1905-02-21

FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Rill (No. 67) to amend the Criminal Code, 1902.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 68) respecting the patents of the Paper Goods Company, Limited.-Mr. A. C. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta. He said : Mr. Speaker, the Bill which I have now the honour to present is for the admission of another member into the Canadian family of provinces. As the House, no doubt, has noticed, this Bill is to be followed immediately by another for the same purpose, in relation to the province of Saskatchewan. These two Bills are intimately connected ; they form part of the same subject; and, by your leave, Sir, the explanations which I shall have the honour to give to the House, will apply to both. They will apply likewise to the resolutions which will be introduced as the basis for the financial clauses of these Bills.
It has been observed on the floor of this House, as well as outside of this House, that as the nineteenth century had been the century of the United States, so the twentieth century would be the century of Canada. This opinion has not been deemed extravagant. On this continent and across the waters, it has been accepted as the statement of a truth, beyond controversy. The wonderful development of the United States during the space of scarcely more than one hundred years may well be an incitement to our efforts and our ambition. Yet to the emulation of such an example there may well be some exception taken ; for if it be true that settlement of the western portion of the American union has been marked by almost phenomenal rapidity, it is also true that every other consideration seems to have been sacrificed to this one consideration of rapid growth. Little attention was given, up to the last few years, to the materials which were introduced into the republic; little regard was paid among the new settlers to the observance of the law ; and it is not a slander upon our neighbours-for, indeed, the fact is admitted in their current literature-that frontier civilization was with them a byword for lawlessness. We have proceeded upon different methods. We have been satisfied with slower progress. Our institutions in our own Northwest have been developed by gradual stages, so as to ensure at all times among these new communities law and order, and the restraints and safeguards of the highest civilization.
The time has arrived when we are all agreed, I believe, nay, I feel sure, upon both sides of the House, that another step, and the last, can now be taken to complete the passage of the Northwest Territories from what was once necessary tutelage, into the fulness of the rights which, under our constitution, appertain to provinces.
I may remind the House, though the fact is well known to every body, that when confederation was established in the year 1867, the Canada of that day was not at all what is the Canada of the present day. The Canada of that day did not extend beyond the western limits of the province of Ontario. On the other side of the continent, on the shores of the Pacific ocean, there was a British colony, British Columbia, absolutely isolated; and between British Columbia on one side and Ontario on the other side there was a vast extent of territory, the fairest portion perhaps of the continent, which was under British sovereignty, but in which British sovereignty had always been dormant. That vast extent of the continent, the fairest, as I said, and the most fertile, was administered, loosely administered by the Hudson Bay Company, under a charter which the company claimed, gave her almost sovereign sway, and which she used to keep this vast extent of country as a close preserve for her immense operations in the fur trade. I need not tell you, Sir, the fact is well known and present to the memory of all, that it was the intention of the fathers of confederation not to limit it to the comparatively narrow
[Stage Direction]
bounds in which it was included in 1867, but to extend it eastward and westward between the two oceans. I need hardly tell you, Sir, the fact is known to all and well remembered by every one, that provision was made in the instrument of confederation itself, for the admission into confederation of British
[Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and even Newfoundland, and especially for these territories which at last have come in to-day as part of the Canadian family. In the very ' first year of confederation, the very first session of the first parliament, resolutions were introduced into this House and adopted unanimously for the acquisition of Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories, and the extinguishment therein of the title of the Hudson Bay Company. This was accom-j plished in a very short time, and as soon as j accomplished, the government of that day, | the government of Sir John Macdonald, pro! ceeded to carve the new province of Manitoba out of the wilderness, and without any preliminary stage endowed it at once with \ all the rights and privileges of a province.
If we go back to the history of those days, perhaps the opinion will not be unwarranted that it would have been a wiser course, if instead of bringing Manitoba at once into the confederation full fledged and fully equipped as a province, that maturity had been reached by gradual stages extended over a few years. If that course had been adopted, perhaps some mistakes would have been avoided from the effects of which we have not yet completely recovered.
Very different was the course and policy of Mr. Mackenzie when he cam'- into office with regard to the Northwest Territory. Up to the year 1875 the Northwest Territories had been administered under no special form of government. But in 1875 Mr. Mackenzie, being then Prime Minister of Canada, introduced into this House and carried unanimously a measure, a very important measure, the object of which, as he said himself, was to give to the Northwest Territories an ' entirely independent government.' This measure has been the charter under which the Northwest Territories have come to their present state of manhood. It has never been repealed. Additions have been made to it from time to time, but it has remained and is to this day the rock upon which has been reared the structure, which we are about to crown with complete and absolute autonomy. By this measure it was provided that a Lieutenant Governor should be appointed for the Northwest Territories. The Lieutenant Governor was to be vested with executive power, and he was to administer that power with the assistance of a council to be composed of five members, the Lieutenant Governor and his advisers to be appointed by the Governor in Council. Apart from these administrative powers the Lieutenant Governor was also invested with large legislative authority. He could make laws for taxation, for local and municipal purposes, property and civil Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
rights, the administration of justice, public health, police, roads, highways and bridges- generally all matters of a purely local and private nature. There was also an enactment in that measure to the effect that when any district, not exceeding 1,000 square miles, contained a population of not less than 1,000 people of adult age, exclusive of aliens and unenfranchised Indians, it could be erected into an electoral district which should thenceforward be entitled to elect a member to the council. There was also an important enactment with regard to education, introducing into that country the system of separate schools in force in the province of Ontario. But I shall say nothing at the present time of this Important part of the law of 1875, as I propose to come again to it at a later stage of the observations which I desire to offer to the House. This Act remained in force without any important modifications up to the year 1886, when the Territories were given representation in this parliament. Two years later an important step in advance was also taken in their development, that is to say, In 1888. The executive council was abolished, so far, at all events, as its powers of legislation were concerned, and a legislative assembly was created, to be composed of twenty-five members,' twenty-two of which were to be elected by the people and three to be known as legal experts, to be appointed by the Governor in Council ; and a new executive council was to be appointed under the name of advisory council to advise the Lieutenant Governor upon all matters of finance. In 1891 another step forward was taken, and a very important one. The legislative assembly of the Territories was given additional powers ; and if you take section 92 of the British North America Act and compare it with the powers which were then given to the legislature, you will find that that legislature was invested with powers almost as complete as those which are vested in the provinces under the British North America Act. In fact, with the exception of borrowing money most of the essential powers which are now given to the provinces were siven to the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories. In 1891 another departure, another change, was made-I call it a departure. The change which was then made was not, in my estimation, quite in accordance with the spirit of our constitution. It was that the legislative assembly could select four members of its own body to be called an executive committee to advise the Lieutenant Governor. This is not, as I say, in accordance with the principles of the British constitution. It is not in accordance with the principles of British constitution that parliament Itself should elect the members who are to advise the Crown. The principle of the British constitution is that the Crown, or the representative of the Crown selects, him-

self, his own advisers ; and under our own well known practice in these modern days, the only restriction put upon the executive, the Crown, or the sovereign, is that he must select advisers who have the support of a majority of the elected body. This new departure introduced in the statute of 1894 did not last long, and at this I am not surprised. In 1897 another and a final change took place. ^Tn 1897 an Act was passed in this House whereby it was provided that there should be an executive council to be chosen by the Lieutenant Governor from the members of the House, and practically having the support of a majority of the elected members of the legislature. This was in fact the last and final concession and it was the application of the principle of ministerial responsibility. This has been the law ever since ; it is the law to-day. So that, Sir, it is manifest that at this moment the people of the Northwest Territories are in the enjoyment and have been for several years, not only of full ministerial responsibility, not only of full constitutional government, but also of a large measure of local autonomy. A great deal has been done, in fact, more has been done than we have to do to-day. We have to take the last step but it is easy and comparatively unimportant in view of and in comparison with what has already been accomplished. The metal has been in the crucible and all we have to do now, is to put the stamp of Canadian nationality upon it.
The House is aware that §6me two years ago or thereabouts there came to us a very general desire from the Northwest Territories for immediate admission into the confederation as provinces. I did not believe at the time for my part, that this request, respectable as it was, proceeded so much from an actual need as from a sentiment. It was to me the expression of a sentiment, a sentiment most honourable, a sentiment most worthy because it was an expression of the self-reliance of young and ambitious communities. The House is also aware of the answer which we gave to the Territories at that time. We represented to them that in our judgment, the time was inopportune for taking this question into parliament, that as we were on the eve of a general election, the time and occasion would be more propitious and more fitting after that event when the Territories would have the benefit on this floor of a larger representation. These views were generally accepted. The- elections have taken place and immediately after the elections, or as soon as was practicable thereafter, we invited the executive of the Northwest Territories to send delegates here to confer with us upon the measure which was to be introduced so as to admit them into the confederation. We have had the benefit of the presence of Mr. Haultain, the Premier of the Northwest Territories and of Mr. Bulyea, one of his
colleagues, and we have had the advantage of several conferences with them. We have had the advantage also of the presence and advice of several of the members from the Territories, and now, Sir, it is my privilege and my honour-I deem it indeed a privilege and an honour-to offer this Bill to the House.
When we came to consider the problem before us it became very soon apparent to me, at all events, that there were four subjects which dominated all the others ; that the others were of compar- ! atively minor importance, but that there j were four which I was sure the parlia-/ ment of Canada and the Canadian peo-pie at large might be expected to take a deep interest in. The first was: How many provinces should be admitted into * the confederation coming from the North- ; west Territories-one, or two or more ? i The next question was : in whom should j be vested the ownership of the public lands? The third question was : What should be the financial terms to be granted to these new provinces ? And the fourth and not the least important by any means was the question of the school system which would be introduced-not introduced because it was introduced long ago, but should be continued in the Territories.
Now, Sir, I will proceed to examine one after the other, all these questions. The first, as I have just said is: How many provinces should be admitted into the confederation ? There is considerable variety, as everybody knows, in the area of the different provinces of the confederation. Prince Edward Island has an area of 2,184 miles, Nova Scotia 21,428 miles, New Brunswick 27,985 miles, Quebec 351,873, Ontario 260,862, Manitoba 73,732, and British Columbia 372,630, or a total area for the seven provinces of confederation of 1,110,694 miles. Now, the Territories which are to-day under the control and jurisdiction of the local legislature have exactly the same area as that of the seven provinces of the Dominion. The total area of the seven provinces, as I said a moment ago is 1,110,694 miles and the area of the different territories is as follows :
Miles.
Assiniboia	 88,879
Saskatchewan	107,618
Alberta	 101,883
Athabaska	 251,965
Mackenzie	 562,182
Total	1,112,527
Or, an area a little greater than the total area of the seven provinces of the Dominion. Now, as I have said there is a great variety in the sizes of our provinces ; in fact, it is very much with the Canadian Confederation as with the American Union. There are in the Canadian Confederation provinces oU unequal sizes as
[Stage Direction]
there are in the American Union states of unequal sizes. It is not a fatal fault as has been proved by the history of the American Union, but I believe that when provinces are not the result of historic tradition, when they have not come to us formed and when we have the control of events, it is preferable that the provinces should be as near as possible about the same size. Therefore, it is impossible to suppose that this immense territory of 1,112,527 miles should be formed into one single province. There is another objection. The territories are naturally divided into two portions from the point of view of agriculture, climate, and productions generally, the northern portion and the southern portion, and I would place the boundary of these two sections a little south of the boundary which now divides the provisional district of Mackenzie from the provisional district of Athabaska. This northern portion of the continent has not yet been fully explored, but still we know enough of it, there has been enough exploration of it and it has been travelled over sufficiently, to make us sure that it is absolutely unfit for agriculture. The climate is too cold and the soil is too poor. There are, however, very excellent and very promising indications of mineral wealth in that district. There are indications to-day of petroleum, coal, gold, copper and other minerals, and perhaps some day we may have in what is to-day a barren section, another Yukon. But we know by the experience of the past that mineral wealth, when not coupled with agriculture, is but a precarious ground on which to found the hope of thick and permanent settlement. Therefore, we put aside this northern section ; but the southern section is of an absolutely different character.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What does the right kon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) refer to exactly ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I would divide the two sections at about the line which now divides the provisional district of Mackenzie and the provisional district of Athabaska, about the 60th parallel of north latitude.
The southern section is of a different character. It is absolutely an agricultural country, and I need not say that it is one of the finest in the world today. It is traversed by large rivers flowing from the Rocky mountains to Hudson's bay, and the valley of the Saskatchewan is, as every one knows, equal in fertility to the valley of the Red river. Everybody knows also that the valley of the Red river and the valley of the Saskatchewan are today the most fertile wheat fields under the sun. We propose to give autonomy, not to the whole of the Territories, but to that section which extends from the American Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
boundafy up to the boundary line between the provisional district of Mackenzie and the provisional district of Athabaska, that is the 60th parallel of north latitude.
When we were first approached on this subject, it was proposed to us that we should make a province extending from the American boundary up to the 57th parallel, that is to say, somewhat to the south of the provisional boundary between the provisional districts of Mackenzie and Athabaska, but we thought it preferable to take in the whole district of Athabaska. The reason for this is, that although Athabaska is not considered to be a fertile country, and the eastern portion of it is barren, the western portion, the valley of the Peace river, is equal to the valley of the Saskatchewan and settlement there is already proceeding rapidly. There are to-day on the Peace river two grist mills, provided absolutely from wheat grown in the Peace river valley, and therefore we have decided to include within the new provinces the provisional district of Athabaska. The area of these two provinces together will be about 550,345 square miles. This is, in our estimation, altogether too large an area to be made into one single province according to the size of the other provinces, the largest of which is British Columbia, and the next largest Quebec, British Columbia "with an area of 372,000 square miles and Quebec with an area of
351.000	square miles. By dividing it into two you have two provinces of 275,000 square miles in round numbers, each about the size of the province of Ontario. If any of the members of the House will care to look at the map, they will see that we have put the provisional boundary on the fourth meridian and according to our present information, this will give about the same area and also the same population to the two provinces. It is estimated that the population to-day in these two provinces is about
500.000	souls. We have no accurate data, but we can proceed pretty confidently upon this information. The census in 1901 gave to these Northwest Territories a population of a little over 160,000 souls. Since that time, during the seasons of 1901, 1902, 1903 and 1904, the population, by immigration alone, has increased by over 100,000 a year, so that to-day we feel we are on pretty safe ground when we say that there is in those two provinces a total population of 500,000 souls, and we calculate that this population is about equally divided between the two provinces, giving a population of 250,000 to each.
Since I am upon the question of boundaries I shall also come to another question, connected therewith, that is to say, the demand which has been made upon us by the province of Manitoba for an extension of its boundaries, westward, northward and eastward. Yesterday a morning paper in this city published an interview given by the Hon. Mr. Rogers, a member of the govern-

ment of Manitoba, upon this subject. I shall take the liberty of referring to that interview of Mr. Rogers, so that the House will better understand the point to which l am about to direct its attention. Mr. Rogers said in this interview :
It is not a matter ot agreement. We are simply presenting the unanimous request of the people of our province for the extension of our boundaries at least as far west as Regina and north as far as the northern boundary of Atha-haska, which would include Fort Churchill, the Nelson river and the territory tributary thereto. This is no new request on behalf of Manitoba. In 1901 a resolution was introduced in the legislature by Mr. T. A. Burrows, then a member of the legislature and now a member of the Dominion parliament. This resolution was supported by Mr. Greenway, who was then leader of the opposition, now a member of the House of Commons. This was accepted and supported by the government of the day and voted for by every member of the House. A similar resolution was introduced by Mr. Roblin, leader of the government, and unanimously carried in 1902. A further resolution was introduced at the recent session and voted for by every member of the legislature, in which action they reflected the unanimous desire of all Manitobans. Mr. Campbell and myself have been appointed to come here to plead for what is considered by Manitoba to be her just claims, before the government who are the tribunal in the case and whose decision must be final.
I may observe that Mr. Rogers might have gone hack much further than 1901 for records of the presentation of the claims of Manitoba for an extension of territory. Indeed as far back as 18S4 a similar request was presented to the government of Sir John Macdonald. At that time the Privy Council dealt with this question in these words :
The boundaries of Manitoba were originally fixed at the instance of the delegates from that province who came to Ottawa in 1870 to adjust with the government of Canada the terms upon which Manitoba was to enter the confederation of Her Majesty's North American provinces.
The limits then agreed to embrace an area of about 9,500,000 acres. In the year 1881 these limits were enlarged and territory added to the west and north, making the total area of the province 96,000,000 acres or 150,000 square miles.
The further enlargement now asked for by Manitoba would add about 180,000 square miles to the already large area of the province, and would be viewed with disfavour as well by the old provinces as by the new districts of Assini-boia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Athabaska, which have been created in the Northwest Territories, and which will ultimately become provinces of the Dominion. It would largely add to the expense of the government, without increasing the resources of Manitoba, already pronounced by the government of the province to be insufficient to meet its normal and necessary expense.
The committee, under these circumstances, humbly submit to Your Excellency, that it is inexpedient to alter the boundaries of the province as prayed for.
This answer to the request of Manitoba was a categorical refusal. I may say that there is an error in this Order in Council.
It states that the area of the province of Manitoba at that time was 150,000 square miles, whereas it was only 73,000. That, however, is not very material. But I want to point out that the request of Manitoba now is one which could not be granted except with great difficulty. It would have been far more easy for the*''government of that day, twenty years ago, to have extended the limits of Manitoba than it would be to-day. At that time the Territories were still in their infancy ; but to-day they have grown to manhood, and how can it be expected that we shall take from them a portion of their territory to give it to Manitoba ? If this could not be done in 1884, I submit that there is still less reason for doing it in 1905.


