1905-05-22

Mr.   T.@: GREENWAY moved >tha|t the fourth report of the Select Committee on Agriculture and Colonization be concurred in. He said : I might explain that the committee had before them Mr. Clarke, of the seed department, who gave what they considered very valuable information regarding the investigation which had been made into -the quality of seeds and into the dealings in seed. The committee ordered the usual numbers of printed reports to be distributed in the usual way-16,900 to the members, and 3,000 for the Department, and 100 for the use of the committee. The information was considered by the committee exceedingly valuable and which should be distributed as quickly as iiossible. For that reason they ordered that this number of copies should be printed forthwith and distributed with the same number of copies of the statute regulating the sale of seeds which we passed this session, and I may say that I think the information obtained from Mr. Clarke proves conclusively the necessity for some such Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I beg to move :
That an order of the House do issue for the production of the interim report of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway together with the maps and drawing of the lines located.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and interim report presented.
Mr. FOSTER.: How far does tbat go ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From its inception down to the 31st March.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: We will have an annual report hereafter ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Act provides for an annual report, and that matter is _ referred to in the report from the commission.

On the table of the House will be found location maps of the different surveys made.
'Mr. FOSTER. As this report is only in typewriting, I think it would be well that the minister should move that it be printed.
Mr. EMMEItSON, I am going to have it printed and distributed. I move that the interim report of the Transcontinental Railway Commission now presented be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Rt.   H@: I have to inform the House that His Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to appoint the Hon. C. S. Hyman Minister of Public Works. The writs for the elections in North Oxford and London have been issued, and nominations will take place on the 6th June.
On the Orders of the Day being called : HALF-BREED SCRIP.


George Eulas Foster: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to a rather circumstantial report that is go-' ing the rounds of the newspapers which I would like him to read, and if he would be kind enough, to make some statement with reference to it to-morrow-I do not wish to precipitate any discussion of the point to-day. It has to do with the scrip, issued to the half-breeds. The principal, point of the report, which is being widely; dstributed, is this:	At first the decision,
of the half-breed commission was that halfbreeds who were then resident in the United States should not be allowed their! scrip. Afterwards, and not long ago, an Order in Council was passed providing that residents of the United States who had been Canadian half-breeds were to be allow-i ed their scrip. Subsequently a clause was! added to the Order in Council making it possible to locate the lands without tlie| personal attendance of the half-breeds.; Some inquisitive people found out what, was going on. And so this half-breed scrip has been gathered up, as far as possible!, for a mere song, and very valuable lands have been or are being located by the for-, tunate gentlemen who were inquisitive and are said to have found out. Altogether, it is a matter which I would like the minister to look into and give a statement concerning it to the House before anything else is done about it in the way of discussion. The hon. minister will find the report to which I refer in the Winnipeg ' Tribune ' of May 1 (til. I will send him a copy which; he can return to me.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 



COMMISSION ON FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called :
Mr. G. W. GANONG.: Before the Ordersi of the Day are called I would like to bring to the attention of the government a mat-t ter of very considerable importance affect-i ing a large portion of the people of the county of Charlotte.


Rt.   H@: If my hon. friend (Mr. Ganong) will allow me :	The House will be moved into Committee of Supply as soon as we have finished preliminary business, and he will have an opportunity then to speak.


Gilbert White Ganong: That may be to-morrow.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: No, to-day.


George Eulas Foster: Do not private Bills come first?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, but they are not supposed to take very long.


George Eulas Foster: But they may.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.friend (Mr. Foster) knows that it is very irregular to bring up matters of this kind on the Orders of the Day, and that the regular and proper way is on a motion for Committee of Supply. My hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) will have every opportunity to speak when the motion for Committee of Supply is moved.


Gilbert White Ganong: I may not be present.


George Eulas Foster: We were pretty staunch upholders of the doctrine the Prime Minister advocates before 1896, but we did not make much progress with it. As it is uncertain when we shall go into supply, perhaps my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will not press his objection.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am powerless in the matter. My hon. friend (Mr. Ganong) is within his technical rights-not his constitutional rights-in moving the adjournment of the House to discuss the matter. But it is contrary to all parliamentary, rules as we understand them. If it is a matter of urgency, one which cannot wait, of course, that is different. But, if it is a matter of ordinary business, it should be brought up on motion for Committee of Supply.


George Eulas Foster: This is urgent.


Gilbert White Ganong: I think the matter I wish to bring to the attention of the House is one of urgency. And I think the ministers who have charge of it should lose no time in looking into it. I bring the subject up because of some recent newspaper correspondence and also because of the presence of the steamer ' Constance ' in Charlotte county waters-I believe, under the control of the customs-and because of

the recommendations made by the landsmen who were appointed as commissioners to investigate the fishery business. Unfortunately there never has been a Minister of Marine and Fisheries, so far as I know, who has taken enough interest in the Atlantic fisheries to go around there and make a personal investigation of the conditions under which they are carried on. These fisheries form one of the greatest industries we have in Canada. The total receipts from our fisheries are no less than $23,000,000 a year. Still, they have not received anything like the attention they should have received from the minister in charge of the department. However, after considerable discussion it was decided in 1903 to appoint a commission on the subject. We might reasonably presume that the members of that commission would have some qualifications for the business for which they were appointed, that they would be gentlemen who would be able to form intelligent ideas of the fisheries and the conditions surrounding them, and would take ample time to make such inquiries as were necessary in the interest of the fishing community. The duties of this commission, as I understand it, covered the dog-fish problem, the sardine business and the lobster business-at least it was so stated in this House by one of the commission. The fishermen began to hope that they might have their business properly looked into. But when the personnel of the commission was announced, they gave up all hope of such a thing. What [DOT]was the personnel of the commission ? Colonel Tucker, a retired military man, who unfortunately, is quite deaf, was the chairman, Mr. A. ,T. S. Copp, M.P., representing Digby county, N.iS., and a lawyer, was one member. Later on, I believe) through some considerable stress, the department put upon it Mr. Armstrong, of St. Andrews, a newspaper man, and Mr. Bowers, of Nova Scotia, with Mr. Yenning, an official of the department, completed the commission. Thus, we had on this commission two M.P.'s, one ex-M.P., and out would be M.P.-the gentleman I had the pleasure of defeating in 1896. This *was the personnel of the commission. Now, I have nothing to say against the ability, of these gentlemen. They have great ability in cetrain lines. Colonel Tucker, besides his genial qualities, proved in 1896 that he had an excellent bank account. Mr. Copp also has proved his ability. In the last election he proved his ability to down the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who had put up a candidate in opposition to him. Mr. Armstrong has proved his ability, because he has had no difficulty, as a newspaper man in a political way, in following all the turnings and twistings of the Liberal party since 1896, going back on all the pledges and promises they gave prior to that date. These are the qualifications possessed by
201 . .



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
this commission that was to decide on questions involving the interest of 40,000 or more fishermen, a business yielding $23,000,000 yearly. Now, as I say, I do not question the fitness of these gentlemen for. some other business. But I do question., aud question very greatly, the fitness o£ any one of these gentlemen for the position to which he was appointed ; and I thinld their report, if carefully read, will satisfy any one that the recommendations they made show that they were wholly unfitted for the duties they were appointed to perform. Why, Mr. Speaker, fishermen along the shores have considered it one of the greatest farces on record that these gen-, tlemen should come down there to carry on this investigation. And I can give evidence from their own report, a little further on, to show how farcical it has been.
They looked upon it as what it was ; the appointments Were made simply to help out a gentleman or two in connection with the coming elections which were anticipated after the session of 1903. If we look in ' Hansard ' of 1903 at page 13653, we will find that Colonel Kaulbach pressed very strongly for this commission and gave good reasons why it should be appointed, but at that time we had the member for Digby making some statements-some mis-statements I should say-statements that were not borne out in fact and statements that he has not had the grace or decency to retract since, statements maligning the fishermen of the county of Charlotte, which I have the honour to represent, and to which 1 propose to refer categorically a little later on. What were the conditions that led to the outburst of my bon. friend from Digby (Mr. Copp) ? The fishermen of the county of Digby have been in the habit of coming to Charlotte county harbours for bait; they have endeavoured to do just as they pleased in Charlotte county waters, and if a Charlotte county fisherman had fish in his weir they would offer any price they chose for the fish. They would go around the mouths of the rivers as I have seen them at the mouth of the IMagaguadavic and with dip-nets take little fish two or four inches long and carry them away in millions to Nova Scotia to use them for bait. They did more ; they came over to Charlotte county waters and ploughed up the beaches in every way, robbed the beaches of the clams, robbed them to such an extent that in one of the islands in Passamaquoddy bay, you can at a distance see what looks like chalk cliffs, almost as large as the cliffs of Dover, simply from the clam shells that these gentlemen have left there. To such an extent was this done that the people of Charlotte had to petition the local government of New Brunswick, and that government had to pass a law to prevent them stealing all the clams there were in Charlotte, and to-day they cannot

[Stage Direction]
631,
[Stage Direction]
do this simply because they must have a government license to take clams. But they must have some revenge, and they chose apparently their representative to wreak it on the fishermen of Charlotte.
Now just look at the conditions. In 1903 this lion, gentleman made the statements which I propose to refer to maligning the fishermen of Charlotte, prejudging the case and making mis-statements and still lie is appointed on a commission that is supposed to be impartial. That is actually the condition. It reminds me of a man named Welsh who years ago lived in my county. A murder had been committed and he walked all tihe way to the shire town, some 20 miles, to get on the jury. He said he knew the man deserved to be hanged but he wished incidentally to draw the $1.50 a day for jury fees. This hon. gentleman says they are a dishonest people there, iffe does not ask for a fee but he caters for votes in his own county in the next election, and he goes on talking without any knowledge of what he is talking about. In one case he says that all the sardines are caught at Grand Manan when any one who knows anything of fishing in that district is aware that they are not caught there, but in the inner waters of Passamaquoady bay. There are other mis-statements to which I shall also refer. I need not apologize for referring * so frequently to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Copp) because he was the dominant influence all through with the commission. Anyone who reads the report will find this to be so, and it is done simply to make himself popular at home irrespective of the actual rights of the case in the county of Charlotte. I would not like you to take my opinion alone, and 1 shall quote you the opinion of another gentleman. We had some discussion on this subject in this House in 1901 and on page 6991 of ' Hansard ' Mr. William Ross, then member for Victoria, Cape Breton, made some remarks. When referring to the qualifications necessary for the commissioners he said :
Do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I aspire to be placed on the commission myself. I have a sufficient sense of my own ability to lead me to decline the offer if it were made to me. If the Minister of Railways and Canals wished to appoint a commission to deal with a difficult railway question he would appoint eminent engineers for that purpose.
Mr. COPP.: Do I understand the hon. member to say that he wished to serve on that commission ?


Mr. WM. ROSS (Victoria).: I said that I had sense enough of my own inability to fill that position, and that I would not accept it if it were offered to me ; and that, I think, would have been the proper course for my hon. friend to pursue. . . . My idea of a commission would he one composed of men trained all their lifetime to the business of fishermen.
tatives from his own province, of his lack of qualification to be on that commission. There is another incident to which I wish to refer in connection with Col. Tucker to show the ability of that lion, gentleman and the great interest he has taken in the fishermen. Down at Grand harbour, Grand Manan, where they made a flying visit-in fact they came in one afternoon, called some of the citizens together and said they were going to leave that evening, and the citizens advised them that if that was the way they were doing business, they had better go at once, whereupon they decided to remain over a day- one of the most profound questions he asked, one that he said should be embalmed in ' Hansard ' or in his report was as to how many scales there were on a herring. It Is a most remarkable thing that no one had ever determined this number or put it on record, and this gallant colonel at last inquires for that information, which would be of so much advantage to the public.
But, Sir, this commission was appointed in 1903 and they showed exceeding activity that fall-it is perfectly marvellous what activity they showed There was some little reason for it, if you will remember that the first meetings of this commission were almost coincident with an expected election. If the Grand Trunk Pacific had not held up the government in 1903 for a better bargain we would certainly have had an election that year, but there seemed to be some trouble, some hitch, they did not put the money into it, I believe the first time. The commission made some few excursions down around the islands, but they suddenly called them off as soon as they found there was to be no election. I shall take their report and look it over. The Order in Council was passed on November 14, 1903. The scope of the inquiry as stated was to look into the dog-fish question and the lobster and sardine fisheries. They starteS out at once for the Magdalen islands, but on ithat trip Mr. A. C. Copp, was not with them as the report says. He was probably preparing for the election at home. Having completed their investigations at the Magdalen islands, they proceeded to North Head, Grand Manan, in	the
county of Charlotte. They reached that point on December 8th and held a meeting. The next meeting was at Grand Harbour on the 9th. Just fancy going over all the fishing interests there and not even having an opportunity of going over to examine the fisheries at all in these great tidal waters, inquiring of the fishermen here and there their opinion in regard to the fisheries.
On the evening of the 9th

And that is rather peculiar.
-a delegation came over from Campobello

And not lawyers. This is the opinion of And they were supposed to go to Campo-
Mr. William Ross then one of the represen- hello


Gilbert White Ganong: And thereby hangs a tale. This was a delegation representing Yankee canners who wanted licenses to can lobsters in Canadian territory. On the 10th they held a second meeting at Grand Harbour and they then completed their investigation. They lind not commenced to deal with the question that was assigned to them, but the election had gone by and it could not work particularly to their advantage to go to other points. I think Captain Pratt let them out a little, because he said that the weather was very rough and these landsmen perhaps could not stand the swell of the sea. It was all the better for them, because, if they wanted to interview the fishermen, rough weather was the time to do it in. If the weather is fine the fishermen are around the coast attending to their business. They did not go over to Campo-bello. They were not allured by what Senator Byron would describe as the sun kissed waves of Passamaquoddy bay. They would have had a delightful trip in the government steamer but they did not cross the bay. They did not go over to Campobello, or Deer island, the home of the sardine fishery. If they had published this report they would not have secured a vote from one of those islands. They did not go to Seal Cove, or to White Head, two other very important fishing stations on the island of Grand Manan. Then, on page 3, they say that they resumed the inquiry in the following September just before another election was due to come on- September 3. I will not weary the House by going over the whole of the material they have here, but I may mention that on September 23 they reached Seal Cove, Grand Manan. They got through there very rapidly and then they proceeded to Cord's Cove where they held a meeting on September 24. See how rapidly they got through there. They were hustling. On the same day they held a meeting at Welch Pool, and then they went to Back bay on the mainland and held a meeting on the 2titli. On the same day they held a meeting at Wilson's Beach. Next day, September 27, they were at Beaver Harbour. Then they took a little excursion to Eastport to be entertained by the Sea Coast Packing Company, and on the following day, September 29, they finished at St. Andrews. This completed their inquiry as far as the sardine business alone is concerned which represents an annual business, according to their report, of $454,000 and a total business to the Charlotte county fishing interests running well up to $1,000,000. In this cursory way these gentlemen finished up and decided what was best in the interests of the fishermen in that section. I do not want to deal with this whole report. But, they make one statement which I have here and which I shall read. The report tries to
prove that the catch of sardines is depleting and ruining the fisheries. But strange to say there are at the present time more young fish in Passamaquoddy bay than ever before in the history of the country. That fact is the basis of one conclusion at which they arrive. See what a wise one it is :
In the face of the enormous catches of small fish for the manufacture of sardines, which have been annually made for the past twenty or thirty years, it is difficult to believe that the adult fish do not exist in relative Quantities in outside waters.
I should think it would. I do not know how they expected to get these young fish in myriads in the inside waters, but this is one conclusion they have come to and if there are such immense quantities of young fish in the inside waters there must be a few old fish in the outside waters. I want to give the House a few calculations that these gentlemen have put on record, and which are well worthy of consideration, but before doing that I wish to take up a matter in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Copp) and that I may do him justice I shall read from his speech which is to be found at page 13.G53 of * Hansard,' 1903. He states one very evident fact, I should think, to almost any one when he said that fishermen in order to fish must have bait. Then he makes another statement that-
The fishermen of Nova Scotia, particularly of St. Mary's bay

That is his own little barn-yard over there in Digby

-and the Bay of Fundy, secure the most of their bait from Grand Manan, Campobello and Passamaquoddy bay.
That is probably quite true. Then the next statement he makes is that the-
Sardine industry . . . should be worth millions of dollars to the Dominion.
Well, we only wish it were worth more millions of dollars, but if you read the report and the figures that I propose to give you presently you will see the manner in which this hon. gentleman proposes to make it worth millions of dollars. The next statement he makes, and it is one which I think it would be difficult for him to prove, Is that:
The herring industry of the United States is wholly in Canadian waters.
He had not then been down along the coast. A gentleman, was not very well prepared to go on this commission if he knew no more about the herring industry of the United States than to make a statement like that on the floor of this House. Then, he referred to Lubec as being the head centre of the sardine industry. Lu-bec and Eastport are the two great towns manufacturing sardines. The capital stock of the companies, he says, engaged in that
201J


Mr.   J.@: 'Sutton Clark, of L'Etang ; Messrs. Connors Brothers, of Black's Harbour, and Mr. Henry Lord, of Deer Island. What could the American canners do if they came over here and established factories in Canada ? They "could not find a market in Canada and they could not take the product over to the United States against the duty of $2.50 a case. A statement appeared in the papers that Mr. Pike, of Lubec, Maine, had said that he would come over here if the export duty was imposed. Well, I have here a copy of a St. John paper, in which appears a letter from Mr. Pike himself refuting that. That letter is as follows:
LUBEC, Me., May 11, 1905.
To the Editor of the 1 Sun ':
Sir-My attention has just been called to an alleged interview with me published in your paper of March 30. The statements credited to me are so different from the opinions which I hold that in justice to myself I feel it necessary to reply to them in as public a manner as they have been circulated. I remember the occasion of my visit to St. John in the latter part of March, aud a conversation I had there with a gentleman whose name I do not know, in which * the recommendations of the fishery commission were briefly discussed, and I emphatically stated, as I believe, that the sardine or herring business of the counties of Charlotte and St. John would he ruined by carrying into effect the recommendations of the commission ; a*d I did not suggest that the situation

could be relieved by the extension of the Canadian canning business, or that I would build a factory in St. John. Being fairly familiar with the business both in the United States and Canada, I would have been very foolish to do so, as the Canadian market is fully supplied with canned sardines by the excellent factories now in operation there, and our experience in the United States, where, with a population of seventy or eighty millions of people, we have been unable in thirty years to increase the annual sale beyond about one million two hundred thousand cases, together with the fact that a large portion of our output is consumed by the foreign element among the working people of the larger cities and by the poorer neoole in the Southern States- classes as yet almost unknown in Canada-
Except by the Minister of the Interior, I fancy.
convinces me that it will be very many years before there is a demand in your country which cannot be supplied by the canners now doing business there; and I was not likely to say that the erection of factories in Canada would have any effect in relieving the situation in which the fishermen of the two counties would find themselves should the recommendations of the fishery commission be carried into effect, or that I had any intention of building a factory in St. John.
While I am, sincerely yours,



J. C. PIKE.

[Stage Direction]
It may be sakl that this gentleman has every Interest in fighting the report of this commission. But we need to look at the question from our own standpoint. We have fish to sell, and we have no market for them. Until that market develops through the efforts of the government, which are suggested by the commission further ou in the report, I believe the people of Charlotte have a right to sell the product which the Almighty has placed withiu their reach, as they have been doing for the last fifty years -or thirty years, to my own knowledge.
Now, I am aware that a small section of our county-1 want to do justice to all parts of it-has petitioned, as I understand, though the petition was not sent through me, for an export duty. In 1897 we formed a fishery association in Charlotte county, and at that time it was strongly advocated to have an export duty put on large herring -say herring of 10 inches and upwards. I believe some petitions from the island of Grand Manan have been sent in in favour of an export duty on fish. There may be some who hold the opinion that such a duty would be a benefit. But the great majority of the people of Charlotte county are absolutely against such a measure applying to sardine herring. And, had this fishery commission report been published in West Isles and Campobello before the last election, the government would never have known that there was such a thing as a Liberal alive. Now, recommendation No. 3 is as follows :
3. That every legitimate effort should at once be made by the government to secure for Canada the manufacture of raw material from the Mr. GANONG.
sardine fishery, and with a view of the general development of the fisheries of Canada, that a bureau be established in connection with the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and that agents be appointed to such populous foreign centres as may be deemed admissible, the special duties of whom to he the ascertaining and securing of outside markets for the product of the Canadian fisheries and the dissemination of information regarding the trade possibilities of Canada in respect thereto.
I think that is a most excellent recommendation, and I hope that the government will take it up. And when the time comes when we can handle our own product, there is no man in Canada who will rejoice more than I shall. Because if there are protectionists under heaven, I believe that I can claim to be one of them. I have no sympathy with our friends in the United States. I have lived alongside of them for the last thirty or forty years. They are good neighbours in many respects, but they are lookiug after their own interests all the time. Do not let us, by any foolish or inconsiderate action, cause tlie ruin of our own industry. To put an export duty on these fish would be just as sensible a thing as for the United States to put an export duty ou corn coming into Canada. Some people in the United States might argue : You fellows in Canada now buy our corn, but we will make you buy your starch and your glucose from us. They have the corn which -we have not. We have the herring which they have not. It would be just as sensible for them to have put an export duty on corn to force the manufacture of starch and glucose there as for us to put an export duty on fish to force the canning of sardines to be done in Canada.
Recommendation No. 4 declares that the present fee of $5 on weir licenses is too low. Well, I would like to hear the argument by which that statement is supported. If the license fee were imposed for revenue, there might be something in that idea. But it has never been so considered. I do not.think there has ever been sucb a suggestion, except as emanating from the minds of these gentlemen. And what did they say this license should be ? They recommend that the fee should be from $20 to $60. And why $20 to $60 ? Why not $500 to $1,000 ? One would be just as sensible as the other. And how would you regulate it ? A weir this year will yield $5,000 and next year not a dollar according as the fish may run. Would you base the tax on the amount the weir yields ? It is a senseless suggestion, and I am satisfied it is no use discussing, because I am confident that no wise government would think of adopting it, and discussion of it would be a mere waste of time.
Recommendation No. 6 is as follows :
6. That in view of the disputes arising in connection with the measuring of sardine herring when being offered for sale at the w'eirs, it is desirable that a standard measure should he adopted and they would recommend that
(6329 MAY 22. 1905 6330	
the Inspector of Fisheries be instructed to furnish the department with such measure. I can very well support that, because in 1897. 1898 and 1899 I advocated the same thing with the Minister of Inland Revenue. and=at one time had him so far convinced that I anticipated that he was going to prescribe a standard measure. The difficulty was that many of our fishermen had their fish measured in baskets. Well, a basket is rather an indefinite thing, it may contain half a - barrel or it may contain a barrel. Lately, I believe, they are measured in tubs, whicli are supposed to contain half a barrel. The fish are so plentiful that the fishermen are not particular. Rut the man buying the fish is looking for the largest measure, because the more fish he gets the better credit he has at the factory for which he obtains his fish. We should have a standard measure. I very strongly support this recommendation. Now, those are the chief recommendations upon which I have touched. But. Sir, I do not want the House to think that I am the only one who seems to be interested in this affair in New Brunswick. It has been brought up in this House, but I wish to show you how much Interest has been taken in it in that province. No less a body than the New Brunswick legislature, composed of 46 members passed a unanimous resolution against these recommendations. I propose to read that resolution as I want it to be on ' Hansard.' It cannot be said that this is a political affair, so far as New Brunswick is concerned, because the government there is in sympathy with this government and besides that the lion, gentleman who moved it is one of our most staunch Liberals, the Hon. Geo. F. Hill, one of the Tepresentatives' of Charlotte, moved the following resolution : Whereas, it has been brought to the attention [DOT]of this legislature that the fisheries commission recently appointed by the government of Canada have submitted to the government the following recommendation : la) That an export duty be placed upon sardine herring. (b)	That the customs laws with regard to the entering and clearing of vessels be strictly enforced against the sardine boats. (c)	That the present weir license fee of to he increased -to a minimum figure of $„0, with a maximum of $60. -(d) That no new weir licenses be granted. And whereas, this legislature is satisfied that the enactment of these recommendations would practically destroy the sardine herring fishery of Passamaquoddy bay, upon which the fishing and trade population of Charlotte county, it the province, largely depend, that until tu ample market has been secured for the produc' of this fishery to take the place of the market the fishermen of said county now enjoy in the United States, it would he unwise to impose an *exoort duty or take any action to disturb exWins conditions ; chat the only immediate effect of such a duty would be to divert the fishery and the profits of the same from New	3runswick and its people to the state^ of Maine mcl the fishermen of said state ; that in respect o the entering and clearing of boats engaged n the sardine carrying trade, this business ean-lot be successfully carried on if a strict inter-iretation of the customs laws in that regard he nsisted on ; that any increase in the weir icense fee would prove a burden which, owing 0	the erratic movements of the fish, would prevent many of the poorer fishermen from continuing their licenses, and that the non-issu-mce of new weir licenses would shut out many young men from the shore fisheries of the province and compel them to leave the country^ or resort to illegal fishing, and that the condition of the fisheries does not warrant any such restrictions	 , . Therefore he it resolved, that this legislatuie place on record its disapproval of the recommendation of the fishery commission above set forth, and respectfully urge upon the government of Canada that, under the conditions existing in the sardine fishery, the enactment of the said recommendation is not advisable, end that such enactment would be attended with incalculable injury to a large portion of the population of the county of Charlotte, one of the most important sections of the province of New Brunswick. \nd be it further resolved, that a copy of this resolution, signed by the clerk of this house, be forwarded to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and that a copy he likewise sent to the Secretary of State, with a request that the same be submitted to the Governor in Council. On this resolution Hon. Mr. Hill spoke as follows: I would like to add a few words to what is contained in the resolution but I do 1"'e"d to go into details, as my colleagues from Char lotte have a better knowledge of the facts than 1	have. I shall therefore confine myself to a general result of these recommendations 1- irst, as regards the export duty, it is expected that it will amount to three-quarters "£ * " pound, or seven dollars a hogshead. The aver age price of sardines delivered to the factory people at the weirs is four dollars and somo-times when they are plentiful it goes down as low as two dollars. That being fo. !t would destroy the sardine business m OhailO'.,e u this export duty should be 'mP°sed &That would also Injure St. John. All the weirs that have been erected for this fishery would become of To value. Tens of thousands of dollars have been expended on these weirs, and they would become useless, for the Dominion ma is not large enough to justify the erection of large sardine factories in Charlotte county. Then as regards the strict enforcement of customs regulations against sardine boats ine sardine is a fish that is easily injured and which keeps hut a short time so that to requi e these boats to report at the custom-house which might be miles away, ,^°"ldficiaU®?lue much delay as to impair or destroy their value. As these reports are made merely tor stausu cal purposes9 U ought to be sufficient if they renorted once a week. Few people have any idea of the extent of the sardine industry in Charlotte or of the amount of capital invested in it The fisheries of Charlotte have an annual value of about a million and a quarter dollars I,id probably one-half of this comes from the sardine fishery. This large business would be destroyed if either of these recommendations were carried out, and wre wmuld he driving away
[Stage Direction]
our young men to foreign lands. Already too many of our young men go away to better their condition and this would drive them out in larger numbers. St. John county is interested in this matter, and about two years ago a large number of sardines made their appearance in the harbour of St. John. Our fishermen followed them and although they were each fined *1° .by the St. John police magistrate for not taking out a license, it paid them well, for they took $25,000 worth of fish. All these boats took back from St. John large stocks of goods which they purchased there, so that their presence was not unwelcome. The islands of Charlotte contain as intelligent class of people as you can find anywhere. A people whom we can not afford to lose. They are a healthy and hardy race, and the day may come when the mother country may need their services for the navy. As Kipling says in one of his poems, * And you called on the younger people, the men who can ride and shoot.' We all know that the control ot the sea is what makes a world power, and ?v?e bundred of these hardy men are worth all the Russian Jews that have come into this country for years. As to the policy of imposing an export duty, the same thing has been proposed with reference to Manitoba wheat in the interest of the millers, that the people of Manitoba are not in favour of it. ,f,his law if enforced would cause a great deal of illegal fishing for to enforce a law you must have public sentiment behind you. But when regulations are obnoxious to the whole body of the people they are certain to be evaded, and illegal fishing could not be prevented. It would not be well to bring about such a state of affairs. These people feel that as their fathers settled on the rocky shores of these islands a century ago for the sake of the fishing, and built their homes there, it would be unjust for the government
,t;.hat they sha11 be forbidden to enter into the heritage of their fathers.
.rIr* ?artT said in bringing up this matter the day 1 dld 80 with the idea that it was a subject of grea); imoortanee, which affected all °/Ah.e P.rovince- I feel that all the members of this house should have an opportunity of considering this matter well, and I think there should be no opposition to this resolution. We do not wish to find fault with the
Sen onrSth°e c.omm*S3i;>n. but when we have [DOT] .ou lslands who are so much interested
havehlSbeenUSt,ry' lthink that one ofThem should reDor^nfQ placed on the commission. If the re.	commissioners should be acted on
ln the death o£ the weir Ashing. *	(it y proposed would be from 100 to
fish ro„m °Athe c,ost of the so that the foreemeit nf\he S°ld t0 advantaSe. The en-eauaHv nh?f J 6 cdst3ms regulations would be equally objectionable, for custom-houses ere only open during the day, and where fish are taken after four o'clock it before they.could be got to the factories. °The fish taken in Canadian waters belong to the same school as the fish taken in American waters, and the catch in the American weirs could not 1DC?alinS- I£ the Eastport canneries could buv flet tbeir flsh from Canadians they business^fro™ American fishermen. This peop^ and Itin TPloym3at to a great many fs one thit ^o'^38 every other industry. It with h	h 1 DOt be rashIy interfered
. Halt knows "well wbnf ilfl j._n .
Of because be is a large dealer In groS
Gilbert White Ganong: and sundries in the town of St. Andrews and is well aware just how valuable the proceeds of that industry are to the town in which he resides.
Mr. Osman also expressed his approval.
Mr. Clarke said : To one familiar with the sardine fishery the justice of this resolution must be very apparent, and I trust it will commend itself to the good sense of this house. The sardine fishery employs large numbers of people on the islands, and I have no doubt that from three to five thousand persons depend upon it for their means of livelihood. There is no other source from which these people can seek support. The evidence submitted to the commission gave absolutely no warrant for the recommendation made. The fishermen of Nova Scotia say that the catch of sardine interferes with the large herring fishery, but there was no evidence to support this statement. It is well known that schools of fish are very erratic in their movements, and the variation in the catch is due to this cause. The winter herring which were once very plentiful disappeared for fifteen years and then turned up again just about the time the commissioners were making on their report. The fisheries of Charlotte have not been injured by the sardine fisheries, and the catch is larger now than it was ten years ago. There is no large market for sardines in Canada; indeed the only large market is the hnited States. The imposition of these regulations would ruin the fisheries of Charlotte county, and the people of Charlotte almost to a man are opposed to them. There is no more reason for an export duty on sardines than there is to any other natural product of Canada.
unanfmonSs?y	theD PUt and carrieti
So that you will see. Sir, that there is a very large body in New Brunswick opposed to the findings of this Fishery Commission, and not the least the local 'legislature, from whose proceedings !I have quot-<ed. I think 'I have dealt probably suflici-jenny with the sardine business and now r want to take a shy at this lobster business, because, as I said before therebv hangs a tale. I turn to page 25 of the recommendations here and reading from clause 1, I find that the size limit in St. tMary s bay of course that is the particular place that is looked after by our friend from Uigby on the commission-and all the waters of Charlotte county is recommended to he lime inches. They recommend that the size limit of lobsters for the whole of the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary's bay he nine inches. There was some dissent. Mr. Bowers, being the only man who lias had experience in fishing, dissented. Colonel Tucker, who has been the friend of the lobster, as the hon. gentlemen from St John city and county know, dissented and with good reason. The evidence is absolutely given in this report of the increased output of lobsters in the county of St John where a ten and a half inch limit was imposed m place of a nine inch limit. What was the object of adopting a nine inch limit :	Simply that the factories could be
opened again. There are not enough ten and

a half inch lobsters to run the factories and if there were they are worth more as live lobsters than as canned lobsters. You cannot take lobsters into the United States less than ten and a half inches in length. The factories with a nine inch limit can get everything below ten and a half inches and in this way get a sufficient supply. The St. Mary's bay lobster catchers carry a great many of their lobsters over to the Grand Manan factories. They recommend in the first section of this report that the limit of St. Mary's bay and Charlotte county be nine inches. This report was not published before the election. But here, is the last clause and I will read it so that you may be able to see how it coincides with the first one :
Your commissioners would urge the advisability of raising the size limit in all the waters from Halifax west to the international boundary 'line

Including St. Mary's and the Bay of Fundy.
-to ten and a half inches so as to secure uniformity of size in all that district, with a view to the preservation of the lobster industry.
What is the recommendation for St. ''Mary's bay and the Bay of Fundiy ?- (Nine inches.


Mr. DANIEL.: Except St. John county.


