1905-05-09

Rt.   H@: That Mr. Bristol be appointed a member ot the following select standing committees : Privileges and Elections, Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, Printing, Public Accounts, Banking and Commerce and Library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIA'HR (Minister of the Interior). I desire to place on the table tbe reply to tbe following question of tbe hon. member for Lennox and Addington (Mr. U. AATilson), which I was unable to answer yesterday. The question is :

1.	Has the government, or any official on their behalf, had any correspondence with Mr. C. Kin-lock Cooke, author of an article entitled ' The Emigration of State Children,' published in the April, 1905, number of the ' Empire Review,' or any one on his behalf, or any official of the imperial government, on the subject treated of in the said article ?
2.	If so, will the government lay such correspondence on the table of the House ?
The answer is :
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day belug called,
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the government to item 3G :
Second reading of Bill (No. 148), an Act to amend the Act respecting the incorporation of Live Stock Record Associations-Mr. Fisher.
The farmers and live stock breeders, especially of the province of Ontario, are very much interested in the passage of this Bill. A lot of shipments of live stock are now being made and the certificate of pedigree must accompany them. I believe they are delayed in their work, and I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to direct the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to the fact in order to facilitate the Bill going through.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: We are engaged in the consideration of a Bill now, which, I hope, will not take much time, and as soon as we dispose of it we can take up the other Bill.


Mr.  W. F.@: MAtlLEAN. That is not much satisfaction to the farmers. I think you will .dispose of it before that.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend will facilitate the business, we will be able to help the farmers.


William Findlay Maclean: All right ; the farmers can wait.



WIRE FENCE ON INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY LINE.

Mr. H. S. CLEMENTS (West Kent).: Mr. Speaker, if it be necessary to keep mysell right, I will conclude with a motion. I desire to call the attention of the government to an important question which, I think, is deserving of a more explicit answer from the government than that which has been given. It has been rumoured for some time back that the government propose building several hundred miles of wire fence in the Canadian Northwest along the boundary line between the United States and Canada. On Thursday, April 27, I placed the following questions on the order paper :
1.	Has the government decided to erect wire fencing along the southern boundaries in the Northwest Territories ?
2.	If so, has the contract been let for the construction of same, and what firm received the contract ?
3.	Were tenders asked for by advertising, and
what length of time were tenders open ? If so, was lowest tender accepted ?	[DOT]
4.	If contract is let, what is the price to be paid per rod, and what style of fence, height, &c. ?
Now, this question was answered by the right hon. Prime Minister on May 1st, as follows : That the government had this under consideration, that no contract had been let or tenders asked for. Some correspondence relating to this fencing has been placed in my hands, and I feel in duty hound to bring it before the government. The Page Wire Fence Company of Walker-ville wrote the following letter to me, under date of April 18th, 1905 :
Walkerville, Ont., April 18th, 1905.


Hon.  H. S.@: Clements,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-About a month ago we heard what we supposed to he a rumour to the effect that the government were figuring on building wire fencing along the southern boundary line of the Northwest Territories. We at once wrote the Department of Agriculture, asking them if there was any foundation in the report, and Mr. Fisher referred us to the Department of the Interior. We at once wrote that department, under date March 20th, but did not receive a reply until under date of April Sth, a letter signed by Mr. P. G. Keyes, stating that the government had already let the contract for the wire fence. In the meantime we had got a friend to write Mr. R. F. Sutherland for information regarding this matter, but he professed ignorance and only just a day or two ago a letter was received from him stating that he found the contract had been let to McGregor, Banwell, a firm in this town. ,
We take the liberty of writing you regarding this matter, as our two members from the Essex riding are friends of the McGregor, Banwell people and we have reason to believe they were instrumental in putting the deal through. Mr. McGregor in the fence company is a son of the late Mr. McGregor.
We supposed if the government intended carrying out such a project it would have advertised for tenders, but it does not seem possible that this could have been done, or some of our friends would have seen the advertisement, and reported it to us even though we, here, heard nothing about it direct. We have about 1,000 agents scattered over every civilized part of Canada, and they are all interested in our business, and it seems as if some one of them would have reported the advertisement to us.
We did not go to Ottawa to personally canvass, thinking the government would surely advertise and that we would have a chance to tender. It would look as if the deal had been put through very quietly, as a matter of favour-itsm. If we are not asking too much of you, we would consider it a great favour if you would find out for us if tenders were adver-

tised for, as we wish for our own satisfaction to find out how this matter was put through. Yours very truly,



THE PAGE WIRE FENCE COMPANY,

[Stage Direction]
Limited,
(Sgd.) Merton Church,
Secretary Treasurer.
I will place before the House the correspondence which took place between this firm and the Department of the Interior. On March 20tli the Page Wire Fence Company addressed the following letter to the Department of the Interior :
Department of the Interior,
Ottawa, Ont.
Gentlemen,-We have heard that the government intend fencing the boundary in the Northwest between the United States and Canada, and that several hundred miles of fencing and steel posts will he required. We, of course, are much interested in this, and take the liberty to ask as to what official will have the matter in charge, so that we can communicate with him.
Thanking you in anticipation, we are.
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
Limited,
(Sgd.) Merton Church;
Secretary Treasurer.
On April 8th, in answer to their letter of the 20th March, the Page Wire Fence Company received this letter from the Department of the Interior :
Ottawa, Sth April, 1905.
Gentlemen,-Replying to your letter of the 20th ultimo in reference to the erection of a wire fence at the southern boundary of the Northwest Territories, I beg to state that the government has awarded the contract in this matter.
Your obedient servant,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
The following letter was addressed to Mr. Keyes, secretary of the Department of the Interior in reply :
April 18th, 1905.
Mr.  P. G.@: Keyes,
Secretary Department of the Interior, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Referring to your number 64255, your letter of April Sth, will you kindly inform us as to when, and wheie, appeared the advertisement calling for tenders for the government boundary fencing in the Northwest. We failed to see or hear of any such advertisement, and hence did not know until a late date that the government, contemplated such a purchase. Also, unfortunately, our inquiry of February 20th failed to reach its destination promptly, and we did not know anything definite about the matter until we got your announcement that the contract was let.
Yours very truly



THE PAGE WIRE FENCE COMPANY,

[Stage Direction]
Limited,
(Sgd.) Merton Church,
Secretary Treasurer.
After putting a question upon the order paper and having the answer of the Prime Mr. CLEMENTS.
Minister, I mailed it to the people who referred the matter to me, and this is their letter in reply :	.
May 2nd, 1905.
H. S. Clements, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-We are in receipt of your valued letter of the 1st instant, and are very much pleased to note the attention you have given the matter of boundary line. Your are certainly following it up in a very satisfactory manner.
It certainly seems very strange that the premier, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, would deny that the contract has been let, while the secretary of the Interior Department stated that it has been let. In order that you may have the matter before you in black and white, we inclose you the correspondence we have had with the department, including the letter from the secretary. It looks as if it would be a difficult job to reconcile the statements of the two officials.
Again thanking you for your trouble in this matter and hoping to be able to reciprocate, we are,
Yours very truly

[Stage Direction]
Limited,
(Sgd.) Merton Church,
Secretary Treasurer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is that it does seem a very strange thing that this contract should have been let in the manner in which it has been let, and I think the country is entitled to some explanation of the circumstances. As we all know it is a very large contract and involves the expenditure of a great deal of money.
An bon. MEMBER. How long is the fence.
Herbert Sylvester Clements: 700 or S00 miles perhaps, but I am not prepared to state what the value of the whole contract is. I move the adjournment of the House in the ex-* pectation that the government will give some explanation of the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is quite evident, from the facts that have been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend, that there has been some misapprehension somewhere. If the correspondence which he has given to the House is authentic, I have been misinformed as to the answer which I gave to my hon. friend *when he put the question. I am sorry to say that at this moment it is not possible to give an explanation, but the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) will have inquiry made and the exact condition of tilings will be made known to my hon. friend at a later day ; probably to-morrow.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: 
Herbert Sylvester Clements: There was no answer to that letter.


Robert Laird Borden: This .is most certainly a matter which invites the attention of the right lion, gentleman, or the Minister of the Interior, or some one connected with that- department. We had a debate in the House during the present session with respect to the awarding of tenders upon an advertisement which gave very short notice and which practically was equivalent to no advertisement at all. The acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) then admitted that the contention of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) was correct, and that a new advertisement should be issued in order that intending tenderers might have reasonable notice. According to the information which is now before the House in connection with the present matter, it appears upon the statement of the secretary of the department that a contract has been awarded, and when he is asked with regard to the advertisement lie returns no answer whatever. At all events the gentlemen who are interested in the matter and who have been watching for an advertisement have not been able to observe any. It is quite possible that the right hon. gentleman may have been misinformed as to the answer he gave, but that is only a trifling circumstance compared with the real question which is :	That a very large contract for wire fencing between Canada and the United States along the boundary of the Northwest Territories, has been awarded without giving any opportunity whatever to those engaged in the business to tender for it. This matter will have to be discussed again when the right ton. gentleman has had an opportunity of looking into it, but it is a very strong indication to him that he should have followed at an earlier date the advice of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and appointed a Minister of the Interior without that delay which did occur. There have been some very curious proceedings in connection with this matter. I will not dwell upon it to-day, because it is only right that the government should have au opportunity of stating the facts and making their position plain before the House. I venture to think, as the writer of one of these letters says, that it is a little difficult to reconcile the
statement of the secretary of the department with the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House, and it is also a little difficult to reconcile the course pursued with a due regard for the public interest.


Wilfrid Laurier: Would you please pass me the correspondence ?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES There are several very curious coincidences in connection with this matter. First, I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that we have no evidence that any tenders were called for this enormous work. Suppose we take it as 744 miles from the first meridian to the fifth meridian, and assuming that part of the boundary is in Manitoba, we would have in round numbers, 700 miles to be fenced or a total of 224,000 rods which is a nice tidy little contract for some gentlemen to get without any rivals being allowed to tender. 'Second :	We have "the astounding spectacle of the secretary of the department some time ago informing a firm that wished to put in a tender-a firm that is well known throughout the length and breadth of Canada as a wire fence company -we have the secretary of the department informing this firm that the contract^ has been let, and a few days afterwards" the Prime Minister stands up in his place in the House-having received information I dare say from the same department-to state that the contract has not been let, but that the matter is under consideration. Here is another surprising little coincidence, and let me call the attention of the First Minister to it. In looking to * Hansard ' to see the exact terms of the Prime Minister's answer, we find that the whole question and the whole answer is deliberately-I will not say deliberately in the sense that they are intentionally left out-but the whole matter is undoubtedly left out of ' Hansard.'


Mr. FOSTER.: Which edition ?


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: 
Samuel Hughes: I do not accuse the First Minister. I think that, bad as he is he would be above that. The answer that was given here was undoubtedly furnished by the Department of the Interior, and the peculiar coincidence is that the question and answer are deliberately left out of ' Hansard ' the next morning. I am drawing this matter to the attention of the First Minister. Would it be too much to ask him to find out how many of his present or past colleagues in this House are interested in ranching along the American border, and whose property would be render-

ed much more valuable 'by the construction of this fence. Let the First Minister be good enough to take this into consideration, and when the matter comes up again, we can possibly furnish some further data. I will not refer to the peculiar manner in which a contract was let to friends of hon. gentlemen opposite without any tender being called for. These are all very suspicious circumstances from first to last. I trust that the Prime Minister will look into them, and give us< the result of his mature deliberation when the matter comes up again.


Mr. JOHN HERRON.: In reference to this fence along the boundary line, I may say that the Americans have about sixty miles of fence, built about eight rods to the south of the boundary line. On the Canadian side a number of ranches have about seventy miles of fence built about four rods north of the boundary line. It is reported that the government are about to purchase or take over the fences on our side of the, line. Whether that is so or not I do not know ; it is only common rumour in that part of the country. If tenders are to be let for the construction of this fence, there are a large number of men in that country who do that kind of work and have machinery for the purpose ; and if tenders were called for in the ordinary way, we could get the fences built at very much less than the figures mentioned here. I think the fence built on the American side of the boundary line has posts one rod apart, with five barbed wires, and is worth about $150 a mile. The fence built on the Canadian side has cedar posts two rods apart, with four wires, and is worth about $120 or $125 a mile. These facts show that there are people in that-part of the country who make a business of building this class of fence, and if the government contemplate building a fence along the boundary line for a considerable distance and will call for tenders, I hope they will give the people in that part of the country an opportunity to tender for the work.


Mr. T. S. SPROTJLE.: There is one thing plain, that there is a large sized Ethiopian in this fence. In the first place, the answer given by the premier, I take it, was the answer of the department. Why should the department give him an incorrect answer ? Either the department knows or it does not know. If the department knows, why should it send that answer to the House to mislead both the premier and the House ? There are one of two things apparent in this whole transaction ; either there is very bad business management in the department that would not do credit to any business firm in the Dominion of Canada, and the people know very little of what is taking place in the department, or it is deliberately playing into the hands of friends. I do not care which is the fact, it is reprehensible and bad, and I think it is the duty of the Prime Minister to look into it. If the de-Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
partment is running a business of its own for the purpose of playing into the hands of friends and misleading both the premier and the House, the sooner there is a little insurrection in that department and a little punishment given, the better it will be both for the department and the House. There is a strong suspicion that the department desired to play into the hands of friends, no notice having been given inviting tenders but a son of an ex-member of this House, who is always in close touch with the House, and politicians in that part of the country seem directly interested in the concern that is furnishing the wires. When this matter is followed up, I think you will find that a good round figure has been given for the contract, perhaps very much more than would have been given if public tenders had been invited and every one had been allowed to tender. I think the First Minister cannot move a moment too soon in looking into this matter, and, whoever is at fault, setting it right. I think it would be well, in the interest of the country, to know who is the delinquent party, how an explanation comes to be given that misleads the House, and how others are prevented from tendering for a work that could probably have been done at a great saving of money to the country if it had been publicly advertised and tenders accepted after due notice.


Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON.: There arises out of this incident another question, for I understand that the answer given at the time was not put in ' Hansard.' I think the whole House will agree that that is a very serious matter. I want to take occasion to remind the House of another thing, that the unx-evised ' Hansard ' is mutilated when it comes out in the revised edition, which the right hon. leader of the government knows, is entirely against the spirit of ' Hansard.' That is bad enough, but if things said in the House are not put into the unrevised edition, we are paying an immense amount of money for nothing.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a new feature of this question. If the answer which I gave here has not been published, the Debates Committee should look into that. My hon. friend is a member of that committee and can attend to that. It is a matter as to which there should be some inquiry, in order to find out who is the guilty party or whether it is simply an accident.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This is the first time I have heard about it.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is the first time also that I have heard about it.


Mr. E. B. OSLER.: It seems to me that there is more in this question than the mere matter of letting a contract. If it is a fact that individual members of the government or heads of departments let important

contracts wruiout the knowledge of the Prime Minister or the government, it reveals a most serious state of affairs, and explains many of the accusations which have been made against this government. Surely the question of an international fence, probably 800 miles in length, is one of rather more importance than the question of the amount of a contract let by this government. Surely that is a contract that should not be let without the knowledge of the Prime Minister. It is a question that has probably been the subject of negotiations with the states to the south of US'; it certainly should be if it has not been. If a work of that kind can be let without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, then the door is open to all manner of very doubtful transactions in connection with any department of the government. The wire fencing along the boundary between Switzerland and Italy is regarded as so important that sentries are placed to walk up and down on either side of it. And there are hanging bells to give notice to these sentries if there is any attempt to break through this fence. Of course, I do not pretend that anything of that kind will be required with us. But it shows that it is a question of such importance that it should all be carried out with the thorough understanding of the state officers, so that there may be no question of the boundaries. And, if such a transaction is carried out by any department without the knowledge of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister is forced to give the answer that he gave the other day, I say there is something radically wrong, something much more serious than the letting of a contract without tender.


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON.: I certainly agree with everything that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has said. And I will go further. I think it is very unfortunate-and the matter has occurred more frequently of late with relation to public works-that the department officials should be allowed such great latitude in deciding the expenditures to be made upon various public works of this country. Instead of taking the instructions of the minister to erect a public building for a certain sum, the officials of the department seem to be left practically uncontrolled to say what the cost of any public work shall be.
I have had occasion, time after time, to draw attention to this matter. And the course I have suggested at different times has been approved, especially by the late Hon. Mr. Sutherland, when Minister of Public Works. That gentleman stated that he approved of my plan that the officials of the government should be limited to a certain sum of money for the erection of a public building, after parliament has decided that that building shall be erected. But here we have a case where not only the Prime Minister is not aware of the con-177
struction of this fence, but the Minister of the Interior seems to have no knowledge of it and does not seem to have been consulted-only the officials of the department kno*tv anything about it. Was parliament ever consulted, and did it vote money for the construction of this fence? If parliament voted the money, I would like to know when that vote passed. I have no recollection of any vote of this House for the erection of suc-h a fence. Of course, if there has been a vote, I presume, that would be a direction to the department to carry out the work. But, if my recollection is accurate-and I think it is-no appropriation has been made for this purpose. I believe, from all that has been learned from this brief discussion, that some official in the department has undertaken to concur in the desire of some contractor to get a big contract without even waiting for the appropriation by parliament to sanction it, and without the minister at the head of the department having approved of it. Whether it was in the Department of the Interior or the Department of Public Works, I do not know. I should think it would be for the Department of Public Works to erect this fence. We have nothing before us to show that the Department of Public Works was ever consulted in the matter or that it sanctioned this expenditure in any way. So far as the facts are before us, it would seem to be one of those cases where departmental officials have assumed to do something they had no authority to do, to expend public money, while we, the members of this House, to a certain extent, along with the government are held responsible. How are we to limit the expenditure of this country if an official of the government is to have power to direct expenditures beyond that of the head of the department, or even that of the Prime .Minister, and without consulting parliament ? I think the time has come when the Prime Minister should put his foot down on such a practice, and that he should administer a severe rebuke to any colleague of his qr any official under the government who would undertake to do such a thing. Now, this is not a small matter. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) said it would cost $100,000 at least. I have no hesitation in saying that if a proper fence were constructed there it would cost not less than a quarter of a million dollars. Eight hundred miles of fencing, would mean 256,000 rods. To construct a fairly good, substantial fence and provide posts such as ought to be provided in a case of that kind would cost not less than $1 per rod. I speak of this with some knowledge of what wire fencing is worth. Here we have an expenditure of $250,000. Now, has it come to this, that an official of the government has power to enter into a contract with a firm friendly to the government to expend a quarter of a million dol-



lars without the consent of the head of the department, without consent of the Prune Minister, and without the concurrence of the parliament whose right alone it to decide whether this work shall be constructed, and, if so, to vote the money for it ? No official should expend or even propose to expend a single dollar toward the erection of such a fence until the money has been voted by parliament. There are certain things the government has a right to do, X admit ; but an undertaking like this is one of the things that, as I say, are beyond the right and power of the government unless it has received the sanction of parliament. I am glad this matter has been brought up, because I think it will be a salutary lesson to the officials of the differ-erent departments ; it will be a warning to them in the future to be more careful how they handle the people's money not having the' consent of the people's representatives.


George Eulas Foster: The statement of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) is one which, I hope, the Prime Minister will take into consideration in giving the information which he proposes to give to-morrow. It surely cannot be that a contract for from $100,000 to $250,000 would be let, whether by open or by private tender, or any steps taken for letting it, until a definite estimate had been brought down and a vote passed by parliament. X cannot but think that my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) must toe mistaken in that respect, because to let such a contract under such circumstances would be to do a thing that even this government would hesitate before attempting. But we ought not to feel surprised if a thing of this kind has taken place in the Department of the Interior-particular 1 y in the Department of the Interior. This government commenced by doing away largely with cabinet responsibility, and by throwing upon each individual minister the work of his own department not revised by the ' cabinet as a whole.
When you put a strong willed minister in charge of the department and give him liis own free will, these things inevitably hap pen. It happened eaily in the career of this government. The Minister of Railways and Canals did work on a large scale in the province of Prince Edward Island and other provinces without ever having consulted his colleagues in the cabinet at all ; and I believe some very bad quarters of hours were lived by various ministers regarding what took place in that respect. That was a gross instance of what I mention, and it had some effect probably in the cabinet,-how much I do not know. Then you take this same Department of the Interior ; a strong self-willed man is put in charge. He immediately selects his own favourites, his former henchmen, those who had done him service politically, and he put them in positions am!


David Henderson: advanced them to positions in the department, irrespective of merit, length of service, or anything of the kind. Favourites installed in that way have strong influence on the ininister. They know what they have done for him and what the minister owes them, and they do not hesitate, when the right time comes, to push their advantage. Look at the humiliating confession made in parliament by the ex-Minister of the Interior himself. It was on the occasion of the Saskatchewan land business. A certain block of land was sold at a song, given away for some money and a little more scrip, but the. conditions were laid down, solemnly agreed upon, and brought to this parliament. One of the conditions was that they should perform their , obligations and make their payments before getting their patents. It came out however in this House-it was brought out by some bon. gentleman on this side- that the patents were issued before the conditions were fulfilled, and that this was done without the cognizance of the minister, and the minister bad to make a confession in the House that be did not know it was done or he would not have allowed it. That official is still iu the department. He actually gave to these gentlemen patents- for their lands when they bad not fulfilled their conditions, and the only excuse given by the minister was that it had not come to his attention until too late. This transaction is on the same basis. They have had their fling and their run in that department. They knew that the Prime Minister was easy, and they proposed to have it when there was no minister particularly in charge. In this way this tuft gone on.. There are some things in connection with that department which merit the immediate attention of the new Minister of the Interior, and I hope he will give them his honest attention. There have been too many rumours regarding that department, too many suspicions of jobs carried out in it; and what I hope now is that an honest administration of that department will take place. But what ought to take place certainly is that parliament should not he trifled with and that no Prime -Minister or minister should be given false information by which to mislead the House. It may be all a mistake that can be cleared up as a misunderstanding ; but it looks now as if it were gross carelessness, or something worse, that when a contract of that kind bad been given, the First Minister should have bad a wrong answer put into his band. The same thing took place earlier in the session, and 1 called the right bon. gentleman's attention to it. With Mr. Pedley, one of the officers of the department, sitting right before him, the right bon. gentleman was made to give to this House information which was absolutely incorrect and to provide promotion in that 'department on this false information ; and the only reason the Prime Minister bad for giving it, was the information with which he bad been furnished. Now his own secre-

tary was right in front of him when that wrong information was given, and on that wrong information, and on it alone, the promotion was arranged. This shows there is need for either a resurrection or an insurrection or a revision. There needs to be something done in that department, and we look for the new minister to give a very serious, careful and watchful eye on the administration of that department over which he has been so unexpectedly called to preside.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend has laid his suspicion on a wrong basis. 1 am in a position to affirm that there has been no contract given. I will give all the information poDsible ultimately, Mr. Keyes,
[DOT] when he wrote that letter, was misinformed or made a mistake.


David Henderson: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to correct a statement which I have made. I had overlooked the fact-which I discovered on examining the estimates-that there was an appropriation last year to the extent of $100,000. That will not do more than half complete the undertaking. The estimate is renewed 1 find this year. Whether it has been considered in committee or not is not a matter of moment, because the vote of last year, is now in existence and can be utilized if the work is undertaken before the 1st of July. I make this statement because I wish to remove a wrong impression which I may have created ; but at the same time that does not justify the department proceeding with this work without the consent of the head of this government or the department in question.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course 1 have not had time to look at the papers, but 1 think also that tenders were advertised for, but the ex-Minister of the Interior would not issue the contract.


Mr.   R.@: ,L. BORDEN. With regard to that, we certainly should have an explanation why the secretary of the department should have misled people who were proposing to tender and in the second place why he did not inform them that those advertisements had really been issued.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps I am wrong but my impression is that there were advertisements.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be very desirable to have a fence in the west as well as in the east-two fences built far apart, as probably one will never be satisfactory.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will keep to one just now at all events.