Mr. SPROULE.: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman if in that calculation was not included the disputed territory between Manitoba and Lake Superior?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, I think not. It was in dispute at that very moment. But even if it had been included, what would it have mattered ? We want to deal as fairly as we can with Manitoba and to give it all the consideration which is due to her. But is there a member of this House who would advise us that we should carve out of the Territories which for thirty years have been under the jurisdiction of their own legislature, which are to-day represented by ten members in this House, any portion of what belongs to them and hand it over to the province of Manitoba against the consent^ of the people^ of those teeg-
I r^Suld have nothing to say. But the legislature of the Territories has more than once declared that they would not under any circumstances consent to any portion of their territory westward of the province of Manitoba being taken from them.
There is another consideration. For my part, I am prepared to give a full hearing to the province of Manitoba. When that province asks to have her limits extended westward, I am bound to say that we cannot entertain that prayer, for this simple reason, that the Territories, through their legislature, have passed upon it and have pronounced against it. But I understand that as to a certain portion of territory north of Lake Winnipegosis and Lake Manitoba, the Northwest legislature has declared that it has no pronounced views, and that that might be given to the province of Manitoba. But even this I am not prepared for my part to grant at this moment; because members representing that section to-day sit on the floor of this House, and they and their people have the right to be heard on that question;/and if they do not agree to it, I do not think the parliament of Canada should make the grant against their wishes, f
But, Sir, there is another demand of the


province of Manitoba which I think is entitled to fair consideration. Manitoba has asked to have her territory extended to the shores of Hudson's bay; and this is a prayer which seems to me to be entitled to a fair hearing. The province of Manitoba is not, however, the only one whose territory could be extended towards Hudson's bay. The province of Ontario would have the same right; the province of Quebec would also have that right; and the new province of Saskatchewan also. * Therefore, in the project which we have to present to the House to-day, instead of including in the province of Saskatchewan that portion of territory lying north of Lake Winnipeg-osis and Lake Manitoba, we propose to leave that outside, to be included neither in Saskatchewan nor in Manitoba, but to be dealt with at a future day. And 1 may say at once, and I have the authority of my colleagues to make the announcement, that we propose to invite the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec, the province of Manitoba and the province of Saskatchewan to meet us here to decide whether or not it is advisable that the limits of any of these provinces should be extended to the shores of Hudson's Bay, and if so, in what manner it should be done. We have not considered the matter yet, but perhaps it may not be unadvisable even to consult the other provinces. I venture to think that the proposal which I now make to the House with reference to the province of Manitoba is a fair one, which will commend Itself to the approval of all those who have given the matter fair and impartial consideration.
The new provinces shall, as a matter of course, be represented on the floor of this House, and, until another election takes place, they shall continue to be represented as they are to-day. There will be in each province a legislative assembly, of which it is proposed that the number of members shall be twenty-five.
A question which has given some difficulty to the members of the committee who had the preparation of this Bill, has been the selection of the capitals of the respective provinces. As to the capital of the province of Saskatchewan, the difficulty is easily solved, it will be, as it is at present, Regina. But as to the capital of Alberta, the selection was not so easy. There were three claimants for it-Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton, each of which had a good claim. We have decided that we would not make any final selection, leaving the final selection to the province itself. In the meantime, if you look at the map, you will see that Edmonton seems to be the most central point, and therefore we propose to make Edmonton the capital for the present.
Beyond this, I have only to say that it is the intention to have this Bill come into force on July 1 next.
The point being settled as to the number of provinces to be admitted into confederation, the next question is that regarding the public lands. In whom should the ownership of the lands be vested ? Should they belong to the provinces or to the Dominion? A strong plea was presented to us on behalf .pTEhe provinces. It was represented that as a matter of law and of equity, the public lands in these two provinces should belong to their governments. This plea was no doubt suggested by the fact that at the time of confederation, all the parties to the original contract, that is to say, the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec, each retained her own lands ; and when at a later day the province of British Columbia was admitted to the Dominion, she also retained her lands. But, Sir, the cases are not at all parallel. When the provinces which I have named came into confederation, they were already sovereignties. I use that term, because barring their dependence as colonies they were sovereignties in the sense of having the management of their own affairs. Each had a department of government called the Crown Lands Department, which was entrusted with the power of dealing with those lands, either for revenue or for settlement. But the case of these new provinces is not at all similar. They never had the ownership .of the lands. Those lands were bought by the Dominion government, and they have remained ever since the property of the Dominion government, and have been administered by the Dominion government. Therefore 1 say the two cases are not in any way parallel; they are indeed absolutely different. When the provinces which I have named came into confederation they retained the ownership of their lands ; but when the two new provinces come into the Dominion, it cannot be said that they can retain the ownership of their lands, as they never had the ownership.
Therefore, the proposition that in equity and justice these lands belong to the provinces is not tenable. But for my part I would not care, in a question of this importance, to rest the case on a mere abstract proposition. We must view it from the grounds of policy ; and from the highest grounds of policy, I think it is advisable that the ownership of these lands should continue to be vested in the Dominion government. We have precedents for this. This is a case in which we can go to the United States for precedents. They are situated very much as we are regarding the ownership of lands and the establishment of new states. Whenever a new state has been created in the American Union, the Federal government has always retained the ownership and management of the public lands. And when we take the records of our own country, we know that when Manitoba was brought into the Dominion, that province was not given the ownership of her lands,


Wilfrid Laurier: but It remained in the Dominion government. True it is that Manitoba made several efforts to acquire the ownership of the lands within her boundaries. She applied more than once to the successive governments of the Dominion, but her application was always met in the same way. It was always met by the statement that it was impossible to grant her request. The matter was finally closed in 1884 when the government of Sir John Macdonald, which had been approached on the subject, gave very forcibly and clearly the reasons why the prayer of that province could not be entertained. I may be allowed to quote to the House the language used by the government of Sir John Macdonald on the occasion. It will be found in an Order in Council of the 30th May, 1884 :-
The success of the undertakings by the Dominion government in and for the Northwest, depends largely upon the settlement of the lands. Combined with a great expenditure in organizing and maintaining an immigration service abroad and at home, parliament pledged its faith to the world that a large portion of those lands should be set apart for free homesteads to all coming settlers, and another portion to be held in trust for the education of their children. No transfer could, therefore, be made, without exacting from the province the most ample securities that this pledged policy shall be maintained ; hence in so far as the free lands extend there would be no monetary advantage to the province, whilst a transfer would most assuredly seriously embarrass all the costly immigration operations which the Dominion government is making mainly in behalf of Manitoba and the Territories.
The great attraction which the Canadian government now offers, the impressive fact to the mind of the men contemplating immigration is that a well known and recognized government holds unfettered in its own hand the lands which it offers free, and that that government has its agencies and organizations for directing, receiving, transporting and placing the immigrant upon the homestead which he may select. And if the immigration operations of the Dominion, which involve so large a cost, are to have continued success and to be of advantage to Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, your sub-committee deem it to be of the utmost importance that the Dominion government shall retain and control the lands which it has proclaimed free to all comers. Were there other considerations of sufficient force to induce them to recommend their transfer to Manitoba, and as a consequence and by precedent the surrender to the provinces to be created from the Northwest Territory, all the lands within their boundaries, then they would advise that the provinces holding the lands should conduct their own immigration operations at their own expense.
These reasons, strong and forcible as they were in 1884, are even stronger and more forcible in 1905, because the current of immigration is now flowing into these Territories in an unprecedented volume, and we are therefore compelled to say to the new provinces that we must continue the policy of retaining the ownership and control of the lands in our own hands. It is
conceivable that if 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. 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. But I frankly admit, and we must all recognize, that the provinces in the west, in being deprived of the public lands, are deprived of a valuable source of income. And in that way they complain that they are put on a footing of inequality as compared with the older provinces of the Dominion. Realizing that fact, it is the duty of parliament to make ample, even generous, provision which will compensate the provinces for the retention of the lands by the Federal government, and I believe that in makng this provision we shall have the full support of hon. members whether on one side or on the other.
Now I come to the financial terms which should be given to the new provinces. Our constitution, which is to be found in the British North America Act, contains a very remarkable provision. It contains the provision that out of the Federal treasury there shall be paid to the provinces a large amount of money in the shape of subsidies to assist them in carrying on their business. This, I say, is a very extraordinary provision. It is, I believe, unique.
At all events, so far as my information goes,
I do not know that any similar provision is to be found in the constitution of any other federal government. It is a sound principle of finance, and a still sounder principle of government, that those who have the duty of expending the revenue of a country should also be saddled with the responsibility of levying and providing it. That principle has been departed from in our case, and no doubt was departed from with some object. What can have been the reasons which induced the fathers of confederation in 1867 to depart from so obvious a principle of finance and government. The reasons are simply these. Confederation was the result of several compromises. It would have been impossible to establish it { if there had not been a policy of give and j take adopted among all the constituent j bodies. And I am quite sure, I am speaking absolute historical truth when I say i that neither Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, j Ontario nor Quebec would ever have consented to part with their revenues, to give up their powers of taxation in customs and J excise, if they had not been promised that out of the federal revenues they would be '

allowed a certain sum every year to defray the expenses of their own local governments and administrations. This is the reason why this provision is to be found in the British North America Act. It is there. I do not think it is sound, but though in my judgment unsound, it is the duty of everybody in this House and in this country to take confederation as we find it, with its good points and its blemishes, and carry it to the end on the principle upon which it was established. Therefore upon this point I believe it is the duty of the Canadian parliament to continue that policy in this instance and make a liberal provision for these two new provinces which we are about to admit into the Canadian family.
But before I come to the revenue to he given these provinces, it will perhaps be preferable that I should give an idea of their present requirements. Last year there was expended out of appropriations by this parliament for the use of the local legislature and by the local legislature itself.
Civil government	$101,540
Legislation	 21,375
Administration of	Justice	..	..	29,000
Public Works	 680,000
Education	 345,125
Agriculture and Statistics	..	..	47,680
Hospitals, charities and public
health	 20,000
Miscellaneous	 68,175
To these must be added sums which were spent by this government on services which in the future will have to be carried on by the governments of the provinces :
Public Works	$100,000
Justice	 100,000
Miscellaneous	 124,310
And this item of ' miscellaneous ' was composed as follows :
Lieutenant-Governor's office..	.. $ 3,880
Incidental Justice	 32,000
Insane patients	 70,000
Schools in unorganized districts 6,500
So that, last year there was provided for and expended by the Northwest Territories a total sum of $1,630,000.


Mr. FOSTER.: Was that provided by this government ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Does the right bon. gentleman know what was raised by the government itself ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Included in this was what was raised by the local government, which, was I believe in the neighbourhood of $150,000. So, this year, if the conditions were to remain as they are, without any increased demands, we should have to provide about $1,639,000, or an average of $818,000 for each province. Of course, there are some items of this expenditure Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
which, under the new conditions, must be duplicated, because there will be two governments instead of one. Besides, as every one knows immigration is flowing rapidly into the Territories, and it is no wonder if the present requirements of the Territories are not sufficiently represented by these figures. More liberal provision must be made for their expenses.
So, I come to the terms which we have made with the provinces-the terms we propose to give them. As the House knows, we are guided in this by the terms of the British North America Act. Section 118 of that Act reads as follows :
The following sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the several provinces for the support of their governments and legislatures :
Ontario	$80,000
Quebec	 70,000
Nova Scotia	 60,000
New Brunswick	 50,000
Two hundred and sixty thousand,-and an annual grant in aid of each province shall be made, equal to eighty cents per head of the population as ascertained by the census of one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in case of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by subsequent decennial census until the population of each of those two provinces amount to four hundred thousand souls, at which rate such grant shall thereafter remain. Such grants shall be in full settlement of all future demands on Canada, and shall be paid halfyearly in advance to each province ; but the government of Canada shall deduct from such grants, as against any province, all sums chargeable as interest on the public debt of that province in excess of the several amounts stipulated in this Act.
Now, we propose to make the following terms, keeping as close as possible to the British North America Act. I cite from the Bill :
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 :	Support of government and legislature, $501,000,-
That is the sum paid to New Brunswick, when the population of that province was
about the same as that of Alberta.
-on an estimated population of 250,000 at eighty cents per head $200,000, subject to be increased as hereinafter mentioned, that is to say : The census of the province shall be taken every fifth year, reckoning from the general census of 1901, and an approximate estimate of population shall be made at equal intervals between each quinquennial and decennial census, and, whenever the population, by any such census or estimate should exceed 250,000, the allowance shall be increased accordingly until the population has reached 800,000.
Now, the House has observed that in clause 11S of the British North America Act, which I have just read, the capitation allowance of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick was fixed at a maximum

of 400,000 population. This rule was applied also to Manitoba and British Columbia. The reason why the maximum was fixed at 400,000 population is not very apparent, but I imagine that it was supposed at that time that the population of these provinces was not likely to reach a very much higher figure than 400,000. And this calculation has proven true. It took years for Nova Scotia to reach that maximum ; New Brunswick has not reached it yet, nor has Manitoba nor British Columbia. But it would be manifestly unfair to these new provinces to limit their maximum to 400.000. Already the population is about 250,000. Therefore, instead of fixing the maximum at 400,000 population, we have fixed it at 800,000.
A more important allowance is the allowance for debt. And this is what we propose:
Inasmuch as the province is not in debt, the said province should he entitled to be paid and to receive from the government of Canada by half-yearly instalments, interest at the rate of 5 per cent on the sum of $8,107,500.
The reason of this ik familiar to everybody, but perhaps, it is not unimportant that I should review it here, and present it again to the House. In 1867, when confederation was established the debts of the provinces were assumed by the Dominion- the debts of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Now, the debt at that time of Old Canada, that is the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, amounted to $67,000,000 in round numbers. The debt of New Brunswick was about $7,000,000 and that of Nova Scotia about $8,000,000. It so happened that the debt of New Brunswick represented an average of about $25 per head of the population, and the debt of Nova Scotia of about $8,000,000 was nearly the same per head of her population. The debt of Old Canada was a little greater per head. Therefore, when allowance was made for the debts of the provinces, the debt of Ontario and Quebec was taken not at $67,000,000, but at $62,000,00. That is, Ontario and Quebec were each relieved of about $31,000,000, Nova Scotia of $8,000,000, and New Brunswick of $7,000,000. The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick entered confederation without debt, while Ontario and Quebec had between them a debt of about $5,000,000. hater on. new arrangements were made, new debts of the provinces were assumed by the Dominion, and the provinces were freed from such liabilities. By this means the capitation allowance for debt was increased from $25 to $32.43 per head. This is the last allowance that was made for debt, and, if I remember well this was made by statute passed In 1884 or 1885. Therefore, we make this allowance of $34.43 per head to these new provinces. They have a population of 250.000 souls each. This makes a total of $8,107,500.


Wilfrid Laurier: On the basis of $32.43, $8,107,500. Upon this we allow
the large rate of interest which has been given to all the provinces of 5 per cent. We now come to the allowance for land.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the light hon. gentleman touches the land-he has spoken of the population of the Territories as amounting, at the present time, to 500,000 souls, and the allowance both for debt and subsidies based on that; would he be good enough to give us any information in his possession as to that question ?


Wilfrid Laurier: As I stated a moment ago, by the last census the population of the Northwest Territories was 165,555 souls. Since that time increases have been made, and the population now amounts, according to the last returns placed in my hands, to 417,956 souls. The population is increasing rapidly.


George Eulas Foster: What was the basis of the estimate 1


Wilfrid Laurier: The returns mostly of immigration, but I will give the exact basis as we have it correctly from the Interior Department. Total population as per census of 1901, 165,555 souls ; increase of population by homesteaders since the census of 1901, 221,251 souls.


George Eulas Foster: Entries or actual settlers ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that they are actual entries, but we calculate the population upon entries for homesteads. I will read the figures :
Population at present of Northwest Territories
(estimated) 417,956.
Total population as per census of 1901.. 165,555 Increase of population of homesteaders
since the census of 1901	 221,251
Increase of population other than homesteaders since census, 1901, say	 16,000
(Estimated from Waghorn's Guide.)
Estimated natural increase of the population at 1901 to date is	 9,900
Estimated natural increase of the increase of population in 1902 to date is 1,935 Estimated natural increase of the increase of population in 1903 to date is 2,370 Estimated natural increase of the increase of population in 1904 to date is 945
417.956
Now, this Act is not to come into force until the 1st of July, and we estimate that by the 1st of July the population will have increased to 500,000 souls. This is the basis of our calculation. Now, I said a moment ago, and the House seemed to agree with me, that as we retain the lands in our own hands, it is natural and to be expected that government and parliament would be liberal in their allowance to the new provinces for compensation in that respect. Manitoba, which has an area of 73.000 square miles, received as compensation for her lands some fifteen or twenty years ago an annual grant of $100,000. Apart from that, Manitoba has


George Eulas Foster: On the basis of $32.43 ?

received the swamp lands. The swamp lands are perhaps the most valuable lands In the province of Manitoba. They require some preliminary work for drainage, but when drained there are no better lands in the whole province. When the late government gave to the province of Manitoba the swamp lands, they made her a valuable gift, and it has proved to her a most important asset. But the Northwest Territories have no swamp lands, we could not do for them what the government did for the province of Manitoba. We have, therefore, made the following arrangement, which we commend to the favourable consideration of the House :
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 annually by way of compensation therefor a sum based upon the estimated value of such lands, (namely, $37,500,000) ; the same 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 provinces as from time to time ascertained by the quinquennial census thereof, such sum to be arrived at as follows :-
The population of the said provinces 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 800,000, the sum payable is to be one and one-half per cent on such estimated value, or $562,500.
Thereafter until such population reaches 1,200,000, the sum payable is to be two per cent on such estimated value, or $750,000.
And thereafter such payment is to be three per cent on such estimated value, or $1,112,500.
In additional compensation for such lands, there shall be paid by Canada to such province annually for five years from the time this Act comes into force to provide for the construction of necessary public buildings, $62,500.
Let me now recapitulate to see the minimum each province is to receive. At present, this year, the province is to receive for civil government $50,000 ; for capitation allowance, $200,000, which is going to increase until the population has reached
800,000	souls. It will receive for debt allowance $405,375, and this year it will receive also for land compensation $375,000 ; total, $1,030,375, to which sum must be added, for five years, $62,500, in order to allow the province to provide for her buildings and public works generally.
This is the minimum which will be paid to the province. The only thing new in these arrangements is in respect to the lands. The maximum which will be paid to the province at any time when the population shall have reached 1,200,000 souls is $1,125,000 ; that is to say, we pay to each of these provinces the maximum sum of $1,125,000 as compensation for the lands which we retain in our possession. I submit to the House that this is a very fair, a very moderate and very equitable adjustment indeed ; at all events, I so present it Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
to the House, and I think it will be so regarded.


Robert Laird Borden: The maximum of the subsidy to the provinces will be reached, as I understand it, when the population reaches the number of 1,200,000. The total annual payments of all kinds reach their maximum when the population reaches the number of 1,200,000, that is, including both the per capita allowance and the allowance for land. Would the right hon. gentleman be good enough to tell us just what that maximum sum will be, including both the subsidy and the allowance in respect of land ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The per capita allowance will be $640,000.


Robert Laird Borden: But the total of all kinds. Perhaps if the right bon. gentleman has not the figures it is not important.