Gilbert White Ganong: There is no exception made ; as far as this suggestion is concerned it is a recommendation. But, if you read the whole of the report here you will see that they stultify themselves, because there is no reason given for the first recommendation at all. I put an inquiry on the order paper on February Gth, 1905 as follows :
1.	What is the present legal limit of length for lobster that may be caught in the waters of the Bay of Fundy, between Point Lepreaux and the United States boundary ?
What was the answer ?
1.	9 inches.
2.	What was the legal limit of length of lobsters on October 1st, 1904, in these waters?
Answer :
101 inches.
3.	If any change in the limit has been made, on what date was the change made, and on what date were the local fishery officers in that district notified of said change ?
Answer :
October 24th, 1904.
Just before the elections. I need not read further. What was the reason given in a conversation that I had with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Pr6-fontaine) in the corridor before another gentleman who witnessed it ? I said to the minister during the session :	Do you suppose to allow a limit of nine inches as reported in Charlotte county waters ? He said : I will leave it to the commission. I would be a fool to take it out of the hands of the commission. Armstrong claims that if I made it nine inches he would beat you in the election. These are Rhe statements' which he made. It was not a private conversation, because there were other parties present. Well, was this report sent in ? No, the report had not got in. He was going to leave it to the commission. The report was not in when this change was made October 24th because, on November 2S, 1904, I had this letter from the minister :
November 28, 1904.
Dear Sir,-I have your letter of the 21st instant, remarking upon rumour in connection with the finding of the fisheries commission, which has recently been engaged in investigating conditions of the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy and contiguous waters, and in reply I may say that the commission has not yet submitted this report to me.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. PREFONTAINE.
G. W. GANONG, Esq., M.P.,
St. Stephen, N.B.
They had not submitted their report, but he had report enough in regard to the lobsters to change the limit. They became alarmed notwithstanding the assistance given by the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals- (Mr. Emmerson) and they telegraph to the minister that if they wanted to get any votes on the islands they must have a nine inch limit for lobsters. Why ? Because they wanted the Yankee canners to help them out in their election, the most important lobster canners being Yankees. They had a ten and a half inch limit previously, but as a result of the representations which were made telegrams signed by the minister, or by his orders, were carried all over the county of Charlotte stating how good the government were going to be to the lobster" fishermen there. It was simply a political move. There can be no question about that at all. No man can gainsay that. Then, let us have a look at the canners. _ I asked a question as to .who had applied for and received licenses to can lobsters. Here is the reply :
None were issued in 1904.
Why ? Because there was a ten and a half inch limit. In 1905, the following applied for licenses :
J. Ingersoll, E. A. Holmes, Connors Brothers, Burnham and Morrell, J. W. Wooster, Frank Macdonald, P. P. Russell, L. C. Guptill, D. 5. Gaskill.
And the following were granted :
3. J. Ingersoll, E. A. Holmes, Connors Brothers, Burnham & Morrell.
Well, that looks well enough to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. gentlemen in this House, but who are these people ? Burnham & Morrell have one of the biggest

canning factories in Portland, Maine. They are American citizens. Mr. B. A. Holmes is one of the largest sardine canners in Eastport and is an American citizen. Our own citizens are turned down while Yankees are granted licenses to can lobsters. I know at least three of these gentlemen that were turned down ; they had plants to do the business but they did not have the pull. The government wanted to use the American canners for their money and their influence to carry the election which was held there last year. Our genial friend Colonel Tucker is somewhat opposed to this, and although he signs the general report I read this concluding remark from his protest:
With all this accumulated evidence before you I trust that you will see your way clear to establish a ten and a half inch limit in the Bay of Fundy for lobsters, and thereby check the destruction of immature fish which has caused such a serious decline in recent years in this valuable industry.
Colonel Tucker bases, this statement largely upon the fact that a small lobster that produces eggs at all will not produce over 20,000 or 25,000 eggs, while a mature lobster will produce from 80,000 to 85,000 eggs. But outside of that there is the common sense view. If you were to capitalize the lobster business of the Bay of Fundy and put sensible men as directors to run it, how long do you think they would continue to sell, anything below ten and a half inch lobsters ? It would be considered absolutely folly to do so ; you would send them to a lunatic asylum if they did. We know that anything below ten and a half inches brings an average of three or four cents while a lobster above ten and a half inches-to which some grow ini one year and some in two years-will bring from eighteen to thirty-five cents, according to the statement of Colonel Tucker. Not only that, but because we are differently situated from Prince Edward Island the law perhaps would not be as satisfactory over there, for we are right within easy touch of the United States market where there is an absolutely unlimited demand for large lobsters of ten aud a half inches aud upwards. So far as this change to uiue inches is concerned, it is absolutelj ridiculous and as a matter of fact it re suits iu a great injury to the lobster industrj of Canada. Where are the lobster fishermen to-day ? They have their traps ready but they cannot tell but that the Minister of Marine may say to-morrow : shut up boys ; it is ten and a half inches. They only had the ten and a half inch regulation in Charlotte county for I think about two years at most when for political reasons the government shifted it to nine inches. When is it coming back to ten and a half inches? If the Yankee canners do not dominate the government I should not be surprised to see it come back to ten and a half inches inside of the next twelve months. The urgent cry just before Mr. GANOXG.
the elections was for a change, but the question not only interested the gentleman running in the county of Charlotte ; it interested the gentleman who ran for the county of Digby as well, and if somebody knew about this lobster limit, don't you think somebody knew about the recommendations in the sardine business also ? I think there were a few people travelling around the county of Digby who were saying : Oh, Copp is going to get at them ; they are going to put an export duty on sardines. And so the government did not dare to bring down the report of the commission until after the election, although I think the dodge was worked pretty well in Digby. It was not worked in the county of Charlotte for while the question came up as to the limit of lobsters there was no talk around Deer island and Campo-bello about the export duty on sardines ; they did not let the fishermen there know they would make this recommendation : which could force them to abandon their homes there and go to the United States iu order to get a living. It seems clear that the whole question is now up to the Minister of Marine and our friend the Minister of Customs, so far as the sardine industry is concerned. The people down there want to know what these ministers propose to do and they want to know at once. The fishing season is on down there to-day, and the people do not know the moment the steamer ' Constance ' is liable to come thei'e with a special officer on board and prevent them from taking the fish they have caught to be handled iu the factories in Eastport. If the government would take a little advice from me they will never waste money to print that report ; they will tear it into shreds. The idea of putting a report like that upon the archives of this country as a reference for the future is perpetrating an absolute insult on the fishermen of this country. If the government want to have a commission let them have a proper one and we will forgive them for the money they have wasted already ; at best it was only a little pap to these members of parliament and ex-members of parliament. Put men on a commission who have some expert knowledge ; men who know the conditions, and the conditions are peculiar as every oue knows who ever travelled around these tidal waters. Put men on the commission whose judgment is worth something, whose experience will tell them what it is best to do in the interest of the fishermen and let such men formulate a plan. Do not put men on a commission who will be influenced because of a coming election. Let these fishermen who toil by the sea have justice and right dealt out to them ; let them be treated fairly as the other citizens of this country are treated, and further I say, that we do not want any more of these rush orders to change regulations ; we want more stability so that the fishermen who have to prepare ahead will know from year to year what they may

633S
prepare for. Every man who builds a weir bits to invest his money in the purchase of material before the time comes for him to erect his weir, and if the government tells him no license will be issued then that man has his material a loss on his hands. Let the people know whether licenses are to be issued and the conditions on which they are to be issued ; let the fishermen know whether lobster traps are necessary for next year or not, and if they are necessary let the fishermen have a chance to prepare them. In my count}' there are at least 7,000 souls directly depending on the fishermen, and I am sure nearly as many more indirectly dependent on them, so that it is a matter of great moment as to what action is to be taken by these two ministers who have control of the business. I would not like to see our native born citizens driven out of Canada. The county of Charlotte is largely settled by United Empire Loyalists, men who love the old flag and love it well, and who are willing to stand by it, but they cannot sit down and see their families starve. They must follow business wherever business goes whether it be in the county of Charlotte or in the state of Maine. The movement to the United States has begun already and you cannot tell to what extent it will go. I have had letters within two weeks from a man who with his son left for Machiasport, Maine, they went from Grand Manan to enter into fishing on the American side and to catch sardines along that coast, because they anticipated that the government would carry out the recommendations of this commission. If these recommendations are carried out you can go among our island homes and you will find half of them closed up simply because the people cannot possibly obtain a living in Canada. It is up to the Minister of Marine and the Minister of Customs to say what they propose to do. To-day these fishermen have a club hanging over them by each of these ministers, not knowing from day to day what orders may come from the Department of Fisheries or the Department of Customs. These two ministers cannot take action too soon, and the people of this country, and the members of this House, and the constituents I have the honour to represent believe that the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Marine should take action to-day. I move the adjournment of the House.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Lost.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, is there no one amongst the ministers to make any reply at all to this ? Certainly the allegations that are made and the inconsistencies of the report of the commission itself demand some answer. To spend the country's money with the idea of having a well qualified commission to obtain information on the question and to give the government information upon which it may base an action, to the advantage of the
fisheries themselves, and then to appoint men nearly all of them without proper qualification for the special work for which they were appointed, demands an explanation. These men make recommendations which traverse each other, comparing their first recommendations with their concluding one. The recommendations themselves are traversed by men of knowledge and experience living amongst the very conditions which these gentlemen were investigating. The legislature of the province of Xew Brunswick, which has; jurisdiction over the counties very largely interested in these fisheries, unanimously passed a resolution not only deprecating, but voiding the recommendations that were made by the commissioners in at least two important points. A fact comes out late in the day- that not only do the two recommendations as to the length of lobsters that ought to be the legal limit, traverse each other, but that there has been some communication between the Fisheries Department and interested parties whereby in a certain season, and continuing up to the present time, and for reasons which I think can be easily seen on both sides of the House, the low limit for the lobster catch, which I think every discerning man, who has studied the question and understands the conditions and knows the history of the question, would consider to be a very damaging and bad limit, was actually allowed, and that the decimation of the industry went on under that low limit, against the recommendation of the whole commission and the view of men who understand the question, that ten and a half inches should be arranged as the lowest legal limit. It seems to me that when this is brought to the attention of the House, some of the members of the cabinet who have to do with these particular branches of administration ought to make some reply in the way of explanation, so as to mitigate the circumstances as they have been set forth to-day. My right lion, friend will say that the minister who has the particular charge of this matter is not in his seat ; but I have no doubt that it will be brought to his attention, so that he can make a defence and show what he is doing with reference to the department which he administers. But one thing is shown pretty clearly, that this making of commissions for the mere sake of giving jobs to certain people, has really gone far enough. We have had commissions under almost every government in Canada since confederation , but I think I am safe in saying that no government in the same number of yeais has appointed so many commissions and appointed them so badly as the present administration. To take a newspaper editor and several others such as have been taken and appoint them as a commission to examine into and give expert testimony and light and guidance with reference to our shore fisheries, I think, was going a long distance. The mysteries of the return and
<3339

haunts of the fish are enough to tax the most expert. It is very difficult to show certainty and definiteness with reference to the coming and going of these denizens of the seas ; it certainly taxes the intelligence of the very best men ; and it would seem to me that when commissions, are appointed, if they are meant to do any good, to really get at proper conclusions, so that the government and the country will be benefited by them, the greatest care should be taken to put the best of men upon them. My right lion, friend may say that he got good men ; but I think the country is quite of opinion that he could have got a great deal better men than he did get for the purpose for which they were appointed-a fishery commission involving so much not only in a financial way, but with reference to the whole future of our country so far as it depends on fish food.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not understand from my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) that he expected an immediate answer to the subject to which he has called the attention of the House. I rather understood from him that he wanted to make a general complaint, and then call for the information and advice of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I may say at once, in answer to something which he said himself, and which has just been repeated by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), that I do not think for my part that any fault can be found with the character of the commission which was entrusted with the important work to which this commission has given its attention ; and I think I am warranted in coming to that conclusion by the very remarks of my hon. friend from Charlotte. The commission was composed, if I remember rightly, of one of the technical officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and -so far as I have heard no exception taken to the appointment of that gentleman -Mr. Yenning I think a very competent man. Another member of the commission was Mr. Bowers, of Digby, who I believe has been engaged in the fishery business all his life. I do not think any exception was taken to him either and I think he is a very competent man. True, at one time he was engaged in politics ; but I do not think that should disqualify him for exercising the functions entrusted to him if he was otherwise competent. Exception has been taken to Mr. Armstrong because he was a journalist. We all know that journalists are bound to have a wide range of information, and I judge that a gentleman who is a journalist on the seacoast of Charlotte county, from the very nature of his calling obtains information which ought to make him a competent man for the business with which Mr. Armstrong was entrusted.
I am further warranted in saying that from the fact that the recommendations made by Mr. Armstrong have met with the ap-Mr. FOSTER.
proval of my hon. friend from Charlotte. Mr. Armstrong dissented from the majority of the commission, and judging from the remarks of my hon. friend from Charlotte, that was the best evidence that he knew the subject which he had been charged to inquire into. I might say of the late member for St. John, Colonel Tucker, that though he may not be an expert, when this commission was appointed we thought it well to have him and the hon. member for -Digby (Mr. iCopp) on it, inasmuch as their constituents were deeply interested in the matter and it was to be expected that these gentlemen would put some diligence into the work. There was no job given to anybody. Mr. Venning is in the employ of the department. Mr. Bowers was formerly a member of this parliament, and so I think was Mr. Armstrong. And as regards Colonel Tucker and the hon. member for Digby, they had no emoluments or remuneration and could have none. There-' fore the charge of the hon. member for [DOT]North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is absolutely without foundation. Coming to the crucial point, namely, the recommendations made by the commission, these are for the benefit of the government and parliament. I do not agree with my hon. friend from Charlotte that this report ought not to he printed. I think, on the contrary, there is a good deal of valuable information in it, but it is not surprising that the recommendations should not be unanimous or meet with everybodys approval. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) knows -that we have had this question before us during the last twenty years again and again and that the matters which this commission were investigating, with the single exception of the dog-fish, are old friends both to him and myself. The size of the lobsters we have had debated again and again during the past twenty years, and on that point opinions seem to vary according to geography, with regard to the proposal to put an export duty on fish, I would hesitate very much before agreeing to any such policy. At first blush I would not be disposed to agree to it; and unless there are very strong reasons in support of it, we should be very cautious about adopting it. There is another recommendation of the commission which has met with the approval of my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) and that is with regard to the disposal of the refuse in the canneries. That, I think, would commend itself to everybody. But if the recommendations of the commission are not to be accepted blindly, some good may still come from them. There is one thing as to which there is much controversy and that is the size of the lobsters. At what degree of maturity should they have been handed over to commerce ? Some suggest ten and a half inches and my hon. colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I see has allowed nine

inches. I am not competent to pronounce any judgment in the matter, but the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) will agree with me-for he has had the experience when he held office-that as soon as some restriction is imposed upon some parties, the government are assailed for having injured some particular interest. Then if the complaints are acceded to, the government are assailed on the other hand for having done an injustice to some rival interest. Should we have lobster canneries in the county of Charlotte or not ? I understood from my hon. friend that if we were to restore the regulation to ten and a half inches, we would send away from the county of Charlotte an industry now carried on there by American canneries, !and if we keep on the regulation of nine inches, these American canneries will remain with us and our people have the benefit of that industry. I do not kno'w that the government could have done better than appoint a commission ; even though the commission is not unanimous. The selection was not a bad one and the report, though not accepted in all particulars, may give valuable information.


Mr. STOCKTON.: X was not aware that my hon. friend from Charlotte intended bringing this question up to-day. This question was discussed when I was running my election. My constituency adjoins the county of Charlotte, and the difficulty with the fishermen in the city and county of St. John was why there should be a discrimination between the county of Charlotte and that constituency. I am not going into a discussion of the question to-day. I want to read that report carefully, but I am glad to hear the leader of the government say that he personally, as at present advised, is not in favour of putting an export duty on fresh fish going to the United 'States. Should that be done, it would destroy the fishery industry in the county of Charlotte and along the shores of the city and county <of iS>t. John. With respect to the lobster question, I know that there is some difference of opinion regarding the size of the lobsters to be caught-whether nine inch or ten inch or ten and a half All I ask is that the government before acting should seriously consider the situation and as soon as possible make known to the fishermen along the coast 'what the government intend to do. il am convinced that if the restrictions suggested in this report should [DOT]be carried out, we will lose a large section of the population of the county of 'Charlotte and along the shores of the city and county of St. John who are engaged in the fishery business. I do not know that this is a political question ; I hope not. Jt is a commercial question. It is a question as to what is in the best interest of the fish industry of the city and county of St. John and the county of Charlotte and to that extent of the whole Dominion. All I ask is that the right hon. gentleman and his government will seriously pause and consider before carrying out ail the recommendations in that report, and that whatever be done will be done within a reasonable limit so that those hardy men engaged in that industry may know what to expect and we may not lose any of them from our midst.
Hon. ft. LEMIEUX (Gaspe). I am not very familiar with the problems of our fisheries, yet, as the county of Gasp6, which I have the honour to represent, is deeply interested in these matters, I desire to say a word. I am strongly convinced that the remarks made by my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) with regard to the commission are too severe. I have followed the work of that commission during its sessions, and I must say that it has rendered valuable service not only to the fishermen of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the province of Quebec, hut to the Dominion at large. First of all, as to the composition of the commission, every one must admit that Mr. Venning, who is the moving spirit of the commission, is a gentleman whose name must carry weight in these matters. Mr. Yenning was not looking for a job, as the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said a moment ago. He was already one of the officers, one of the most worthy officers, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, a gentleman whose evidence has been given before international tribunals and whose opinion upon any great question of the fisheries is certainly very weighty. I know that Mr. Venning has followed that commission and has instructed it, and lias gathered most valuable evidence, perhaps, especially in the county I represent, the county of Gaspe. For instance, I am sure that the hon. members of Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) and St. John city and county (Mr. Stockton) are aware that the Magdalen islands, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence form one of the most favoured spots in this Dominion for the prosecution of the lobster fishery. Until the commission was appointed, there were difficulties there, not only as regards the size of lobsters to be taken but as regards the seasons for fishing. My hon. friend (Mr. Ganong) says that in certain counties the minimum size of lobsters allowed to be taken is 9 inches and in others It) or 10J inches. Well, as regards the season, it was contended on the part of the fishermen of Gaspe county that the season in the Magdalen islands should be extended because the lobster would appear in the waters of Pleasant bay about fifteen or twenty days after they bad appeared at Prince Edward Island. Well, it was a question for the commission to know at what time the season should begin and up to what time it should extend-a most important question. And it was complicated by another fact. As my bon. friend knows, in the Magdalen islands-and I speak of the Magdalen islands

because, as every one knows they ai'e a great centre of the lobster fishery, there being large and important canneries there, including those of a number of America! firms who have settled there and who carry on an immense trade not only w-itli Canada but with England and France-I say, in the Magdalen islands there is a series of lagoons.
' It is a remarkable fact that sand bars encircle the islands, so completely that at certain hours of the day you can drive around the islands. Between these sand bars and the islands there are what are called lagoons, and in these lagoons are spawning beds of the lobsters. In these lagoons-I suppose because of defect in the regulations on the subject-and event during the prohibited season, the fishermen would ply their trade, not only destroying uselessly immense numbers of lobsters but putting upon the market a very inferior product. When the commission was appointed I directed the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. PrSfontaine) to the importance of having the commission visit the Magdalen islands, and also St. Paul's island near Cape Breton, and study the special conditions of these places as affecting the lobster fishery. The commission visited these places and collected most important information. When my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Stockton) and my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Ganong) shall have read the report of the commissioners, especially the report of the investigation that took place at the Magdalen islands, I think they will agree with me that this commission has rendered great service not only to the fishermen of the martime provinces but to the fishing industry of this Dominion.
Another thing which was studied most particularly by this commission rvas the presence of the dog-fish in Canadian waters. As a representative of the county of Gaspe I have received not merely scores and hundreds, but, in all, probably two thousand letters from my electors within the last two years on this subject. I do not know whether the dog-fisli formerly frequented the shores of St. John county and Charlotte county, but it is only within the last two of three years that they have appeared in the waters bordering upon Gaspe. The dogfish destroys immense quantities of commercial fish, being the special enemy of the cod, and the cod fishery is the great industry of the Gaspe fishermen. As I say, I received many inquiries from my electors to know what the government could do to help them against this pest. We know .that in Australia the government authorities have paid bounties to secure the destruction of the rabbit and of other animals that menaced the success of the agriculturist. On the same principle, a system was proposed for the destruction of the dog-fish in Canadian waters. The commission have studied that question most carefully, and I am sure that when their report is published it will result Mr. L.EMIEUX.
in great advantage to the fishermen of this Dominion. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Frefontaine) has spoken to me about this matter many times since the commission reported, and he has under consideration a scheme which, I am sure, will receive the earnest support of both sides of this House and which when carried into effect, I believe will cause the disappearance of the dog-fish from our shores.
All this I say in order to defend the policy-followed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. That hon. gentleman is not in his place in the House this afternoon, for he is attending a most important meeting of the Harbour Commission in Montreal. If he were here I am sure he would corroborate the explanations I have just given. I am not able to speak of the personal qualifications of the other members of the commission. But I am sure I shall be upheld by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), when I say that the fact of Mr. Venning, the expert officer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, being connected with the commission is a guarantee of the earnest efforts which must have been made by the commission to promote the best interests of the Canadian fishing industry.


John Waterhouse Daniel: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: One word with respect to the question of uniformity. The original limit for lobsters in the Bay of Fundy was 9} inches. That limit prevailed until about a year and a-half ago, when, at the solicitation of the gentleman to whom my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Daniel) has referred, Mr. Tucker, who was 202



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
then representing the constituency of St. John, a change was made and an order was passed enlarging the limit on lobsters on the New Brunswick shore of the Bay of Fundy. That created a want of uniformity. It was' contended by the people of Grand Manan and St. Mary's bay, where the water is shallow, that if you were to enlarge the limit to 10} inches it would absolutely destroy their fishery, and at the solicitation of the member for St. John the limit was changed against the protest of the fishermen of the county of Charlotte. Their contention, and particularly that of those on the island of Grand Manan, was that as the waters contiguous to the shore of the county of Charlotte were of a shallow character, the smaller lobsters only came there and that a limit of 10} inches would destroy their fishery. Farther up the bay, along the shores of the county of St. John, where the water was deeper, that objection did not prevail, and they wished to be placed in the same category with the lobster fishermen of St. Mary's bay across the Bay of Fundy, on the Nova Scotia shore. Their representations were very loud, they were very persistent, and they continued to be so during the last session. They had delegations here, they made representations and sent memorials, and finally, before the fishing season opened last fall, the Charlotte county fisheries were separated from those of St. John and the limit was dropped to its original length-9} inches. That, of course, has caused a want of uniformity. The fishermen of Charlotte county did not ask to have the limit changed, the fishermen of Grand Manan were opposed to it, arid they said it was St. John influences which brought about the change. It was not agreeable to them, and they wanted it put hack to their original limit, pending the final determination of the question by the commission and this was done.
Motion (Mr. Ganong) to adjourn, negatived.

Henry Robert Emmerson: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would ask leave to' submit the report of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. The report is in two parts, a report of proceedings from February 1 to June 30, 1904 ; and part 2nd, a report of proceedings from July 1 to December 31, 1904.



PRIVATE BILLS.


Mr.  J. G.@: TURRIFF moved the third reading of Bill (No. 28) to incorporate the Northwest Telephone Company.


William Findlay Maclean: I thought we were to have a declaration from the hon. Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock)



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
in regard to this Bill. I have no objection to the Bill going through because therq are one or two good provisions in it, but probably these provisions will be embodied in a general Act.
Mr. TURRIFF.: I may say that I spoke to the hon. Postmaster General 'about this Bill. The Bill stood at his request some days ago, I spoke to him and he was quite agreeable that I should move the third reading of the Bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 152) for, the relief of Clara Bidwell McDermot.- Mr. Campbell.
On the preamble,
Mr. LANCASTER.: Mr. Chairman, before the preamble is carried, supplementing what I said on this matter on Friday evening, I think it is necessary that I should even at the risk of wearying the committee for ten or fifteten minutes, draw attention to the character of this legislation. It must not, be supposed from the want of interest that is taken in these Bills that they go through, the House as a matter of course because the Senate has passed on the evidence on which they are founded. The question of divorcing a wife from a husband or a husband from a wife, is a much more serious question than seems to be realized considering the rather slight amount of attention that was given by almost all the members of this House to this question on Friday! evening and I think, with all deference both to the committee and to the govern-, ment, that I should draw the attention of the committee for a moment or two to what I think is not generally recognized namely that a person who is asking for a divorce in any British country is asking for a privilege, is asking for something he is not entitled to as a matter of course, something that there is no rule of law or of civil conduct that he can ask enforcement of in order to secure what he is asking for. I propose to draw the attention of the committee and the government to the definition of this Act ofi ours as laid down in Gemmill's Work of, Divorce, which, in describing what a dii vorce is, emphasizes the distinction between it and another legislative Act. It is this : ,
A divorce is a legislative Act originating in the Senate, and when a man comes with a petition for a divorce Bill, he comes to solicit a privilege, a preference to one individual over another-an immunity from obligations which are binding on the general mass of the community, and he is bound to submit to such rules as the House in its wisdom thinks proper to lay down for the conduct of ail business brought before ft.
There is abundant authority given in the, foot-note for tlie principle which is here Mr. W. F, MACLEAN.
laid down. A person coming and asking] for a divorce must show something in the interest of the state, not in the interest ofl herself or of her husband only. We arq not the judges of the civil conduct of a tnaUj and his wife, but we are here legislating la the interest of the country and in the in-i terest of society. Although personally-and I do not wish to be misunderstood by thisi committee-I am opposed to divorces onj principle, yet, I recognize that under our, law and custom certain people are entitled! to a divorce under certain circumstances, but 1 say they must be extreme circumstances and the divorce must be granted on the principle that it is in the interest of the state and society generally. I think every hon. gentleman will agree with me that it is not in the interest of the state that divorces should be granted lightly, frivolously, for trifling reasons, or for anything but wliat must be! absolutely in the interest of the country. The Bill before us is brought by a woman who alleges that her husband was guilty] on the statutory grounds,-I do not wish to particularize in the House any more) than necessary-a number of years after, they had been married. The preamble of the Bill sets forth that these wrong Acts of his took place in the years 1901 and) 1903 and that these people had lived toi gether until the year 1889. We have to) ask ourselves what was the condition ofl these people at the date of his alleged wrong-doing. They were married in 1881, the woman being twenty-one years of age and the husband a couple of lyears older- not an unreasonable age for either of them, to be married at. They have three children living in this country. They lived at Port Perry. They lived together all right until 1889, and then they separate because the wife insisted on living with her parents and would not follow her husband to his own home. This was three years before she alleges any wrong-doing on the part of her husband. Let us ask ourselves at the threshold of this case :	Are we going always to divorce people because they happen to conclude that they would rather live separately and then after having lived separately a little while bring evidence, which,, perhaps, it may be necessary for me to discuss later on, of a most outrageous kind of some act upon which she may be entitled technically to have a divorce granted? It seems to me that this woman, as we say in the court of chancery, does not come into equity with perfectly clean hands. Her duty, when she married that man, was to stay by him as long as he was true and faithful to her. She preferred to disregard the obligation she took and she went to live with her father. The man waited for three years to see if she would change her opinion about that during which time there is no suggestion that he did anything wrong and after waiting three years, when she refused to leave her father and mother and

live with her lawful husband, although his brothers-in-law had endeavoured to prevail upon her to do so, he went west. She now produces evidence before the Senate, for what it is worth, that after all' that he committed adultery and she claims therefore that she is entitled to get a divorce from him.
I point this out because if this parliament is going to grant divorce for such causes, it may have the effect of leading the young men and young women who are growing-up, to think that there is nothing more sacred in the marriage tie than this woman seems to think ; that there is no more respect to be held between husband and wife than there would be between strangers where the marital relation may not exist. Should parliament allow this wouan to say:
I will not live with my husband although there is no legal reason why I should not.
I am the mother of three children of whom he is legally the father ; having lived for nine years in wedlock I prefer to live with mv parents rather than with my husband, and finding that he cannot induce me to live with him, when he goes away I will say that I am entitled to a divorce because he has deserted me and because after he deserted me he did some things he should not do. I do not want to be misunderstood; if he was guilty of what she alleges, even years after she refused to live with him, technically she is entitled to this divorce. But this woman does not seem to have treated her husband in the way she ought have treated him. She has no absolute right in this country to a divorce ; she comes here, she asks for a privilege, and it is for this parliament to say whether under the facts proved it would be in the interest of the state to grant a divorce. We must ask ourselves what would be the effect, as a precedent of our granting this divorce, upon the young people of this country. I point out that the evidence against this man is most unreliable ; it is the evidence of two acknowledged dissolute characters ; tiie evidence of two accomplices who lived by the very thing which they allege against this man and which he comes to Ottawa to denv upon oath. He did not employ counsel', I presume because he did not think he needed counsel. X do not wish to imply the idea, because I am a lawyer, that this man should have employed counsel, but I do say that if he had a counsel of five years experience in cross-examining witnesses it is quite evident that the testimony of those twro witnesses would be shattered. No lawyer can read that evidence without seeing sticking out all through it indications of a made-up story. These two dissolute characters give evdence as to this outrageous offence which most men would rather serve a term in the penitentiary than be found guilty of. X do not know if I am entitled to say that for all the men of this | country, but from my general knowledge
202 i
I think that would be a fair statement of the case. I think this House ought to say to the petitioner in this case : it may be unfortunate for you if this man is guilty, but you cannot get divorced as easily as you seem to think ; you cannot ask us to take the risk of doing a great wrong to the father of your children. The evidence given against this man is of two women who at the very outset of their evidence state that they have been living by the very worst sort of vice for several years. We are not governed in this House by what a judge might direct or what a jury might find, but I say it is common sense to believe that women who will acknowledge that they have lived for years by selling their virtue, will sell their oaths if they get enough dollars to do so. These women came from British Columbia and it is fair presumption from their evidence that they did sell their oaths. I do not want to discuss this evidence in detail, but I do ask that before the House should grant this divorce hon. gentlemen should have an opportunity of looking into this evidence and dissecting it ; and if the consideration of the Bill is not adjourned to enable them to do that then I would ask that they should vote against it. I think it will be found from the evidence that these two women came from British Columbia to prove a certain thing no matter how they might prove it. Their evidence is conflicting, the suspicious fact is there and one of the women places at the end of her story apparently as an afterthought, a declaration of the criminal conduct of herself, which from her knowledege she ought to have told at the very beginning. The evidence all through is full of inconsistencies and improbabilities, and it is further open to the very serious objection that it is the evidence of two of the worst kind of accomplices. Applying the principles of the criminal law no judge would allow a jury to convict on that evidence, but yet we are asked to convict on it in this House. We are asked to do something more serious than to try a man for a criminal offence, because we are asked to strike a blow at the whole fabric of society by granting a divorce oil evidence which is pot clear. I would like to quote to the House the words of Lord Penzance, a well known authority who in the House of Lords said :
It seems proper, however, to present what has been said opening a broader view. In a certain sense the public has an interest in every judicial controversy between Individual members of the community ; hence it is, that for example, if a witness commits perjury m a mere private suit, he is indictable, for it is an offence against the public. But in a higher and different sense the public is interested in the marriage in the individual members of the community. They constitute the foundation, not only of social order, but of society itself, and without them there would be no legitimate population to support the state in its coming future. Therefore, though unmarried persons

may contract the status of marriage when they mutually please, those who have assumed it cannot cast it off by mutual consent, as parties to an ordinary contract may annul its obligations. Hence, when an attempt is made, through the courts, to undo a marriage, the public becomes the party, not in the strict sense to oppose, but to see that it does not prevail without sufficient and lawful cause existing in the real facts of the case ; ' for ' in the words of a learned English judge, * society has an interest in the maintenance of marriage ties, which the collusion or negligence of the parties cannot impair.'
I will also give the language of the Hon. Mr. Scott in the Senate in 18S7. when he was the leader of the opposition in that House :
It is the duty of parliament to keep well within itself the power to dissolve the marriage tie. Canada will be all the better in the years to come if we hold to that principle soundly and wisely ; I trust, therefore, that the loose doctrines which are now being propagated as to foreign divorces will he no more advocated in this House. I am quite sure they are not in accord with the better spirit of the people of this country. I know that thsy are held In horror by nearly one-half of the people of Canada, whose opinions are entitled to respect. I know that in those ehurehes which do reluctantly accept the principle of divorce, and notably in the Episcopalian, the leading minds regard with dismay and terror the havoc that has been made in the social svstem in the neighbouring country where the permission to annul the marriage tie is so easily obtained.
I can give hon. gentlemen another authority from the Senate, that of the Hon. Senator Gowan, who said in the same debate :
Nay, more, parliament may and ought always to have in regard not merely the question as it affects the parties, but the effect in relation tc morals and good order-the effect which the passing of a particular law might have upon the well-being of the community. Parliament, as the supreme power, has its duties and responsibilities, and cannot compromise the wellbeing of society, but is bound to consider what would most tend to the public good.
| want hon. gentlemen, therefore, to carefully keep their minds upon this, that in passing this legislation, we must do it in the interest of the public. It is not simply a question whether we think Mr. McDermot or Mrs. McDermot will be as well off if we grant this divorce ; but the question is what the effect will be on the social condition of our country. If we grant this divorce, it should be because we think the Act of Parliament ought to be passed in the interest of the community. I do not know what position the government will take on this legislation. H do not want to embarrass the government upon it. I do not want to say that the government are responsible for it in any special or peculiar way. Of course, the government are generally responsible for all the legislation that goes through this House. If the government can convince this House that the evidence is not such as would entitle us to Mr. LANCASTER.
pass this Bill I 'will expect them to say so. if they do not, I suppose I shall have to go on and discuss it from my owu standpoint, and tell the House why I think that in all the circumstances this Bill ought not to pass.


Mr.   BRODEIJR@: The hon. gentleman has referred to the fact that the woman left the domicile of her husband without any, reason.
'Mr. LANCASTER. She insisted on living with her father and mother in the same town when her husband wished her to live with him.
Mr. BR'OD'EUB. Is there anything in the evidence to that effect ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I would like to know if Mrs. McDermot did not contradict him in that respect ?
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess,
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that this woman denied that she had deserted her husband. I do not see where she denied it. There is no such denial in the evidence.


Archibald Campbell: Read page 5.
'Mr. LANCASTER I do not see any denial there. It is not disputed that in 1881 they lived in a house furnished by the husband. Then at the request of her parents, as she says herself, she induced her husband to come and live with her at her parents house.


Archibald Campbell: She denied that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have not seen any words that would constitute a denial. She lived with her husband at her parents' house until 1889. Then there was a family jar between her parents and her husband and she sided with her parents and remained with them when her husband left. She refused to follow her husband to another house. Surely you would uot say that that was a desertion of the wife by the husband. The husband had a house for his wife and children. He had taken that house from a tenant in order that he and his family might occupy it, tout his wife refused to go with him and also kept the children. To grant a divorce to the wife, in the presence of these facts, would be to make a travesty, of the marriage vows and contract and be giving the young men and women of this country a very false idea of the duties and responsibilities they assume when they enter the marriage state. Let me put a, converse case. Suppose two profligate men go into a witness box and swear falsely that they had improper connections with

a most respectable married woman and suppose she comes down to this Senate and denies it


Mr. LEMIEUX.: If there were only that fact, but there are others.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is exactly the ease reversed. Is there anybody here who, would grant the husband a divorce ? In this case two women of bad character swear away the character of this man. Their story is not corroborated. The husband makes an admission ; but you cannot use one part of his admission and not the other. You must use the whole of it or none. 'He admits that he went to see these women, but he did so in order to collect money for goods they had bought from him. He swears that it was purely a matter of business and that he was not guilty of any improper offence. But supposing this woman had gone to live with her husband as she should have done, would there be any complaint to-day ? For three years he lived in Port Perry, in the same village with her, and she refused to go to him. There was nothing to justify her refusal. After three years he went west. In going west, he was not doing anything ' wrong, and the fact that he went Vest could not be called a desertion of his wife. I have no desire to condone any 'wrong doing that man may have committed in the west, if he did commit any, but I am not willing to hold him guilty on the evidence of two dissolute women, and I can see no justification for the wife's conduct. The man did go west, but it? was after his 'wife had deserted him in Ontario without 'any cause. I would urge the government to afford us some guidance with regard to this case. For as I have said, this cas'e establishes a precedent. -If we pass this Bill, divorce becomes only a matter of dollars and cents. Evidence such as that against this man can be bought and being the evidence' of people such as I can have described it probably can be bought for a very small amount of money. Surely if there were a case against this man some reputable and disinterested witnesses would be produced to testify to the facts. We must apply the same rule to all, and, if. in this case such evidence as this, absolutely unsupported, is to be a ground for divorce we set a most dangerous precedent affecting this very serious, this vital question of the marriage relation in Canada. 1 have already s-aid that the evidence of the man in this case is- not contradicted, I quote from page 2 of the wife's evidence :
Q. Then where did you go to live ?-A. With my father.
Q. Why?-A. Mr. McDermott wished it.
Q. That was in 1881 that you went to your father's ?-A. Yes.
Q. You continued to reside with your father how long ?-A. Until his death.
Q. Was there a Mr. Frederick Howard Annis present at your wedding?-A. Yes.
Q. When did your husband leave you?
These are the woman's counsel's own words, not hers. Such a leading question not have been allowed in court, but the Senate committee is not governed by the rules of a court, and so this counsel is allowed to put these words in his client's mouth. The evidence goes on :
Q. When did your husband leave you?-A. In 1889.
Q. Seven years after you went to live with your peopl-e ?-A. It would be hardly seven.
Q. Within a few months of seven years ?- A. Yes.
Then at the top of the next page she speaks of his chastising one of the children. So driven is she to find a cause for the divorce that she brings forward this case of the man having chastised one of his children as a reason for divorce. That isa new -proposition in this country that a man is to be divorced because he chastises one of his own children when he thinks it necessary, notwithstanding that the; criminal law is there to take care of him. if he chastises the child unduly.
Q. You have already told us that in 1889 your husband left you.
These are her counsel's words again, not her own.
Q. Where did he go to reside ?-A. He still continued to live in Port Perry.
Q. For how many years?-A. About three.
Why did not she go to live with him in Port Perry ? Where was her place when they were both living in the same town ? Was it not with her husband, the father of her children ? Then, lower down on the same page we find this evidence :
Q. Since 1892 how often have you seen your husband ?-A. Never.
Q. Since 1892 ?