Mr. INGRAM.: Not having been able to find the answer given by the First Minister to this question, I went carefully over ' Hansard ' and could not find it. I think it very curious that the answer given on that occa-1774
sion should not have appeared in ' Hansard.' I desire to place on ' Hansard ' the reply as given in the Toronto ' Globe ' on May 2nd :
Sir Wilfrid Laurier informed the hon. gentleman that the question of erecting wire fences along the southern boundaries of the Northwest Territories is under consideration, but no tenders have yet been asked for nor contracts let.
That was the answer given on that occasion. The right hon. gentleman was asked to-day, and he was not able to give the answer, but he has since been informed by the department that contracts have not been let. What I want to know is : if that be true how does it come that Mr. Keyes, who represented the department on the 8th of April, states in his letter that the contracts have been let and signs his name to that effect. That is the statement he made in the letter read by the hon. member for Kent, and that letter was certainly an official one.
On the 20th of March this wire company wrote to the department and wanted certain information in connection with this contract. No reply was given until the 8th of April. Nineteen days afterwards, the secretary of the department, Mr. Keyes, writes to these gentlemen and tells them that the contract is let. Yet to-day we have the First Minister stating that the contract is not let. I think if ever there was a case of investigation, this is one. I notice in this correspondence, Mr. Speaker, that your name appears as the representative' of that constituency, and probably it would be well if the Speaker would give some explanation with respect to the contract, or with respect to the correspondence that has taken place between the department and the fence wire company. There is something very extraordinary about it, and I presume that to-morrow when the papers are brought down, when the advertisement is exposed to the members of this House, and the tenders that have been called for, a copy of that document will be laid before the House so that hon. gentlemen on both sides will be in a position to judge of tire merits of this case.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT.: While fully agreeing in the criticism that ha.s been made on this affair, I desire to draw attention to another phase of the question, namely, that where fenciug is to be done between neighbours the ordinary common law of the land is that the neighbours who are interested are jointly responsible for the construction of the fence. This being an international fence, has any approach been made by this government towards the United States government asking them to pay their fair share of this fencing ? It appears to me that is a proposition that ought to be entertained by the American government. They are interested in having the proper boundary line marked the same as we are. Has this government made any representations to the

United States1 government asking them to pay part of the cost of this fence ? They certainly should pay part of the cost of that fence. The fence will not only require to be built but to be maintained ; from time to time it will no doubt be broken down, 800 miles of fence will not stand for ever, and it appears to me that this government should ask the United States in all fairness, as our neighbours, friendly, and as jointly interested in the territory, that they should pay a fair share of the fence that is to be erected. I commend this point to the attention of the government, and I trust that if it is due to us that the United States pay a part of the cost, they will see that the United States do pay a part both of the cost of construction and the cost of maintenance, inasmuch as the fence is really an international boundary.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT.: The other day, in discussing the question of dredging I made a statement-and I have no reason to take it back in consequence of anything that has been said since-that in certain departments of the government, so far as the riding I represent is concerned, the public is of opinion that common honesty is not expected, and common honesty would be at a premium. That seems to be the difficulty in this matter. Now the secretary of the department, Mr. Keyes, is to be dragged in as a scapegoat, and after the statement has been made in the House, and after this gentleman gives a written and explicit official letter that a contract has been made, then we are told to-day that no contract has been made. I do not know Mr. Keyes, but X can only say that it is a great draught on any man's imagination to believe that a gentleman occupying the responsible position of sectretary of the department goes and makes large contracts of a quarter of a million dollars without the assent of the minister, and without conference with him. But Mr. Keyes cannot back out of it so easy, and the department cannot back out of it so easy, because there is correspondence to-day on the ' Hansard ' to which I must now revert. I regret that Mr. Speaker is in the chair, because of necessity his name is brought into the discussion. The letter that the member for Kent (Mr. Clements) read a while ago, I will now read again:	.
We at once wrote that department, under date March 20th, hut did not receive a reply until under date April 8th, a letter signed by Mr. P. Gl. Keyes, stating that the government had already let the contract for the wire fence. In the meantime we had got a friend to write Mr. R. P. Sutherland for information regarding this matter, but he professed ignorance and only just a day or two ago a letter was received from him stating that he found the contract had been let to McGregor, Banwell, a firm in this town.
Now is this Mr. Keyes conducting a department in such a. manner that he is Mr. COCKSHUTT.
deliberately misrepresenting to Mr. Speaker, when he goes for information, because you, Mr. Speaker, must hard gone to the department for information, and I cannot believe and I do not believe, if Mr. Speaker did write that letter to this firm, that he had concocted it out of his own mind, that the Speaker had drawn on his imagination to that extent. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that you went to the department, I believe that you found there the secretary of the department, or whoever was in charge of this matter, and that the gentleman in charge informed you exactly what Mr. Keyes had written before, namely, that the contract had been made. But here is the striking feature in connection with this whole deal-because it is a deal-it never would have leaked out had it not been for this firm. It is only in ridings represented by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that many matters are likely to come to the front, because when a riding is not represented oil this side of the House the chances are that matters go without comment in those ridings. Why, to give this Department of the Interior all the brunt of that crooked work is unfair when you take it in connection with other departments, and more particularly when the past Minister of the Interior has been either slandered or not slandered by the government press as a wrong-doer in that department. i say there are other departments- and I am not saying the Department of the Interior is wrong-I say there are other departments where similar tactics are carried on in order to curry favour with their friends. What do I find in my own town in reference to a government dock ? I asked the question the other day who were the lessees of the dock in the town of Midland, and here is the answer :
The storehouses at Midland are occupied jointly by Playfair, Preston & Company and the wharfinger. The rent is $100 per year, fixed in accordance with value thereof, as estimated by resident engineer.
The resident engineer occupies part of premises that anybody would pay about $200 a year rent for, and the resident engineer reports that it is has been leased to a party for $100. Here is a letter written to the department by a firm in the town who wished to get possession of these premises and was willing to pay $450 a year for them. They cannot have them, but these party hacks and hangers-on of this government get it for $100. Here is the Department of Marine and Fisheries going up to Depot Harbour advertising a contract for buoying out the channel, and giving it to party friends without ever calling for tenders at all. Not to mention such trifles as handing over a steamboat worth from $7,000 to $8,000 for $2,500. Take the Department of the Postmaster General, who I am sorry to see, is not in his place, and what do I find ? A mail contract, no tenders asked for, and a party

hanger-on is given a considerable advance, nearly three per cent advance on the old figures that were given before. I go into the same department and what do I find again ? I asked the following question :
1.	Who is the postmaster at Waverley, Ontario ?
2.	Does he personally conduct the office ?
3.	Does he reside at the post office premises ? If not, how far therefrom ?
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) '
1. Mr. John Anderson.
2 and 3. The department has no information as to whether the postmaster personally conducts the office or resides at the post office premises or elsewhere.
Is that not a beautifully conducted department ? They appoint a man as postmaster and they do not know where he lives. He might live in Timbuctoo for all the depart-men knows. And what are the facts of the case ? A party hanger-on is appointed postmaster of the town, and he does not live within three miles of the village. There are three stores in the village, and the postmaster appointed is to-day studying in his own mind to which of the stores he is going to put the post office in.
That will depend on the amount of remuneration they are prepared to pay the Postmaster for having it there. ' The government might better sell the privilege of conducting the post office. They could get $100 a year from any one of these three storekeepers, but the reason that some of these storekeepers cannot have the post office is that they are Tories. It was taken out of the store of one of them, a man who had been postmaster for years without complaint, without any demur having been made at all, this farmer who lives three miles away and night and day is on the beat for hon. gentlemen opposite, is appointed postmaster, and to-day be is dickering with these three storekeepers as to what each is prepared to pay for the privilege of having the post office in his store. It is a matter of public comment there, and they are tossing up to see who is going to have the post office in his store. This is a fair sample of how matters are conducted in that riding, and if the condition of affairs in ether ridings -were inquired into it would be found to be exactly the same. Why is it so ? It is because certain things are tolerated in this House and in the country that the ordinary grafter thinks he ought to have some of it too. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Pr6-fontaine) does what ? He gives $3,000 or $4,000 worth of timber on an island to a party hanger-on, a member of this House steers the deal through the department and the brother of the member gets $50 for bis services although his name never appears in this connection at all. That is the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant). The case was before the House on a former
occasion. This same thing is going on all through the Dominion in the interest of the grafters and hangers on of the party whose attention has now been transferred from Toronto to Ottawa in connection wdth schemes of this kind. I am going to believe the minister's statement. I am noi going to believe Mr. Keyes' statement-
I care not whether Mr. Keyes is offended or not-when Mr. Keyes says that his statement was an error in saying that the contract had been signed. Some one told his honour the Speaker that the contract had been signed and it is the duty of the House to give an opportunity to his honour the Speaker to inform the House if he can, whether or not a contract had been signed. Until I hear more I am not prepared to accept Mr. Keyes' statement now that he blundered, that he made a mistake when he wrote these gentlemen that there was no contract and that when you, Mr. Speaker, went to the department and saw' Mr. Keyes, he committed another blunder and was guilty of another falsehood by informing you that there was a contract signed.


Samuel Hughes: And informed the Prime Minister later.


William Humphrey Bennett: And- informed the Prime Minister later. It is crime upon crime. It is a very fortunate thing that we have some active business men in this country like the Page Wire Fence Company, prepared to intervene when a scheme like this is being put through, because it might not have been brought before the House but for the timely intervention of those gentlemen and the information which they have given to my hon. friend from West Kent (M#. Clements). If some of our hon. friends are willing to lay all kinds of crimes and misdemeanours at the door of hte Department of the Interior, I will say to them' that that department has not a monopoly of them. We have these dredging matters to w-hich I am going to refer again and I may say that only a day or twro since I got some information about another dredging plant. Who own these dredging plants throughout Ontario to-day ? Are they practical contractors ? Not one of them. Hangers-on, political judges and I am going to say to the House that in order to mislead and to delude the public a fraud is resorted to in making returns to the department at Toronto as to wbo tbe stockholders of these companies are. This is to cover up their tracks, and yet the hon. acting Minister of Public Works {Mr. Hyman) tbe other day got up here and asked the House and myself to accept his statement that he did not know that Mr. McKay, of Owen Sound, was interested in a dredge and that Mr. Me 14ay had never sent him notice of it. We all know that Mr. McKay is considerable of a traveller both on land and sea. We know that Mr. McKay's primary business in coming to Ottawa must be to see whether or


Mr. PATERSON.: Upon what date was that question asked ?


William Humphrey Bennett: On the 4th May, No. 77 in the unrevised ' Hansard.' while they are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars these old dredges have been brought into the country at a very low valuation and it: that is a fair indication of their value it will startle the public to be told that so much money can be made out of such old plant. I am going to protest on behalf of the Department of the Interior that it should Mr. BENNETT.
be blackballed as being the only rotten department. It may be bad, but it must be very, very bad if it surpasses the department of Public Works, or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and many others that I might refer to. I must congratulate my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) on the delightful bit of sarcasm in which he indulged in blaming the officials. I do not think my hon. friend means that at all. He has been long enough in this House to know that officials do not do things off their own bat, that they have to have the approval of the minister, and if we could only find that contract, I think we would find somebody's official O.K. and somebody's initials alongside of it. The Department of the Interior may be bad, but I am not going to allow one to go as being bad and the rest all right when we know so much about them.


William Paterson: I do not often reply to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) but when he makes a deliberate mis-statement as he did with the answer before him, it is something that it is difficult to understand. He said that he did not ask for the names of the parties who imported dredges. Fortunately I have ' Hansard ' here myself.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to explain


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman has spoken, he has made this statement and I will give him his answer.


William Humphrey Bennett: Oh, very well. I will have occasion again to explain it. I see that I was incorrect in one clause.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman is very ready to impute motives. He said that I smelled a rat when he asked that question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


George Eulas Foster: It is only a question of| fact.	-


William Paterson: Some hon. gentlemen opposite endorse and enjoy it.


Robert Laird Borden: Endorse the rat ?


William Paterson: Proper criticism carries weight with it, but such criticism as we have had now destroys its value wholly. He stated that I thought he was going to unearth something. That statement of his is without foundation. It was none of my business to suspect anything, for the question was a proper one, and, as a member of this House, the hon. gentleman was entitled to a courteous answer. To insinuate that 1 had any motive or reason for withholding information is a sentiment worthy of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett), but it is not worthy of his friends who sit with him. The question he asked was :
How many dredges, dredging scows and dredging plants were imported into Canada in tho years 1902, 1903 and 1904 ?
*

2. By whom respectively were such dredges and dredging scows imported ?
And nevertheless the bon. gentleman says that he did not ask for any names. The answer given to that part of the question was :
It is not usual to disclose the particulars ot individual entries made at the custom-house.
Then the hon. gentleman asked :
By what names, numbers or other method were such dredging scows described in the entry ?
4.	What was the valuation placed on each dredge and dredging outfit ?
5.	What was the amount of duty paid on each dredge or dredging scow ?
The answer was given to me by the deputy of the department, and that answer was as follows :
Dredges, dredging scows and dredging plants imported into Canada have not been classified in the trade and navigation tables under these headings. Dredges, dredging scows and dredging plant are not mentioned under these terms in the customs tariff, and when entered for duty are classified as ' manufactures of wood,'
' machinery,' &c., according to material. The extent of the importations in 1903, 1903 and 1904 eould not he ascertained without a lengthy examination of entries at various ports covering these years. It is not usual to disclose the particulars of individual entries made at the custom-house.
The hon. gentleman did ask for particulars of Individual entries. I think the answer was a courteous one ; it was prepared by my deputy ; I read it here, and I approved of it. It is not our custom to give individual names, and hon. gentlemen opposite will admit that it is a custom that should be observed. No gentleman opposite would claim that the individual business of an importer should be given to the public, and in that respect secrecy is enjoined upon all the customs officers. Information can be given upon the demand of a court of law, and it is given whenever it is possible it can be given without doing injustice or violating the wise protection which importers are entitled to. I think the good sense of members will endorse that course, indeed they have endorsed it time and again. When i said an answer to the question would require a lengthy examination at the ports, that was quite true, and I would have had that examination made had the hon. gentleman renewed his question or had I thought he wanted such an examination. The ports would have to go through the entries for the entire year and see what did come in, and though they are entered, not as dredges, hut as so much value in machinery and woodwork, the particulars could be "ascertained. and I did not say they would not be. Had the question been put earlier in the session, and there had been time to get the answer, I would have asked the hon. gentleman to move for a return ; but owing
to the state of the business of the House there was no opportunity to have a motion on the order paper reached. That is all I want to say ; it is not often I have to say so much in a matter of this kind. My hon. friend !(Mr. Bennett) is not without ability, but I will say that it does not improve his standing in the House that every time he rises he seems to impute motives to individuals. There is no necessity for that.


William Humphrey Bennett: You come to East Sim-coe every election; come again; you always increase my majority.


William Paterson: Well, that is not the way to speak in this House. We are in a chamber composed of gentlemen, or supposed to be gentlemen, where we have to transact business, the one with the other, and I trust we will always be able to exercise a proper courtesy towards one another. I intended in my answer to treat the hon. gentleman courteously, and I think I did. To say that I tried to hide some wrong transaction is a statement that is utterly without foundation, and is utterly unworthy of any gentleman in this House.


William Humphrey Bennett: By way of personal explanation ; the Minister of Customs has been very unfair to me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who is the next grin-ner '? This question was framed by me about the 1st of May, and I did not refer to its exact terms until to-day. As soon as the minister rose I saw that the second clause did ask for the names, although the other clauses did not, and a fair answer would not have disclosed the names of any parties. I wished to retract that part of my statement, but how was I received by the Minister of Customs 1 I was told that no gentleman would have made such a statement in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have this to say to those who are near hearing on the back benches, that I am going to let the people of East Simcoe decide as to whether I am a gentleman or not. So long as they are satisfied with my course, or a large majority of them, I will be in this House. It is not often that the Minister of Customs tries the role of brow-beater, or censor, or mentor ; and if he is going to try it on me, I can tell him and the other members of the cabinet that it will be just as much lost on me when it comes from him as when it comes from any of the others. I am here representing the people of East Simcoe, and so long as my majority is increased, as it has been increasing in that riding, I can well believe that my constituents are in accord with me. Now that I have behind me in East Simcoe, not the strong arm of the Ontario government, but the paralyzed arm of two On

tario institutions, as well as the lumbermen of that district, and so long as X have the criminal law to protect me, which is a big thing in a fight, and the absence of the protection of which has been a serious thing in the past, I care not whether the Minister of Customs says I am not a gentleman, and I invite him and the other ministers-the Prime Minister and the Minister of Customs and the rest of the government-who always flatter me by coming into my county, to come there again. I have no fear of the result on an appeal to the people of East Simcoe. I do not thank the Minister of Customs for attempting to get personal with me to-day. Our intercourse across the floor has always been friendly, and if the minister tries these tactics on me, I am prepared to meet him, and I can tell him he will not be alone in the fight.


William Paterson: One word in reply. Who commenced this thing ?


William Humphrey Bennett: You did.


William Paterson: Oh, no. I have only this to say, that I believe the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) is correct when he says that what I say will not make much impression on him. Well, what I did say was for the benefit of gentlemen opposite who recognize what is proper and what is not. I did not say it for the benefit of the gentleman who himself acknowledges that he is past being helped in that direction. While the hon. gentleman says that i?e forgot that he had asked that question, he will remember that the very part that he alluded to was where I said that it was not usual to give the names of individual importers, which he had asked for. That is how it came out. How is it that he saw the answer to that part of the question and forgot about the question ? I might ask him that.
Mi\ H. H. MIDLER. The hon. member for East Simcoe has stated that Mr. McKay, of Owen (Sound, is in Ottawa to-day and has endeavoured to make out that he is after .some dredging contracts, and that .this is not the first time that he has been here on the same business. I do not know whether Mr. McKay owns or is interested in a dredge or not. I do know, and it is well known, that Mr. McKay's presence in Ottawa to-day is for the purpose of transacting important business before the Railway Committee in the interest of the citizens of Owen Sound and the town of Mea-ford. Mr. McKay was accompanied on that business by another prominent resident of Owen Sound. He has before this been accompanied to Ottawa in reference to the same Bill by prominent citizens of Owen Sound and the town of Meaford, some Reformers and some Conservatives ; mid after a similar visit to Ottawa, Mr. McKay was publicly thanked by a prominent Conservative of Owen Sound for the manner in which he attended to the Mr. BENNETT.
business before the Railway Committee. The hon. member for East Simcoe who appears to have a very lively and not always well guided imagination, has, I presume, made all his insinuations to-day upon charges equally .baseless and without any foundation in fact.
Motion (Mr. Clements) to adjourn, negatived.	*	.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

George Eulas Foster: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I want to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to a return that was brought down in answer to an order of the House in reference to the correspondence that took place before, during and after the dismissal of a mason inspector at Gamebridge. That return is very incomplete. I called the attention of the First Minister to it about a fortnight ago, and I have since had "no answer as to the missing parts of the return. I would like the minister to have the return completed and brought down as soon as .possible. The returns ordered in February and March, to which I alluded at the same time, are all yet on the list of the not-brought-downs-one in reference to public buildings, one in reference to rails on the Intercolonial, one in reference to the capital expenditure on the Drummond Counties Railway, and one in reference to the building of wharfs and public buildings. These have been ordered for nearly two months, and I think they ought to be on the way down.


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: With reference to the return relating to the mason inspector, my information from the- deputy minister was that the whole correspondence was [DOT]included in the return. I have not been able to question him further .because of bis absence since the attention of the House was . called to the matter by my hon. friend. I have the return with respect to the expenditures on the Drummond Counties section of the Intercolonial Railway, which I shall take the liberty now of laying on the table of the House. This only came into my hands yesterday afternoon. The return with respect to rails is one that I have re-peatedlv asked Mr. Pottinger for, and he has stated that he is furnishing it with all the expedition possible, but that it covers a wide field and the information takes a great deal of time and labour to secure. I have urged him to have it forwai-ded as soon as possible.


George Eulas Foster: With refei-ence to the return of which the minister has spoken, there must be some mistake, because I have in my possession two or three letters and allusions to other letters, and it is the latter I want brought down.


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the return of the deputy minister, I will get full particulars in reference to the matter.



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 69) to establish and provide for the government of the province of Alberta.-Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
On section l^province of Alberta formed; its boundaries..
Robert Laird Borden: What is the respective area of each of these provinces as they are laid out at present ?


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Paper No. 9T. which has been brought down, shows the area and the population of each province and also the population of each territory.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought that the area was given for the whole of the Territories, but I do not observe in the statement the area of the respective provinces.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I shall give the
area of each province separately. The area of Alberta will be land 250,653 square miles; water 3,312 square miles. Total 253,965 square miles. Population, according to the census of 1901, 72,924. Estimated population, January 31, 1905, 173,043. Saskatchewan, land area, 243,192 square miles ; water area, 6,929. Total, 250,119 square miles. Population according to the census of 1901, 92,231. Estimated population, January 31, 1905, 244,913.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We were led to understand that tlie population of each province was about 250,000 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: One is 244,000 and the other 173,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The other day we were told that in each province there would be 250,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: On the 1st of July next.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We estimated that the total poulation of the 1st of next July will be 500,000. I might give the estimates as we have them here. I have the figures on which we based our estimate. The additions to the population of the Territories, estimated by the immigration commissioner, are as follows :
From April 1st, 1901, to July 1st, 1901.. 12,213
Fiscal year,	1901-02	
44,070"	1902-03	
79,327"	1903-04	
75,042
July 1st to 4th May, 1905, approximately.. 53,500
To which probably may he added, as our estimate of immigration during May and June, 25,(XX), making the estimated popula-454,737.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That is not quite evenly divided.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, rather larger in Saskatchewan.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister be good enough to give us the data on which these estimated increases of population are computed ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The estimate I have is as follows :
Estimated Population of the new Provinces at January 31, 1903.
- .	Alberta.	Saskatche- wan.
Population according to census of 1901- Alberta		65,876	
		49,693 14,552
Assiniboia West		3,140	
Saskatchewan	200	25,479Athabasca	3,708	2,907Increase of population of homesteaders since census of 1901.	80,749	140,502Increase of population other than homesteaders since 1901 (estimated from Waghorn's guide)	13,000	3,000Estimated natural increase of population at 1901 to date.. .	4,380	5,520Estimated natural increase of the increase of population in 1902 to date	990	945Estimated natural increase of the increase of population in 1903 to date 	660	1.710Estimated natural increase of the increase of population in 1901 to date	340	005173,043	244,913


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The natural increase in Alberta is a great deal larger than Saskatchewan in proportion.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No. Take 1901 for instance, the natural increase on the population they then had was 4,380 for Alberta and 5,520 for Saskatchewan. Then the estimated natural increase on the increase of the previous year, 1902, is Alberta, 990; Saskatchewan, 945. That increase is on the increase of the year previous.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But in proportion it is larger.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think so.


Mr. MONK.: Has the eastern limit of the proposed province of Alberta been placed in a different position from what was suggested in the address by the Northwest Assembly ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, because in that address no reference is made to provinces. The original address contemplated the erec-

tion of tlie Territories into one province, in which case the eastern boundary would have been Manitoba and the western British Columbia.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there not something in the communication of Mr. Haultain referring to a suitable division line between the two provinces, in case it is decided to establish two provinces ? Or did the views of the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories agree with the line adopted.?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) has reference to a letter written by Mr. Haultain in which he speaks of a division -which, in his judgment, would be more convenient than this one. It would run about seventy miles east of the fourth meridian. I think he favoured that division on the ground that the area adapted to ranching would be all in Alberta and the wheat-growing lands ini Saskatchewan, so far as the southern country is concerned.


Robert Laird Borden: The ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) speaking on the 24th of March stated that he had suggested in his discussions-I suppose, with his colleagues-that the dividing line between the two new provinces should be about sixty miles further east than that provided for by the Bill. He said also that he had not heard the reasons which led the government to a different conclusion. As we may assume that his very great knowledge of the country derived from his long experience as Minister of the Interior, should entitle his opinion to some weight, might I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or whoever has this particular matter in charge, to state the reason which led the government, in this particular instance, to disregard the opinion of the ex-Minister of the Interior ?


Wilfrid Laurier: There have been several suggestions made with regard to this boundary, and I think it is difficult to say that one Is highly preferable to another. Some hon. members, and, I believe, Mr. Haultain, were of the opinion'-an opinion which has been expressed on the floor of this House by some hon. members from the Northwest Territories-that the boundary line should be about seventy miles east of the fourth meridian. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) was of opinion that the boundary should be one or two townships further east. I do not know that that hon. gentleman had any particular reason for wishing it one way or the other, he was not much concerned whether it was the fourth meridan or a little eastward of that. The great bone of contention -was the boundary which was suggested by Mr. Haultain, and, I think, by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron). The argument was that if the boundary were fixed seventy miles eastward of the fourth meridan. all the ranching country would be in Alberta.