Wilfrid Laurier: The total .of all kinds would be in the neighbourhood of a little more than $2,000,000.
Now, Sir, it is my duty to advert to a special feature of this Bill, a feature which I wish we could have averted, and which we introduced with great respect. The special clause which I now call the attention of the House to is as follows :-
The territory comprised in the said province shall be and continue to be subject to all such provisions as shall have been enacted respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
It is within the memory of the House, I have no doubt, that the contract which was made with the Canadian Pacific Railway contained a most extraordinary provision. It was the 16th section :
The Canadian Pacific Railway and all stations and station grounds, workshops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances required and used for the construction and working thereof and the capital stock of the company shall be for ever free from taxation by the Dominion, or by any province hereafter to be established or by any municipal corporation therein.
Thus it happens that in 1881 the then parliament deliberately gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which it was incorporating, an absolute exemption from federal, provincial and municipal taxation. It was an extraordinary contract, but the fact stares us in the face, and it is in accordance with British precedent and British policy that contracts have to be executed whether they are good or bad, whether they are advantageous or disadvantageous. In IS84 or 1885, when the limits of the province of Manitoba were extended westward, a similar provision was introduced into the Act of that time to exempt the company from taxation by that province in the territory thus added to her limits. We have to do the same thing to-day. It is a most lamentable condition of things, but all I have to say to the provinces, is that they have to abide

by the conditions which exist. In this respect, however, they are in no worse position than the Dominion government itself. We stand to-day, to use a common phrase in the same box. If the Minister of Finance were to introduce a budget wherein he thought it advantageous for the Dominion of Canada to impose taxation upon big corporations, upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company, upon the Bank of Montreal, upon all the other banks and corporations we could do so, but we could not lay a farthing of taxation on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That is the result of the condition of things which was enacted by this parliament twenty-four years ago. At that time the opposition led by Mr. Blake protested vigorously against that provision. Mr. Charlton moved the following amendment:-
That the contract respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway exempts perpetually the railway and all stations and station grounds, workshops, buildings, yards and other property, rolling stock and appurtenances, required lor the construction and working thereof, and the capital stock of the company, from taxation by the Dominion or by any other province hereafter established, or by any municipal corporation therein. That the property of the corporation shall be in substance a gift from the public ; and its exemption from taxation is unjust, creates an unfair incidence of taxation, and gives an undue advantage to the company over other railway companies, calculated to prevent the construction of competing lines, and the contract is, in this respect, objectionable.
Unfortunately this amendment was defeated and that clause of the contract was carried into effect. We have to deal with it to-day as we find it and the provinces as well as the Dominion have to abide by it. All I can say at this moment is that if our efforts and their efforts could rid the new provinces of this incubus, we would be only too glad to give them all the help and assistance in our power, but it is not possible to do so, except by some method that I am not able at the present time to find out. It might be by the way of legislation, it might be through a mutual agreement, or by expropriation. There are some of these methods perhaps open to us, but I have only to say sc this moment, that, regrettable as it is, the Dominion and the provinces the provinces and the Dominion must abide by it loyally until such time as it may be possible to find a remedy. That is all I have to say upon the financial clauses of the contract.
I now come to the question of education, and this question is perhaps under existing circumstances the most important of all that we have to deal with. There are evidences not a few coming to us from all directions, that the old passions which such a subject has always aroused are not, unfortunately, buried ; indeed, already, before the poiicy of the government has been known, before the subject is fairly before the people, the government has been warned as to its duty in this matter, and not only 46
warned but threatened as well. The government has been warned, threatened from both sides of this question, from those who believe in separate schools and from those who oppose separate schools. These violent appeals are not a surprise to me, at all events, nor do I believe they are a surprise to anybody. We have known by the experience of the i past, within the short life of this confederation, that public opinion is always inflam- \ mable whenever questions arise which ; ever so remotely touch upon the religious \ convictions of the people. It behooves i us therefore all the more at this solemn moment to approach this subject with care, with calmness and deliberation and with the firm purpose of dealing with it not only in accordance with the inherent principles of abstract justice, but in accordance with the spirit-the Canadian spirit of tolerance and charity, this Canadian spirit of tolerance and charity of which confederation is the essence ana of which in practice it ought to be ffie expression and embodiment. Before I proceed further, before I pass the threshold of this question, I put at once this inquiry to the* House :	What are separate schools ?
What is the meaning of the term ? Whence does it come, what was its origin and what was its object ? Perhaps somebody will say :	What is the use of discussing such
a question ? The term separate schools ought to be familiar to every one. Sir, if any one vt ere to make such an observation and to interpose such an objection, I would tell him that never was objection taken with less ground. Mankind is ever the same. Kew problems and new complications aauII always arise, but new problems and complications, when they do arise, always revolve within the same well beaten circle of man's passions, man's prejudices and man's' selfishness. History therefore should be a safe guide, and it is generally by appealing to the past,'"by investigating the problems with which our fathers had to deal, that we may find the solutions of the complications that face us. If we look back to the history of our own country, if we find what is the origin of the separate schools, perhaps history may be the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night to show us the way and give us the light.
Separate schools, Sir, go back to the old days of the legislature of Lower Canada. In these old days the system of schools In my province, in my native province, was rudimentary ; there was practically no system, but from year to year allowances were made by the legislature for the support and maintenance of schools. I need not say that the population within the limits of the province of Lower Canada at that time was, as it is to-day, divided in origin and in creed ; it was largely Roman Catholic with a small Protestant minority. I am glad to say, and perhaps it would he permitted if, in this matter, being myself a son of the province of Quebec I indulged i*



B-16 REALISED EDITION COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
what may be not altogether unpardonable pride when I say, that I am not aware that the Protestant minority ever had any cause of complaint of the treatment they had received at the hands of the majority. One of the most eminent men of that day, one of the most eminent colleagues of Sir John Macdonald at the time of confederation, Sir John Rose, bore ample testimony to what I have now stated. This is what he said speaking in the confederation debate :
Now we, the English Protestant minority of Lower Canada, cannot forget that whatever right of separate education we have, was accorded to us in the most unrestricted way before the union of the provinces, when we were in a minority and entirely in the hands of the French population. We cannot forget that in no way was there any attempt to prevent us educating our children ic the manner we saw fit and deemed best ; and I would be untrue to what is just if I forgot to state that the distribution of state funds for educational purposes was made in such a way as to cause no complaint on the part of the minority.
The system, as I said, was rudimentary ; it became more effective, more regulative, after the union of the two provinces, Upper and Lower Canada in 1841.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would that not seem to be an argument in favour of leaving it to the provinces 1


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall come to that presently and I hope I will be able to satisfy my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) if lie will have an open ear on this subject. In 1841 the parliament of United Canada passed a law for the establishment of schools all over the province. Section 11 of that statute provided that:
Whenever any number of the inhabitants of any township or parish professing a religious faith different from that of the majority of the inhabitants of such township or parish, shall dissent from the regulations, arrangements, or proceedings of the common school commissioners, with reference to any common school in such township or parish it shall be lawful for the inhabitants so dissenting, collectively to signify such dissent in writing to the clerk of the district council .... and it shall be lawful for such dissenting inhabitants .... to establish and maintain one or more common schools in the manner and subject to the visitation, conditions, rules and obligations in this Act provided, with reference to other common schools.
Section 12 enacted that:
No common schools shall be entitled to any apportionment of money out of the common school fund except on the terms and conditions following :
And so forth. No exception was made, whether they were separate or common schools. But it appears that some doubt arose in Upper Canada as to whether or not separate schools were entitled to state aid.


Wilfrid Laurier: Ontario and maritime provinces, were separated by long distances. The two groups which were geographically united, Ontario and Quebec, were separated by the deeper cleavage of difference of origin. In all there was a strong sense of local pride, in all there was a strong assertion of self interest, and in all there were peculiar institutions as to the security of which all dreaded to be launched into the unknown. This was particularly true of education in Lower Canada and in Upper Canada. In Lower Canada the Protestant minority had long enjoyed their own system of separate schools. In Upper Canada the Roman Catholic minority had just secured a similar system. These two minorities feared that in the new constitution, under the separation of legislative powers which must ensue, the rights of each might be put in jeopardy by a hostile majority. The min ority of Lower Canada felt perfectly secure under the then existing condition of things because those of their own creed and race were in the majority in United Canada. The Roman Catholic minority in Upper Canada feared also the constitution because it would be deprived of the powerful alliance of those of their own origin in another province. Under such circumstances, what was to be done? How could a scheme of confederation be devised so as to ensure the support of all parties and sections of the community ? It is useless to speculate as to what might have been done. It is sufficient to say that means were found to insure to the minority in each province, the free exercise of its rights, and that means was to declare that in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, the rights of the minority, which were to be entrusted to the respective legislatures of these provinces, were to be above the control pf the majority. Let me recall to the House the Quebec resolutions which were adopted and which were the basis and the charter under which the Canadian parliament now lives and the Canadian nation has been formed. Section 93 of the Quebec resolutions states as follows, and I pray you. Sir, mark the language :-
The local legislatures shall have power to make laws respecting the following subjects
1.	Direct taxation, and in New Brunswick the imposition of duties on the export of timber, logs, masts, spars, deals and sawn lumber ; and in Nova Scotia, of coals and other minerals.
2.	Borrowing money on the credit of the province.
3.	The establishment and tenure of local offices. and the appointment and payment of local officers.
4.	Agriculture.
5.	Immigration.
6.	Education ; saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools at the time when the union goes into operation.
Again I say, mark the language. The Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
legislatures of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario were given the power to make laws for the following purposes :
Direct taxation.
Borrowing money.
The establishment and tenure of local office.
Agriculture and colonization.
Upon all these subjects their powers are unlimited and they can do as they please, without any check, except their responsibility to the people of their respective provinces. Then on the subject of education the legislatures of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick can do as they please and are not responsible to any one except to the people. But when we come to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we find that the powers of these two provinces are limited as regards education. Neither the legislature of Ontario nor that of Quebec was given power to pass any law which might prejudicially affect the rights of the minority in either province. So long as this constitution endures the schools of the minority in Quebec and Ontario must likewise endure. Yet, remarkable as is this enactment, it is perhaps still more remarkable, if we remember that one of the men who assented to this limitation to the power of the province of Ontario was Mr. George Brown himself- Mr. George Brown who said again and again that he was opposed to separate schools, who had carried on a crusade of years against separate schools in his province. If you look only at the surface of things, without trying to find the inspiration, it is indeed remarkable that Mr. Brown, who, with Sir John Macdonald was the central figure, agreed that the powers of the legislature of his own province should be limited in that respect. We need not marvel if Mr. Brown was attacked and assailed for the action he then took. He was assailed perhaps by some of his own disciples whom he had taught to object to separate schools as strongly as he did himself. Mr. Brown defended his course in the confederation debate, or rather he explained his policy, because he was under no necessity to defend his course ; and I beg on this occasion to commend his language to those who to-day have forgotten confederation, when he came to discuss the 43rd resolution. He spoke as follows :-
The people of Upper Canada will have another legislature for their local matters and will no longer have to betake themselves to Quebec for leave to open a road, to select a county town, or appoint' a coroner. But I am told that to this general principle of placing all local matters under local control, an exception has been made in regard to the common schools. (Hear, hear.)
The clause complained of is as follows :-
6. Education, saving the rights and privileges which the Protestant or Catholic minority in both Canadas may possess as to their denominational schools at the time when the union goes into operation.

Now, continued Mr. Brown :-
I need hardly remind the House that I have always opposed and continue to oppose the system of sectarian education, so far as the public chest is concerned. I have never had any hesitation on that point, I have never been able to see why all the people in the province, to whatever sect they may belong, should not send their children to the same schools to receive the ordinary branches of instruction. I regard the parent and the pastor as the best religious instructors-and so long as the religious faith of the children is not interfered with, and ample opportunity afforded to the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their flocks, I cannot see any sound objection to mixed schools. But while in the conference and elsewhere X have always maintained this view, and always given my vote against sectarian public schools, I am bound to admit, as I have always admitted, that the sectarian system carried to the limited extent it has yet been in Upper Canada, and confined as it' chiefly is to cities and towns, has not been a very great practical injury. The real cause of a line was that the admission of the sectarian principle was there, and that at any moment it might be extended to such a degree as to split up our school system altogether. There are about a hundred separate schools in Upper Canada, out of some 4,000, and all Roman Catholic. But if the Roman Catholics are entitled to separate schools and to go on extending their operations, so are the members of the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and all other sects. No candid Roman Catholic will deny this for a moment ; and there lays the great danger to our educational fabric, lest the separate system might gradually extend itself until the whole country was studded with nurseries of sectarianism," most hurtful to the best interests of the province and entailing an enormous expense to sustain the host of teachers that so prodigal a system of public instruction must inevitably entail. Now, it is known to every hon. member of this House that an Act was passed in 1S63 as a final settlement of this sectarian controversy. X was not in Quebec at the time, but if I had been here, I would have voted against that Bill because it extended the facilities for establishing separate schools. It had, however, this good feature, that it was accepted by the Roman Catholic authorities and carried to parliament as a final compromise of the question in Upper Canada. When, therefore, it was proposed that a provision should be inserted in the confederation scheme to bind that contract of 1863 and declare it a final settlement, so that we should not be compelled, as we have been since 1849, to stand constantly to our arms, awaiting fresh attacks upon our common school system, the proposition seemed to me one that was not rashly to be rejected. (Hear, hear.) I admit' that, from my point of view, this is a blot on the scheme before the House ; it is confessedly, one of the concessions from our side that had to be made to secure this great measure of reform. But assuredly, I, for one, have not the slightesCflesRatlon in accepting it as a necessary condition of the scheme of union, and doubly acceptable must It bVnf'TEe eyes' of hon. gentlemen opposite, who were the authors of the Bill of 1863. (Cheers.) But it was urged that though this arrangement might perhaps be fair as regards Upper Canada, it was not so as regards Lower Canada, for there were matters of which the British population have long complained, and some amendments to the existing School Act were required to secure them equal justice. Well, when this point was raised, gentlemen of all parties in Lower Canada at once expressed themselves prepared to treat it in a frank and conciliatory manner, with a view to removing any injustice that might be shown to exist ; and on this understanding the educational clause was adopted by the conference.


Mr.  T. C. WALLBRIDGE@: That destroys the power of the local legislature to legislate upon the subject.


Hon. Mr. BROWN.: I would like to know how much power the hon. gentleman has now to legislate upon it ? Let him introduce a Bill today to annul the contract of 1863 and repeal all the sectarian School Acts of Upper Canada, and how many votes would he get for it ? Would twenty members vote for it out of the 130 who compose this House ? If the hon. gentleman had been struggling for fifteen years, as I have been, to save the school system of Upper Canada from further extension of the sectarian element, he would have precious little diminution of power over it in this very moderate compromise. And what says the hon. gentleman to leaving the British population of Lower Canada in the unrestricted powers of the local legislature ? The common schools of Lower Canada are not as in Upper Canada-they are almost entirely non-sectarian, Roman Catholic schools. Does the hon. gentleman, then, desire to compel the Protestants"'of Lower Canada to avail themselves of Roman Catholic institutions or leave their children without instruction ?
Let us pause a moment to consider this language. Mr. Brown did not believe iu separate schools. He had struggled all his life against that system. But a great object had to be achieved, a noble conception had to be realized, an inspiring idea had to be made a fact, and in order to reach that supreme goal, differences of opiniou had to be reconciled, fears and apprehensions had to lie removed, misgivings had to be alleviated, and above all the rights of conscience, the tender rights of conscience, had to be placed in as firm a position of security as they previously enjoyed, so that no one could object, and all, without regard to origin or creed, could give a cheerful and enthusiastic support to the new constitution.
Sir, Mr. Brown told his friends that he did not believe in separate schools ; but there were fellow-citizens of his in Ontario and in Quebec who believed in separate schools, and, in order to remove their objections and win their co-operation in the scheme which was the great work of his life, he agreed to make the sacrifice of his own convictions. In order to achieve the great object he had at heart, he agreed to fasten upon his own province a system in which he did not believe, but in which others did believe. Sir, for more than twenty years Mr. Brown has been in his grave ; but his memory is not dead. And if his teachings and his spirit be still alive, it is surely in the hearts of that staunch yeomanry of Ontario who gave him such constant support during the years of his political struggles. They followed him devot-

edly in his crusade against separate schools. They followed him even more devotedly, when he asked them to accept separate schools, to sacrifice their own opinions, and his own, upon the altar of the new country which it was his ambition to establish on this portion of the North American continent. If it were my privilege that my poor words might reach that staunch yeomanry of Ontario, I would remind them that the work of confederation is not yet finished ; I would tell them that we are now engaged in advancing it; and I would ask them whether we are now to reverse our course, or whether we are not to continue to work it out to completion on the lines laid down by the great leader himself.
Now, Sir, such was the condition of things at the time of confederation. But I shall be told that this exception applies to Ontario and Quebec alone, and not to the other provinces. Sir, that is true. Amongst the four provinces then united, Ontario and Quebec alone had a system of separate schools. But I reminded the House a moment ago that it was not the intention of the fathers of confederation, it was not the intention of Sir John Macdonald or Mr. Brown to limit confederation to the narrow bounds it had in 1867. They had made provision in the very instrument of confederation, to extend it over the northern part of the continent; they had made provision to take in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island ; they had made provision to take in also the Northwest Territories, which were then uninhabited, but which now have a teeming population and are at our doors asking admission. Is it reasonable to suppose, if the Confederation Act recognizes that other provinces were to come into confederation similarly situated to Ontario and Quebec, that the same privileges should not be given to the minority as were given to the minority in Ontario and Quebec ? What would have been the value of the invitation to enter confederation, if the provinces invited to enter, had been told that the security to the minority given to Ontario and Quebec was a privilege which they need not expect from us ? Section 43 of the Quebec resolutions has become section 93 of the British North America Act, and is no longer confined to Quebec and Ontario. Here it is :
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provision
1. Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union.
So, Sir, now whenever a province comes here knocking at this door, asking to be admitted into confederation, if in that province there exists a system of separate schools, the British North America Act has provided that the same guarantee we give Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER.
to the minority in Quebec and Ontario shall also be given to the minority in that province. Shortly after confederation had been established, that is, in the year 1870, the parliament of Canada had an opportunity of applying the doctrine contained in the British North America Act in the creation of the province of Manitoba. Until its ad mission into the Dominion, Manitoba had no regular government. It had been loosely administered by the Hudson Bay Company. There had been some schools in it, maintained by such authority as there was. There had been separate schools maintained by Roman Catholic missionaries. It was the intention of parliament to give the minority the system that they had before confederation ; and, so marked was their intention, that instead of accepting without qualification the words of section 93 of the British North America Act, ' right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the province at the union,' they made it read ' by law or practice in the province at the union.' It turned out, as determined by judicial authority, that the province of Manitoba, when it entered confederation, had no system of schools either by law or practice. It followed, as a consequence, that the power of the province of Manitoba with regard to the subject of education was as complete as that of the province of Nova Scotia or the province of New Brunswick. This is a principle which was not understood at the time by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were on this side- of the House. There was the fact, the positive fact-the power of the province of Manitoba with regard to education was as unshackled as that of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In 1875, as I stated a moment ago, Mr. Mackenzie introduced an Act for the government of the Northwest Territories, and in this Act the parliament of Canada, which, at that time, had among its members some of the ablest men who ever sat in a Canadian parliament-Sir John Macdonald, Mr. Mackenzie, Mr. Blake, Sir Charles Tupper and a score of others-unanimously, deliberately and with their eyes open, introduced into the Northwest Territories the system of separate schools. And not only that, but the parliament of Canada, four times successively-in 1880, in 1885, in 1886 and in 1898-deliberately and with their eyes open, ratified the system of separate schools in the Territories.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask here one question, if the right hon. gentleman will allow me ?


Sir WILFRID  DATJRIER@: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The right hon. gentleman gave the House to understand that Hon. George Brown supported the principle of separate schools. May I ask if it is not true that Mr. Brown, in 1875, op-

i454
posed the principle of authorizing separate schools in the Territories, voted against it and gave his reasons '!


