1905-03-10

Mr. JOHN G. TURRIFF (East Assini-boia).: Mr. Speaker, I have here two petitions purporting to come from my district of East Assiniboia. But they are all in the same handwriting, and seem to have been sent to me by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule).


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am speaking to a question of privilege. These petitions may be from my district, but the names are all in the same handwriting. The petitions are marked East Assiniboia, but posted in the city of Ottawa. I present them, but I do not know whether they are from my constituency or not.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Since my name has been mentioned, may I be permitted to say that these petitions were sent to me by a personal friend, with the request that I should send them to my hon. friend from East Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). To carry out this request. I put the petitions in an envelope and handed them in at the post office, which, I think, was the proper way to do.



STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

Hon.  W. S.@: Yesterday the hon. member for Queen's, P.E.I. (Mr. A. A. McLean) called my attention to the quantity of mail matter said to be detained at Sackville, intended for the island. I told him I would ascertain the position of the matter and inform him to-day. I have done so, and wish to state that my officers state that the mail matter detained at Sackville and other points on the mainland consists of merchandise, books and other heavy mail matter, not letters or daily papers ; and is detained simply because there are no means whereby it can be transported to the island at the present moment, unless the vessels, the ' Minto ' and ' Stanley,' which have for a time been detained in the ice, are now liberated. Up to this morning we have no notice that those steamers have been liberated, although the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefon-taine) has been momentarily expecting to hear of their liberation. All letters and daily newspapers have been sent forward by the iceboats, but it has not been possible yet to send the other matter.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: I may state for the information of the Postmaster General that I received a letter yesterday saying that daily papers posted in Montreal on the 4th day of February were only received in Char-lettown on the 6th of March.


Mr. A. A. LEFURGEY.: The fact that these boats were locked up and there was no possiblity of getting them out, shows that the department has been remiss in its duty, because they have only had four boats at the beginning of the season crossing from either side of the straits, and latterly five . boats, and at most these can only carry about fifty bags of mail. Upwards of ten boats belonging to private parties are crossing daily, and only four or five government 73
boats have been crossing daily. The block in mail matters has resulted largely from the inactivity of the department. I know that letters I mailed here weeks ago have not yet been received by the parties to whom they were sent, while letters mailed at a later date have been received. Now it seems there are a lot of letters and newspapers held over at Sackville.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I have only to say, on the information of my officers, who I think are aware of the facts, that no letters have been detained. I am also assured by them that the daily papers have gone forward. My officers are the only source of information I have, and I have the most implicit confidence in the accuracy of my information.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. URIAH WILSON.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to know when we may expect to have the Auditor General's Report for distribution. I have several applications for it, and I have only been able to get the first volume. True, there were three volumes issued for the use of members, but the first volume of the regular issue is only out now. I would like to know when we may expect to get the remaining volumes ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I am informed by the officers of the department that the usual distribution has been made.


Uriah Wilson: Only to-day I was in the distribution office making inquiries for it. As I say, the first three volumes have been issued for the use of members, but the first volume of the regular issue was only out to-day-so I am Informed by the gentleman in charge.


William Stevens Fielding: I will make inquiry.


Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to renew my request for returns from the Railway Department and especially from the Interior Department. From the Railway Department with reference to the hay business, and from the Interior Department with reference to the sale of lands. This delay is becoming monotonous, but I am afraid I shall have to keep on the same note until these are brought down.


Mr. EMMERSON A. M. H.@: I do not think there is any cause for the hon. gentleman becoming monotonous with regard to the reports to which he alludes, because they were brought down yesterday.


George Eulas Foster: Are you sure ?


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I want to draw the attention of the acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) to the fact that a re-

turn carried some time ago concerning Port Arthur and Port William harbours, has not, to my knowledge, been laid on the table yet.


Mr. HYMAN.: When the motion for the return reached the department, I gave instructions to the officers to facilitate its preparation in every way. I will make special inquiry again.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Profontaine) to the fact that out of some twenty returns ordered from his department-two of them having been ordered very recently and the others on different dates between the 25th of January and the 27th of February-only seven have been brought down, leaving eleven that I think ought to have been brought down ere this. It is desirable that we should have them before the hon. gentleman's estimates are more fully discussed.


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: So many of these returns were asked from the department that my officers, although they have been working at them diligently, have not yet been able to prepare them all ; but I will bring them down as fast as I can get them prepared.