Mr. FITZPATRICK  .@: But for my part, I could not, on inquiry, satisfy myself that this was the case. I think that if the boundary were so fixed there would be ranching lands both in Saskatchewan and Alberta. I think the main reason which led to the adoption of the fourth meridian as the boundaray was that it would be a line much more easily identified. So far as I can see, as between the line suggested by my hon. friend from Brandon, (Mr. Sifton) and the fourth meridao line there would not be much difference. We chose the meridan because it is far easier to identify, as I imagine, and because, as 1 understand, the preponderance of opinion amongst members from the Northwest Territories was in favour of that line.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: In discussing the measure on the second reading, I pointed out that the division of the country at the fourth meridian was unpopular in the cattle country. I pointed out that a public meeting had been called at Medicine Hat to consider the matter. The meeting was called by the mayor and was irrespective of politics. Certain resolutions were passed which I have read to the House on two occasions. The fourth resolution was as follows :
That the placing of the dividing line at the 4th meridian is a great hardship to the ranching industry, in that the laws governing a province consisting of a farming country will conflict with the laws required in a ranching country.
Now, I hold that the line should be further east, as proposed by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), for the reason that if the line were drawn where he suggests, or a very little further east, practically all the ranching country would be included in the western province. That statement has been denied. It is possible for a man to rise in this House and make any statement and give certain facts in support of it. But, if lie does not give all the facts, the statement is apt to lead to a wrong conclusion. We were told by the hon. member for East Assinlboia (Mr. Turriff)-I think it was that hon. gentleman-that the ranching country extended right down to Manitoba. If he will look, or If hon. gentlemen who are interested in the question, would look, at a map published by the Department of the Interior a few years ago, they will find the ranching country outlined. If the boundary line were moved east say as far as the eighth range west of the third meridian, it would practically take in all the ranching country. If the following of the line would make a noticeable difference in the area of the two provinces that could be easily avoided by following that line north to the South Saskatchewan river and along the South -Saskatchewan west to range 20, and then north as originally proposed. If that were done the difficulty of dividing the ranching country in two would be practically overcome, if the map Issued by the Department of the Interior, to which I have reference, is cor-

reet. And I submit that that map was prepared and circulated before there was any question as to any division of the territory. For, until recently it has been the general impression in that country that the whole area would be made one province. And that has been the view expressed by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) when he held meetings in that country last fall. It was also the desire of the First Minister of the Territories. For my part X can see no reason why there should be two provinces. 1 do not know what objection may be raised in the east against creating the Territories into one province, but, so far as the people of the west are concerned, they would prefer that there should be only one province. I feel sure that I can speak for the constituency 1 have the honour to represent on that point. The reasons are plain. It would avoid the duplication of public officials and public buildings, thus effecting a saving to the new provinces, and it would be less expensive to the Dominion administration as well. But, Sir. if the Territories must be divided into two provinces then I say there are several objections to the line drawn at the fourth meridian. I find an article published in the ' Farm and Ranch Review ' about six weeks ago, where these objections are clearly set out. It says :
Little doubt is now entertained that a Bill will shortly be brought before parliament conferring on the organized Northwest Territories the status of full fledged provinces. We use the plural, as it also seems to be pretty well decided that there are to be two provinces, divided by a line running north and south. Precisely where that line will be located is not, however, at.the present time quite determined. Some say it will intersect Walsh district, others that it will run as far east as Swift Current. Any one even tolerably acquainted -with the western conditions,^ would harbour very little doubt as to where that line should be located. The point is an important one, but not nearly so important as many others involved in the provincial negotiations, and it gives the western man a most uncomfortable feeling to sit down and realize that the future destinies of the new provinces are to a very large extent to he decided by a body of men who are capable of hesitating whether to divide the country at Walsh or at Swift Current.
Swift Current would bring the line about where the member for Brandon states it will be. The article goes on to say :
The boundary between the two provinces should be fixed solely with reference to economical and effective administration. Neither the geographical nor the political phase of the question should be considered. The boundary at Walsh would leave a slice of the winter wheat and ranching country in the easterly province, while the great hulk of the semi-arid area would he embraced in the westerly province. This would be a most unfortunate state of affairs. .	.	. The present proposal to put
a slice of the semi-arid country into the eastern province would from a geographical standpoint be an excellent course, practically it would be most objectionable and unpopular.
. [DOT]	[DOT] The difficulties in the way of successful
administration of sto:k brands if the territories were divided at the fourth meridian, would in themselves be sufficient to condemn such a proposal. Two provinces mean twro brand systems. The complications that would arise were the division line to run through Walsh, the very heart and centre of the eastern ranching country, with cattle and horses hearing identical or conflicting brands ranging on either side of an imaginary boundary line would be endless and serious. If a vote were taken on the subject in the area involved, it would he found that the ranchers are unanimous in their desire to remain attached to the ranching country to the west. If, however, it is felt that a division at Swift Current leaves too small an area In the easterly province, this objection can be easily overcome by running the line west along the southerly boundary of Saskatchewan and taking in a sufficiently large area of the westerly portion of that district to compensate for the part of Assiniboia lying between Walsh and Swift Current.
To my mind that article sets opt the objections' clearly. It may appear a small matter to an eastern naan to split up the ranching country, but if this map which is supposed to give the area is correct, then in leaving a' very small amount of that ranching country in the eastern province the result will be that it will have such a small representation in the local House that its demands will not receive the consideration to which they are entitled. It is apparent that one province may pass a htw making a brand a badge of ownership of cattle and horses, and another province may not require any brand at all. One province may enact that cattle and horses not branded with a registered brand may be sold irrespective of the owner. You will have these large herds along that dividing line, and you break that great ranching country into two parts and destroy the range. One province might adopt a free open range while another might make some restrictions. One province may impose a tax on cattle running on the range and another will not. It is going to lead to all sorts of confusion at the boundary. Another objection to the line as proposed is that it will leave a very small proportion of the lands capable of irrigation in the eastern province. I understand that under the proposed Bill, power is going to be retained by the Dominion parliament over the question of irrigation, though I understood from the remarks of the member for Brandon that that would only be for a short time until certain international difficulties bad disappeared, and then irrigation would be handed back to the respective provinces. Before this discussion closes I intend to move an amendment specifying that this line shall go from the 8th range north to the south of the Saskatchewan river, then west along the river against stream to range _ twenty and follow that range north. We have beard that there is a larger population in

Saskatchewan than in Alberta. I was under the impression until I heard the Minister of Justice, that the area in Saskatchewan was also greater. I have figures which were supplied by a surveyor of that country, a man who has been there for twenty-one years, and as he figures it out, Saskatchewan has an area of about S.SOO square miles more than Alberta. His figures are : Alberta, 249.600 square miles ; Saskatchewan, 258,400 square miles. I say therefore that in view of the fact that a certain portion of the territory east of Saskatchewan has been set apart for Saskatchewan. Manitoba and Ontario; claims to ownership to be adjudicated upon it, if part of this territory goes to province of Saskatchewan ; and negotiations are about to take place, then the difficulty will be avoided of giving Alberta a greater area' than Saskatchewan. An objection has been made to this boundary that I suggest. ' I have understood that the government would not consider any other boundary than a straight line.
I would point to the fact that on the western boundary we have the same thing, and on the eastern boundary of Saskatchewan, if their claim is successful, you will not have a straight line.


Mr. K. L. BORDEN.: I want to ask a question about this map. According to this map, which is published by the Department of the Interior, on one side of It the northern boundary of the province is the 60th degree of latitude, and acording to the other side of the map it is the 64th degree. There is a practical difference of four degrees between one side of the map and the other side.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is 60 at all events. That is what is intended.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The degree of longitude is 64.


Robert Laird Borden: It is very misleading-	.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I admit that.


William Findlay Maclean: I notice this takes in Athabaska. What becomes of the existing territorial government that we now have ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That disappears, of course.


William Findlay Maclean: Well then how do you intend to provide for the government of Mackenzie, Yukon. Keewatin and Franklin ?	.	.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Yukon is already provided for, Mackenzie will be provided for under a new Northwest Territories Act, and Keewatin is provided for under the Keewatin Act. They are all provided for.


William Findlay Maclean: Then there is to be a new Northwest Territories Act V


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Northwest Territories Act now, of course, provides for the administration of Mackenzie and for that part of Athabaska that is left out, so that all that will be required will be to adapt the present Northwest Territories Act to the new conditions on somewhat similar lines to those under which Keewatin is now administered. It is a simple matter.


William Findlay Maclean: There is to be a new Northwest Territories Act, establishing a new government for the Territories and if so there will have to be a new capital selected.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.


William Findlay Maclean: A new' seat of government. I do not think we should take Athabaska out of the Territories at the present time, but we ought to retain the northern boundary of these two new provinces at the southerly limit of Athabaska as it is to-day. I believe there is room in that country, including Athabaska, Mackenzie and the Yukon, to establish a territorial government. That territory ought to be immediately organized, it should have a governor and a council and we ought to begin to develop it just as we have developed the country to the south of it. I believe there will be economic conditions developed when we begin to know that country which will justify the northern boundary of these two new provinces remaining for the present at the southerly limit of Athabaska, but, if, in later years, we see fit to extend the boundary of these provinces to the north, we can do it. I believe the requirements of the country and the development that is now going on would justify the immediate creation of another territorial government with a capital some place in Athabaska, with some kind of representative institutions, a legislative council or a territorial government similar to wliat they have in the present Territories for that whole country including Keewatin, Yukon and Franklin. I think that country should have a government right away. I spoke here the other day about a proposal of the American Captain Peary, who is goiug to the north. I read only yesterday a quotation from an article in ' Harper's Weekly ' containing a statement by Captain Peary, which shows that he has a very ambitious project in hand and if any one will read this article he will observe that the names that he speaks of are such as Grant Sound. Grant Land, &c. A great deal of the country has been given American names, and apparently they are attempting to exercise jurisdiction. The sooner we organize these territories, establish a new territorial government farther to the north, raise our flag up and put our laws in force over that whole country the better it will be for us. I do not wish to see the
Mr. m. s. McCarthy.

territorial government disappear at the present time, even after these two provinces come into existence, but rather that the territorial government should be strengthened and that Athabaska should be the present basis of that government. A very considerable area of country is included in Athabaska, a large settlement may take place there at an early date and it would be much better to have Athabaska remain as it is, to establish a strong territorial government there and to extend our jurisdiction ; our explorations and our exploitations over these northern Territories to a still greater extent than we have in the past. I commend this to the consideration of the government. If later on we see fit to extend these two new provinces farther north we can do so, but the chances are that economic conditions will develop in a short time which will justify us in keeping Athabaska separate from these new provinces, and I hope that Athabaska will be the foundation of a greater and stronger northern province. The development of science and the discoveries which are being made every day go to show that there is probably more value in this north land than there is in the south land. The prospects are that as science develops and invention goes forward there will be more of value found to exist in this northern country than we are able to realize to-day, and we ought to provide immediately for another strong territorial government to take charge of these unorganized territories. I would like to hear front the government what they think in regard to the proposal I make, that the territorial government should not disappear, but that it should be strengthened, that the basis of that territorial government should be the present territory of Athabaska, that some kind of legislative institutions should be given to that territory and that a new capital for that northern land should be selected. We should increase our exploration of that country. We know what the Americans are doing in regard to their explorations in Hudson Bay, and if we are to maintain the sovereignty of Canada over that whole country we should organize the country immediately under a territorial government.


Wilfrid Laurier: The ideas of my hon. friend (W. F. Maclean), if I may say so, are all right, but his conclusions are ail wrong, and I think I will be able to satisfy him of that. We are aware that the Americans have been patrolling the northern waters and that by their recent maps which X have seen they have given American names to some parts of the territory up there which I think are under British jurisdiction. We ought co provide against that. My hon. friend says that the best way to provide against that is to organize a strong territorial government in the north. But, we have already provided against that and if we are to assert our jurisdiction over these
northern waters the basis of this movement is not the establishment of a government in the northern part of the continent, in Athabaska, but the basis must be in the east.
ill-. W. F. MACLEAN. That may be.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have at the present time, as my hon. friend knows, organized an expedition which has been two winters if not three in these northern waters. Mr. Low just returned last year from an expedition and another commander -I forget his name-is now there to assert jurisdiction. He has planted the British flag upon many parts of these northern territories, and his report is available now. This is the only way we can take jurisdiction in these distant lands. My hon. friend will agree with me that if we were to organize a government, say of Athabaska, in order to reach these far away points we would have to go around the Mackenzie river and we could not find a base of operation at the mouth of that river. We have to do it in two ways. So far as the territory immediately north of Mackenzie is concerned we can have a post of the Mounted Police at the mouth of the Mackenzie river, and with regard to the territory in the vicinity of Greenland and Baffin Straits we can only reach it from the east as we are doing at the present time. We have, I think, done everything in order to anticipate'the objection to which my hon. friend has called the attention of the House. We cannot allow the Americans to take possession of these lands; we claim them to be British territory and we intend to assert our jurisdiction over them.
Another question is, as to why we included Athabaska in these new provinces. We have done so because a portion of the district of Athabaska is altogether different in its character from the district of Mackenzie and the districts of Keewatin and TJngava. A portion of the district of Athabaska Is fair agricultural land; all the section which is watered by the Peace river is very good agricultural land and settlement Is going there already.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps enough to make a province.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not enough to make a province but enough to be attached to the province of Alberta, because these people have all their connections with Edmonton and that part of the new provinces. We have attached that part of the district of Athabaska to the new provinces because it is largely of the same character as the other portion of the provinces. There is a section east which is rather of a rough character and hax-dly fit for settlement, but all the section which is watered by the Peace river is very good agricultural land, and already two grist mills of some importance are there, and they are supplied by the agricultural products of that valley.


William Findlay Maclean: The right hon. gentleman has not answered that part of my question as to whether a territorial government is to he retained in the remaining Territories, the Yukon, the Mackenzie, Keewatin, and Franklin. Even if Atlia-baska is not made the basis of a new northern territorial government, I maintain there ought to be a territorial government, and that the present organization ought not to disappear but on the contrary it should be strengthened. In that way we would have the making of another new province or provinces under way. That country is of great value; the evening papers to-night announce another discovery of gold in the Yukon and we should not abandon our territorial government, but should rather strengthen it now that we are creating new provinces. I believe Commander Perry is now fitting out in Cape Breton, and in an article in ' Harpers Weekly ' he says :
Early in July I plan to start on my fifth Arctic voyage, when I shall attempt to reach the North Pole, taking the so-called ' American ' or Smith's Sound route. Establishing a coal depot at Etah and a sub-base of provisions at Cape Sabine at Smith's Sound, I shall proceed to navigate the stretch of ice north of Cape Sabine. I hope to reach the northern shore of Grant Land in September, winter there with my ship and early in February begin the sledge journey to the pole.
'Commander Perry is looking to the American Sound and Grant laud, and he says he is going to plant the American flag on the North Pole. We do not know to what extent these American explorers have already explored in our own territory, and we ought to keep an eye on them because the first thing we know there will be a claim on the part of the United States to some jurisdiction in our territory and over our waters. I believe that some kind of organized territorial government is essentially necessary in all that land, to maintain Canadian sovereignty. My idea is that a new strong territorial government should be maintained after these new provinces are created, and it should be charged with developing the country and maintaining Canadian sovereignty all over our territory north of these new provinces and north of Ontario aud Quebec.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When the Northwest Bill is brought down, my hou. friend will find that we have made ample provision for the government of these territories not included in the provinces. By and by when the northern boundaries of Alberta and Saskatchewan are extended to the north pole, we will, I think, have accomplished all that is required in the way of government. In regard to the portion of Alberta and Saskatchewan left out of these provinces, as the Prime Minister has said, provision will be made for the government of this portion of the Territories Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.
pending the disposition that is to be made of these Territories in the very near future, as I understand.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. There is a great deal in the point raised by the bon. member for South York. Would it not be just as reasonable at the present time to add the Yukon to British Columbia, Keewatin to Ontario and Ungava to Quebec, as to add the district of Athabaska to these new provinces? A person looking at the map will see that from the northern limit of railway construction to the southern boundary of Athabaska, the distance is about 113 miles, and further north from Athabaska about four hundred miles. The First Minister made the remark, when he introduced the Bill, that he doubted very much tlie advisability of the policy which created Manitoba into a province in the year 1870, when there were only some 12,000 people there. It seems to me that the reasons he assigned for his objection then, are equally applicable now. Looking at the map it will be found that the Dominion government-unless there is some Bill intended to provide for it-will still continue to administer Mackenzie, and the officers administering that country will have to go through Athabaska. The danger is that you will have conflicting laws up there. Take for example the fur trade which is the largest industry in that territory ; you will perhaps have one law in Saskatchewan, another in Alberta, and possibly a third regulation by the Dominion government in the Territories to the north. The census of 1901 tells.us that there were 252 white pepole in Athabaska and 262 unspecified, so that in Alberta we will probably be taking in about fifty per cent of that population or in all one hundred and twenty-four white people. I have here the official postal guide and I find there is only one post office in Athabaska, so that the schedule we have before us gives two representatives from Athabaska in the local House for one post office. According to the census of 1901, there were in Athabaska : 80 English. 8 Irish. 39 Scotch, 105 French, 2 Germans. 2 Scandinavians, 1 Belgian, or 252 white people in all. There were 2.395 half breeds. 3,716 Indians and 262 unspecified, giving a total population in that district of 6,615.


Mr. OLIVER.: The arguments advanced by the hon. member would seem to be good arguments against there being any division at all, but I do not see that they apply against the divisions that have already been made. If there is to be a division at all, the hon. gentleman has stated nothing against this particular division. He has objected to a division of the ranching country into two parts on the ground that the brands on one side of the line might become mixed with the brands on the other side. That is an argument against there being a line at

all, but it is no argument against the line being in that particular place.


Robert Laird Borden: Is not his argument good, if the fact be as stated by him, that to place the line some sixty miles or thereabouts further east, as suggested by the exMinister of the Interior, would practically put the whole ranching country into the western province ? That was the point, as I understood it.


Frank Oliver: I did not understand the hon. member to say that. I think he said that it would put almost all, of a very large part, of the ranching country into the western province ; but he did not pretend, and if he had pretended he would have been incorrect, to say that a line drawn there would include all the ranching country in the western province.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. If the hon. gentleman will permit me, what I said was : Taking the point where the 8th range intersects the international boundary, following that line north to the Saskatchewan river, and following the Saskatchewan river to range 20 and then going north, would take in all the ranching country shown on the map published by the Department of the Interior. That is what I intended to say.


Frank Oliver: I can only say that my information does not accord with what has. been stated by the hon. member for Calgary. My information is that a very important ranching district, known as the Wood mountain district, would still be included in the province of Saskatchewan, if the line he proposes were adopted. Therefore, any disadvantag'e attaching to the line as it is run would equally attach to the line the hon. gentleman suggests. I would like to point out further in this connection, as it was my duty to state in the House yesterday in regard to another matter, that it is very difficult to define the line between the ranching country and the farming countrv, for the reason that a country which a few years ago was understood to be solely a ranching country is now being occupied by hundreds, if not thousands, of people for the purpose of grain raising. There are settlements being made for strictly agricultural purposes to-day in the Alberta district, immediately south of the district of Calgary represented by my hon. friend, in localities which, seven years ago, were considered to be strictly ranching country ; and the people in those settlements have raised magnificent crops of wheat on that very land, and are depending on wheat raising for their success. So along the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in the very country he speaks of as exclusively ranching, several towns have started up recently which are dependent for their success on the success of farming in those localities. So that you cannot draw an exact line dividing farming country from ranching country, and my position is maintained, that the hon. gentleman's argument is good as against any division, but it is not good as against this particular division between Saskatchewan and Alberta.
With regard to the northern line between the organized and the remaining unorganized territories, for which the 60th parallel is proposed, his argument is the same. He argued for one jurisdiction over the fur-bearing animals all over the country, from the 49th parallel to the Arctic ocean ; but he did not show why, if there was to be a division, the 60th parallel was'not as good a division as any other that could be made. It is generally agreed, I think, by this House that there is no intention or desire on the part of the people that the whole of that vast western country lying between the western boundarv of Manitoba and the Rocky mountains and between the international boundary and the Arctic ocean should be organized under one jurisdiction. If there is to be a division, there is no reason given why this division is not good. We claim that it is a good and fair division. ' I do not dispute that the dividing line might very well be where my hon. friend has suggested it or at any other place. It might approximately be as well as where it is proposed in this Bill. In the Saskatchewan valley pretty much the same conditions prevail. That is to say, there is no particular place where you can draw a line to make an absolute division between two kinds of country.
The hon. gentleman spoke of the western boundary as being an irregular line, that is to say, the Rocky mountains. Well, we cannot change the Rocky mountains and we cannot change the boundary of British Columbia ; we have to accept that as it is. There might possibly be a division between what is called the second prairie steppe and the third or last prairie steppe ; that is, the rise of ground that occurs on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway immediately west of Moosejaw, known as the coteau of the Missouri, which crosses the boundary line not far west of Portal and runs northwestward until it terminates a little south of Battleford. If there is a natural division in that country, it is that line ; but it is not either a north or south line, or an east or, west line, and it is a line which it is not considered desirable, for many reasons, to adopt.
As to the district of Athabaska, I think what my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has said might very well offset what my hon. friend from Calgary has said. My hon. friend from South York has said, and very truly, that the present importance of that district is very great, and that its prospective importance's very touch greater. He has seen fit to designate it, and I think with some degree of justice, as being fit to be the seat of a new province. My hon. friend from Calgary has declared that not only is it not fit to be the seat of a

new province, but that it is not even worth representation in a local legislature when such is formed. He has read a statement taken from the census


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Does the hon. gentleman pretend to say that I stated that it was not fit for representation in the new provincial legislature ?


Frank Oliver: That is what I gathered from the reason the hon. gentleman gave.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. . X may say that is about as fair as most of what the hon. gentleman says. I advocated waiting for its growth by gradual process, just as the First Minister suggested when discussing Manitoba. That country, so far as I know personally, may be the finest in the land. I know nothing about it of my own knowledge, but have heard certain reports. I simply take the population and the post office guide, and ask whether or not it is at present ripe for provincial representation.


Frank Oliver: I hope I have not misrepresented the hon. member. If he did not say before that he did not consider the district of Athabaoka fit for representation, he certainly has said so now.


Samuel Hughes: I hope the minister will be absolutely fair. My hon. friend did not say that it is not fit for representation, but that it is not entitled at present to representation.


William Findlay Maclean: Not ready for it.


Frank Oliver: As I understand the position taken by the hon. member for Calgary, it is that the district of Athabaska should not be represented in the new local House. If that is what he said, it does not matter whether he said it should not be represented because it was unfit for representation or for any other reason. I leave the hon. gentleman and the hon, member for South York to settle the matter between them. My knowledge of that country is perhaps greater than that of some other members, and I would certainly say that the trade done there, whatever its population may be, entitles it to representation. I would add that the census of 1900 is not a fair or reasonable guide to the population at present.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the population.


Frank Oliver: I have not taken a census of that country nor has any body else, but I know it has a very large area. It had a population, as my hon. friend said, of 6,000 at the time of the census. It has had five years to increase, and we have reason to believe that its population has since increased in some proportion to the increase in other parts of the territory. We know that its trade has very largely increased in that time, and on behalf of that district and its people-whether white men or half-breeds- Mr. OLIVER.
I submit that they are entitled, by reason of their contributions to the treasury of this country, to representation in its legislative councils and to the expenditure of public money towards its development. If the people of this Athabaska district, in which the manufacturers and merchants of eastern Canada do a very large and profitable trade, are to be debarred from representation and consideration in the councils of the provinces to be created, as they are debarred from consideration in the councils of this Dominion parliament, then I think we are dealing with them very unfairly and improperly, and I am prepared to take issue with any lion, member on that question. I hope the members of the opposition do not share the views of the hon. member for Calgary on that point.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Have all parts of the province of Ontario and Manitoba and Quebec got representation in their respective parliaments ?


Frank Oliver: I am given to understand that they have. Looking at the map,
I should say that the whole of Ontario is divided up into electoral districts and so is the whole of Manitoba. I am not quite sure about Quebec. I am satisfied that the province of Ontario is and certainly the province of Manitoba and British Columbia, and I can see no reason why these 6,000 -people, whether half-breeds or Indians, should not receive fair and reasonable consideration in the matter of local representation.


Mr. BARKER.: Who represents James' bay in this House ? _


Frank Oliver: I think the hon. member for Nipissing does.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The member for Lake St. John does in the local House.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member can satisfy himself on that point at any moment.


Samuel Hughes: Lake St. John is in the province of Quebec.


Charles Fitzpatrick: So is Janies' bay.


Samuel Hughes: James' bay is in Ontario.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Partly.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member for Nipissing represents- a part of the shores of James bay.
Mr, BARKER. They are 200 miles from it.


Frank Oliver: It is included in his district.
Mr. -SAM. HUGHES. I think the hon. minister misunderstood my hon. friend from Calgary. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) does not want to disfranchise the riding, but he does not want to enfranchise it too much.


Frank Oliver: If that is the view taken by the hon. member for Calgary, I am very glad to hear it, but he is able to speak for himself and he did not see fit to speak in the way the hon. member for Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) has spoken. That matter will however, come up later on. We are speaking now on the general question of the boundary, and I am stating the case on behalf of the inclusion of the district of Atha-baska. That part which includes the Peace and Athabaska rivers is in the new province of Alberta, and there are good reasons for its inclusion, and no reason has been shown why the 69th parallel is not a reasonable and proper boundary on the north. The Grand Trunk Pacific is surveyed to pass through a portion of the district of Athabaska in the Peace river region ; and by reason of the location of the surveyed line within reasonable distance of the navigable waters of Peace river, we have every reason to believe that the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific connecting, as it will ultimately, with the waters of the Peace river, will open up to settlement 500 miles of agricultural country lying along the unbroken navigation of Peace river. I agree with the hon. member for South York when he magnifies the importance of that country, but I cannot agree w'ith the hon. member for Calgary when he minimizes it as he does.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of the Interior is not making quite a fair statement when he says Athabaska is entitled to representation in the local House. It would still have representation in the new territorial government, just as these provinces now have. And when he speaks of the Grand Trunk Pacific running through a portion of Athabaska, he must remember that the Canadian Pacific Railway has been running through these present Territories for twenty years during which they still have been Territories. As regards representation in the Dominion, provision can still be made for representation here. Athabaska can be given a seat in this House just as well as the Yukon, so that there is every provision for its representation. But there may be other reasons why Athabaska is brought in now and they may develop later. They may have a political aspect. He has not made good his plea for the inclusion of this country at present. It cannot be on the ground of representation, because there cannot be provision made for representation both from the local and the Dominion point of view without bringing it into the new province. Athabaska should be kept as it is as the basis of a new province to the north rather than be included in the two new provinces. If, at a future day, we saw fit to bring them in, they could be brought in on the present line. But, to my mind, the future of the Peace River country, Athabasca, the Yukon and Mackenzie could be better controlled by keeping one territorial government 178
and having them under the jurisdiction of that government, and by pursuing a policy on the part of the Dominion, of exploring that country, taking an interest in its development, and maintaining law and order within its borders.