A. Oh, once.
Q. Where did you see him ?- -A. In my own home.
Q. Do you remember about when?-A. I think it would be about 1899, but I am not sure. .
Q. That is the only time botween 1892 and the present time ?-A. Yes.
Q. How long did you see him then ?-A. Oh, for about twenty minutes.
Q. He did not then stay over night with you? -A. No.
Q. Who was present ?-A. My aunt.
Q. You only saw him about twenty minutes ? -A. Yes.
For some reason the counsel does not ask anything about the conversation that took place or what occurred. But the hus

band himself tells us, and the woman does not deny the truth of what he said. He explains that he went there to coax the woman to live with him ; and she refused and would give no reason. What are we coming to in this country if, under these circumstances, a divorce is to be granted ? How many of us are to know what the marriage tie means ? Now. the man did not stop at this one effort to induce his


Mr. BOYCE.: in an improper form, a leading question, tlie witness makes another charge as to improper relations with another person in that house-with herself. As if it were not sufficient to allege improper relations with only two people she must throw in herself and then as if this were not sufficient she further goes on and alleges improper rela-: tions by this man with the whole household. In ordinary cases juries would look upon that evidence with a great deal of suspicion as it is uncorroborated and unsubstantiated by any other evidence of a creditable nature and they would reject it' as againstt the positive evidence of the man that he was not guilty and explaining the circumstances under which he was in that house, il grant that some presumption is created by reason of the fact that this man fwent to a house of this' description at all and that the committee of the Senate, in the absence of an explanation as to the nature of his visit to the house, must come to the conclusion that his visits there were of an illegal nature for the simple reason that it is an illegal resort which is carried on in defiance of the law, and that the presumption must apply as against any one who visits such a place without ii satisfactory explanation of his conduct. But. the committee in reporting this Bill evidently lost sight of the fact that the knowledge and acquaintance of this man with these *women was gained in consequence of his business because they both swear, if reference be had to the evidence, that they met him first not at the bouse, hut they met him first at his store where they were doing business with him, and that in connection with his business, as he admitted in the evidence at the foot of page 8, under cross examination by the respondent himself, he *went to the House. Could there be any fuller explanation of his presence there to rebut any presumption which might arise from his visit ? .Surely not. It is admitted that these relations commenced in connection with his1 business down town and that liis business brought him to the house. Then, surely, that presumption is successfully negatived or explained. What more ? He explains that ou one occasion his visit was to proffer advice and see that a certain female received proper medical treatment. That is distinctly corroborated at the foot of page 8 by the same woman who admitted that he did go there for that purpose and that in consequence of his visit this woman was removed where she would receive proper medical treatment. From the top of page 9 down to the middle it will be seen that the .visits to the house, or at any rate the visit there spoken, of, was in the afternoon between the middle of the afternoon and six o'clock, and also on the lower
is positive of the general allegation that this man was guilty of misconduct with two specific people. This is a case for the exercise of extreme care, and I would submit to the committee this proposition, which I fancy would be a sound one to apply in a case of this ikind, that if there be 'evidence of this nature, largely substantiated by the direct testimony of witnesses of 'this character, it would not be too much for parliament to demand that before granting the relief asked for the evidence given by women of this class be corroborated by circumstantial evidence which is the safest evidence to rely upon. I mean this: The evidence of these women is brought directly in issue toy the man's explanation as to the occasion of his visit and his denial of misconduct when lie did visit the House. Surely these women could have obtained other evidence in regard to the visits at that house. Surely, if this man was such a notorious profligate and a frequenter of houses of that character, evidence of the fact would not be wanting. Again, Sir, surely, if these two women can upon their oaths specify, acts of legal infidelity committed by this man, specify these with particular women named whom they know, it would not be too much for the Senate committee to have demanded that one or both of these 'women be produced, and the committee should 'withhold its decision until they are produced in order that the allegation may be verified by the evidence of these women themselves.
But, it appears that the hon. gentlemen composing that committee never even asked a question as to where these women were, with whom this man was supposed to have committed this act of infidelity. That is of very grave import as varying at least the degree of credibility to be attached to that evidence. It will be observed that the principal witness not only admits that she is a grossly immoral character, but that she is also particeps eriminis in the same .act with this man. Therefore her evidence is to be suspected and criticised in the strongest possible manner. The evidence of the woman Clark, at page 7. must be looked at also with a critical eye because it undoubtedly shows a very, deplorable state of affairs. Her memory is faulty and vacillating with regard to circumstances. As to the evidence of these three women it must undoubtedly be gathered that there is not one ounce of satisfactory corroborative evidence, if there is an ounce of corroborative evidence at ail. There is no identification of the women with whom these acts of infidelity were com? miffed ; they are referred to simply bv their Christian names. Granted that the! keeper of a house carried on for grossly immoral purposes" swears to certain facts imwhat evidence She swears to the fact
part of the first: half of page 9 it will be seen that the woman is not at all positive
in regard to the 'date of the visits or in I locating those men. upc regard to the time of the year, although she does site do so?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: 6361 MAY 22, 1905 6362	
having admittedly no knowledge of the fact and she swears to that as a fact which could only be a presumption. Her evidence with regard to misconduct with the two women named is entirely hearsay and should not of itself be admitted except as circumstantial evidence. She swears to the fact and she admittedly presumes that fact; she presumes to give direct evidence of the misconduct itself, but investigation shows that the evidence is presumptive or circumstantial; she has no knowledge at all of. what she is talking about; in short she is a reckless witness. There is another circumstance which 1 desire to point out to the committee. The women had counsel before the Senate committee, the man was un-assited by counsel and he did as best ha could with his limited powers to cross-examine ; his idea apparently being to get a better explanation of the answers in the examination in chief. But, he elicited this fact, and it is of great importance and will be found at the foot of page 9 of the evi-i dence : Q. You received your subpoena from Mr. O'Brien ?-A. Yes. Q. Is he or is he not a friend of yours in a business way ?-A. Well, yes, in a business way. Q. Does he go around and stay at your house very often ? Question ruled out by the chairman. My hou. friend from Bineoln suggests: Why did they not let him answer that question. Here is the man who obtained the evidence ; here is the man who procured the witness; surely it would be pertinent to the inquiry to ask if that man also is par-, ticeps crimiuis. Further the evidence goes : Q. Did you sign a deposition or declaration to Mr. O'Brien prior to your coming down here? -A. Yes. Q. Were you sober when you signed that ? Question ruled out by the chairman. The point I am trying to make is that that women was not cross-examined ; her story was attacked; it was unsatisfactory in general and in detail; she was swearing, to facts of which she had no knowledge ; she admitted that prior to her coming down here to give evidence she had signed a declaration with regard to these same 'facts ; surely it would be proper and most desirable that that declaration should be pro-, dueed and compared with the evidence she was giving so that a test could be made as to her veracity. Then we come to the defence. There is no evidence by the wife except evidence tending to show minor details which are no grounds for the passage of this Bill. The evidence in support of the main charge is entirely uncorroborated and is in itself weak and vacillating and contradictory. Cross-examination directed along proper grounds was not allowed hearsay evidence with regard to the charges was admitted in more than one instance; the respondent was without conn-	;el and without the means to direct cross-i.xamiuatiou along lines which would have elicited possibly a very different state of facts. That is the evidence upon which the Senate recommended this Bill, and if there rad been no other evidence I say tbat it would have been positively unsafe to have reported any Bill for passage through the House upon such unsatisfactory evidence. But there was other evidence. There was evidence which gravely contradicted the evidence of the wife even in minor details as to non-support, desertion, and cruelty.. There was evidence expressly and positively denying the charges of misconduct, andj not only denying them but going further, and explaining them, because the direct denial would not be so strong as the denial of the fact coupled with an explanation of tbat fact. At the risk of wearying the committee I desire to refer to page 10, the evidence of the respondent who says : In reference to my poor wife's evidence I deny in toto. I deny emphatically either cruelty to my wife or children, or desertion, or want of maintenance, or cruelty in any way towards either my wife or children or any person living in the house. I deny that I ever chastised one of my children by either spanking or in any other way. The primary cause of my leaving mv mother-in-law's house was the fact that I was accused of stealing $5 out of a book which Mrs. Wi'lcox was reading which I saw' my father-in-law deliberately take and put in his pocket. I also swear positively that I maintained my wife and gave her everything she asked for for something like a year and a half after leaving my mother-in-law's house. When taking legal advice I was told by my lawyer to pay my wife no more moneys unless she consented to remove to her own house. ... I received this letter from-them threatening me with proceedings for alimony, and my reply was always that I was willing to support my wife, that the house was still vacant, and that as soon as she moved down with the children I would at once contribute everything necessary for their support. I remained, as near as I recollect, t wo and a half or three years in Port Perry. My wife still refused to move down to her own home. That was before there was any allegation of improper conduct upon wliicli nny relief could be granted In the shape of divorce ; and that evidence goes uncontradicted. The wife listens to it, and does not go into the box and deny it. At the time he offered to take her to her own home and provide for her, as it was his duty to do there was no ground on which she could apply for a severance of the matrimonial fie Again, on page 12 occurs the follou mg evidence with reference to a letter written with regard to alimony : By Mr. Armstrong, for petitioner : Q. We have no such letter or copy of it ?-A. If Mrs. McDermot has my letter she must have it. * When I got that letter from Mrs. McDermot I at once sent her money. I told her I was keeping store in Golden, and told her that everything she required for the children, wearing apparel. I would take great pains in selecting it. I Could buy it cheaper than she could in

Port Perry, and I would be pleased to send anything she asked for. In reply I got a letter back with a long list, something over $165 worth of dry goods, which I filled, and expressed them to Port Perry. I also sent the children a cheque a piece.
That is not denied by the woman ; and this absolutely negatives the allegations as to desertion, cruelty and non-support contained in her evidence-in-chief. Again, on the same page, he says :
I not only did that, but on the next order for goods, as I knew that my wife was a lady who was particularly neat in her appearance and so on-this first time she told me she did not require anything for herself, she was able to provide for herself, but simply wanted goods for the children, but in the same invoice I included several articles of apparel, silk, lace and silk dress for my wife and a quantity of underwear that would come handy, and also a note attached to the goods that in the future she would take everything for herself that I felt like sending. Every request from that day till the present has been complied with. Since that date I have sent a bicycle apiece, snowshoes, watches, each one a watch and chain, and my wife has at different times sent me up orders for goods in the spring of the year that she wished supplied, and I have always supplied them. I also in December, 1904-1 think that is correct-sent my wife two express orders for her own personal use of fifty each.
These allegations are not denied, and the man is taking the risk of his oath, of being convicted of perjury in a very simple manner, because he refers to express orders and express packages of which there is a record. The wife was sitting there and must have heard this evidence as to these remittances and consignments of necessaries ; but she does not say that she never received them and inferentially that he never sent them. Again, on page 13, there is not only the specific denial of the misconduct alleged against him by these women, but there is an explanation of the reason of each of the visits to their house. Now, Sir, these unfortunate women who occupy this class of house have to live, and tradesmen have to go there, to take orders, to deliver goods, and to collect the money in payment for those goods ; and if these people do not pay -and they have not the best credit in the world they have to be looked after, and messengers have to be sent to them. Is any presumption of misconduct to be drawn from the fact that a man in the course of his business does visit these places ? Is he to be branded as a criminal for all time because he does so in the course of bis business as a tradesman ? As is not denied, and as is admitted by the woman in charge of the house, he went there for the purpose of carrying on his business and collecting his debts collecting the money out of which in all probability be sent these remittances to his wife. Is that to be a presumption of guilt against the man, or will this committee require some more tangible or definite to convict him of the charges


Arthur Cyril Boyce: made against him ? When under cross-examination, at page 14, he does not abuse his wife. He speaks in the highest terms of her, and he further explains the occasions of the other visits to the woman Harron's house ; and in the whole course of the cross-examination by counsel for the petitioner it is to be observed that the man does not falter from the story he tells. He is subjected to a very close and analytical examination, and his story does not vary generally or in detail; it stands as a straight story, and he is entitled to belief at least as much as the women who acknowledge their own guilt and their own immoral method of livelihood. Granted, then, that his word is as good as theirs, there is no case, because the evidence in favour of innocence, plus the presumption, is greater than the evidence adduced to show guilt. But it is greater, stronger, more reliable, for this reason, that he is definite in regard to the circumstances, he does not vacillate with regard to his facts, and he is not caught, as the women were caught, making statements which are wholly in variance with facts, which they themselves subsequently narrated in the same evidence. There is, in short, the story upon which ibis woman seeks legislative interference to dissolve that which can only be dissolved under our law as it exists at present, by this parliament. My bon. friend from Lincoln has referred in detail to the principles which we must respect in dealing with these Bills. Sir, I must confess that to my mind it is not clear beyond a peradventure that this man was guilty of the charges brought against him, which alone can be the ground upon which this Bill should become law. The relief in a case of this kind is purely discretionary.
There is no right to legislation dissolving the marriage tie, even on specific proof of legal misconduct. It is an application to the state for a privilege to a particular person, it is privilege legislation, legislation in favour of a particular person ; and when we- are dealing with the dissolution of so sacred a tie as the marriage tie, we cannot hedge it about with too many safeguards. And although this Bill might have to be relegated to the committee of the Senate and its further consideration deferred for another session, that would be far better than to judge this man guilty, on the evidence -submitted, of the charges cited in the preamble of this Bill. If there be any doubt in the evidence, who should get the benefit ? All men desire to befriend a woman. That is an obligation laid upon their manhood, but when we come to the question of dissolving a marriage upon charges such as are recited in the preambles of this Bill, it should not matter whether the petitioner be the wife or the husband. We ought to apply the same rule in each case. Let it be established as a principle that this House will reject each and every application for a divorce where

the evidence falls short of proving clearly beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the respondent, whether man or woman. 1 submit that in the evidence sent down by the Senate there is gTave doubt, doubt so grave that a jury would not hesitate in giving the accused the benefit of it; and I think we might well, if we do uot reject the Bill, send it back to the Senate in order that the matter may be more thoroughly investigated along the lines I have pointed out that no injustice be done.


Mr. CARVELL.: One would suppose, from the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and Algoma (Mr. Boyce), that this Bill is an entirely novel proceeding and one that has never been brought before the House since confederation. As a matter of fact, however, these Bills for absolute divorce or dissolution of the vinsulum matrimonii have been granted from time to time since confederation ; and if we follow the English precedent we can go back as far as 1551 to find the oldest case on record in England in which the principle of divorce has been acted upon. And so long as persons bring themselves within certain recognized principles, it has been the custom of parliament, and in later years in England and in some portions of this Dominion it has been the power likewise of the courts, to grant these Bills of divorce. Every one knows that there are certain elementary principles which must govern in divorce cases and which must be complied with before divorces are granted. This is not simply, as has been stated in the House, an action between two. parties. It is an action in which a third party is interested. It is the duty of the state to see that no injustice is done, it is the duty of the state to protect society, but it is also its duty, when specific charges are proved, to mete out the same measure of justice to one party that is meted out to another. In the first place, the petitioner must come into court with clean hands. There must be no crime or guilt on his part. Has there been in this case the least attempt to prove any unbecoming conduct on the part of the petitioner ? We have the evidence before us. The witnesses were brought before the Senate committee. The respondent had every chance to bring witnesses, and to my mind what has stronger weight than anything else, we have the testimony of an hon. member of this House, who represents the riding in which the petitioner lives, and who says that no more virtuous woman lives in the province of Ontario. Therefore the first, and to my mind, one of the most important elements has been settled. The next important element is that there must, be no collusion between the parties. Surely no one will conclude that in this case there has been any. Then the next-question is whether the ordinary cause of divorce has been proven. The hon. gentlemen who have addressed this House asked us to go back to the principle adopted by the English parliament prior to 1857 and by the English courts to a very large extent since and that is to grant to the husband a right they will not grant the wife. I do not think that such was the intention of parliament. True these hon. gentlemen did not say so in terms, but I can draw no other inference from the arguments they advanced.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I said just the opposite.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I submit that it is a reasonable deduction to draw from the remarks of these hon. gentlemen that we should withhold from the woman the right we are willing to grant the man.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Not at all. Neither of us took that ground.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am glad my hon. friends say they took grounds quite the opposite. That removes one very grave doubt I possessed. But if they have any doubt about the principles to be followed in the Canadian House, all they need do is read the famous Tudor-Hartt case decided in 1888 and they will conclude that the English law has not been followed in Canada, and I hope never will. I know of no more mischievous and unfair legislation than to deny to the woman the right to a divorce which would be granted the husband.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That brings me to the question whether or not the charge made against this man has been proven. It is not a question whether the wife deserted her husband or whether he deserted her, because desertion, no matter how cruel or under what extraordinary circumstances, is not in Canada-and I hope never will be-a ground for divorce. I shall not go over all the nauseating evidence given before the Senate committee, but I do submit that according to the evidence, the case of the petitioner has been proven beyond doubt. We are told that we ought not to take the evidence of the two women brought from British Columbia. Why ? Because they are prostitutes forsooth.
Did the hon. gentlemen who are opposed to this Bill expect to find evidence of .this kind except in houses of prostitution ? Do you go to the drawing-rooms or the higher classes of society for such evidence ? Do you go to our churches or our schools for evidence of thisi kind ? If these hon. gentlemen had ever practised in the divorce courts or had had experience of this sort of legal matters elsewhere, they would know that you must go to these places to get this kind of evidence. And they would know that case after case in Canada has been decided within the last fifty years on evidence such as this. In the province of New Brunswick they have a divorce court. And I submit that it is as hard to

get a divorce before the courts of New Brunswick as before this parliament of Canada, if not harder. Nine months ago I listened to a ease in that court in which a divorce was granted and the only evidence given was brought from a house of ill-fame as in this case. The judge in that case-it is usual for the cases to be tried by a judge alone, though lie can have a jury under certain circumstances-had no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the case had been proved.
Mr. BOYCiE. Was there no corroborative evidence ?
Mr. iQAElVEIiL. There certainly was and it was just such evidence as we have in this case showing that this man had been seen frequenting these places. And you do not want better corroboration. You do not get direct evidence in these cases- and it is a good thing you do not. I would refer my hon. friends to a case showing the rule of evidence adopted in these matters. For, Sir, as I have said before, we do not get the direct evidence in these cases and are compelled to rely on circumstantial evidence. I do not believe there is one such case in twenty-five decided in this House or in the courts of this country, but the evidence is largely circumstantial. I would refer these hon. gentlemen to the diction of Lord Stowell in the Lovedon case case in the House of Lords, about the year 1832. I cite from Gemmill on Divorce, page 206 :
It is a fundamental rule that it is not necessary to prove the direct fact of adultery ; because if it were otherwise, there is not one case in a hundred in which the proof would be attainable. In every case almost, the fact is inferred from circumstances that lead to it by fair inference as a necessary conclusion.
INow, X will not refer to the evidence of these women at all. I think it highly im-piioper to refer to that evidence in this House and put it on ' Hansard.' I ask members of this committee to refer to that evidence of which each hon. member has received a copy. You have absolute evidence of this woman who is seeking a divorce, and you have it denied iu toto, almost in toto, by the defendent himself. But there is another important matter which we must 'consider, and that is that the members of this committee have not had the privilege which is granted in every other court 'I have ever heard of, namely Ithat those who are to decide as to the weight of evidence, must see the witnesses on the stand that they may watch their demeanour, and judge by their manner and *appearance Whether they are or are not worthy of credence. This House has not had that privilege. But in the Senate committee they have had that privilege. And [DOT]the members of that .committee and the many members of the Senate who have unanimously decided in favour of passing Mr. CARVELL.
this Bill are in an infinitely better position to decide upon this case than the members of this committee who have only the bald facts reported to them. These women tome and give their evidence. And because they are women of ill-repute their evidence, we are told ought not to be taken. J made it my- business to go to members of the 'Senate, and .they told me that these women gave their evidence with the utmost difidence, that it was almost impossible to drag that evidence out of them, and that it was evident .from their actions that they, were telling the truth, that they had been brought here against their will and were forced to give evidence. But we iu this House do not know anything about that. All we know is that these witnesses swore to these things, and that the defendant denied them. There is another important matter. If I lvad read tbe evidence of the husband alone and bad not read the evidence of the petitioner or the petitioner's witnesses, merely from the way the defendant gave his evidence, I would say that it was about as hard a piece of evidence to believe as I ever heard of. The man has double tbe assurance of those ha/rlots who have been held up in such an unfavourable light here to-night. Take the man's evidence as it stands and he denies his marriage, ddniesi that they lived together as husband and wife, denies that they bad three children. Probably this was not bis intention. But he specifically and categorically denies certain charges made against him by the wife in her examination, charges that are sworn to toy two other witnesses, ilt is impossible for Mm to deny that he was a frequent visitor at the house of the women Han-on and Clarke. He tells us that it was necessary to go there in the course of his business to sell goods to these women. Had he stopped there, he might have been entitled to credence. But he does not stop there. He says he went there to introduce commercial travellers. What for ? That they might also sell these women goods. And'he tells us in the next breath that he sold nearly, ail the silk goods sold in the town of Golden and that, these "women were the prim [DOT]eipal purchasers of these goods-. When a man makes his livelihood by selling good$ to womdn of this kind and then telis us that he took commercial travellers to sell goods in direct competition with himself and prevent liim from making a profit, the evidence is hard to believe. ,But that is his explanation of why he entered those houses of ilMame. That alone should toe enough 'to convince (any? honest man that this-witness is-I will not use as harsh a word as perjurer, but is not entitled to the credence which would deny this woman the right to divorce if this committee believe that in any case husband and wife should be divorced.
'Now. there lias been a good deal said

about whether or not this man deserted his wife, or whether his wife deserted him. As I said before, so far as the crucial point is concerned, it matters not to me which it Was. il think there will be a lot' of evidence found to show whether this man is worthy of belief or not. One thing is very certain-he only provided a home for his wife for about six months after he was married, and them because he could not provide a home or did not want to do so, they went to her father's house and remained there for five or six years, after which he left. A great deal was said about his not being able to get along with his father-in-law and mother-in-law, and he tries to make out that it was never his fault. But he gives Dire lie to his statement from beginning to end because he admits that in one month after he left his mother-in-law's house he made an arrangement by Which he gave his wife $12.50 a month and carried on this arrangement for a year. Is that consistent with the idea that he left because lie could not get along with his [DOT]wife's parents and was pleading with his wife to leave ? Why should he put her off with a pension of $12X0 a month ? If he wished to keep her with him would he not have given her everything he could ? But he gets rid of tier in the easiest way he can. He gives her $12.50 a month and says ; Take that, for it is all you will get. And this arrangement he continued for a year or fifteen months. He lives there in the same village for two years after this ; not one dollar of support does she get from him and finally after about three years he goes west and becomes, 'as he says himself, a Lothario. He admits it); not only admits it, but glories in it. He is what is described in the dictionaries as a gay deceiver, a libertine, a man w:tbout character, a man who glories in the fact that lie sets at defiance the laws of God as well as of man.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I do not know how it struck my hon. friend but I know I noticed the same expression in the evidence and it struck me that he did not understand the expression.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my hon. friend can point to anything in the evidence which shows- that he did not understand the expression. X have not been able to see it, The evidence is simply that the counsel for the petitioner asks :
You were rather a Lothario in the west ?
And he answers :
Yes.
That is all there is to it, and I would like to know bow on earth my hon. friend can read into this language the fact that he did not understand the expression. I do not think the respondent will thank him for saying there is anything on earth he does
not understand. If you read the evidence you will come to the conclusion that in his own mind he knows everything there is on this earth and a little of what is in the next world as well. We have this man on his own admission a gay deceiver, a libertine, a man who glories in it and who goes out there and is certainly a frequenter of these houses of ill-fame. He lives there for eight or ten years and there is not a particle of evidence that lie ever offered to contribute one dollar to his wife's support, until some two or three years ago when she wrote, and then he would not give a cent until she signed a statement that it was not to be taken as a precedent that he would not be liabaie for alimony. Then she sent a list of goods which she needed for her children. He tries to make a virtue of necessity by claiming that after proceedings had been started, not after the subpoenas had been issued, but after he knew that an attempt was to he made to bring the matter before the Senate of Canada, then he becomes magnanimous and then without being solicited he sends presents to the children and express orders to his wife and she returns them. If there is anything in this evidence for which I admire this woman, il is the fact that wthen the matter had gone to the extent it had she had the womanhood to return the money by which lie was trying to buy peace.
We now come down to the last matter which I propose to mention in reference to the question whether this woman or this man should be believed and it is this. We have the evidence of the man himself that he left this woman some five or six years after their marriage, in 1889, and that in all the sixteen years intervening he has not contributed more than $400 to her support ; he admits it himself. We have the evidence, as I said before, that he has led a wild, dissolute life in the west, that he has inhabited houses of ill-fame. 1 am taking his own admission, not the evidence of these women, and when his wife swore to the most abominable piece of evidence I ever listened to by a wife, which will be found at page 2 of the evidence, X say the man did not deny it. It seems almost too inhuman to he placed in print, it seems so bad that you can hardly believe that a man living in a Christian country would sink so low, to such a depth of degradation, that he would treat a woman as this woman was treated by him-and that at a time when he was professing to live with her as her husband. She swears at liage - .
I was in child-birth and I asked Mm to go for the doctor, and he refused positively and swore at me and said : damn it all why didn't I tell him before it was time to retire ?
I submit that has not been denied. In the first paragraph of his evidence he denied categorically the facts that he had thrown the children under the table, bent their fingers back and driven her out of the

house. He denied these charges, but he has not denied this charge.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What does my hon. friend say of the fact that the woman forgave him for that and lived with him for several years after ? Is that not an answer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not asking the committee to pass the Bill on that evidence. I am asking the committee to believe that this man is not worthy of belief, a man who is brutal enough to make a remark of that kind under those circumstances is not fit to be believed in any court in any Christain or civilized country, and that a man who is sufficiently mean to do that is one of the most despicable specimens of humanity that it has ever been my experience not only to meet but to read of. With this evidence I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the man has been proven guilty of adultery, and therefore, as I read the law, a divorce should be granted. But that raises another question. The hon. gentlemen who are opposing the passage of this Bill seem to be advocating something which so far as I have been able to read has never been advocated in this House since 1888 and I know not how long before that time. I may be in error but I have inquired from older members and I have been unable to find a single instance from 1888 when this House has ever questioned the finding of the Senate on this matter of divorce. Why has that rule been followed ? Simply because an agreement was made. In the first place they are following the custom of the House of Lords of England, a custom which prevailed in England from 1551 down to 1858 when these matters were handed over to the divorce court. Then in the old province of Canada these matters were taken up by the legislative council and after confederation was consummated these matters were taken into consideration by the Senate and have been ever since. Under the customs and rules of the Senate passed in 1888 and even before that, they have had the power, and have exercised that power, of (bringing before them the witnesses, the witnesses give their evidence viva voce as in all courts of law and the committee of the Senate who have listened to the witnesses, watched their demeanour, observed the manner in which they give their evidence, forming their conclusion more I say from watching the manner of the witnesses than the actual evidence, these Senate committees have been passing these questions and their decision has been taken as final by this House as far back as 1888.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why then do they ever come before this chamber ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Because under our present system of legislation it is necessary that a Bill be passed by both Houses of parliament.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If we are considering the evidence then I say we should be manly about it, I say that we should pass this Bill and give notice to the people of Canada that in future every divorce Bill is going to be contested in the House of Commons as well as in the Senate. Suppose this rule had existed in this case what would have been done ? These witnesses would have been brought before either the Private Bills Committee or a special select committee to give evidence, and members of this House would have had the privilege of going into that committee and listening to these people giving i their evidence. Members of this House would have been treated as a jury is treated in a court of law, and would have been in a position to decide upon this matter intelligently on the principles of their common sense and their judgment, and they would not have been compelled to take the evidence second-hand as we are compelled to do in this case. I submit that this parliament has never adopted that principle. Let us be fair and manly about it, let us give the people of the Dominion of Canada public notice of it and let us put people in such a position that they will not leave a case half tried when they have got through with the Senate. These witnesses I presume have gone back to British Columbia. We have no way of getting their testimony or finding out whether they have sworn the truth or not. We must simply take the evidence as it was produced before the Senate. It is not fair; this woman or her friends have been compelled to put up I suppose $500 or $1,000 in order to get this case in the position it is to-night, and now in an unfair and unusual manner, in a manner which I admit the House has a legal right to adopt but which has not been employed for fifteen years, it is attempted to hold up this Bill simply because we have not this evidence before us.
Another peculiar course was taken on Friday evening by the two learned gentlemen who have discussed this case here tonight. Then a different line of action was taken. On that occasion we were asked to submit this matter to the Minister of Justice. Think of it! When the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) asked the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) why he wanted to submit it to the Minister of Justice, he said that he wanted to get a legal decision ; and when asked what legal decision, he said that he wanted to know whether or not there was sufficient ground on which to grant this divorce.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) is making my speech for me.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Am I ? I will do my hon. friend the justice of reading from the record, which, I presume, he will not deny, and I will leave it to the committee to decide

whether or not I have properly quoted him. I read from the unrevised edition of ' Ham sard ' of Friday, May 19, at page 6511:
Mr. CAMPBELL,. Now I think that this is a childish, I think it is frivolous, the most frivolous argument ever advanced in this House for a man of the ability of the 'non. member for Lincoln, or the hon. member for Algoma, to seriously propose to refer this to the Minister of Justice for a judicial decision upon the legal point. What legal point is there about it ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The legal point is whether the evidence here is legally sufficient to warrant the stain of guilt that is sought to be put on this man.


Archibald Campbell: Who is to decide that ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that not a proper question for the law officers of the Crown to decide?
I ask is there a lawyer in this House who ever heard such a proposition as that ?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does my hon. friend deny that that would not be a proper course ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I most certainly deny that it is a proper course.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Well, then, my hon. friend is not acquainted with the rules of the Senate.


Mr. OAR YELL.: I will read rule * O ' of the Senate, and we will see what that rule says. I want to treat the hon. gentleman fairly, I want to give him all the evidence and the law I can on the question, and while I do not hope to convince the hon. gentleman, yet, Sir, I will try to make my own position tenable before the committee Rule 'O' is as follows :
Condonation, collusion or connivance between the parties is always a sufficient ground for rejecting a Bill of divorce, and shall be inquired into by the committee. And should the committee have reason to suspect collusion or connivance and deem it desirable that fuller inquiries should be made, the same shall be communicated to the Minister of Justice, that he may intervene and oppose the Bill should the interest of public justice in his opinion call for such intervention.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman contend that the House of Commons has not the same right to invoke that as the other chamber as to the necessity for passing this Act ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am willing to admit that it is only a fair inference that the House of Commons shall have the same right to invoke the opinion of the Minister of Justice on these points as the Senate, but when hon. gentlemen ask us to refer this question to the Minister of Justice in order to decide whether there has been condonation or collusion, I say away with such an idea. Where is the evidence of condonation ? I ask the hon. member for Lincoln and the hon. member for Algoma to point out where there is collusion in this case. They have talked about collusion between the wife and these women from British Columbia. They have even gone so far as to


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I think the hon. gentleman is going beyond the mark.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They have even gone so far as to talk of collusion between the wife and these women from British Columbia. That is not the meaning of collusion. Collusion, as it is used in that rule, and as it is understood in law, means an agreement or arrangement between the husband and wife by which a divorce might be brought about which otherwise would not be brought about. Where is the evidence of any legal collusion in this case ? What is there to submit to the Minister of Justice on the question of collusion ? Then, the next thing that is mentioned is connivance. Connivance in law means that if one party, husband or wife, intentionally places either one in a position that the statutory charge may be preferred against either, they are not entitled to any redress in this House or before a court of law. Where is the evidence of connivance ? Do they claim that because this woman, after being treated as she was, would not go with this man because he went off to British Columbia and associated with harlots, is responsible for his association with these women ? Do they claim that she drove him into these wrongful acts ? That is the only logical conclusion they can arrive at, that is the only way they can make out that there is any connivance ; and if there is any connivance, what do they want to submit to the Minister of Justice ? Do they want the Minister of Justice to tell them that this parliament has power to pass a divorce Bill ? Do they want the Minister of Justice to tell them, as a lawyer, that if they believe the evidence of these two women, they are justified in finding the charge proven, and -that the Bill should pass ? Or do they want to put this thing off in order to get rid of a vote upon the matter ? If so, I say they are giving us a childish pretext for asking the Minister of Justice to decide upon the whole case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is pretty hard on the Minister of Justice.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is pretty hard on the Minister of Justice; I thought so when I listened to it. I thought that surely these hon. gentlemen knew the law. I do not think the hon. member for Lincoln will plead guilty to ignorance of the _law and I am absolutely certain that the hon. member for Algoma will not plead ignorance of the law. There is no question about that. I wonder at them wanting the Minister of Justice to go over the evidence, to come down here and take the place of the jury, take the place which has been occupied by laymen since the time of Magna Charta, and to decide according to this evidence if this man is guilty or not. I have taken up much more time in discussing this case than I intended to, but I do submit that this parliament, in the first

place under the British North America Act, has power to grant this divorce. This parliament fifteen or twenty years ago adopted the principle of allowing the evidence to be presented before a Senate committee. The Senate committee and the Senate itself, after passing upon these cases, send them, dowm here and the recommendations of the Senate have invariably been concurred in. If this House is going to change that principle then I say the only proper thing for us to do is to pass this Bill. If we believe that this man is guilty of adultery, and I do not think there are half a dozen hon. gentlemen in this House who do not believe in their hearts that he is guilty of adultery, then I say we should pass this; Bill. If this House desires that a different principle should be followed in future let us adopt that principle, make it public and let everybody who wishes know the principle upon which these matters are going to be decided, let them give their evidence before the Senate, then bring their evidence over here, before a committee of this House and then we will be able to decide intelligently, but until that plain intimation is given to the people of this country, I submit that if this man is guilty of adultery; it is the bounden duty of this House to pass; this Bill and let this woman have her divorce. There is only one other observation that I desire to make. The hon. member for Lincoln undertook to play upon the sympathies and credibility of the members of this House by asking us if the case were reversed and two bad men attempted to. swear away the rights of an innocent wo-! man whether every man here would nof stand up and say :	We shall not believe',
such evidence, we shairnot give credence to it. But, he left out the important part ofi the argument. Let any woman come into this House and admit, as this man admits that she has been living with harlots for the last ten years of her life, let' any woman come into this House and admit that she has been living the life that he admits he has been living, and I ask. if there is a man In this committee, if there is a member of this parliament, if there is a legal gentleman or a Christian gentleman in Canada who would not say that this woman ought to be divorced and who would not grant a divorce without discussing it for two minutes. I say that there has been no case ma'de out against this woman, but that on the other hand there has been a strong and absolutely unanswerable case made out by the woman against the husband, and for that reason I contend the Bill should pass.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) has not referred to the main argument I made, namely : what is the interest of the country in this matter? Would the hon. gentleman tell me what good he thinks it would do the country to pass this Bill ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My answer is this: for the past 3<XI years it has been the settled policy of the parliament of Great Britain to grant divorce when adultery has been proved against the woman. In 1832, the parliament of Great Britain granted a divorce for the adultery of the husband, Tlie rule was laid down positively and absolutely by tliis House in tlie Tudor and Hart case in 1888 that adultery, unaccompanied by an unnatural crime is, as required in England, sufficient ground for divegee by the wife. If this House is convinced that the charge has been proven against the husband then it is our right beyond a question to grant the divorce, and I submit, following the practise, it is our duty to pass this Bill and grant this wife a divorce.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not yet quite understand from the hon. gentleman what good purpose is served in the country by encouraging divorce on such evidence as has been produced in this case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My only answer is this: if the hon. gentleman wishes to take the position which a large and influential body in Canada take, namely, that he is unalterably opposed to divorce, then I can understand bim.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am opposed to divorce except in extreme cases.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If he admits that divorce is proper in extreme cases, then as this is an extreme case, and on the ground of public policy he should support the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
On motion for the third reading of the Bill.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not wish to reiterate what I have already said, but I must say that I cannot for the life of me see how any good purpose can be served to the country by passing this Bill on such evidence as we have before us. I must protest against the third reading.