Wilfrid Laurier: I am delighted that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has asked me that question. In 1875, when the Bill to which I have referred went through parliament, Mr. Brown who was a member of one branch of this parliament, opposed the introduction of the new clause in that Bill providing for separate schools. He opposed it with all his might. He told the House that he had not changed his mind upon the subject, but he told the House also that if the principle of separate schools was introduced, then, according to the terms of the constitution, it was introduced for all time to come. I am delighted that my hon. friend brought my attention to this, because really the whole subject is contained in the question of my hon. friend. We have to decide this problem upon the very terms of the legislation which was introduced in 1875. Let me give to my hon. friend all the information to which he is entitled, and which I fain would hope will fall upon favourable ground ; I will give him the whole history of that matter. Mr. Mackenzie himself Introduced the Bill in 1875. The Bill as first introduced made no mention of separate schools ; but after he had sat down and when Sir John A. Macdonald had spoken on the subject, Mr. Blake rose and brought this very subject of separate schools to the attention of the House, and he did it with a height and breadth of thought which I hope will command the admiration of my hon. friend. This is what Mr. Blake said :
The task which the ministry had set for itself was the most important it was possible to conceive. To found primary institutions under which we hope to see hundreds of thousands, and the more sanguine among us think millions of men and families settled and flourishing, was one of the noblest undertakings that could be entered upon by any legislative body, and it was no small indication of the power and true position of this Dominion that parliament should be engaged to-day in that important task. He agreed with the hon. member for Kingston that the task was one that required time, consideration and deliberation, and they must take care that no false steps were made in such work. He did not agree with that right hon. gentleman that the government ought to repeal his errors. The right hon. gentleman had tried the institutions for the Northwest Territories which he now asked the House to frame, and for the same reason as he had given to-day-that it would be better for the Dominion government to keep matters in their own hands and decide what was best for the future. He (Mr. Blake) believed that it was essential to our obtaining a large immigration to the Northwest that we should tell the people beforehand what those rights were to be in the country in which we invited them to settle. It was interesting to the people to know that at the very earliest moment there was a sufficient
aggregate of population within a reasonable distance, that aggregation would have a voice in the self-government of the territories, and he believed the Dominion government was wise, (although the measure might be brought down very late this session and it might be found impossible to give it due consideration) in determining in advance of settlement what the character of the institutions of the country should be in which we invite people to settle.
He regarded it as essential under the circumstances of the country, and in view of the deliberation during the last few days that a general principle should be laid down in the Bill with respect to public instruction. He did believe that we ought not to introduce into that territory the heart burnings and difficulties with which certain other portions of this Dominion and other countries had been afflicted. It seemed to him, having regard to the fact that, as far as we could expect at present, the general character of that population would be somewhat analogous to the population of Ontario, that there should be some provision in the constitution by which they should have conferred upon them the same rights and privileges in regard to religious instruction as those possessed by the people of the province of Ontario. The principles of local selfgovernment and the settling of the question of public instruction, it seemed to him. Ought to be the cardinal principles of the measure.
Now let me call renewed attention to these words of Mr. Blake : ' I regard it as essential under the circumstances of the country, and in view of the deliberation of the last few days.' What were the deliberations of those last few days in the House of Commons to which Mr. Blake alluded ? Why, Sir, it was a resolution on that very subject of separate schools, separate schools in the province of New Brunswick, where at that time, and by the constitution, the principle of separate schools was not adopted; the minority was asking for separate schools, and came to this House for relief, but the House would not grant the relief because they would not invade the constitution. Mr. Blake said that instead of having such a state of things in the Northwest Territories it would he better to give to the people the religious instruction that all classes might want. Now what was Mr. Mackenzie's answer to this ?
As to the subject of public instruction, it did not in the first place attract his attention, but when he came to the subject of local taxation he was reminded of it. Not having had time before to insert a clause on the subject, he proposed to do so when the Bill was in committee. The clause provided that the Lieutenant Governor by and with the consent of his council or assembly, as the case might be, should pass all necessary ordinances in respect of education, but it would be specially provided that the majority of the ratepayers might establish such schools and impose such necessary assessment as they might think fit ; and that the minority of the ratepayers, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, might establish separate schools ; and such ratepayers would be liable only to such educational assessments as they might impose upon themselves. This he

hoped would meet the objection offered by the hon. member for South Bruce. There might be some amendments found necessary In the Bill, but he thought It would be found generally speaking to meet the requirements of the country. However, the government would be very glad to avail themselves as far as possible *of such suggestions as might be made to them.
When the Bill was in committee Mr. Mackenzie proposed this clause, which was inserted in the Bill, not one member objecting to it, neither Sir John A. Macdonald, nor Sir Charles Tupper, nor any member on the government side of the House :
When and so soon as any system of taxation shall be adopted in any district or portion of the Northwest Territories, the Lieutenant [DOT]Governor and council or assembly, as the case may be, shall pass all necessary ordinances in respect of education, and it shall therein be always provided that a majority of ratepayers in any district may establish such schools therein as they may think fit, and make the necessary assessment and rates therefor, and further that the minority of ratepayers therein whether Protestant or Roman Catholics, may establish separate schools therein, and that in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assessment of such rates as they impose upon themselves in respect therof.
Now this Bill went over to the other branch of the legislature, and there also I will give to my hon. friend who interrupted me a moment ago, the whole history of the *debate upon this Bill. Mr. Aikens, who was then a prominent member of that body, moved to strike out the education clause altogether. He was answered by my hon. friend and colleague of to-day, the Secretary of State, who then as now was the tender of the Senate :
Any gentleman would have to admit that' it was the greatest possible relief to the people [DOT]of Ontario that this question was settled for them, and was not, as in some of the other provinces, a source of constant discord. He was one of those who maintained that parents had a right to educate their children as they pleased, and that they ought not to be taxed to maintain schools to which they could not conscientiously send their children. Our whole system of government was based upon that sound principle.
Now, Sir, I will give to my hon. friend the opinion of the Hon. Mr. Brown. But, before doing so, let me give him the opinion of a prominent member of his own party, Sir Alexander Campbell, who was then leader of the Conservative party in the Senate. Sir Alexander Campbell spoke as follows
It would be much to be regretted if the amendment passed. The object of the Bill was to establish and perpetuate in the Northwest Territories the same system as prevailed in Ontario and Quebec and which had worked so well in the interests of peace and harmony with the different populations of those provinces. He thought the fairer course, and the better Sir WILFRI PLAURIER.
one, for all races and creeds, was to adopt the suggestion of the government and enable people to establish separate schools in that territory and thus prevent the introduction of evils from which Ontario and Quebec had suffered, but had judiciously rid themselves.
I will now give to my hon. friend the language of Mr. Brown, this is it:
The safe way for us was to let each province suit itself in such matters. This country was filled by people of all classes and creeds, and there would be no end of confusion if each class had to have its own peculiar school system. It had been said this clause was put in for the protection of the Protestants against tlie Catholics, the latter being the most numerous. But he, speaking for the Protestants, was in a position to say that we did not want that protection.
Later on Mr. Brown spoke as follows :
Hon. Mr. Brown said he concurred with what had fallen from his hon. friends on the treasury benches, and from hon. gentlemen who had spoken on the amendment, with respect to the propriety of allowing separate schools. But the question was not whether those schools were right or wrong, good or bad, but as to whether it was wise for this country to deal with this question. He quite admitted the importance of the issue which had been raised-whether this matter should be referred to the province interested for settlement, or be brought to the Dominion legislature.
The moment



continued Mr. Brown



this Act passed and the Northwest became
part of the union, they came under the Union Act, and under the provisions with regard to separate schools.
Sir, I commend this language to my bon. friend. I commend this language to every man in this House. There are to-day, as there were then, men in this House and out of it who do not believe in separate schools, but, as Mr. Brown said, the question is not whether that system is good or bad ; that is not the question to-day, that is not the question of which Senator Brown spoke, it is not the question with which we have to deal. But we have another duty to perform. Mr. Brown, on the floor of the other branch of the legislature, said that his opinions in regard to separate schools had not changed. He said practically this to the parliament of Canada : There is a new territory, there is virgin soil where there is no population. Do not introduce separate schools into it, do not introduce that burning question into it, but the moment you have introduced separate schools you have solved the question forever, it is part of the union and the minority will have its right to such schools.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The right hon. gentleman-


Sir WILFRID  LATJRIFR@: Now, we have introduced into this Bill-I beg my hon. friend's pardon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cm only desirous of making one observation in regard to a part of Mr. Brown's speech which more directly refers to this subject and which the hon. gentleman has not quoted.


Wilfrid Laurier: If that is the interruption of my hon. friend it was hardly worth while. I do not want to mislead the House. Can he find anything else than that Mr. Brown submitted the opinion that the moment separate schools were introduced they come under the Act of union, under clause 93 and that they were there to be maintained against the power of the legislature ? Can he find anything else ? Let him quote anything to the contrary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Brown was arguing against the introduction of separate schools and he gives the following as his reasons :
He spoke in the interest of good feeling and harmony in the national councils. What else was the clause in the constitution empowering the provinces to settle the school question themselves inserted for, but to get quit of controversies like this in the Dominion, and to leave the schools to be managed according to the views of each locality ? By this Bill they might raise the very serious issues in the Northwest which had proved so troublesome to Quebec and Ontario. No one would regret this more than he, and for this reason he would support the motion of the hon. member for Peel.
Which was that this clause should be dropped thus leaving it to the provinces.
Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER. It is ever the old story-none so blind as those who will not see, none so deaf as those who will not hear. I repeat again that Mr. Brown, on the floor of the Senate, did not want this clause providing for separate schools to be introduced in die Act. He stated' that it would be a mistake to introduce separate schools, he said that he was opposed to separate schools, but he said that if at that time separate schools were introduced they came under the Act of Union and they were there for all time. I do not want to be offensive, but if my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is not blind lie will understand the reasoning of Mr, Brown. That is the position that we have before us to-day. (j am not here to advocate separate schools as an abstract proposition but we have introduced into this Bill the two propositions, that the minority shall have the power to establish their own schools and that they shall have the right to share in the public moneys. It is the law to-day. It is in accord with the constitution, with the British North America Act,} and I commend it even to the biased judgment of my hon. friend. However, let me put a question to my hon. friend :	If
we were in the year 1S67 and not in the year 1905, and, if we bad to introduce into this Dominion the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, would my hon. friend tell me that these provinces would not have the same rights and privileges in regard to separate schools as were granted to Ontario and Quebec ? Would he tell me that when you say to Ontario and Quebec : You shall leave your separate schools, Alberta and Saskatchewan should be denied that privilege ? The thing is preposterous. Let us rise above such considerations. In everything that I have said I have refrained from saying a single word upon the abstract principle of separate schools. I approach the question upon another and a hi oader ground, I approach the question not from the view of separate schools, but I approach it upon the higher ground of Canadian duty and Canadian patriotism. Having obtained the consent of the minority to this form of government, having obtained tlieir consent to the giving up of their valued privileges, and their position of strength are we to tell them, now that confederation is established, that the principle upon which they consented to this arrangement, is to be in id aside and that we are to ride roughshod over them ? I do not think that is a proposition which will be maintained in this House, nor do I believe it is the intention of Lie House. I offer at this moment no opinion at all upon separate schools as an abstract propostion, but I have no hesitation in saying that if I were to speak my mind upon separate schools, I would say that I never could understand what objection there could be to a system of schools wherein, after secular matters have been attended to, the teuets of the religion of Christ, even with the divisions which exist among His followers, are allowed to be taught. We live in a country wherein the seven provinces that constitute our nation, either by the will or by the tolerance of the people, in every school, Christian morals and Christian dogmas are taught to the youth of the country. We live by the side of a nation, a great nation, a nation for which I have the greatest admiration, hut whose example I would not take in everything, in whose schools for fear that Christian dogmas in which all do not believe might he taught, Christian morals are not taught. When I compare these two countries, when~i compare" tSnnrttir 'With the- United States, when I eomp*ti,e""tlni
when I think upon their future, when I ob-, serve the social condition of eiyil society, in each of them and when I observe, in this country of ours, a total absence of lyuch-iiigs and an almost total absence of divorces -anti' liiurders, for my part, I tluink lieaven that we are living in a country where the young children of the land axe., fought Christian morals and Christian dogmas. Either the American system is right orTBe Canadian system is wrong. For my part I say this and I say it without hesitation. Time will show that we are in the right and in this instance as in many others, I

have an abiding faith in the institutions of my own country.


Mr.   I@: BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.) Mr. Speaker, it is obviously impossible for the House to discuss in an effective manner at the present stage the Bill which has been introduced by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid I.aurier). I had hoped that I might have been put in possession of the Bill which has just been introduced, at a sufficiently early date to have enabled me to have made some remarks on it this afternoon, and I realize that one of the colleagues of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) had the intention to give me a copy of that Bill last evening. Owing doubtless, to circumstances over which he had no control, I did not receive it until a few minutes before the opening of the House this afternoon, and therefore I will not attempt any discussion of it today. Let me say, however, in the very few remarks that I propose to address to the House, that I congratulate the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) upon the change of heart which he has experienced during the past twelve months. Do I understand my right hon. friend to deny that there has been such a change. Let me say that I hold under my hand the ' Hansard ' of September 24, 1903, a little more than a year ago, when the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in debate on this House, pressed upon the attention of the House many reasons, in his opinion very conclusive, why the granting of a provincial status to the Northwest Territories should be delayed for many years, and I am bound to say that every one of those reasons which at that time presented themselves to the right hon. gentleman as insuperable difficulties in the way of immediately granting provincial autonomy, exist to-day just as strongly as they did then. The view which I am presenting to the House at this moment was suggested by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) in these words :
But the Prime Minister adduced arguments' that were strong no doubt from this point of view that' the Northwest Territories should not. be granted local self-government for many years to come.
What was the right hon. gentleman's response to that ? Did he deny that that was his opinion at that time? No, he responded to the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) by ejaculating across the floor of the House ' hear, hear.' So therefore I have good reason to congratulate the right hon gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier upon his change of heart, because when I myself on October 14, 1903, moved in this House a resolution declaring that in the opinion of this House, the time had come when the government Sir WH-FRI DLAURIER.
should take this question into immediate consideration, not one member of the government, not the right hon. gentleman himself, nor one of his colleagues ventured to say one single word upon this all-important subject. They put up in their place two or three gentlemen from the Northwest Territories of Canada to argue as strenuously as they could that the granting of a provincial status should not be accorded to these provinces in the immediate future. The resolution which I moved at that time, after reciting the unanimous resolutions passed by the legislature of the Northwest Territories set forth :
That under the provisions of the British North America Act and amending Acts, the people of the several provinces of Canada enjoy large powers of local self-government committed to and exercised by the executive and legislature of each province.
That the time has arrived when the same powers of local self-government should be-granted to the people of the Northwest Territories of Canada and to this end the said representations and prayers contained in the said humble addresses should be taken into immediate consideration and acted upon forthwith.
The only answer from the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues at that time was the answer of contemptuous silence and the putting up, as I have said, of two or three gentlemen from the Northwest Territories to argue that the time had not yet arrived. Well, the right hon. gentleman Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his colleagues required a certain stimulus and that came in due course. But one of the arguments, and perhaps as strong an argument as any that was presented to the House on that occasion, was the absence of the Minister of the Intei'ior. It was said that it would be an injustice to the Northwest Territories of Canada to introduce or to attempt to pass through this House a measure of so great importance as that which has been introduced this afternoon unless the government and the House had the benefit of the advice, the experience and the intimate knowledge of that gentleman witli regard to conditions in the Northwest Territories of Canada. We all very much regret the indisposition of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton). It has unfortunately happened very often that he has been absent from sessions of this parliament, and we have endeavoured to facilitate the (passage of his estimates through the House in his absence as much as possible. We all regret his indisposition I am sure, and we trust that in the early future and before any considerable progress is made with this Bill, we shall have in this House the presence of the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the benefit of his views with regard to the measure which has been presented by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier).
But I said that it required a certain stimulus to the right hon. gentleman to enable

him to appreciate the importance of this question. Letters were addressed to him and to members of his government, over and over again, by the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories of Canada. To these letters an answer was sometimes deigned and sometimes no answer was given for months. Letters were written by the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories, to the right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), on May 19, 1904, and on June 1, 1904. This matter which has been presented to the House this afternoon as a matter of transcendent importance, not only to the Northwest of Canada, but to the people of this country from one end of it to the other, was so little regarded by the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues at that time, that the whole summer passed away without any answer having been vouchsafed to the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories. It was only in the stress of an election campaign that the right hon. gentleman awoke to the fact that he had not answered those communications. They were written on May 19 and June 1 ; and it was on September 30, after parliament had been dissolved, and when a campaign was actually in progress, that the right hon. gentleman was good enough to remember that he had not given any answer to the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories. Then the matter seemed to him to possess a little more importance than he had previously considered. I will not deal with his answer now ; there will be a better opportunity later on for dealing with the subjects with which it is concerned. But he did say this
In reference to your letter of .the 1st of June, I do not think I need discuss at length the representations 'which it contains further than to intimate my opinion that circumstances have justified the wisdom of the course adopted by my government in declining to deal finally two years ago with the many important questions involved in the admission of the Northwest Territories into confederation as a province or provinces.
Did not the right hon. gentleman realize, when he wrote that letter, that it was not two years ago, but about 11 months before, that he himself had stood up in this House and voted against the proposal even to consider the question of the admission of the Northwest Territories into the confederation on a provincial basis ? He went on :
Rapid development has taken place in the Northwest Territories luring the intervening period.
Does he not remember that in the course of the debate to which I have referred, we pointed out that that development was not only going on, but might be expected to continue in the near future at even a greater rate ? However, I will not deal with that subject further than to repeat that, in view of what I have brought to the attention of the right hon. gentleman, and apparently
what he himself had forgotten, there is evident in his remarks to-day a marked change from the opinion lie expressed in this House on the occasion to which I have referred, when he voted against the proposal that the request, the unanimous request, of the representatives and the government of the Northwest Territories should be taken into immediate consideration.
Now, I do not propose to discuss the provisions of this Bill in detail to-day. Let me say, however, that I regret very much that t lie government have not seen fit to give to the people of the new provinces that control over the lands of the Northwest Territories which is enjoyed by all the other provinces of Canada. That is a subject which will bear fuller discussion later on, and I do not propose to weary the House with any extended remarks respecting it this afternoon. The only thing which could lie called an argument made by the right lion, gentleman against that proposition was tiiis : he said it might interfere with the ojieration of the policy of the government with respect to immigration. So far as the rest of his argument is concerned, it would have justified the retention by the Imperial government up to the present time of every acre of Crown lands in Canada ; and I was somewhat astonished to hear from the right hon. gentleman, the advocate, in the past at least, of responsible government, the defender of the liberties of the people on some occasions, according to his own view at least, I was astonished to hear from him the views he put forth this afternoon as to the rights of the people of the Northwest Territories in respect of those lands. He knows something of the history of this question. We remember that there were statesmen in Great Britain not many years ago who thought that the public lands not only of Canada but of all the dependencies of the empire should be retained under the control of the home government, and administered not so much for the benefit of the dependency in which they were situate as for the benefit of the whole empire at large. But it was soon found, when it was attempted to put that view in practice, that it was absolutely impracticable-that to the people living in and developing any dependency7 must be entrusted, and might be safely entrusted, the entire control of the public lands within the dependency. The right hon. gentleman spoke of immigration. Does he not know that there is a new Quebec and a new Ontario ? Does he not know that a tide of immigration may be expected to flow, and indeed, I suppose it is now flowing into these portions of eastern Canada ? Will he venture to say that there lias been any obstacle placed against the immigration policy of the government by the governments which administer those provinces ? Is that the ground the right hon. gentleman takes ? Does he speak from experience, or does he

