local government ; the local government has no resources other than it own lands, and therefore they are more liable to sacrifice these lands to meet an immediate contingency than the Dominion government will be. Let us look at the experience of the past. There is no denying that most of the provincial governments are not at the present time in a very flourishing condition financially ; most of them are more or less embarrassed, and moreover I do not think, judging from the past," that my hon. friend has a bright example as to the administration of public lands by the several provinces. Take the neighbouring province of British Columbia. They gave away their domain, they gave away the richest mineral lands they had, the coal iands for a mere song, and when in 1897' the Canadian Pacific Railway came here for a subsidy to assist them to build the Crow's Ness Pass line they already had an enormous subsidy in lands from the British Columbia legislature, an enormous subsidy, so large indeed that before we gave any assistance to the company to build that line, we compelled it to surrender to us 50,000 acres of their best coal lands which we keep as a reserve, so that the people will have under all circumstances the benefit of the coal that is there. We were not satisfied with the reservation of 50,000 acres of coal lands, but, if I remember aright, we also compelled the company to sell their coal at a stated price, which we were sure would prevent any monopoly of those lands, and would have the effect of preventing the very thing
which terrifies my'hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. P. Maclean) in his new zeal for provincial rights. That zeal altogether new and only of short duration because I remember only last year he was deprecating the mistake made by Sir John Macdonald in permitting a federal government and in not having a legislative union.


William Findlay Maclean: I was pointing out the inconsistency of the right hon. gentleman.


Wilfrid Laurier: That was last year; now he is a provincial lighter and has all the zeal of a new-convert who always goes too far and does not understand the doctrines he is talking about.


Robert Laird Borden: The new light that my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has received in this matter is but a feeble glimmer to that which has come to the right hon. gentleman and those on that side of the House. I still do not agree


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN-with the premier's argument. I did not suppose in his heart that he expected that any one would agree with him because after all his argument does not rest on much. He says that these provinces are likely to be in great stress financially while the Dominion government is always likely to have plenty of money. 'That may or may not be ; we cannot always foretell. I still base my faith upon this that if those lands are of more importance to the province than they are to the Dominion as a whole, and if thqjr people are equally honest and capable, we may expect them to take better care of the public domain than we could possibly do. We surely should not attribute to the people of those provinces so extremely reckless a disposition as to believe that they will sell their birthright for a mess of pottage, simply because of a temporary stringency. That is all the premier's argument amounts to. Some provinces may not have administered their public domain wisely ; I am not contending that they always have done so, but has it not been the argument of my right hon. friend and his followers that this Dominion has not always administered the public domain wisely ? How often have I heard the changes rung upon that as one of the misdeeds of the Conservatives in the past, and yet my right hon. friend and his colleagues were willing in 1875 to give twice as much land to have the Canadian Pacific Railway built as was eventually given by Sir John Macdonald, so that both political parties in the Dominion of Canada, have not according to the argument made on the other side of the House been guilty of excessive prudence in that re-

gard. I do not know enough about the history of the province of British Columbia to be prepared to offer an opinion upon the wisdom of the administration of the public domain of that province. I know that in my own province I do not approve of the way the Crown lands have been administered ; they have been sold instead of being leased under proper control as to cutting upon them. In Quebec, as I understand, there is a system of leasing which perhaps may not always have been carried out very wisely, and in Ontario there is also a system of leasing and I believe in respect to the Crown lands, in respect to minerals, in respect to the public domain generally, it would be wise for the province to retain the ownership rind lease subject to annual rentals as far as that policy is reasonably practicable, it has been followed with great success in Nova Scotia with respect to minerals and if it were not for the revenue derived from minerals, Nova iScotia would have an annual deficit of a large amount or the public services would have to toe provided for much less liberally than they are at present.


Mr. WILLIAM WRIGHT.: I am strongly of the opinion that the lands ought to be handed over to the management of the Northwest. I submit that they could manage them much more economically than they can toe managed from Ottawa no matter what party may be in power. They are the people on the ground. We have in this House ten representatives for the whole Northwest to voice the views of the people there, but in the two legislatures that will be formed there will I think be fifty representatives, there will be representatives from every section of that country. I submit that they are much more interested than we can possibly be in the development of that country. I have different reasons why I would like to see the land in the hands of the people there. 1 do not think the right policy is being followed now in regard to the administration of these Northwest lands. Under the immigration arrangements that were introduced by the Interior Department, the government were I believe giving each alternate quarter section to prospective settlers, and I think selling the next quarter section in order to raise a revenue sufficient to carry on the management of the lands. Now it is proposed to hold these lands as a source of revenue. If this policy is carried out. we might ask ourselves how much revenue we are to get from it. If we have lost more than $1,000,000 in the past, will we niot lose a million in the future if this policy is continued, so that ultimately these lands wall be all gone and nobody will have been benefited, because I submit that in giving a quarter section to each settler we are not fulfilling all our duties in re-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
gard to settlement, because as any one who is familiar with that country knows, a quarter section is not sufficient to establish a settler in the west.
Provision should be made for at least another quarter section to every prospective settler ; and I think that the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) when he proposed putting a motion of that kind some time ago, intended to allow the settler to have the opportunity of buying the quarter section alongside of him. That, I think, would be a move in the right direction. It would be an improvement on the present policy of giving the quarter section at a nominal rate to some company or partnership or individual who will hold the land for speculation. To allow such lands to be held for speculative purposes is a natural hinderamce to the settlement of the Northwest, because it augments the price which the settler will eventually have to pay ; and every dollar added to the price of the land is so much in the way of the settlement of that country. The proper policy would be to extend the present condition of giving a quarter section by providing that the actual settler, who cultivates the ground, will have the opportunity of buying another quarter section at a reasonable price. To-day, after he gets the first quarter section for nothing, he finds himself against the land of some speculator, and is forced to pay from $6 to $15 an acre before he can get the next quarter section. Two or three days ago I had a conversation with a man who tried to get laud out there and found the difficulty so great that he actually came back in disgust and refused to settle under the present conditions. These p.eople say that if proper conditions were imposed, they would move out there this spring and become settlers, but of course greater inducements are given to Doukhobors and Galicians and so on than to the young men from other parts of Canada. One gentleman that I saw said that he went up there to a land office and was pointed out a certain number of quarter sections upon wbich be might locate. After going out at considerable expense and selecting one, when he came back and tried to enter for location lie was coolly told that they promised to hold it six months for some man in Ottawa, and that if he would wait until the spring and this man did not want the land, be could have it. After two or three similar experiences he came away in disgust, and has probably given up any notion of locating in the Northwest. If the present policy be continued, it will materially affect the settlement of that country. I do submit that if the people there had the management of the lands, they would administer it economically, promote settlement to a larger exent than is being done to-day, and save a large sum of money to this government. Even looking at the question from the standpoint only of economy, we would be making money for this Dominion and the Northwest by allow-

ing these new provinces to handle the lands themselves. They are more interested in getting good, settlers than we can possibly be, because it is they who will suffer if settlement is retarded. Looking at it from every standpoint, I do not see what we have to gain by administering the lands from here. After all the money is gone, which we will get from the sales of lands in the future, we will have to dip into the Dominion treasury to pay the running expenses in connection with the management of lands in the Northwest, so that to continue the present policy would be suicidal, if only from a financial standpoint. There are many other considerations I might dwell upon, such as the giving away of vast coal lands. Last fall a large area was given away at $1.25 an acre and other large areas handed over to companies at insignificant sums. That is a policy which ought to be stopped. If these coal lands are not of any value we might as well hand them over to the Territories. We might as well do that in any event for all that we are getting for them. To say that the new provinces would squander and mismanage the lands is an insult to the people. The only good reason advanced so far is that advanced by the First Minister, that the provinces might be in distress for money ; but I do not think that these local governments, which will have the same ability to borrow as other local governments, need be in any want of money, and we can as well afford to give them a reasonable monetary annual payment as we can to the other provinces. The other provinces have their lands and yet get an annual subsidy of so much per head. Why not treat the Territories in like manner t They should be given the same rights as the older provinces and be treated with as much fairness and consideration, and I have not yet heard any good reason why this should not be done.