Mr.   D.@: I). McKENZIE. Speaking for myself, I want to he put on record as saving that I cannot vote for the principle that any man's rights or privileges should be put in jeoparady upon such evidence as has been given in this case. I do not think that such evidence would be recognized in any court, and I say that especially should it not be recognized by this House.
House divided on the motion for the third reading.
Alcorn,
Barker,
Barr,
Blain,
YEAS:
Messieurs.
McCarthy (Simcoe), McIntyre,
McKenzie i(Bruce), Martin (Queen's, P.E.I.).

Bland,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Brown,
Caldwell,
Campbell,
Carney,
Caryell,
Christie,
Clarke,
Emmerson,
Fielding,
Finlay,
Johnston (Lambton), Kennedy,
Maclean (York, S.), Maepherson,
Miller,
Mulock (Sir William), Reid (Grenville),
Reid (Restigouche), Roche (Halifax),
Ross (Yale-Cariboo), Stewart,
Talbot (Strathcona), Telford,
Tisdale,
Watson,
Wilson
(Lennox & Addington) Wilson (Russell), "Wright (Renfrew).-38.
Avery,
Bergeron,
Boyce,
Crawford,
Daniel, Henderson, Jackson (Selkirk)
NAYS:
Messieurs.
Lake,
Lancaster,
McKenzie
(Cape Breton, N.), McLennan,
Paterson,
Scott.-13.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 154) for the relief of George Dance Harper.-Mr. T. G. Johnston.
Mr. BERGERON.: I suppose there is no use of opposing the passing of this Bill after what we have seen on the other one. The evidence in this case shows a very extraordinary state of things. After reading it one must come to the conclusion that the plaintiff Harper is a fool and the respondent either an imbecile or a blackguard ; and to give a divorce on such evidence is making a farce of the House of Commons altogether.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed, on division.



RELIEF OF JANE MARIE FITZ-SIMONS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STEWART moved that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 130) for the relief of Jane Marie Fitz-Simons.-Mr. Calvert.	[DOT]
Mr. TAYLOR.: The evidence has not been distributed in this case.


Mr. STEWART.: The evidence was distributed amongst the members some weeks ago.


George Taylor: The Clerk of the House informs me that the evidence has not been distributed yet, so far as he has seen.


Robert Stewart: I think I ought to know. Although Mr. Calvert's name appears on the order paper as being responsible for the Bill, it was introduced by myself, and naturally I have followed it. The evidence was distributed among the members ; I received it and read it ; and the Bill passed the Private Bills Committee without any opposition.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIv. The very fact that the Bill has been before the Private Bills Committee, and has been dealt with by it is proof that the evidence has been before that committee. The committee could not have reported the Bill without having received the evidence. The invariable practice is for the Senate to transmit to the House for the convenience of our committee the evidence taken before the Senate committee.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am a member of the Private Bills Committee, I was present when this other case came before it, but I have never seen any evidence in this case. It certainly was not before the Private Bills Committee at any meeting at which I was present, and it is news to me that that committee has reported in favour of the Bill.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The record in the orders is plain, that it is reported without amendment.
Mi*. CAMPBELL. I was present at the Private Bills Committee the day on which this Bill passed. This and the McDermot Bill passed at the same time.


Robert Stewart: I may say that the only objection ever offered against the passage of this Bill was on technical or constitutional grounds. The marriage took place in the United States, and when the case first came up, a lawyer appeared and objected to it being dealt with on this ground, but offered no objection whatever to the evidence. I was present at the Private Bills Committee at the last meeting, when the Bill passed that Committee, and there was no objection whatever offered to its passing by the party most particularly interested in it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill considered in committee and reported.
Mr. STEWART moved the third reading of the Bill.
John Waterhouse Daniel: Before that motion is put I wish to enter my protest. I have not received the evidence and have no knowledge of the Bill having been considered by the Private Bills Committee, and I object to the Bill passing without the evidence being in the hands of the members. Not only myself but many other members say they have not seen the evidence.


Mr. FIELDING.: The evidence must have been received some time ago. My recollection is it was printed several weeks ago. Perhaps the hon. gentleman received it and has forgotten.


Mr. HENDERSON.: As the date of the report of the committee is the 17th of May, it could not possibly have been printed and distributed weeks ago.


William Stevens Fielding: The practice is when a Bill is received from the other House, the evidence is distributed. I am only speaking from recollection.

637?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I desire to place my protest on record on the same lines as the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel).


William Findlay Maclean: I would suggest that in order to avoid confusion in cases of this kind, some Initials ought to follow the Bill so as to show the evidence has been distributed. When a Bill is printed in both languages we put the initials ' E. and F.,' and there is no reason why we should not put the initials ' E. D.' to show that the evidence has been distributed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time, and passed.
Mr. STEWART moved that a message be sent to the Senate returning the evidence taken before the Standing Orders Committee, to which was referred Bill (No. 130) intituled an Act for the relief of Jane Marie Fitz-Slmons.
George Taylor: The hon. gentleman who has charge of the Bill, the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Stewart), said emphatically that the evidence had been distributed. My hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) asked him for a copy of the evidence and he sent a copy of the evidence of a former case. If it has been printed and distributed, he should send over a copy, and until that is done the motion should stand. I do not think Bills of this kind should be railroaded through without members knowing what they are voting on.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The Bill has been passed. This is a motion that a message be sent to the Senate to return to that House the evidence.


Robert Stewart: I may say that the evidence sent over to the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) just now was handed to me by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Caldwell), who had the evidence in both cases in his hand at the same time. The evidence is somewhere between him and the Speaker's desk and it was distributed weeks ago.


Mr. CALDWELL.: I thought that the evidence I sent over was the evidence in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMPBELL, moved that the order for the House to go into committee on Bill (No. 129) to amend an Act respecting certain patents of William A. Damen be discharged and the Bill referred back to the Private Bills committee for further consideration.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Further consideration in what respect ?


Archibald Campbell: The Minister of Agriculture said there were some amendments to be made which had been overlooked.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: 



FESSENDEN WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 144) to incorporate the Fessenden Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada.-Mr. Geof-frion.
On section 1,
William Findlay Maclean: I -would like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to explain whether the government have a policy in regard to this company, which is a company engaging in the business of telegraphic communication. We have a general Act applying to these companies I believe ; but it is a question whether there should not be some special provision to regulate the conduct of such companies as this. Or, if there is such a provision, I would like to be informed of it. We know what has happened in the case of the Bell Telephone Company. That company has become an immense monopoly requiring the attention of a parliamentai-y committee. And, while it has proved of great advantage to the people, it has also proved a monopoly. It is easier to regulate these companies at the start than later on. While I have no objection to this Bill going through this stage, I shall certainly expect a declaration from the government of their policy in regard to companies of this kind, and an explanation whether this company comes under any general law regulating such corporations.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This matter was very fully considered in the committee, and some amendments were offered to the Bill, providing that the company shall not establish signal stations or give effect to their object without permission of the Governor in Council. It was also announced to the committee by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Prefontaine) that it was liis intention to bring to the notice of the House an Act relating to wireless telegraphy such as had been passed in England. He produced to the committee a copy of that Act, and said that some action would be taken in Canada along the same lines. The Bill, as now amended, certainly safeguards every interest, including those of the government, which, as we all know, has taken some action in connection with wireless telegraphy. It is provided that no station shall be placed at any point where it will be against the public interest. All interests are conserved ; and I think that the Bill, as now amended, is entitled to the favourable consideration of the committee.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I may say to my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) that a new section, No. 20, has been added to the Bill, providing that:
The Electric Telegraph Companys' Act shall apply to the company.
The hon. gentleman will hear the amendments that have been made to the Bill, and

I think he will see that there is no objection to passing it. It is based upon the Marconi Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is copied from the Marconi Bill.
On section 8-general powers,


William Findlay Maclean: Does this wireless telegraph company intend also to telegraph by wire ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It was explained in the committee, and upon these explanations the clause was based, that in certain places, as, for instance, in the Yukon, the company would be obliged to use wires for certain distances. It may be a very short distance, but the company could not do it without power from the parliament of Canada.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Might I ask if section 8 is intended to give the company power to transmit messages by wireless telegraphy ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I have just been saying that for the carrying on of their work they need in some places wires between two points. It may be a very short distance but they could not do it without the authority of an Act of this parliament.
On section 12,
The company may enter into any arrangements with any government, corporation or person owning or controlling any line of telegraphic or telephonic communication, or any system of signalling, or any power or right to use communications of that nature, to use its lines or systems, or cables or telegraphic, telephonic or other means of communication, facilities or works, upon such terms and in such manner as the directors from time to time deem expedient.


Mr. BARKER.: What is the intention of the word ' government ' there ? Does It mean any foreign government, the government of the United States for example?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it would only mean any government within Canada.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That means local governments or the federal government.


Samuel Barker: I do not think it is defined.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Those were the reasons given in the committee, that this was intended to cover arrangements with local governments.	,


William Stevens Fielding: That is the intention, but is it limited to local governments?


Samuel Barker: That may be what was in the mind of the persons introducing this Bill, but I doubt whether it is the meaning of the Bill. ' Any government ' must have a pretty broad meaning it seems to me.


William Stevens Fielding: They could not do anything in Newfound and, for instance, with-2031
out getting the authority of the Newfoundland legislature.


Samuel Barker: If it were made subject to the approval of this government it might be all right. Why not make section 12 and those other sections which relate to governments read : * subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council ' ? Then there would be no objection to it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is said in some other clauses. I may say that this section is framed nearly word for word upon the Marconi Act.


William Stevens Fielding: How would it do to say 'any government in Canada' making the word * Canada ' apply to * government ' and not to ' corporation ' ? They might want to make a bargain with the Western Union Telegraph Company for instance which is a foreign corporation.


Samuel Barker: The difficulty as I see it is that if they had power under this to enter into an agreement with the United States government for example, the United States government might afterwards say that this government could not object because we had authorized it and the agreement must be borne whatever the contract was. It would get over the difficulty I think if it was provided ' subject to the approval of the Governor in Council'; then the government could always protect themselves. ,


William Stevens Fielding: I was not present in the committee when this matter was discussed, but I think the provisions as to stations were made subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. I am not sure if that applies to the agreements.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Clause 19 provides that section 195 of the Railway Act shall apply to this company.


William Stevens Fielding: What harm is there in saying 'any government in Canada'? I would make that suggestion to the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) if he is supporting the Bill.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not think that even if we put that here, we can bind any foreign government. I understood in the committee that it meant governments in Canada, either this one or the local governments.


William Stevens Fielding: You could not bind a foreign government but you could bind the company in any contract it might make with a foreign government.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This is the first I heard of any such idea ; it was not thought of in the Railways and Canals Committee at all. This clause I may repeat is framed on the line of the Marconi Act.


Samuel Barker: I am not objecting to it at all. I am only pointing out it may have a different meaning.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I have not been taking charge of the Bill, I am only supporting it to-night because the hon. gentleman who is in charge of it is not here, and I know the promoters are anxious it should pass as soon as possible.


William Stevens Fielding: If we say ' any government in Canada ' and the words ' corporation, firm or person ' follow it will imply that the corporations may be foreign because the limitation only applies to the first words. I think the purpose of the hon. member for Hamilton .(Mr. Barker) is reasonable, but would not the effect of my suggestion be that by limiting it to governments in Canada, the words ' in Canada ' not being applied to corporations it could make bargains with foreign corporations ?


Samuel Barker: Probably.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: JVhy change it in this Bill when the JIareoni Bill has a similar clause?


William Stevens Fielding: That is not a conclusive answer ; we are always learning.


Samuel Barker: I suggest we deal with all the clauses except those that have the word 'government' in and allow them to stand for the consideration of the Minister of Justice.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: All right.
On the question shall the Bill be reported:


Samuel Barker: I would suggest that sections II and 12 be held over. They both have the same expression, ' government ' and it! is quite possible that the Interpretation Act may define the word ' government ' for the purpose.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 11 has been adopted but it may be reconsidered if necessary.
'Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 137) respecting the Kingston, Smith's Falls and Ottawa Railway Company.-Mr. Galliber.
Bill (No. 145) respecting a Patent, Number 60772, of the Underwood Typewriter Company.-Jlr. Grant.
Bill (No. 146) respecting certain Patents of the Undeiwood Typewriter Company.- Jlr. Grant.


Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1. Has Lieutenant J. M. Miltimore, of the 13th Scottish Light Dragoons, obtained permission to attend the Cavalry School at Toronto ?


Mr. BERGERON.: 2.	If so, was his application sent through the proper channel, or was permission granted without going through the formality of applying through his commanding officer and the district officer commanding ?
3.	If he did apply through his commanding officer, was the application forwarded or returned ? If returned, for what reason ?
4.	If the application was returned as being incorrect, was a correct application sent in later, or did the officer in question then appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and obtain the required permission ?


Hon. Sir F RED ERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 1.	Yes.
2.	As it wate desirable that Lieutenant Militimore should qualify before going to camp in June next, special authority was given to the district officer commanding to send him for a course.
8 and 4. No official application in the matter reached headquarters.



ADJOURNMENT FOR MAY 24TH.

William Stevens Fielding: That when this House adjourns on Tuesday next, the 23rd instant, it stands adjourned till Thursday, the 25th.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[u'Before the Orders of the Day are Mr. SAM. HUGHES.\ncalled, I wish to place before the House an answer to an inquiry made yesterday by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in regard to a matter which appeared in the Winnipeg \' Tribune.\' I will read the memorandum as handed to me by Mr. Cote, an officer of the department;\nIn compliance with your verbal request, I have the honour to submit for your information the following report respecting the recent issue of scrip to half-breeds, authorized by Order in Council of the 13th August, 1904, as amended by Order in Council of the 17th December last, copies of which are attached hereto.\n.vthe 0rder in Council of the 2nd March, 1J00, authorizing an issue of scrip to half-breeds who were born in the Northwest Territories between the 16th July, 1870, and the end of the year 1885, the claims of such half-breeds were not prejudiced on account of their residence outside of the Northwest Territories, provided their parents had been permanent residents of the Northwest Territories at the time of their birth, but under clause 6 of the regulations subsequently established and approved by Order in Counciii of the 6th June, 1901 (copy herewith), half-breeds who had left Canada and taken up their residence on Indian reservations in the United States and participated in the benefits an hfe there\xb0D, as well as all half-breed children admitted to the United States Indian schools were excluded from participating in the grant of scrip.\nOn the 13th August, 1904, an Order in Council was passed, which was published for the fourth consecutive week in the \' Canada Gazette \' of the 5th November, 1904 (copy herewith), in which it was stated that it was quite clear, in the opinion of the minister, that such removal did not constitute any valid reason for the refusal to recognize property rights fully matured vested before such removal took place, and that this principle had been clearly and very properly laid down in former cases, where the right to scrip had been in question. Such Order in Council provided that the claims preferred before Mr. McKenna and excluded under the said clause 6, might he investigated by any officer or officers of the Department of the Interior, to be named by the Minister of the Intenor, and that such officer or officers should have m reference to such claims, all the authority formerly exercised by Mr. McKenna under the various Orders in Council relating to his duties or commission for the investigation of claims to half-breed scrip.\n.TJ1\xae undersiSned\' who was chairman of the ?\xb0\u2122m,ssion for the Saskatchewan ?\u2122ri3t. * n ,i900v,ana a ^01nt commissioner in d8\u201e8!,.w\'tI\' Mr Roger Goulet, to investigate half-breed claims, was nominated by Jon,. M,lm?ter of the Interior on the 3rd October 1904, to investigate the claims in question, and "if. following number of claims, in support of *which the usual evidence had previously been ""\xaea besf0re, Mr\' MoKennaP were accordingly reconsidered and disposed of as follows :\nClaims allowed\t 122\nDisallowance confirmed.. .. " "\nReserved for further evidence.\'.\t26\nThe following number of claims of persons whose names appeared on Mr. McKenna\'s list as having been rejected by him upon preliminary investigation on account of the claimants\'\nvr a v os 1 ctns\nresidence in the United States, and in support ot which evidence\twas\tsubsequently\tfiled\tin thedepartment, have\talso\tbeen investigated\t*Allowed\t\n14Disallowed\t\n"2Reserved for further evidence..\t..\t43\nIt will, therefore, be observed that the total number of claims investigated under the Order in Council of the 13th August, 1904, is 365, of which 126 were allowed, 170 disallowed and 69 reserved for further evidence.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Jlr. A. LAVERGNE.: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, as I see that the hon. member for Loudon (Mr. Hyman) has been sworn in as Minister of Public Works,
I would like to know if the hon. member for (South Y'ork (Jlr. JV. F. Jlaclean) has tendered bis resignation, as I do not see him in his seat I suppose that according to bis promise be has resigned his seat.
Jlr. TAY'LOR. The challenge was not accepted.


Mr. SAJI. HUGHES.: Jly hon. (friend (Mr. W. F Jlaclean) made the challenge on the condition that no tetter candidate could be got in London, but as the gentleman who is to be the Conservative candidate in London is going to have a walk over, it is not necessary for my bon. friend from South York to resign.


William Stevens Fielding: In the absence of the bon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) it is not fair to suggest that somebody else would be a better candidate than be would be.


Mr.   SAM@: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Immigration-further amount required for contingencies in Canadian, British and foreign

agencies and general expenses, including salaries of extra clerks at head office, $300,000.
[u'HUGHE\xae. Ob, yes, he is one o-f the best men in Canada.']
George Taylor: Will the Minister of the Interior please explain what this large sum is required for ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: This rote is asked to complete the immigration services for the year. The sum originally quoted was $672,276. The expenditures for several years have overrun the estimates. It is found impossible in practice to estimate closely the immigration expenditures from the fact that as the flow of immigration increases the expenses increase proportionately ; that is to Say the increase in expenses in one year is dependent upon the success of the operations of the preceding year. If the estimate for the coming year is based only on the estimate made for the present year the immigration efforts of the past year have been successful in securing an increased immigration. naturally the estimates for the current year fall short. That has occurred in this case to a serious degree. Besides, provision was not made in last year's estimates for the shortage of the previous year and this lias to be provided for as well as the increased expenditure, because of tbe increased immigration.


George Taylor: If tbe bon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) will turn up ' Hansard ' he will find that last year when Mr. Sifton was putting through his estimates he described a state of affairs quite different from that described by tlie present minister.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What would be the total cost for immigration last year ?


Frank Oliver: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Does that include salaries and everything ?


Frank Oliver: Everything.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I understand tbe minister to say that this is to provide for the increased immigration this year ?


Frank Oliver: Yes.
ill-. URIAH WILSON. This is a very large increase and there was also a large increase last year over the previous year. How many immigrants came in for the last *ten months ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot for the moment give the actual figures, but the estimate of the total immigration for the current fiscal year is : British immigrants, 67,548; French and Belgian, 2,572 ; other continental countries, 33.486 ; United States, 44,055 ; total, 148,261, as against 130,000 last year.


Uriah Wilson: I went to the trouble to send down to Mr. Scott tile other day for some information when I saw that this vote of $300,000 extra was asked for. I have the statement of Mr. Scott in my hand and it shows that the total immigration during the the ten months. July 1, 1904, to April 30, 1905, was : ocean ports, 67,808 ; United States, 31,969 ; total, 99,777. If we got the same average number of immigrants for the next two months there would he only 120,000 compared with 130,000 last year. The previous year we spent $744,788, which was a very large expenditure ; this year the main estimates contained an appropriation of $672,270 and now $300,000 is asked making $972,276, while according to this report the immigration will he less than last year. To have it as large as last year it would he necessary to get at least 30,000 immigrants in the next two months. It does seem to me that this increased expenditure is entirely unjustifiable, and unless the minister can give some better reason than he has given the item should not pass. Of course,-if the money has been spent we may have to pay it, but there should be some satisfactory reason given why we should spend nearly $1,000,000 a year on immigration when our immigration system is now so well established. Long before this government came to power we had our immigration agents in the United States and the policy was initiated. It is well known all over this continent and pretty well known irf Europe, that we have the best wheat producing field in the world, and that we are giving every immigrant 160 acres free of any charge except a fee of $10 for the patent. It does seem to me that this ought be sufficient inducement, and that in the future we ought not to increase our expenditure every year. When you get a business well established and in good running order that ought be sufficient without increasing your outlay. I quite understand the difficulty the minister is in, seeing he is not long in office, and that while out of office he was not much in sympathy with the manner in which the business was carried on. He is not responsible for the expenditure up to the present time, but some minister who has been in charge of the departments since Mr. Sifton retired ought to he able to give the committee a reason why this additional sum should be voted. I may say that I also asked Mr. Scott to give a statement of the expenditure up to the present time, but he does not seem to have been able to do so. He says :
Expenditure for immigration by Mr. Preston, July 1st, 1904, to February 28th, 1905 ; by Mr. Smith from March 31st, 1905 ; at Ottawa to May 16th, 1905 ; total, $6)21,206.38.
This does not tell how much has been spent altogether and I can see no good reason why there should be an unsettled account in the old country from February 28 to the present time. The minister ought be able to give us the expenditure in the old country, in the United States and in Canada up to date.


Frank Oliver: As I have said the increase is partly accounted for by increased ex-

penditure occasioned by the increased flow of immigrants, and partly by reason of part of tlie expenditure of last year being carried over to this year.


Uriah Wilson: Tell usi how much has been carried over.


Frank Oliver: I am making the general statement. I can give a particularised statement of the expenditure.


Uriah Wilson: I think it would be well to let this item stand until the hon. minister can get the full information. I would also like to know whether the department have largely increased their staff ? if they have, what was their reason for doing so, where it is increased, and what the duties of the additional officers are ?


Frank Oliver: Three new agencies have been opened in the United States-at Syracuse, New York ; at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Boston. There has also been an increase of effort in Great Britain. There has been no increase on the continent. I am able to give particulars of the disiposi-tion that has -been made of the vote in the main estimates, and also of the disposition proposed to be made of the amount asked for to-night, if the House would care to have them.


Uriah Wilson: We would like to have them.


Frank Oliver: The expenditures that have been made out of the sums voted last session for the year ending the 30tli of June, 1905, are as follows :-Contingencies in Canada generally, including salaries and expenses of Messrs. Hillyard, Heboe, Johnston, Charlebois, White, Ross and Ward, and expenses of Messrs. Smart, Scott, Speers, &c., .$8,850.69 ; contingencies and general expenses of United States agencies, including salaries of temporary agencies. $40,384.27; King's Printer's accounts, $1,531.72; telegrams, freight and express charges, $2,980.58 ; salaries of extra clerks, head office, $4,847.55; medical services and expenses, including salaries and expenses of doctors, not including detention hospital, $5,217.15 ; grants to detention hospitals at Halifax, Quebec and 'St. John, services, supplies, Sec., $7,643.16 ; grants to hospitals, $2,301.12 ; commissions on settlers from the United States, $3,399.25 ; seaport expenses, Halifax, St. John, Quebec and Montreal, $5,135.59 ; uniforms, seaport agencies, head office, $1,639.14 ; postage, $4,235.79 ; Quebec and Lake St. John Railway, $8,000 ; Quebec and Lake St. John Repatriation and Colonization Society, $3,000 ; La Soeiete de Repatriation et Colonization de Quebec, $1,200 ; Immigration Association of Western Canada, $2,500 ; Ottawa Valley Immigration Aid Society, $750 ; motor van, $1,250 ; miscellaneous expenses, $4,158.75.


Uriah Wilson: Who uses the automobile ?


Frank Oliver: That is for the purpose of bringing the exhibits of Canadian farm products into the agricultural parts of the old country, which it is difficult to reach by railway. It is an automobile of high horsepower, upon which is constructed a van containing specimens of the agricultural products of the west, and it is managed by two men, who run it from village to village and give exhibitions. Commissioner Smith's expenses, which are for the purpose of placing immigrants, as distinguished from the expenditure for inducing immigrants to come, amount to $86,873.54 ; contingencies and general expenses of agencies in (Jr eat Britain and Ireland and on the continent, $36,605.48 ; British bonuses, as estimated by Mr, Preston, $201.


Uriah Wilson: What is meant bv these ?


Frank Oliver: They are bonuses paid to the steamship agencies to induce them to direct immigration to Canada. The Women's National Immigration Society, $500 ; Girl's Home of Welcome, $500 ; tents for Barr colonists, balance of account. $18,900.


Uriah Wilson: Can the minister tell us what the tents cost altogether ?


Frank Oliver: About $32,000 altogether.


Samuel Hughes: Where were these tents obtained ?


Frank Oliver: From the Militia Department.


Mr. BARR.: Were they obtained by tender ?


Frank Oliver: They were taken over from the Militia Department.


Uriah Wilson: These were not new tents, and surely you do not pay full price for old tents almost useless.


Samuel Hughes: The Barr colonists claim that the tents were absolutely useless. What prices were paid ?


Frank Oliver: The price was about $25 each for Bell tents, about 12 feet in diameter. They had been in use by the Militia Department. The colony came out very early in the season, and it was absolutely necessary they should be provided with shelter in some way. It was impossible to procure such a large number of tents from any other source. It was a matter of urgency, the tents were procured and had to be paid for.


John Barr: Were they just tents that were abandoned by the Militia Department ?


Frank Oliver: They were tents in use by that department.


John Barr: Had the Militia Department to purchase new tents ?
Mr: OLIVER. Certainly. They were used by the Immigration Department, and those
still useful are available for us. Those not in use are stored in Winnipeg.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. gentleman really know how many of them are stored or what became of these tents V Let us have the whole story ? Let the minister himself find out what the tents cost and at what prices, what other firms would tender for the making of them, how many were used by the Barr colonists, and where they are now.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. gentleman requests that information, I must provide it. But I do not think it has any material bearing on the case. It was urgent that these people should be provided with shelter, and whether the price was high or low was a secondary consideration. The immigrants could not be left to suffer.


George Taylor: The government had in their possession all these tents and all they had to do was to borrow them from the Militia Department and they could be returned when no longer required. There was uo necessity why the immigrants should suffer so long as the government had a large quantity stored up and there was no need to replace them at a price far above what they could be purchased for at public tender.


Samuel Hughes: How many immigrants came out in that Barr colony ?
Mr. OLIVER As the Barr colony came out two years ago, I presume the information has already been before the House, but I can get it again if necessary.


Uriah Wilson: How many immigrants are now being detained at Montreal ? I understand that a large number are detained there and are to be deported. Has the minister any information about that ?


Frank Oliver: I have not heard about it but can get information.


Uriah Wilson: I suppose this money is about expended, and I would be willing to let this go through on the understanding that we will have a perfect right to discuss these things and have the oflicials of the Immigration Department appear before the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization. Comparatively little has been done before that committee this year for several reasons, and we ought to have an investigation before the main estimates are passed for the coming year. I know something of the history of the hon. minister in the past and his views with reference to immigration! and I trust we are entering upon a different era in that respect. I think that the amount we are spending this year, something like a million dollars, is altogether out of proportion to the work being done, and some two years ago the hon. minister was of the same opinion. Now that he occupies a position where he can control to a large extent this department, I
trust he will not call on us to spend nearly a million; dollars for immigration next year. Such an expenditure is altogether unnecessary. Our country is becoming tolerably well known, and while I would not be willing to abandon the field, I think our expenditure should be kept within reasonable bounds, more especially as our neighbours are not spending a dollar on immigration except for the purpose of keeping undesirable immigrants out of their country. I am afraid, from information I .have, that if we continue our course, we shall have in the near future to take similar precautions. We do not only require immigrants to be carefully examined on this side, but they ought to be examined before being allowed to go on board ship. From what I have read in the American press, the American vessels are frequently loaded with the best immigrants-those who would pass an examination-and the undesirable ones are put on board ship for Canada. That accounts for the few the Americans have to reject at their ports and for the large number they reject when	they come to
Canada." With this understanding I should be quite willing to let the item go through because I know we need the money ; but before the main estimates go through for the coming year, we ought to have a full investigation before the committee, and the minister should give us a full account of all he intends to do with the money as well as some explanation of what has passed.
Mi-. OLIVER. I shall be glad to do so. My desire is to give the House the fullest possible information. Aid I may say that the information in my hands is pretty full, but, of course, these questions can be discussed to better advantage before the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization than in the House. So, I can promise the hon. member (Mr. Uriah Wilson) that, what ever may 'be the result in the Committee of the Whole he certainly shall have the fullest opportunity before the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization to discuss all matters of policy and administiation m regard to immigration.


Uriah Wilson: It is matters of detail that we want in that committee, and the permanent officers of the department ought to be in better position to give these details than the minister. And we want these men before the committee.
Mi-. OLIVER. I will guarantee that they will furnish ail the details. I have many details here which I shall he glad to give.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHO0S. Has the minister a comparative statement showing the number of immigrants' coming in month by month this year and last year ?


Frank Oliver: I have the record of these coming year by year.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister the number comiaig in since the opening of navigation ?


Frank Oliver: No, I have not that information here. The hon. member for Lennox (Mr. Wilson) suggested that the number arriving in the first ten months of this year was not as large in proportion as the number arriving last year. The point I wished to make was that it is in ihe remaining months of the year that we expect the large immigration.


Uriah Wilson: What does the minister estimate the immigration to be from the 30th of April to the 30th of June ?


Frank Oliver: I think thait the figures that the hon. member (Mr. Uriah Wilson) lias and those that I have will enable us to arrive at it What do the figures he has show ?


Uriah Wilson: They show the number arriving up to 30th -April-ocean ports 66,880 ; United States, 31,969 ; total, 99,849.
Mr. -OLIVER. My estimate of the whole wtas 148,261.


Uriah Wilson: What I wanted was the estimate for the two months from 30th April to 30th June.


Frank Oliver: It' is 49,000.


Uriah Wilson: That is an enormous estimate, is it not ?


Frank Oliver: These are the months of large immigration. The immigration movement in winter, both from Europe and the United States, is small. I am not altogether familiar with the working of the department, but I am -satisfied that the great bulk of our immigration is in. the months of spring and early summer.


Uriah Wilson: I would like the minister to instruct his officers to give the number of immigrants for the last three weeks- that is, from April 30th to May 21st. Then, there will only be five or six weeks of the year to come and we should he able to form a better idea of the total immigration and' judge what the results of this increased expenditure has been.


John Barr: It seems to me we cannot impress upon the new minister too strongly the importance of being careful about the immigrants admitted to this country, for it is well known that the new comers may prove a curse rather than a blessing. We have to face the fact that the charitable institutions from one end of the Dominion to the other complain that a number of the immigrants brought into Canada have become a burden upon them. I can scarcely understand how it is that we have to deP irt such a large number if there is a careful medical examination made before the im-


Frank Oliver: migrants leave the ports whence -they come. Last year we had an immigration of 134,000 adults and 17,000 children under 12 years of age. We paid for medical ser-vince over $54,000. Yet, we find that a large number of these immigrants are suffering from diseases which it makes it necessary to deport them. ,So far as the instructions given by the minister are concerned, they seem to be very good, buit those instructions can hardly ibe carried out or the results would be better. It must be that many of the agents, anxious to swell the number work in m-any who are not desirable immigrants- for this country.


Mr.   BRAIN@: I understand that there has been for several weeks, a considerable number of immig. ants at Prescott, Ontario, who are seeking tl.eir way into the United States. Buit they are objected to by the United States officers. I would not expect tli-e minister to be -able to -answer questions on that point- alt once, but I will call his attention to it so that at a future sitting he may be able to make a statement with regard to these immigrants.


Frank Oliver: I will make a note of the matter and will inquire into it.


David Henderson: I understand the minister stated that a considerable amount of money was taken out of the estimate for the year 1904-5 to pay accounts carried over -from the year 1903-4.	1 have been
wondering if the minister was in error on that- point, for it seeps to me an extraordinary proceeding. Will the hon. minister inform me whether that is what he intended to say or not ? Was a portion of the estimate of the current year used to pay balances carried -over from the previous year, and, if so, how much ?


Frank Oliver: I am not able at the moment to give the amount

in fact it is rather difficult (to give. It- is, I believe, a fact that there Were accounts which, had they been properly put in and certified, and had the money been available, would have been paid out of the previous year's appropriation, but which were not paid until the current year. II do not know that that is a very extraordinary condition of affairs. I am afraid that this government or possibly every government does not square up its accounts at the end of each year. In fact I have very good -reason to believe that it is not the custom of governments to be so very prompt in the payment of their accounts as to do that, and therefore, I say that there have been payments made out of the sums voted for expenditures this year to pay accounts that -properly might very well have been paid the year before.