Frank Oliver: If I have not made myself clear as to the reason for including Athabaska, I wish to do so. The reason for including it is that, at the present time and as a matter of fact, there is an absolute community of interest between the district of Athabaska and the portion of the district of Alberta which it adjoins on the north. That community of interest will be emphasized and increased, as I have pointed, out, by the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway through


Robert Laird Borden: What portion of this country does it traverse 1


Frank Oliver: If hon. members will notice, it passes sufficiently near the navigable waters of the Peace river that a comparatively short railroad connection will give the railway the advantage of 500 miles of first-class steamboat navigation, extending through a country which is understood to be of unbroken fertility, and surely that is a question worthy of consideration. I want to point out that there is to-day an absolute community of interest between the northern part of the district of Alberta and the Peace river and Athabaska river part of the district of Athabaska, and that a provincial organization in the district of Alberta which does not include those districts of Athabaska, and does not provide for their being brought under the same administration, will tend to the disadvantage of the people both of Alberta and of Athabaska. There is every reason why there should be a community of administration between these two parts of the same country. The trade of the whole district of Athabaska is done with Edmonton and is connected directly with that of northern Alberta. There is no reason at the present time for an arbitrary division such as the northern boundary of the present district of Alberta. There is every reason why that line should be obliterated, and the settlement and development of the Peace river and Athabaska river country placed under the jurisdiction of the new provincial government.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any reason why the northern boundary of Athabaska should be placed where it is-any natural division ?	,


Frank Oliver: I cannot say that there is any natural division. It seemed good to the government of years ago that set apart the postal or provisional districts of the Territories, to provide that the northern boundary of Athabaska should be the 60th parallel, which as hon. gentlemen will notice, is also the northern boundary of British Columbia. Yet, the 60th parallel may be no



better boundary than the 59th or the 61st would be. But the bon. gentleman will notice that the 60th parallel is sufficiently far north to include every part of the Peace river valley. And the idea, as I would judge, at the present time at any rate, is that the whole of the Peace river valley could unquestionably be included within the jurisdiction of the new province to be created.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Has the district of Athabaska ever applied for representation in this House, or has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) ever advocated that it should have representation here ?


Frank Oliver: I have not made that representation. Having had the honour of representing through two parliaments the whole of the provisional district of Alberta, I have found quite enough on my hands without advocating the inclusion of the district of Athabaska.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman's convenience is not to be considered before the public interest, surely ?


Frank Oliver: Well, even I have my limitations.


John Herron: As to the dividing line between the two provinces, I do not see how the conclusion is reached that it should be as is here proposed. What was at one time supposed to be a grazing country in Alberta has now turned out to be an agricultural country-that is perfectly true. As between an agricultural country and what is known to stockmen as a stock country there is a marked difference. In carrying on agriculture there is nothing to take any particular harm because of severe weather. But, when stock has to run out the year around with no means of shelter provided, there is a vast difference. The country referred to by the hon. minister, no doubt, is that in the foothills of the Rocky mountains which has turned out to be a very admirable agricultural country. But I do not think there is a stockman of any experience in Canada today who would ever think of turning a herd of cattle loose in the country about Moose-jaw or in Prince Albert country or about Regina. There is only one place in our country, as I said a few nights ago that is a genuine stock country, and the eastern boundary of that country is from sixty to seventy miles east of where the present proposed boundary line runs. If you go beyond that, you reach a country where, stock will not live out the year round. There is no use in a man trying to draw comparisons between range and other cattle, for the reason that stock housed or fed in the winter season are always looked after, to a large extent, in the summer season by their owners. But, when you turn out stock on a range country, they run out the year round. They are only handled twice a year. The boundary line as here proposed cuts off a portion of the stock country, if the line was extended about


Frank Oliver: seventy-live miles further east it would take into Alberta all the country that will sustain cattle running out in the winter season. I make that statement as a matter of fact, and I do not think that any man who knows the facts will dispute it. I have been over that country and have ranged cattle upon it. Now, there are 15,000 cattle brands in the Northwest Territories at the present time. Of course, some of these apply to cattle in the eastern portions of the country where they have this class of stock that is housed in winter and looked after by their owners in summer. But the great majority of these brands are for cattle running in what is known as the range country. The clashing of brands is a very serious thing. I said the other evening in the House that hundreds of thousands of cattle running in the stock country are known to their owners only by these brands.
Now if one province establishes one brand law and another province a different brand law you can easily see the difficult position the stock interest would be in. When cattle would drift from one province to another great confusion would result. I think this government is aware of the difficulties that were occasioned toy stock running across the international boundary line, and if I am not mistaken, a serious international question is under consideration at the present moment between this government and that of the United States in consequence of a seizure of stock that had drifted across the boundary line. There will be no danger in our case of international troubles, but there might be serious commercial trouble to the two provinces. So I think the line proposed by the member for Calgary would be a very acceptable line .to the stockmen, a line running to the 8th range west of the 3rd meridian to the Saskatchewan, and then west to any range decided upon going north. I think that would be an acceptable line to the stockmen.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman said there were about 15.000 brands registered in the Northwest Territories ; c-ould he tell me what proportion of those brands are registered in that part of the country that will come within the limits of the province of Saskatchewan ?


John Herron: I would think about 20 per cent of those brands are registered east of the boundary, or east of the line that I would recommend. There might be 10 per cent east of that. But probably these cattle would be branded similarly, because they would go further from home. They are different from barnyard cattle, because if they were with adjoining stock that was running wild it would be necessary to put a brand on them, because cattle that get into these wild herds are only found by their owners once a year. There is a

great difference between range cattle and barn yard cattle.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman says 20 per cent would represent the proportion registered in Saskatchewan. Would it not be closer to 50 per cent ?


John Herron: I would not think so.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Would he say whether the bulk of the cattle exported from that country do not come from the Yorkton district ?


John Herron: I do not care where the cattle come from, they are not raised outdoors. iSo far as the brands are concerned, I do not think I am out of the way when I say that not over 10 or 15 per cent of the cattle are east of the present boundary line; I believe not over 10 per cent are east of the proposed line, even if it were to be the 8th range west of the 3rd meridian. I do not believe there are 5 per cent east of that. Yorkton is not a range cattle country, not a cattle man on this continent would care to go into that business in the Yorkton district.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman, I understand, is well informed on that question. I would ask him whether the movement of agricultural settlers is not westward, that it is now going beyond Swift Current, and that the range country in that part of the territory is becoming-more and more restricted, that is to say, that the agricultural country is extending westward and that the limited range country is extending westward also ?


John Herron: That may be, I am not familiar with the country, but to-day I think it is extending a little westward. But when you go some distance westward, I do not think it will be an agricultural country in our day and generation, I mean a large portion of what we are proposing to set aside for a grazing country.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has anything further to say about a possible addition to the boundaries of the province of Saskatchewan. It may be remembered that two hon. members of this House who were speaking in the constituency of Mountain, in the province of Manitoba, made an announcement, which I have already brought to the attention of the House. The portion of this announcement that is material to this discussion is this :
Mr. Jackson is the first of the Dominion parliament members to take part in the campaign in Mountain, and to-night he informed the electors that before the Roblin government 1781
took action for the boundary extension, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario members had discussed this matter, and had arrived at a basi3 of agreement, which, though informal, embraces beyond all doubt a basis of settlement on which the matter will be arranged. The enlarged province will then have a greater area than the new province of Alberta. The new province of Saskatchewan is to be increased in area by adding territory between the 60th parallel of latitude, and the Churchill river. With this addition its area will be about 275,000 square miles, and that of Manitoba will ' be about the same.
The rest of the announcement relates more particularly to the portions of territory which are to go to Manitoba and Ontario. I understood from the right hon. gentleman that although there had been no formal arrangement to this effect, nevertheless it was highly probable that it would be carried out. If that is the intention, you will have a western province very much larger and with a very much greater population at the present time than an eastern province. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman will be able to give some information as to whether the proposed extension of the boundaries of the province of Saskatchewan will have any bearing, in his opinion, upon the question which we have been discussing this afternoon.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have already stated to my hon. friend that the conference which took place between members from Manitoba and members from Ontario had not been brought to the attention of the government. This was altogether something informal which took place between members, as stated by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Jackson) in the speech to which my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has just made allusion. We have had no cognizance of this conference. We were not parties to it, but so far as I know suggestions were made which would be acceptable to the gentlemen who took part in that conference. Nothing official took place* it was simply a friendly interview between members interested in the same question. I could not say anything further than what I have already stated, that it is the intention at some early day, as soon as the provinces are organized, to have a conference of representatives of the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, with the view of disposing especially of that section of territory which is now held in reserve, which is part of the present territory of Saskatchewan, but which was not included in the new province of Saskatchewan, and further also in regard to the territory of Keewatin. As is well known by my bon. friend and by members of the House generally, the province of Manitoba claims that they should have the whole of the territory of Keewatin added to their own province. The province of Ontario have, through Mr. Whitney, made

a claim, not to that extent, but exacting that no disposal of such territory should be made unless they are consulted in the matter. I understand, and I have reason to believe, that the province of Saskatchewan will lay claim to a portion of the territory. Of course, the province of Saskatchewan has no voice in the matter, it cannot speak officially now, but as far as the attitude of those who have a right rto speak for it is concerned, I expect that such a claim will be made. As to the disposal of this territory, at the present time I have no suggestion to offer, and X do not know how far it would he possible for me even to say that I have an opinion in the matter. I have simply to say that I strongly sympathize with the province of Manitoba that its territories should be extended if it is possible to do so without doing an injustice to any other province.


Robert Laird Borden: I gathered from the figures, which, of course, it is difficult to follow when they ate just read off, which the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) gave to us this afternoon, that during the last two or three years population has been flowing more rapidly into Saskatchewan than into Alberta. Possibly I may have been mistaken in conceiving that impression. Could the hon. Minister of Justice give me any assistance as to that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not the information here that would enable me to determine exactly the direction in which the tide of population has gone, but from the information I have here I would be rather disposed to think that immigration has been directed chiefly towards the northern part of Saskatchewan and the northern part of Alberta. I think you will find that it has followed railway construction in Saskatchewan. It has largely gone along the line of the Canadian Northern. The Canadian Northern Railway is being constructed through that part of the country.


Robert Laird Borden: I was endeavouring to get a comparison between the two provinces. The census population of Saskatchewan was 92,631 and the estimated population 241,000, showing an increase of nearly 150,000 since the census. The census population of Alberta was 72,924 and the estimated population 173,043, showing an increase of about 100,000. Is it likely that this relative increase will continue and that population will flow into Saskatchewan at about fifty per cent greater rate than into Alberta ? That would be important information in relation to the question of the boundaries between the two provinces. It may be that this result is due to some temporary conditions such as railway development in Saskatchewan, tout if it be likely to be a permanent ratio of increase it might have an important bearing as to location of the boundary.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: The increase in population is put down under the heading cf 'homesteads ' since 1901, and the relative figures would be Alberta 80,000 and Saskatchewan 140,000 which would seem to indicate a steady increase in population arising from the fact that people are settling, there permanently. The movement of population into Saskatchewan may be due to the fact that there has been an increase of railway construction there for the last two or three years. I find that the population of Assiniboia East, which is entirely in Saskatchewan is 49,093 ; the population of Assiniboia West is 3,140 in Alberta and 14,552 in Saskatchewan. There has been an increase of population other than homesteaders of 13,000 in Alberta and only 3,000 in Saskatchewan.


Mr.  R. I.. BORDEN@: When the hon. gentleman mentions Saskatchewan, he is referring to the area within the proposed new province.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes. That is estimated from Waghorne's guide, a Winnipeg publication said to be reliable and which purports to show the movement of population in Manitoba and the Territories.


Mr. AY. J. ROCHE.: When the Minister of Justice quotes the number of homestead entries as an evidence of the increase in population, does he count each homestead entry as an increase of one in the population ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot say as to that. This information is submitted to me by the Department of the Interior and I will inquire and ascertain exactly about that.


William James Roche: 
Samuel Barker: Is the Minister of Justice able to give us the increases in the present district of Assiniboia apart from the proposed province of 'Saskatchewan ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The information I have is taken partly from the census and partly estimated. According to the census of 1901 the population of Alberta is 65,876; of Assiniboia East, 49,693 ; of Assiniboia AA'est, 17,692; of Saskatchewan, 25,679 ; These are the Territories affected, excluding Athabaska, which should be included in
.5625

the Territories also. The additions to the population estimated by the immigration commissioner are as follows, for the Territories I hare mentioned :	April 1, 1901
to July 1, 1901, 12,213 ; fiscal year 1901-2, 44,070


Samuel Barker: Could the hon. gentleman divide these figures over Alberta, Assini-boia and Saskatchewan.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot do that.


Samuel Barker: Is it not possible to know the increase in the several parts ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It may be possible to know, but I have not got it. I will make inquiries and will be able to tell my hon. friend to-morrow. In the meantime I will give the general information : Fiscal year 1901-2, 44,070 ; fiscal year 1902-3, 79,357 ; fiscal year 1903-4, 75,042 ; July 1st, 1904 to May 1st 1905, 53,500.
Then I have this note, which has been handed to me :	' To which number may
be added for estimate of immigration during May and June, 25,000.' I understood that my hon. friend would like to know how this increase is apportioned over Alberta, Saskatchewan and Assiniboia. I will endeavour to obtain that.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I may say that in the last couple of years no doubt a larger proportion of population has gone into the province of Saskatchewan than into the province of Alberta. That is to be accounted for by the fact that there is a large area of open prairie in the northern part of the province of Saskatchewan through which railways are now being constructed-two branches of the Canadian Northern and the North Western Manitoba branch of the Canada Pacific Railway ; and in addition a large number of settlers have taken up land where it is supposed the Grand Trunk Railway will cross, somewhere to the south of these other lines. There is no doubt that as soon as these railways cross the dividing line between the two provinces, the increased settlement will be in the direction of Alberta ; and there is this further to be borne in mind, that one great portion of the new province of Alberta is not yet available at all for settlement, that is the great stretch of country running some 400 miles northwest of Edmonton towards the Peace river country. 1 Hiring the last three or four years there have been hundreds of inquiries of the Department of the Interior for information about that country and I know that until a year or so ago at all events the department discouraged people from going so far away from settlement and survey. But as soon as that country is opened up by survey and the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, there is no doubt that the bulk of the immigration for some years will go to Alberta, and will quite even up the excess now going to Saskatchewan. As near as I can judge,
from my knowledge of the two proposed provinces, they have as equal a populationcarrying capacity, when you take into consideration the Peace River country, as it is possible to provide for by dividing the country into two. While at the present time more people may be going into Saskatchewan, I think in five years matters will be just about evened up. As to the remarks that were made by my hon. friend for Alberta (Mr. Herron) about ranching, there is no doubt that there may be some little difficulty, but I do not think it will be a serious one. You cannot run a line anywhere to divide these two provinces that will put all ranching facilities on one side and none on the other. I lived in that country for twenty years and I represented the most easterly district of the Northwest, that adjoining the province of Manitoba, and even in my district, within fifty miles of the boundary line of the province of Manitoba, there are a number of men who make their living altogether from ranching and have done so for the last twenty years ; and while no doubt, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, cattle have to be housed and fed in winter, they run all summer without being taken care of, and are branded and managed in most cases like the cattle in Alberta. It is coming to be recognized by the best ranchers, even in southern Alberta, that they have to provide fodder for a good proportion of their cattle during the winter. If the boundary line were brought sixty miles further east, as suggested by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. 51. S. McCarthy) it would make a very great difference in the area of those two provinces. Instead of being as now-Alberta with 254,000 square miles and Saskatchewan 250,000-Alberta would have 294,000 and Saskatchewan 210,000.
Mr. 51. S. 5IcCARTIIY. Will the hon. gentleman pardon me ? I did not mean to run the line due north. I meant to run it to the Saskatchewan river and westward along that stream.


John Gillanders Turriff: That would make a vast difference ; but if run sixty miles to the east and due north, it would make the difference 1 have pointed out. But as it is, it appears to me to be as fair a division as it is possible to make, when you consider the interest of the two provinces and their population-bearing capacity in the future ; and it is to the future largely that we are looking. We arc not legislating for the new provinces just as they are to-day. Wherever you drew the the line, you would have pretty much the same difficulties that you would have in regard to the line proposed. I do not think, however, that they are serious.


John Herron: How would the hon. gentleman ascertain the value of the cattle running in that ranching country if they were divided between the two provinces ? In regard to feeding cattle, you will find 400,000

Lead of cattle running on the ranches to-day *which are not provided with one ounce of feed.


Mr. SOOTT.: As I happen to represent a constituency which is divided by the line under consideration, I would like the privilege of saying a few words more upon the question. Like with many other questions, the selection of this dividing line was a compromise. There were people representing the interests affected who wanted the dividing line sixty miles further east, which would run in the neighbourhood of Crane lake on the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. When we faced this problem, the first question to be decided was whether it was well now to grant provincial autonomy to the Northwest. That was decided in the affirmative, though not with absolute unanimity. The next question was whether there should be one or two provinces. That was decided in favour of two provinces, again not with absolute unanimity. Then the question arose as to how these two provinces were to be treated in regard to finances and other matters ; and with perfect unanimity it was agreed that it would be well to treat them with absolute equality-to give them exactly the same financial status. Then came the question of selecting the dividing line, and, as I mentioned in the debate op the second reading of these Bills, each member who was under the responsibility of giving advice on that question was under a very heavy responsibility.
My own preference was that the present eastern boundary line of the district of Alberta should be selected as the dividing line. It would be about 50 or 60 miles further west than the line which has been chosen. However, the weight of opinion carried in favour of the fourth meridian line, which in this Alberta Bill is named as the eastern boundary of Alberta. After all, I have no very serious objection to urge against this line, although I still think that the eastern line of the present district of Alberta would be the fairest line, looking to the future populations of these respective provinces as we may expect them to be, considering the class of territory that composes the two provinces. The northern portion of the province,of Saskatchewan, so far as our present knowledge about that country goes, cannot be expected to bear as heavy a population as the northern part of the province of Alberta. As I mentioned once before, the foot-hill country adjacent to the Rocky mountains, and even the Rocky mountains in the southern part of Alberta, will probably bear heavy population because of the large coal deposits which are there. Now I understand my hon friends from the Territories who sit on the other side of the House to contend that the ranching population is unanimously opposed to the selection of the 4th meridian as the divider. hejrron.
ing line. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy), I understood, expressed that view. He read an extract from some newspaper or magazine which stated that view distinctly, and I understood him to endorse it. And he referred to a resolution that was accepted at a public meeting in Medicine Hat declaring that the placing of the dividing line on the 4th meridian was a great hardship to the ranching industry, because laws passed to govern a farming community would conflict with those necessary tfor a ranching country. That is a complaint, on the face of it, made on behalf of the ranchers who are to be left or placed in Saskatchewan, the eastern province. I ask the hon. gentlemen to state fairly if they have heard up to this moment a protest from any community of ranchers who are left in Saskatchewan through the selection of the 4th meridian as the dividing line, against these Bills as regards that dividing line. I have evidence to the contrary. I received on February 18th, before these Bills were introduced, a resolution by. telegraph from the secretary of th? Moosejaw Board of Trade, a non-partisan body, a body of business men, in the following terms :
Board of Trade unanimously of opinion that dividing line between provinces should not be further east than 4th meridian. Please use your best efforts.
(Sgd.) SEYMOUR GREEN
Secretary.
I also received, about the same time, a copy of a resolution adopted by the Liberal Association of Maple Creek. Of course, this association is a partisan body. I would call the attention of the House to the ifact that if there is a purely range district and a successful and prosperous range district in the Northwest Territories, it is the district of Maple Creek :
To whom it may concern :
This is to certify that at a meeting of the Maple Creek Association held here to-day the following resolution was unanimously carried :
Moved by I. C. Dickson, seconded by G. W. Quick, that in the opinion of this meeting the time for the granting of provincial autonomy to the Northwest Territories has not yet arrived

If the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) were here I would call his attention to this statement, which might help to explain to him why his party was not more successful in the Northwest Territories on the 3rd of November last.
-and we therefore trust that delay may be had in the proceedings in reference thereto. But in the event of autonomy being granted and two provinces formed we are of the unanimous opinion that the 4th principal meridian should be the dividing line. As a ranching district we have no fears of being isolated, as it is our opinion that a very large percentage of the ranching district lies east of the 4th meridian.
(Sgd.) D. KEARNS,
Secretary of Liberal Association, Maple Creek.

I would call the attention of the member for Alberta (Mr. Herron) to the latter part
of this statement of the Liberal Association of this im,portatnt ranching district.


John Herron: Does the hon. member (Mr. Scott) depend on the views of the Liberal Asssociation with regard to the boundary line ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Well, if the hon. gentleman does not like that let me give him something else from Maple Creek. On February 14th I received from the secretary of the board of trade a non-partisan body of Conservative, Liberal and independant business men and stock men of that ranching district, the following telegram :
At largest meeting of Board of Trade ever * held it was unanimously resolved that dividing line between proposed new provinces should be 4th meridian, and ask your support.
(Sgd.) W. R. ABBOTT,
Secretary.
I think that evidence will go to convince the House that the range communities that are being left in the eastern province and which form the communities which, according to these hon. gentlemen, are to be pitied, are unanimously favourable to being put In the eastern province and having the 4th meridian as the dividing line. With reference to what my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron), said I cannot agree with him that the whole of the ranching country is west of Swift Current. As pointed out by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) one of the most exclusively ranching areas in the Northwest is the Wood Mountain and Willow Bunch district. That community raises no grain, but depends entirely upon ranching. They extend along the boundary line for the distance of from 100 to 140 miles, their eastern limit would be a meridian that, running north, would pass about the town of Regina.
Now, I would like to make a remark or two with reference to the statements made by the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) this afternoon. That hon. gentleman is desirous that the Athabaska district should not be included in the new provinces at the present time. I think that the statements made during the present session by representatives of Manitoba would go to show that it is very wise to Include the district of Athabaska in these provinces. We all agree that a great mistake was made with Manitoba in not allowing it to he extended further westward twenty years ago. If we have learned the lesson that that teaches, we must agree in the opinion that it is a very wise provision that the district of Athabaska should be included in the new provinces at the present time. But, for one who, only a couple of years ago, held such exceedingly strong opinions in favour of practically wiping out provincial government and centring all political power In Canada here at Ottawa, the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has made a pretty radical change of opinion in a short time. Of course, he gave voice to his change of opinion last year, as was pointed out yesterday. He said last year that he wanted new and independent provincial legislatures established and put in possession of the public resources. And why ? He wanted these new legislatures to he created and put in possession of the public resources that they might turn hand springs, as he put it, with those resources in favour of corporations.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. gentleman read where I said that ?


Thomas Walter Scott: 1 should be glad to do so if anybody will hand me a copy of yesterday's ' Hansard.' I read it yesterday.


William Findlay Maclean: Then, I can only say that the hon. gentleman misconstrued what I said.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will he glad to read it again when my hon. friends have found it. My hon. friend used practically these words, that if the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway appeared here they did not wait to have their wants attended to, but the wants of the people were not being attended to. All the legislatures in Canada he said-his words were :	There
is not a legislature in this country that is not turning handsprings with the public resources in favour of corporations, and he argued that an independent legislature should be created in the Northwest Territories and put in possession of the public resources.


William Findlay Maclean: Where did Psay that?


Thomas Walter Scott: In the debate on the address, in the session of 1904.	.


William Findlay Maclean: This is your construction, these are not my words.


Thomas Walter Scott: This afternoon my hon. friend was not content with having two new legislatures, he wanted a third one. a territorial legislature with its capital in the district of Mackenzie. Has he some corporation friends that are looking for some public resources up there ? Here is what my hou. friend said :
Why cannot the people of the Northwest he given a government of their own ? They are prosperous, they have schools and other things to carry on, and they can .manage for themselves as well as this government can do it for them. Why cannot the Northwest Territories be erected into a province ? The people are asking for relief arid they cannot get it, but if the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific want anything you find the great Liberal party turning handsprings to give them what thtey want. There is no legislature is this country to-day doing anything for the people, but every one of them is turning handsprings to distri-

bute the resources of the oountry among the great corporations.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it not so ?


Thomas Walter Scott: Look at tile history of the various provinces of this Dominion. In the very instance that he attempted to put his finger on yesterday, the province of Ontario, he will find proof that if there has ever been a party in this country that did not turn handsprings in favour of corporations, it was the Liberal party in the province of Ontario. That is the only province that has had continuous Liberal government until a few months back, practically since confederation ; and that is the one province in Canada that has not a debt and in which the legislature did not turn handspring for the corporations and involve the public debt in their favour.


William Findlay Maclean: Let me point out to the hon. gentleman that the province of Ontario is arranging now to issue $7,000,000 of consols to take up a debt and to meet deficits for which the Ross government were responsible. Let me point out that if there ever was a province raided in the interest of corporations by the Liberal party, it was the province of Ontario. Look at the electric combines, look at the franchises that have been backed up and supported by the Liberal administration when they were in power in Ontario. Look at what happened yesterday; the first thing Mr. Whitney did was to rescind and refuse to endorse that iniquitous deal made by the Ross government doubling the value of the franchise of one of the greatest electric combines in this country, and to-day the people of Ontario are looking to the Conservative party in that province for relief from the handsprings that the Liberals of Ontario have turned in order to benefit corporations. When I stated that there was not a legislature in this country that was not turning handsprings to relieve corporations and taking great care not to do anything to benefit the people, I had particular reference to this parliament. It can do nothing for the people, but it is always ready to give away the resources of tlie country to big corporations, and give them any legislation they desire.