Mr.  W. F.@: MAC-LEAN. The right hon. gentleman should have been a chancery lawyer, for once he gets a ward in chancery, he wants to keep it there all his life. Evidently that is his intention in the case of these new provinces. He wishes to keep them as wards in chancery and to manage their affairs for all time. He did tell us, when he introduced these Bills, that he was putting on the coping stone, that he was completing the emancipation of that country, but evidently his intention is to keep the west in the condition of wards for all time. The new provinces are not to be free to administer their own public lands but are to be treated as wards and the Dominion is to be their perpetual trustee. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman is more anxious about the patronage than anything else and thinks that his sunny measures will be promoted by having this large patronage at his disposal. I am surprised at the moderation of my own views in the matter of paternal government when I see this governments poposition, which is
paternalism in its rankest form. There is to be no emancipation of the provinces, no provincial rights, no trusting the people of the west to manage their own affairs. They are instead to be managed by the Dominion and the control of their own financial heritage is to be taken out of their hands. Again I would ask the right hon. gentleman to answer the question proposed by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), with regard to this new territory in Keewatin. If it is to be divided up among the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario, is Ontario to be given a deed to the Crown lands it takes over and are the other provinces to be still in the position of wards and not to be given control of these lands ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I intended to answer the question of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, but did not understand exactly what it was.


Richard Stuart Lake: The question I put is this. If the lands of Keewatin are to be divided among the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba and the new province of Saskatchewan, will the lands, which are to be included in the province of Ontario, be placed absolutely in the possesion of that province ? If that be the intention, will the same treatment be meted out to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and- will they enter into full possession of those lands ? It -seems to me that unless Ontario were placed in full possession of her slice of territory, the government might find that the precedent they are now setting would create a demand on the part of Ontario for a subsidy in lieu of these lands.


Wilfrid Laurier: I must say to my hon. friend that I had not considered this aspect of the question. There was no necessity, I believe, for the government to come to any decision upon this point, especially in view of the manner in which the subject was brought up. My hon. friend is aware that when we brought down this Bill we did not include in Saskatchewan the whole of the area included in that territory. The territory in Keewatin is also claimed by the province of Manitoba. And I have no doubt, from the representations made to me that the province of Saskatchewan will also claim that portion of the territory. The province of Ontario has signified its intention to claim that its boundaries should be extended to the shores of Hudson bay. Under these circumstances the government decided not to dispose of the territory, but to wait and have a conference with the representatives of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with a view to disposing of this territory. I -am not prepared to say, at the present time, what the government should do. The only thing I can say, speaking for the government, is that we think it fair and just that the representations of these several provinces should be heard before a decision is come to.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) lias given the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a very hard nut to crack and I must say that the right hon. gentleman has not made much impression upon it.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is not the time to crack it. We will crack it in due time.


Robert Laird Borden: In July ?


An hon. MEMBER.: ' In due time.'


Robert Laird Borden: Oh, in due time. I diid not know hut that the right hon. gentleman had a preference for a summer session. The Prime Minister has already practically admitted that a statement made by a member of this House in the constituency of Mountain, in the province of Manitoba, embodied a decision which would be accepted by the government. And that statement, speaking from recollection, was that a portion of the territory not yet appropriated would be divided in this way ; the line would run, I think from the northeast boundary of Manitoba, or some point near there, up Churchill river to Fort Churchill, then down the coast of Hudson bay to Weenisk river to Weenisk lake, then to Fishing lake at the boundary of the province of Ontario and thence south to the 49th parallel. This was to be the new boundary of the province of Manitoba. The portion of the land to the north and west would go to Saskatchewan and the portion to the east would go to Ontario. That division, as not only one but two hon. members of the House stated, and as practically the Prime Minister has said would be adopted. The question that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle asks is this : Having decided upon that course, you must have come to some conclusion whether you will or will not, in that portion of the territory to be handed over to Ontario, carry out exactly the same policy which you are carrying out with respect to these new provinces. In other words :	You
will add to the province of Ontario 30,000 or 40,000 square miles of territory. Will you reserve the public domain in these lands to this government, or will that domain pass over to be administered by the province of Ontario as other provincial lands of Ontario are administered ? If you do band this public domain over to Ontario, will or will you not adopt the same principle with regard to Manitoba ? And, if you carry out the policy of transferring the public domain to these two provinces, how shall you make any exception in the case of the province of Saskatchewan ? And, if you carry out that policy in the province of Saskatchewan in regard to the added territory, what reason can possibly be given for withholding the lands in the remainder of the province ? It seems a very logical sequence, and I should think Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
it could afford some room for reflection by the government. I assume that practically the government will get out of it by not banding over any land to Ontario. And thus that fine province may find itself divested of a certain amount'of territory because a difficulty arises through the inconsistent conduct of the government.
Now, there is one matter I wish to bring to the attention of the member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). It relates to the hon. gentleman's attitude toward provincial autonomy. I have a little reference to some remarks of his. He referred to a certain proposal I made which was mentioned this afternoon. I said, in the first place, that I thought the lands ought to be handed over to the control and administration of the provinces, I adverted to the arguments of the Prime Minister that that would be dangerous to the immigration policy of the government. I thought there should be no such danger, but I suggested that if the government were of opinion that there was such a danger, they might hand over the land of the province on certain stipulations with regard to free "homesteads, to which the consent of the people of the Northwest Territories would be obtained. On this point the hon. member for Western Assiniboia said :
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, -that I am amazed that any man In this -House should give voice to such a suggestion for invasion of provincial autonomy -as is contained in the suggestion of my hon. friend.
As I understand bim, in his opinion it is an invasion of provincial autonomy to band these lands over to the province under any restriction whatever even though the consent of the -people of the Territories, through their representatives, were obtained

Mr. -SCOTT. Certainly.


Mr.  R. L.@: but he regards it not as an invasion of provincial autonomy to refuse to hand over any portion of the lands, but to retain them ail in the possession of the Dominion government. That would seem to me a little inconsistent.


Thomas Walter Scott: I may be permitted to say that when I made that reference to the suggestion of my hon. friend I was taking for the moment his point of view with regard to autonomy. He was taking the view that we must lay out the new provinces flpon exactly the same basis as that on which the four original provinces entered confederation. For instance, they must be dealt with in a certain way with regard to education. He had a particular view in that matter. They must be dealt with so and so with regard to the lands, and in every particular, if -I understood my bon. friend aright, it was his view that this parliament was not free to deal as it chose, hut it must follow strictly certain lines which are laid down in the British North

America Acts from 1867 to 1886 inclusive. Taking that point of view, I endeavoured to point out to the hon. gentleman that his own suggestion involved the most violent invasion of provincial autonomy I had ever heard any body give voice to.


Robert Laird Borden: Where does the hon. gentleman find any provision in the British North America Act that substantiates anything he has said just now ? He says that my proposal involves some invasion of provincial autonomy ; what section or subsection of the British North America Act is he referring to ?


Thomas Walter Scott: It is clear to every person that the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario own their public domain, they are entirely unrestricted in the usage of their public domain, it is their chief source of revenue. The province of Nova iScotia gets much more from its public domain than it does from the federal subsidy, so with the province of Ontario, so with the province of Quebec. My hon. friend's suggestion was, if I understood him right, that we were not free to deal with these new provinces with regard to the lands in any other way than those four provinces were dealt with; but then, he said, if there is a reasonable objection against that, why not put in this restriction ?	' Would
it not be the statesmanlike thing to find a way of adopting the power of the provinces in their disposal of these lands,' he suggested. As I pointed out in my speech on the second reading, it would be a restriction that would amount to scores of millions of dollars to come.


Mr. R. D. BORDEN.: If he regards that as an invasion of provincial autonomy, does he regard it as a greater invasion of provincial autonomy to retain the lands altogether by the Dominion ?