David Henderson: I regret very much to hear the minister say that it is becoming ithe practice of the government to use money voted for a special purpose and apply it to another purpose. I am beginning ' to wonder whether parliament has any control over the expenditure of this country or not. It seems to me that we go through a mere form in voting estimates. We vote money for a specific purpose and then the members of the government-because the minister tells us that this is getting to he the practice of the government-turn around and use the money we vote for a specific purpose, for another purpose for which parliament never intended it. I do not know how to characterize that kind of procedure ; it is certainly highly improper ; shall I say it is dishonest ? What right has any minister to take the money which this parliament votes for any specific purpose and apply it to another purpose ? What control have we over the expenditure of this country if this kind of practice is to be continued ? I warn the Minister of the Interior that such a thing had better not occur during his regime if I am in this House because I shall enter a very strong protest and I believe the country will endorse me in every statement I make with regard to that. If there is one thing more ' than another the country will demand it is that those who are at the head of the departments, shall use the money voted by parliament for the purposes for which it is voted and that they shall not apply it to any other purpose. Is it any wonder that our expenditure is going up by leaps and bounds ? We have no control over it. We voted a large sum for immigration in 1903-4, sufficient to meet all the purposes ; we voted first a large sum in the main estimates, and then the minister came down with a supplementary estimate for sufficient to meet everything up to the end of the year. That money was cheerfully voted by parliament. Where was the necessity for taking money out of the vote for next year ? What became of the balance ? What was the authority ? What became of the money ? Was it used for some private purpose ? Was it used for some purpose unknown to this parliament ? Certainly it was used improperly if it was not available. The minister confesses it was not available. He says it wajs necessary to take money from the vote of 1904-5 in order to meet the obligations of 1903-4. If that is the case, the minister has done something else with the money, applied it to some purpose for which parliament never intended it and this procedure certainly cannot go on. What becomes of all the safeguards that we have on the treasury of this country ? We read away back in 1875 that the Prime Minister of that day lay on the treasury with a gun ; he had to sleep on it. Would to God we had a man to-day that would lie on the treasury box and protect it.


Mr FIELDING.: Is it not enough that
they are sleeping on the treasury benches ?


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: You could not find it the other night.


David Henderson: The hon. member says that we do not know where to find it. I am rather afraid there is a good deal of the vote which the Minister of the Interior obtained in 1903 which is some place where neither the member for Cape Breton nor myself can locate it.


Alexander Johnston: I know.


David Henderson: The hon. member says he knows. He may have a share in it; I am not going to doubt his word, certainly he cannot give an explanation of it. The Minister of the Interior is unable to give an explanation because he told us plainly that a portion of the vote of 1904-5 had to be used to meet the expenditure of 1903-4 although that expenditure in 1903-4 was fully provided for in the main and sup-plementarv estimates. Therefore there should have been no demand made on the vote of 1904-5. I would like the Minister of the Interior to revise his statement and then when this comes before the committee again I hope that such an extraordinary condition of affairs as that which he has brought to the attention of the committtee to-night will not prevail. It is an expends ture of which I did not expect to hear, and if the Minister of the Interior never did anything more than what he has done tonight he will deserve a good deal from the people of this country for having exposed the manner in which the moneys of this country have been misappropriated in the past. I hope and trust the minister will take warning and that no such administration of the finances of this country will occur during his regime. Let me ask the minister another question. He is asking $300,000 of a supplementary estimate to meet the balance of the expenditure of the current year. I trust that is sufficient to pay everything up to the first of July. Is that the minister's intention ? That is the intention ' Now then, there should be nothing carried over, there shall be no balance carried over from 1904-u to 190o-6 because parliament when it votes the $300,000 will have voted enough to meet every expenditure in connection with immigration up to the end of the year 1904-5. How much of this $300,000 has been spent already ?


Mr OLIVER.: 
David Henderson: Perhaps I can relieve the minister. I am quite aware, that in the short time he has been in the department he has not had an opportunity ol tarn-

iliarizing himself -with the affairs of the department. We are prepared to make all allowances for that. May I ask if one half of this $300,000 has been spent ? Can he give an approximate estimate of the amount that has already been spent ?


Frank Oliver: The position is that the money has not been spent but of course expenditure has been incurred, that is a portion of the expenditure has been incurred. It would require, as my hon. friend must be very well aware, a very close accounting, to tell just how much expenditure has been incurred up to the present time, and certainly I do not know that it is necessary for the purpose of the House and I am not prepared to give the information at the moment.


David Henderson: I desire to say that it is absolutely necessary we should know because if a dollar of this $300,000 has been spent it has been spent without the authority of parliament and no minister of the Crown had the right to spend one dollar in that way. If I believed to-night that the government had spent a considerable portion of that $300,000 without the consent pailiament I would stay here to a very late hour to insist that the vote be reduced by the amount that has already been expended. I have warned the Minister of the Interior in bygone years-I think the lion.
gentleman will find it on record last year_
when we were asked to recoup the government $150,000 for money that had been spent by the minister without the consent of parliament.
I made the statement then that if the same thing occurred again, I would move that the item be struck out of the estimates. Ihat is the duty of the opposition to-night. If we could ascertain how much of this $300 * 000 has been expended, how much liability has been incurred on account of it, it is our duty as a loyal opposition to stay here and to insist that the item be reduced by that amount. We must insist that the government spend no money until they have received the approbation of parliament for so doing. It is all very well for a minister to sit in his place and because he is a minister of the Crown say that he is going to use the people's money like ducks and diakes spending it here and there for any purpose that he sees fit. He has not the right to spend one dollar of it until he has come down to parliament and obtained parliament's consent. It is parliament who shall say how much we shall spend on immigration; not the minister. If parliament says we shall only expend $700,000 a year on immigration, the minister has no right to expend $701,000 nor any amount of money over the $700,000. He has no right to incur any liability beyond te amount appropriated by parliament. He must make his calculation according to the amount of money that has been voted unless he comes


David Henderson: down and brings in a supplementary estimate. I apprehend that the hon. gentleman is asking for a supplementary vote not only to cover what is required for completing the expenses to be incurred from the present time until the first of July, but I fear very much that he is asking ifor that very large appropriation to cover something that has been already expended, expended without the approval of parliament, expended illegally, illegitimately, and may I say, if I can use a stronger word, expended fraudulently, because it is nothing less than that. Ministers have not the right to spend money without the consent of parliament. I hope that when he comes before the committee again the hon. minister will be able to give a complete statement of this matter and I trust that there will only be a very small portion of this $300,000 already expended. If it is only a small amount we may not complain so much about it. although we have the right to complan if there is $1,000. What I desire to impress upon the hon. minister at the commencement of his career is that he must not follow the course of his predecessors. We know that it was the practice of the previous minister, year after year, to spend the peoples money without regard to the wishes of parliament. We never can control expenditure i'f ministers of the Crown are going to expend money before we vote it and without the concurrence or approval of the peoples representatives and I am quite sure that the hon. Minister of the Interior at the inception of his career will desire to do his work as faithfully and as honestly as possible and that he desires to stand in good faith with the House. In order to do that I must insist that he will not presume to expend $1,000 on account of immigration or of any other branch of his department until the concurrence of parliament has been received.


Mr. SAM  HDUTIES@: I think the hon. Minister of the Interior is deserving of very great credit for the exposure he has made of the practices of the government in the past. I do not know whether the slap he took at the old ministers was mended or not, but I think it has given to the committee a good insight into the conduct of these hon. gentlemen. I believe it is now up to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) the leader of the House at the present time, to give some explanation of the conduct of the government in allowing these over expenditures to go on in the various departments of the government.


Frank Oliver: I wiish to give all the information that can be given to hon. gentlemen opposite and I certainly wish to have their good-will in the performance of such duties as have been laid upon me. I think that perhaps the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has been scarcely fair in the construction he has placed upon what

I have said. I would not say at all that he was inaccurate, but, as a matter of fact, any danger that he might apprehend of fraud or trespassing upon the public right in the matter of taking money that has no been voted is, I take it for granted, very efficiently guarded against by that watchdog of the treasury, the Auditor General. There is no danger of money being taken except under an appropriation as long as that gentleman remains in office and I presume as long as any successor, if he is charged with the same duty and placed in the same control, remains in office.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose the liability is incurred before it comes before the Auditor General and then suppose parliament should refuse to ratify any unwarranted action of the minister, where would the Auditor General he and where would the minister be ?


Frank Oliver: The amounts which were incurred in the previous year and which the government honestly owed were placed in the estimates for the current- year. They were not paid without 'being placed in the estimates. They have been placed in the estimates for the current year and are paid in due and legal course after parliament has voted the money. I mentioned the question of the tents supplied to the Barr colony as one of these cases. This was an account incurred two years ago and it is only being paid this year, but it is being paid, not outside of the authority of parliament, but with the authority of parliament and in due and legal form. Such is the case in regard to all these items.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. Why was the $18,000, which is only being paid this year for these tents, not paid last year ?


George Taylor: Or by Governor General's warrants.


Frank Oliver: Or by Governor General's warrants. The facts in regard to immigration are as I stated in the remarks I made in presenting the vote. When we undertake the work of inducing people to come to this country and to settle if our efforts are successful beyond the means we have provided we must either render that expenditure we have already made useless, or not provide at a critical time for immigration that has come, or we must provide for that immigration when it does come. There is no person who wishes well to the cause of immigration in this country who would say that in the case of these Bari- colonists they should have been le'ft to shiver and die on the prairie in the spring snow storms for the lack of tents until parliament had been asked to vote the money for these tents.


Samuel Hughes: Was not parliament in session ?


Frank Oliver: Our experience is that it sometimes takes a good while to get a vote from parliament, and a woman or child will freeze to death in one night. I do not think we could afford to take chances in such a case. So long as I occupy the position I do, I will have no hesitation in asking the House to condone the offience, if it is an offence, of providing for the urgent needs of immigrants if they should come here in numbers beyond the provision we have made for them. This is more than a question of dollars and cents ; it is a matter of life and death ; it will not wait. We cannot afford to wait, and I have no doubt that both the House and the country will sustain the minister who takes immediate action under such circumstances.


Frank Oliver: I am unable to answer that question at the present time, but if the hon. gentleman insists I will, of course, provide an answer. The point I make is that we are this year paying for an expenditure incurred two years ago and that it is being paid for not outside the authority of parliament, not by the authority of the minister, but by the authority of parliament.


Samuel Hughes: Has not the debt been incurred without the authority of parliament?


Frank Oliver: It has.


Samuel Hughes: This House was in ession when the Barr colonists came here nd when Mr. Barr was in Ottawa and pro-eeded to his colony. It was known for at >ast two months before Mr. Barr came that e was coming. Where was the foresight f this government that it did not get a ote of money to provide for these people, f provision was necessary ? There was 10 question of life or death about it. I vant the minister to find out from his de-lartment how many tents were used, how uany of these people were housed m tents, ind how -many have lived in these tents .
l_.1	find mit


Samuel Hughes: Very well, that is the point we are complaining of.


Frank Oliver: I want to say on that point further that I am not altogether ini' agreement with the position of the hon. member for Halton. That hon. gentleman1 has laid it down as a cardinal principle that not a dollar shall be taken even for immigration purposes without the authority of parliament.
doing so.


Mr OLIVER.: I will have the information supplied, in so far as it can be secured. That is a question of detail, but I am speaking of the general principle, that if we are to conduct an efficient immigration policy we must deal with the cases as they arise. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) used very strong language with regard to over-expenditure, but his language is

quite as applicable to tlie former Conservative government as to this government. As far back as 1892-3 the sum appropriated by parliament was not sufficient to meet the expenditure for several fiscal years. In that year and the two succeeding fiscal years the sum of $150,000 was voted. In 1892-3 the appropriation of $150,000 was. however, not sufficient to pay all the liabilities Incurred in that year, and the sum of $31,401.09 was carried forward and paid out of the next year's vote. During the fiscal year 1893-4 the sum of $149,998.80 was expended, practically wiping out the appropriation of $150,000, but there was not sufficient to pay all the liabilities contracted in that year, and it was necessary to carry over $81,874.20 to the following fiscal year; that sum was paid out of the vote of 1894-5. During 1894-5 the whole of the appropriation of $150,000 was expended, with the exception of a few. dollars, such expenditure including the $81,874.20 which was contracted in the previous year and had to be paid out of the vote for 1894-5. About this time the immigration business had practically ceased, and for the year 1895-0 only $84,915 was voted for general immigration expenses.


David Henderson: 
Frank Oliver: test.	Who has the right to say to
what extent the immigration policy of this country will he pursued ? Is it the minister of his own will ? What kind of a king is lie ? No minister has the right to set up his own individual opinion against the opinion of 214 men in the House of Commons. Surely the minister will concede that he was in error when he made his statement, and that in future he must in every case limit himself to the amount voted by parliament.
I trust that the minister will remember, when he comes to deal with immigration during the coming year, exactly how much money parliament has authorized him to expend for that purpose, and will carry on the service in accordance with that amount ; and that if he thinks he could bring in another 50,000 immigrants by means of the expenditure of $300,000 more, he will not expend that without the consent of parliament. No minister would be justified in pursuing any such policy. Pariiament has a right to control the government's immigration policy, and does control it by the amount of money it votes for that purpose. I want the minister for the coming year simply to cut his garment in accordance with'the amount of cloth this parliament provides him with-not to expend $1,000 more on immigration than parliament says ought to be spent-until such time, at any rate, as he comes down to parliament again and asks for a supplementary vote, not after he lias spent the money, but before fie has spent it. There is no doubt that this is the true constitutional spirit of spending public money. If ministers are going to spend money right and left, according to their own will, what is the use of parliament ? We might as well adopt the estimates as a whole and say nothing about them ; we might as well vote them in a lump sum. and go home, if that is-all the control parliament is going to have over the expenditure. I trust that the minister will start out in the coming year with a correct idea of what his duty and privileges are in this respect, and will not go back two years or five years to copy what some previous Minister of the Interior has done, and expect that the action of any previous minister will be accepted as a justification for him. I think we would not discharge our duty on this side of the House were we to permit a procedure of that kind to go on year after year without raising our voices against it. But I apprehend that after the expiration of another year we shall not be called on to speak so forcibly on this matter, because I believe the minister will realize what his duty is, and will give effect to that.
Mr. URIAH WIDSO'N. I would like the minister to bring down a statement of the over-expenditure for 1903-4 and the items for which the expenditure was incurred. The statement given to me of Mr. Preston's expenditure only extended to the 28th of February, 1905.

I would like to know liow lie gets Ins money-what authority he has for drawing it, and how he handles the tinancial part of his business in England ?


Frank Oliver: I cannot give that just now. I will bring it down.


Mr. AMES.: There is one phase of this question upon which I desire some information from the hon. Minister of the Interior. I would like to know whether at the present time any efforts are being made, either by advertisement, literature or otherwise, to induce immigrants to come from the southern portions of Europe to this country ? We all feel that we cannot have too many immigrants of a desirable class, and yet that it is very easy for us to have too many of an undesirable class. I quote from the * Daily Telegraph ' of Quebec of Friday the following :
is no intention to encourage the coming of people from the continent of Europe who are not agriculturists as well as desirable from a physical point of view. The fact that stringent medical examinations are made and that so many are deported, who are found to be suffering from disease, is evidence of the intention of the department. I presume that the reason there have been so many cases of diseased immigrants during recent months is that probably the same attention was not paid in past years, but when it is thoroughly known that this strict supervision is exercised we will have fewer instances of diseased people coming to the country.


George Taylor: The same complaint has been made the last two or three years ?


Samuel Hughes: Are these shipped back and dumped in Scotland ?
The Donaldson liner steamship ' Athenian1 arrived in port yesterday afternoon from Glasgow. She had on board fifty foreigners who will be deported- on instructions from the government officials. On arrival at Quebec the vessel was inspected, and it was found that a large number of the steerage passengers were afflicted with trachoma. A number of those slightly attacked were taken to the house of detention at Quebec for treatment, while the remainder came on to Montreal. Dr. Laberge, city health officer, and a number of his men met the boat on its arrival, and after his inspection he refused to allow any of the affected ones to come ashore.
This is only one instance. We are constantly receiving a class of immigrants who are affected with loathsome diseases, and we wish to know whether any of the money of the Dominion is being expended to attract this undesirable class ?


Frank Oliver: The department is not expending any money and keeps no agencies in any part of the continent of Europe except in France and Belgium'. There are two or three agents in France and one in Belgium. They have, however, an arrangement with a steamship organization which operates, not from a southern port, but from Hamburg.


Herbert Brown Ames: 
Herbert Brown Ames: While admitting the desirability of securing agricultural immigrants,
I do not think the fact that a man is an agriculturist is necessarily proof that he .is desirable. It seems to me that the experience of the department should have shown it that there are some sections Irom which it is not desirable to bring immigrants, and the Hamburg company should he prevented from exploiting those portions of the continent. WThen people are found to be suffering from a loathsome disease, which is proof that they are of filthy habits, the department should notify the steamship company that we do not wish any efforts made to recruit grants from certain parts of Europe. Experience shows plainly where these people come from, and the steamship companies should be warned not to recruit people from those sections.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister says that the immigrants from the continent are to be taken from the farms, does that apply to the British Islands also ? Because a number of our best farmers in the Northwest to-day were not brought up in the rural districts. I know of one who came out from London and who never saw the green country until he left England. He was a pastry cook at home and ne is now one of the best farmers m Manitoba. One of the best farmers m the Prince Albert district used to be a watch-maker m Paris. Another was a clerk m a shop in Paris. The trouble with these continental farmers is that they have to unlearn a lot and you have to instill into them the Northwest system of farming. What you want is men of energy, with a clean heart and person and free from disease, and I care not whether men of that kind come from

the city or the country, they will make a success.


Mr. HERRON.: We are getting a large portion of our immigration from some countries of Europe which do not furnish us with desirable settlers. iCan it be possible that the government have no supervision over immigrants before they leave their native country ? There is a general impression where I live that we have not been getting the right class of immigrants into the Northwest. A large percentage of the immigration is not of a desirable class, and our people would rather do without settlers than have settlements of that kind. Such people cost the country a lot of money not only to bring them here, but to assist them from time to time after they get here


George Taylor: Now that we have got all the information the minister has been able to give us, we might allow the item to pass on the understanding that on the main estimates the information asked for to-night will be brought down and full explanation given.


Frank Oliver: I have had all the questions noted down and will be able to give the House the information asked for when the main estimates are up.
Some resolutions reported.


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


George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: Unless there be some arrangement to proceed with the Autonomy Rill we shall take up the estimates; we will continue at the point where we leave off to-night, and the Minister of -the Interior will have his estimates up for consideration.


Samuel Hughes: You have not withdrawn the Autonomy Bill, then ?


William Stevens Fielding: Tuesday, May 23, 1905. o'clock SPBAKER took the Chair at Three



Frank Oliver: 

SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Dominion Lands-chargeable to capital further amount appropriation for surveys, examination of surveys, returns printing of plans, &c, $40,000.
['We will proceed in Committee of -Supply with the estimates of the Minister of Militia, and later we will resume the estimates of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.']
George Eulas Foster: How much was the original estimate 7


Frank Oliver: It was $750,000 for the year 1904-5.
Re Delivery of Scrip.
It has always been an invariable rule of the department to refuse to recognize assignments or powers of attorney as authority for the delivery of half-breed land scrip, and the regulations already referred to of the 6th June, 1901, specifically provided ' that in cases in which a half-breed asks for land scrip, the commissioner has no authority to accept or act upon any assignment or power of attorney.'
It has also been the practice where the scrip certificate was not delivered to the claimant personally by the commissioner, to send his scrip by registered mail to his own address in care of any person designated therein, upon a written request being filed in the department over the claimant's own signature, attested by two witnesses, who must certify as to the identification of the claim, and one of the witnesses must also make an affidavit as to the execution of such order. The scrip, which was issued in satisfaction of the claims referred to, was forwarded on orders which were prepared in the manner above indicated.
Re Location of the Scrip Issued under the Order in Council of 13th August, 1904.
By departmental letter of the 10th March last, addressed to all agents of Dominion lands, the agents were advised that it had been decided to allow scrip, granted the half-breed residents of the United States under the said Order in Council of the 13th August, 1904, to be located in the name of the grantee thereof by the holder of such scrip without requiring the grantee to appear personally at the land agency to make his entry. It was also pointed out that the applicant for location should make the application over his own signature on behalf of the person named on the scrip note, and in all respects comply with the rules and regulations governing the location of half-breed land scrip, and that, as heretofore, assignments of these locations executetd by the half-breeds prior to the date on which the land was entered for in the manner above indicated, would not be recognized by the department.



Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to cal] the attention of the House to a few remarks I made last night when the House was in committee on a divorce Bill. When I spoke I had in mind another case which happened a long time ago, and my remarks had no application to the Bill which was under discussion. I say this as a matter of justice to the parties concerned in the present case. If I voted as I did, it was on account of another case.


George Eulas Foster: For what is this additional estimate required ?


Frank Oliver: The reason for the additional sum being asked, is that the estimate provided for the subdivision of 400 townships, but, as a matter of fact, 525 townships have been subdivided.


George Eulas Foster: This increase is to cover that proportional increase in the number of townships nothing else 7


Frank Oliver: Nothing else.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: So much per township 7


Frank Oliver: Yes, $950 each.


David Henderson: In what part of the territory was the additional work done 7 Was it in the section where settlement is rapidly going in, or away up in Athabaska, where, possibly, there is very little settlement.


Frank Oliver: This is for the work of subdivision', and no subdivision has been done in Athabaska. Some has been done in the northerly and westerly parts of the organized territories where settlement has been going in on account of railway construction.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many men are employed in this work of survey 7


Frank Oliver: I cannot give the information with exactness, but between fifty and sixty parties were out.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many men to a party 7


Frank Oliver: From eight to thirteen men according to the work to be done. A party working in a wooded country needs more men than a party working on the clear prairie.
Dominion Lands-chargeable to income fur-her amount required for contingencies, &c, 12,000.


George Eulas Foster: What was the main vote


Frank Oliver: It was $37,100.
Mr. FOSTER, The minister will see that this is a very large increase for a supplementary vote-about 33 per cent.


Frank Oliver: Tlie contingencies vote covers the requirements for homestead inspection, timber inspection, the expenses of Dominion lands and Grown timber agencies ; and, owing to the fact that the settlers who went in three or four years ago are now entitled to their patents, it has been necessary to increase the number of homestead inspectors in order that there may not be undue delay in giving the settlers their patents. That is one cause of the increase.


George Eulas Foster: Does it account for the whole increase ?


Frank Oliver: No, but it is the principal cause.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might give the main items of the increase ?


Frank Oliver: Seven new homestead inspectors have been appointed. Besides, for the same reason-the increased number of patents-the running expenses of the land offices have been to some extent increased. But the main increase is due to the large number of homestead inspectors.


Mr. BLAIN.: There has been a good deal of talk about these homestead inspectors in. the last few years. Since my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) has taken charge of the department we expect a good many reforms, and I am sure we shall not be disappointed. May I ask what policy the department has with regard to the homestead inspectors-whether they are to be permitted to become active politicians or not ?


Mr OLIVER.: It is certainly not the policy to have them acting as active politicians, except as we hope that the satisfaction they will give the public in their work will be to the political credit of the government in power.


George Eulas Foster: I am sure the minister (Mr. Oliver) knows the purport of the question.
It has been stated, and I do not know that it has ever been denied that in the election that took place the officers of the Interior Department to a greater or less extent were made or made themselves active political workers in the campaign. I should feel like this with reference to this vote-that if the minister proposes to follow the same course that has been followed, and that in asking for the vote for new inspectors he should be asking a vote for men part of whose time is to be taken up in political work, it will take a long time for the item to pass. I do not think it is right or honest, and I do not think it is good politics in the long run.
I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), from whom we expect a good deal, in this way at least, will be able to say to the committee that homestead inspectors and other officers for whom we vote money shall not be allow-6u to become active workers in political campaigns, that they shall be homestead inspectors, or whatever officials they are, and


George Eulas Foster: that they shall attend to the work assigned to them and attend to it solely. That, of course, we all admit to be the right plan and I think it is the plan which we might agree to have carried out. I would like to hear what the hon. minister's views are on that question.


Frank Oliver: I would not like, in consequence of any stand I would take or any admission I would make, to be thought to admit that it has been any part of the policy of the department to have their homestead inspectors act as political agents. I can assure the committee that as far as my say goes, I quite agree with my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). To put it on the lowest ground I do not consider it good politics to have homestead inspectors or other government officials acting as active government agents. I think they can do their party as well as the country very much better service by attending to their duties and performing them in an efficient manner. I think that would reflect the most credit on the government and on the party.


Mr. LAKE.: In reference to what the hon. minister has said I have a copy of the Regina ' Daily Standard ' of the 14th April, at the time he was going up to contest the seat in Edmonton. There is an item in the issue of that date which says :
Walter Scott, M.P., for this constituency, went west this morning to assist in the fight at Edmonton. He was accompanied by P. Talbot, M.P., J. G. Turriff, M.P., P. M. Bredt, assistant commissioner of immigration, and S. P. Porter, homestead inspector.
I do not know whether it is really the case that these gentlemen went up. I believe that Mr. Bredt and Mr. Porter are both exceedingly active politicians and that they were especially so during the last election. We have had some experience of them in the past if this statement is not true in this particular case.


Frank Oliver: This is hardly a fair subject for discussion in the committee. Mr. Scott only arrived at Edmonton, I think, the Monday evening previous to the nomination which resulted in my election by acclamation. Therefore, he did not take a very active part in the campaign. As far as the other gentlemen are concerned I never heard of their arrival at Edmonton. This is the first knowledge I have had of their ever having started for Edmonton. They certainly did not take any active part in the campaign.


Richard Stuart Lake: 
Frank Oliver: Is this gentleman a Doukhobor?
Mr, LAKE. Schukin is a Doukhobor. He with several others was persuaded by the late Mr. Crearer to make a homestead entry. Of course, it was very much in the interest of these people and the Northwest generally that they should make entries and own their own lands.. Schukin and about thirty others made their entries and cut themselves loose from the community system. When Mr. Verigin came he apparently insisted upon the establishment of the community system with the result that this became a regular part of their organization and pressure is being put upon a few Doukhobors who were beginning to make individual entries for land to force'them back into the community system.


Frank Oliver: I am not able just at this time to declare any distinct policy in regard to the administration of that particular part of the department, but I will say that I would not think it part of the duty of the government or of the department to assist in any way in enforcing the peculiar beliefs in regard to religion or social life that may be held by the Doukhobors or any other people. In regard to the ease mentioned, I have no knowledge of it other than what is stated by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) but it would seem to me that whilst the person mentioned has possibly suffered a hardship it would be no less a hardship to give to him the patent for the land upon which a whole village was situated. It would seem to me from the statement of the case to be one in which there must be a hardship either to one individual or to a large number and that the department had decided that the hardship should be suffered by the one rather than the large number.	.


Richard Stuart Lake: I have a report here amongst the other papers. I did not know this opening would present itself at this moment to take the subject up and I did not get it very well prepared, but I would like to read 204
.	REVISED
a report from the homestead inspector of the Yorkton district in regard to this case. Perhaps it would show the hon. minister clearly what one of his officials thinks about the matter. After reporting on the land fin the ordinary form and as to the value of the improvements which had been made he adds this further report :
I further report and say to my knowledge that in the fall of 1902, Mr. James Crearer, deceased, who was then immigration agent at this point, was anxious that the Doukhobors should make entries for their lands, visited" these people and tried to induce them to make-entries and the people did not respond as they appeared to be undecided as to what course to pursue. Mr. Crearer told Mr. Schukin that he could make entry for any quarter section in the land reserved for them, so he in good faith made entry for the above land on which he then resided. The community system did not then exist among them and everything went along all right and the others made no objection until Mr. Peter Verigin arrived in their midst and started the community system.
Mr. Schukin would not join the community so they asked him to get off the place and made it very disagreeable for him ever since and would not allow him to cultivate his homestead. I consider that it would be a hardship to turn him off as all the lands for a long distance are now entered and he would have to go a long way from his friends in order to get a homestead.
And further, the statement made by Simeon Reifen is not correct regarding the mill which he claims is on this land. It is on the S W \ of this section.
About half of the houses now on this land were built since Mr. Schukin obtained his entry although aware of his entry.
I understand also that ten out of the sixteen families are leaving said village in the spring to be located in other villages near their homesteads. Six families will remain for some time until their present buildings become use- . less which will only be a short time and they will not be disturbed by Mr. Schukin. The granary on this land was built last year although Mr. Schukin objeted to its being built.
I consider him justly entitled to patent.
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) N. G. McCALLUM, Homestead Inspector.
There is another letter from a gentleman who resides in that district, a gentleman who I think has always been a staunch supporter of the Liberal party and he takes very strong ground with reference to the Doukhobor question and as to the manner in which Mr. Peter Verigin is acting. It may be as well to have this letter placed on ' Hansard,' as I think the whole [DOT]subject should be discussed and laid before the House. This gentleman writes :
Devil's Lake, Dec. 16, 1904. Commissioner of Dominion Lands,
Dear Sir,-I take the liberty of writing you a few lines regarding the Doukhobors here. There are about thirty here that have left the company. They have got out and are working on their homesteads. They have become British subjects and are falling in line with the laws of the country.


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
And then we have Mr. Peter Verigin with his company. Just now they are cutting and hauling spruce Jogs. I don't think there will he a standing tree of any account within miles of here after this winter. They will not register births, marriages or deaths, nor yet will they become British subjects, and Peter will tell you he would like to become a British subject himself but his people would not hear of it. He is working hard to keep the company together. He tells them if they leave the company, they leave the land, for he says he owns all the land round here and they will have to move one -hundred miles from here. So these men that Slave left the company are in doubt if they will get an entry for their land or not. I tell them they will get it and I hope you will be of the same opinion. Now, these Doukhobors that have left the company tell me that Peter Verigin was the cause of them not taking up their land when they came here. He kept writing to them not to take up land until he would get here, and when he gets here he tells them to keep to work and he would go to Yorkton and take up the land for them.
I may mention that this correspondence appears to show that a great number of entries for lands upon which these villages were situated have been cancelled and that the new entries for the men who have been deprived of the old entries have been taken up by Mr. Peter Verigin.
Of course he gets the credit of them taking up their land. One can see by the actions of those that have left the company and have fallen in line with the laws of the country that Peter Verigin is the cause of the company men not falling in line with the laws of the country. I am told that he went into the land office at Yorkton and told them that he had eighteen men dissatisfied with their homesteads and would like to change it for another. Now, this homestead that he would like to change, were homesteads of these men that had left the company, and they knew nothing of Peter Verigin trying to cancel their homesteads at that time, but they found out in time and went to Yorkton to the land office and told them that they were quite satisfied with their homesteads. There was another man here, he (Peter Verigin) went to the land office and reported that he -syas dead and had his place cancelled and one of his company men put on it. I know for a fact the man who Peter Verigin reported dead is going around here feeling bad about losing his place. There is another man here by the name of Eone Sugan on the northeast quarter of section 33, T. 31, R. 6, W. 2. Peter Verigin is trying hard to cancel his place.
The Eone Sugan referred to here is the man whose case I am calling attention to :
This £ugan says that he heard that Peter Verigin had written to you about it. This Eone Sugan was among the first of the Doukhobors to enter for his land. There was no company when Sugan entered for his land. Peter Verigin had not come at that time. The late Mr. Crearer, the immigration agent, was out here to see if he could get them to enter for their land, and they had a letter from Verigin at that time to not enter for their land until he got here. I was along with Mr. Crearer at the time he made an offer to any Doukhobor that would enter for his homestead the choice of anv quarter at Devil lake, so Sugan said he would
Richard Stuart Lake: take the quarter he was living on. He paid his ten dollars, got his entry, has done his homestead duties. He has become a British subject. I think a man like this should not be cast to one side and a man like Verigin get the preference. Peter Verigin and his interpreter have gone into the land office and reported false statements to them. He said the grist mill was on Eone Sugan's quarter. I took the surveyor's chain and measured from the nearest point from the line to the mill. It was 3 chains, 274 links from Eone Sugan's quarter. Peter Verigin, at the land office, said that they had quite a bit of ploughing done on it. Sugan was ploughing on his farm when a number came down to him with their teams and ploughed. They gave him ten minutes to get out of the field. He unhitched his horses and took them to the stable, and they pitched his plough into the fence. Please do the best you can for him.
Yours truly,


ROBERT BUCHANAN.
[Stage Direction]
This letter is dated the 10th of Decmber, 1904. It will, I think, be found from other papers in the department that unfortunately this man's entry had already been cancelled. He had left the rest of the Doukoho-bors to take up land and to become a good British subject and fulfil the duties of citizenship. But apparently on the word of Mr. Peter Verigin he was deprived of his property and sent off to start life anew on another homestead. The case appears to me to be a particularly bad one. A man who becomes a British subject and tries to be a good citizen, even though a Doukhobor should be protected just the same as any other British subject.
Frank Oliver: I, have not hitherto been aware of the facts stated by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lake). He has placed them before the country in a very emphatic manner and certainly the statements he made will have to be taken notice of and the action of the department will be governed by the facts discovered on investigation.


Richard Stuart Lake: If it is found on inquiry that the statement I have made is perfectly well grounded, will the government undertake to compensate this man for the loss he has been put to. I do not notice anything as to that in the correspondence, but I certainly think that if he has been turned off laud which he has cultivated and on which he has erected buildings he should receive the fullest compensation.


Frank Oliver: I do not see that it would be possible to make compensation, and I would not like to judge the case until I have heard both sides. A very grave accusation is made against this man Peter Verigin and of course we will have to hear his side before giving a decision. I would not like to make any statement now as to what will be done in the matter. It has been suggested to me that it is entirely improbable that this man's entry was made before the village was established on the lands. As every one knows, when the Doukhobors come into any section of the country the

first thing they do is to form into a village on the land so that on the face of it the probability would be that the village was on the land before this man made his entry. However, if he had an entry first I would certainly think he was entitled to it. No doubt the deparmtent took action believing it was the lesser of two evils ; an injustice to be done either to the one family or to fifteen or twenty families, and they decided perhaps to let the one man suffer.


Richard Stuart Lake: In reference to the question as to whether the village is on the land or not the report of Mr. McCallum says :
About half of the village houses now on this 'land were built since Schukin claimed his entry, although aware of the entry.


Frank Oliver: What about the other halt ?


Richard Stuart Lake: I presume, although there is nothing to show it, that Mr. Schukin went on to the land with the other Douk-hobors and they built the village together.
That, after all, is not the point. After he and others had been established in the village, Mr. Orearer, the immigration agent, now dead, who to those people represented the power of the government, came down and asked them to make entries for their land, and according to both of these reports offered them any section they chose to enter for ; and he gave Mr. Schukin the entry for the land he occupied. I do not think the government should go back on that entry. Mr. Schukin made the entry in good faith, and since that time he has apparently resided there and performed his cultivation duties ; and if he is not allowed to retain the land it will be a great breach of faith on the part of the government, and will be likely to prevent these people leaving the community system.