Thomas Walter Scott: How much of the public resources of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories has this government handed over, in eight years, to corporations ?


William Findlay Maclean: It has handed them over in a number of cases. Look at the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Thomas Walter Scott: Not an acre.


William Findlay Maclean: I said the resources and credit of the country. Mackenzie and Mann have got from this government the endorsation on $9,000,000 of their paper ; the Grand Trunk Pacific have Mr. SCOTT.
got a franchise almost equal to $150,000,000 on the credit of the people of this country. When I spoke about legislatures turning handsprings in the interest of corporations, I referred especially to this House of Commons, meaning that it was ready to give all kinds of legislation to these corporations, but it could not do a single thing for the relief of the people. For instance, when the hon. gentleman complained that the greatest grievance of the people of the west was the want of regulation over the Canadian Pacific Railway, if the government had been true to the -west, if the hon. gentleman had been true to the west, he would have insisted upon this government taking up that question and ascertaining what was the actual cost of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, in order to give the people of the west relief from excessive Canadian Pa-cifie Railway freight rates. Has he done that ?


Thomas Walter Scott: That is in court now.


William Findlay Maclean: The original cost of the Canadian Pacific Railway has never been ascertained. Why does not the hon. gentleman ask the government to come to the relief of the people of the west ? But the government is all the time buttressing the Canadian Pacific Railway. In regard to this tax exemption clause, if there ever was a work of supererogation, it is that clause in the present Bill which says that the Canadian Pacific Railway lands shall continue to be exempt from taxation. That exemption may have been justified in the old days, it cannot be justified any longer, and especially it cannot be justified in the present Bill. When I said that the legislatures all over this country were aiding the corporations, I had refer-euce also to the province of Quebec, which is turning handsprings in the interest of the corporations there, to the Liberal administration in the province of Nova Scotia, which is turning handsprings in the interests of the corporations, but is doing nothing in the interests of the people.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: Come down and discuss that with us.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I will discuss it with you. I am justifying my statement that all these legislatures, whether the federal parliament, the legislature of Ontario, the legislature of Quebec, the legislature of Nova Scotia and some of the other provinces that are controlled by the Liberal party, are busy in turning handsprings for the benefit of corporations and doing nothing for the enfranchisement of the people and the rectification of the people's grievances. There are many other grievances. Take this telephone grievance that we are only now getting a cure for. But what support did we get from the hon. gentlemen coming from the west ? Have
.5633

they not been ready to buttress the Bell Telephone Company in its monopoly, and have they not backed up the ex-Minister of Railways when he said it was not the duty of parliament to introduce anything into the Railway Act in the interests of the people ? Now a change is coming over this country, the people are coming to see what the record of the Liberal party has been, they begin to realize that it has been altogether in the direction of aiding and abetting these corporations and ignoring the rights of the people, and no one knows that better than the people of the Northwest. I am sorry to see that their - members here have never made a move to have that exemption clause rendered inoperative, to have it commuted ; they have never made a move to have the railway rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the Northwest regulated by the Railway Commission. But they sit here and justify acts of that kind, and then taunt me with making a statement which is well within the truth, and by that statement I propose to stand.
I said thait I believed in a legislative union rather than in a federal union, and I still hold to that opinion. But if we are to have a federal union, as we have, 1 must take the facts as they are, and if the provinces must be erected, X am in favour of erecting them, but erecting them with the right kind of a constitution. It does convict him and his friends of not being earnest and true to the interests they represent in the west.


Thomas Walter Scott: Most of the remarks made by the hon. gentleman are entirely foreign to the subject. On this occasion he has been just a little more reckless than usual. His statement, if taken as he made it, would mean that the province of Ontario is under a debt of at least $7,000,000. I venture to say that he cannot substantiate that statement Let him go to the public accounts of that province and he. will find that it is not under any public debt, which cannot be said of any other province. The province of Ontario is the only one free from debt, and it is the only one which has been since confederation practically, continuously under Liberal government. ' The hon. gentleman is not much more accurate with regard. to the freight rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the 10 per cent clause. It was a Conservative government which gave the Canadian Pacific Railway exemption from taxation on their lands and roadbed. together with exemption from public control over rates, and if we have had governments in this country which have turned handsprings in favour of the corporations, they have been Conservative governments. With regard to the 10 per cent clause of the Canadian Pacific Railway contract providing for the company protection against any interference by any power in this country in the matter of freight and passenger rates.
what are the facts ? As a result of legislation put through by this Liberal government within the last couple of years and of other actions taken by^ it, we have had a Railway Commission appointed, and within the past six months our commission asserted and enforced control in specific instances over Canadian Pacific Railway rates. That 10 per cent protection is now a thing of the past. For that we may thank the Liberal government, which does not spend its time turning handsprings on behalf of the corporations as its predecessor did, but devotes what ability it lias in that line towards the public welfare.


William Findlay Maclean: The people of Manitoba travel for three cents a mile over the railways in that province, and they got that rate thanks to its Conservative government. Whereas, in the province of Ontario, the Grand Trunk Railway, in spite of its original charter, and because the Minister of Justice refuses to enforce the law and oblige that company to give a penny a mile rate for third-class passengers, is charging the people of Ontario 3i cents a mile for travelling this side of Toronto, while it is carrying people west of Toronto at 3 cents a mile ; and the Railway Commission has not yet seen fit to remove that discrimma-tion. I challenged the Minister of Justice from time to time, when he was making that deal with the Grand Trunk Pacific, to say whether the Grand Trunk Railway was not bound to give the people between Toronto and Montreal a 2-cent per mile rate. He did not answer, but the Minister of I malice said he did not know whether it was the law or not, and never bestirred himself a moment to see that the law was enforced.
I do not know that the hon. gentleman himself ever supported anybody in this House when an effort was made to make the railway law efficient and administered as it should be. I want to see tile Railway Commission made more efficient. If the Labelai government established that commission, for which I give them credit, they have not taken any steps to make it more efficient. The law could be made much more effective in the interests of the people with regard to railways, if we had support from hon. gentlemen opposite. But these gentlemen prefer continuing to turn handsprings, and one of the best performers in that line is my hon. friend from Assiniboia.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The 4th meridian coincides with meridian 110 west Greenwich. The northern boundary of Saskatchewan and Alberta extends from meridian 102 to meridian 120 west Greenwich, IS degrees longitude. The division of the northern boundary into two equal parts that is the northern" boundary of both provinces would place the dividing line one degree west of that defined in the Bill. It would make it one degree west of the line we have now. The 4tli meridian is the line from

which all surveys in the west commence, being what is called the initial meridian in the Dominion lands system of surveys. It also, for all practical purposes, approximately divides the area we are now dealing with into two equal parts. It has the merit of certainty, it divides the area into two equal parts, and it gives to each almost the same population. Objection is made to the selection of this 4th meridian as the dividing line on the ground that it cuts the ranching country into two. I have been looking at the map I have here, which shows how investigation has demonstrated the limit of the ranching country and the limit of the wheatgrowing country. It will be found that the ranching country was originally supposed to extend far down into Assiniboia, almost to the southeast or southwest corner of Manitoba. Recently, however, it has been discovered that it is practically limited to Swift Current, in Assiniboia, so that I think on the whole we have settled these two points : first, we divide the country into two equal parts contiguous ; we give each province practically the same area, and we give a certain line as the boundary line between the two, a line which is accepted for all purposes with respect to the division of districts and municipalities, and so forth. In so far as regards the difficulty pointed out by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron) before the adjournment with respect to the confusion that is likely to arise in the branding of cattle, my information-which, of course, I give subject to his better in formation-is that there are about 15,000 of these brands registered in the whole of the Territories, and that about 50 per cent are registered applicable to that district winch will be in the province of Saskatchewan. Although the number of cattle held by each individual owner is somewhat smaller in Saskatchewan than in Alberta, the difficulty arising from the branding will not be remedied to any large extent by placing the boundary line where he suggests. Solutions of difficulties are always likely to create embarrassment in one direction or another, and on the whole the best division possible is that which gives the practical results I mentioned a few moments ago.


Samuel Barker: I have listened to the debate so far with a good deal of interest, mainly because I have to rely on what is said on both sides for information upon which I can form my own judgment. I have heard what the Minister of Justice has just said in answer to the hon. member for Calgary ; and it seems to me that looking at it solely from the two points of view thus presented by the one gentleman and the other, there is this to be said in favour of what has been stated by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy). On both sides rt is admitted, that the alteration he proposes would bring in nearly all, or, at all events, a great portion of the ranching country, and that the proposition of Mr. FITZPATRICK.
the government leaves out a very large portion of that country.' In addition to that, it will be observed by anybody who takes the map and sketches out what is suggested by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy), that running up to the Saskatchewan river and then inclining northwesterly, you get the easterly boundary of Alberta almost parallel with its western boundary, instead of forming a very rough triangle as the government proposes it. That in itself would seem to be some advantage.
But, I have been struck by the suggestion which has been made this afternoon in regard to Athabaska, and especially with the remarks made about Athabaska by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy). It appears that Athabaska, which we are including in these two provinces, is a very large territory, which at present, has only 242 white people in it. It does strike me that it requires some very peculiar conditions to justify tacking on to fairly well settled provinces, a territory so large as Athabaska, about one-half of the whole area of the two provinces 'as proposed by the Bill, when the territory has only 242 white people in it. If we throw aside all political considerations and look at it solely from the commercial point of view, it seems to me a most extraordinary thing that any man should contemplate putting Athabaska into these provinces at all. What io the object of it ? It must be absolutely clear that Athabaska is about as far at the present day from the provincial status as these other districts were in 1875 when they were given only territorial administration. I should not like to try to divide up the population of Athabaska and see how many it makes to the mile ; I- am afraid that I would have to cut a man up into very small proportions to make it appreciable, but if we take it as it is, as an unsettled district to all intents and purposes-I mean unsettled as regards white people, throwing aside for the moment Indians and half-breeds, I do not wish to say a word against the half-breeds-but looking at it from the point of view of the white people who are seeking representative institutions, the point of view of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Assiniboia, all of which have a similiar population and are similar in their commercial aspect, we will see lliat the better way of dividing this territory into provinces would be to run the line from east to west along the 55th parallel and thus get a fair sized province consisting of Alberta, Assiniboia ' and that portion of Saskatchewan now being dealt with, omitting the corner to the north of Manitoba. That portion being taken out, what we call the south portion of the territory would give a province smaller than the province of Quebec, a little larger than the province of Ontario and vou would have a compact province that would work well together. That would leave to the north

the territory of Athabaska with its small white population the nucleus of a territory controlling and administering Mackenzie, which, I presume, has no white population at all. You would then have a territory to the north of the 55th parallel very like the territory we constituted under the Act of 1875, and below the 55th parallel one province comprising something under 300,000 miles in area, very like the present province of Ontario and the present province of Quebec, somewhat midway between the two as to area, and I think you would have a compact and more homogeneous province, more likely to work together in the general interest of all concerned. I say this without knowing what may be the opinions of representatives of that district. I have listened to the arguments on both sides of this House and if I were asked, in so far as this debate has gone, to pronounce an opinion at this moment as to what would be the best or as to what would be the most fitting division of this territory in the interest of all concerned, I certainly would suggest such a plan as I have stated. In support of it all the arguments that have been addressed to the question of saving expense by having one province instead of two, and as to' control of immigration, would apply. We would have only one province, we would have the Dominion administering the public lands of Athabaska, and if there are any lands to administer north of that, those lands as well and we would leave to the new province the control of the public lands in the three districts I have mentioned. It seems to me that it would be a sensible, business like solution of the difficulty and without presuming to offer an opinion for anybody but myself I submit it for the consideration of hon. gentlemen.


William Findlay Maclean: On this question of the naming of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan I wish to read, a letter which I received from a friend of mine, and which is.as follows :
When X lived in Georgia, I was very much impressed with the way the people there made use of the title ' Georgian.' ' I am a Georgian,' ' He is a noted Georgian,' are common expressions used in Georgia. We also hear the expression
*	Washington was a Virginian,' 'He is a hotheaded Kentuckian,' ' He is a rich New Yorker,'
He is a Californian,' ' He is a Delawarean,'
' He is a Nova Scotian,' &c.
It seems to me that it would he a very great advantage to the people of every state if the name of the state were such as could be used as indicated above. When a man says ' I am a New Yorker, what are you ? ' a man from Ontario feels at a loss what to say in reply. The best he can say is ' I am from Ontario.' But when a man from Virginia says ' I am a Virginian, what are you 1' it is easy for a man from Nova Scotia to say ' I am a Nova Scotian.'
It is, therefore, my idea that iln naming a new province care should be taken to give it a name that can be used as indicated above. Such a name gives the people of the province a distinction that they cannot otherwise obtain. To
say a man is a Canadian does not give the hearer much of an idea where the person came from, but to say that he is a ' Nova Scotian ' at once calls special attention to the part of Canada from which the person comes.
' Alberta ' is a pretty name, hut is a little effeminate. ' He is an Albertan ' does not sound so well as the quotations given above, such as ' He is a New Yorker, Georgian, Nova Scotian,' &c. But what is to be said of a man from 1 Saskatchewan ? ' We have the Saskatchewan river, and a small town called Saskatchewan. Why use it as the name of the new province, when a much better name could be used ?
The best name is one with either one or two syllables. ' Erie Hanal ' is better than Empire State Canal. ' Panama Canal ' is better than a longer name, and Quebec is easier used than Hochelaga. As we are now about to set apart two new provinces, why not give them short and distinctive names, and future generations will call us ' blessed.'
Take Pennsylvania for instance. It is a good name, is distinctive, but it is too long. What is the result 1 The name is cut down, in conversation, to ' Pennsy.' The common name here for the Pennsylvania Railroad is ' The Pennsy.' The Philadelphia baseball team is called ' The Phillies.' If the new province is called ' Saskatchewan,' I suppose the word will be cut down after a while to ' Sasky,' and we shall hear of people who live ' up in Sasky.' Not much dignity about that, is there ?
It surely is possible to find names for the new provinces that can be used similarly to the derivatives of Georgia, New York, Nova Scotia, Virginian, &c. In case this is not convenient or possible, the new provinces should at least be given short names. Parents are particular about the names given their children, and I believe you will agree with me that there is * something in a name.' Parliament should exercise good taste and judgment in naming new provinces. Future generations, as well as ourselves, should be considered.	*
Take, for instance, the subject of correspondence. How easy it is to write, in the address, N.Y., N.S., Va., B.C., &c. But how about the names now applied to the new provinces ? ' Alb.' would not be easily written with a pen, because of the loops in ' 1 ' and * b.' But what are we to say about * Saskatchewan ? ' Shall we make the contraction ' Sask.' ? If we do, then we have the name, ' Saskey,' and that wduld not be dignified. Referring to Alberta, I imagine we might hear some one say * I live in Bertie.'
Saskatchewan should certainly be dropped, for there is nor one man in twenty that can spell it correctly, probably not one- in a hundred. We owe it to ourselves, and to future generations to give the province a better name.
I would like to see names used that have the adaptability of such names as Nova Scotia, Virginia.
The gentleman writes in another letter :
Since writing you, I am thoroughly convinced that ' Cartier ' should be used as the name of one of the new provinces in the Northwest. I quote T. D'Arcy Magee s poem, first verse :
In the seaport of St. Malo, 'twas a smiling morn in May,
When the Commodore Jacques Cartier to the westward sailed away ;
In the crowded old cathedral all the town were on their knees

For the safe return of kinsmen from the undiscovered seas.
And every winter blast that blew o'er pinnacle and pier
Filled manly hearts will sorrow, and gentle hearts with fear.
It is certainly an oversight that Cartier does not already adorn the map of Canada in a prominent manner, and now is the time to do honour to the man who discovered our country. Quebec should have been named Cartier, but as it was not, do not let us now miss the opportunity of naming one of the new provinces, Cartier.
Upon further thougnt, I find that it would not strain, the name to use the form ' Cartyan ' or * Cartian.' It therefore appears to me that ' Cartier ' is a very suitable name, for it is the name of the discoverer of Canada, and gives us a good name for a person living in a province named ' Cartier,' namely, ' Cartian.'
I hope you see the matter as I see it. and that you will introduce the idea to the House. The government have given you a precedent : they have dropped * Assiniboia ' and * Artha-1 ha ska.' Why therefore not drop ' Saskatchewan ' ? Why should this unwieldy name be retained ? It means nothing to the people of Canada, and less to any other people. ' Cartier ' means everything to Canadians, and has a significance abroad. And would not ' Sas.' be a beautiful abbreviation ? I would rhyme with * Ass.' in ' Assiniboia.'
Again my correspondent writes :
Referring further to my letter of yesterday, if it were found that names like Georgia, Virginia, Nova Scotia, &c., could not be found for the new provinces, how would * Cartier ' suit in place of ' Saskatchewan ' ? It would not be a jawbreaker like the Indian name, and would have significance. As Cartier discovered Canada, it would seem only right that a province should be named for him. The people of Quebec #vould be pleased with the name. There may he a more suitable name, but It is certainly a thousand times better than 'Saskatchewan.' (I always have to stop to figure out how to spell * Saskatchewan.') Let us nave some mercy on future generations of school children, and give the new province a name that people can spell and pronounce.
I myself had paid little'attention to the names of these new provinces, hut I do think there is something in the suggestion of the writer of these letters. I have very great respect for Indian names ; they show in a measure the history of the country, but I do not think the names Saskatchewan and Alberta either historical or utilitarian. J would like to hear what justification there is for their selection. I do say that men like Cartier and Champlain are well worthy the honour of having a province of Canada named after them.


John Herron: I am sorry to trouble the House, but before this clause is passed I wish to refer to one or two statements made by the Minister of Justice, who said that he thought- 50 per cent of the 15,000 brands recorded iu the new territories at the present time ran east of the new boundary Hue suggested by the member for Calgary (Mr. M.
S.	McCarthy). I would not think myself


William Findlay Maclean: there would be over 20 or 25 per cent, but there is this difference that in one case a man may have five or fifteen head of cattle and another man may have 5,000 head, which shows the distinction between a range country and a mixed farming country. Ten or fifteen head is the average bunch of cattle for the ordinary farmer, but in the range country we have perhaps as many as 15,000 or 18,000 head of cattle representing one brand. In the country where I live there are just two brands representing 30,000 head of cattle, whereas in the country east of the boundary line there would be only from five to fifteen head belonging to one man, and although they go out on grass in summer, that man will look after his cattle. Wheh the hon. member for West Assiniboia referred to the Liberal Association at Maple Creek passing a resolution to say that they were thoroughly satisfied with where the boundary line was placed, I have no doubt that such a resolution was passed, but I believe there are Liberal associations iu my district which would pass a resolution approving of the government if they proposed to run the line on the 5th meridian or any other place. As . to the business-men of Moosejaw passing resolutiojis in reference to this boundary line, it is just about as absurd ns tlie lion, gentleman (Mr. Scott) passing his own opinion on this cattle question. The town of Moosejaw is one of the coldest towns in the Territories, and I will guarantee that a range cow never wintered out within a great many miles of Moosejaw. The cattle cannot winter out in the district of Moosejaw where he says this resolution was passed.


Thomas Walter Scott: They certainly do. Willow Bunch is directly south of Moosejaw and they do run out.


John Herron: There is a little strip of perhaps* thirty miles running down along the boundary line east of the Cypress hills where the stock range from Northern Dakota comes up to the boundary line, and cattle may run out there, but every one knows that in the vicinity of Moosejaw, stock never run out all the year round. I would like to see the line put where it would suit the stockmen of the whole country. I have had the opinions of stockmen all over my country, and I believe that a public meeting at Medicine Hut is more likely to voice the true opinion of the people of that country than a meeting held iu any other town in the Territories, because one of the two central stock associations of the Territories is located in Medicine Hat, the other being in Fort Macleod. I believe that the Stock Association of Medicine Hat represents ten times as many cattle as a-ny other association in the Territories. At a public meeting-held at Medicine Hat, called by the board of trade and presided over by the mayor, the opinion which I expressed here was en-

dorsed. The Liberal member representing that part of the territory in the legislature, who is a staunch Liberal of the old school, was one of the men who protested against the proposed location of the boundary line and also against the other clauses of this Bill. I do not wish to let go without contradiction, statements made by corporations or bodies of men, or individuals who do not know what they are talking about. What 1 say is perfectly right so far as the boundary is concerned.


Thomas Walter Scott: I wish to repeat that in my opinion the view of the secretary of the Maple Creek Board of Trade is worthy ol' just as much respect and credence upon this particular question, as the word of anybody else in the Northwest Territories.


John Herron: Is that Mr. Bray 1


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Abbott. It is not only liis personal view, but it is the view of the business people of that town and district, which, as my hon. friend (Mr. Herron) must admit, is as much as any other district in the Northwest Territories, an exclusively ranching district. As the Minister of the Interior this afternoon very well pointed out, our knowledge of that country as the result of experience has undergone during the last half dozen years a vetfy material change. A very large part of the country east of the 4th meridian was looked upon until very recent years as exclusively ranching country-practically the whole country tc within fifty or sixty miles of the town of Moosejaw ; and until the present moment along the 49tli parallel, from the 4tli meridian for 200 miles east there is a continuous range country on which horses and cattle run all the year round just as they do in the district of Piuclier Creek. And the Pineher Creek country has undergone a remarkable change. Whereas a few years ago the people there were doing business entirely in cattle and horses, they are now doing business in wheat, and the same thing applies to a large part of the country east of the 4th meridian-not only to sections of the country in the neighbourhood of Moose-jaw and Wood mountain, but far east of there. The hon. member for Eastern As-siniboia (Mr. Turriff) pointed out that until recent years (and even yet there were and are) very considerable districts looked upon as partially, or largely ranching districts. For instance, the Tellow Grass district, on the Soo line 60 or 70 miles south-east of Mossejaw, is a considerable area which was until recent years treated as an exclusively ranching country; but the character of that country has undergone a certain change just like the Pineher Creek country. With regard to the resolution of the Medicine Hat public meeting, let me say, as I said before, that it alleges no complaint on the part of the Medicine Hat ranchers. So far as it alleges a complaint, it is on behalf of the pepole to be left in Saskatchewan east
of the 4th meridian. What complaint has my hon. friend to allege, on behalf of the people lie represents, with regard to the dividing line ? There is sixty miles distance between the eastern edge of his district of Alberta and the western edge c l the proposed province of Saskatchewan. I think I have every right, in comparison with my hon. friend, to express an opinion on this subject, because I represent the people who are living in the neighbourhood of this dividing line, and I have given the unanswerable proof to the House that the people of Maple Creek, who are going to be in the smaller ranching community left in the eastern province apparently are entirely satisfied ; and, so far as the Medicine Hat people are concerned, who passed that resolution, a very large number of them would be entirely satisfied to be left in the proposed province of Saskatchewan and have tlie dividing line selected, not at the 4th meridian, but sixty miles further west.
Mr. HlERItON. Put them in Saskatchewan and make one province of them. What we object to is running the line through the centre of them.


Thomas Walter Scott: The people concerned do not object.


John Herron: You may turn a stock country into an agricultural country, but I would ask the hon. member for Western As-siniboia, if you can turn an agricultural country into a stock country ?


David Henderson: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the statement of the hon. member for Western Assiniboia (Jlr. Scott), and I have been a good deal impressed by what I might call, without any intention to be offensive, the egotism of the hon. gentleman. He tells us, the members of this House on both sides, that he has a right to speak for those people because he represents them. Does he not know that every other member of this House represents the people of Saskatchewan just as well as he does ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


David Henderson: Most assuredly we do. I am not simply the representative of the people of the county of Halton ; I am also the representative of the people of Western Assiniboia. I am here to look after the interests of the whole Dominion of Canada. The hon. gentleman told us a short time ago that when they met together to consider these Bills, the first thing they decided was whether there was to be provincial autonomy or not. Who decided so ? It seems that the whole matter was cut and dried before it came down to this House. What are we sitting here for ? The hon. member for Western Assiniboia and a few others had decided the whole question, and we are wasting months on a matter which the hon. gentleman ego-

tistically tells us was all settled before it came down to the House. I am surprised at the hon. member putting that forward and calling it argument. Then he says the second question they decided was whether there was to be one province or two. ' We ' decided that there were to be two provinces. Who decided that ? I say that question has not been decided yet, and it should not be decided until it comes before the members of this House, who have an equal interest in it with the bon. member for Western Assiniboia. Then he tells us that the next question ' we ' decided was that the dividing line should be the 4th meridian. Again I ask what right had the kon. gentleman and a few other western representatives to decide that ? I think these hon. gentlemen are arrogating to themselves a great deal too much. The hon. gentleman tells us that he has a right to speak for the people of Western Assiniboia because he represents them. I am inclined to think that when he goes back there he will find that the people will tell him that he does not represent their views. He puts forth as an argument that the Board of Trade of Maple Creek has decided with reference to the boundary line. How many ranchers, I would like to ask him, are on the Board of Trade of Maple Creek ? I will venture to say that there is not one.