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend knows my view with regard to the proposals which are before the House. My view is that this parliament has the discretion to give such constitution to these new provinces as it chooses to give. We are proposing to pay a certain amount of money to them in lieu of their public domain. I have been out in that country recently and have conversed with scores of men who take an interest in this question, and they all agree with me that this proposal is far better for the provinces even than the proposal to transfer the land unrestrictedly to the new provinces, and that as between the projosal that is being put into effect and the suggestion to turn over the public domain with my hon. friend's restriction, there is no comparison at all. With respect to the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle going to show that the people of the Northwest are not satisfied with these land proposals, I asked him a moment ago. I ask him again now, and I
ask the member for South York, if they are in earnest in what they say about these land proposals, why did they not take the opportunity to go into the district of Edmonton and place their policy before the people of that district ? Surely they had a fine opportunity of placing their views with regard to the land question as well as the school question before the people of Edmonton ? But I understand they hold that it was no use to go, because there are a number of Roman Catholics in the district of Edmonton, and Roman Catholics forsooth, have no right to express an opinion upon the constitutional questions involved in this Autonomy Bill. But whatever reasons may underlie their contentions as to Roman Catholics and schools, surely as regards lands the interests of the Roman Catholic and Protestant citizens of the Northwest must be identical. And let me say here that this land proposition, in the judgment of the people of the Northwest Territories, is a much more serious, a much more momentous question than is the question that divides my hon. friend from Carleton and myself with regard to separate schools. There is a certain question between him and myself as to whether the settler out there shall have the privilege to send his child to a school-house on section 11 or to a school-house on section 14. But the settler in the Northwest Territories is more concerned to know whether he is going to have money enough to educate his child either in the school-house on section 14 or in the school-house on section 11, than in the minor question as to which section his child shall travel to in going to the school-house. Very recently, in company with some of my hon. friends from the Territories and the new Minister of the Interior, I spent three weeks in the Northwest Territories, I was up in the constituency of Edmonton, passed through the constituency of Strathcona. spent four or five days in the district of Calgary, came through my own district, and put two days in at Regina. During that time I conversed with scores, if not with hundreds, of gentlemen, perhaps most of them Liberals, as would naturally be the case, but with a great many Conservatives also, and not a single man of them raised any objection against the land proposition of these measures. Many of the gentlemen I spoke to, Liberals, independents and Conservatives. some of them Conservative members of the legislature, spoke to me in strong terms of approval of the measures before the House at the present time in particular relation to the lands.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: When the Bill was up for the second reading, I took the opportunity of opposing this particular clause relating to the financial terms. I think there are very good reasons why these -clauses should be opposed. I have listened during the afternoon and evening to hon. gentlemen

opposite, and I have not been able to gather any good reason for changing my views on this question. In the first place, the financial grant is a large one, it has to be paid by the Dominion, therefore every province becomes a party to the arrangement, and it is for every province to decide whether this grant is too large or not. We have been told by the new Minister of the Interior that we have lots of money. That is a very pleasant thing, but that may not always be the case, and the time will come when taxation will bear heavily on this country. Therefore, I think these financial terms should be watched very closely. I have not heard the Finance Minister deal with that part of the subject. Perhaps he has ways and means of raising money that will not embarrass us much in the near future. But this is a large question. The other provinces, I think, are getting 80 cents per head as a subsidy from the Dominion treasury. That is perhaps sufficient in Ontario, it may be sufficient for the Northwest, providing they get their land. To my mind, this course would be the better one to give them a smaller financial grant, but to give them possession of the lands, or a large portion of the lands. It appears to me that in so doing you would place where it properly belongs the responsibility for the administration of the lands. I listened to the Minister of the Interior just now, and I must say, if I followed him correctly, that he advanced a strange line of argument with regard to the land values. I understood him to make this argument, that the more lands we gave away so much more the remaining lands increase in value. That is a very strange proposition, the more of your assets you give away the more you will prize what are left-that is what his argument amounts to. The more land we give away the more we will value those that are left. Then, if we continue to give away our lands, the time will come when what we have left will be worth $100 an acre. But would that be in the best interest of settlement ? I think not. We want the lands, not only for settlers, but we want them especially for the right kind of settlers. We want them for good settlers. I believe it is very much better that we should grow solidly than that we should grow rapidly. I do not know whether the hon. Minister of the Interior admires the class of settlers that is going in there now to a very great extent or not, but I must say, that, as far as I am aware, and I believe this is the view of a great many people in Ontario, it is not the right kind of settlers that these lands are heing given away to. We would rather see a better class even if we grow more slowly. Rapid growth is not the desideratum that we should strive for. We should look for quality as well as quantity. Therefore,
I think the hon. gentleman, in pursuing that kind of argument, has not justified his posi-Mr. COCKSHUTT.
tion. He made the further statement that Ontario has done nothing with her Crown lands. He says : I want to know where they have ever placed a single settler up there. I am not here as the sponsor of the Ross government. We had that government for thirty years. I did my best to turn them out and I am glad to say that we did at last get them out. They gave away vast tracts of our estate to their political friends, but there is to-day in New Ontario a large area of land left from which a good deal of revenue will accrue to us for generations to come. If these lands in the west are worth as much as it is said they are and if they were handed over the government of that country could be sustained for years and generations on them. It would seem, according to the hon. gentleman, that the people of the west should say : We will part with our inheritance, but we will take a mess of potage for it. These $2,000,000 will be only a mess of potage as compared with the value of these lands in years to come. Just compare that with the position of a man who has fallen heir to a great estate and who, on the death of his father, says that he prefers to retire on a life annuity and refuses to take any responsibility in connection with the management of his estate. What would you say of such a man ? Would you not say that he was a coward ? So he would be, because he would be laying down his birthright, selling it for a mess of potage. Man is here for something more than to take an annuity and to live for ever in peaceful retirement. He should take the responsibility that falls to his lot. Why should these new provinces be put in a different position from that occupied by the other provinces ? All the other provinces have their Crown lands except Manitoba. Have you any reason for making an exception in this case ? They are the most competent and the best able to administer these lands. They are on the spot. If there is anything wrong in connection with the administration of these lands these people are in the best position to make it right. They are the people to say what class of settlers they want in that country. They may say :	We will take
them a little slower but we will get the right kind. We will take the kind that will be a big boon to the country, that will build straight and true and right and if they do that they will not regret the policy of a little slower growth, of more solid growth, but of growth on right lines. Look at the great United States to the south of us. All that is best in that great republic came from that first little band of settlers who landed on Plymouth Rock. They are the people who laid the corner stone and set the foundation of that great republic. All that is truest and best in the United States to-day has descended from that little bpnd of settlers that came out from

Great Britain to seek freedom and the privilege of worshipping God in their own way. These people came out and laid the foundation of that great republic. To-day we are growing faster in the Northwest than we have been doing in the past, I question very much if the Department of the Interior, of whose wise administration we have heard so much, is exercising the care and wisdom which it should exercise in the settlement of that country. I think it would be better if we selected our settlers a little more carefully. I think these lands should be worth something to the settler coming in. My hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. Wright) has stated that a Canadian has not the same advantages going in there as a man coming from a foreign country. If that is so it is a condition which should be rectified. Why should not the son of the Canadian farmer receive as good treatment as the man coming from the old country? I cannot understand that. It strikes me as a strange thijig that a Canadian is not receiving as good treatment as one' who comes from a foreign land. Many of Ontario's best sons have gone to the Northwest. Thousands and thousands have gone from Ontario and those are the kind of men we want in the Northwest. I commend to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior this matter and I would ask him to see to it that the right kind of set-tiers go into that country. Do not be in too great a hurry to give away these lands. I understand that he says that we can make money out of giving them away, but I think it will be very difficult for him to prove that we can make more by giving away these lands. I understand his argument is that we can make more money by giving away these lands than by offering them for sale. He tells us that the coal lands are no good because there is no market for the coal. The same argument might apply to wheat, or to any other product of the Northwest. It is a matter of transportation. That coal is worth money if we can find a market. It is only a matter of transportation. If we could not get the wheat out of the country, because of insufficient transportation the wheat would have no value. These coal lands will certainly be of great importance to that country as development goes on. I would be quite willing to trust these people with the .administration of these lands. I think it is their part to succeed to that responsibility. I believe that they can administer these lands as well as they are being administered to-day. We are told they are well administered. From the remarks that have been made by the Minister of the Interior these lands have not realized as much to this country as they should have done. The hon. gentleman perhaps knows more about that than I do, but in the province of Ontario, although its as-176
sets have been badly handled, the province has received a vast income and is to-day receiving a vast income from its Crown lands and will do so for generations to come. He says there are no settlers in Northern Ontario as a result of that. Let me point to the Soo and to New Liskeard which five' years ago was scarcely heard of and which has a population of 5,000 to-day. Settlers are going in there in large numbers and if these Crown lands were handed over to the Northwest provinces they might also be able to draw a large settlement. If there was anything wrong about the administration of these lands the fifty representatives that are going to represent the people of these two new provinces in their local assembly, being the people on the spot, could deal wisely and promptly with the conditions arising in connection with these lands if they were placed under their control. I was not in the House this afternoon when the hon. Minister of Finance introduced some amendments. I have just had an opportunity of seeing them casually. They may be in the right direction and I think that perhaps some of them are, but it did occur to me that the administration of these lands should be placed in the hands of the provinces and that the cash subsidy, not only in justice to the rights of the other provinces,, but in the best interests of these new provinces themselves, should be cut down to about the same figure as that which the older provinces are receiving. I do not see any good reason why that should not be done and I think that would be approved of by the country as a whole, because the cash subsidy is to be paid out of the pockets of the people of the whole Dominion. I think it would be advisable to revise the language of this clause and give the public lands to the provinces to which they really belong, thus pursuing the policy that has prevailed in this country ever since it was a country that the Crown lands shall belong to the various provinces of the Dominion and that the cash subsidy should be the' same to these new provinces as it is to the provinces of the older parts of the Dominion.