speak from mere surmise 1 I venture to think that he spoke only from surmise this afternoon, and that if he had looked at this question in the light of experience, in the iight of what is happening to-day in Quebec and Ontario, he might very well have modified the provisions of this Bill, and might very well have entrusted to the people of the Northwest Territories exactly the same control over their lands as is enjoyed by the people of the other provinces. I venture to say further that if he was not willing to trust the people, as I would be willing to trust the people, in this regard-if he regarded them as possibly improvident, as was suggested by the Minister of the Interior last session or the session before-if he feared the result, he might at least have given them the control of the public lands within their respective provinces, subject to some such restriction as that which he has proposed in regard to education. If the principle is good in the one case, I do not see why it should not work out fairly well in the other case.
There are other features of the Bill which will undoubtedly invite discussion. The subject which the right lion, gentleman mentioned last, on which he spoke with great eloquence, and in a spirit of forbearance and moderation, will undoubtedly invite discussion. I do not propose to discuss it this afternoon. There is just one thing, however, that I would like to say about it, and that is that I understand that up to the present time there has been really no school question, to use the common expression, in the Northwest Territories of Canada ; and I sincerely trust that on both sides of the House we will not seek to make this a political question in any sense.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: But at the same time let us beware lest any action of ours may create in the Northwest of Canada for all time to come that question which happily has been entirely absent there in the past. I am speaking in all sincerity in regard to this to my right lion, friend. He has quoted the debates which took place in parliament on this subject. He has laid special stress upon the opinion of Mr. Brown. I will not go over his remarks except to say that of course when Mr. Brown regarded this matter as having been settled for all time to come, he did not speak in an absolutely legal sense. I do not understand my right lion, friend to contend that he did. Does he take the position that that is correct in the legal sense ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I take the position that the constitution certainly makes it imperative for us to respect separate schools wherever they exist.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that I yet quite seize exactly the meaning of my Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
right lion, friend, but there will be opportunities later and better than the present to learn exactly his view's on that point. Of course the constitutional view of the question-^without touching for the moment the wisdom or propriety of what the right hon. gentleman suggests-the constitutional view of the question is perfectly plain. The parliament of Canada, so far as the Northwest Territories are concerned, can absolutely repeal or deal with in any way any provisions it makes.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, The parliament of Canada can repeal the Act regarding the Canadian Pacific Railway with respect to taxation.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course it would be dealing there with vested rights, and my right lion, friend is very conservative in that respect. I am not discussing anything excexit the constitutional aspect, and vested rights are not touched in the matter I am presenting to the House at this moment. The right hon. gentleman knows that while the parliament of Canada can amend in any way it sees fit an Act with regard to the Territories, yet the position will be somewhat different after an Act such as the one now proposed has been passed. By the British North America Act of 1871 the parliament of Canada may from time to time establish newr provinces. Section 2 of that Act provides :
The parliament of Canada may from time to time establish new provinces in any territories forming for the time being part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment, make provision for the constitution and administration of any such province and for the passing of laws for the peace, order and good government of such province, and for its representation in the said parliament.
My right hon. friend has taken the ground, both in the letter to which I have referred, and in his speech in parliament, that the parliamentary representation of the new provinces under the Act I have mentioned, would be absolutely the results of the last census. I take issue with him on that point. I think he was mistaken absolutely when he placed that view before the premier of the Territories and advocated it in this House. The parliament of Canada may do what I have just referred to and what is set out in section 2 of the British North America Act of 1871. Then by section 3 of the same statue :
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature.
Then by section 6 of the same Act it is provided :
Except as provided by the third section of this Act, it shall not be competent for the par-

liament of Canada to alter the provisions of the last mentioned Act of the said parliament, in so far as it relates to the province of Manitoba, or of any other Act hereafter establishing new provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of the legislature of the province of Manitoba to alter from time to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualification of electors and members of the' legislative assembly, and to make laws respecting elections In the said province.
So that when we are framing this constitution for the new provinces of Canada, we are framing a constitution which in the future cannot be dealt with by this parliament except with the consent of the provincial legislature.
Just one word more. This Bill of course will have to be printed and we shall require some time to consider it and perhaps some further information will require to be brought down. I have made a note of what I think should be brought down for the information of the House before this Bill is further discussed. I would like to direct the attention of my right hon. friend to certain returns moved for on page 119 of the Votes and Proceedings, of which some have not been brought down. I am alluding of course only to those relating to the Northwest Territories. 1 would like also to have from the right hon. gentleman full information as to the centres of population in the new provinces and the course and tendency of immigration since the census of 1901. This is of importance in connection with the establishment of electoral divisions and also with regard to the boundaries of the two provinces. In the next place, I would like to know if possible the quantity of lands which have been patented in the two provinces for homestead purposes, the quantity granted to railway companies or which railway companies, under the terms of their charter, are entitled to select at present. Also what lands have been granted to railway companies, but which have not been earned or patented. And I would like a statement, if it is not already contained in the Bill or the speech of my right hon. friend, of what lands yet remain vested in the Crown. I would like also to know as to these lands, and especially in connection with the proposed boundaries of the two provinces, what proportion is more suitable for the growing of grain, and where it is situated, what proportion is more suitable for ranching or other description of farming and where it is situated, and what proportion is supposed to require irrigation and where situated. All this information will be of value to us in discussing the question of boundaries between the proposed provinces. It would be desirable also that on the second reading of the Bill some definite information should be given to us as to what is the practical condition of education in the Territories at present. I fully expected
to have received that information this afternoon but was disappointed. Also information as to tlie systems of public schools which have been established there and under what ordinances, management and inspection they are carried on. What number of schools, public schools in the ordinary sense, are to be found there and what number of separate schools ? I think that all this information and other information of a kindred character should be placed before the House, and I am sure that upon this question, to which the right hon. gentleman lias alluded with	so	much feeling,	weshall all	endeavour	to meet	him	intiie same	spirit.	I	will not	go	overthe past.	I will	not	allude to	the	fact
that possibly a somewhat different spirit was manifested some eight or nine years ago when a similar question arose. It has been asserted by some-with what truth I know not-that that question Was deliberately brought into the political arena for the advantage it might give to hon. gentlemen on the other side. I will not do more than allude to that and express once more the hope that whatever may have been done in the past by hon. gentlemen opposite, which is not consistent with the lofty ideals my hon. friend has expressed this afternoon, we on this side at least shall not emulate that example, but shall deal with this question in a spirit of Christian charity and forbearance, realizing that on all such questions there are two sides and endeavouring each one of us too realize that we must consider the question presented to us not only from our own standpoint but also from the standpoint of those who differ from us in opinion. It is above all things desirable that these questions and considerations, touching sometimes upon differences of races and dealing with matters of dogma and creed, should not be introduced into the political arena more than is absolutely necessary. I know that the House will deal with this question in that spirit, and I trust and believe that we may find some solution of what has been presented to us this afternoon by the right hon. gentleman which will commend itself generally to the people of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Mr. SPItOTJLE. I do not rise to continue the debate but merely to ask a couple of questions. Before doing so, however, I must congratulate the right hon. gentleman as the accoucher who has assisted in bringing into the family of the Dominion this healthy pair of provincial twins. They have certainly given evidence of life and activity, and I should hope he will not shackle their limbs in such a way as to prevent their development. This is an important Bill, and I only rise to ask that a large number of copies be printed as there are many applications for it. I would suggest that the second reading

might be delayed for some period until there has been an opportunity to hear from those who are most interested, the people of the Northwest. I think that the second reading should not take place earlier than three weeks or a month later.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Sir WILFRID LATJRIER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 70) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 5) respecting the census and statistics-Mr. Fisher.
On section 30-every person employed In the execution of this Act to take an oath of
office-
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: When that section was previously before the committee, the suggestion was made that the getting of any information by an officer in addition to what was authorized in the schedules given him should be made an indictable offence. I promised to look into that and get the opinion of the law officers. I have done so, and am quite willing that this should be made an indictable offence, and I propose to introduce a new section, section 30 (a) next after this clause, to attain the object desired. I take it that the object of having the section stand has thus been met, and that the section may pass.


Mr. LENNOX.: I desire to call the minister's attention to another point that was raised during the discussion of this section. I asked the minister to consider what officers would be included in the words of section 30-' every officer, census commissioner, enumerator, agent and other person employed in the execution of this Act,' and to say how his section would work in conjunction with section 17. I understood the minister then to say that probably the descriptive words in section 30 would include all the public officers described in section 17. I did not understand the minister to be positive on that point. It is a matter of some importance, and perhaps the minister will explain what conclusion he came to concerning it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not think it was necessary that officers employed by other authority, who furnish us information under this Act, should be called upon to take an oath under this Act. We would require Mr SPKOULE.
them to say that the information furnished us was what they had collected. But I do not think we could do more than that. They are not acting as officers of the department in any way, except as they supply information to us. But I think when they supply information it should be under some form saying that this was the information they had collected.


Haughton Lennox: I think the minister and the committee should carefully consider the effect of this legislation. As the minister says, some of the information that would be given by these officials would be given merely as information received from other sources, and they would not be able to pledge themselves to the accuracy of it as coining from original sources. But they will be bound, under this section, to swear to Ihe faithful and exact discharge of the duties that are expected of them and to the secrecy of the statistics collected. And under section 31, it is provided that these officials, in case they make a false declaration, will be guilty of an indictable offence. I call the minister's attention again to the position we are taking in connection with sections 17 and 30 taken together. We have certain officials appointed by municipalities or by the provincial government and bound to carry out the instructions of the authority that appointed them. Almost inevitably. 1 fear, at some time, the duties prescribed by the federal government under this Act will conflict with the duties as defined by the local authorities. And it is a pretty drastic measure to provide that a neglect of duty required by this government on the part of an officer appointed by the local government will subject the officer not merely to a fine, but to being declared guilty of an indictable offence. I think we come dangerously near usurping the powers of the local governments ; and, in that view, I think this is not a wise provision.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 31 provides that every person employed in the execution of this Act ' who makes wilful default in any matter required of him by this Act, or wilfully makes any false declaration touching any such matter,' is guilty of an indictable offence. Of course, if he makes a return saying that it is information he has collected in his capacity as an officer of the local authority, and wilfully falsifies that return, I think he should be held guilty of an indictable offence. But if he transmits the information he collects, he would carry out the full spirit of the law.


Haughton Lennox: I do not wish to put more difficulties in the way of the Bill than necessarily meet it. Of course, if one makes a false declaration, he is not much to be commiserated in any punishment. But there is another feature. Section 31 says ' ' who makes wilful default in any matter required of him by this Act.' There may be a bona
14G9

fide refusal to comply with this Act where it might be iu conflict with the duties required of the officer by the power that appointed him. I think it is dangerous for us to say that we will assume authority to demand certain information of these officers and, even though the giving of it may be in flirt ct conflict with the instructions of those who appointed them, and to declare that a refusal shall be an indi< table offence. That is the matter that ought to be very fully considered.
Mr. FISHEIt. 1 will look into that and see if there is any difficulty. I would like to move the following as section 30 (a)
Every officer, census commissioner, enumerator, agent or other person employed in the execution of this Act who, in the pretended per^ formance of his duly thereunder, obtains, or seeks to obtain, information which he is not by or under this Act duly authorized to obtain, is guilty of an indictable offence.
That is in exact concordance with existing provisions of clause 31.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly it is a desirable provision to add. The particular occasion to which attention was directed in the House was one in which persons not employed in the execution of the Act had sought to obtain information.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My deputy and the law officers looked into that point and they say that clause 61 of the Criminal Code covers that point. I may add that the clause I have just introduced makes this an offence, and then the Criminal Code makes it an offence to induce a person to commit the offence.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 33-penalty for refusal or neglect to till up schedule, &c.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: In this ease there is a difference in the fine. The fine is made $100 and not less than $10 in the present Act, this will make it uniform with some other provisions in other parts of the Act. In the old Act of 1858, the Census Act, the fine is $10 and not less than $1; but in the General Statistics Act and the Criminal Statistics Act it is $100 and $10. This makes the fine uniform.
On section 40,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is new, but it is simply carrying out the Act and is for the purpose of obtaining information by correspondence through the mail and not bv personal application.
signed within a stated time by the occupant of such house or part of a house, or in his absence by some other member of the family, shall, as against the oicupant', be a sufficient requirement so to fill up and sign the schedule, though the occupant is not named in the notice, or personally served therewith.-R.S., c. 58, s. 23.
l'ou might leave the notice in such a way that it will never come to his attention. You might leave it with some one who is absolutely unauthorized. The usual provision in legislation of this kind is that it shall be left with some adult person in the House for the person for whom it is intended and that is certain guarantee that it will in the end reach the person from whom it is intended. I am rather surprised to find that the legislation was passed originally in this1 form.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That portion of the clause is exactly the same as section 23 of the Census Act, and subsection 2 is the same practically repeated to apply to correspondence. We propose to collect a great deal of information through the mails and we require power to act in the same way as if the schedules were left personally at the House. I do not think that in the practical working of it there will be any great difficulty. I can conceive that it might be used unfairly, but I take it that this power if given will be used properly and rightly by the government or the minister.
On section 41-remuneration of persons employed under this Act.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That section 41 be amended by inserting after the word ' shall ' in the first line thereof the words ' subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.'
He said : I think this remuneration ought to be given by Order in Council and not by tile minister.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 15-agricultural, commercial, criminal, educational, manufacturing and other statistics.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to go back to clause 15 which was held over for further consideration. I wish to add a provision to that clause in the sense of the suggestion that was brought forward here the other night so as to ensure that no individual or particular investigation shall be held into the details of the business of any individual concern. This is what the Department of Justice have drawn up to cover the point.


Robert Laird Borden: Both of the subsections of this section may be used a little op-pi essively. I do not suppose that any practical difficulty will result but they go rather fur. Subsection 1 provides that:
Provided that the Governor in Council shall not. nor shall the minister in the execution of the powers conferred by this section, discriminate between individuals or companies to the prejudice of such Individual or company.
The leaving, by an enumerator, at any house or part of a house, of any schedule purporting to be issued under this Act, and having thereon a notice requiring that it be filled up and
I may say that the remarks of the hon. gentleman who brought this matter up were carefully examined and looked into and iu the opinion of the Department of Justice

this is the most practical and most effective way to cover the idea as expressed.


Mr. MACDONELL.: What I would like to suggest to the hon. minister is that the addition of the words to the amendment 'either in the collection or publication of such information ' is desirable. I think it would be well to introduce these words to actually express what the intention is. That was the objection that was raised on the occasion to which the hon minister refers.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that is covered by the whole clause. This proviso covers the whole clause and the whole clause deals with the collection and publication of statistics. Therefore, I think this proviso applies to the point that my hon. friend alludes to.


Angus Claude Macdonell: But I think it might or might not be construed as applying to the whole clause. It would put it beyond the realm of doubt if these words were inserted and it would round off the phrase and give it significance.
Section as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, and amendments read the first and second times.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Trent canal. $300,000.
Mr. WARD.: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways, if he were present, some questions about the surveys that are now being made with regard to the Trent Valley canal. In answer to some questions recently asked, the minister made reply that surveys were being made by way of Port Hope, Cobourg and Trenton. I was very anxious that the minister should be present in order to explain why a survey was being made by way of Cobourg and I would rather not go on with this item until the minister is here to make that explanation.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCIC.: The Minister of Railways thought that supply would not be reached until nine o'clock and he will not be here until that hour.


Henry Alfred Ward: Perhaps the Postmaster General can give the information.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIC I would not like to usurp my colleague's position, but if the hon. gentleman would like to have the item stand until the minister's arrival, perhaps it would be better.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: From a little experience which we had the other day I understand that the Postmaster General is about running a canal up the valley to Newmarket and Aurora. I think he might fill in the time until the arrival of the Minister of Railways and Canals by giving us a Mr. FISHER.
description of that canal and all the data in connection with it.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIC There is a very large deputation in the interest of that enterprise in the city and they will set forth its merits before the government to-morrow at 10.30 o'clock. If my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) and others interested will come with them at that time they will obtain more detailed information. However, if the hon. gentlemen desire to have it stand, the Minister of Agriculture will proceed with his estimates.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Have the surveyors made a report of that road into the riding of the Postmaster General?


William Mulock: I am not able to answer any one of these questions.
Item allowed to stand.
Patent Record. $17,000.


George Eulas Foster: Are these items covered by the portion of the Auditor General's Report which has been brought down ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the last volume of the Auditor General's Report was laid on the table of the House yesterday.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the same item that we have had for several years back, though it has been increasing a little in amount. It is for the publication of the ' Patent Record,' which is published monthly, and which gives the patents issued, with a short outline of their character, and with a print which is supplied along with the application for the patent.


George Eulas Foster: Where are these prints made ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the Printing Bureau or through the Printing Bureau. I have nothing to do with that. We simply pay the bills which the Printing Bureau presents to us.


George Eulas Foster: How is that work distributed ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is sold to subscribers at the rate of twenty cents per number, it is sent regularly to members of the Senate and House of Commons, and it is distributed gratis to libraries and public institutions, and a large number are sent to Great Britain for distribution there to public libraries and other institutions.


George Eulas Foster: What income do you derive from it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that it amounts to some hundreds of dollars, but it is not a large amount. That goes to consolidated fund.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose it is carried on in exactly the same way as it was formerly ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Exactly as it has been since I have been in office, except that it is expanding with the larger number of patents issued from year to year.


Mr. BARKER.: Would not the issue of this yearly or half-yearly answer every purpose ? Every member receives copies of this publication monthly. I look over them occasionally and try to distribute them, but they receive very little attention. It appears to me that a great deal of the expense, perhaps one-half or two-thirds, might be saved by issuing it quarterly, half-yearly or yearly. I dare say it may be interesting to designers. The illustrations in it are undoubtedly of a most interesting character, but it is a good deal of money to pay, and unless the minister knows that the country is getting value for it, I think it might be well to consider whether some change could not be made in the method of distribution.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say that there is a demand on the part of those interested in patents that it should be issued weekly instead of monthly. In the United States the similar publication is issued weekly. It is true, my hon. friend or myself or others who are not specially interested in patent matters, do not require these publications very often ; but those who are taking out patents or have any intention of doing so, as well as patent solicitors and the large body of people who are interested in patents or own patents, and manufacturers who wish to make use of patents in their industries, watch it very closely. The pressure on the department is altogether in the opposite direction from what my hon. friend suggests. I do not think the difference in expense, from issuing it half yearly or monthly, would be very great, because the monthly issues are not bouud, but only stitched, and the printing would have to be done whether they were issued monthlv or half-yearly.