Thomas Walter Scott: I will venture to say that nearly every member of the Board of Trade is directly interested in ranching.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman is- very venturesome, but we all know how boards of trade are constituted. The Board of Trade of Maple Creek is made up of business men of that place, and not of people engaged in farming or ranching, and it is the same with regard to the Board of Trade of Medicine Hat.


Thomas Walter Scott: Will the hon. gentleman permit me V I tell him that it is a matter of my own knowledge that most of the business men of Maple Creek are directly interested in ranching.


David Henderson: So am I directly interested in ranching in that country, i am directly interested in tbe prosperity of that country, the agricultural interest and the ranching interest, just the same as the men living within a hundred miles of Maple Creek.	-.


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend is mis-stating my meaning. The business men of Maple Creek are directly interested in ranching by owning stock running on the ranges in that district. That is a different sense from the sense which the hon. gentleman is trying to read into my statement


David Henderson: I do not think it is reasonable to believe that all the business men of Maple Creek are engaged in ranch-Mr. HENDERSON.
ing. They are business men engaged in business operations.
Mr. iSCOTT. I rise to a point of order. I made a statement from personal knowledge and I think the rule of the House is that the hon. gentleman should accept a statement of that kind.


David Henderson: I will accept the statement of the hon. gentleman, but I will tell him that I have to accept a great deal.
I will accept it for what it is worth and allow the House to form its own estimate. X say again that the Board of Trade of Maple Creek is more likely to be composed of business men of that locality than of men who live 100 or 200 miles away. This new province extends hundreds of miles in length, and people engaged in this business live hundreds of miles away and are probably not interested in Maple Creek at all, but they are particularly interested in this boundary line. I pay very little attention to the opinions expressed by those boards of trade dealing with a matter which refers to the country at large, in which possibly they have very little personal knowledge, notwithstanding the statement of the hon, gentleman, which I accept as far as it may possibly go, applying to it reasonable common sense.- It is not to be supposed that in arriving at the proper definition of the lines between these two provinces, all interests can be reconciled ; but I do think that by coming together-not by deciding the question before it comes into the House at all ; not by deciding it on political lines, or in any other way except in the interests of the people who are there-and deciding the question on the basis of what would be in the best interests of that country, we can arrive at a compromise. And if we should have to deviate a little from the proposition decided upon by the hon. member for West Assiniboia, our conclusion would be more to the advantage of the people of the west. I was very much impressed with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) ; and if this matter had not been decided before the Bill was introduced it might have been a good thing to have made one new province out of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Assiniboia. I think that would have been an excellent proposition, and allow Athabaska to be dealt with as a territory for the next 25 or 30 years. However, I presume matters have gone too far to accomplish anything of that kind now, and it remains for us to make the best of what I call a bad bargain. I do certainly approve of the proposition made by the hon. member for Calgary. I think it is well to bring the dividing line eastward 60 or 70 miles, so as to include the ranching country, because there is considerable unanimity with regard to the extent of the territory covered by ranching. Then run northward, until you strike the Saskatchewan; westward then following the

Saskatchewan to the proposed province of Alberta. Then continue the line northward until you reach the northern boundary of Athabaska. In that way you would equalize the area of the two provinces. To my mind it is not very material that they should be of the same area. I do not think we should sacrifice the interests of the people simply to give an equal area to each province. If there are other interests of paramount importance to that, there can be no reason why we should not have one province with even 50,000 square miles more than the other, if that will serve better the purposes of the people in that country. I endorse heartily the proposition of my hon. friend from Calgary. He has given a great deal of study to the question. He is not prejudiced in the matter ; he is not bound hand and foot by any previous proposition ; and in that respect he differs from the hon. [DOT]gentleman, who made up his mind two or three months ago. The proposition of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) woujd turn very largely the ranching district into one province, so that the ranching laws could be dealt with by one province, and the laws relating more particularly to agriculture could be dealt with by the other province. It is a matter of importance that the ranching country should be as much as possible in the one province. I am still of the opinion that the proposition made by the hon. member for Calgary is the most practicable I have heard yet ; and I would hope that the government would listen to It, even at the expense of having two pro-[DOT]Vinces of somewhat different area, and thus meet the wishes of the people of the west. Surely some impression has been made upon hon. gentlemen opposite by the discussion to-day. I notice the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) looking very directly at me with rather a pleasant smile, and I take it, he is receiving my argument with some considerable degree of satisfaction. I hope he will not only listen to the argument, but give some consideration to this question. He is a representative of both Alberta and Saskatchewan, and not like the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). He is the representative in the government of that whole country, and should endeavour to act fairly between 'these two provinces and seek to establish the boundary line between the two, so as to consider in the best possible manner the interests of the people. If there is to be a vote on this question, I shall have no hesitation in supporting the proposition of my hon. friend from Calgary. Move the boundary line between those two provinces, eastward ; extend it north to the Saskatchewan river ; then extend it westward along the Saskatchewan, and thence run to the north. In that way the ranching country would be thrown mostly into the province of Alberta, and that province would have
the making- 0f the laws regulating that peculiar kind of farming operations.


William Findlay Maclean: I beg to move in amendment:
That clause 1 of the Bill be amended by striking out lines 7, 8 and 9, and substituting the following in lieu thereof :
Thence northerly along the said eastern boundary of British Columbia to its intersection with the parallel of the 55th degree of north latitude ; thence easterly along the said parallel of the fifty-fifth.
That is defining the northern boundary at the southern boundary of Athabaska. I think it would be better to keep Athabaska as an unorganized territory and to then organize the remaining territories of the Yukon, Mackenzie and Keewatin under a new territorial government, similar to that which these Territories now enjoy. I believe the two provinces will then be large enough. Or, I would agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) this afternoon, that the two provinces should be merged into one, or that Manitoba's boundaries should he extended westward and the remaining territory made into one province. But I certainly think that the northern boundary ought to be the southern boundary of the present territory of Athabaska, the 55th parallel.


Frank Oliver: I am very glad that the amendment has been moved. We have heard a good deal of talk to-day and yesterday. I do not wish to make any reflections, but I think it is very much better when hon. members come before the committee and put themselves on record by way of a motion rather than keep up what might he called a guerilla warfare from many different points of view. The amendment defines . very closely, I think, the attitude of hou. gentlemen opposite, not only on this particular matter but on the subject of western development generally, and enables the House and the country to see how it happened that under the administration of these gentlemen our country iu the west, as well as our country in the east, did not progress. It appears from the tenor of this motion that they have decided that, because the district of Athabaska at the present time contains only a small population and because a portion of that population are ' only ' half-breeds, therefore that district is not entitled to representation either in the proposed provinces to be erected or in this Dominion parliament.


Mr.  W. F.@: iMAOLEAN. Cannot the hou. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) give them representation in this parliament ?


Frank Oliver: No.


William Findlay Maclean: Why ?


Frank Oliver: They will get representation when the provinces are organized, if they are allowed to be organized under these Bills.


Samuel Barker: Are not the present Territories represented here V


Mr. OLI  VER@: We think they are.


William Findlay Maclean: Then, I am not depriving them of representation.


Frank Oliver: I beg to repeat that the proposal of the hon. member (Mr. W. F. Maclean) to exclude this district of * Atha-baska from the proposed provinces is an attempt to exclude that district from the representation in this parliament which it will necessarily have as a part of the proposed province of Alberta. It is also a declaration that the district of Athabaska, which, as I have already pointed out to the House, contributes a very considerable amount of the general trade of this country, is not entitled to representation, is not entitled to that consideration which a civilized community is considered to be entitled to, and which must be extended to it if the country is to develop and progress.
Now, perhaps it is not, of very great interest to lion, gentlemen on the other side whether -the two or three hundred white people who live in that district to-day secure their rights or not and whether they are to be taxed without representation or not. Perhaps it .makes very little difference to them whether the few thousands of half-breeds, 1 mere ' half-breeds who are in that country are to be taxed without representation or not. But X do submit that it makes a great deal of difference to this country whether that district of Athabaska,-whether these great valleys watered by the Athabaska and Peace rivers -are developed for settlement and trade, to furnish a market to the manufacturers and business houses of this eastern country. 1 say it makes a very great deal of difference whether a policy is pursued which will bring about that end or whether that country is to be excluded from the beneficial operation of provincial and Dominion government, because it has only a few white people and half-breeds at the present time, The bon. member (Mr. IV. F. Maclean) lias seen fit to put on record the views we have beard expressed In this House all day yesterday and to-day on the part of the opposition. And, for the purpose of campaigning in the west, I can only wish that they should stand up and unanimously vote for this proposition. We, on this side, cannot ask anything better- that is, if we are to set ourselves in opposition to one another in these matters, as, I am sorry to see, there is a tendency to do. But it is not our desire on this side that that should be the case. Still, if lion, gentlemen opposite are desirous of dividing the House on this amendment and placing Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
before the people of this country their views that the area of country containing Iwo great valleys [DOT] of untold richness of agricultural land, minerals and timber is not worthy of representation in the provincial, legislature, or iu the Dominion parliament, but that the principle of taxation without representation is to be forced upon that country, because forsooth, it has only, at the present time, a few half-breeds and a few whites. Certainly, it is the privilege of hon. gentlemen opposite to put themselves on record in that way. But, on this side of the House the policy is in favour of the development of that country by railroad construction and the opening of the 400 miles of country that lies northwest from Edmonton to the foot of the Rocky mountains, a development that will bring into commercial use the whole of the navigable waters of the Peace river. Those who believe in that policy favour giving that country representation. We want to. see it represented in the local House, we want to see it represented in the Dominion House ; we want representation when there is taxation. We want to see that country given development and progress, not for its own sake alone, but for the sake of the whole country.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not suppose that a committee of this House ever listened to a more extraordinary tirade from a minister of the Crown than that we have just heard. I can only repeat what I said the other night, that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) does not seem to have yet got over the idea that he is a back-bencher. He talks as a back-bencher, and not as a minister of the Crown, whenever he gets on his feet to address this committee. That is my deliberate judgment after having heard him two or three times. He says that my hon. friend from East York is trying to deprive the people of representation. Does not he remember that he himself, repeatedly, and not later than three or four weeks ago, said that the people of the Northwest did not want provincial autonomy at all. Yet now his soul is exercised with much indignation because a particular district is proposed to he excluded by the hon. member for South York. A minister of the Crown ought to have a better memory than that.
It may do well enough for my hon. friend before he assumes the dignity of office but a minister of the Crown should really recollect what he himself said only a few weeks ago. Was he endeavouring to withhold from the people of the west all those rights that he has been speaking about for the last ten minutes, when he was opposing provincial autonomy ? Does the hon. gentleman say that residing in the territories must necessarily exclude you from representation in parliament ? He says that a suggestion that a portion of these territories

should be excluded from the new provinces is a suggestion that they should be excluded from representation in this parliament. Does he not know that the Territories of the new provinces have been represented in parliament for fifteen or twenty years ? Does he not knhw that the Yukon, still a territory, has representation in this parliament ? It does not seem to me to be worthy of the position of the hon. gentleman as a minister of the Crown to endeavour so absolutely to misrepresent a suggestion made by my friend from South York. Why should he do this in view of the words of the Prime Minister of two sessions ago ? Did not the Prime Minister at that time point out that the Territories under the government which they enjoy-and the territory of Athabaslca would enjoy the same rights, I suppose-does he not remember that the Prime Minister said two years ago that they enjoyed almost every right that a province now enjoys ? Does he not remember that on the 21st of February last the Prime Minister said that we were adding very little to the powers of these Territories when we were granting them what he called perfect and complete autonomy ? Yet the hon. gentleman is distressed because some one on this side of the'House now proposes that a portion of the area to be embraced within the new provinces should be left for the present under a territorial form of government. He talks about campaigning in the west of Canada. The hon. gentleman never seems to be able to get campaigning out of his mind. Every time he gets on his feet it is with the endeavour to put words into the mouth of some gentleman on this side of the House which he never uttered. He never seems to be able to free himself from the idea that he will be campaigning himself within a very short time, and possibly the hon. gentleman may have some misgivings as to how the next campaign may result, or to-day he would not take so much trouble to misrepresent us on this side of the House.
I would think that if my hon. friend from South York proposed to eliminate any portion of the area in the north, it would be better to do as my hon. friend from Hamilton proposed, to make only one province. I have not considered very fully the proposal of the member for South York. I would be more favourably impressed with the suggestion of the member for Hamilton which would result ill, creating only one province in the south, leaving possibly a new province to be formed in the north. But I am not prepared to say at this moment that I would favour either of these proposals, because I am under the impression that after all a great deal may be said in favour of the idea that you have in the south a territory which is practically settled, and that the territory in the north which it. is proposed to add to that is to a very considerable extent of the same character, and mav be opened 179
up by the same mode of settlement. But I rose in the first instance to mention that I do not think it is becoming the position of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior to be making these suggestions with regard to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, nor to conduct this debate solely from the standpoint of campaigning in the'Northwest. We have some other interests occasionally than those of campaigning to consider, and it is desirable to leave out of mind the campaign speeches to be made on public platforms in elections, and to come down to business principles in dealing with questions of this kind.


William Findlay Maclean: I may point out to the minister that for thirty years these Territories now to be erected into provinces have been under territoritl government and have had representation in a local legislature. They have had representation here, and if they have not that representation which the hon. gentleman says they ought to have it is because his party did not bring down this Autonomy Bill years ago. They have been in power now eight years before making a move to give that representation here so that it has been in respect to them taxation without representation. But that is altogether apart from the question. If these provinces have not been given representation in this House it is due to the hon. gentlemen opposite. I still say that the northern boundary is better defined by the 55th line than it is by the inclusion of Athabaska. I still maintain that Athabaska has a foundation for a new province and for a present territorial government in the north; and if it is the wish of the House to have only one province where it is now proposed to have two, and to have that line drawn at the 55th line for the Northwest boundary,
I am willing to amend my proposal in that direction so as to meet the views of the hon. member for Hamilton.


An hon. MEMBER.: It cannot be accepted.


William Findlay Maclean: It is worthy of consideration, and it can be discussed and voted upon.


Andrew B. Ingram: I for one propose supporting the proposition for one province instead of two, ancT if this amendment is submitted it will put me in a false position if I vote against it. Now I think some attention should be paid to the premier of the Northwest Territories and to the legislature when they themselves advocated one province. I understand that the resolution passed in the Northwest legislature was on the line that they should have provincial autonomy, and that the consensus of opinion was to the effect that one province was ample for the requirements of the Northwest Territories.
I feel like sustaining the Prime Minister of the Northwest Territories in advocating but one province. I take that view not only from the standpoint of the Northwest Terri-

When he says ' this province,' he means one province.
-it may be claimed that the area proposed is too large for one province. In this connection it should first be noted that the proposal area when compared "with several of the other provinces of the Dominion stands as folio,vs *
Square miles.
Quebec	 347,000
Ontario	 220,000
British Columbia	 383,000
Proposed	province	 404,000
From this comparison it will be noted that the proposed province contains an area considerably larger than that contained in either of the three other provinces mentioned, but it must be remembered that a large portion of the district of Athabaska and of the northern and eastern portion of Saskatchewan proposed to be included in the new province, will never, owing to situation or physical features, or both, contain anything ?nore than a very small and scattered population.
Now chat is an entirely different view from what the hon. Minister of the Interior stated :
The area which it is proposed to include in the new province is practically the area administered by the present territorial government, and the experience of the past few years has indicated that there is no difficulty in properly administering the area from one centre.
That being true I am bound to respect the views of the premier of the Northwest Territories who by reason of his premiership and by reason of his wise administration is in a better position to advise me, at all events, than the hon. gentlemen who have assisted in preparing these two Bills and the schedules to these two Bills, I, for my part, prefer to take this gentleman's statement and to support him in his opinion for the two reasons that I have already given. The hon. Minister of the Interior has said something about guerilla warfare. If ever there was guerilla warfare in preparing schedules aud Bills we have it in the present instance. When my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) talks about representing the Northwest Territories, I simply say, Sir. that Mr. INGRAM.
we are here as machines to register the hole and comer arrangement made by the government and their supporters. That is. what we are here for to-day, and it is simply a farce to proceed with this legislation because no amendment or suggestion that may be offered by a member of the opposition will be accepted. It is simply a farce that they should submit this legislation to this House at all with the view of considering it because members of the opposition or any suggestions which they may make, will receive very little attention. Then again, there is another feature in connection with it to which I desire to draw the attention of the committee. The hon. Minister of the Interior talks about Alberta and the schedules in regard to Alberta, and I wish to take this opportunity of stating that the northern part of Alberta is given a representation altogether out of proportion to the population inhabiting that portion of the proposed province.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know the right hon. gentleman is quite right in ids point of order, but I want to point this out in passing


Wilfrid Laurier: We will come to it later on.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know we will come to it later on and we will have a good deal to say about it. The expression which was used on a former occasion will again apply, we will see the snow fly before we get away from here and it will lie a foot deep, I will guarantee, because we will stay here rather than allow any such high handed legislation to pass as this which is now proposed. This is high handed legislation of the worst kind. Talk about the old days ! We used to hear a great deal from our hon. friends in the country about star chamber business. The Liberal party have forgotten the principles of days gone by. They now adopt star chamber principles-principles that the people will condemn when they read over the legislation which is now before this committee. Outrageous is a mild term to apply to it. I think I might use language pretty nearly as strong as that which the hon. Minister of the Interior uses upon some occasions if I expressed myself freely as to what this legislation really means, and I am bound to say that before this session is over we will have some pretty strong language from the hon. Minister of the Interior before he gets this legislation through. Now that is all I propose to say.


Frank Oliver: Go on.


Andrew B. Ingram: My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) says 4 go on.'


Frank Oliver: Sure.


Andrew B. Ingram: It would not be a very difficult matter to go on for several hours on this line, and before this legislation is

through hon. gentlemen opposite will hear us by the hour.


An hon. MEMBER.: That will not hurt us.


Andrew B. Ingram: If there is to be any guerilla warfare we will give you enough of it before this legislation is through.


Frank Oliver: May I take the liberty of pointing out to the House and to the country that to-night we haye been threatened with obstruction on this Bill. We want the House and the country to understand by whom the threat is made, in whose interest it is made, and if it is carried into effect who is responsible therefor.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to point out to the hon. Minister of the Interior that if he hopes to succeed as a minister and employs the tactics that he is now using he will know what to expect. As far as I am individually concerned I have no hesitation in stating that legislation such as this is the most unfair that I ever remember having heard introduced into this House. The Conservative government were charged time and time again with introducing legislation which was unfair, but I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to place their finger on a single particle of legislation that can equal the legislation introduced by the government on this occasion. I have no objection to telling the government and the hon. Minister of the Interior that I for one do propose to obstruct legislation of this kind. I am responsible for my own actions in this House and I have no hesitation in saying exactly where I stand on this question and no threat from the Minister of the Interior will debar me from doing what I conceive to be my duty in regard to it. The government have attempted to throttle the people of the Northwest Territories and to throttle the representatives of the people of the Northwest by bringing down a schedule of the kind they have brought down to this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Andrew B. Ingram: My right hon. friend says 4 order.' I want to say that if the right hon. First Minister had been considering the shortening of this session in the first instance when the Bills were introduced into this House he would have placed in the four corners of these Bills the schedules which rightly belong to them. It is charged openly and above board that these schedules were prepared at the time the Bills were introduced, and yet they came down and introduced these schedules last Friday long after the Bills had been, presented to the House. It is clear then that the schedules were prepared when the Bills were introduced into the House. Is it by that means that the right hon. gentleman hopes to shorten the session ? Does it lie in the mouth of the right hon. gentleman to call hon. members to order when they are making reference to the schedules contained in this Bill ? No, 1791
I think not. That would be well enough for the hon. Minister of the Interior but it is hardly the size of the right hon. First Min ister.


Wilfrid Laurier: We are on section No. 1 and my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) must confine his remarks to section No. 1 and not to a section which is not before the committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am quite well aware of the rights which I have in this House. I hci\ 0 been long enough in it to know exactly where I stand on that point. I can place myself in order very quickly and I propose to do it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are in order now.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perfectly in order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hon. member (Mr. Ingram) says he has been here long enough to know what is relevant to this clause under discussion.


Andrew B. Ingram: I submit to the good judgment of the chairman because he has shown good judgment since he has been chairman of committees in this House. I was dealing with a question but I will drop it for the moment because I do not wish to prolong the discussion. I know that I am not trespassing on the rules of the House. That is all I will say at present.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The remarks of the hon Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), it seems to me, were quite unnecessary and uncalled for, and if the hon. minister desired to prevent the passage of this measure, he could not have taken any means to accomplish it more effectively than the course which he has endeavoured to pursue. The tone of the remarks which the hon. gentleman gave vent to and the fact that he endeavours to treat members of the opposition as though they had no rights in this House, certainly will not assist us in the consideration of this measure. From the first stage of this measure to the present the information that we have received is that the members from the Northwest Territories have considered this and decided so and so, and that the hon. Minister of the Interior has considered it and decided so and so, thereby assuming that the balance of the 214 members of this House have no rights whatever. They have no right to exercise a judgment on this measure, but they are simply here to register the decree of the niue or ten members from the Northwest who have met together and arranged something for their own purposes-I was going to say for their own political or party purposes-and that all the opposition can do is to register a decree of obedience to tlie-will of these few Liberal members from the Northwest Territories. The sooner the Minister of the Interior learns that other members in this House have rights as well as


Thomas Walter Scott: If we take the denunciations we have just heard from hon. gentlemen opposite against the high-handed manner in which these poor Northwest members have acted and place them alongside the wails which we heard from these same hon. gentlemen a few weeks ago, because these poor Northwest, members were entirely ignored with regard to the Autonomy Bills, then I think the poor Northwest members may consider that they come out of it about even, and require no further defence.


David Henderson: I beg to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the statement of the Minister of the Interior, that a threat had come from this side of the House that this Bill was to be obstructed. I have been in the House for seventeen years, and; this is the first time I have heard a minister of the Crown draw the attention of the Chairman to such a matter. I am entirely at a loss, from my parliamentary experience, to know what your course will he, Mr. Chairman. Shall we be forced to go across the floor and bow before the minister and beg his pardon ; shall we be obliged to appear at the Bar of the House to answer whatever charge he may prepare against us, or shall we on this side of the House be expelled from the chamber to satisfy the new Minister of the Interior? He seems to have something in his mind


Mr. COCHRANE.: Not much.


David Henderson: Well, he is assuming a very dictatorial tone, move dictatorial than any minister ever assumed before, and I scarcely know what is to be the result. Perhaps you, Mr. Chairman, have been considering it while we have been discussing other questions, and you will be able to tell the House what will be the outcome of the terrible threat of the Minister of the Interior. It would be a relief to us on this side of the House to know just exactly the position we are in. I am surprised at the language of the Minister of the In; terior, and I would like to characterize it by a name which might not be very polite, because I think it is entirely uncalled for. I shall leave the matter in ; your hands, Mr. Chairman, with the hope that you will give it your kindest and most conciliatory consideration, and that you will : not expel us from the chamber in order to i satisfy the new Minister of the Interior, who comes down here with such very high authority.
* Now with regard to the question that is i before the corpmittee, more directly. A

few moments ago I referred to the suggestion of the hon. member for Hamilton. I said X was struck very forcibly with the argument he made, and I regretted very much that this whole matter had been brought into the House cut and dried, decided upon by hon. gentlemen from the west, and that the door was practically closed against any other solution of the question than that which is set forth in these Bills. I confess that X am rather in favour of two provinces than one, but one province might have been created now and another some years hence. We need not talk about provincial autonomy, because we are not giving autonomy to these provinces. We ought to forget that term ; we are only giving them partial autonomy ; we should call it provincial autonomy limited, because at the best we are limiting the powers of these provinces. With* regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South York, I am not sure that I apprehend it fully. I understand that he proposes to make two provinces out of the southern portion of the territory allotted for Saskatchewan and Alberta. I may say that I do not approve of that. Although the hon. gentleman has, I dare say, made the motion in perfect good faith, I say here and now that I am not able to support it, because I think the provinces would be entirely too small. We are over-governed at the present time. Complaint has been made of the small size of the province of Manitoba, and we do not want to create any more small provinces. I would much rather see both of these provinces extended to the northern boundary of Athabaska than to have them cut off at the 55th parallel of latitude. I say this in order to put myself right in case there should be a vote taken on that question.


Mr. CARVELL.: I have listened to this discussion with considerable interest. It seems rather to grate upon the nerves of our hon. friends on the Conservative side of the House when an intimation is made from the Minister otf the Interior that a process of obstruction has been proposed and is taking place. I am a new member, and do not know what obstruction means ; but if the exhibition which we have seen during the last two days is not obstruction, X would like to know what is obstruction. We have been discussing section 1 of this Bill, which simply defines the boundaries of the province of Alberta, and the only valid objection which I have heard is that the eastern boundary of that province should be placed about sixty miles farther east, so that the province of Alberta would take in all the ranching country and leave the agricultural country to the province of Saskatchewan. But it has been shown that that would not make any difference. The only valid reason I have heard advanced in support of that objection has been that there
were about 15,000 brands or marks on the cattle, and it might make some people think they had to register them in both provinces. What hurt would that do ?