Mr. ZIMMERMAN.: I am delighted to see that our hon. friend from Brantford (ilr. Cockshutt) has got back his courage again. The other night he spoke to us for about an hour and a half. He took us all over creation. He told us that he had worshipped in the Catholic churches of Europe, Cuba and other countries, but for a long time we could not tell how he was going to vote, and we were left in doubt until the hour of midnight when he whispered in subdued tones that he proposed to vote in support of the amendment. His conscience then immediately pricked him and he proceeded to recite the Lord's Prayer. He said, in lew tones that he had



changed his views on the question, but I can tell the hon. gentleman that If he consulted his constituents he would learn reasons why he should oppose the lands beiug handed over to the provinces. The manufacturers and business men of this country want to see the business of Canada continue to prosper as it has done for the past eight years. We have made wonderful progress under the present conditions ; immigration is pouring into our country in great volumes and business generally is increasing very rapidly. If the lands were handed over to the provinces, I am afraid the hands of the clock would be turned back, not that the people of the Territories are not competent, but they would necessarily have to disturb the existing system and we cannot afford to take any chances on that.
Mr. COiCKSHUTT. I would remark to the hon. gentleman that my courage has returned. I was not aware that I whispered in low tones what side I was going to take. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Zimmerman) did not hear me it was not because lie could not, for be heard me a few minutes before when he interrupted me. I do not remember that the hon. gentleman found time during the debate to state his views. But I can tell him that there never was any doubt from the time I began to speak until I concluded as to what way I was going to vote. Every one who knows me well, can tell the hon. gentleman what my opinions are. If the hon. gentleman could not understand the drift of my speech that is not my fault, because my decision was never for a moment undefined from the beginning to the end of the debate.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cockshutt) has made a very valuable contribution to the debate, for lie has let us know exactly where the gentlemen on the opposite side of the House stand on this very important question.


William Foster Cockshutt: I was speaking for myself.


Frank Oliver: Yes, but the hon. gentleman (Mr.- Cockshutt) had the courage to say what some of his friends think but do uot say. The hon. member stands for the principle of slow settlement in the Territories; he stands for the principle of smaller subsidies; lie stands for the principle of the sale of the lands. He declares that the system of settlement in the province of Ontario has been a success. We are glad to know all these tilings, and we are glad to know that gentlemen opposite stand now where they have always stood, namely, for slow settlement for the sale of the lands, and for general stagnation. The hon. gentleman has suggested that it was under a Liberal administration in Ontario that the lands were not properly administered, but Mr. ZIMMERMAN.
Ontario was not always Liberal, and the history of the administration of the Ontario lands since the first provincial government was created, proves that a province which depends upon the sale of its lands for its revenue cannot afford to handle these lands with the liberality that the Dominion government which does not depend upon that source of revenue is able to.


Aaron Abel Wright: Does the hou. gentleman uot know that nearly all the new lands that have been settled in Ontario within the last thirty years, have been absolutely given to the settlers ?


Frank Oliver: I believe that the lands have bee)' given to the settlers under that very Liberal administration to which the bon. gentleman objects, but what I said was that in all this great clay belt of northern Ontario which is laid down upon the map and which is said to be of very great agricultural value, there is not at the present time a single settler in that great clay belt as laid down on the map, nor lias the government attempted to place a settler there.


Aaron Abel Wright: Does the Minister of the Interior know whether there is actually a clay belt there at all ?


Frank Oliver: I do not.


William Findlay Maclean: And if there is it was only discovered a year or two ago.


Frank Oliver: The very fact that it is not known whether there is a clay belt or not fit for settlement, is all we want to know of provincial administration of a new country.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. gentleman himself told us this afternoon that there were millions of acres in the west, and we did not yet know whether they were good for anything or not.


Frank Oliver: I said there were millions of acres that have not yet been settled.


William Findlay Maclean: And over which a white man had not gone.


Frank Oliver: Exactly.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman told us that we were really only acquainted with a very small portion of that country.


Frank Oliver: I do not think I said that. I said there were large areas in Alberta and Saskatcbew-aii that were not known, but I do say that the efforts of the Dominion government to colonize that country have resulted in placing half a million people in the districts of Saskatchewan and Alberta during the same period that the province of Ontario has not placed a single settler on its lands known as the clay belt. With regard to the advantage or disadvantage of giving away the lands, my hon.

friend seems to be unable to understand that tlie giving away of a part of the land can increase the value of the remainder. If he is not able to understand that then I am unable to explain it to him. The fact is that the giving away of the lands in the Northwest and the policy under which these lands have been given away during the last few years, have resulted in doubling and trebling the value of the lands still remaining in the hands of the government and the railway companies, and at the same time it has had the result of increasing by millions and milions of dollars the revenue of this Dominion and the trade of Canada. I am astonished beyond measure to hear the representative of a manufacturing constituency in the province of Ontario declare that he does not know that it makes any difference as to whether the west is settled or not. If there is one thing the manufacturers of eastern Canada depend on more than another, it is on the securing of settlers upon these prairies. It is that increase of settlement that has given them their increased business within the last few years, and it is to the further increase of that settlement they must look for still further increase of business. If the bon. member for Brantford (.Mr. Coek-shutt) does not know that, I am satisfied there is not another manufacturer in this great city who does not know it. As to the allegation that there is discrimination as between foreigners and native Canadians in the administration of the Northwest lands, I may say that I have not been administering the Department of the Interior very long, but I have lived in the Northwest for many years and so far as my knowledge goes there is no such discrimination. I say that the administration of the lands in the Northwest has been on a fair basis and that the settler is not asked who he is or where he comes from. The policy of the government is to secure settlers for the land, and if it should happen that this or' the other difficulty is in the way, the men we make settlers of in the Northwest are men who go there to overcome difficulties and not to be overcome by them.


Aaron Abel Wright: Did tlie bon. gentleman say that they did not give grants to the Doukhobors and give facilities in that way, supplying cattle, horses and implements so as to give them a start in a manner which has not been done for men from Ontario ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Nothing of the kind.


Frank Oliver: There do not happen to be any Doukhobors in my own part of the country and personally I am not aware of all the facts of the case, but I am aware of this fact, that in cases where there has been a general scarcity resulting from frost or grasshoppers it has been the practice to 17(U
assist the settlers regardless of nationality in the procuring of seed grain. I believe that policy has been pursued by different governments, and so far as I know there has been no disagreement in regard to it. I think it as well to say right here and now that the slur which I believe is very frequently cast that there is discrimination in the lands of the Northwest as against Canadians has no foundation in fact, none whatever, and that the aim in the administration of that department has been as I hope it will always he to secure the best men that can he got for the settlement of the country. 1 would be delighted as the administrator of the department if the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) would secure us a few shiploads of settlers of the same character as those who landed on Plymouth Rock. I will be glad to guarantee him and them the best facilities the country affords. We want a lot of settlers of that kind and if he can direct us to any port where they can be secured, we will use every effort to bring them to Canada and to establish them in the west.


William Findlay Maclean: But the hon. gentleman is settling them on the rock of the constitution.
Sir. OLIVER, We will settle them on the black lands of the Saskatchewan.
'Mr. COCKSHTJTT. I wish to correct an impression which the hon. minister conveyed which is not warranted by anything I said, that is. that I stood for slow growth. That was not my remark ; I said there are other considerations besides rapidity of growth, and I said that quality as well as quantity is one of those considerations. The hon. member had no right to say that I stood for stagnation. He thinks I am standing in the way of my own business. I am sorry he thinks that, but at the same time, he will see that I am looking after the interests of the country and not of my own business when I make that proposition. I think this is a consideration that will appeal to all the provinces, that quality is a great consideration, and that in giving lands in the west they should be given only to people who are likely to make a sound foundation for a great nation. That is a sound doctrine ; I do not retire from it. I do not think the hon. gentleman was warranted in fastening that implication upon me.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I regret that the new Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) seems so anxious1 to obstruct the progress of this Bill. Just as we were about to pass this section when no one was ready to take his feet for the purpose of saying anything further about it, the minister, who I suppose is in charge of the Bill, found it necessary to rise, and to keep us here an hour or an hour and a half longer in the discussion he has opened up on the clay belt in

Ontario, sit is difficult to say what the clay belt has to do with this Bill, hut as the hon. gentleman has struck out new lines in other respects, he has struck out new lines in regard to government legislation. I think it a little unworthy of the hon. gentleman- we might have expected it when he was away on the hack benches, but it was hardly worthy of him as Minister of the Interior

to attempt to make a little cheap political capital by putting words into the mouths of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House which they had not used.
Mr.-OLIVER. What words?