Frank Oliver: Of course, I would not like to speak of the conduct of the agent, who is now dead ; but I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that however wrong he may have been, the homesteader was certainly in the wrong in entering for the homestead, when he knew that other people were in occupation of it and had made improvements upon it, which my hon. friend knows is entirely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Homestead Act. He entered for the homestead with the knowledge that there were other families occupying the land, whose prior rights in it were just as good as his; and although he held the homestead entry, he permitted still other people to come on that same land and build on it and occupy it. I do not think he can hold himsel'f to be altogether the aggrieved party in the transaction. He did commit a wrong with his eyes open. He may have acted under misinformation in entering for land that was already in the occupation of other people, and he was not protecting his own interest as he ought to have done when he 204*
permitted still other people to go on and occupy and make improvements on that land.


Richard Stuart Lake: The hon. minister must remember that the Doukhobors were not at that time very well acquainted with our laws and customs. They were brought out in a way as wards of the government. They were put upon their land under the direction of the government officials. When the chief government official in that quarter comes to one of them and says :	You
can have the entry of this land, I want you people to make entries for your land ; and this man says, if you give me the entry for the land I am living on, I will make it, I do not think he did with his eyes open what he knew to be a wrong. He was told that he was at liberty to make that entry by Mr. Orearer, who at that time held a very good position under the department.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not think the Doukhobors can make the plea that my hon. friend makes, that they did not understand the laws of the country, because, if there was one thing that was explained to them time after time, it was the homestead laws and the homestead conditions. I think 1 am right when I say that all these Doukhobof villages were established before any homestead entries were made. This very difficulty was 'foreseen, and it was suggested to the people that in making entries it would not be advisable for them to enter for the quarter sections on which the village was to be located. This man evidently had been living there for probably two or three years before he made a homestead entry at all. He knew perfectly well that this village was on this land, and I do not see how lie could make the entry knowing that, because he would have to make an affidavit that there were no improvements and no people living on the land. X think the better plan if it could be managed would be for the department to allow the homesteader to retain his homestead, but to allow him the privilege of disposing of five or ten acres that may be occupied as a village, and sell it to the community. The difficulty has arisen largely in this way. At the time this homesteader made the entry, I do not suppose he had any intention of acting on his own account. These villages are ail separate business communities, having no business connection with each other, the people in each village owning everything in common, and I presume that his idea in making entry for the homestead, was that it would become common property in the future ; but he has apparently changed his mind. I may say that the department did everything in their power to induce these people to make their entries at the proper time, foreseeing that there would be difficulty from delay. They did delay for a long

time, and there will be some little difficulty, but I think it is a matter that can be easily got over by the department.


Richard Stuart Lake: I hope this matter will not be lost sight o>f by the Department of the Interior. I notice a telegram here signed J. W. Greenway, Department of the Interior, to Peter Verigin, Esq., and dated the 12th of December, 1904 :
Entry Ivan Schukin Northwest twenty-three, thirty-one, six west second, cancelled, being Doukhobors village site.
That means that the entry has been cancelled. I also notice another telegram here, dated Yorkton, December 13 :
Verigin acting lor Doukhobors here Saturday and yesterday. All re-entries of Doukhobors completed ; forty-three entries granted them.
The reason I call attention to this second telegram is that it seems to me undesirable that one man should make a bunch of entries in that way for these communities, especially holding the position which he appears to do in the Doukhobor community. It tends to keep in their minds the idea that the lands are being entered by the community as a body, and not for the individual.


George Eulas Foster: The question, I think, the minister will admit, is a rather serious one. It is not simply the case of this one Doukhobor, but it seems to go further than that. The peculiar system that the Doukhobors have may be the best, looked at from their point of view, and there may be, in the earlier days of settlement, some good features in it, in the way of massing together for support and bringing large numbers together, which would recommend it to a certain extent in the eyes of Canadians who are not in favour of that system, of course. But X think we ought to keep this in view ; that if there be any person who wishes to assert his individuality and become a British subject and conform to all our laws, and work on the same line as individual holders, he ought to be very carefully supported by the department, at least to this extent, that the leader of such a settlement, who naturally has great powers, .and naturally also, I suppose, wants to keep those intact and make them greater if he can, does not become in a way arbitrary and to a certain extent tyrannical, and by the great influence he has, keep down and utterly make impossible this assertion of individuality.
I think that the department ought at least to see that such influence is not exercised m an arbitrary and tyrannical manner so as to prevent any individual getting his land. Of course it is easy to say that if one is pitted against the many, the one must suffer and not the many. But you can turn that right around and sav that a good many are better able to make up Mr. TURRIFF.
the loss to the one than he is to bear it alone. If this man made his entry in good faith and then is driven out, the department should seek some way of making the matter even for him, but I do not know that the department should suffer. Probably if the fault were entirely with the officers of the department, that would be a fair way to consider it ; but if the interests of the one must be sacrificed to the interests of the many, then the many ought to make compensation. I am not sure that some arrangement such as has been suggested might not be made, namely, to allow the person who entered in good faith to keep his homestead and dispose of whatever portion of it is necessary for the village. The village is not going to run over the' whole ICO acres. In that way the village would get what it wants and the man who holds the property around the village would have its value enhanced. But what I would like to emphasize is this, that the department should look into this matter and see that a remedy is at once applied, if necessary.


Richard Stuart Lake: It is not merely one case apparently, but 43 cases. I do not know whether there were 43 villages founded previously to these lands being entered for, but I have here a letter which I had better read :
Otradnoe Village, October 18, 1904.
John Obed Smith,
Commissioner of Immigration,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Dear Sir,-We have just finished in finding out the homesteads which are under Doukhobors villages, and have found correctly. The list of villages and proper homesteads which are under villages we beg to inclose you herewith, kindly look into this matter, and leave those homesteads for villages, making them free from homestead entries. If any homestead entry was made for land, which is under villages, so that was made by mistake, as I told you. In every village there is one free homestead, which was given for village in wrong place, and which can be changed now for man whose land is under village.
Yours faithfully,


PETER VERIGIN.
[Stage Direction]
Then follows a list of some 43 different villages. Apparently Verigin had gone in to Yorkton and changed those entries for 43 other entiles. It is quite possible there may be great hardship on other men whose lands have been taken away from them with the improvements thereon.
Frank Oliver: I do not know that I can add to what has been said. It is no part of the business of the department to assist the peculiar religious ideas of any people whoever they may be. Our business is with the individual settler and to protect his rights. A very grave statement has been made which will have to be investigated and action taken. With regard to the individual case mentioned, this man

641S
does not come to us with, clean hands, and therefore has not that claim for consideration which he would have if he came with an absolutely clear case. The good faith of the agent who had to deal with this man is called in question. That agent is now dead and we are compelled to take the evidence of other men as to what he said and did ; and I do not know that we would be quite justified in accepting in full everything that many be said regarding this deceased officer.


George Eulas Foster: There may be records and letters. '


Frank Oliver: We must judge of the case as we find it, aside from the question as to what he is reported to have said or done.


Uriah Wilson: This Doukhobor, matter has been before the House several times. It was a mistake bringing them into the country at all, and that was the view taken by the minister himself. They are living in communities, and I should like to know how many of them have homesteads and whether they have made any provision to repay the money they borrowed from the government. I should like to know whether the assurance given us by Mr. Smart, ex-deputy minister, that this debt would be held against the land is correct. This statement was made before they took out any homesteads, and I do not see how dt could be entered against the land when they had no claim on it. How much has been paid on the debt and is there any lien on the land homestead for that indebtedness ? It will be pretty hard to divide up the indebtedness and register it against the property of each individual. Some arrangement should be made by the leaders of the Doukhobors to pay back the money lent. I understand they are a rather prosperous community although they do not fall into our ways. My hon. friend the minister (Mr. Oliver) made the statement In former days that the country would be better off without them. I quite agreed with him then, and have not seen any great reason for changing my mind since.


Frank Oliver: I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. U. Wilson) to say that he desires certain information. His request will be attended to ; and if it is the pleasure of the committee to pass the item as it stands in the supplementary estimates, I will guarantee to have an answer toy the time we reach the main estimates.


Uriah Wilson: The only trouble is that so many of these questions are postponed that some of them are sure to be forgotten. The hon. minister has his officer beside him, and I think he might give us at least some of the information we require at once. These questions, it seems to me, might easily have been anticipated. The official must toe familiar with the facts, I
should think. They have been before the Agriculture Committee time and again, and have been threshed out fully in this House.
IMr, TURRIFF. I may state that there were about 8,000 of these Doukhobors, men, women and children.


Uriah Wilson: How much have they increased ?


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not know. That is a matter that the local government attends to. A year ago these people had practically all made homestead entries-between 1,800 and 2.000. I think. There are about thirty-five of the Doukhobors, as I understand, who have, as it were, broken away from the communal system and taken out naturalization papers. I agree with every word that has been said by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), that those individuals who wish to break away from the communal system should be given every possible consideration by the department. I wish to say, however^ that while they have been troublesome in connection with their homestead entries, the Doukhobors have been a good class of settlers. And they are doing well. I do not know whether they have been paying back what money they owed or not ; * but they are in a position to pay back or will toe very shortly, because they have prospered wonderfully well. They are very industrious, and no doubt the work they have done under Peter Verigin has been good work. I think there is no doubt that his influence so far has been good materially-that he has been a good business head, and under him the people there have progressed very well. Still, I do not think that it is in the interest of this coun-trv that anv one man should be the practical dictator over 7.000 or 8,000 people. Therefore, any encouragement that can be given to individuals to break away from the communal system, I think, should be given.


Uriah Wilson: Perhaps the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mr. Tuniftl can tell us whether they follow the communal system so far as their earnings are concerned. Do their earnings go into one fund, or are they living like other people ?


Mr TURRIFF.: With the exception of the thirty-five to which I have referred, I think they are all living in the communal system, that is to say, each village is a business community by itself. It has no business connection with the other villages, but in each village everything is owned in common.
Mr. LAKE'. Referring to what the hon. member for East Assiniboia (Mi. luniff) has said about the local government keeping the record of the increase, I think I ought to say that the local government have had considerable difficulty in carrying on that work. That recalls to my memory a matter which was brought to my notice some time

back which I would like the minister to inquire into when he is looking up the other things in regard to this settlement. Some time last year a Doukhobor was found hanged in a stable. I would like to know whether that fact was ever called to the attention of the authorities, whether it was reported by Mr. Verigin, and whether any inquest was held.


Frank Oliver: It is no part of the business of this department to take notice of anything of that nature. However, I will make inquiries if it is thought desirable.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would like the minister to tell us whether Mr. Smart, the ex-deputy minister, is now connected with the department ; and, if so, what is his position ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Smart is not now employed by the department.


Uriah Wilson: It is not long since he was employed by the department as special agent in the west. I do not know what his duties were, but I believe he was paid $10 a day and expenses. Can the minister tell us how long it is since Mr. Smart was employed by the department ?


Frank Oliver: Since Mr. Smart resigned his position as deputy minister he has not been in the employ of the government except in special service. He was employed a month or two ago in conducting a delegate of the Austrian government through the Northwest. He also made a visit to the United States, looking into the quarantine arrangements there.
side the offices, but outside the vote for civil government.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I notice that in the charges for Dominion lands the salaries for clerks amount to $31,101.27. Do I understand that that includes all the clerks in the Interior Department, or only those connected with Dominion lands ?


Frank Oliver: Only those in the Dominion lands branch.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many officers are employed in this branch ?


Frank Oliver: This item is for service altogether out of Ottawa, and I am not prepared to answer that question.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It distinctly says clerks at Ottawa.


Frank Oliver: The salaries which are provided under civil government are for what is called the inside service, and everything that is not under that head is called the outside service, whether the persons are employed in Ottawa or at outside offices. This increase of $10,000 for salaries for the outside service, is for the purpose of meeting the requirements in the outside agencies chiefly, owing to the increase of business there ; arid this increase of business does not occur simply because of an increase of settlement, but because the settlers of some years ago are now in a position to draw their patents, and that causes a great increase of clerical work in the different land offices.


Uriah Wilson: Rut he is not now employed by the department ?


Frank Oliver: Not in any capacity.


George Eulas Foster: When engaged in connection with quarantine, .he was paid, I suppose, by the Department of Agriculture ?


Frank Oliver: No. Mr. Smart was not engaged in superintending quarantine, but was looking into the operation as affecting the immigration. Of course, the immigrants are the ones to get the benefit of the quarantine, and Mr. Smart was looking into the regulations from the immigrant's point of view.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As I understand i the $12,000 additional and the $10,000 add tional are largely for clerks, in the origin; estimate the minister asked $12,357 of a increase, and that apparently is for exti clerks in the department. Do I understan that all these sums are practically for exti assistance ?


Frank Oliver: The sum of $12,000 required for contingencies includes all salaries for homestead inspectors and officers who work outside. Then the amount of $10,000 is for salaries for increases in the staff in offices throughout the west. The item here says outside service,' but that means, not out-Mr. LAKE.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: On page L-91 of the Auditor General's Report I notice ' Dominion Lands, salaries of extra clerks at head office, and advertising.' Then it says ' Salaries Of clerks at Ottawa, $31,110.27.' Now, I understand that these votes of $12,000 and $10,000 the minister is asking for are to pay further extra clerks. In that view I would like an explanation of that statement on page L-91.


Frank Oliver: The figures I have here show total increases in salaries amounting to $19,239, and decreases caused by resignations, transfers, &c., amount to $9,229, leaving a net increase of $10,010. This covers the extras here in the Ottawa office, and the extra service required in the land offices in the Territories.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I realize that I cannot expect the hon. minister to be thoroughly conversant with all the figures. But I would like his deputies to explain wThy this appears in the Auditor General's Report in the manner it does.
'Mr. OLIVER, There are a number of clerks listed as extra clerks, but that does not mean that they are employed as extras for work in this particular year. They are clerks who have been employed for a greater or lesser time, but they are not on the

permanent list, and therefore they are called extras. These are in what is called the inside service, and are not connected with this vote of ,$10,000 we are asking for.


Mr URIAH WILSON.: They are practically permanent, inasmuch as you have kept them every year.


George Eulas Foster: What was the amount in the main vote ?


Frank Oliver: Salaries for outside service amount to $137,900.


Uriah Wilson: On what page of the estimates is that ?


Frank Oliver: That sum of $137,900 does not appear in the estimates of this year, but in last year's estimates, on page 71, m the column of 1904-5.


George Eulas Foster: The minister spoke of Mr. Smart's work in accompanying the Austrian delegate.' What does that mean ?


Frank Oliver: I am not personally familiar with the object of the delegate in visiting Ottawa, as that took place before I assumed office. But. I am given to understand that he was the commissioner of the Austrian government, who were desirous of having exact information as to how the colonists from that country were progressing on the continent of America. This commissioner was sent out to investigate the Austrian colonies in the United States and Canada. It was thought desirable, I presume, to treat him with the greatest courtesy and to facilitate his movements and his getting the fullest information to the greatest possible degree. Therefore, the department took every means to facilitate his tour through Canada, and as Mr. Smart had been in charge of the Interior Department and of the immigration branch as well, and was familiar with the work, it was thought desirable that he should have the conduct of the delegate through Canada


George Eulas Foster: Is the hon. minister pre pared to say just why Mr. Smart left his office as deputy ?


Frank Oliver: I have no knowledge of the subject.


Mr FOSTER.: It seems rather odd that we have had no sufficient explanation of it. Mr Smart is supposed to have been and is generally acknowledged to have been an efficient deputy. He seems to have taken a great deal of interest in his department, and as far as the testimony from the government side of the House was concerned he was fulfilling his duties well. All at once and very suddenly he seems to have departed that office and the only explanation we got in the House from the minister was that he left it because he had a chance of bettering his financial position. Quite a long while has passed since then and Mr. Smart seems
still to be here, and the fact that he is taking these special services up for the government would rather militate against that. I thought the hon. minister probably might know and be able to give us the explanation.


Frank Oliver: I have no knowledge of the matter whatever. The resignation was handed in before the session of parliament occurred and there has nothing come to my knowledge in regard to it. I presume that any officer of the government is at liberty to leave if he sees fit without giving any reason and I presume that is what occurred in this case.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. minister is asking for an increase of $20,000 in the mines branch of his department. May I ask what they intend doing in that branch during the coming year ?


Frank Oliver: That is not an increase ; it is a transfer from the civil government vote to the Dominion Lands vote. It is merely a transfer from one vote to another within the department.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: At page 71 of the estimates, under the column of increases, is placed this $20,000.


Frank Oliver: Of course it is an increase in the lands branch, but if my hon. friend will turn to civil government he will see that it shows as a decrease. At page 13, it shows in the estimate for civil government as a decrease just as on page 71 under the heading of Dominion lands it shows as an increase.


George Taylor: The hon. minister stated that Mr. Smart was not in the employ of the government now in any position. How long is it since he ceased to be in the employ of the government ?


Mr OLIVER.: I cannot give the date off hand, but Mr. Smart has not been in the employ of the government since he returned from the west in company with the Austrian delegate, which would be in the latter days of April.


George Taylor: I think, if my hon. friend will look at 1 Hansard ' of only a short time ago he will find a question which I put to the ' government the answer to which indicated that he was then in the employ of the government and receiving $10 a day. It is only a short time ago since that question was answered by some acting minister.


Frank Oliver: It probably was an error if the question was later than the 1st ot May.


George Taylor: I suppose a portion of this $10 000 is to make up extras to him since he has left the department as deputy minister ?


Frank Oliver: Mr. Smart's expenses in that connection would have no connection with this vote at all. They would come in

connection with immigration. This was distinctly a matter of immigration work.
Further amount required for maintenance, construction of roads and bridges, and other necessary works in connection with the Hot Springs Reservation, near Banff, Northwest Territories, $7,000.


George Eulas Foster: What was the origiual vote ?


Frank Oliver: 


George Eulas Foster: This is a very large increase, which, in a matter like Banff and the reservation there, ought to have been estimated for and included in the origiual estimates. There cannot be any very special reason why the vote should be increased by more than a fourth. What is the explanation of it ?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to give the reason why the under estimate was made, but I can give the particulars of the items included in this intended expenditure. The vote of $7,000 is to cover the expenditures from the 1st March to the 30th June and it is estimated as follows :
Salaries for four months at $301.66. $1,206.64 Mr. John Galt's account for preparing plans and estimates in connection with the contemplated waterworks and sewerage system
in the park	 926.73
Cost of publishing a pamphlet on the park, 30,000 copies at 16 cents
each	 4,500.00
Miscellaneous expenses, express, freight, telegrams, printing and stationery, travelling expenses and
so on	 450.00
Balance to be spent on necessary repairs to roads, bridges and buildings in the reservation1	2,412.84
Total	$9,496.21
There were $2,490 on hand on the first of March standing against this proposed expenditure. This leaves a balance of $7,000 required.


George Eulas Foster: What are the salaries of the officials for the year ? It would seem as if only eight months salaries were voted unless you have made large additions to the staff which I hope has not been done. It is a very bad and a very deceptive estimate if you are going to come before parliament for a year s money and only make a three-quarters or a two-thirds estimate. Officers salaries should be seen from the beginning, it seems to me. Has there been any in crease in the number of salaried officials there ?
Ml'- OLIVER. The salaries, as I understand the information given to me here have not been increased nor has the number of officers.
* ROSTER. Have the officials been increased ?


Frank Oliver: 


Frank Oliver: No.
Mr. FOSTER, How does the minister explain that he is asking now for four months salary ?


Frank Oliver: This is the four month's salary from the first of March to the first of July, and is necessarily included in our statement of the requirements for these four months, but we have $2,000 in hand out of which cheques for salaries will be paid.


George Eulas Foster: You are requiring no more money for salaries.


Frank Oliver: No.


George Eulas Foster: What is the necessity for printing 30.000 pamphlets on Banff.


Frank Oliver: Generally speaking I presume it is thought desirable that when we are spending so much money in beautifying the park and building roads and making it desirable as a place of resort, we should spend some money in advertising its attractions.


George Eulas Foster: Where was this work done ?


Frank Oliver: 
George Eulas Foster: On tender ?


Frank Oliver: I am not able to answer but I rather think it was not, because it is a very fine class of work and could not very well be let by tender.


George Taylor: What is the cost ?


Frank Oliver: Fifteen cents a copy.


George Eulas Foster: What is the system of distribution ? I should think that it should be distributed amongst the great outside world to announce that we have natural beauties here and are making and maintaining parks. The method of distribution would be very important in the case of a pamplet of this kind.


Frank Oliver: We sent a copy to each senator and member, some were distributed to the railway companies and others were sent to our immigration agents in England and in the United States.


George Eulas Foster: Are the visitors to Banff increasing ?


Frank Oliver: I am informed they are increasing very largely.


Uriah Wilson: Principally Americans.


Frank Oliver: From every country.
Further amount required for engraving lithographing and printing maps of the Dominion and Northwest Territories, $16,200.


George Eulas Foster: What was the amount in the main estimates ?


Frank Oliver: 


George Eulas Foster: The supplementary estimate is larger than the main estimate ; that requires explanation.


John Barr: Where was this work done ?


Frank Oliver: The drawing of the maps Is done in the geographer's office, Ottawa, and the Toronto Lithographing Company does the printing.


John Barr: Is it let by contract ?


Frank Oliver: I am given to understand there is only one company in Canada that *does copper engraving.


Uriah Wilson: We did get some maps printed in Chicago and they were done very cheaply. I would prefer having them done in our own country if we could get them at a reasonable price, but it does seem to me there ought to be competition in these contracts, especially when they are for large amounts.


Frank Oliver: There are certain classes of work that Canada is not as far advanced in as other countries, and this appears to be one of them. If we invite competition it would simply be competition between our own country and other countries.


Uriah Wilson: That was done before.


Frank Oliver: Yes, and it may have been the better way, but there has been considerable feeling expressed against giving so much government money to foreign industries, ^rat it was thought if we could get the work at a moderate price we should keep the work in our own country.


George Taylor: What was the cost of these maps ?


Frank Oliver: There are a number of them. There is a relief map of Canada costing $1,500 for 5,000 copies ; a map of the new mining district in the Yukon west of Whitehorse costing $1,000 for
4.000	copies ; the Peace river map costing $2,000 for 4.000 copies ; the Temiskaming map. costing $500 for 10,000 copies ; mounting 900 copies of the large map of the Dominion at $3 each.


George Taylor: Who did that work ?


Frank Oliver: It was done in New York.


George Taylor: That is an awful price for that.


Frank Oliver: The map is so long that ordinary wooden rollers warp and this is mounted on steel cylinder rollers. Then there is $3,000 for printing 5,000 copies of the third edition of the Dominion map ; photographing plans in connection with the map $400, and 5,000 printed copies and 2,000 bound copies of the Economic Atlas costing $5,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is that distributed to the cabinet ministers ?


Frank Oliver: It is not completed yet ; it is sent to the members too.


George Eulas Foster: You should send it to the cabinet ministers ; they might learn something from an * economic atlas.'


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. minister has not explained why it is that the supplementary estimate is in excess of the original estimate.


Frank Oliver: I really am not in a position to answer the question. I suppose the answer might be that the occasion has arisen for bringing out some of these maps, for instance, that in regard to the mining district in the Yukon, under circumstances which could not be contemplated, and therefore they were not provided for.


George Eulas Foster: That is about the only one to which that might apply. The others might have been foreseen and provided for last year.


Frank Oliver: I suppose, with regard to the large map of the Dominion, the printing is done in many thousands, while the mounting is done only in comparatively small numbers as required, on account of the greater expense of mounting.


Uriah Wilson: How are these maps distributed ?


Frank Oliver: There is no definite system of distribution. They are issued to members who apply for them, and members generally apply for them for use in schools, and it is thought desirable to have such maps used in the schools.


Uriah Wilson: If there are maps or other things given to members for distribution in schools or anywhere else, all the members ought to be furnished with a list of such things ; otherwise those who have opportunity of knowing about them get what they want, while others are left without them.


Frank Oliver: I think this might be done ; while the department might print the maps for general information, those who desire to have them mounted might very well be asked to pay the cost of mounting.


George Eulas Foster: This is a large expense merely for the distribution of these maps by members among their constituents. The man who knows about them gets them, while the man who does not know about them does not get any. I would have no objection to a senator or a member getting one of these maps ; but to use them in a way as perquisites to members who apply for them is not what we are here for, and not what we ought, to spend the people's money for. This matter was brought to my attention by a letter which I received

from an old friend in New Brunswick, who said that So-and-so had sent flue mounted maps to three or four of his friends in that locality, but that he could not get one, and he wanted me to get one for him. I have not applied for it, because I did not know whether I could get one or not. I would have some sympathy with allowing every member to have three or four of these maps if they went into schools. To furnish maps to every school in the country is a large undertaking, and if you furnish to one why not to another. To make these expensive maps and give them to members as a piece of patronage to be circulated among their constituents is not good public policy. A simpler and less expensive way, would be to let each member have a half a dozen or so unmounted maps and pay for the mounting themselves. I do not see how you could get these mounted maps through the mails.


Frank Oliver: I quite agree that we should arrive at some sound basis of distribution. Evidently the House considers it desirable to provide such maps for the use of the schools, unmounted if not mounted. If a charge were made for the mounting, that would be a considerable check on the demand for the mounted maps. There is no difficulty about sending the mounted maps because they are sent by express. They can be mounted in large numbers much cheaper and better than they could by the individual.


George Taylor: I presume that last year, when the sum of $15,000 was asked, the then minister thought that would carry him through. Is this $16,200 all expended ?


Frank Oliver: It is not expended, but it is contemplated to expend it. Possibly the work that will require that expenditure may be in hand.


George Taylor: What authority had the
department to incur this expenditure without having asked parliament ?


Frank Oliver: I ifaney the department will have to ask the grace of the House in this matter.
National Transcontinental Railway-surveys, construction and other expenses, $290,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to defray the expenses of the commission from the 1st March to June 30th, 1905, namely :
Estimated expenses from 1st March to June 30th 1905, $468,000; available out of appropriation for the year, $177,500; to he voted, $290,500.
There was expended up to the 28th February, 1905, $322,500 and from the 28th February to the 1st April, 1905, $114,505, making a total of $437,005.


George Eulas Foster: No objection to this getting through and taking the discussion on the main estimates.


George Eulas Foster: Intercolonial Railway-improved accommodation and facilities along the line, $29,600; additional sidings along the line, $26,100; to eliminate two road crossings at rail level at the Cape Road Crossing near Dorchester, N.B., $2,000: $450,515.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If hon. members refer to the estimates of 1904-5, they will see an appropriation of $1,000,000.
At that time I submitted a statement showing that we would require 12 passenger engines and 10 freight engines, 10 first-class sleeping cars, 20 first-class day coaches, 4 second-class sleepers, 4 parlour cars, 2 dining cars, 4 postal cars, 10 baggage cars and 150 box cars. The total expense, I explained, would be $1,383,000. I stated that it was not necessary to get the whole vote at that time, but that in the supplementary estimates I would ask for the balance. This is the balance.
Intercolonial Railway-new machinepy for locomotive and car shops, $9,350.


George Eulas Foster: What is the explanation of this ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was found necessary to have new machinery in the locomotive and car shops at Moncton for repairs and construction work. The total expenditure is estimated at $9,316.


George Eulas Foster: Where was this machinery bought ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From machinery men in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: And tenders called for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Who has this contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Machines are being supplied by different concerns. There is one in Hamilton, one in London, one in Brockville-I think it has been widely distributed. The selections were made by the mechanical superintendent, Mr. G. R. Joughins.


Mr. INGRAM.: Last year the minister gave practically the same explanation, but I understood that the vote that passed covered this whole expenditure.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some additional machines were needed, accoiding to the judgment of the mechanical superintendent. My hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) will remember that for a time the mechanical department of the Intercolonial was without a bead. The services of Mr. Joughins were secured about a year ago, after the estimate was made of the requirements of the service. His experience led him to believe that this machinery was necessary. I thought it wise to instruct him to procure what was necessary for the expeditious and economical carrying on of the work in the shops.


JIAY 23' 1905
Andrew B. Ingram: I know that it is necessary to have this class of machinery in the shops, but I thought all this was provided for last year.
Mr. EM ME ItS OX. My hon. friend will see the reason why these were not provided for in the original estimates.


Mr.   BRAIN@: Has the department a well-equipped 'Shop at Moncton for the manufacture of locomotives ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. We turn out new locomotives every year. We do not make many-last year about two or three. Whenever there is time to spare from repair work, the superintendent puts the men upon construction. The parts are made as opportunity allows, and these are assembled into locomotives.
Intercolonial Railway-improved accommodation and facilities along the line, $29,600.


George Eulas Foster: Where are these improvements ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is the completion of a station at Granton and also at Oxford road $1,000. New land had to be bought in connection with the station at Aulac, $450.


George Eulas Foster: Why ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The station was burned down. To minimize danger we had to rebuild the station on the other side of the track, and for this additional land was required. At Boiestown we required a platform and also at Cross Creek.


George Eulas Foster: Had they no platform before at Boiestown ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, that station is on the Canada Eastern. At Cross Creek there is a junction. A little line has been completed from Stanley to Cross Creek, and a platform was necessary. The total of these small items is $29,603.


George Eulas Foster: But the minister has only accounted for abut $4,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can give them in detail.


George Eulas Foster: The minister might run over them quickly.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We purchased the road in a certain condition, and this is to improve it and bring it up to standard of the Intercolonial.


George Eulas Foster: But the minister should not charge to capital account money spent in replacing old ties with new ones.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is an investment in the road.


George Eulas Foster: Every expenditure on the road is that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The object is to bring the road up to standard and fit it for the modern engines and cars. I made the statement in connection with taking over the road that these expenses would be necessary in order to enable us to utilize on tins line the rolling stock of the Intercolonial. On those branch roads we have had them quite a distance apart, and we have found it necessary to put them closer together. We are using heavier engines, the cars run with greater speed, and it is necessary, in order to ensure the lives of the passengers, to improve the roadbed.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the hon. gentleman any idea as to the number of ties that he used per mile before he made the change 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not remember how many there were to the mile, but they were further apart than on ordinary roads.


Mr INGRAM.: Are you putting them in now the usual number per mile, as on other roads ?


Mr EMMERSON.: We are putting in 2,600 per mile, I think, on the Intercolonial.


George Eulas Foster: That still does not come up to the $29,600.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are expending for ties $22,241 for the whole length of the road. Then there are stations, freight sheds, platforms, and so forth. In putting m new ties we are making them closer than they weie before. We are not only renewing old ties, but are putting in new ones extra. In om estimates for the coming year we will have to ask for an appropriation to replace ties that have been used.


George Eulas Foster: That will be in current flornnnt?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For ties, putting in track, $4,809.


George Eulas Foster: Where ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the Canada Eastern .
,Mr. FOSTER. Were these to replace old ties ?
Mi-. EMMERSON. It was part of the work of improvement.


George Eulas Foster: At;.!	[DOT]	' s charged to
capital ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Mr BLAIN.: Has there ever been any ex

riment with ties of any other material ^an wood ; and, if so, what has been the


Mr EMMERSON.: The deputy minister tells me they have never used anything else but wood.


Mr.   BEAIN@: What about cement ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, that is very expensive, though it might pay in the long

run. But I <16 not think it has been tried generally in countries where the climatic conditions are similar to those of Canada. I think they have used that material in England to some extent.


Mr. COCHRANE.: How long do the ties last ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The life of a tie, of course, is dependent on the character of the wood, but it varies from five to eight years. We use a good many cedar ties on the Intercolonial, quite a number of prince's pine and quite a number of hemlock. I think the engineers use the best ties on those sections of the road where the traffic is heaviest. For instance, between Moncton and Truro is a section of the road very much used, many coal trains passing daily. I think the better class of ties are placed on this section. On the north shore there are some sections where we use cedar ties. We can get cedar cheaper on the northern division of the road than we can down in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Cedar grows very extensively, as we all know, in Quebec and in the northern section of New Brunswicic, and we do not have to haul cedar ties any distance. In the eastern section we use hemlock, and also what is called prince's pine.


Edward Cochrane: I understood the minister to say that on the Canada Eastern the ties are too far apart, and he was asking a sum of money to put in more, and that he was also going to ask more money to put in ties all along the line. Could the minister say what time would elapse from the time he puts in additional ties, to make them closer together, and the time when he renews the old ties ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About a year and a-half. We do not have to take up the track in order to replace old ties.
Additional sidings along the line, $26,100.


Henry Robert Emmerson: One ot these is at Campbellton, increasing the yard ; one at Sussex, the extension of a siding, costing $674. The Campbellton expenditure includes the purchase of land, which, along with the siding, will cost $10,900. A siding at Sandy Cove, near Halifax, will cost $1,000. There is a siding at Nelson, costing $748. There is a siding at Johnson's road and at Chatham junction there is an extension. About $1,000 will be required for these items. Then at Cushman's. Chelmsford, Grey Rapids and Coughlan's, there are sidings costing about $2,700 altogether. There is one each at Upper Blackville, Weaver's and Brierly's brook, costing $1,500 ; one at Carroll's, one at McNamee's, one at McGivney's, one at Durham, one at Penniac and one at Gibson.
iJ1 Ann la* tha* 1 llave named cost about $4,000. There is one at Pictou landing, on the opposite side from the town of Pictou, in Nova Scotia, costing $1,600. The total of the items is about $26,100.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


George Eulas Foster: Are any of these renewals of sidings ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are not renewals they are additions.
To eliminate two road crossings at rail level at the Cape Road crossing, near Dorchester, New Brunswick, $2,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the balance of the expenditure made at Dorchester for a subway eliminating two level crossings. It was a very dangerous place. There have been quite a number* of lives lost. There was a bad curve there and the crossings were hidden from view. I had an appropriation of $4,000 for this work last year. The balance required to meet the expense necessary is $2,000. The total cost will be about $6,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that the reverse curve near a bridge that the hon. gentleman brought up last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, that reverse curve near a bridge is at St. Leonard's Junction in the province of Quebec.
Prince Edward Island Railway-dwelling for agent at Bloomfield, $715.


George Eulas Foster: Is that outside of the station house ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is outside of the station house.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to know what the policy of the government is in reference to that, whether it is proposed now to commence and build dwelling houses for the agents. The hon. minister will see that if there is a dwelling house built for one agent in one place there will be demands upon him for dwelling houses for agents in other places. The expense of one house is small, but if this is going to be taken as the policy of the government it is going to add an immense sum to the obligations of a railway which is now not paying. It does not seem to show anything but a backward tendency under the hou. gentleman's management.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite agree with the idea that my hon. friend is throwing out with regard to the construction of dwellings. Certainly St is not the policy of the department to construct dwellings except where it is absolutely necessary ; that is where the station is situated so that it is impossible for the agent to secure a residence near the scene of his work It is important to have the agent always right near the station. In the olden time on the Intercolonial Railway7, or rather before it became the Intercolonial Railway, they started out building station houses that included dwellings upstairs for the agents. There is quite a number of these, as my hon. friend very well knows, between Moncton and St. John on what is now known as the

Intercolonial Railway, but which was known as the European and North American Railway in days gone by. That was necessary because in establishing stations as they did they were unable to do so in settled communities and the station agent could not get a dwelling house. The policy is gradually changing and in constructing new stations we eliminate the dwelling house feature in almost every instance, but where it is impossible for the agent to secure a dwelling by rental near the station we find it necessary to build a dwelling house for him adjoining the station. We sometimes utilize an old building. These conditions prevail in Prince Edward Island, as I am advised, and it is necessary at this place, and I think at some other places on the island to which my attention has been invited, to do this. It is done upon the report of the officials. It is purely departmental and it is only done where it is necessary. The general policy of the department is not to furnish dwellings. If we furnish a dwelling, of course the officials get the benefit of it ; but those who are not so favoured receive compensation in lieu of it ; that is to say, an allowance is made for the rental paid for them. There is no discrimination. All are treated alike and it is regulated by agreement with the Telegrapher's Union, which comprises amongst its membership the station agents along the line of the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Railway


George Eulas Foster: Is Bloomfield in an utterly unsettled portion of the country in Prince Edward Island ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not put it in that sense. Sometimes these stations are so situated that no one else builds near them. Towns do not grow up around them. Prince Edward Island is peculiarly situated. It is an agricultural province as we know. There are no thickly settled communities. The stations are isolated. They do not gather houses and little stores around them like they do in other sections of the Dominion.
*Charlottetown-extension o t railway track along water front, $7,150.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to extend the track to the wharf where the winter boat lands. We took $5,000 last year, the total estimated expenditure is $12,150.