An hon. MEMBER.: It would hurt the animals.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, it would not. The fact that the boundary line is there does not take away a man's property in his cattle. So that objection is entirely exploded. But an objection has been raised against including in Alberta the northern portion from what is now called Athabaska. What reason has been given in support of that objection ? We are told that we are trying to take away the rights of the 'opposition; we will not allow them to talk. Then we are told that the people in that part of the country ought not to have representation in a provincial legislature, and in the next breath we are told that they have representation now in the territorial legislature and are entitled to representation in this House. Now, I would like to know what is the trouble with the opposition ? I am asking this honestly ; I want information on this subject. There must be something rankling in the breasts of the hon. gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House which they are not giving to the House and the country. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) intimated that there was some political reason. If there is, I ask the hon. gentlemen in the name of all that is right and fair, to give us the reason.


Mr. LABOR.: Will you vote against the government ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will vote with the opposition if they show any valid reason why these people should not have representation. I admire the Minister of the Interior for defending the rights of these people. Because some of them may be half-breeds that is no reason why they should be denied representation in this House or in the provincial legislature of Alberta. There must be some other reason, and it is the duty of the opposition to give it to us. If they do not, if they want to talk for a day or for half a day on something which on its face has no objectionable features, but which ought to be passed, so far as any reasonable man can see, and if they do not want to be charged with obstruction, their duty is to tell us the reason why they are opposing this matter in the manner they are doing.


Andrew B. Ingram: My hon. friend who has just spoken is exceedingly hard to please ; I am glad he is not a member of the opposition. My hon. friend does not think that moving the boundary line some sixty miles is vsjry important. He does not think that branding about 15,000 head of cattle is of sufficient importance to engage the attention of this House. I am afraid my hon.

friend is learning from the Minister of the Interior when he speaks of hon. gentlemen on this side not wanting those people to have representation, because they are poor halfbreeds. No person on this side of the House has said anything of the kind. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are eager that every person in the Northwest whether half-breeds or not, should have representation ; but what they do find fault with is that the representation is not properly mapped out, that the electors there who believe as the members of the opposition believe will be gagged or throttled. That is the reason we are finding fault with the legislation introduced by the government. Then my hon. friend from one of the eastern provinces is so eager that there should be two governments out there and that the cost of government in this country should be increased, that he thinks it is a matter of very little importance to create two provinces instead of one, and he finds fault with the opposition because they complain of this unnecessary addition to the cost of governing the country. The premier of the Northwest Territories also says it is unnecessary to establish two governments for a territory which has been governed by one legislature for the last twenty-five years or so.
These are some of the trifling things with which the opposition have been taking up the time of the House. I can hardly believe that the views entertained by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) are those entertained by the people of Newr Brunswick, because I cannot believe that the people of New Brunswick are any more in favour of costly government in the Territories than are the people of the other older provinces. If the hon. member claims that the people of New Brunswick are more extravagant in their administration than those of Nova Scotia. I am very sorry to hear it, but I did believe that our New Brunswick friends were in favour of good, honest and economical government, and that it would meet their views better to have the Territories administered by one government than by two. My hon. friend wanted to know what all the trouble was about, and he has characterized the different things we have discussed on this side as things of n trifling character. Was he trying his hand at obstruction, such as he claims we are indulging in on this side. Evidently that was his object or he would have treated these matters as of very serious importance. So far, as I am concerned. I believe that the boundary line is a serious question for the people of the Northwest. We have my hon. friend from Alberta, who has had some thirty years' experience in that country in ranching and managing cat-tie. and who has given expression to his views in a very practical manner, declaring that it is of vital importance to the people of the Northwest that the boundary line Mr. INGRAM.
should be moved some sixty miles in order that this grievance of 15,000 brands may be removed. Would the right hon. gentleman explain what was his object in having this line placed where it is ? The explanation he gave when he introduced the Bill was not very elaborate or precise. Would I be far astray if I were to state that it was political reasons which moved him and that his object was eventually to have two governments in the Northwest controlled by the Liberal party ? Again would I be far astray if I were to say that the Liberal party in this House have gone back on some of the principles they advocated only a very few years ago? One of their principles was that in a matter of this kind, a commission of judges should be appointed for the mapping out of constituencies.
Sir WILFRID LAURIE It. Order. This is not in question. We are not discussing the number of constituencies, but the boundary line.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am giving the reason why this boundary line is placed sixty miles from where it ought to be ; and I say that the Liberal party formerly advocated the appointment of a commission of judges whose duty it would be to map out the schedule to a Bill of this nature.


Charles Marcil: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well what the rule is. You must speak to a matter relevant to the clause under discussion, and that clause is one which concerns the limits of these provinces.


Andrew B. Ingram: You are right, Sir, in your decision as to the rule.


Mr.   I@: My hon. friend is quite in order, if, for the purpose of showing that the boundary should be moved further eastwards or westwards, he questions the reasons that the government have given for placing it where it is.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend think that to discuss the method of forming the constituencies, whether that should be done by judges or not, is relevant?


Mr.   I@: That is not what he was dealing with.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh. yes. it is.


Robert Laird Borden: He was pointing out the extraordinary division of the Territories, within these areas, into electoral divisions, and assigning that as a reason why the boundary line is placed where it is.


Wilfrid Laurier: He was suggesting that the government should have-the division made by judges and that was not relevant to the question.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is where we differ ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Deputy Speaker has given his decision.


Andrew B. Ingram: Am I not within my riguts in stating that this legislation was introduced as part of a political arrangement, and in adding that if the government had carried out their policy of years ago,
[DOT] namely, that matters of this kind should be left to a commission of judges, then instead of having a party political piece of legislation, there would be no necessity for putting this line wrhere it is ? That is the comparison I made in discussing section 1, and in that I am quite within my rights. All these questions being involved in this section No. 1, it is a very serious thing to the people of the Territories and to the members of this House representing the Conservative party iu the Northwest, where these two provincial governments will he. and it is a serious matter to men like my hon. friend from Alberta, who are vitally interested in the matter of raising stock and ranching. Then it is of vital consequence to people who have these 15,000 brands to deal with. I would like to know how are the two governments going to arrange their branding laws so that they will be satisfactory to both provinces. Will there not be a great deal of difficulty in that matter under those circumstances ? Is it not true that the cattle interest, to which the question of branding is so important will be but a minor industry in the province of Saskatchewan, and will there not be difficulty, therefore, in these people getting laws they wish and ought to have. So, our action is of very great importance to the people of the Northwest, and we should give it the most serious consideration ?
Let me call attention also to the fact that ministers of the Crown seem to act as though we on this side had no rights here, even going so far as to misrepresent statements made by members on this side. Under these circumstances, what does the Prime Minister expect ? Does he expect that this legislation will slip all the more easily for that reason ? I think he will have to undertake a lecture to his new minister, his baby colleague. That hon. gentleman talks like an old timer, like one who had been a cabinet minister for many years and has an established record. I think he will have to pursue a different course before he establishes a favourable reputation in this House.


Mr. LAKE.: I am afraid I shall be unable to support the amendment proposed by the member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). I have never wavered in my belief that one province is sufficient, with the Territories before us, and therefore I could not vote in favour of a resolution which would make two small provinces out of the present organized Territories. The view I
hold on the question of two provinces, I believe, is the one held by the great majority of the people in that country. That is certainly the view that has been put on record by the majority of the members of the legislative assembly, and it was endorsed toy the majority of the people when laid before them at the general elections for that assembly. I have always advocated one province, and still continue to do so. Believing in having only one province even if that province were treated as the older provinces of Canada have been and given possession of its public lands, I feel that I must all the more advocate it, when I find that we are to toe deprived of that privilege. And while I am referring to this question perhaps I may be pardoned if I read a sentence or two from a letter I received this evening, it is written by a prominent gentleman in the Northwest Territories, a Liberal of high standing. He says :
I regret to see all the attention given to the school clauses to the exclusion of. important features of the measure.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Richard Stuart Lake: That is a regret which I certainly share with the writer of this letter. And I have not failed to voice my regret that it is a great pity that such clauses as the educational clauses should have been introduced into this Bill and should have such an overwhelming effect in obscuring other great questions Which are deserving of attention. The letter I was quoting goes on :
It seems to me that the land question is of vastly greater and far-reaching importance .than the school clauses. Over the one we have pretty absolute power, but over the lands we have no voice or power whatever. The principal reason that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Sifton urged for retaining the lands is, in my view, a strong reason why they should not.
And so on. These are the views of a leading Liberal in the Northwest.


William Findlay Maclean: I introduced that amendment to bring out a discussion of the question and I think we have had a considerable amount of light thrown upon it. I am altogether in favour of a single province rather than too small a provyice. I think a great mistake was made when Manitoba was established as a small province. And a greater mistake is made in not enlarging her boundaries now. Manitoba is entitled to larger boundaries. But we have been told recently why shs is not given them We have been told on the floor of this House that she has been punished because of her school legislation- We know that the maritime provinces would probably be better off with one strong provincial government than with the three they have today. And it is clear that if the provinces in the west have not their Crown lands, as the hon. gentleman pointed out, it will he

a costly thing to maintain two governments where one will do. After what has been said, I will take more time to consider the matter and prepare a uniform amendment for the third reading of the Bill, keeping in mind the ideas that we ought to have one province instead of two, that the present territory of Athabaska ought to be left in the Territories and the province of Manitoba enlarged. If Manitoba is enlarged, one province made out of the country south of the present territory of Athabaska, all the requirements of the country will be met and the people "will have representation as well as taxation, notwithstanding what the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has said. As to the suggestion of the Prime Minister that we can not discuss the schedule that goes with the Bill, I take issue with him. The question of the boundary of the provinces involves the schedule. There may be a reason for making the boundary line as it had been made. I think I know what that reason is. The hon. member for Edmonton <Mr. Oliver) lias been successful in an election in the district of Edmonton and hon. gentlemen opposite would like to have another constituency or two of the same character to the immediate north. There is a political object in view. There is no use in disguising it and it must be discussed. And these boundaries are based upon political considerations. The central division that is proposed, the northerly boundary, the making of two provinces, with two governments and all the patronage that goes with them-there are political reasons for all these tilings which we must be free to discuss. The discussion cannot be confined to a single point when others are implicated. We have the right to discuss these matters under the rules of the House. I ask leave to withdraw the motion I have made with the understanding that, oil the third reading, if the Bill reaches the third reading, we will put it in form of a motion.


Mr.   I@: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice one question. Is Athabaska under the present territorial government in any way, or lias it a separate organization altogether ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It comes under the operation of the Northwest Territories Act. the territorial government extends to Athabaska.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not represented in the territorial legislature.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, only three districts are represented, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Assiniboia.


Frederick William Borden: I ask this for the reason that the ex-Minister of the Interior made a suggestion in the course of his speech that there was no particular reason, if you were going north of Alberta or 'Saskatchewan, why you should stop at the northern boundaries of Athabaska. I Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
will put my suggestion in another way. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Assiniboia are at present represented in the territorial legislature, they are in effect a territory which has a very large amount of self-government. Athabaska is a sort of appendage to that, I understand.


Charles Fitzpatrick: An electoral district.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of the Interior suggested that the new province should extend to the utmost limit of the British possesions to the north, assigning as his reason that the Dominion government should as soon as possible divest itself of the local administration of those territories. I think those were his exact words, because they impressed me at the time. We are adopting a middle course which is perhaps not a very logical one. The member for Hamilton has made a perfectly logical proposition, and on the other hand there is a certain amount of reason for extension to the utmost confines of a British possession, in the north. 'But I have not been able to understand why, if you go beyond the territories which have local self-government at present, you should stop at Athabaska. I ask why, if you go beyond the northern boundaries of Alberta and Saskatchewan, you should not, as the ex-minister suggested, go to the northern limit of the British possessions. It does not seem to me there is any very good reason for a middle course, though. I can see a very plausible argument for adopting either one of the other courses suggested.


Wilfrid Laurier: The reason is (his : What is to-day the district of Assini-boia and Saskatchewan, as we weil know, is chiefly an agricultural country and very little else. There are minerals at the foot of the Rocky mountains, some minerals on the prairies, but it is chiefly an agricultural country. The district of Mackenzie is not and never can he an agricultural country,-so far as we know.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that true of all of it ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is true of all of Mackenzie so far as we know ; it is only partly true of Athabaska. It is also true of Athabaska that a large portion of it is an agricultural country of the same character as Saskatchewan and Assiniboia. All the valley of the Peace river which is in Athabaska, so far as my information goes, is an agricultural country and can he developed as such. In that section of the Peace river which is in Athabaska there are to-day two grist mills of some importance, one I think erected within the last two or three years, and both of them supplied with wheat raised in the valley of the Peace river. That country is intimately connected with Alberta. As my hon. friend the Minister of

the Interior said this afternoon, there is a community of interest and a community of communication to-day between Alberta and that section of Athabaska north of it. Under such circumstances we thought it preferable to join this section of Athabaska to the new province, because there is to-day a community of interest and a community of communication. Now, Edmonton is a base of communication with the settlement north of it. and there is a great deal of settlement going northward to-day.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the same true of the eastern province ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Not exactly. The section of Athabaska which is north of Saskatchewan is only partially agricultural. My hon. friend, if he will look at the Bill which was prepared by the government of the Northwest Territories, will see that they proposed to make one province of the district of Saskatchewan and the district of Assiniboia, to be the province of Saskatchewan up to the 57th degree of latitude, whereas the district of Athabaska extends to the 60th degree of latitude. Up to the 57th degree there is a fair agricultural country north of Saskatchewan, beyond the 57th degree of latitude the country becomes barren until it reaches absolute barrenness in Mackenzie. These are the reasons why we include Athabaska in these two new provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be doubtful as to whether that agricultural country stops precisely at the 60th degree of north latitude.


Wilfrid Laurier: It stops below it.


Robert Laird Borden: Then we ought to stop below it as well.


Wilfrid Laurier: The map wiil show that in the north of Athabaska in the valley of the Peace river there is good land, all that section along the Peace river is good land, so far as we know.


Robert Laird Borden: It would appear then that we are not exactly following the boundaries of the fertile lands, or lands suitable for agriculture, though it may not be absolutely necessary that we should follow them. One further suggestion. The district of Athabaska has been administered without representation. The ex-Minister of the Interior made that remark which I have already referred to, that it is better for the Dominion to rid itself of the local administration of this new territory as soon as possible. Why should we not attach Mackenzie to the new province just in the same way that Athabaska has been attached to the territories in the past ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The ideas of the ex-Minister of the Interior are that all these territories should be attached to existing provinces, to Saskatchewan, to Alberta,
to Manitoba and so on. There is a good deal to be said ini favour of that view. But I think at present we had better confine ourselves to the proposal we have adopted. But if we are to have a conference, as I have indicated we should have, it would be perhaps good policy that we should also ask Alberta to join us and perhaps Ontario, and perhaps Quebec, and to ask all those provinces to take over the administration of all those lands so far as they extend in British territory.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that would be satisfactory.


William Findlay Maclean: What would become of the Yukon ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That would become part of British Columbia.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I understand that correctly, it is not proposed then for the outlying territories to have any government whatever after these provinces are established ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: A Northwest Territories Act will be introduced providing for the government of these territories in the same way practically as Keewatin is now provided for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All of the outlying territories ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that modelled after the provision in the law which puts Keewatin under the administration of Manitoba, or modelled after the Northwest Territories Act ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is modelled after the Northwest Territories Act. It will provide for the executive government of the territories which were formerly administered under the Northwest Territories Act, and which will now remain outside the limits of the new provinces. It will hot include the Yukon on the west or Keewatin on the east.


William Findlay Maclean: Will they have a legislature ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No : tlipre is no need of a legislature, because there is no population. Keewatin has been administered for thirty years by the province of Manitoba. _ I do not think there are 200 people in Keewatin. There is no population in Mackenzie, Ungava or Franklin, and it would be useless to have a legislature. The government of Manitoba has administered the Keewatin district.
iMr. R. L. BORDEN. Do I understand that the hon. Minister of Justice proposes to place Mackenzie and some of these other territories in the same relation to the new provinces that Keewatin is to Manitoba ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Absolutely, except that we are adopting the same provisions as those contained in the Northwest Territories Act for convenience of administration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That will not give them representation ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended to fasten upon them the separate school provision of the Northwest Territories Act, and to extend it to the north pole ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I will give to my hon. friend the answer that Alexander Mackenzie and Sir John Macdonald gave to a similar question, when the Keewatin Act was introduced in 1876 : We will provide for that when these territories are joined to the adjoining provinces.


Samuel Barker: Hon. gentlemen opposite have laid stress upon the necessity of the Dominion keeping control of immigration. If there is any place where there is ground for urging that the Dominion should keep control of immigration, it is Athabaska, where immigration has hardly yet begun. There are only 242 whites, according to a statement that was made, and one can understand that in 250,000 miles of territory-I think it is about 251,900-with 242 white people, the Dominion may be looking with some care to immigration for the purpose of developing it, and they may also be anxious to keep control of the lands of that immense territory, and not allow the 242 white people up there to have too much to say in the matter. But that argument cannot apply reasonably to the districts that are now to be given autonomy-Alberta, Saskatchewan and Assiniboia. These districts are fairly well developed, and there is every reason why the people should be allowed to further develop their own resources. Apply autonomy to those who have arrived at manhood and are ready for representative institutions, but keep Athabaska, develop it from the Dominion point of view, keep control of it, as we kept control of all these districts in 1875.


Andrew B. Ingram: The right hon. First Minister referred to two mills. Where are these two mills located-in Athabaska ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, in Athabaska ; on the Peace river.


Andrew B. Ingram: I judge they are of very great importance or the right hon. First Minister would not have referred to them, perhaps.


Wilfrid Laurier: One is at Peace river crossing and the other at Vermilion.


Andrew B. Ingram: In the Vermilion district ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


Wilfrid Laurier: No ; not in the Vermilion district, but at Vermilion, on the Peace river.


Andrew B. Ingram: Exactly, and it is in the Vermilion district.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is another Vermilion district.


Andrew B. Ingram: I will read what the report brought down to the government says about the mill at Vermilion :
Agriculture has been followed in a small way for many years, and two small grist mills supply meal and flour for local needs. Two years ago, however, the Hudson Bay Company erected a fine roller mill, with the intention of grinding flour for the northern trade, and encouraged by the certainty of a good market for all the wheat they produced, the settlers more than doubled their wheat acreage last year. This mill can produce from 250 to 300 pounds of flour per hour, and being lighted by electricity can be run day and night when necessary. The erection of such a mill in that latitude, where the transport of heavy machinery is so difficult and expensive is the best evidence that can be offered of the belief of the residents in the future of the Vermilion district.
Let me point out that between 250 and 300 pounds of flour would represent the enormous total of 72 hundred-weight in the year, and yet the importance of this great mill is given as a reason why the boundaries of this province should be extended up into that district. Surely the right bon. First Minister will see that the proportions of this mill are not very large-from 250 to 300 pounds per hour. That cannot very-well be the reason why the line is extended up into that section of the country. This Peace river question is a pretty live question ; we had it up last year, and I know it was like a red rag before some animals when it was talked about, and to no one more so than to the bon. Minister of the Interior. He does like this subject. He did not like it then, and I presume be does [DOT]not like it any better now. But there must be some other reason for extending the boundary up there than the existence of this mill. The extension of the boundary liue gives them two representatives, and I think that, was probably a greater reason why the boundary was placed where it is rather than being placed where it was suggested by the premier of the Northwest Territories.


Richard Stuart Lake: I wish to bring up one matter before the debate closes, and that is in reference to the name. I would like to ask the right bon. Prime Minister what suggested the name of Saskatchewan ? It seems to me that the name Assiniboia is both a prettier name and also a name worthy of recognition in the formation of a new province. The district of Assiniboia certainly contains the larger population at the present time, and, what is more than that, I think I may safely say that it is mainly due to the intelligent industry of the people of

Assiniboia that the Northwest Territories have developed as they have. I think it was the great success achieved by the wheat-growers of Assiniboia which brought the Territories to public attention in the degree which has been done. I must confess that in suggesting the name Assiniboia I do not like to recall the abbreviation suggested by the remarks of my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). I think also that the name Saskatchewan contains some historic recollections in connection with a certain musket.


Wilfrid Laurier: I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Lake) that it was not with that view that I accepted the name of Saskatchewan. I have no objection to say that the name Saskatchewan has many recollections, that one included and if my hon. friend wishes to have it on that account I have no objection at all. I am sorry that the name Assiniboia disappears. If my hon, friend prefers Assiniboia to Saskatchewan I am willing to sacrifice Saskatchewan though it recalls something to ine. But, with regard to Alberta, I would have preferred one of the old historical names. However, the name Alberta is so well known not only in this country, but even in Europe, that we thought we should have to retain it. If Assiniboia is preferred to Saskatchewan, I have no objection, but the majority seem to think that Saskatchewan is the name that should be used.	_
Amendment (Mr. W. F. Maclean) withdrawn.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I desire to propose an amendment to this clause. I am sorry to have to trouble the House again today upon what an hon. gentleman from New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) says is a very small question, but if settling the boundaries of a province for all time to come is a small question, it is a question which has created a great deal of interest in all the other provinces, and the people of the west will hardly relish the insinuation that this House should treat it as of little importance now. I presume that if we were discussing the length of lobsters, the hon. gentleman from New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) would consider such a question as very important and would ventilate his eloquence upon it. Well, Sir, I have always been of the opinion that one province would be sufficient in the west, and whilst that question has been fully debated in the legislative assembly and was approved of by a vote of 25 to 10 at least, still it appears to-day that it is utterly impossible to have the government consider such a proposition, and I must content myself with renewing my objection to the proposed dividing line between the provinces. I may say that the proposed dividing line will leave a very, very small portion of the ranching country in the eastern province, as will appear by a glance at the
map published by the Department of the Interior. One objection is that the ranching industry which is one of the greatest industries in that country will have such a small representation in the local house that its needs will not receive the recognition to which it is entitled. Another objection is that the ranges will be split up, and another objection, which may appear of very small moment to hon. gentlemen from the east, is, that there will be a conflict in the branding laws. The only objection we "have had urged against the removal of the boundary line further east is confined to two resolutions from two boards of trade, and one resolution from a Liberal association which has been presented to the House by the hon. member from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). One was a resolution from the Board of Trade of Moosejaw, a town which is over 200 miles from the line proposed. The other resolution was from the Maple Creek Board of Trade, approving of the action of the government as stated by the hon. member (Mr. Scott), but let me say that the information I have received was from the ranching country in the neighbourhood of Maple Creek is, that the Maple Creek Board of Trade has betrayed the best interests of the ranching country in passing such a resolution.


Samuel Hughes: What is the population of Maple Creek ?


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. The hon. member for Western Assiniboia can say better than I can, but I should imagine that it is about 400 or 500. I say that the Maple Creek Board of Trade in passing a resolution on such a matter cannot be considered as expressing the opinion of the ranching district. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) also told us that the Liberal Association of Maple Creek had passed a similar resolution. I have not the slightest doubt that this Liberal Association would be very anxious to move the line further west, and perhaps that is where the hon. member (Mr. Scott) got his idea. I have no doubt if he had his way the southern portion of Alberta would be gerrymandered clean into Montana. When the hon gentleman says that he advocates the moving of the line further west and the taking of the old eastern boundary of Alberta as the boundary of the new provinces, I do not think that is the idea he always entertained. As we all know, the constituencies in that country were redistributed only a year ago. and then the hon. member (Mr. Scott) thought that at least 75 miles west of the present boundary of: Alberta had a greater community ot interest with the constituency of Calgary than it had with Western Assiniboia. It is quite apparent to any person who looks at the map that instead of having the old constituency of Alberta divided in four constituencies, that three of the constituencies in Alberta run further east into

Alberta and Saskatchewan by about 78 miles and they run farther east too than the proposed boundary line, so that when he was considering community of interest only a year ago, the hon. gentleman's views then did not coincide with his views to-day. When this redistribution was taking place a year ago, did the Minister of the Interior make any demand for representation for Athabaska ? I asked the hon. gentleman that question before, and his answer was that he was representing the whole of Alberta then, but no, he was representing* the constituency of Edmonton and it might just as well, have included as one of the ten constituencies Athabaska if they were entitled to representation a year ago. And if they were not then entitled to representation there should be some reason assigned to the House for giving them representation now. The hon. member for Western Assiniboia has stated that he thinks he is in the best position to know where the dividing line should be, because it runs through his own constituency, and he says he is representing the views of his constituents. Let me point out that, at a meeting called at Medicine Hat by the mayor of that town -the largest town in Western Assiniboia- presided over by a Liberal, and attended by the Liberal member of the local house, a resolution was passed and sent to the hon. member (Mr. Scott) and two or three weeks after he got it the First Minister rose in this House and said that no objection had come from that country on any clause of the Bill except the educational clause. If I presume to state what the people of Medicine Hat think as to the dividing line, I believe I am not only representing the views of the constituents I have the honour to represent, but the views of some of the constituents of the member for Western Assiniboia as well. I have read the resolution before, and it concludes thus :
We would respectfully suggest that the government appoint a commission to-inquire into all these circumstances, and that a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to the principal newspapers of the country, to the Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition, and also the premier of the Northwest Territories and Mr. W. Scott. M.P.
This resolution protested against the proposed boundary line, and it was held in the largest town in the constituency of Western Assiniboia. In taking the position I now do in regard to the boundary line I feel I am not only representing the views of the constituents I have the honour to represent in this House, but the views as well of a great many people in the constituency of Western Assiniboia. Without detaining the House longer, I shall propose the amendment which I may say shifts the eastern boundary line further east to the eighth range, and then runs north for a very short portion Tip to the Saskatchewan river, and along the Saskatchewan river and along Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
or, range twenty north, so .that it takes in very little more area than was originally intended, and it gets over the objection of splitting the ranching country, i therefore beg to move :
That section 1 be struck out, and the following substituted therefor =
The territory comprised within the following boundaries, that is to say, commencing at the intersection of the international boundary dividing Canada from the United States of America by the west limit of range eight west of the third meridian ; thence northerly along the centre of the road allowance forming the west boundary of the said range eight to the centre of the_South Saskatchewan river ; thence westerly along the centre of the South Saskatchewan river to the centre of the road allowance forming the west boundary of range twenty west of the third meridian in the Dominion lands survey ; thence northerly along the road allowance for the west boundary of the said range twenty, as the same may hereinafter be defined in accordance with the said system to the parallel of the sixtieth degree of north latitude ; thence westerly along the said parallel of the sixtieth degree of north latitude to the northeast corner of the province of British Columbia ; thence southerly along the eastern boundary of the province of British Columbia to the southeast corner of the province of British Columbia ; thence easterly along the international boundary to the point of commencement ; is hereby established as a province of the Dominion of Canada, to be called and known as the province of Alberta.
Amendment negatived, and section agreed to.
On section 2-British North America Acts, 1867 to 1886, to apply.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is clause 3 of the Territorial Bill as it was prepared and presented to us by those representing the Northwest Territories. I may say in addition that it will be found in section 2 of chapter 3 of the Dominion Statutes of 1870, the Manitoba Act, and the same provision will also be found in the Orders in Council under which Prince Edward Island and British Columbia came into the Dominion.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be in substance the same as the second clause of the Bill submitted by the territorial government, which for convenience we may call the Haultain Bill ; but I do not think it is in the ipsissima verba.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It may not be. Then the memorandum attached to the section of the Haultain Bill reads : ' This is the .provision adopted on the incorporation of each of the provinces since the union.'