Robert Laird Borden: He put words into the mouths of the opposition which I venture to say were never uttered by any member of the opposition. If he looks at Hansard, he will see that. I am not going to Waste time as he has done by repeating these words but he will recognize them tomorrow. It is not the usual course of a minister who is trying to get a Bill through parliament, when he has been treated with a fair amotmt of courtesy to suggest that gentlemen who have spoken on this side of the House are dishonest and cowardly- because that is what tihe hon. gentleman's remarks mean if anything. We hardly expect that sort of thing from a Minister of the Crown. He said the hon. member from Brandon was at least honest and had courage.


Frank Oliver: Surely ?


Robert Laird Borden: And he said it in such a context that he was imputing the want of those qualities to every hon. gentleman who had spoken on this side.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Chairman, am I responsible for ail inferences that any hon. gentleman miglit choose to draw from my remarks ?


Robert Laird Borden: No, he is not, but when he uses language that warrants a direct inference he may expect that the inference will be noted.


Frank Oliver: I can only say that it is usual when the cap fits for gentlemen to wear it.


Robert Laird Borden: There the hon. gentleman has made the suggestion again. The hon. gentleman has always prided himself in this House as a private member, he and one other hon. gentleman have always spoken of themselves as the only two honest and independent members in the House.


An hon. MEMBER.: AA7ho is the other.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not heard any other hon. gentleman in the House speak of them in that way hut they themselves have done so.


Frank Oliver: If I am to he called in question in this way I would certainly repudiate the statement made by the hon.


Robert Laird Borden: gentleman that I ever spoke of myself in that way.


Robert Laird Borden: I say that it is but the direct inference to be drawn from the hon. gentleman's remarks as was the case just now, because the hon. gentleman spoke of every one else as not possessing those qualifications, and although he did not speak of himself we all thoroughly understood what was in his mind and he understood it and he understands it now. It has been in his mind very often in the House but it is not worth while if he expects to get this legislation through to take the course of throwing sneers across the floor of the House which might not be noticed when he was a back bencher but may be when be is .trying to get legislation through the House., or rather trying to obstruct its progress for his lender called for a vote just as he took the floor.


Wilfrid Laurier: I call for one now.


Robert Laird Borden: - The hon. gentleman will call. It is like the man who called spirits from the vasty deep. The question was whether they would answer. The hon. gentleman may call.


Wilfrid Laurier: But there may be no response.


Robert Laird Borden: Or there may be more response than he wants. Now. in regard to this interesting question of the clay belt of Ontario which the Alin-ister of the Interior insists we shall go into, he regards the clay belt as I understood him as absolutely useless. Well we heard a great many speeches two years ago about the wonderful value of this clay belt when the government proposed to spend a great many million dollars in running a railway through it.
Air. OLIArER. Do I understand the hon. member to say that I. said that the clay belt was useless ?


Robert Laird Borden: He said that up to the present his own Liberal friends who have been boasting of their achievements In that regard have not succeeded in planting a single settler in that district.


Frank Oliver: What I tried to say was that they had not tried.


Robert Laird Borden: Aly hon. friend the Alinister of the Interior is going from bad to worse. It was bad enough to say they had good intentions and did not succeed in carrying them out, but it is infinitely worse to say that they did not have even good intentions. That is wTiat some Conservatives in Ontario have been saying of the right bon. gentleman's friends during some time past, but I never heard so frank an admission with regard to it as that which my hon. friend has just given. AA'e heard most glowing descriptions of this clay belt in

Ontario from the First Minister and from other members opposite two years ago when we were discussing a proposal to pledge the credit of this country to the extent of about $150,000,000 for building a transcontinental railway. It was then described as a most wonderful country. We had not only quotations by the right hon. gentleman from the relations of the Jesuits of 250 years ago but also from reports of the government of Ontario showing what a magnificent country it was. Why the Minister of the Interior used to applaud these quotations himself most vociferously at that time, but he seems now to have lost every possible recollection of them. Let me cite to him, when he says that not a single settler has been planted in that country, what was then said. Perhaps I am not locating the clay belt in the right place, as I am not so familiar with it as he is ; but I notice in the report by the officers of his own department the following :
This year has witnessed an unprecedented influx of settlers into the Rainy River valley.
Would that mean the clay belt ?
Mr. OLIVER, If the hon. member does not know where it is he had better let out the job of discussing it.


Robert Laird Borden: I am trying to let it out to the hon. gentleman, but I am not getting much help. Could he inform me of the location of the clay belt ? I understand it takes in this Rainy River valley.
During the past eighteen months the town of Rainy River has sprung into existence, with a population of 2,000. They have municipal organization.
Further on, referring to the settlement on the White Fish river, the report says :
The settlement is now fifteen miles long and seven miles wide, more than three hundred families and a population of 1,500. Three school houses have been erected and maintained, and three other districts are being laid oil. One new church has been erected and there are four or five other places where church services are held. Three saw-mills have been put up, and last year the settlers sold 300,000 ties and eight hundred car loads of wood, which netted them about $110,000. Good trunk line colonization roads have been constructed.
And so on for two or three pages. I think therefore that in justice to the clay belt which my hon. friend, for some reason or other, has seen fit to attack-without any provocation whatever. I am sure, for the clay belt has done nothing to provoke him- I should bring these facts to the notice of the House and free that much maligned country from the aspersions which that hon. gentleman has seen fit to pass upon it, with the sole object of obstructing this legislation.


Samuel Hughes: As I came in I just chanced to hear the Minister of the Interior saving that the class of settlers
brought into the Northwest were the best possible selection that could be made.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is not in order.


Samuel Hughes: I am just replying to the arguments advanced by the Minister of the Interior. If he was out of order, surely I can refute the illogical arguments advanced by him. The first minister should have exercised his prerogative and called his colleague to order. It is only a few years since the present Minister of the Interior made this very chamber ring with denunciations of the class of settlers the government were bringing into the region of East Edmonton. I refer to the Galicians. I could point out to him still further, as showing that discrimination against the people from the eastern part of Canada who settle in the Northwest, that the Douk-hobors from Russia and the Galicians from Austria and the Polish part of Russia and the Roumanians are landed In the Northwest at less cost than a man can travel to that country from Ottawa. They are put there by government agents on lands selected for them, whereas a Canadian has to select land at his own expense and pay a higher rate of transportation than a Doukhobor or a Galician. There has been no encouragement whatever during the last few years given to the British race from eastern Canada or the British Isles compared with that given these people.


Mr. CRAWFORD.: In connection with the, remarks of the leader of the opposition who attempted to call down the Minister of the Interior, I took down the words of the hon. inember for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), and I do not see that any construction can be placed upon them other than that given by the Minister of the Interior. The hon. member, in referring to the matter, said : Get right class of settlers ; go slow and wait for settlement. These are, the words he used in speaking of the immigration to this country. Well, I happened to go into some of the details iu connection with the cost of bringing immigrants to this country, and the information I got from the Immigratioi Department was that the American settlers cost the country less per head than any others and that the British immigrants had more money spent on them than any other class. There was more spent on British immigration per head than any other class of people.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. gentleman include the cost of Mr. Preston and other gentlemen flourishing and luxuriating in London ? The British immigrants brought more money into this- country per head than any other class, and they were robbed deliberately with the connivance of the government agents.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Samuel Hughes: I make use of the expression advisedly. These men at Saskatoon had horses and oxen loaded upon them at exorbitant prices. I took the precaution to warn the government to send their agents among these people so as to protect them, but instead these agents stood in and got a rake off and allowed these extortionate practices to be done.


John Henderson Lamont: One of the chief men at Saskatoon who unloaded horses and oxen on the settlers was John Barr, a brother of J. M. Barr, the leader of the colonists.