George Eulas Foster: How many are issued ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that about
4,000	are printed. We always keep a number in reserve, because very frequently we have applications for back numbers.
Collection and compilation of criminal statistics, $2,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: These are collected in accordance with the Act requiring the collection of criminal statistics. The money is paid to the court officials all over the country, who ax-e required by the Act to send in this information periodically.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose this will come under the new Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, the provisions of the new Act are practically the same as those of the old Act, all being consolidated.


George Eulas Foster: Has any improvement been made in the classification or scope of these statistics ? Owing to their fragmentary character, one can scarcely trust himself to make a generalization from them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that there has not been any change. There is a demand for them on the part of lawyers and others who are interested in criminal work, and also by students, philanthropists and sociologists. We frequently get requests for this information from people in Great Britain and the United States. I will have the matter looked in order to see whether any change can be worked out to make them better. That is one of the objects of the new Act.


George Eulas Foster: Fragmentary statistics are almost more dangerous than none.
Statistical Year-book, $6,000.


Mr. MONK.: The hon. minister will remember that Mr. Ross, of Victoria, who used to take a warm interest in this item, generally laid on the table, when we were discussing it, the year-books of Australia, New Zealand, Natal and the Cape, and my hon. friend will no doubt remember that our own does not compare at all favourably with those issued by those colonies. Is there any prospect of any improvement and of our getting our year-book a little earlier than we have been in the habit of getting it in the past few years ? In the year-books of Australia and the other British dependencies, there are maps showing the lines of railways in those colonies and also other information not to be found in our book. My hon. friend will admit that the year-book comes out in Canada at a very late date. Would it not be possible to have it published a little earlier, which ought to be more easily done now that my hon. friend has established a bureau of statistics. I think also we might have a few more copies of the French translation and have them a little earlier. The French edition conies out very late indeed. The translation is not difficult. It mostly consists of a compilation of figures, and there is a very considerable demand in our own province and outside for a French edition.
I do not think that a few copies more would make much difference in the cost of printing. How many copies will this sum of $0,000 give us?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hare here the details for 1903. There were then 5,000 copies of the English paper edition and 2,000 bound ; 000 copies of the French paper edition and 300 bound. In that year we took a smaller vote than we did last year and are asking for this year. We are taking an additional $1,000, but the figures for 1903 are the re-



suit of a vote of $5,000. We are asking this year for $6,000, and that extra money will be spent in obtaining so many more copies.


Mr. BARE.: How much per book ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is pretty hard to figure that out. About 40 cents, but some are in paper and some bound. The bound ones cost a good deal more than the paper ones.
I can assure my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier that 1 will do my best to have the book out earlier, but it must be borne in mind that the gentleman in charge of the work cannot begin until the reports of the different departments are finished. I am told that probably the book will be ready about May 10, this year. The translation requires to be done by an experienced man, and we have an officer who has been doing that work many years, but I would be very willing to have the work done more rapidlv if that could be accomplished by additional assistance. But there is this difficulty always in the translation. The translators want to work from the proof sheets of the Printing Bureau instead of from the copies. They say that they can finish their work just as quickly in the end if they wait for the proofs as if they worked from the typewritten copies. I could never understand why you cannot translate typewritten copy as well as proof, but they insist that they cannot and insist on waiting until the gal-lev proofs of the English edition are before them. I tried to argue the question with them but they said they knew their business better than I.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like my hon. friend to bear in mind what I said with regard to the maps. In the year-books of the other colonies there are maps showing the mineral areas, the agricultural areas, the forest areas and the principal railways. I do not know whether that would materially increase the cost, but it would certainly increase the interest of the work.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have taken a note of what my hon. friend says. Bet me say that in preparing for the exhibitions, we have had a book compiled very largely from the year book for distribution at these exhibitions. We have had some maps prepared, and I admit that it would be a good thing that we should have maps in the different year-books showing the railroads, forest, mineral areas and so on. Those maps are however, very expensive and would add materially to the cost of the book, and I might have to ask for an additional vote.


John Barr: Of course, these statistics are useless when they grow old and musty. Though we have the promise that they are to tie put out more promptly in the future, I find, on looking over the list for the last three years, that the publication has been growing later. If we go on in this way they Mr. FISHER.
will soon be oyer a year old before they are made public. In 1900 the publication was on June 22 ; in 1901, on May 15 ; in 1902, May 28 ; and in 1903, June 29. So far as tne municipal authorities are concerned they responded promptly, proving that they are probably the best agency for gathering statistics.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Are the government selling maps such as were distributed amongst members of the House last year 1 A man was in my town recently selling them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No maps are issued by my department. I suppose the map the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) refers to is one issued by the Department of the Interior a year and a half or two years ago. It was an excellent map and was issued in different sizes. But I do not think the department are selling them.


John Dowsley Reid: They are very fine maps.
I got fifty of them and distributed them through my riding. To my surprise a man was selling them around our town.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think he must have got them surreptitiously. I am sure the department could not countenance anything of that kind. I will call the attention of the Department of the Interior to what the hon. gentleman has said.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say on a reply to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the cost of the statistical year-book was about 40 cents a copy.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said I thought that was about the cost.


George Taylor: By the Auditor General's Report, page D-32, you will find that the 3 ear-book of 1902 was printed to the extent of 6,500 copies in English and 1,400 in French, at a cost of $5,129.17 paid to the King's Printer, or 66J cents per volume. It seems to me that this is a pretty high price for printing a volume of this character and that the Minister's estimate of 40 cents per 3 olume would be nearer the mark.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no control over the cost of printing. The work is done by the Printing Bureau, and they send in their bill and we pay them.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital- Trent canal-construction, $300,000.


Henry Alfred Ward: 1 would like to ask the minister how many mouths this Trent Valley ' canal is to have. Up to the time of the elections on November 3, last, I was under the impression that only two mouths were proposed-at Port Hope and Trenton respectively. But information was brought to me at that time that a survey was being made by way of Cobourg. In answer to a question the Minister of Railways and Canals stated

that the survey was actually being made by way of Cobourg. During the late elections, instead of being confronted by my good friend Mr. Robert Beith, who formally represented West Durham, I had a cabinet minister opposed to me, who took a great interest in the Trent Valley canal. During the course of the election a good deal of correspondence took place between the bon. minister-or proposed lion, minister-who was opposing me and the Prime Minister. I desire to read a letter written at that time, as I understand by the right bon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Baurier) at the head of the government to my opponent, Mr. Ayles-worth. I am sorry that the right hon. gentleman is not in his place to-night, but now, when the item is before the committee, is the time for the discussion of this matter. The letter is as follows :
Toronto, Oct. 13.
My Dear Aylesworth,-In answer to your communication requesting that there be made without any delays a full and detailed survey and report' showing Id detail the work and the estimated cost of the proposed outlets of the Trent Valley canal at both Port Hope and Trenton, by competent, reliable and impartial engineers -such report and survey to include hydraulic lift locks and also locks of any other design which might be considered or adopted, also electrical power for mechanical and lighting purposes, buoys, cost of operation and maintenance, together with a report on the construction of any railway and highway bridges that may be necessary, also the damages resuiting from obstruction of water, flooding of lands or injuring lands, on other properties on each route, and also including construction and maintenance of all necessary harbour facilities and lighthouses with respect to each route, I beg to say that this subject' has already engaged the attention of the government which some time ago decided that such survey and report of estimated cost should be made. I regret to learn from your letter that the work in question is possibly not proceeding on a satisfactory basis, and beg to lassure you that the government will with all possible speed cause the survey and report which you ask to be made. It is further intended to have such survey and report made with reference not only to a work of the depth and capacity of the completed portion of the Trent Valley canal, but also of a work of greater depth and capacity, and therefore the instructions to the engineers will be given in accordance with such intention. From memory I cannot go more fully into the details of the survey, plans and route. It is the intention of the government to have the most complete inquiries made as to the relative merits of the two routes in all their bearings, and therefore the survey and report in question will be sufficiently comprehensive, not merely to cover details above mentioned, but any other details, which it would be either proper or necessary to know before making the selection of an outlet. If the details of the respective surveys and reports fall short of what is necessary or advisable the government will be glad to supplement them in any manner that you recommend in order to have both the government and the country in full possession of 474
all information touching the relative merits of the various routes before a selection is made.
Yours very truly,
WILFRID LAURIER. To A. B. Aylesworth, Port Hope.
With regard to that letter I may say, Mr. Chairman, that some gentlemen in the town of Port Hope who heard that letter read on the occasion when my hon. friend the Postmaster General, I think, was present, were not quite satisfied with the terms of the letter, and subsequently another one a little stronger in its terms was sent by the right hon. gentleman at the head of the government, I think to Mr. Aylesworth, in which he made it quite clear that the surveys to be made of these two routes should be made on a basis of an 8 feet 4 depth of canal. Now the matter of surprise to me is this, that although at that election there were apparently two routes suggested, those by way of Port Hope and Trenton, now there crops up an additional route by way of Cobourg. I do not know on what ground the hon. minister is having a survey made by way of Cobourg, except that my hon. friend, whom I do not see in his seat this evening, the hon. member (for West Northumberland (:Mi'u McColl) managed to secure his election on that occasion, and naturally there might be some disposition on the part of the government to run a canal through a constituency which was successful in returning a supporter of the government. However that may be, I desire to call the attention of the minister to several facts in connection with the routes by Port Hope and Trenton-I cannot say one word about Cobourg, because I know nothing whatever about that route. But there is this to be said in addition to what I have already brought to the attention of the government on various occasions ; and I think that the right hon. premier of this government might have given me some credit for having brought this matter before the House on various occasions, and considered that I was perhaps a little more worthy of representing the county of Durham from residence reasons, if for no other, than the Hon. Mr. Aylesworth. However, in addition to what I have already brought to the attention of the government, I wish to mention this fact, that taking into consideration the buoying and the lighting of the canal for a distance of forty miles, the excess in length of the canal which would be necessary by way of Trenton, I am informed by gentlemen who have taken this matter into earnest consideration that the extra expense of running a canal by way of Trenton over and above what it would cost by way of Port Hope, would represent a capitalization of a million and a half dollars. I do not desire on this occasion to repeat the arguments that I have brought before the House before on three separate occasions ; but I do wish to impress upon the Minister of Railways and

Canals that no route should be adopted by 1 the government until the most thorough inquiry and examination has taken place, not only by the engineers in charge of the work, but by the minister himself. X think the minister is capable of forming a judgment if he will only go over the ground, and if he does so he will find that the outlet by way of Port Hope is the proper outlet, not only by reason of the comparatively small expense that will be entailed in building the canal by that route, but for many other reasons which could be pointed out to him.
I would like to ask the minister why this survey has been made by way of Cobourg, and why the other two routes by way of Trenton and Port Hope are ignored for the time being ?


Mr. EMMERSON.: I may say to my hon. friend that the survey by way of Cobourg was not undertaken until about the 10th or 12th of December. The object of that survey is to get possession of all the facts relating to the lake entrance of the Trent valley waterway. I regret that it has not been my privilege to go over this waterway and to visit the different sections. I rnuslt, therefore, necessarily discuss the subject, if I undertook to discuss it at all, quite in the dark so far as any personal knowledge of the locality is concerned. I say I regret that I have not had an opportunity of visiting the locality, and I shall certainly avail myself of the earliest possible occasion to go over the entire route of these waterways. There are three possible outlets, one at Trenton, as I understand, where a survey has been made, and where one is now in progress ; another at Port Hope, and another at Cobourg, which was undertaken somewhere about the middle of December.


Samuel Hughes: I hope the minister will not forget the one by Newmarket and Aurora.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is in another direction, I think. I find a difference of opinion exists as respects these different routes. My hon. friend from Durham (Mr. Ward) will recollect that I brought down and laid on the table of the House last session, I think it was, reports of the engineers with respect to the surveys which had been made in the previous year. He did not seem to be satisfied with those surveys, he thought it would be vex-y much better to have a fuller survey made and more accurate information, from his standpoint. In deference to the views which he expressed at that time, and in deference to the views expi-es-sed by other members, the whole matter was gone into, and the question of surveys of these different routes was placed in charge of Mr. Walsh, a very eminent and competent engineer. I approach this subject with an entirely open mind, I have no preference for one route or the other and I trust that auy arrangement that may be reached in the matter will be reached entirely upon the


Henry Alfred Ward: merits, because that after all is the important matter. There must be a coi-rect route, or one of the routes must be better than the others. The point is to be able to find out exactly which is the most advantageous to the Trent valley waterway.


Henry Alfred Ward: My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals has referred to two previous surveys. Now, my whole objection to these suxweys has been this, that they wei-e not made of the two routes upon exactly the same basis. I pointed out last session and the session before, particularly last session, the discrepancies that existed in the survey of Mr. McLeod as to the route by Port Hope and by way of Ti'enton. It will not take a moment to instance two particular branches of the survey which differ entirely as far as the two routes are concerned. In the first place, there are the reaches of the river and the reaches generally of the canal. As my hon. friend will understand, there are nearly forty miles of reaches by the Trent route, between Rice lake and Trenton. If my hon. friend will examine the report of Mr. McLeod, the engineer who made these surveys, he will find that although estimates for 8 feet 4 inches in the canal were made, he states iu another portion of his report that he only estimates for 6 feet in the reaches. He admits that in the canal proper every one of the excavations has to be made in limestone rock and that the excavations in the reaches are in limestone rock also. But there is not one dollar estimated for the excavation of the difference between C feet and 8 feet 4 inches in the reaches of the river or the canal. Therefore, there is a very large sum of money required for excavating these reaches of the river and the canal not included in the estimates of the cost as between Port Hope and Trenton. Another thing which I pointed out to the committee at the time was that there was not one dollar estimated for drowned land. It is well known that there are some 20,000 or 30,000 acres of drowned land already on the route of the canal, and it is intended to raise Chisholm's darn about two feet, which will drown about 10,000 acres more land. But there is not one dollar estimated for the drowning of this extra amount of land, and I say that unless we have an estimate of all these different things, as between the two routes, my hon. friend cannot possibly come to a just conclusion ; and until a satisfactory survey is made, it is utterly impossible, as "far as the cost is concerned, to make a correct choice in the matter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The cost of drowned lands being a very important factor in the cost of the canal.


Henry Alfred Ward: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: I shall not enter into the merits of the two routes further than to correct my hon. friend (Mr. Ward)

slightly in relation to the reaches. The plan is to dam the river and raise the water in that way-not to damn the canal, but to dam the river. A further point 1 want to lay before the committee is in relation to the dispute about where the entrance of this canal should be. My hou. friend ought to know why Port Hope cannot get the entrance of the canal. Durham is getting a town clock for the town of Bowmanville ; therefore, Durham cannot have the entrance to the canal. Lott got caught with the ballot boxes in West Hastings, and therefore West Hastings cannot get the entrance to the canal. West Northumberland returned a Liberal, and consequently West Northumberland is going to have the entrance to the canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: By the rule of three.


Samuel Hughes: By the rule of three. I was very sorry to note in the letter of the right hon. Prime Minister, about which there is no misunderstanding, a reference to impartial engineers. There has been a good deal of objection raised to the fact that Chief Engineer Rogers of the canal has been more or less connected with the surveys of this route, and he has been charged with favouritism for one route or the other. No matter what that officer's opinions may be, I wish to assure the hon. minister, and to state to the committee, what every one who knows that gentleman will bear me out in saying, that a more impartial or competent engineer cannot be found in the Dominion of Canada. I take this opportunity of impressing upon the hon. minister the fact that in so far as the success attending that great lift-lock at Peterborough is concerned, it is due almost entirely to the able and indefatigable work of Chief Engineer Rogers, and X was very sorry, at the opening of that great work, to find that when the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) and other ministers spoke, they were particular, for some cause or other, to deliberately omit giving that officer the credit due to him. I think this was an injustice to that gentleman, who has earned a reputation that he should not be depived of.	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought he was the central figure on that occasion.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. minister reads the report of the speeches made on that occasion, even that of the hon. minister's own speech, he will find that the name of Mr. Rogers was omitted from the references to those who had contributed to the success of the lock. All we want in our part of the country is that there shall be an outlet to the canal, whether at Port Hope, Cobourg or Trenton ; that the hon. minister will be good enough to determine where the outlet shall be, and press forward to that outlet with all available speed. I am delighted to hear the hon. minister say that he is going to do that. I presume he has
the notes before him outlining the work under construction and now about completed and the work that is going on. I hope the hon. minister will be good enough to outline these proposed works to the committee. I shall not ask him to outline the branch to Newmarket and Aurora, as we would expect the hon. Postmaster General to give the details of that later on.