George Eulas Foster: Very well.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is only one other item in the supplementaries and I want to discuss it myself.


George Eulas Foster: Can you discuss it now ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not in a position
to give some information to the committee,
but if the item is passed I will discuss it in
connection with another item which is reserved.


George Eulas Foster: What item is it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Working expenses of the Intercolonial Railway.


George Eulas Foster: We want to have a little talk about that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want to talk about it myself ; I do not intend to let my hon. friend do all the talking.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: When will this item be discussed?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am waiting for some information.


George Eulas Foster: The session is young yet ; if you are not ready take your time.


Alexander Martin: The House made an order in February last for information concerning the erection and location of a railway station at Charlottetown.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Those papers were laid on the table yesterday.


Alexander Martin: There was also a return ordered with regard to the extension of branch line in Prince Edward Island.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought that was brought down ; I will inquire about it.
Gratuity to Jeffrey Foot, ex-tide waiter, Halifax, $500.


Mr. PATERSON.: Mr. Jeffrey Foot was appointed a tide waiter in His Majesty's customs at the port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the 1st February, 1895, at a salary of $500 per annum. His age at the time of appointment was 53 years so that he did not come within the provisions of the Superannuation Act-the age limit provided by such Act being 45 years. On the 22nd January, 1903, while acting as locker at warehouse No. 14, of the port of Halifax, Mr. Foot met with an accident which greatly aggravated a disease from which he was suffering and in consequence he was permanently disabled. While discharging his duties on the day referred to a teamster came driving along at a rapid rate, the shaft of the wagon knocked Mr. Foot down, he was trampled by the horse and the wagon passed over him. His head was badly cut and he was unconscious for a considerable time. He has made a statutory declaration setting forth the cause of the accident as before stated and the circumstances as narrated are verified by affidavits of Mr. A. S. Taylor, a clerk, and Mr. A. O. Gastonguay, a merchant, who were eye witnesses of the accident. The Department of Customs gave Mr. Foot the only relief possible under the law, which was payment of his salary for 12 months. Section 10 of the Civil Service Superannuation Act provides that if any officer is constrained to quit the service be-
<5435

fore the period of superannuation, ten years, by reason of severe bodily injury, received without -his own fault, in the discharge of his public duty, the Governor in Council may allow him a gratuity not exceeding three months pay for every two years service. Taking into account the extra year during which Mr. Foot was paid as a public officer his service would only amount to nine years or one year less than the period covered by the Civil Service Act. On the basis provided in section 10 of the Superannuation Act the gratuity to be allowed Mr. Foot would be $500, namely : three months salary at $500 per annum, $125, multiplied by 4 as his full service was 4| times 2 years service.
Gratuity of two months salary to widow of J. B. Shadwell, late acting collector of customs at Whitehorse, $233.33.


William Paterson: Mr. Howard B. Shad-well, acting collector of customs at Whitehorse, .Yukon, died of diphtheria on the 14th October, 1904. His daughter died two days before hint of the same disease. Mr. Shadwell left a widow and four children, one a baby of six months old, and it is stated by Mr. Robert Lowe, a member of the Yukon council, that owing to sickness in the house and the cost of living in the Yukon his family is left practically destitute. Mr. Shadwell was employed from 22nd of December, 1896, and his salary at the time of his decease was $1,400 per annum. Being an acting officer he did not contribute to either the superannuation fund or the retirement fund and not being permanently appointed by Order in Council his widow is not, under the law, entitled to the usual gratuity of two month's salary.
Gratuity of two months' salary to the widow of the late John Turner, in his lifetime acting sub-collector of customs at the outport of Caribou Crossing, $200.


William Paterson: Mr. Turner died on the 29th of March last from heart disease. The correspondence in the department shows that Mr. Turner had many misfortunes in his family immediately preceding his demise, as in September, 1904, he lost one daughter, and was obliged to remove another from the country in order to save her life. Not being permanently appointed, he did not contribute either to the superannuation fund or to the retirement fund; and owing to the heavy expenses caused by his own illness and that of members of his family, the remaining members of the family are in pecuniary want. In view of the fact that he was not a contributor to either of the funds above mentioned, his family are not entitled, under the law, to the usual two months' gratuity, and, owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case it has been deemed advisable to ask for a vote equivalent to such an amount Mr Turner entered the service on the "Mtli January, 1891, and, after serving for some Mr. PATERSON.
years at Vancouver, B.C., was transferred to Dawsoii in the month of September, 1899, and to Caribou crossing, on the 6th of June, 1902,
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
River St. Lawrence ship channel, Marine Department-further amount required on account of the construction of a dredge for improvement of the channel below Quebec, $100,000.
Mr. PREF0NTAINE. This amount is required for immediate disbursements on account of material and labour towards the construction of a sea-going, steel, twin-screw, suction, hopper dredge for improvements to the river -St. Lawrence ship channel below Quebec, to be constructed at the government works at Sorel. Estimated cost, $350,000. The thirty foot channel at low water between Quebec and Montreal is now well on towards completion. In two or three years we will have vessels sailing between Montreal and Quebec at all stages of the tide, while below Quebec there is at one place only 20 feet at low tide. In the spring of 1901 the matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works by the shipping interest of Montreal. The officers of the Marine and Fisheries Department of Quebec, who had an intimate knowledge of this part of the river, strongly recommended the north channel, commencing below the Island of Orleans, as being better, easier navigated and more clear of ice in winter. Orders were given to the staff of the River St. Lawrence ship channel to make a survey and examination of the north channel with ** view to reporting on the practicability and cost of improving that route and adopting it for navigation. In 1902 a similar survey was made of the south channel to ascertain what improvements would be required to make a thirty foot channel on the line of the present route.
A comprehensive report was made on February 24, 1903, to the acting chief engineer of the Public Works Department on the question of the proposed improvement below Quebec. The engineer, who is now superintending engineer of the work being carried out on the St. Lawrence by this department, Mr. Cowie, reported that the difficulties by either route are between Murray hay and St. Jean, Isle d'Orleans. The dredger required for either would be practically the same, the material everywhere being soft.
It was estimated that for either route, the * cost, including the required plant, to give a thirty foot channel. 1.000 feet wide, would be about $1,000,000, and it was urged that immediate steps should be taken to provide the dredge, as it would require a year and a half to build. Mr. Cowie did not recommend the adoption of either route, but advised that the choice should meet with the

approval of the underwriters, the shipping interest and the pilots. The decision as to the route need not he given at once. The Transportation Commission visited the locality, going over each channel and took evidence on the subject, and it is hoped that they will go further into the question and give an opinion. In the meantime the superintending engineer has submitted the proposal that the plant be constructed and the present south channel dredged to thirty feet and to a width of say 500 feet. This could be done, it is estimated, in two seasons. Then, if considered advisable, the dredging of the north channel Traverse shoals could be undertaken.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: How much has been expended ?


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: Not a cent yet, but we are figuring on ordering the necessary material in order to start the work. The work will be done at the Sorel shipyards. It will be one of the most modern and improved dredges.


Robert Laird Borden: A suction dredge ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: A suction and hopper dredge at the same time.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman spoke of the Transportation Commission having visited this locality, did they make any suggestion or report ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They made a report which I have not before me. It stands to reason that if you have a thirty foot channel between Montreal and Quebec, you must also have a thirty foot channel between Quebec and the Gulf, and there are shoals at different points below Quebec where the water is only twenty feet deep at low tide.


Robert Laird Borden: When do you expect to complete the dredge ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In eighteen months.


Robert Laird Borden: Then how long will it take to dredge the channel ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In two seasons the work will be done in the south channel because we will be able to get the help of other dredges now working between Montreal and Quebec. We have seven dredges finishing the work between Montreal and Quebec, and in eighteen months we shall be able to take away two or three of them and use them in the south channel below Quebec. After the south channel is dredged, we will work in the north channel.


Robert Laird Borden: These two channels continue only a portion of the distance ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About thirty-five miles. One is on the north side of the island of Orleans and the other is on the south side. In days gone by, the north channel was the one used, but at that time
vessels had not the draught they have now. The south channel was then adopted and greatly improved ; but at two points near Murray bay and Beauchemin, there are . shoals where the water at low tide is only twenty feet. This means a delay of six or seven hours when steamers strike' those points at low water.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the rise and the fall of the tide ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About 18 feet.


Robert Laird Borden: This will give two channels, and it is contemplated that each will be a 3(Moot channel ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, at the lowest point.


Robert Laird Borden: The minimum depth. And what will be the minimum width ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Five hundred feet. The north channel, when completed, will be about a mile. It is very deep water, except at certain points. There is very little to lie done on the north channel, except at the northeast end of the island of Orleans.


Mr. R. E. BORDEN.: The hon. minister (Mr. Prgfontaine) spoke of the Transportation Commission. We do not hear very much about that commission now. It began its work, I think, about two years ago this summer. But we have not had the advantage of its wisdom, except that upon one occasion, I think, they made a short report with regard to some particular locality. There is danger that we shall have completed all our arrangements with respect to the matters this commission was to investigate before we receive its report. And it would be most unfortunate if it should advise something altogether different from the measures we are now engaged in carrying out. Of course, it is quite possible-as great minds think alike-that the government may be proceeding exactly along the lines which the Transportation Commission will eventually advise. But will it not he possible for the government to stimulate the activity of the commission a little, and so enable us, some time before the end of the present century, to find out what it is doing or what it advises ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This Transportation Commission, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) is aware, is not under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but is under the control of the Department of Public Works. I must admit there has been a good deal of delay, hut it is due to circumstances over which we had no control. As he knows, one of the [DOT]gentlemen on that commission was sick for a long time and died a few months ago. Another member of the commission, Mr. Fry, of Quebec, resigned a few months ago. The work of the commission was suspended

because of these things. As to the work *which pertains to my department-the work of the ship channel-I must say that every . time we were in doubt as to what should be done, I gave Mr. Cowie, the engineer in charge, instructions to consuu with them. Everything we are doing as to the ship channel proper has received the approval of the commission. Of course, in years past there was much careful study of the St. Lawrence channel and its needs by the engineers of the Department of Public Works ; and, on any points that may have been in doubt, though our engineers had their own opinion formed as regards these points, Mr. Cowie has always acted with due care, and I am quite sure that any work he has recommended, and which is in process of being carried out, will be found to be such that it need not be done over again. The plan has been carefully thought out. These improvements will be finished within four or five years. Then, if the question arises of further widening or deepening of the channel, the public, especially those interested in transportation and navigation, will find that no mistakes have been made. The work has been efficiently carried on under my predecessor as Minister of Public Works, and, since it has been under my charge, I have given it my personal attention. These works have received the unanimous approval of those connected with navigation. We have been pressed by the boards of trade, the shipping federation and other similar bodies to carry out the work as fast as possible so as to meet the demands of our commerce.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In answer to the hou. leader of the opposition, I may say that I do not know what the commission has done since the beginning of this session ; my impression is that they have done nothing, by reason of the resignation of one of the members and of the death of another. As I have said, the commission is not under my control, though of course I am a member of the government under whose control it is. I must state also that the works which pertain to the ship channel were decided upon and were carried out without the aid of the commission, except in one or two eases where they were consulted by the superintending engineer with regard to certain improvements. The improvements of the channel were decided upon, and have been carried on, even before the commission was appointed. I understand that the scope of the commission was mostly to consider the question of transportation as regards the great lakes, transportation by water as well as by rail. It was especially for that purpose that the commission was appointed. Of course, in special cases they may have been called upon to examine certain points, they may have been sitting as experts on certain improvements, such as improvements contemplated in the har-bous of St. John, as well as in the harbour of Halifax and other places. But with regard to the ship channel, I state again that the plan of improvement was laid out a number of years ago, and was matured before the commission was appointed. The commission only pronounced on this ship channel between Montreal and Quebec, as well as between Quebec and the Gulf, in cases where there may have been some doubt as regards the best locality in which to make the improvements. Ail the plans for improving the ship channel of the St. Lawrence have received their full approbation. I do not know when the commission will be reorganized so as to go on with their work. The hon. gentleman must understand that under present circumstances 205
all the departments are very busy ; parliament has now been in session nearly five months and with all the work that has been thrown upon us, it is impossible to go on with much outside work. For my part I can say that I have had all I could do to conduct the affairs of my department, and prosecute the work in a manner that the public interests require.


Mr.   I@: I understand that, and of course if this commission had been making reports and suggestions during the past eighteen months, as it might "have been, the hon. gentleman's duties might have been much lightened. He may have been doing a great deal of work that should have been done by this commission.


Mr PREFONTAINE.: Not as regards the ship channel.


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps not. I understand the ship channel is necessary in order that ocean vessels may reach Montreal, that is apparent to all of us. We must have a thirty foot channel, we must have that highway made secure, and safe, and as perfect as we can make it having regard of course to the resources of the country. But the channel of the St. Lawrence is only part of a great system of inland water-ways that reaches into the very heart of this country. What I object to is that while this commission has been practically doing nothing for two years, so far as giving advice to parliament is con-ecrned, we are dealing with part of this .great system of inland water-ways, we are developing part of it, and we do not know whether it is exactly the development that would be best if we take into consideration the whole system of the great lakes and everything that pertains to them. It is impossible to tell how the expenditure of money in the St. Lawrence in connection with the great lakes might be nrodified if we had the report of a commission composed of gentlemen thoroughly acquainted with the subject, who had devoted their attention to it for a year, or six months, or eight months, and who came to parliament with a well considered report. I do not see that we are any nearer to receiving assistance from that commission than we were when it was first appointed. They have held certain sessions, they have gone to different parts of the country, they have made one interim report with regard to some locality on the great lakes. Apart from that, parliament has not had one single word of advice or assistance from that commission since its appointment. I understand the commission was constituted according to the terms of an Order in Council that was brought down to parliament, and the situation was described as urgent by that Order in Council. That Order in Council, I always regarded as a very able document, I do not know who was the author of it, but I



[DOT]consider that it was drawn up by some gentleman who was thoroughly acquainted with the needs of the transportation system in Canada. I always thought that the work [DOT]of a commission of experts proceeding along 'the lines of that Order in Council would be of great advantage and assistance to parliament and to the country. What I find fault with is that, although that commission has been appointed for nearly a year, although it has been going on at a very great expense to the people of this country, although its report is urgently required, as the government then stated in that Order in Council, for the development of our transportation in connection with our great inland water-ways, nevertheless we are going on exactly as we were before the commission was appointed, with an appropriation of $100,000 here and $200,000 there ; we are dealing with the work piecemeal and not according to any comprehensive or well considered scheme. What I would like to know from some member of the government before iwe vote many more of these appropriations is this :	When will
the commission really get at work, when will it make a partial or complete report and when will we have its assistance here, so that we may know whether to vote money for such a purpose as this ? If my hon. friend is not able to answer that question to-night, because, as lie says, he has not the commission under his control, it seems to me that the government should see to it that the information is laid at once before parliament as to the proceedings of this commission.
Mr. PREFONTAINE, It is rather unusual to ask a member of the government who has a department perfectly well defined to furnish certain information which he declares is not In his possession and cannot 1# in his possession. At the present time the commission is composed only of one man, Mr. Reford. There is not even a secretary. The secretary is dead. He died about two months ago, so that a reorganization of this commission is required to know what has been the work that has been done and what ate the recommendations that are to he made. I state again that the plans of my department as regards the ship channel were approved unanimously by the commission. The superintending engineer, in the season of 1903, under my direction accompanied that commission on a tour of inspection of the whole channel with charts, maps, plans and everything connected with the works which had been executed and the works which were contemplated and for which certain-amounts of money are asked to be voted by parliament in these supplementary estimates. We know perfectly well where we are going. We are executing a plan perfectly defined and known to the public


Robert Laird Borden: generally and especially known to the shipping federation. The plan which is being executed by the department received the sanction and approval of the shipping federation years ago. We are carrying out the work as fast as we can, in order to give satisfaction to the shipping federation. regards this part of the work of improving the facilities for inland navigation it is under the control of my department. The great lakes are not under my control except as regards aids to navigation such as lighting, but the channel of the St. Lawrence, which means that part of the national route extending from Montreal to the gulf is under my control. The work of deepening and straightening the channel and putting it in such shape that it will give satisfaction to the public has been under the control of my department since the 1st of July 1904. I am aware of what has been done. I have studied the plans and everything connected with these improvements and I have studied what is contemplated to be done. What is contemplated to be done has received the approbation of the commission, so that, whether there is a report or whether there is no report from the commission, we know where we are going and what we are doing. What we are doing has received the approbation of the shipping federation and is receiving their approbation to the extent that they are pressing the government to complete these improvements as fast as it is posible to carry them out. As a member of the government I can only state that this commission will certainly be reorganized within the shortest possible time and will be put back to work so that they can present a complete report to parliament or even an interim report as to what has been done. Although the secretary is dead and although one of the most important members of the commission is dead also, I suppose there are documents, there is a record of the expert evidence which has been given and drafts of reports which the new members of the commission can take up and deal with. I repeat again it has no reference at all to the ship channel except that the interim report which lias been already made refers to certain improvements which require to receive the approbation of that commission. We have not asked for this amount without knowing what would be tlie result of the work. The work is approved by the shipping federation and everybody connected with navigation. We want this part of the national route to be improved and to be put in such shape as to afford a necessary guarantee to the shipping federation. We want that work to be completed as soon as possible taking into consideration the means at the disposal of the country. T think it is well understood by everybody in this House and every body outside of this House that in going on with these improvements in

the way we are going on with them we are working upon a definite plan and there is no risk that later on there may be' changes. If there be some changes later on they will only be changes necessary to the improvement of the work ; that is in making the depth greater than it is, 20 feet, and making the width at certain points more than it is at the present moment. At the narrowest point the channel is 350 feet wide. At some points it is 500 feet and at some other points, where it is not absolutely necessary to dredge, it goes to 800 feet and even to a mile. But, the improvements that may be made in the future in a part of the channel, after it is considered to be completed, will be only improvements in the way of increasing the depth or the width of the channel or securing increased aids to navigation so as to make it a perfectly safe route.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course the shipping federation is merely a private organization. While its recommendations may be entitled to every possible respect it has not the official status of a body such as the Transportation Commission, appointed under a statute of this country and under an Order in Council for a special and particular purpose. I understand the hon. minister to say that it has made a report in respect to the particular matter for which we are now voting this money. That report was in writing, perhaps, or was it merely' informal ?
Mr, PREFONTAINE. It was in writing. The report applies especially to the other item of $115,000, not to this item, because it was necessary' that we should secure a dredge to make the channel what it should be.


Robert Laird Borden: It has no special connection with this item ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Was the report referred to in writing ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, it was a report in writing. I think it was laid before the House.


Mr.   R.@: I,. BORDEN. Is the hon. gentleman certain that it was laid before the House.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I remember making allusion to it when discussing the main estimates this year.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope the hon. gentleman will be good enough to let me have a copy of it. The very fact that there has been a report made on this matter is the best possible evidence of the connection of the work of the Transportation Commission with the hon. gentleman's department. The work of that commission may not relate exclusively to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but it is very closely associated with a number of matters which are 2031
within the jurisdiction of that department. The difficulty is that the Minister of Marine tells us that the Transportation Commission is not within his department, while the Minister of Public Works says, that the river St. Lawrence from Montreal to Quebec and below is not under his department, and therefore he does not know what the Transportation Commission is doing . We desire that some one should be authorized to speak for the government who will be able to tell us what this commission is doing, when it is to be reconstituted, and why there has been such delay. A few years ago the government thought the appointment of this commission a very serious and urgent matter, and yet the Minister of Marine speaks to-day as if a delay of four or five months was nothing at all. When we have an office vacated under the Crown by death or resignation it does not usually take four or five months to fill it as has been the case with the office of secretary to the commission. If this commission is of anything like the importance that was attributed to it by the government when it was appointed, then the government should have reconstituted it when a death occurred and insisted that it should proceed with its work or else disband it altogether and not pretend that its work is of importance to the country. If the commission is [DOT] of importance its work should proceed ; if it is not of importance let it be terminated. I do not pretend that the Minister of Marine is more at fault than any of the other ministers ; I put the same question to the Prime Minister two months ago and he gave me just about as much information as the Minister of Marine gave me to-night.
Max PREFONTAINE!. He must have given more.


Robert Laird Borden: He gave no more and certainly he could not give any less. If the government regard this commission as of any importance why in the name of all that is sensible do they not take steps to enable it to carry on its work and insist on its doing so. Then if the commission does not carry on its work let the government ask the members to resign and appoint others who will attend to their duties. The Minister of Marine knows very well that my criticism is justified ; I will not press him further to-night but I will insist that the government shall give some answer at an early date.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I never intended to belittle the importance of this commission because I think its work is of the highest importance to the future of transportation in Canada. What I did say was that these works between Montreal and Quebec and Quebec and the Gulf had been planned and decided oai before the commission was appointed so that whether there was a commission or not it would not pre-

vent the progress of the work for which this vote is asked. I think it is the intention of the government to have this commission reorganized as soon as possible and to report all the information gathered.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Under what department does the expenditure for this commission come ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Department of Public Works.


Herbert Brown Ames: To return to the vote for the dredge, will the minister kindly tell us what is the proposed type of dredge and its estimated capacity ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In reply to the hon. gentleman I may read the following :
Description, requirements and general specifications of a sea-going, hopper, hydraulic dredge, for the improvement of the ship channel in the River St. Lawrence, below Quebec.
General description-The hull to be of steel. The vessel to be self-propelled by a pair of independent engines, twin screws, with a draft when loaded of not more than 15 feet. The capacity of the hoppers to be from 1,000 to 1,200 cubic yards. To be capable of dredging to a depth of 60 feet. The speed of the vessel when loaded to not be less than 8 knots per hour. Hull-The hull to be of the same general type as that of the dredge ' W. S. Fielding,' -with at least two feet more free board, 3 feet greater width, and as nearly the same length as practicable. Well-The well to be designed so as to take a hydraulic deepening frame, with cutter of the same type as the dredge * J. Israel Tarte,' and at the same Lime to have the dimensions so as to be suitable for an elevator deepening frame, if at any future time the dredge should be changed to one of the elevator type. Engines-The propelling marine engines to be similar to those of the dredge ' W. S. Fielding.' Cutter-The cutter to he of the same type and size as the one which has given excellent satisfaction on the dredge ' J. Israel Tarte.' A new' pattern, however, to be made with additional knives and improved design which may he set up in the shop and revolved so as to obtain the proper shape and adjustment for the knives. Hydraulic suction pipe-The intake pipe to be similar in design to that of the dredge ' J. Israel Tarte,' but reduced in size so as to increase the velocity of the discharge into the hoppers. Centrifugal pump-The pump and connections to be similar in design and arragement to the dredge 1 J. Israel Tarte.' Main marine engine-To be of exactly the same design, and made from the same patterns as the one on the dredge 'J. Israel Tarte.' With a contracted intake pipe, and a discharge into hoppers, this engine will have adundant capacity for the duty to be performed. Boilers-The vessel to be equipped with four marine boilers similar to those on the dredge ' W. S. Fielding,' only smaller, to give a capacity equal to the present equipment of the dredge ' J. Israel Tarte.' Winches-The bow, stern and side manoeuvering winches to be of the same type as the present improved equipment of the dredge ' Tarte.' Hoppers- The hoppers to be similar ;o those on the dredge ' W. S. Fielding ' with slightly increased capacity. The doors to be replaced by circular valve gates, a mechanical attachment being pro-Mr. PREFONT AINE.
posed for starting the dumping of the material, the flushing to be done by the main centrifugal pump. Well-The framing of the well and foundations for the ' A ' frames to be so designed that at any future date the hydraulic-machinery could be removed and replaced by elevator machinery, to be driven by shafting from the main marine engine. Discharging features-The dredge to be designed to pump the material directly into the hoppers, but connections to be constructed in such a manner that without any important changes arrangements to-be made either to dump the material into scows-or to discharge it through a pipe similar to the manner of disposal on the dredge ' J. Israel Tarte.'
The approximate estimated cost is $350,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand tlnat the dredgfr is a combination of the ' J. Israel Tarte ' type and the ' W. S. Fielding ' type ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it to be built entirely by day labour at Sorel ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. Some of the-fittings will have to be made elsewhere, and tenders will be asked for those ; but otherwise the work will be done by day labour by the men in the employ of the department at Sorel. as the work was done on the ' J. Israel Tarte ' and the ' W. S. Fielding.'


Herbert Brown Ames: Can the minister tell us the estimated capacity of this dredge-the amount of work expected of her ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I gave the capacity of the hoppers-from 1,000 to 1,200 yards in 10 hours. She is supposed to work twenty-four hours like the others of similar capacity which we have.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it larger than any other-dredge presently owned by the government ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It will be about the size of the ' J. Israel Tarte.'


Herbert Brown Ames: Can the minister tell us-what the ' J. Israel Tarte ' cost to build ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I could'not tell that. The ' J. Israel Tarte ' was built by the Department of Public Works three or four years ago. The hon. gentleman can get the information from the Minister of Public Works.


Herbert Brown Ames: But that is not the point. What I wish to know is whether the sum of .$350,000 which we are now asked to vote-is more or less than the cost of similar dredges which have been built by the government ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I must say that it is less than the cost of the ' J.' Israel Tarte,' which was the first of the kind built, and on which there was a good deal of expenditure incurred which will not require to be repeated. For instance, the plans, &c., connected with it, cost, I think, in the neighbourhood of $15,000. We refi449

quire to make no suck expenditure on this. That being the only dredge on the continent of the kind, a good deal of the work had to be done experimentally, causing a good deal of delay, and bringing the cost of the dredge nearer to $400,000 than to $350,000. From the reports that Mr. Cowie has made, we think the cost will be within $350,000. In the construction of the ' J. Israel Tarte,' a good deal of the work was scattered, because the means for doing it were not in the shipyard ; but now all this preparatory work has been done, and will not be charged against the new dredge.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do I understand that from the previous experience of dredge building, you have practically the plans and specifications for this dredge in the department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, and plans on which there is room for improvement. Mr. Cowie has reported that there are two types of dredges of a debatable kind-the ' J. Israel Tarte ' and the ' W. S. Fielding.' They are different in some ways, but they have been built under the same engineers ; and Mr. Robinson, a man, I am told, of very great experience, and profiting by his knowledge of the construction of these two dredges, has prepared the plans of a dredge that will be almost perfection in the class of large and expensive dredges.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will this new dredge when completed be capable of, performing any work different from that which the ' J. Israel Tarte ' or the ' W. S. Fielding ' can do to-day ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I may say that she will be different from the 'J. Israel Tarte ' which is not a hopper dredge, nor a sea-going dredge. This one will be a seagoing dredge, and will combine the suction principle with the elevating. It will be able to work in sixty feet of water, whereas the ' J. Israel Tarte ' cannot work in more than thirty-five or forty feet of water. Of course, I do not depreciate that dredge, which is one of the marvellous dredges of this continent. She has done work, where the material afforded her a chance to work continuously, at the marvellously low rate of 1| cents a yard. The dredge is a wonderful dredge, and has been pronounced such by experts from the United States. But if you combine the hopper and the suction principle in one dredge, and make her seagoing and capable of dredging in sixty feet of water, you can understand the difference between the two, although this one will cost less than the ' J. Israel Tarte.'


Herbert Brown Ames: Are any of the other dredges owned by the department sea-going dredges 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: None. The ' W. S. Fielding ' is a sea-going dredge, but she belongs to the Department of Public Works, which is dredging in the gulf. My
jurisdiction does not extend farther than the beginning of the gulf. At the present moment, I know perfectly well, there is only one single dredge on this continent able to do the work at St. John, owing to the difficulties of that work, due to the difference in the height of the water through the action of the tides. I think it is of advantage to the country that we should have a dredge capable of doing this special work.


Herbert Brown Ames: This feature of the dredge that she was to be a seagoing dredge was not brought out before, I believe. I was about to point out to the minister that it would take about eighteen months to complete this dredge, and, as he has said it would take about eighteen months to finish the work from Batiscan to Quebec. So he would have at his disposal the fleet of dredges engaged in that work. But, if they are not sea-going dredges, I can see why he should have need of a new dredge of that kind. But that point, as I said, had not previously been brought out.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is a very important part of the channel, between Quebec and Montreal, which will call for the work of almost the whole fleet of dredges, except the suction dredge, * J. Israel Tarte.' Below Cap d la Roche the material to be taken out is so hard that it was thought the work could not be done except by reinforcement of our elevator dredges. There are three or four elevator dredges that we proposed to put on this Cap a la Roche work, and it will take them probably three seasons to bring that work to a conclusion. I explain this in order that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) may understand why we shall not have the fleet of dredges available for other work for about three years.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it the intention of the department to keep a separate account of the money spent for wages, material and sub-contracts that go into this dredge, so that we may be able to understand, when the dredge is completed, exactly what she has cost ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: When I took over control of the shipyard at Sorel, the first thing I did was to have an inventory made of the stock there. Then I had some expert accountants look through the books to see how the expenditure had been divided and controlled. I must say that I discovered no records that would show exactly how the expenditure was divided amongst the different pieces of work. Of course, there was no urgent necessity to do so. But it became a necessity for the department under my control to have the books so kept that we should charge every cent of expenditure to each boat or dredge that would come into the yard, the simple reason for that necessity being that we were doing work not only for ourselves, but for the Depart-

ment of Public Works. I have organized a system of bookkeeping by which every expenditure is charged to the special work to which it applies. If we repair a dredge we know exactly what those repairs cost; if we do a piece of work for the Department of Public Works we know what we should charge against them for it. So, it goes without saying that every expenditure on this new dredge will be entered on the books in such a way that we shall know exactly how much that dredge costs. Of course, a fair average is charged for all machines and other things that have been provided as a part of the general equipment.


Herbert Brown Ames: So, when the dredge is completed the minister will be able to give us an exact statement of what she has cost ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Absolutely-unless of course, the books are not kept exactly as the men have been instructed to keep them.
5Ir. AMES. And the minister will be able to give us from time to time a statement of the work turned out by the Sorel shipyard so that we may see whether the sums appropriated to the shipyard yield a return in manufactured and repaired articles ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Exactly.


Herbert Brown Ames: That is important because it is necessary that we should know from time to time whether the work can be done cheaper by contract. And in this connection, I would like to ask if the minister considers the advisability of having this dredge built by contract, and, if so, why he decided in the negative ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This question has received the serious consideration of the superintending engineer, Mr. Cowie and he has consulted- upon It the' superintendent of the shipyards who is also a competent engineer. They came to the conclusion to do the work as we are doing it ; as to the material and certain parts of the machinery to ask for prices before undertaking to do the work. All this has been thoroughly studied and we think that in doing as we have done we shall have the best satisfaction.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is one other feature to which I would call the minister's attention. I see that this item of $100,000 is to be charged to capital account. That is to be borrowed money and to be included in the consolidated account of the country. Now, the dredge it appears to me, should not be charged to capital account because it is practically a tool, a machine, -which after several years labour will necessarily be discarded and sold for old material. I think it should be chargeable to income, because it appears to me that it is not justly classed with such permanent works as the Mr. PREFONTAINE.
excavation of canals or the construction of railways.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It has been the practice of the government, under different administrations, to treat these expenditures as this is being treated. All the dredges and all the boats are charged to capital account, and the question has not arisen in this case why there should be a change of policy. This dredge will certainly be such a fixture that will last the lives of many of us. It will be nearly all of steel and the machinery will be very heavy and of the best construction.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister is probably aware that the most up-to-date business houses are in the habit of crediting themselves with a certain amount as representing machinery and then charging all machinery purchased to replace it to merchandise and not including it in the assets of the firm. The best business acounting is carried on in that way, and the Dominion of Canada ought not to be second in its methods of bookkeeping. At present while the government is enjoying an increasing revenue each year, it is possible for it to improve upon past methods. I would suggest that the government should establish a precedent in this direction and be more particular in charging items of this kind to income and not to capital. The fact that we may have charged them to capital in the past is no excuse for doing so in the future. We look to the government, with its ample revenue, to establish precedents in the right direction and here is an opportunity fir them to do so.


Mr.   BRAIN@: How much would it cost to operate a dredge of this kind for a year and how many months during the year does it operate ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It operates about five mouths in the year and it is pretty hard to say how much it will cost to operate it. When the main estimates were being voted, 1 gave the figures which it would cost to run these dredges, and I can tell the hon. gentleman the approximate cost of running this dredge by taking as comparison our experience with the M. Israel Tarte" dredge. That is not the same kind of dredge, but it is doing the same work. We can work the dredge from the 15th May until the beginning of November, about five months. You cannot work the suction pump when it is frozen but you can work the elevator two or three weeks later. The ' J. Israel Tarte ' we generally took in after four and a half months. She is only a suction dredge.


Richard Blain: The minister made some reference to a change in the system of bookkeeping at Sorel shipyards, is there any system of auditing the accounts at the different government works ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We generally send one of the staff of the accountant's branch twice a year to the different works to audit the boolis. The accounts are transmitted here and the books are kept at the works for convenience sake. A duplicate of everything is sent to the department at Ottawa. Last year I sent 'a chartered accountant to Sorel to audit the books and see that everything was kept in good order.
To provide for permanent piers on Lake St. Peter and other places in the ship channel, including Beaujeu bank, $115,000.