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice was to give us an explanation at some time during the progress of the Bill in committee of the difference between section 16 as originally drafted and that which is to be proposed* when we reach it. That question is pretty intima-

tely associated with this clause by reasou of the words therein contained, ' except in so far as varied by this Act.' According to the opinion of Mr. Clement, which was read by the Minister of Justice in the speech which he-delivered upon the second reading of the Bill, it would not appear that any provision of this kind is at all necessary. Mr. Clement's opinion was this:
It follows that section 93 of the British North America Act-the clause defining the legislative jurisdiction of the provincial assembly over education-must, proprio vigore and without possibility of amendments by federal legislation, be operative in any new province immediately upon its creation as a province.
Not by virtue of any provision inserted in the Act constituting a new province, but proprio vigore. It would seem, therefore, a proper question whether any clause of this character should be introduced So far as I am able to interpret Mr. Clement's opinion, it would seem unnecessary. It apparently does not strike the Minister of Justice in that way. I cannot understand the language of Mr. Clement in any other way, reading it, as I have done, "with a fair amount of consideration. Another suggestion I wish to make is whether or not it has occurred to the Minister of Justice that possibly different words might be required where you are dealing with a territory already forming part of the Dominion from those which would be applicable to a province coming in under the provisions of section 146 without the sanction of legislation such as that contained in the Act of 1871. In respect of all these matters I think we ought to have a little discussion. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice will have observed that a great many theories have been put forward by hon. gentlemen on that side who are learned in the profession of the law, as to the meaning and effect of section 2. I have understood several very eminent gentlemen on that side to argue that section 2, standing-alone, would bring into force in the Territories the clerical schools which my hon. friend the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) opposed so vigorously with the assistance of the First Minister and I think of the Minister of Justice as well in 1896. These gentlemen, both in construing that section and also in construing the amendment which I had the honour of offering to the House, have taken that position; and I think that the arguments made in that regard, and to which I propose to give a little attention before we get through with clause 2, are worthy of consideration by the Minister of Justice. I can give him reference to them if he proposes to speak to-morrow as I took a little note of them as we went along. We could hardly get through section 2 this evening and the Minister of Justice will possibly to-morrow afternoon be prepared to give his views on this matter.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think I could do so this evening, but I would like to say immediately that I do not concur in the opinion' of Mr. Clements that the British North America Act applies automatically to these new provinces. My object in quoting Mr. Clements' opinion was- merely to show that he agreed entirely in what was said by the Hon. George Brown and Mr. Dalton McCarthy to the effect that if the separate schools were continued in any province until such time as it came into confederation, that system would be perpetuated. I gave that as one of the many opinions expressed on the matter, some of which may be worth a great deal and others very little. I think myself perhaps the better plan would be to allow this section to remain over to be discussed with clause 16, as it may be moved in committee. I am quite prepared to deal with it now, but perhaps it may be as well to hold it over until then. A great deal may be said in support of the view that this clause will bring into operation section 93 of the British North America Act. My difficulty was in respect of the words used in that section and the doubts that might arise about these words ' provinces ' and ' at the time of the union.' It is for that reason I thought it would be well to make a standing enactment in regard to the separate school clause, but I am perfectly willing to allow the matter to remain over.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a good deal of force in what my hon. friend the Minister of Justice suggests, but possibly he could give us an outline of the principal matter I mentioned this evening and answer one or two questions with regard to it, so that we might clear the ground a little for the discussion of clause 2 in connection with clause 16. The suggestion he has made is one that might very well be acted upon, and we might leave the matter in that position until to-morrow afternoon and get through the discussion of it probably within a very short time.
On section 3,
The said province shall be represented in the Senate of Canada by four members : provided thta such representation may, after the completion of the next decennial census, be from time to time increased to six by the parliament of (Janada.


Samuel Hughes: Are there to be four senators for each province ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, and then to be increased to six.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would remark to the committee that at confederation three groups of senators were made, namely, Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces. Ontario and Quebec were each given 24 and the maritime provinces 24. It is well known that the principle decided upon then was that followed in the constitution

of the United States, and that we would have representation by population for the Dominion in the House of Commons and minority representation in the Senate. I would suggest-it is a matter on which I have not finally made up my mind-that perhaps it would be advisable we should make a further group west of Ontario to the Pacific ocean, so that there would be four groups. We would thus add another group of 24, allowing 6 senators for each one of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. That is a thing we might consider, because we must put some limit on the possibility of this parliament appointing senators, and should have the number decided by legislation as was done for the other parts of the Dominion.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this clause taken from the Manitoba Act ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Practically. I will read the corresponding section of the Manitoba Act, section 3:
The said province shall be represented in the Senate by two members until it shall have, according to the decennial census, a population of 50,000, thenceforth it will be represented by three members until it shall have, according to the decennial census, a population of 75,000 ; thenceforth it shall be represented by four members.
Here we provide that each province shall have four members with a possible increase to six.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There are four in Manitoba ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many in the Northwest ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: British Columbia 3 ; Manitoba 4 ; and the intention is to give Alberta and Saskatchewan 4 each.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understood that Manitoba was only to have 3 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It started out with two. Provision was made that it should be increased to four, and it has been increased to four.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The western group will still be much below the eastern group ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not so much as the hon. gentleman imagines.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: One will have nineteen representatives and the other twenty-six ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The other will have twenty-four.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not given it consideration, but can we reserve power to ourselves to increase the representation ? Has the minister thought of that ?


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, it seems to me we have power to do that under the British North America Amendment Act, 1871.


Robert Laird Borden: I only make the suggestion, because I have not thought it over carefully; but the British North America Act of 1871 declares that it shall not be lawful for the parliament of Canada to alter the Act establishing a province- that is section 6 of that Act. I do not suppose that we could evade that provision by saying, for example, that the constitution of the province should be so and so until the parliament of Canada should otherwise order. But are we not doing something very like that under section 3 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: We undoubtedly have the right to provide for the representation of the new provinces in the Senate. That is provided for in this Bill by declaring that they shall have for the present, four members, but shall be entitled to increase to six when the parliament of Canada so decides.


Robert Laird Borden: It is merely a question of fixing the time ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes. I think if the hon. gentleman will look at the extraordinary subsection of section 2 of the British North America Act of 1886, he will conclude that we have power to do almost anything.


Richard Stuart Lake: While four senators for the new provinces may be a fair number at present, still, I think the general scheme of distribution suggested by the Prime Minister may not be a very fair one in view of the future of the whole of western Canada, either as to area involved or as to the population which will inhabit that area. I would like to see provision in the Bill that parliament will increase the number of members beyond this in future.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 20 of the British North America Act may give that power. But it may be that section provides for increase in the three divisions existing, that, is the maritime provinces, Ontario and Quebec. On the whole, I think that section 26 cannot be construed as being applicable. But, in that case, the remedy would be by application to the imperial authorities.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This matter should be dealt with with great care. If I understand well the spirit of the fathers of confederation it was that the Senate was a kind of guarantee of minorities, and that was why it was given twenty-four members for Ontario, twenty-four for Quebec and twenty-four for the maritime provinces. If I understand my hon. friend from Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Lake) he would like to see the Senate increase according to the population. But that is not in accordance with the spirit of the constitution, and I think it should be avoided. Of course, the representation in this House may increase.

While I am on my feet. I would like to call attention to an anomaly concerning the qualification of senators from the different provinces. A senator from Quebec must be qualified in the district for which he sits in the Senate, but I understand that that does not apply elsewhere. In provinces outside of Quebec, as I understand, if a senator is qualified within the province, he is entitled to sit in the Senate. But in our province he must be qualified in the particular division for which he is appointed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 22 of the British North America Act governs that.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why is the difference made ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) will have to ask the men who drew the Confederation Act.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why might we not amend that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, we cannot touch that.
Mr. BERGERON, i know it is a great hindrance in the province of Quebec. The Prime Minister will understand me at once, when I remind him that some gentlemen in Montreal were appointed to the Senate *lately, and they had to buy property in the particular district for which they were appointed in order to qualify. This is a very great inconvenience. I do not see why all cannot be put on the same footing.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the hon. gentleman will go back to the newspapers of 1S86-87, I think he will find that the party to which he belongs insisted on keeping up the old electoral divisions of the legislative council of Lower Canada. That is the reason those' districts were continued under the Confederation Act, whereas in Ontario these old divisions were removed. In Ontario the senators are appointed for the province at large, whereas in Quebec the senators are appointed for the several divisions.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That could be left and an amendment made to the-


Charles Fitzpatrick: - We cannot make any amendment.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: We could propose it to the imperial parliament.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hardly worth while.


Richard Stuart Lake: The hon. member for Beau-harnois (Mr. Bergeron) apparently does not like to have the Senate representation depend on population. But, if his principle is followed it is a still stronger reason for increasing the Senate representation in the west. If we consider the question by area, we find that the larger portion of Canada lies west of the Great Lakes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But it does not go by that.


Richard Stuart Lake: What does it go by ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: By the British North America Act.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the British North America Act say tnat these new provinces shall have six senators ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The constitution of the United States provides for two senators to each state, whether the state is large or small. The idea was that there should be uniformity of representation in respect to states, not in respect to papulation. In our case, Ontario to-day has twenty-four senators and a population of over 2,000.000 ; the maritime provinces have twenty-four senators and about 1,000,000 of a population. The province of Prince Edward Island, if I mistake not, has four senators, and is the smallest province in the Dominion.


Richard Stuart Lake: If, as I understand, this parliament has power at present to nut the representation of these western provinces in the Senate at a higher figure [DOT]than it has been in the past, I certainly feel that parliament should do so, because I think it would be only reasonable that that part of Canada which lies west of the great lakes should have more than twenty-four members in the Senate, which would lie the case if this scheme is carried into effect. They will have under this arrangement twenty-four senators out of a total of ninety-six.


Charles Fitzpatrick: They will have nineteen senators.


Richard Stuart Lake: 1 understand from the Prime Minister that the west will ultimately be represented by a group of twenty-four senators, like the three eastern groups at present. I think that the country lying west of the great lakes should ultimately have a representation of more than twenty-four senators, because the influence it will exercise upon the Dominion wll be greater than that number of senators would imply in proportion to the whole number.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The British North America Act, under section 22. provides for the representation of the provinces in the Senate, and provides for that representation by dividing the then provinces of Hie Dominion into three groups, Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces, each group entitled to twenty-four senators. Then section 147 of the Act provides for additions to the Senate in the event of the admission of Newfoundland. Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, and makes provision that in the event of British Columbia coming in it will be entitled to-a certain number of senators, and if Prince Edward Island is brought in its senators

are to be taken out of the group of twenty-four assigned to the maritime provinces. So we are now creating practically a new group of senators applicable to the western country. British Columbia has three senators and Manitoba four. Now it would be quite proper that we should give to that western group probably twenty-four senators, but it does not seem to me it would be proper at the present time to give to these new provinces out of the twenty-four more than one-half. We are giving them at present one-half, at all events. It may be that when the group numbers twenty-four there will need to be a redistribution, and that we shall have to give some further representation in the Senate to British Columbia and Manitoba. For the present I think we are dealing generously with the new provinces when we assign to them one-half of the whole group.


William Findlay Maclean: 
William Findlay Maclean: We will have a fair representation in the Senate. The Minister of Justice got away from the case when he said there were to be three groups in the east and only one group in the west.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I stated the policy of the government.


William Findlay Maclean: It is not a fail-policy, and I wish to direct the attention of the member for Beaubarnois (Mr. Bergeron) to that policy. He seemed to have the view that there should only be four groups. Now if the west grows and becomes the preponderating element in the confederation, there ought to be three groups.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When it is so entitled we will deal with it.


William Findlay Maclean: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) is very properly putting in a plea for protection to the west. I dissent from the idea that there should be only four groups, let there be as many groups as will give a fair representation all round.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not quite agree with my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). We all expect a very large population in the Northwest. Repre-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
sentation in this House is based upon the population of Quebec ; but it may come about a few years hence that the majority of the members of this House will come from the Northwest, and that is the reason why I want to preserve to the east its due influence in the Senate. I think that is what the spirit of confederation requires, that there should be a kind of tempering element in the Senate composed of all these-groups. The provinces in the Northwest will be entitled to as many members as-their population will entitle them to, but there will always be enough senators in these different groups to see that the supremacy is not altogether held by the Northwest provinces.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let us not dispute iu advance with what we have nothing to do at present. The question is, how many senators shall we take for these two new provinces? We provide for giving them each six as the maximum. Manitoba has four senators, British Columbia has three ; we cannot increase the number for Manitoba nor can we increase the number for British Columbia. Under such circumstances when, on the one side of the new provinces there are three senators and on the other side four, it seems to me that in giving to each of the new provinces six as a maximum, we go as far as we ought to go at present. But this is only a temporary arrangement. In my estimation we will have to have a new group of senators, not now, but in the future; and when we form this new group we must remember that in order to keep within the spirit of the constitution we cannot base that group upon representation by population, the idea of population must be eliminated. The Senate, as it exists, is not based upon population but upon purely arbitrary considerations having in view minorities,' and tnat the great provinces should not override the smaller ones. That was the idea of confederation and we must adhere to it. If we keep to the spirit of the constitution, as we ought to do, and if we form another group, it will be a fair question whether there should be twenty-four senators in it or not. In my estimation it ought to be twenty-four. But the west may become so large that tweny-four senators will not be sufficient. Still we must adhere to the spirit of confederation that the big provinces are not to override the smaller ones. But for the present I think everybody admits that we are doing for these new provinces as much as we are called upon to do. in view of the fact that we cannot increase the number of senators for Manitoba and British Columbia


Samuel Hughes: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Well then, why not make provision just the same as you did in the case of Manitoba ? Why should not the Northwest Territories have 24 senators if the population should become as great as that of Ontario or Quebec ? Then of course the right hon. First Minister wild make provision for the gradual abolition of the Senate to carry out his proposition, and no doubt he will want to carry out another plank in the old Liberal platform that partisanship shall not enter into the appointment of senators and we will expect him to appoint senatoi's to these two new provinces half Tory and half Grit.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have done so many things that are not pleasant to my hon. friend that I cannot do anything more of that kind. If we were to provide for the abolition of the Senate my hon. friend would object as he is objecting in regard to the school question.


Samuel Hughes: No, the hon. gentleman will be carrying out his promise in abolishing the Senate but not in regard to the school question.


Wilfrid Laurier: At the present time they have four senators representing the territory which shall be comprised in these two new provinces. If the Senate were to be abolished we might commence here, but I think that if we are not abolishing the Senate the only thing we can do is to do as we have done, and if members of the opposition object I would like them to point out in what way we can do better considering that these provinces at the outset have four senators each and cannot have more.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By what authority do you give the increased number ? Clause 147 says that the maximum number shall be 82. Your arrangement will put the number away above 82


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, it has been done long ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under what authority do you increase the number ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Under the authority of the British North America Act, 1871.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well this is the British North America Act of 1871 that I am quoting from.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, you are referring to section 146 of the Act of 1867.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Section 147. What section of the Act of 1S71 gives the number ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 2, which provides for the creation of these provinces and for the number of members of the House of Commons and senators.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: How many senators now come from the districts of Alberta and Saskatchewan ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Four.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: They already have four from each of these districts ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, four altogether.


Wilfrid Laurier: At present the Northwest Territories are represented by senators Perley, Louglieed, Davis and Ross.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: There are four senators from that district ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. [DOT]


Francis Ramsey Lalor: And this new Act provides that there shall be 12 ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The new Act provides for 8 immediately when the Act comes into force and for an increase to 12

 front 4 to 6 for each province.


Andrew B. Ingram: What population will be necessary after the next census ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The question of population is not taken into account in so far as representation in the Senate is concerned.
Mr. GALLlnER. While we are dealing with the representation in the Senate of the new provinces that are being formed, and while we cannot increase the representation from Manitoba and British Columbia, because I understand it is fixed by the imperial statute, it strikes me that at this present time, or as soon as imperial legislation can be obtained which will give a limit of 24 senators to the west, it should be secured. Of course, I understand, to bring the representation in the Senate up to that figure, we would have to seek an amendment of the Act by imperial legislation, in so far as Manitoba and British Columbia are concerned, but I do think that as soon as that legislation can reasonably be obtained

it might be this year or it might be next year-we should at least have a representation of 24 from that western country.


Andrew B. Ingram: When I asked the hon. Minister of Justice what population would be necessary to have that number of senators after the next decennial census, I understood him to say in effect that population did not govern it in any way at all. Does this section really mean that they will have four senators now and that after the taking of the next decennial census the number will be increased to 6 in each of these new' provinces without any legislation in this House or any place else ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: As the Territories now stand they have four representatives

-o683

in the Senate. When this Act goes into force then immediately each of these provinces will have four. That will be eight for that territory. Then, after the taking of the next decennial census, it will be optional with the government to increase the number of each province from 4 to 0. This is merely an optional power that may be exercised or may not be exercised by the government as it chooses after the next decennial census.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is it optional with parliament or optional with the government ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: With parliament, of course.


Andrew B. Ingram: It does seem a singular idea in view of what was done in regard to Manitoba. They were given two for the first 17,000, then three for 50,000 and they are supposed to have an additional senator lor every 25,000 people or something like that. Supposing that in 1912 these provinces should be represented in this House by a large number of members who sat on the opposition side and that there was a minority of the representation supporting the government; suppose that in 1912 the members of the opposition representing these two provinces set up the claim that they were entitled to a greater representation in the Senate and the government said : No, we refuse to give it to you. The government might undertake to punish these two provinces because they sent a larger number of opposition supporters than government supporters. Why make it possible for such a condition to arise ? Why not enact some such provision as was suggested by the premier of the Northwest Territories, but not to the same extent, that they be given representation now for a certain number, and that when the population increases by a certain number they will be entitled to a greater representation automatically. The Premier of the Northwest Territories suggested 20 and the right hon. First Minister suggests 12. If that be the conclusion arrived at by the government make it according to population, let it work automatically and then in 1912 you would not have any [DOT]question of the kind arising, which would naturally arise in this parliament. It may be a bone of contention as between the government and these two provinces, and it would be preferable to adopt a system which would work automatically rather than to adopt the provision which it is now proposed to insert in this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: It is hardly correct to say that representation in the Senate does not depend at all upon population. Of course, it does not under the constitution of the United States. The smallest state in the union has exactly the same representation in the Senate as the largest state in the union. That must always continue under their constitution. It would rather


Charles Fitzpatrick: seem that the original scheme of confederation was this : Ontario and Quebec had approximately the same population, though not exactly. I think they had about 2,500.000 between them. The maritime provinces, including Prince Edward Island had approximately the same population as Quebec.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no.
Mi'. R. L. BORDEN. They had well on to a million.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The population by the census of 1861 was : Ontario, 1,396,000 : Quebec, 1,111,000 ; Nova Scotia, 330,000: New Brunswick, 252,000 ; Prince Edward Island (census of 1871), 94,000.


Robert Laird Borden: The population of the maritime provinces was not quite so large as I thought at the moment, but there was obviously a basis of population or otherwise there would not be that peculiar provision about Prince Edward Island, that when Prince Edward Island came into confederation the group of twenty-four senators was not to be increased, but the representation of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia was to be diminished by the same number of senators that were to be appointed for Prince Edward Island. Up to a certain limit of population the representation in the Senate provided for the new provinces is perhaps fair. Nova Scotia at present has ten senators for a population of about 500,000, and eight senators in the Northwest for a population estimated at 500,000 may be a fair representation for the immediate future. If population is to be considered we can look forward to the time when with the enormous development of the Territories and the possible large increase in population, that representation might not be just. The Bill provides for financial assistance on the basis of an eventual population of 1,200,000 for each province, and the result would be that a population of 2,500,000 in these two provinces would only have twelve senators, when less populous provinces would have a larger representation. I do not say you must base it altogether on population, but apparently the original scheme of confederation took more account of population than did the constitution of the United States.


Wilfrid Laurier: I agree with that.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume that we have to go to the imperial parliament to increase the number of senators after this Bill is passed ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I should think so.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think we can do better for these' provinces than we are doing at the present time, but I have no doubt at all that there shall be from the western group of provinces a demand for the readjustment of their representation in the Senate, and whether twenty-four will be a

sufficient number in tile future is a thing that may be fairly debated. We must fix an arbitrary number of senators ; we cannot go by population. I would have suggested twenty-four senators as in the case of the rest of Canada, but it may be that some hon. gentlemen think that twenty-four would not be sufficient ultimately. At "present I do not think we can do more than we are doing under this Bill.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The clear intention of the fathers of confederation was to keep the Senate within limits f and prevent its becoming too large and unwieldy.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 21 provides that the number of senators shall not exceed seventy-two, and the increase under section 2G is dependent on the fact that new senators should not be named until the number is reduced again.


Mr.   I@: There is no doubt of that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The leader of the government suggests twenty-four senators for that group in the west, but you see how unfair it would be to Manitoba and to British Columbia if we gave to these new provinces one-half the total representation. We could not increase the number for British Columbia or Manitoba without the consent of the imperial authorities, and when it becomes necessary to apply to the imperial parliament to increase the number of representatives in the Senate, we will have to consider the whole question with respect to the new provinces and the provinces of British Columbia and Manitoba. On the whole it is rather better to keep the representation within limits for the time being.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. The intention at confederation was that there should be some regard paid to population, but that the smaller provinces should have proportionately larger representation in the Senate than the more populous provinces.


Samuel Hughes: A future government might consider the advisability of cutting down the number of senators from Quebec, Ontario, and the maritime provinces and distributing them more equitably to the provinces in the west. I can see no reason in the world why Ontario should have twenty-four senators and Quebec twenty-four, and these western provinces with their great future population only six senators each. However, it is time enough to bid the gentleman good morning when you meet him.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4,


Robert Laird Borden: I think we had better not tackle section 4 to-night.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would ask, with the permission of the House, to substitute 180}
another section for sections 4 and 5. The amendment will carry out the same principle as that involved in the printed clause, but it will express perhaps more clearly and correctly the intention.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman read the amendment so that it may go on ' Hansard,' and every member of the House will see it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I intend to-morrow to move to substitute for clauses 4 and 5 the following :
4.	The said province and the province of Saskatchewan shall, until the termination of the parliament of Canada existing at the time of the first readjustment hereinafter provided for, continue to he represented in the House of Commons as provided by chapter 60 of the statutes of 1903, each of the electoral districts * defined in that part of the schedule to the said Act which relates to the Northwest Territories, whether such district is wholly in one of the said provinces, or partly in one and partly in the other of them, being represented by one member.
5.	Upon the completion of the next quinquennial census for the said province, the representation thereof shall forthwith be readjusted by the parliament of Canada in such manner that there shall be assigned to the said province such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to the number of its population ascertained at such quinquennial census as the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of Quebec as ascertained St the then last decennial census ; and in the computation of the number of members for the said province a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number requisite for entitling the province to a member shall be disregarded, and a fractional part exceeding one-half of that number shall be deemed equivalent to the whole number, and such readjustment shall take effect upon the termination of the then existing parliament.
2.	The representation of the said province shall thereafter be readjusted from time to time according to the provisions of the fifty-first section of the British North America, Act, 1867.	.
This applies the provisions of the British North America Act to the new Territories after the next quinquennial census, and it will be noticed that the readjustment can only take effect upon the termination of the then existing parliament.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 12.30 a.m., Wednesday.

Wednesday, May 10, 1905.