Edward Cochrane: Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the statement made by the two hon. gentlemen who have preceded me in reference to these stretches measuring from Rice lake. That water is navigable now to Heely's falls, and it must be ten or fifteen miles nearer the outlet than the rest of the lake. I am not going to tell the hon. minister what he should do in reference to it. He has engineers who, I suppose, will do their work honourably, and the outlet will no doubt be placed where nature designed it to be. I wish to draw the hon. minister's attention to the fact that there is another outlet which is suggested, and to which I had the honour of calling his attention on behalf of the council of the village of Brighton. There is no political significance in this, because it was a request that was made after the elections were over. The only objection that there might be to an outlet in that part of the riding is the fact that they returned the member who is now addressing the hon. minister. I know from his good nature generally manifested to me that he would not object to having the outlet at Presque Isle harbour, one of the best natural harbours on Lake Ontario, and which is at the mouth of the Murray canal. I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that this is one of the best natural harbours on Lake Ontario. It is at the entrance to the Murray canal, which leads from Presque Isle harbour to the Bay of Quinte, and is on the direct route to Montreal and Quebec. I am not going to discuss the propriety of placing barges on Lake Ontario. I think, however, the idea will kill the outlet either at Cobourg or Port Hope, because these barges would not stand the severe storms to be encountered on Lake Ontario. My old home was on the shore of Lake Ontario, and I can tell hon. gentlemen who have not been on that stretch of lake in the fall of the year, when it would be used for carrying grain from the interior of Ontario to Montreal and Quebec, that my opinion is that a barge after it reached either harbour and got to Lake Ontario would not be above water very long. The engineers who are now surveying the route from Cobourg could survey the route from Brighton as well. I would be delighted, when the minister comes, if he would intimate to me when he will visit Brighton to see that outlet, to see that he is conveyed over that route in as comfortable a manner as can be.
I Mr. EMMERSON. It is only within a week or so that the hon. gentleman (Mr. COMMONS
Cochrane) furnished me with a copy of the resolution passed by the municipality to which he has made reference, and I have already submitted the question for the judgment of the engineer. The course to be pursued is under consideration. In reply to the hon. gentleman for Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) I would say that of course this amount is very largely to complete certain works which have been undertaken. There is section 2, the Simcoe-Balsam Lake division, on which there is some work which requires to be completed. There is also section 3, a portion of the same division and then there is hydraulic lock No. 2, north of ICirkfield. I think the hon. member is familiar with all of these sections. The surveys that are to be made in that northerly direction relate to the reaching of Georgian bay, the connecting of Georgian bay with those water stretches at Lake Simcoe. There are two routes, one by Lake Couchiching and there is also the Severn river route. These surveys are being made with a view to determining the proper route to be followed in that section of the waterways. Some surveys have also been made on the Holland river section with a view to connecting certain sections of the country up there with this water-route, giving an outlet to a very rich and flourishing section of the country. All this involves a /great deal of work. I think the engineers chosen go there with an open mind; the instructions given to the chief engineer simply involve directions to have complete and accurate surveys made of the different routes. He is to make his report upon the merits of the respective routes, to make his estimates full and complete in order that there may be placed before the department and before myself for consideration, ample information as to which route would cost the least which would be the most feasible and which would best serve the interests of the communities adjacent to and connected with the Trent Valley waters. More than this it is hardly necessary for me to say.
Mr. WARD1. I desire to correct one statement made by the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane). The great bugbear with the gentlemen who oppose the Port Hope route is the stretch of open lake for twenty-six miles from Port Hope to Presque Isle harbour. I produced last session a statement signed by twenty-six or twenty-seven mariners, men who have sailed the lakes, some of them for thirty or forty years past, and they expressed the opinion with one accord that they prefer the Port Hope route to the Trenton route for the reason that they can never be sure of getting into Trenton harbour at night, whereas they can always get into Port Hope harbour at night, and they say that the open lake from Port Hope to Presque Isle was no objection as my hon. friend would make out to the committee. So far as that twen-Mr. EMMERSON.
ty-six miles of open lake is concerned, the committee must bear in mind that the prevailing winds in the fall are off that shore. These mariners who have sailed all their lives surely should know as much as the hon. gentleman.


Edward Cochrane: I am not saying what I know.


Henry Alfred Ward: If you look at the map of Lake Simcoe you will find that there are thirteen miles of open lake there under the present scheme of canal, and the shore upon which the barges have to come down is absolutely exposed to the prevailing northerly winds. That is on the stretch from Orillia to Beaverton. The mariners whom I have consulted state that a barge that will weather that thirteen miles


Edward Cochrane: In an inland lake.


Henry Alfred Ward: In an inland lake it is quite true, but there are gentlemen who live on that inland lake w7ho say that there are days and days in the fall when the vessels that ply that lake are unable to leave the harbour at all. The mariners state that a barge that is strong enough to sail the thirteen miles on Lake Simcoe with a prevailing wind on the shore on which they are sailing is perfectly safe on the twenty-six miles on Lake Ontario with the prevailing winds off shore. The open stretch on Lake Ontario is a bugbear that these gentlemen who favour the Trenton route are very prone to urge. I am sure if the minister will examine these different points for himself he will be able to form his own judgment and we are quite satisfied that when he forms his judgment his decision will be in the interest of the country.


Edward Cochrane: I do not want to debate this question at all, because I fancy it will not matter what the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Ward) or myself says in connection with it. I think when this question is settled it will be settled on the merits of the routes. I would wish to say a word or two with respect to the harbours of Trenton and Port Hope. Why was a million of money spent by the Dominion government to build the Murray canal? It was to let vessels get off Lake Ontario into Presque Isle harbour and thence into the inland waters of the Bay of Quinte. You can see that these mariners who knew so much do not take their vessels into the port of Trenton at all; because it is on the Bay of Quinte, all inland water; and the Dominion of Canada has spent several millions of dollars to open a waterway from the natural harbour of Presque Isle, through which vessels can pass from Lake Ontario to the inland waters and have quiet navigation all the way down to Kingston and Montreal.


Haughton Lennox: The minister referred to the routes in the northerly direction about

which there does not seem to be the same amount of contention as there is about the southerly outlet. I want to direct his attention to one or two phases of that matter which probably have not been kept as prominently before his mind as they ought to have been. A year ago, when I spoke of this subject, I understood the minister to promise that he would set surveyors at work almost immediately to survey the line along the route which X was advocating, that is from the extreme west end of Kem-penfeldt bay, which is a portion of bake Simoce, to the Georgian bay. I think I had a letter from the minister after the session closed renewing his promise, and intimating that the surveyors would be shorty at work with a view to ascertaining whether that was the best scheme or not. That may be called the direct route. The other route proposed is by way of the Severn river. To my mind there can be no question which is the better course to take; but I regret that up to the present time there have been no surveyors on the ground.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought the route to which my hon. friend made reference was the one via Silver creek and North river. Another is the one via the Severn river; and I understand that my hon. friend suggests a third, starting near Barrie.
IMr. LENNOX. I thought that the one I referred to was the second ; I did not know there was any scheme for a route via Silver creek. Those we discussed last session were the two I have mentioned. The route by way of Barrie and Kempenfeldt bay would serve not only for the purposes of the Trent Valley canal, but, if constructed on a large and generous scale, would open up an important extension of the general system of navigation across the continent, particularly in connection with the scheme which has been referred to recently, and which will probably come before the House for discussion, now that the elections are over, for the extension to Schomberg and Aurora, practically bringing the commerce of the west down as far as the village of Aurora, from_ which there would be only a short passage by land to one of the great commercial centres of the province of Ontario, the city of Toronto, there again joining the great lake and river system of navigation. I hope that if the minister has not the opportunity of sending surveyors to investigate that route since last session, he will do so at once. While on my feet, I want to ask the minister whether the Trent Valley canal will be completed to Lake Simcoe this year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We expect to have it completed this season. I was under the impression that the surveyors were taking into consideration the very route to which my hon. friend made reference last session. His letter was submitted to the engineers, and all the information on the subject in the department was laid before the chief engineer with the view of his studying out the very best route, and X think the route to which the hon. gentleman made reference was particularly considered by the engineer in charge of the work.


Haughton Lennox: That is not exactly what X meant. I understood that surveyors would be put upon that territory to make actual surveys and tests. Am I to understand from the minister that if they are not actually at work, they will be shortly ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, yes. The surveys are not completed.


Samuel Hughes: I understood that surveys of that route were made several years ago. The Severn route is a long and circuitous route, and the route determined upon as the most feasible is by Lake Couch-iching to Waubaushene. What I would like to know is whether the minister is going to put a sum in the estimates to complete the work this year. Then, the people would like to know this spring whether the southern outlet is going to be by Trenton or by Tort Hope. These works have been under contract now for nearly eight years. Not one solitary contract has been let by this government since it came into power. The tenders were all advertised for before they came in. The lift locks were planned, and they had the giving of the contracts for them ; and they had the privilege of letting the section between Kirkfield and Lake Simcoe.
The minister who has taken charge will, no doubt push this through, especially when ha knows that his leader, the first minister, takes such an intense interest in the Trent canal and especially too, when he finds the Postmaster General-who, years ago in opposition filled page after page of ' Hansard ' in denunciation of this scheme-wanting to run branch lines of that canal through all the villages in his own riding. We want to see this work carried to completion. We want the two ends completed-the Georgian bay end and the Trenton end. All along the route of that canal, at Barrie, Orillia, Lindsay, Beaverton and Peterborough, there are immense mills which bring in grain from the Northwest by train. If we had the canal built, they could bring that grain in by barge at much lower rates and would be better able to compete in the markets of the world. I am satisfied the minister will carry out his promise and put a substantial vote of a million or two in the estimates this year. We have plenty of money now, but may not be so flush when the Grand Trunk Pacific is under way. As the surveys have been made at the Georgian bay end and at the Trenton end all the minister has to do is to call for tenders. While on my feet, I will

call attention to a few points I want to bring to his notice. The system of valves in the locks and of opening and closing gates is not the most modern all along that route. At Fenelon Falls, a steamer will be delayed some 20 or 25 minutes by the slow operation of the locks when she should be able to get through in 10 minutes. Above Fene-ion Falls, there is a railway swing bridge across the canal. There is quite a strong eur-i cut there and steamers, running the regular route, will reach this bridge about the time the morning train is crossing and have to lie in the offing where, on a windy day, they cannot keep their position in the channel. I would suggest that a wharf should be built at government expense just above the swing bridge at Fenelon Falls.


Henry Robert Emmerson: A wharf, or an extension of the pier ?


Samuel Hughes: One is just as good as the other. Another thing to which I would call attention is the fact that all along these waterways there are great quantities of sawlogs floating down the stream. In windy weather the booms block the entire river and are a great obstruction to travel. I would like the minister to devise some plan for overcoming this difficulty. At present he has but one dredge belonging to his department on those waters and it is entirely inadequate for the work it has to do. I am satisfied if the minister looks into it, he will recommend the construction of another dredge. The hon. gentleman promised to explain the condition of lauds in Verulam and Emily townships subject to the overflow7 of the canal. I would also draw his attention to the condition of Pigeon river, there is a great tract of country w7hich could be served by that stream, which barges could navigate drawing 3 to 5 feet of water ; but the river needs to be cleaned out, and I would suggest to the hon. minister to have his engineer make a report, by another year be ready to have the passages opened up. There is another matter to which I would draw his attention. The modern system of transport proves that the locks should be longer, that long barges are the most profitable to handle, and that the locks to be constructed for the future should be longer. If we could possibly overcome the lift-lock at P'eterboro, we should build longer locks than tlie present ones. There is just One more point I would mention. North of Balsam lake there are almost innumerable lakes forming beautiful reservoirs. I should have great pleasure in taking the minister for a trip through this chain of lakes. The scenery there is as fine as any in the world and thev form magnificent reservoirs. The shores in many cases are rocky, the land as a rule valueless for farming purposes, the timber has been cleaned out from the shores, and these lakes could be made into reservoirs for storing water to meet the needs of the canal. Balsam lake has to serve both the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
Georgian bay and the Trent end of the canal, f. see that the government propose taking over these waterways and carrying out the plan I recommended in 1890, and will control them as a Dominion work for the storage of water. That would be serviceable not only to navigation but to manufacturers along the line of the canal. [DOT]
A manufacturing town brings population to the country and trade to the railways and canals. Will the minister be good enough to say what they have done in the w7ay of taking over these waterways. There are thousands of settlers north of Cobokonk. I notice that in the province of Quebec, back of Buckingham and also in the western part of Ontario, the government has opened up navigation in inland lakes far away from the main avenues of trade. But the waterways that I speak of are connected witli the main line of the Trent canal and so properly come under the head of Dominion works. A few years ago the people in both parties who supported this great route were sneered at, but, now the common sense men of the country are coming to see that, after ail, we need'waterways. We support the Welland canal and the Georgian bay canal, and we want to have this Trent canal supported also. And, instead of listening to the echoes of the old speeches of the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) in his days of opposition, we want to hear the speeches he is making to-day. He is a little late in giving his support, and, by his opposition he has delayed the work a good deal.


William Mulock: I never have said a word against it in my life.


Samuel Hughes: My ears must have deceived me. I used to think that the hon. gentleman joined witli the present senator from Mount Forest, Hon. Mr. McMullen, in delaying this House day after day by talking against this route of which they'knew nothing. Of course I take the hon. gentleman's (Sir William Mulock's) word for it, and am glad that he is backing the canal now at any rate. The ridges to which I have referred run northwesterly and southwesterly. There is only one road running far north and that is the Haliburton road. It runs up the valley of the Burnt river. Between that and the Gull river waters there is this barrier of hills, over which farmers have to haul timber and other produce, it is impossible to haul hard-wood timber more than six or seven miles over these ridges to the market at a profit. But with an expenditure of about $100,000 the Gull river waters could be opened up for a distance of from fifty to seventy-five miles. There is not a mile of cutting ; all that is required is to place dams at the lakes and locks between the lakes. This would afford means of navigation and would bring into use a vast area of country where birch and maple and other hardwoods which the market is now demanding, abound. It will benefit the thousands of

farmers living along these waters as well as the people of central Ontario generally, I speak this in all seriousness, and I know the minister will look at it in the same way. Of course, I do not expect the minister to decide the matter at once ; but I hope he will investigate it and next year put an item in the estimates to carry out this work. I would also impress upon him the necessity of vigorous work upon the two ends of this Trent system of waterways. Now that the Postmaster General has grown out of his age of criticism and reached the time of constructive statesmanship and doing good work in his own department, I hope he will use his influence to have this work pushed forward to completion by establishing a connection with Georgian bay and also completing the Lake Ontario outlet whether by Trenton or by Port Hope.


Mr.   POSTER@: I have been out of the House for some years, and probably have not followed the fortunes of this Trent canal as some gentlemen have who have kept up a constant and close acquaintance with it. In 1904-5 there was a vote of $411,000 for this work, and now we are asked for $300,000 for 1905-6, a total of about three-quarters of a million dollars. I would be glad if the minister would state in a brief comprehensive way just how this waterway stands. By the courtesy of the minister I have a small plan of the work, and If he would give us an idea how far the improvements are made and what kind of navigation is afforded as to depth and width, but chiefly as to depth, I think it would be a good thing for the committee and for the public. When the public hears of this work it usually hears of it in sections, but I would like a comprehensive account of what has been done and what is necessary to be done and what navigation is now provided for. For instance, commencing at Georgian bay what is the state of navigation up to Lake Simcoe ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nothing has been done there. The works now completed begin at Kirkfield and go down as far as Heely's Falls.


George Eulas Foster: Going through Balsam lake past Fenelon Falls, through Sturgeon lake down to Pigeon lake


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not recollect the various points, but I know the canal goes via Peterborough to Heely's Falls.


George Eulas Foster: What navigation is provided for over the distance referred to by the minister ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Six-foot navigation.


George Eulas Foster: Is it actual navigation ? Are they facilities that are being used ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Constantly used between these two points.


George Eulas Foster: Where are the works now under construction ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Between Balsam lake and Lake Simcoe. When these works are completed we shall have a complete system of navigation from Lake Simcoe down to Heely's Falls.


George Eulas Foster: What is necessary in order to complete the wo:k between Kirkfleld and Gamebrldge ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is all under contract-sections 2 and 3. There is hydraulic lock No. 2, two miles north of Kirkfleld. When the two sections which include the hydraulic lock, are completed; the navigation from Lake Simcoe to Heely's Falls will be completed with a six-foot depth of water.


George Eulas Foster: Will that allow towing V


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Are these votes here being expended upon those stretches ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: When will the work now in hand be completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This season.


George Eulas Foster: When you leave Heely's Falls, how is it from that to Trenton ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the section about which there is a doubt as to the route to be adopted. There are two routes when you get to Lake Ontario, one is by way of Port Hope.


George Eulas Foster: You want to get from Heely's Falls to Port Hope.


Henry Robert Emmerson: One route is by way of Trenton and another by way of Port Hope. Another is suggested by way of Cobourg, and still another which has been brought to my attention within the last few weeks or days, by way of Presq'ile harbour.


George Eulas Foster: Then nothing is done in the way of helping navigation from Heely's Falls down to Trenton ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Samuel Hughes: I have had the privilege of living along the route, and I, am delighted to see that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House are taking an interest in this important waterway. I may inform the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) that the Georgian bay is 580 feet above sea level. From Georgian bay to Lake Couchiching is about thirteen miles.


George Eulas Foster: Why did you not go up by Severn river ?


Samuel Hughes: That is a rocky country and would be quite circuitous. The recommendation I believe is in favour of the direct route across from Lake Couchi-ching and coming in by Waubaushene. Lake Couchiching is 719 feet above the level of the sea. Thence down Lake Simcoe to Game-bridge and then up Talbot river, there Is

some cutting between Simcoe and Balsover. Then coming to Kirkfield there is a lock about 50 feet high. Balsam lake is 838 feet above sea level and is on the height of land. From Balsam lake you pass through Rosedale river into Cameron lake. There is a lock between Balsam lake and Cameron lake at Rosedale of three or four feet. From Cameron lake you pass into Sturgeon lake by two locks twenty-eight feet in height. From Sturgeon lake you pass into Pigeon lake by a lock at Bobcay-geon about six or seven feet high. From Pigeon lake it is a level sail to Buclchorn, where there is a lock. Then you pass into Deer and Lovesick lakes. At Burleigh Falls there are locks entering into Stony lake and Clear lake. Then by Clear lake you pass south to Lakefield and on to Peterborough where you reach the lift-lock From below the lift-lock at Peterboro' there is uninterrupted navigation down to Hastings at the foot of Rice lake, where there is a lock. From Hastings to Heely's Falls there is uninterrupted navigation. There may be some work to be done from Camp-bellford and Chisholm's Rapids down to Trenton, about nine and a half or ten miles, that can be overcome by damming the river. I may point out that at the present moment there is uninterrupted navigation from Kirkfield to Heely's Falls, at least in the summer time. As soon as the locks are completed at Kirkfield there will be uninterrupted navigation from Orillia to Heely's Falls, leaving only the two ends to be completed, and these are the pieces of work I am urging on the minister now to complete.


George Eulas Foster: What is the mileage from Heely's Falls to Lakefield ?


Samuel Hughes: The entire mileage is nearly 200 miles. There is not one foot of cutting except at the western end. There will be no cutting whatever excepting it may be half a mile here and there. It is all the way natural shores where steamers can go full sail ahead.


George Eulas Foster: I am obliged to the minister and to his efficient deputy head on this side of the House for the information.


Henry Alfred Ward: I would like to ask the minister if it is intended to make any further surveys by way of Trenton before the terminus of the canal is decided upon?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That matter has been brought to my notice so recently that I am not in a position to determine. I have placed the matter in the hands of the chief engineer, and we will have to inquire as to the possibility of that route. It is no use to have a survey there unless there is some prospect of making it available for the purposes of the canal. Of course there Is a resolution of the municipalities favouring it.
Mr, SAM. HUGHES.
Mr. FOSTER, What was it that caused the survey to be started by way of Co-bourg?
Mr. EMJlERiSON. Instructions were given to the chief engineer to study out all these possible outlets of this waterway on Lake Ontario, and the engineer in charge determined that Cobourg was worthy of study.


George Eulas Foster: That was the engineer's initiative.


Henry Alfred Ward: I would like to mention to the minister that he is a little mistaken in saying that the survey by way of Cobourg was initiated in December. I heard towards the end of October that surveys were going on then at Cobourg.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is an error. I have a memorandum from the engineer about the commencement.