Mr PREFONTAINE.: Steps were taken bv the department this season to inaugurate winter navigation, or at least to extend the season of navigation as much as possible in the spring and fall. For this purpose the floating lights, such as are Jaige used in the River St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec, arb worse than use less when there is ice in the river, to en able any steps in this direction to be taken it is necessary to bay,e points, such as the turns in the dredged channel in Lake* bt. Peter, permanently marked by stiuctuies that will stand the ice pressure during the winter and the running ice in the spring.
It lias also been the custom to remove many of the lighthouses in this stretch of water in the fall and replace them in the spring after the ice has passed down. This Qt course cannot be done in future, and the foundations of these lights must be extended above high water mark and strengthened sufficiently to resist the ice. The amount ot *115,000 is asked for to commence these impi oveinents, including the construction ot a similar pier at probably the most critical point in the river below Quebec, namely, at the sharp turn at Beaujeu bank neai Crane island. The plans and specifications for this work have been prepared, tenders called for, and the contract has been awarded to Messrs. Gritting & Deanoyer* the lowest tenderers, for the sum ot $2o,OUO. The necessary expenses for examining t e site, for preliminary services, and for the necessary superintendence and inspection during the construction, will add at least *2 000 to this amount. It is contemplated to construct four piers during this season. The cribwork is already done and these piers will be constructed at points on Lake St. Peter where they are necessary. "W e will then be able to install lights which will le-main there during the whole winter. Since two or three seasons we have demands made by the steamship companies, which had steamers in Montreal after the 15th November, not to remove the buoys. We took the risk, and as late as the beginning of December ships were towed out to sea by tugs or vessels belonging to the Marine Department This state of affairs cannot continue. If we are to have navigation as late as the beeinning of December and even late in December-some years until the 1st January-it is necessary to have these piers and permanent lights at different points. That is an improvement which the shipping people have been asking for years. The two first that were installed were installed below Quebec at each end of the Traverse and they have given so much satisfaction that we have decided to build another one at Beaujeu bank. The work has been plan-lied out, and tenders called for, and the contract will be given. It will be installed next season. Four other piers are under construction at Lake St. Peter and will be finished for the close of navigation this fall, so that we may be able to take away the buovs which are now only installed lot t e season and still have navigation prolonged late in the season.


Mr HENDERSON.: I understand that this is a new work and the plans have been approved and tenders called for. W ho authorized this work ? What right had t minister to spend the people's money without asking the consent of parliament ?


Mr PREFONTAINE.: That was part of the contemplated expenditure last year. Beaujeu Bank was specially mentioned as one of the works to be done and tenders were called for according to law. As iegaids the others, the work was begun by day labour by the employees of the department, in the ordinary way.


Mr HENDERSON.: From the wording of the item I take it to be an entirely new work. It reads thus : ' To provide tor permanent piers in Lake St. Peter and other places in the ship channel, including Beaujeu bank, *115,000.' This does not appear to me to be the continuation of any work that had been previously undertaken, but something absolutely new, something that has originated since we last met m parliament, something that does not seem to have been contemplated, but that is a new idea ot the minister and has originated entirely with himself, something that he thought he would carry out on his own account. It was a small matter, only *115,000, and the minister with his extraordinary ideas of selt-impoit-ance, thought it was not worth while to consult the members of this House as to whether $115,000 of the people's money should be spent on this little job or not. Now, I wonder when we are going to get through withthis kind of procedure, when the time is coming that ministers will learn that they aresimiiy the servants of the people and not then masters, that they have no light to put their hands in the public chest and take out the people's money without asking the consent of the people. I think that time has come now. How are we going to succeed in stopping this continual drain from the public treasury ? Is it any wonder that the revenues of this country are being exploited to the extent of $70,000,000 or $80,000,000 a year, when parliament has practically lost

all control of the expenditure of the country? I do not like the idea of rising in my place , 6ay after day and drawing attention to matters of this kind, but I conceive it is the duty of members of this House to do so. I hope that by continuing to do so ministers will come to understand that they have a duty to perform, and that dutv is, in the first -place, to consult parliament as to what public works they should undertake. I need not tell the minister how that thing is done. In the first place, they come to the House and ask for an appropriation, they commend a certain kind of work. If the House approves of the work and votes the money, then it becomes the duty of the department to give effect to that resolution by carrying out the work. If parliament says m its wisdom that the work is not desirable, or that the cost is going to be too great, then, of course, they refuse the appropriation, and that will be an instruction to the minister not to continue that particular work. Now, the minister has intimated that in some way this is connected with a previous vote. If so, it is something that the House has not heard of at all, at any rate It is a very vague connection, and the minister cannot justify himself in committing tlie country to an expenditure of $115,000, when, by bringing down an estimate at any time after tbe 15tk of January last, lie could, if it was a feasible work, have obtained the sanction of parliament, and could have gone on in the regular constitutional way to expend the money. Here we are in tlie month of May, after being in session for nearly five months, and we are told that the minister lias decided to do a certain work, that it is going to cost $115,000, that he has called for tenders and the work is practically going on. Of necessity it will have to be finished by the SOtli of June, otherwise this vote will not be available! Now. I think we are getting too much of this kind of thing, and I trust the minister will not humiliate the House to tlie extent he has been doing in tbe past. This occurs every year in the departments. The House is practically told that they are merely here to register the acts of the government, not to be consulted, not to be taken into the confidence of tlie government and asked whether this expenditure is reasonable or not, whether tbe country can afford it or not. but simply to register what they in their majestic minds think it to their advantage to do as a political party. I hope the minister will not ask us to" vote any more estimates like this ; if he does, I shall be obliged again to draw the attention of tbe House -to the fact that such a mode of expending the people's money is not a constitutional mode.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I can relieve the anxiety of my hon. friend. As regards the Beaujeu bank, tbe work was contemplated and mentioned during the discussion of tlie Mr. HENIUSRSON.
estimates last year. As a matter of fact, that work has been going on since September of last year. Fortunately, that was included in the general expense of construction of aids to navigation. There was no special vote for the Beaujeu bank, but it was among tbe improvements contemplated. The expenditure of the department has been large, but tlie department has not done worse than other departments, it has striven to do the best possible with the amount available at its disposal. The work had to go on. It was contemplated in the ship channel vote, for which there was an amount of $80,000. We thought we would not be doing anything against the constitution or against tlie public interest in taking advantage of a number of men being out of work and putting them to work at Sorel in tbe shipyard, preparing for tbe installation of these piers, so that they could be finished at the end of this seasoif. If we had not done so, we would probably have lost one season. Part of the work bad to be done under water, and it had to be finished before the close of navigation. So that really we do not deserve the censure of the hon. gentleman. This is one of those works that, when started. must go on, even if there is no money voted by -parliament, because otherwise tbe country would suffer loss if the work was not done at the time and in the manner contemplated. If we have a vote of half a million dollars and, in going on with the work that was contemplated when we made that estimate, we exceed the amount, the general practice is that we come before tbe House and ask for so much additional for that work. I could have done that easily if I had wanted to mislead the House. I could have stated that in order to complete the work of the ship channel as contemplated by tbe expenditure which was asked last year $115,000 was necessary ; but no. I wanted tbe House and tbe country to know what we were doing in improving the channel. so that nothing would be done in the dark. Probably it would have passed easier if I had just stated that the $115,000 was required to complete the work of the ship channel. On the contrary, I came openly before tbe House, and I think I should be given credit for acting openly in the interests of tlie public.


David Henderson: I am sure we will all give tbe bon. minister credit for boldness in- acting openly. Even when he gets very far astray he is not afraid to do that. He tells us that this is a continuation of the work for which an appropriation was obtained last year under tbe beading ' Aids to Navigation.'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Last year there was a good deal of distinction made between Aids to Navigation and the ship channel. Tlie ship channel was not under my control until the 1st of July, so that this amount for piers on lake St. Peter was
*6457

supposed to be paid out of the amount of -$500,000 voted for the ship channel. The work at Beaujeu bank was contemplated to be paid for out of the vote for aids to navigation. In order to make it clearer we have put the item in such a way that everybody can understand it.


David Henderson: If the hon. minister himself understands it nobody else in this House does. I think he has mystifyed the matter as much as possible. He commenced a work part of which he tells us is being paid for out of the vote obtained for the purpose of improving the ship channel while another portion is being paid for out of money which, was voted for aids to navigation. Then he comes down with apparently a new item entirely for the construction of works we never heard of before :
To provide for permanent piers in Lake St. Peter and other places in the ship channel, including Beaujeu bank, $115,000.
How can any lion, member of the committee connect that with the estimates that were asked for and voted last year ? For my part I never would have suspected that there was any connection whatever, and I think the hon. minister is drawing upon his imagination very largely when he attempts to make this connection. It seems to me that it is rather an after thought. It is one of those adroit methods he has of pulling the wool over the eyes of the members of this House when he gets into a tight corner. I give him credit for that. He is an adept at that sort of thing, but notwithstanding that I stick to what I said before. This seems to me to be an entirely new item, something which has originated since we last met in parliament, something that was not provided for in the session of last year and something which should not have been undertaken until this vote was *obtained and the consent of the House also obtained to the expenditure of the money. The reason I have made reference to it is because we find that there is a great tendency year after year to expend money regardless of the feelings of the members of this House, without considering whether "the country approves of it and without regard in fact to any kind of economy. How is the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) going to provide means for carrying on the affairs of this country if the ministers in the various departments are going to proceed with the construction of works of which he has no knowledge and of which he has no information at the time lie makes his estimates for the expenditures of the year ? It seems to me that it is heaping a great deal of trouble on the hon. minister whose duty it is to provide .all the money that is necessary for carrying on the affairs of the country. To my mind it is not treating that hon. gentleman with fairness, and I hope the day will come when he will call his colleagues to account
and ask them to be good enough to confine themselves to what parliament has voted in the expenditure of the money of this country and not continuously to draw upon the future for funds which the hon. Minister of Finance has had no opportunity of providing.


Mr. MORIN.: The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. I'refontaine) says that he has been spending money and that he wants the country to know what he is doing and what he has done with its money. Well, I may tell the hon. minister that the country does not care a cent for information of that character. Every year items of this kind come before the House ; we are tormented almost to death with items of $50,000, $150,000 or $200,000 and every hon. minister appears to have a good reason for paying out the people's money. I tell you that the country does not care a cent when a statement of that kind is made to it. You know what was done a few years ago with the money which this House voted for the Seven Islands scheme. What can you call that ? Then, we had the Grande Yallfie scheme. I would ask the hon. minister not to imagine that the people are anxious to be told of expenditures of that kind. They are not, and if the hon. minister thinks they are he is greatly mistaken. The country does not care to hear of them and they do not like to pay for them. These hon. gentlemen expend half a million here or $300,000 there and then when we call attention to it we are criticised from the other side because, as these hon. gentlemen say, we are detaining the House. Well. I say gentlemen you are the servants of the people and you are no more than the clerks of the people. You have the Minister of Finance to collect the money for you, he pays it out to you and then you go and pay it out to your Grit friends all over the country. That is just the way it stands. In all these works that you propose to do and particularly in connection with this dredge, there will not be a Tory employed. It will be a Grit shop and a Grit dredge. If a Tory goes there and asks for work he will be told that there is none. It is just the same as it is on the Transcontinental Railway, or on the Grand Trunk Pacific as we call it sometimes. A Conservative cannot get work on the Transcontinental Railway. The government will send to New York and engage Italians and Hungarians rather than give a white man work. That is the way the government tries to blindfold us ; they are spending half a million a year doing work on that ship channel and it has got to be a farce. Formerly they were dredging between Montreal and Quebec but now they are dredging away down the gulf, and they are spending money building dredges that are fit to go to London. We have a right to complain of this and we will continue to complain until the government give up doing wrong.


George Taylor: This item is ' to provide permanent piers in Lake St. Peter and other places in the ship channel.' How many piers are to be erected in Lake St. Peter and how many elsewhere ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: ' There are four in Lake St. Peter, which will cost more than the $78,000 in this vote, and will have to be provided for as to the balance in the supplementary estimates cfor next year. X think the report of the engineer states that he contemplates putting piers at each bend of the river, which would be about eight or nine altogether.


George Taylor: You say there are four to be erected in Lake St. Peter : where are the others ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They are not to be built out of this amount of $78,000, which will not cover the expenditure on the four piers.


George Taylor: There was nothing said about these piers last year, and therefore this is the first time that the question has been brought before the House. The minister has undertaken work which was never approved of by parliament, and that system must be condemned.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The item of $581,000 last year for the ship channel had in view the establishment of these piers.


George Taylor: We do not know what it had in view, but we heard nothing about these piers.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I cannot tell what was stated by the Minister of Public Works, who asked for the vote last year, but probably no details were asked from him.


Edward Cochrane: You contracted for jobs that were not approved by parliament.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was approved by parliament.


Edward Cochrane: How could it be approved by parliament when we never heard anything about it 1


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are lots of things approved by parliament that you hear nothing about.


Edward Cochrane: They are approved in your mind, and the people have to pav for them.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In the item of $o80,000 many works were included, probably two or three hundred items, and if the minister were not asked about each item he probably would only mention the most important, which was for the dredging. I had a list before me this year, and if I were asked I would have given each item which made up the $580,000, and I suppose the same thing was done last vear when the $581,000 was voted for the ship channel.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: This year I took the precaution of putting in the item to read ' River St. Lawrence ship channel, Marine Department,' and as there was need of $115,000 more for the ship channel, I explained how the money would be expended to the 1st July.


Edward Cochrane: The expression ' ship channel ' is misleading.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I did not invent it.


Edward Cochrane: Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise. When you speak of a ship channel, it means to the ordinary mind that you are dredging that channel, but you are now using this money to build permanent docks.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: These are permanent piers to install lights at the bends of the river.


Edward Cochrane: Then it is for lighting the channel ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is always considered as part of the ship channel.


Edward Cochrane: It has no connection with the making of the channel at all, and therefore the expression is misleading.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: All works pertaining to the channel have been considered as ship channel works.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: For my part, I cannot see that these piers will be any help whatever to navigation. I have seen the St. Lawrence below Quebec clear of ice as late as the 27th day of December, and yet navigation had been closed for over a month. When the time comes for navigation to close in the fall of the year the ships will cease to go up the St. Lawrence, and this expenditure is simply a waste of money.


Richard Blain: When were these contracts let ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is only one contract let. We simply prepared the crib-work preparatory to the installation of the piers, and the four piers are being erected by day's work. The first pier was included in the expenditure last year under the head of ' aids to navigation.' Tenders were asked in September last year, and the contract was let some time afterwards. It was for $25,000, which was the lowest tender.


Richard Blain: That was let about the time of the general election.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, I think it was after the general election. At any rate, it does not make much difference ; there was not enough difference to kill a cat. Public tenders were asked through the newspapers, and there were only two tenders, one of $25,500 and the other $25,000.
Mr. BLAIN, Who was the successful tenderer ?

Mr. PREFONT AINK- Crevier & Lemoine. The other was Dussault & Lemieux.


Richard Blain: When is the work to he completed ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 1 think by the 1st of September. The contract was given at the end of the season in order to give the men a chance to prepare their cribwork in the winter ; but nothing , is to be paid until the crib is sunk and put in place.


Edward Cochrane: Why could not all the cribwork for the different lights be let by tender ?	.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We thought it was better to employ our men of the shipyard at Sore] to prepare these piers in the winter on the ice. We thought it was more economical.


Andrew B. Ingram: The cribs are prepared by the government employees, and the filling is done by contract ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No filling in is given out bv contract. We intend to do the concrete work. The steel superstructure will of course be done partly by the shipyard and perhaps partly outside ; I do not know exactly. But the four piers on Lake ist. Peter we intend to stall by day labour as much as possible.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where is the material obtained with which you fill the cribwork ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: By public tender. There is rough stone for filling and broken stone for concrete, all got by public tender.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where is the material
obtained ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: The lumber has been obtained at different places. I can give the hon. gentleman a complete list of the different tenderers. The cement has not been delivered yet.


Andrew B. Ingram: I wanted to know where the broken stone was obtained.


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: I do not know where it is obtained, but a man named Beauchemin of Sorel is the lowest tenderer. The price is $1.80 a ton.


David Henderson: Do you buy broken stone by the ton or by the yard ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: By the ton.


David Henderson: It seems a very peculiar way.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the contract specify that the broken stone shall be bought by the ton instead of by the cord ?


Mr. PREFONT  AINE@: I never heard of stone being bought by the cord. Toise, the hon. gentleman means. The cord is not a legal measure in the province of Quebec.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is news to me. I understand that it is bought by the cord in other provinces, and it seems to me that is the proper way to buy stone for cribwork. Do the specifications call for stone of any particular quarry ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We do not care where the stone comes from so long as it is good and acceptable.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am simply asking for information. The government, then, does not specify any particular quarry ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Mr. LABOR.: I never before heard of stone being bought by the ton. Would the minister give us an idea of what a yard of stone weighs or what a ton measures ? .


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: A yard weighs a little over a ton and a half.


David Henderson: And the price of $1.80 a ton is equivalent to $2.70 per cubic yard. I am sure the electors of this country will not like to hear the price of that stone.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think they will.


David Henderson: I think the man who has the quarry will be delighted, but the minister has been led very far astray in regard to the price of broken stone.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I may say that a week ago I bought some at the same price for my own use.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: This was large stone for cribwork ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Stone broken by machinery for making concrete.


Andrew B. Ingram: The gentleman who has that contract has a bonanza far better than the Klondike.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: What facilities were afforded at this particular place for weighing the stone ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was weighed with a scale.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister said, in answer to a question firom this !side of the House, that this item of $llo,000 would not be used for other places than those on Lake St. Peter, and yet as the item reads, the whole of it might be used elsewheie. If the minister's explanation is correct, i ii,o ntiipr words should be struck out.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am satisfied ; let them be struck out.


Mr. W. WRIGHT.: If I figure the price out rightly, it will amount to $12 per cord. The average price in Ontario w7ould be about $4 per cord of 128 cubic yards.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not know of any measure of that kind.
*6463


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I have had a good deal of experience in contracts, including government contracts, and I never heard of such a price paid for stone in my experience as that paid toy the government in this instance.
Compensation in full and final settlement of all claims to the heirs of the late Joseph Paul, of the hydraulic dredge ' Jos. Israel Tarte,' who was accidentally killed by the explosion of a boiler November 3, 1903, $4,000.


John Barr: How is it that this has been standing so long ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This session there was an investigation before the Public Accounts Committee to ascertain the cause of the accident. It was ascertained that there was no defect in the boiler but that the explosion was due to the carelessness of one of those who were killed. The Department of Justice held that consequently the government were responsible to the heirs of this man and recommended a settlement in the following manner. $1,000 was paid to the widow and $3,000 paid to tutors in trust for the children.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. minister expect a similar claim from the blowing up of the Scout ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think we will be obliged to pay something. When the Item for repairs and expenses of service, item 87, comes up, I will be in a position to give full information as regards the claim.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the investigation over ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.
Further amount required for maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers and ice breakers, $75,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The amount voted for maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers last year was $375,000. Since then two steamers, the ' Montcalm ' and ' Champlain,' have been added to the fleet. The expenditure to the 30th April was $318,252, leaving a balance to the credit of the appropriation of $7,009. This balance has been held over for the payment of the wages of the crews, and in consequence there has been an accumulation of accounts for maintenance and repairs. The department has now four ice breakers in commission during the winter, and the fuel consumption of these steamers is very large. There is also a balance due for repairs to the 1 Lady Laurier.' It will be remembered that this ship met with an accident going to the harbour at Lockeport and immediate repairs had to be made. Part of the cost was paid out of the appropriation of 1903-4 and the balance out of the appropriation for the current year. This was an altogether unforeseen accident and was charged to the vote for maintenance. The * Stanley ' and * Minto ' had also to have large repairs to machinery and engines to get them ready


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: for the winter's work. The * Stanley's ' boilers were retubed and extra propeller blades imported from the builders for both these ships. The amount asked for will bring the appropriation this year up to $400,000, the same amount as is asked for next year. Last year it was pointed out that $325,000 would not be sufficient.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister will remember that on the 20th February I asked for a return with reference to supplies ordered by circular in connection with the maintenance of these Dominion steamers. That return is not yet down.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I inquired tltis morning if all these papers had been laid before the House and was told they had been. I shall make further inquiry and bring down any that may be missing.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that a return was ordered on the 13th February concerning the purchase of supplies and on the 20th February a similar return was ordered. Those two have not yet been brought down.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If not, I shall bring them down before getting through my estimates.


Andrew B. Ingram: The cost of maintaining these steamers is growing pretty fast-at the rate of $100,000 every year. Last year it was $306,094 and now it is $400,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The number of the steamers has increased also. Formerly we had only one ice breaker and now we have four.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is this $75,000 in addition to the $325,000 previously voted and will it enable the department to reach the end of the current fiscal year without any deficit ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the hon. minister give a little information as to the success of the experiment of sending an ice-breaker to Newfoundland to assist in-coming vessels ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The ' Montcalm ' was sent to Newfoundland to help steamers coming in, but unfortunately none of these steamers which were coming in had any Marconi apparatus on board and the apparatus was not working at the station. Therefore the ' Montcalm ' was not able to get communication with the other steamers so as to be able to assist them. So, really, the trip was of no effect on account of there being no Marconi system on ships coming in.
Ocean and river service-to orovide for the construction of new boilers and repairs to hull of steamer ' Aberdeen,' $17,000.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Late last fall when the ' Aberdeen ' came into winter quarters in Quebec we found that her boil-

ers were out of order and had to be entirely renewed. We asked for and received a tender for the work from the Poison Iron Works. The tender was considered reasonable and we sent the boat to Toronto. She is being fitted with the boilers and is expected to be ready in two weeks.


Andrew B. Ingram: Were tenders advertised for in the public press ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, they were a special	boiler,-Thorney croft Watertube
boiler. Nobody but the Poisons could tender for them. Had we not done this we should have been obliged to send the steamer to England. The tender received was considered reasonable and was so reported by the special expert, the late Douglas Stevens.


Andrew B. Ingram: What could be the object of asking for tenders, when as the minister says there was only one firm ? And this is another case where the contract was entered into before the money was voted.


An hon. MEMBER.: More of that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Oh, that is becoming quite common with this government.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Would the hon. gentleman expect us to delay until the vote was passed and so lose the whole summer of the boat and be obliged to hire another boat to do the work ? I think that -would be rather poor policy on the part of the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the department allow its steamers to get into such a condition that they are likely to explode so that the renewal of boilers becomes a matter of emergency ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It was a matter of emergency.


Andrew B. Ingram: If so, it is no wonder that we have explosions such as that in the case of the ' Scout.' We have boilers that are allowed to get into such condition that they cannot do their work and then the government must order renewals before the money is voted, instead of keeping boilers properly inspected and arranging for expenditures in due time.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The boilers were properly inspected. As 1 have stated it was the end of the season and our officers thought the boilers should be renewed. We took the precaution to have them renewed so that the boat would be ready soon after the opening of navigation. Had it not been that the boat was delayed in the Soulanges canal by the ice she would have been ready now. Unfortunately she was caught in the ice, and we had to wait until the 1st of May to send her to Toronto to get the work done. The work is being done and will be completed in a fortnight.


Herbert Brown Ames: It seems to me that this method of spending money before it is
voted by parliament could be avoided by the several departments by including in their estimates a certain sum for unforeseen emergencies, to be expended by them at the discretion of the council. I think that would be much preferable to the system of calling for the money after it has been illegally spent. I am sure this House would be willing to vote a sum to each department that might be used to meet unforeseen emergencies. Parliament undoubtedly has the right to declare in advance whether the money shall be spent, and no cabinet, and no minister has the right to spend money which has not been voted.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I concur in the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames). The spending departments of the government have been considering such a scheme, though we have not yet perfected it. It is a most awkward thing when, at the end of the season, some unforeseen expenditure becomes necessary. It is always open to all sorts of criticism. If we could come to such an understanding as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) suggests, it would be in the interest of the public and of the department.


Mr. SPKOULE.: in the face of an unforeseen emergency making expenditure necessary, the department can always fall back upon a Governor General's warrant.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I think the House was in session when we wanted the money.
Mr. SI'ROUTE. In such a case, parliament can be applied to for a vote.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It would take too long ; it would lose the whole season.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that the government would be justified in drawing upon the public exchequer when the parliament is in session. The House never refuses to vote money if there is urgent need for it.
Ocean and river service-further amount required for investigations into wrecks, $2,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is this for additional salaries and, if so, to whom is it to be paid ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, it is not for salaries. Parliament, voted $2,000, but the expenditure has been $4,317.95.
To pay Captain James Harrison, master of the steamship ' Grecian,' an allowance for expenses incurred by him in connection with the investigation into the stranding of the ship in Halifax harbour on February 19th, 1902, $750.


George Taylor: Why is this ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: About two years ago an investigation was held in connection with the loss of the ss. ' Grecian ' at Halifax. At the inquiry held Captain James Harrison's certificate was cancelled, but be subsequently went to England and appealed and his certificate was returned to him.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: This service cost more last year than usual on account of the severity of the winter and the increased difficulty of navigation between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.


Mr.   RARE@: Is the minister making any extra preparations for the coming winter ? It is contended that all was not done last winter that could have been done in order to convey the mails backwards and forwards. that there was negligence on the part of the authorities. As we' have no reason to suppose that the winters are getting any milder, I would like to know if there is any way of improving this service in order Mr. PREFONTAINE.
to make it more effective than it has been j in the past ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Last winter was more severe than usual, and navigation was interrupted a longer time than in any other year in the history of navigation between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. There was no negligence on the part of the captains of the steamers, and no one has ever charged them with negligence ; they did the best they could under the circumstances.
Further amount required for the extension of the coast service and surveys on the north and northwest coasts of Canada, $65,000.


David Henderson: This is a very large item, and we would like some explanation. Is there some new expedition to be fitted out, or is it a continuation of what is already in existence ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is a continuation of the expenditure connected with the expedition of the ' Arctic ' last year. We shall have to send a boat with coal, provisions and men to join the ' Arctic.' This boat is supposed to leave in June and return by tbe end of July, bringing back some of the men who are sick and disabled. She will also carry some men to complete the equipment of the ' Arctic ' and to station at the posts.
Mr. I-IENDERSO'N. It seems to me we are spending a large amount of money in that region. I am not complaining of the amount at all, but it would be interesting to the House if reports somewhat extended could be given to the House that we may know the result of this expedition.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman will turn to the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries he will find an extensive report by Mr. bow, made on his return last year.


David Henderson: I am much obliged to the hon. gentleman for drawing my attention to that. I had not seen it. I was looking rather for some special report. Anything we can learn about that northern country will be of great interest.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: If the hon. gentleman will take communication of that report he will get a great deal of information, because it is very elaborate and complete.


David Henderson: May I ask the minister how far northward the ' Arctic ' has gone ? Is there any attempt to get away into the region of the North Pole, so as to take possession of the islands lying north of the continent of North America, in the name of the King, and setting aside for ever any claim that the United States or some other country may make in that region of the world ? We desire to avoid any complications such as we had in the case of Alaska. Is this expedition commanded by Captain Bernier ?


Mr. PREFONTAI XE.: Captain Bernier is the sailing master of the ' Arctic,' the expedition is commanded by Major Moodie.


David Henderson: I have certainly a great deal of confidence in Cajitain Bernier's ability to sail those northern waters, or to sail waters in almost any part of the world.
I think it is a great pity that the government did not avail itself some years ago of the services of Captain Bernier ill exploring the northern regions of the continent of America. Even had they granted him the assistance which he came and pleaded for year after year, with a view to make that final effurt to discover the North Pole, and thus advertise Canada all over the world, I think the government could have spent $100,000 with a great deal of satisfaction in that direction. We are now spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in surveying a portion of the coast of North America, which I think will bring very much less of interest to the people of this country than would have resulted from an expedition toward the Pole with a view of making that long coveted discovery. Now, here is $65,000 this year. If I mistake not, this expenditure already has gone up to the hundreds of thousands. As I said, I am not complaining about it. I think perhaps it may be money well spent, if it will be the means of preventing complications between ourselves and our neighbours to the south of us, who are also pushing out in that direction with a view to claiming something in these northern regions which we may not have laid our hands upon. I simply express my regret that the services of Captain Bernier were not obtained years ago, and that he was not placed at the head of an expedition that would once for all have settled the question of who was entitled to the sovereignty of those islands lying between the North Pole and the presently known continent of North America.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is an item of $65,-
000.	Will this be in addition to the amount which we voted last year for the same ex pedition ?


David Henderson: This is supplementary.
5Ir. SPROULE. Yes.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The sum of $170,000 was transferred from the Northwest Mounted Police to the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the Hudson bay expedition. Out of that amount the department paid $29,018. balance due the High Commissioner in London for the purchase of the steamer ' Gauss.' afterwards called the * Arctic.' The total sum paid for the ' Arctic ' was $70,000 and $40,982 was paid out of the appropriation for 1903-04. The balance of the amount transferred from the Northwest Mounted Police was expended in fitting out the ' Erik ' as a relief steamer for
the ' Neptune.' The ' Erik ' was charted from Job Brothers & Company, St. John's, to take coal and supplies to the ' Neptune.' The ' Arctic ' was fitted out and provisioned at Quebec and it was found that the funds at the disposal of the government were not suflicient to meet the expenditure. Besides the ' Arctic,' the department had to make repairs to the ' Neptune ' after it returned to Halifax. The ' Neptune ' unfortunately met with an accident coming out of Hudson bay and the department was obliged to place the ship on the marine slip at Halifax for repairs. It was found besides damages to the bow that part of the keel was knocked off and other damages were sustained which required to be renewed. The amount asked for is required to meet all liabilities in connection with the expedition up to the 30th June.
As regards the remarks made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that we should have given charge of the expedition to Captain Bernier, I beg to disagree. The question of these expeditions was discussed two years ago and the first expedition was sent out under the charge of Mr. Low. It was composed of a certain number of members of the Northwest. Mounted Police, because the government thought they should establish a post up there. Mr. Low made a report of the work he did and a certain number of mounted police were left there. While he was up there we thought we would send a boat, the Arctic,' up for three years to survey and visit the different points in Hudson bay, to go as far north as possible under the orders of Major Moodie, establish posts at different places, make researches, gather information and establish customs offices at different points because there is a great- deal of fishing by Americans going on there. The instructions issued to Major Moodie were published at the time. They left in the month of September. They wintered at Fullerton bay-We received some letters and information from them by land during the month of April. The information that we received from Major Moodie was to the effect that some of the men would have to come back.
Nobodv had died, but some of the men were sick, some were unfit for service and a certain number of mounted policemen would have to be sent out to relieve them. In order to carry out the plan which was adopted by parliament another boat will have to be sent up there to take in coal and provisions as well as the men who are required to replace those who will have to be brought back I think, after all, the best mode of asserting the authority of Canada ju Hudson bay is bv establishing posts in different places under resident officers of the government and by having our organization completed as much as possible with due regard ir. the via-iit of the people who may be up
there.


COMMOXS
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What has been the experience in regard to the navigability of Hudson bay and Hudson straits? I saw some time ago in some of the papers that the conditions had been found to be much more favourable than had been anticipated.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They were not specially charged with that because there is in some departments of the government a report made some years ago by Captain Wakeham who was sent specially to ascertain the possibility of navigating the bay and the straits and the length of the season of navigation. I have not the report before me, but_I know there was such a report made about five years ago, and there was also the report of Lieutenant Gordon made in 1881.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this expedition not charged with the duty of making observations as to that?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, they are charged with the duty of making observations and of obtaining all the information possible. We have no report yet as to that specially, because all we have received are some letters making urgent demands and not going into details.
(Mr. INGRAM. How many officers are employed in connection with the ' Neptune' ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There are none.


Andrew B. Ingram: No officers ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no ' Neptune.' There was one sent up, but she has returned. That was the boat obtained in Newfoundland which was sent up there previously to the purchase of the ' Arctic ' to explore the northern part of Hudson bay. She was under the command of Mr. Low whose report is to be found at page 116 of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Andrew B. Ingram: I have here quite a lengthy report signed by A. P. Low.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: This expedition appears to have taken place in the summer of 1903.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes, that was the first expedition that was sent up.


Andrew B. Ingram: Exactly, and he speaks of some small repairs to this boat. I understood the hon. minister to say that there were very extensive repairs made to this boat. '


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They were found to be extensive afterwards when they put her on the slip.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know they put her on the slip, but it says here that the repairs were very .small.
The ship was immediately placed in dry dock at St. John, where a few small repairs were Mr. PREFONTAINE.
made to her underbody, after which she was speedily sent to Halifax, arriving ihere on the 20th.
That would indicate that the repairs were very small.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That was before she sailed. The repairs to which I have reference were made at Halifax after Mr. Low had left the boat, I think.


Herbert Brown Ames: There was an item in one of the newspapers-I thought that I could put my hand upon it, but as I cannot do so 1 will have to trust to my memory in quoting -which appeared within the last day or two intimating that Mr. Low had refused to go to the north because the department would not give him the ' Neptune.'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The hon. gentleman refers to something which appeared within the last few days ?


Herbert Brown Ames: Yes.	'


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There was a misapprehension. The papers were mis-informed. We do not intend to send anybody this year to do the work which we suppose the ' Arctjc ' will do. The ' Arctic ' will have two seasons yet to patrol Hudson bay, this season and next year so that we thought there was no reason to send out the ' Neptune ' this year to go over the same ground the ' Arctic ' will go over. We will satisfy ourselves with sending simply an ordinary freight boat which we will hire, to carry the men that we are going to send to the ' Arctic ' and the necessary supplies of coal, &c. That is what created the impression that Mr. Low has refused to go except in the ' Neptune.' We do not ask Mr. Low to go with any other boat, but we are not sending the * Neptune ' so that Mr. Low cannot go. We have the steamship ' Arctic ' there already and so there is no necessity to send another similar boat.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is there any truth in the statement that Mr. Low considered it was not safe to take his crew in the boat the department wanted to give him ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Mr. Low is not asked to take any crew, because the ' Neptune ' has her own crew, and she is a rather expensive boat. As there was no necessity for exploring the same waters the ' Arctic ' is going to explore next season and the season following, we thought it would be a saving to send a freight boat with its own captain and its own crew. In that way Mr. Low will not go.


George Taylor: What boat are you getting ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have not decided ; we are asking for prices.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it true that the department, on the advice of the hon. member for

Halifax (Mr. Roche), has decided to charter the ' Havana ' ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: There is no such decision.* We have asked Captain Patterson his charter price for the ' Havana ' for freight purposes, and he made a proposition which is not satisfactory. He wanted to charter the boat at so much a day, and we wanted to rent her for the round trip. We have not closed yet with Captain Patterson.


George Taylor: Is he the only gentleman you inquired from ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: We have inquired everywhere in Canada.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do we understand that the ' Havana ' is the only boat asked to give a price ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No ; we have been inquiring for two months for prices in order to send a boat up there. We want a boat to carry supplies to meet the ' Arctic ' and come back. It is not for an expedition, and we consider that the ' Neptune ' is too expensive for that work. We may be obliged yet to take the ' Neptune ' if we cannot get any other in Canada, but any way there is nothing decided.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then it is purely a departmental affair, and it is not within the power of any members of the administration as a piece of patronage ?
Mr. PRE-FONTAINE. Not a bit of it. We try to get a Canadian vessel.
To pay an honorarium to Mr. A. P. Low for his services as commander of the expedition to the north and northwest coasts of Canada, $1,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is Mr. Low's
that a vacancy has occurred in the representation of the electoral district of the city of London, Ontario, by reason of the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown by Charles S. Hyman, to wit, the office of Minister of Public Works. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up at the next sitting ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will proceed in Committee of -Supply with the estimates of the Minister of Militia, and later we will resume the estimates of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 25, 1905.