Samuel Hughes: I have not the least doubt of it.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: I think that the question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle was very a-propos, and that was as to the division of the district of Keewatin. The First Minister, with his usual agility, has talked all around that question without attempting to give a satisfactory reply. He saw the rather embarrassing position in which he was placed when he declared his intention of dividing that territory in the manner indicated by his speech in introducing the Bill. Then he claimed that the province of Ontario, and even the province of Quebec, and also the new province of Saskatchewan, had equal rights to the extension of their territory to the shore of Hudson bay with the province of Manitoba. So, if he means to have a division of the district of Keewatin, he will have to hand over the lands to these various provinces, or he will have to refuse them their lands. If he hands over to Ontario the portion of Keewatin that he thinks Ontario is entitled to, and vests that domain in the province of Ontario, he must adopt a similar policy in regard to that portion to be given to Manitoba also that portion to be added to Saskatchewan. If he refuses to hand over the domain to Ontario, that province will be claiming financial compensation for these lands. Moreover, you will have the unique spectacle of Ontario owning all its public domain save the portion of Keewatin reserved by the Dominion government. If you hand over to Manitoba the domain in that portion of the territory given to that province, you will have Manitoba not owning the 73,000 miles comprised within its present boundaries, but owning that portion of Keewatin over which the province will extend to Hudson bay. And you will have a similar state of affairs in Saskatchewan. So. I do not wonder that the right lion, gentleman was not able to make a satisfactory reply. He attempted a little jocularity at the expense of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. 'Maclean) and accused that hon. gentleman of exhibiting the new found zeal of the convert, quoting expressions of that hon. gentleman of a year ago on which he put a different construction from the view-expressed to-day. We are not obliged to go back a year to show how inconsistenv the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurierj


Wilfrid Laurier: has been on this question of refusing to hand over the public domain to the new provinces. My mind reverted to the speech made by the right hon. gentleman on the 21st of February introducing this Bill. At page 151S of ' Hansard ' he argued that the lands should be retained by the Dominion government. He said :
It is conceivable that i{ these lands were given to the new provinces, the policy of either one of them might differ from ours and clash with our efforts to increase immigration.
That was the principal cause he assigned. Then he goes on :
It might possibly render these efforts nugatory. For instance, if either of the new provinces, under the strain of financial difficulty, were to abolish the free homesteads, which have proved so beneficial and so great an inducement to immigration, one can readily understand what a great blow that would be to our immigration policy. Or if the price of government lands for sale were to. be increased over the present very moderate rate, that would also be another blow to that policy.
To-night he tells us that the provincial government, in order to get ready money, might sell the lands at an inferior price- quite a contrary argument to the one he used on introducing the Bill. At that time he told us that, under the pressure of financial stringency, the provinces might increase the price of the land so much as to discourage immigration ; to-night he states they might give the land away practically for nothing. The leader of the opposition (Mr. It. E. Borden) asked the Prime Minister if he could not give us some estimate of the value of the lands w-ithin the area of the new provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and the right hon, gentleman stated that he was not in a position to give that estimate. I have here a book which was circulated among the people of the Northwest and to wTiieh the right hon. gentleman must have given his consent. This was the hand-book of the Liberal party circulated among the people of the Northwest with a view to securing their votes in the last election. It is called ' Hand-book of Canadian politics illustrative of the progressive administration of the Liberal government.
' The story of a government that does things.' Chapter IS is headed, ' What the Hon. Clifford Sifton has accomplished.' In the course of this chapter it is stated :
Manitoba, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan and Alberta possess an area of 238,000,000 acres of land. .	.	. About 18,000,000 acres have been
given in free homesteads, but after deducting this and an additioinal 50,000,000 for lakes, rivers, bad lands, &e., there remains of government lands enough to provide 160-acre farms for at least 800,000 farmers.
That would make a total of 128,000,000 acres. And we know that the total area of Manitoba is so little that the Manitoba land included in this estimate cannot make a very large figure. The hand-book goes ou :

In a-MI-ticra to this, the millions of acres of land disposed of to railways and land companies is, of course, also available for settlement. There is, however, an additional tract of rich grain-growing lands yet untouched

Where ?
-in the unorganized district of Athabaska, containing over 160,000,000 acres. After making allowance for water and lands unsuited for agriculture, Athabaska will give fully 100,000,000 acres as the future homes of practically another 800,000 settlers.
So, we hare this district of Athabaska which is divided between the two new provinces almost equally, containing at least 100,000,000 acres of rich grain-growing land. Yet, in the measure now before us the government are only allowing 50,000,000 acres to the two provinces at SI.50 per acre. This hand-boook also refers to an article by Dr. Wm. Saunders, of the Experimental Farm, published in the April, 1900, number of the ' Canadian Magazine.' Speaking of Dr. Saunders, the hand-book says that ' he has given some estimate of the available land in the Northwest Territories for that branch of farming ' that is, grain-growing. And he shows that Manitoba, Assiniboia, Saskatchewan and Alberta contain 171.000,000 acres, and he estimates :
That there are within the limits referred to, after making allowance for land unfit for agriculture, about 171,000,000 acres suitable for cultivation, by which is meant land of such degree of fertility as to admit of profitable farming.
The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his friends, last fall had sufficient information to enable them to issue this hand-book showing the enormous tract of land available for settlement. But to-day they plead ignorance of the quantity of land in that country. To serve their own ends the government were willing to tell of ' what the hon. Clifford , Sifton has accomplished.' to speak as though he had discovered this land and had made it profitable for agriculture. Yet, now that it suits their purposes they are minimizing the extent as well as the value . of that land. Otherwise, we would not have this mere pittance-for so it is by comparison,-of $37,500,000 allowed to each province for its domain. I am not surprised that the right hon. gentleman Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is asking for time lo bring down figures that will meet the objections of this side of the House. But, considering the figures lie and his friends gave in this handbook issued last fall, it seems clear that they are giving the new provinces too little in lieu of their public domain. But we have been told :	What is the use of discussing the
quantity of land and the value per acre in view of the new resolution which wipes that out of consideration and gives a lump sum ?
But we know that it is on this basis that they are arriving at a lump sum. And why have they wiped out that $1.50 an acre and the 25,000,000 acres for each province ? What object have they in doing so ? That
has not been explained.' But if you look up the speech of the ex-Minister of the Interior. you will find the secret. He pointed out that if we placed the land at $1.50 an acre and the quantity at 25,000,000 acres, in the future these provinces might be coming back and demanding greater assistance from this parliament, because they might say that the lands were more valuable than the $1.50 they had been allowed and that there was a greater number of acres. So in accordance with the views of the ex-Minister of the Interior, and in order to provide against this contingency, they have simply excluded the $1.50 and the total number of acres from this Bill. And we see the hon. gentlemen from the Northwest Territories on the other side of the House assenting to a proposition that will prevent the other provinces from coming back to ask for an increase in the future, and at the same time not providing for sufficient money to run their government for all time to come so as to avoid the necessity for them to appeal to this Dominion for more assistance.
Now, the member for AVest Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) has shown himself to be an expert as a political acrobat. In fact all the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House from the west have taken a position unfavourable to the new provinces being given the ownership of these lands. The member for West-Assiniboia made one of the strongest speeches against that view when he first came into the House, and to-day he has changed his view, and, with all the zeal of a new convert. he is one of the strongest opponents of handing over the lands to the provinces and is making argument after argument to show with how much greater advantage this Dominion government can manage those lands than they could be managed by the new provinces. If I desired to take up the time of the committee, I could read excerpts from his speeches that would show how different his attitude upon this question used to be from -what it is to-day. The present Minister of the Interior, or rather the would-be Minister of the Interior, the member for West Assiniboia, has boldly asked : Why didn't you go up to Edmonton and challenge the opinion of the people during the recent election if you believed the people of the west are opposed to the Dominion retaining those lands ? The hon. gentleman was very brave ; he was not nearly so satisfied as he tried to make us belisve. The hon. gentleman was quite willing himself to swallow the original clause 16 in the Autonomy Bill for the sake of getting the plum of the portfolio of the Interior. But to-day he says that we were afraid to go up to the constituency of Edmonton and challenge public opinion. Why did not the government select himself for the portfolio, the man they had marked out for it ? Because they were afraid to open up a constituency where the average Canadian elector resides, and to take an expression of opinion from men who under-