Henry Alfred Ward: I heard during the election campaign that the very engineers that were engaged in the survey of the Port Hope route were at the same time making a survey by way of Cobourg. That was the first I heard of it.
Galops canal-to stop leak in hank, $25,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This was rendered necessary owing to leaks in the banks. During the construction years ago some cribs were left in the banks of the canal. Since the level has been raised increasing the pressure, the water has forced itself through and along the cribs. The work is done by contract and tender, Mr. O'Leary having the contract.
Mr. ,T. D. REID. I cannot understand exactly how this leak occurred. I remember that there used to be a small leak about that point some years ago, but I understand that that was provided for in the original contract, and that it was supposed to have been well taken care of by the contractors when they were doing that excavation work and strengthening the bank. That bank was raised some six feet all along there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That increased the pressure according to the report of the engineers and therefore increased the leak.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course it increased the pressure, because there were six feet more of water in the canal, but then the contractors were supposed to put in rock and earth sufficient to strengthen the bank and the work could not have been done properly by the contractors when they built that part of the work.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I know that is absolutely necessary and the chief engineer tells me that that was not the cause of the difficulty.


John Dowsley Reid: I remember the work going on there at the time and it was sup-

posed to be to strengthen the bank in order to prevent a leak of any kind occurring. My opinion is that that work was not properly done when the contractors were filling in the canal bank.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The chief engineer tells me that the work was properly done in the original construction as far as the making of the bank is concerned and that the leak was the result of the pressure on the renewed bank.


John Dowsley Reid: How is that work to be done ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The crib is to be taken up. That is under contract now and the vote of $25,000 will certainly complete the work.


John Dowsley Reid: I asked the hon. minister last year that he should do something with the view of having the bridge at Cardinal properly attended to. Here is the question I asked last year :


John Dowsley Reid: Has the minister lone anything about arranging to have the bridge at Cardinal swung by some other means than hand power ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That matter is receiving the attention of the department now.


John Dowsley Reid: It was receiving it a year ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I had the papers under consideration this morning, and some instructions were given with a view to having that work done at once, so that the bridge will be swung by electric power.
That is a year ago and still there has been nothing done.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Arrangements were being entered into at that time with the Edwardsburg Starch Company with the view to having the bridge swung that way. That is being carried out and I am in hopes that it will be fully completed so that there will be no further difficulty in that directon.


John Dowsley Reid: Will it be completed at an early date ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We expect it to be completed at a very early date.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the contract been let to the Edwardsburg Starch Company ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There have been some differences between that company and the Department of Railways and Canals, but the whole matter is under negotiation now with the view of settling all these difficulties. They have agreed to do the work for a certain consideration and while the contract has not been actually signed and executed, yet I have no doubt but that it will be fully completed and carried out.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the hon. minister state if the item of $26,500 for the Galops
rapids will complete the work or will there be any further votes for that work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nothing more for that.


John Dowsley Reid: That finishes it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That finishes it.
Cornwall canal-to fill in space between old and new locks at foot of canal, $4,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is that to be done by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: $2,000 was voted last year. Has anything been done yet ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, nothing has been done. There was nothing voted last year.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, $2,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is an error.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the intention of the government in so far as that lighting contract is concerned ? Is it the intention of the government to take over the lighting plant and work it themselves or allow it to be continued under the contract which exists ? The government have the power of expropriation. I think the question came up last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are no reasons which suggest themselves to me now why we should undertake to expropriate at this time.
Williamsburg canals-to purchase steam hoist and steam pump, $1,500.


John Dowsley Reid: What about that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There has never been a steam hoist or a steam pump on the Williamsburg canals and for the heavy work now being done one is necessary.


John Dowsley Reid: I think there was an item in the estimates last year for building a new gate lifter. What has been done in regard to that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is being built.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the building being built by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is being built by contract.


John Dowsley Reid: Who has the contract?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I really cannot recall.


John Dowsley Reid: The reason I asked is that I have seen no advertisement for that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The engineer tells me there were advertisements.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the minister going to do about that position of collector on the Wallaceburg canal ? I see here at Cardinal the collector got $1,051.51, and last year he did not collect a cent of canal toils.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Later on I will have an opportunity of discussing the matter of collectors. 1 shall probably be in a position to announce the policy of the government as to whether or not we will resume the collection of tolls.


Mr. FOWLER.: In the meantime' the minister might intimate what this $1,051 was paid for.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has been explained time and time again. The tolls were abolished for a period of two seasons, but it was necessary to continue the collector's to keep a record of all traffic over the canals with a view to determining the effect of making the canals free, to ascertain whether the traffic was increased by that or not, and generally to determine as to the effect of that policy. That has been in effect for two seasons.


George William Fowler: How is the amount arrived at ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Collectors were paid stated salaries, and they were continued. If the canals are continued free, there will have to be a decision made with respect to these officials.
Murray canal, $18,000.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might explain this.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are at each side of each end of this canal ten isolated wooden cribs, connected by four stringers and flooring. The cribs are 24 feet apart, making 20 cribs at each end. These cribs and flooring are almost entirely decayed, having been built about twenty years ago. It is proposed to build them of concrete from a height of one foot below low water mark, standing 8 feet above low water mark. The wall is to be 9 feet high, 25 feet 6 inches thick for 5 feet, then 2 feet thick for the balance. The size of the pier is 25 by 30 feet, making 100 yards in each pier. Two piers have already been built out of the appropriation for repairs. Eighteen remain to be done at each end. An appropriation will be asked next year to rebuild the western end in the same way. It seems to be in the interests of economy to have these cribs rebuilt in this way with concrete.


George Eulas Foster: Can the minister state the volume of traffic passing through the Murray canal, and whether it is increasing or decreasing ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From memory, I would say that last year it was somewhat less than the previous year. There have been some fluctuations, but in the main there has been an increase.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister an idea of what tonnage goes through that canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot give my hon. friend a statement of that; I do not carry Mr. J. D. REID.
the figures in my mind. I had the general result before me not long since, but I cannot exactly recall it.


George Eulas Foster: ' It would be interesting to know whether the trade through that canal has been increased by it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There has been an increase in the trade, but whether it is true to that canal I am hardly in a position to say.
Welland canal-chargeable to income, $85,000. Stone protection to banks of new canal, $10,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was a vote of $20,000 last year ; $10,000 only was expended, and we are asking for a revote of $10,-
000.


George Eulas Foster: Is any part of the next vote for $30,000 a revote ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No part of it is a revote. $30,000 was expended last year. This work has been going on from time to time, and it is being done by the canal staff. On the works at Port Dalhousie there was expended, up to December 31, 1904, $50,400, and there yet remains to be done $39,200. The total cost of this work was estimated at $89,000.


George Eulas Foster: What was the income from the Welland canal last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was no income from the tolls.	.


George Eulas Foster: Then how do you charge it to income ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a fiction ; there is a small income in connection with leases, I think.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The minister says that this work is being done by the canal staff. Are we to understand that there is a regular staff of workmen at all times repairing the canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: During the summer season. There are workshops at Port Dalhousie. That has been the system for years. They make the repairs to the gates, and when they have no repairs to do they make new gates to have them on hand.


David Henderson: How many men of that class are regularly employed on the canal J It seems to me that work of this kind should be done in some other way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend were to visit the canal and become acquainted with the character of the work these men are doing, he would appreciate the fact that it is in the interest of the canals to have that work carried on in that way. Old gates which are partly decayed have to be renewed. This could not be done by contract. The material is purchased by tender, and is kept there properly housed and dried, so that the very best material

is used in repairing old gates and making new ones. Spare gates must necessarily be kept on band in case of accidents, because accidents do occur. Vessels going through the canals sometimes run against gates and break them, and to avoid delays it is necessary to have gates on hand ready to be put in position.


David Henderson: I suppose these men are discharged in the fall of the year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


David Henderson: Very nice patronage for some members along the line of the Welland canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I suppose that is a necessary incident of having them.


George Eulas Foster: Are these men practically permanent temporaries-that is, the same skilled men kept on year after year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. Many of them have been employed right along for years. Of course, at times, if there is a great rush, it is necessary to have additional ones.


Haughton Lennox: The minister says that they not only repair gates but make new ones. In that way do they make all the gates we require, or does the government sometimes have to-buy gates ?


Mr. GERMAN.: The gates are all made by the employees on the canal.


John Dowsley Reid: In purchasing supplies for the canals, I understood the minister to state that he always asked for tenders ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The iron work in connection with these very gates is done by contract. I am speaking of the Welland canal. I may say that the valves and the hanging gear, neither of which worked satisfactorily, are being changed. The chain valve is being replaced by what is known as the butterfly valve.


John Dowsley Reid: What I cannot understand is that although these canals are all new, the cost of maintaining them has increased. On the Williamsburg canal the repairs last year cost $20,254, and the wages paid out amounted to $10,212. The expenditure on that canal is double what it was a few years ago when the canal was old and needed much greater repairs. Perhaps the minister can explain why the expenditure has increased so rapidly.


Henry Robert Emmerson: A new canal is much more expensive than an old canal. The new banks are much more difficult to keep in repair than old banks, because the settlement caused by time makes the latter more impervious to water and less liable to be worn away. Then, there has been a substantial increase in the wages paid.


Mr FOSTER.: Do these repairs extend over the whole length of the Welland canal?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What is the length of the Welland canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Twenty-seven miles.


George Eulas Foster: It is a very large amount. There was spent last year on the Welland canal $85,000 or $80,000 for labour and materials. Who hires the men and sees that they do their work, and who purchases the supplies and sees that they are got at the proper rates ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This work is entirely in charge of the superintending engineer of the canal, J. L. Weller, a very competent man. With regard to the supplies, tenders are asked for annually for all the materials required, by public advertisement, and the tenders are submitted to the department here. They come under my personal supervision, and the contracts are awarded to the lowest tenderers. Everything that is used in connection with the canal, whether tools or materials, is the subject of tender and contract.	[DOT]


George Eulas Foster: What is the area of these tenders? They must be merely local, are they not?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The advertisements are quite general. Some of the successful tenderers are in St. Catharines, but parties at Hamilton, Toronto and other points also tender.


Mr. BLAIN.: Are we to understand that the engineer employs them in connection with the Welland canal ? That is not in accord with the policy laid down by the hon. minister the other evening when he said he invariably consulted the sitting member. In this case is the sitting member not consulted?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think my hon. friend tears something said and then puts his own interpretation upon it. I made no such statement. What I said was that in so far as patronage was concerned, if it became a question to be decided by me, I would always consult my friends ? My hon. friend is welcome to any benefit he can get from that statement. But I have to-day been asked a question regarding this particular canal, and I have said that the appointment of the officials is made by the department, but that the employment of men from time to time is done by the superintending engineer. The selection of permanent men is submitted to the department. In some cases, where it is necessary, the appointments are made by Order in Council. In others they are made by the department.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. gentleman, and I am quite sure he does not wdsh to misquote me, but he has misquoted me none the less. I asked the other evening the same question, namely, what the policy of his department was in

i
lespeet to the employment of men, and he gave me a straight answer, which no one could misconstrue. His answer was that the policy of his department was to consult the sitting member in the county. My hon. friend shakes his head but ' Hansard ' will prove that I am correct. The item was repairs to the Cornwall canal and the question was raised concerning the large number of men employed on that canal in election time. But this evening, in answer to the hon. member for North Toronto, (Mr. Foster) my hon. friend said that the employment of the men was in the hands of the engineer. I asked him if that was the policy of his department, and he said it was. I would like to know what is really the policy of the department in this matter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In cases where questions arise in my department concerning the employment of men and the names are submitted to me, I say frankly that if I have the opportunity, I consult the sitting member, provided he is friendly to me and the administration. But speaking now of what has transpired in 'connection with this canal, I repeat that the superintending engineer selects the temporary men, and where permanent men are required, those recommended by our friends and who are satisfactory in other respects get the appointments.
To build retaining wall in rook cut, Welland canal, $60,000.


Mr.   J.@: I). REID. Has the government any policy as regards the deepening of the Welland canal to 20 feet 7


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has not been determined.	[DOT]
Improvements, Trent canal, $17,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is to be done with that 7


Henry Robert Emmerson: These improvements consist of the entrance pier at Lovesick, $2,000 ; Young's Point landing pier lower entrance, $3,000 ; Young's point new swing bridge, $3,500 ; removing shoal in river below Hastings, $2,000 ; removing shoals in liver below Peterboro, $2,000; Young's point entrance to lock, $3,000 ; purchase of concrete mixture in connection with repairs to canal, $1,500.
St. Ours canal-new booms and pier, $7,300.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The present conditions for mooring are quite insufficient. In order to remedy this condition, the piers are to be extended some 200 feet. I am advised by the engineers of the department that this is a very urgent improvement. It will cost $7,300.
Repairs to guide piers, Greece's Point, $4,660; building new lighthouse, $190 ; rebuilding Grenville wharf, $23,000.


Mr. PER LEY.: What is this for ?


Richard Blain: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: These piers were built in 1880 and a portion of them require to be rebuilt. They also require a new lighthouse which will cost $190. Then the Grenville wharf will require to be rebuilt. We asked a vote of $23,000 last year but that was not expended and I am asking a revote.


George Eulas Foster: That should be down as a revote.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a revote of $23,000.


George Eulas Foster: The minister must have been very careless in framing his estimates -there are several of these errors.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were sent to the printer by the department in proper shape.


George William Fowler: The proof-reading is bad ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It certainly is bad. I found a number of errors of this character.


Haughton Lennox: Last year it was the same way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Special care was taken by the officials of the department in this matter this year because I found it very embarrassing last year on several occasions when there were revotes that were not so marked.


George William Fowler: Who does the proof-reading ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know. I suppose it is done in the Printing Bureau.


George Eulas Foster: Are you making a new wharf there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was a wharf there, and we are rebuilding. This is a revote from last year.


George William Fowler: This is a large amount of money.


George Eulas Foster: Is it for canal traffic ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It has always been used in connection with canal traffic.


George Eulas Foster: Was this by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, the contract was given to Messrs. Martiueau & Son after public advertisement calling for tenders. The contract was made on December 5th ; no work has been done owing to the late date at which the contract was let.


George William Fowler: Is the minister taking out the old wharf to put in the new one ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We take out the old wharf down to water-level.


George William Fowler: What are the dimensions of the wharf 7


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is about 300 feet long. There is a large amount of concrete work in it.


Mr. PERLEY.: This wharf is necessary.
A wharf has been there ever since I can remember. I am glad the minister has given a contract for the work, because I see that last year, in building guide piers at the same place, the department paid for spruce and hemlock timber $30 a thousand feet, a larger sum than I have ever been able to get for it in my experience.


George William Fowler: There was a guide-pier built last year. Can that be utilized in connection with the new work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The guide-pier is different from the wharf.


Mr.   POSTER@: What has the minister to say about paying $30 a thousand for timber that a practical man says he never could get so high a price for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of course, this was a year previous to my incumbency in office. I am advised by the chief engineer that all the material was purchased by tender and contract.


George Eulas Foster: But if tenders are called for and all of them seem high the minister is bound not to accept any of them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In any such cases coming under my own notice I certainly hesitate to accept any tender, and I am satisfied that is the course pursued by the department generally.


George William Fowler: Was it because of extraordinary size of this timber that so high a rate was paid ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The chief engineer tells me that for the kind of timber purchased $30 a thousand was not out of the way. I cannot give dimensions but I can furnish a statement later on if the hon. gentlemen desire it.


George William Fowler: This was spruce and hemlock timber and, it was charged for at this high rate. There could have been no justification except its size and quality.


William Manley German: And its length.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The length I include in the size. It would need to be extraordinary in some way to be worth $30 a thousand.


David Henderson: I understand this would be the ordinary timber used in crib-work. I do not suppose there would be much difference between that and cribs constructed elsewhere. My recollection is that in my county where some work was done constructing a pier, hemlock timber was bought for about $17 a thousand from a mill on the Georgian bay, delivered on Lake Ontario. Certainly $30 a thousand seems to be an extraordinary price.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think I am right in stating that this timber was bought by competition, and that was the lowest tender
for that class. It certainly could not be very much out of the way, because where there is competition the tenderers are not very apt to make the price unreasonably high if they have any hope of geting the contract.


George William Fowler: Some departments have a peculiar way of bringing about competition. They invite two or three of their friends doing business to send in tenders.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This was done by newspaper advertisement.


George William Fowler: As I understand, this was piling, and piling is not usually bought by the thousand feet.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not referred to the Auditor General's account;. Will the hon. gentleman state what kind of timber it was that we paid $30 for ?


George Halsey Perley: Page 123-timber, spruce and hemlock, per thousand feet, $30. It does not say what size.


George William Fowler: Surely the minister can tell what work was done there, whether it was piling or not.


George Halsey Perley: I would call attention to this fact. The minister says he advertised for tenders. I would like to know how he managed it, because there is no newspaper in that county except one, and that is miles away from the spot. If tenders are asked for from private parties, as I understand is sometimes done, and people are asked to tender, that is one tiling entirely different from asking for tenders in a large city where newspapers are numerous.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Tenders were asked for by advertisement, as I am advised by the engineer, in the papers of Ottawa and Montreal, and in local papers if there are any in the county. That is the usual way. But it was all by newspaper advertisement.


George William Fowler: If this was ordinary crib-work, it is the very roughest kind of timber that is used for that purpose, and the price charged here is at least double, no matter what the length, because knotty, rough timber is used generally for that purpose.


William Manley German: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, it is usually the best timber that is used in crib-work, not rough timber. What makes the price of timber sometimes abnormally high is its length and the time of the year it has to be supplied. The time of the year it is supplied, the length of the timber, the quality of the timber, are all considerations which go to enhance the price, and it is a good quality of timber that is required for crib-work.


David Henderson: I do not profess to have any professional knowledge, but I understood from the minister that the work in question was the construction of a wharf on foundations that already existed there.

Therefore, I have no right to assume that the timber would be of auy extraordinary length. I would assume that the timber was like that used in my own countv. I find there was paid last year for 778' feet of hemlock $20.50, and to my mind the hemlock in the two cases would be very much similar. In one case it is $30 a thousand, in the other $20.50.


George William Fowler: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) says the season of the year at which the timber is procured would make a difference in the price. Granting that, it would show bad management on the part of the department if they did not procure this timber at a season of the year when it could be most cheaply procured. They waited until it could be procured only in the most expensive way. It was not a rush order. As to the length of the timber, we cannot get any information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will explain why it could not be bought at the proper time. In the year previous the appropriations were abnormally late, and the department cannot undertake works unless parliament has appropriated the money.


George William Fowler: You often do it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. I want to say frankly to my hon. friend that we do not do it, and I have felt embarrassment on more than one occasion, and was delayed for some months in accepting tenders because the appropriations had not been voted.


George Halsey Perley: I think the explanation of the minister is a lame one, because you can get timber in either winter or summer. I have bought a lot of timber and used it in building piers, both in winter and summer. The timber can be had on the spot about as cheap in one season as another.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved the adjournment of the House.


George Eulas Foster: What work will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Mulock: The Minister of Agriculture will take the third reading of the Census Bill. Then we will go into supply, and the Minister of Railways will finish canals, and the acting Minister of Public Works will proceed with his estimates ; if not, the Minister of Agriculture will proceed with his.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 22, 1905.