stand the politics of our country, from people who have been long enough here to become [DOT]acquainted with public questions. One reason why we did not go to Edmonton can be found in the remarks addressed to this House a few years ago by the present Minister of the Interior himself. It has been said that we did not contest Edmonton because there was a certain number of Catholic voters in that constituency. That is not the case. One of the reasons why we did not go, is the reason assigned by the present Minister of the Interior, that his constituency is largely populated by7 a class of people who are not acquainted with British institutions, who do not understand our laws, and who would not understand the schools question or the land question. Now, what did that hon. gentleman state in regard to this very question two or three years ago ? I will read his remarks :
I am not in a positioin to speak of the Douk-hobors from an intimate personal knowledge, as none of them are resident in the constituency I represent, but on the Galician question I claim to be an authority, because I believe that fully half of the whole Galician population of Manitoba and the Northwest is located in the district I represent. I understand that there are some 12,000 or 14,000 in one colony. Already one local electoral district is in all probably in the hands of the Galician vote, if these people are qualified to vote.
That is one reason why we did not go to the constituency of Edmonton. He speaks as follows in another place :
I am here to. say to-night that I believe the present conditions of the country would he better, our prosperity would be greater, we would have a still larger number of good settlers, if we did not have that class of immigration at all.
That is the kind of men that he wished to lay this question before for their endorsement.
Another idea that is conveyed is that all foreign peoples are the same, that because the German people are foreigners and because they are desirable settlers, therefor the Galicians being foreigners and the Doukihobors being foreigners, are also desirable settlers. Do my hon. friends know that they could not insult a German and Scandinavian as much in any other way as to compare him with a Doukhobor or a Galician ? The pride of race is as strong in these people as it is in us, and they object, and object very strongly, to being placed in the same category as a Slavic people, a people who less than two generations ago were serfs of the soil, and who unfortunately have not had the opportunities, even if they had the capability, to rise very high above that position to-day. Make no mistake, there is no comparison bet-tween the German who comes from Galicia and a Galician who comes from Galicia, and no man will resent such a comparison more than the German himself. But the Galician or the Doukhobor who have been reared under circumstances which did not permit them to know what free government is, who know nothing of government except that government is a tvr-rany, these people, let them be ever so good, Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
cannot be citizens As we would wish them to be citizens, or as our Scandinavian and German fellow citizens are.
These are the expressions of the present Minister of the Interior. I do not thihk he has changed his views, at any rate he has never repudiated these words so far as I know. I could quote various other expressions to the same effect:
Let me say one word to the government, and it will he a word of advice. I speak here tonight on behalf of the most populous district of the west ; and I have reason to believe that I speak the sentiments of the majority of the people between Lake Superior and the _Rocky mountains on this immigration question. 'There is no question that the people of the west feel more strongly on than the immigration question, and there is -nothing that -they more earnestly resent than the idea of settling up the country with (people who will be a drag on our civilization and progress. We did not go out to that country simply to produce wheat. We went to build up a nation, a civilization, a social system that we could enjoy, be proud of and transmit to our children, and we resent the idea of having the millstone of this Slav population hung around our necks in our efforts to build up, beautify and improve that country, and so improve the whole of Canada,
There the member for West Assiniboia has one reason why the Conservative opposition did not see fit to challenge an expression of opinion from these people, who are depicted by the Minister of the Interior as illiterate, ignorant of British institutions and of our laws and polities. Now, there has been something, I think, kept back by this government, some reason why they did not wish to hand over these lands to the provinces, something beneath the surface. I think it has been touched upon by some hon. gentlemen in some of their speeches, and I think I pointed it out myself when speaking on the second reading. But any person who lives in the west knows whereof I speak when I say that one reason why the government are retaining those lands in their possession is that they desire to have the wonderful leverage which they will have at election time by holding all these lands in their own hands. Every homestead inspector, you might say, is an active x>olitical partisan. an election agent during the course ol a campaign. Yes from one end of the year to the other. I do not have, to go outside my own constituency to find examples of what occurred during the last campaign. One homestead inspector in my riding openly appeared at the polls in that contest, stood there in company with a mounted policeman with his side arms on, and in company with an interpreter from the Yorkton land office-the three of them-and the electors had to run the gauntlet of the three of them before coming in, each one bringing pressure to bear upon them, threatening them with retaining their homestead patents if they voted for your humble servant.
These people were simply intimidated, they went in and shouted out how they

desired to vote and it was left to the deputy returning officer to mark their ballots for them, it being simply open voting. After he had secured the whole vote en bloc this homestead inspector openly made the boast that now he would betake himself to the constituency of Dauphin, the election having been postponed for one week, and that after getting through there he was going to the constituency of my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Cash) to lend his active assistance there. That is the reason, and it is a very important reason to the government, why they are so anxious to retain these lands in the hands of the Dominion government. It is because of the wonderful influence that these government officials have over these people, who, as the hon. Minister of the Interior states, are not at all acquainted with our homestead laws and whose future prosperity, if these officials were to put into effect what they have threatened to do, would suffer a very serious impediment. That is one reason why the lands are not handed over to the provinces? If they were handed over the provinces would have their own officials and it would not interfere with the immigration policy of the Dominion government any more than it does in the other provinces of the Dominion where they have the ownership of the public domain. They could work in harmony with the officials of the Dominion government and it would not be an impediment to the encouragement of immigration. At this late hour I will not take up the time of the committee any longer, but I protest against the government retaining these lands and I claim that there can be no sufficient monetary consideration to compensate the people of the west in the future for the loss of their public domain. These lands should be handed over to be administered under the advice of the fifty members who will represent the people in the local legislatures of these provinces and to be administered by the respective governments of these provinces, who will have, officials on the ground and who will administer them much more advantageously to file people interested there than they can be administered 1,500 or 2,Q00 miles distant from the scene of operations.


Richard Stuart Lake: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detain the committee longer, but I do not desire the vote to be taken without a reference to some of the remarks which hare been made to myself personally by the hon. member for West Assini-boia (Mr. Scott). He has been twitting me with not having gone uip into the Edmonton district and he referred to myself amongst others as having said that the reason was that there was a Roman Catholic vote. This is an entire revelation to me. I never had any idea of going into the Edmonton district, nor did I ever give the reason which he has suggested for not going there. I should have had pleasure in going into West Assiniboia if the hon. member had become the Minister of the Interior. I must confess that I could not see the drift of his remark that Roman Catholics should have the same right to express their opinions as Protestants. Who said they had not? I can assure the hon. gentleman that it was not any one on this side of the House. It seems to me that he was simply following a course with which we have become familiar and which has been pursued by hon. gentlemen on the other s;ide of the House who have grown accustomed to telling the members of the Roman Catholic faith that the Protestants are attacking their religion. That is the very surest way of promoting bigotry and religious strife and it has been sedulously practised by members opposite and is absolutely without any foundation at all.


Mr. BUREAU.: What about the cartoons in the 'News' and 'World.?'


Richard Stuart Lake: I think that the hon. gentleman should look at some of the cartoons which have been published by papers on his own side of (politics.


Jacques Bureau: Name the papers.


Richard Stuart Lake: Well, if the hon. gentleman wishes I will describe a cartoon which appeared in the Ottawa ' Free Press ' in which the right hon. First Minister was shown as a knight in full armour with the lance of righteousness in his hands, going to attack a dou-, ble headed dragon breathing out rebellion and bigotry. I think one head was that of my hon. friend from Victoria and Hali-burton (Mr. Hughes) representing rebellion and another head was that of my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) representing bigotry and on the top of this dragon was a representation of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) without many clothes on him and in the form of a devil. This wonderful creature was being-attacked by the right hon. First Minister with the lance of righteousness. That is one little cartoon-


Jacques Bureau: That is only one.
Mr. LAKE-that comes to my mind and I think it compared very badly with some of the admirable cartoons which have appeared in the Toronto ' News.'
If I were asked what would have the strongest influence upon an election at Edmonton, I would, with my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche), say that it would be the enormous influence which is exercised on new settlers, in a new country by the land and immigration officials of the Dominion government. Their influence is something overpowering, it is a very difficult influence to counteract and it is a standing wonder to myself how it is that any Conservatives managed to get elected in the Terri-

tories at all In the recent election in face of it.


William Stevens Fielding: In the first part of the resolution the word ' lands ' is referred to and in the latter part sve refer to public lands. If the committee will permit me, I will insert the word ' public ' so as to make them uniform.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On resolution No. 4,
Resolved, That as additional compensation for guch lands there shall be paid by Canada to the said province annually for five years to provide for the construction of necessary public buildings, one-quarter of one per cent on such estimated value, or $93,750.
William Stevens Fielding: I beg io move that the resolution be amended to read as follows :
As an additional allowance in lieu of the public lands there shall be paid by Canada by halfyearly payments in advance to the province annually for five years from the time this Act comes into force, to provide for the construction of necessary public buildings, the sum of $93,750.
There is no change in the substance of the resolution but there is a change in the drafting as previously explained.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it intended to place any restrictions upon the use to which the province shall put this money?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, are not the concluding words of the amendment surplusage ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is intended to be a special allowance to the province for public buildings.


Robert Laird Borden: Then you intend to restrict them to the use of the money for that particular purpose. Could they use it for the administration of justice ?


William Stevens Fielding: No. What I meant was that it was not intended to restrict them as to the character of the buildings. The grant being for a special purpose it is reasonable that they should apply it to that purpose. The reason for stating it in the amendment is that in view of any further transactions we might have, it is well to know the reasons why it was granted.


Samuel Hughes: Is this government going to trust the province to erect the buildings ?


William Stevens Fielding: , I think so.


Robert Laird Borden: They have much more faith now than they have hitherto shown in the provinces. Does the amendment mean merely a statement of the reason on account of which the grant is made for five years ?


Richard Stuart Lake: 


William Stevens Fielding: It is a suggestion to the provinces as to the use to which it should put the money, but there is no restriction as to that particular use. I think it will he found necessary to spend quite that sum and perhaps more. We certainly did intend that the money should be applied to buildings, but there is no other restriction.


Robert Laird Borden: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: It was understood that I should change the phraseology a little of the resolution relating to allowance in lieu of subsidy. The question has been raised as to whether the words of section 2 would create anything more than an annual payment and after the word ' advanced ' in the third line of section 2, I propose to add the words :
-the annual sum of $405,375, being the equivalent of interest, &c.
I think the wording is already plain enough but this addition will probably make it plainer that it is an annual payment only and not a capital sum.


David Henderson: I am not quite clear that the amendment will get over the difficulty to which I have referred. In a similar instance the province of Ontario claimed that they were not only entitled to be paid the annual sum but that if they desired they were entitled to get the principal upon which that interest was based. Notwithstanding that the Act of parliament creating the annual sum declares that it should be paid as an additional subsidy, and notwithstanding that the wording of that Act (chap. 4 statutes of 1884) is much more expressive than the words in the amendment of the Finance Minister himself, a portion of that capital amount has been paid over to the province. True, it is charged to the province as a debt, but no doubt the intention is that at some future time the entire sum may be paid over. I am quite aware that the Minister of Finance argues against my contention that the Act of 1884 speaks of this sum as a ' capital sum.' but as against that there is the broad statement that the amount of $142,414 is the annual payment to be made to the province of Ontario in consideration of that capital sum and the Act declares that the sum shall be paid to Ontario as an additional subsidy. I very much fear that the contention will be set up in years to come, that as this sum is interest there must be capital behind it, and that if the province is entitled to interest it is entitled under the Act of 1885, chap. 4, to call for the principal when it so desires. I knowT that the Minister of Finance is endeavouring to get over that, but I think he should have used words so explicit that all chance of difliculty in the future would be avoided.
Why refer to this as interest at all ? Could we not call it by some other name?

Could -we not simply declare the fact that inasmuch as the province of Alberta has no debt it is to be paid in lieu of debt allowance this annual sum of $400,000 a year in perpetuity, and make no reference whatever to the fact that it is based on any principle sum or its being 5 per cent on an estimated capital account or debt account. There will be perhaps opportunities before this has finally passed the House to further consider the question. I quite approve of the course that the minister is pursuing in endeavouring to get around the difficulty, but X respectfully submit that in my opinion he has not quite overcome the difficulty and the door is still left open for the contention that this $400,000 is interest and that the capital is there and that the province of Alberta when it desires more money will have a right to call upon the Dominion of Canada to pay over the $8,000,000, which is not the intention of this House and not the intention of this committee. If the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to read up the debates of 1SS4 as reported in ' Hansard ' and observe the explicit language that was used by Sir Leonard Tilley and also by Sir Richard Cartwright at that time, and what seemed to be the clear understanding, that it never was the intention of the government to pay $2,848,000 allowed to the province of Ontario, as additional capital it is surprising that at this distant date >
ou will find an hon. gentleman interpreting that clause in language entirely different from what Sir Leonard Tilley and Sir Richard Cartwright used at that time. Sir Leonard Tilley was distinct in his declaration that the capital sum should never be paid and Sir Richard Cartwright who was the financial critic at that time accepted that explanation and understood that only the $142,414 yearly which was called interest should be paid over. I would draw the attention of the minister to this item again and possibly if he still thinks there is any room for doubt, before the resolution passes the final stage he will give it his further valuable consideration and place the matter beyond all possible doubt by leaving out any reference at all to the matter bf interest which would leave it clear that the sum on which this interest is calculated is not capital at all and that the province would have no claim on the capital sum.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the language of the Ontario case and the language used here differ so materially that there is reason for a view in respect to the Ontario case which would not apply to this case. However, if my hon. friend and I cannot agree as to the Ontario case, I suppose we can all agree that we should come to a clear understanding in this case. Let me say that in my opinion which I gave in the Ontario case I was of course speaking on the legal
advice of' the Department of Justice. The intention of the statute must be gathered from the language of the statute itself and we must not as a rule look to the speeches of members of parliament tc ascertain the precise meaning of the statutes. I think that hon. members on the other side who are lawyers will possibly say that in the form in which we now propose the motion, it becomes an annual payment and not a capital sum. However, I have not had the benefit of the advice of the Minister of Justice on this amendment as he is not present. I think in deference to the opinions of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) I should not let the resolution go out of committee before making the suggestion, and if before the final stage, after consultation, the Minister of Justice is of opinion that the matter is not clear, I would be glad to accept my hon. friend's suggestion to make it more cleai\


David Henderson: I would say this further that we are not bound, I think, exactly by the language of this resolution. We must read it in connection with the Act of 1885, cap. 4, which gave additional powers to the province with reference to the use of money under such uncertain conditions when it is for the purpose of constructing public works, so that we must not rely entirely upon the wording of this resolution, we must read it as it will'be interpreted in the light of the legislation of 1885. That is a matter which I would desire the Minister of Justice to look over very carefully indeed. I may' say to the Minister of Finance that I took good care to see the Minister of Justice. We were both in the city of Quebec and we had quite a good understanding on that question in a jocular way. I would invite the Minister of Finance to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to that special Act of Parliament to which he referred on a former occasion and have that Act of Parliament read in connection with the present legislation and see whether or not it might throw some other light upon it, or cause some other interpretation to be made at some future time.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be inclined to think that apart from the Act of 1S85 with which I am not familiar, the amendment of the Minister of Finance would be sufficient for the purpose intended, although I have not given it very much consideration, but as I understand the matter will be open when we get into committee ou the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: I intended to have asked, when clause 2 was being discussed why it is that the sum of $S,10L500 has been selected as the amount of debt the equivalent of interest on which shall be paid

to the new provinces ? I asked a similar question in regard to clause one, but not in regard to this clause.


Mr. FIELD IXG.: It is made up on the basis of the allowance made to the province of Manitoba some years ago, the sum of $27.77 per head, the same rate as was allowed Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Afterwards in the re-adjustment in the debt accounts that sum was increased to $32.43 so that the sum which has been taken in the other provinces was accepted as the basis of this calculation.


David Henderson: I did not raise that question but I am very glad that the leader of the opposition has raised it, as it is a matter of information, but I very naturally inferred that the amount of debt of the old provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick as well as Manitoba were all taken into consideration in arriving at this particular sum because it does seem strange that a specific sum of eight millions and some odd hundreds of thousands of dollars should be used. I have no doubt the officers of the Finance Department have gone into a careful calculation embracing the debt of the old provinces of Canada as well as those of New Brunswick. Nova Scotia and Manitoba. I have not attempted to make the calculation but I assume that all these things are considered and on that basis the matter is calculated. We are obliged to take it for granted that that has been done with the utmost care and that whatever has been done has been done with a view to uniformity.


William Stevens Fielding: We have taken the basis of the other provinces aud applied it to the estimated population of the new provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolutions, as amended, reported, and read the second time.
Sir At ILFRID LAURIER moved that the resolutions be referred to the Committee of the Whole on Bill No. 09.
Motion agreed to.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
William James Roche: The right lion, gentleman has submitted a schedule in connection with the delimitation of the constituencies for local purposes, and has given the number of votes cast at the last general elections. That is very useful, but it would be still more useful if he could give the population. He will say that the population is much larger than it was at the last census, but we would like to have some idea with regard to the formation of those constituencies by population. \Are should pay some respect to representation by population and should have some estimate of the 1


Robert Laird Borden: population of the constituencies of the present day.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to give the population as it was at the last census, but with regard to the actual population, we thought the best method to give an idea of it was to give the number of votes cast. We have' no information in the department showing what the population may* be at present, but if it is possible to give better information we shall gladly give it.


William James Roche: There might have been local conditions which prevented the votes in certain districts coming out. If the right hon. gentleman cannot give the population, he could give the number of qualified voters in each district.
Mr. iSAM. HUGHES. That was the suggestion I was about to make. The right hon. gentleman has not only the number of votes cast but the number of voters registered.
Sir WlILFRID LAURIER. I have no objection.


Samuel Hughes: I do not see how you can give the present population but you can give the registration.


Robert Laird Borden: AA'hat business will be up to-morrow 7


Wilfrid Laurier: Bill No. 69.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.50 p.in.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 9, 1905.