SUPPLY-(PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

['I do not object to any one of them, but I am only drawing attention to what I consider, if it were to continue, would be a very bad practice, because it would make it impossible for the members of this House to consider any of these Bills before their second reading.\nBill read the second time.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I take the opportunity of pressing once more upon the attention of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) the matters which I took occasion to mention yesterday. What he said in reply to my inquiry at that time was very excellent in its way. He cited constitutional authorities as to the course which should be adopted upon the formation of a government and he read certain quotations from a great authority on that question, but none of his remarks touched at all or were even relevant to the real question which I asked. It seems to me that in a matter of this kind the inquiry is one worthy of some attention by the right hon. Prime Minister when it is made in a respectful and serious way, as my inquiry was intended to be. The circumstances are very r.uusual. A measure of the greatest possible importance not only to the Territories of the Northwest which are now being constituted into provinces, but to the country as a whole, is brought to the attention of parliament and the right hon. Prime Minister introduces that measure. When he places that measure before the House he says to the House as emphatically as if he had declared it in express words that the measure had been submitted to, had been con-Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
sidered by and had met with the approval of every one of his colleagues. That is the situation as I understand it. I have yet to be corrected in that apprehension of my right hon. friend's conduct in introducing this Bill. Well, afterwards it transpires that at least one member of the administration had not considered, and more than that, had not even seen the measure which was brought down by the Prime Minister, and it is an open secret that another member of the administration, then on his way from Europe and expected to arrive in Ottawa within a few days, was not made acquainted with the provisions of the measure as far as we are aware. In making that statement, I am, of course, not making it of my own personal knowledge, and if I am wrong in my conjecture in that regard I shall be glad to be corrected. But the importance of the situation is this, that the two hon. gentlemen to whom I have refer-led were gentleman who had allied themselves with the right hon. gentleman in 1S95 and 1S96 in regard to a very similar question. The hon. ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), in 1895 and in 1896, used language in regard to one of the questions embraced in this measure, language which I have under my hand, but which I shall not read to the House to-day because the views of the hon. gentleman are pretty well known. His language was not only of a pronounced, but, in some respects, even of a violent character and it would do no good to place it before the House to-day. There is no dispute and there never has been any dispute as to the attitude of the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior in that regard. Yet, he is one of the hon. gentlemen who was not made acquainted with the intentions of the government in bringing down this measure. But, there is another hon. gentleman, the hon. Minister of Finance, to whom I have already referred, and in so far as we can gauge the circumstances and in so far as we can learn from the silence of the administration after the statement has been made across the floor of the House, he was also absolutely ignorant of the provisions of the Bill which the right hon. Prime Minister introduced within two or three days of the date when that hon. gentleman expected to return. Now, I have referred to the opinions of the hon. exMinister of the Interior. I -would like to add aiso that the opinions of the hon. Minister of Finance, acting as an ally, as the chief of my right hon. friend in the campaign made in Nova Scotia in 1896, although not expressed perhaps in so violent a way as those to which 1 have just referred of the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior, nevertheless, are of a very pronounced character. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance conducted a very able campaign in support of my right hon. friend in 1890 in the province of Nova Scotia. He was regarded as the leader of the Liberal ranks in that province

at that time and the exertions which he then put forth met with their fitting reward in the tender to him of the position which he now holds. This hon. gentleman was acting as the ally and, I suppose, under the direction of the right hon. gentleman in the east as was the hon. member for Brandon in the west of Canada. He pronounced himself in no equivocal terms upon this question. It was thought by his friends in Nova Scotia that the speech which he delivered at Windsor in the county of Hants on the Otli of March, I think it was, 1896, was the ablest deliverance made in that province in support of the policy of the Liberal party at that time, and was perhaps the best exposition of their policy that had been made by any man in Canada up to that time. I will quote a few words not for the purpose of criticising them, not for the purpose of assenting to them, but sunply to support my position that my hon. friend had very pronounced views to the knowledge of the Prime Minister on this question which makes it all the more strange that the provisions of this Bill should have been withheld from him, if, as a matter of fact, they were so withheld. Said the hon. gentleman on that occasion to which I have referred :
Why should we not believe that Manitoba will be reasonable in this matter ? The Manitobans are not Afriean savages.
I will venture the statement that the true interests of the Roman Catholic citizens of Manitoba will be better advanced by the policy of conciliation than by the policy of coercion. This Remedial Bill which the government are trying to enforce upon an unwilling parliament, even if it should pass, cannot settle the question. It would be an attack on provincial rights. ... If Roman Catholics are ever to obtain a solution of this question which is worth having they must obtain it through the good will of the majority of the people of the province to which they belong.
Further on in the same speech be said :
I ask the people of Hants county and the people of Nova Scotia to stand by the principle of free schools in the case of Manitoba just as they would stand by it in their own province. . . . We in Nova Scotia know the value of a system of free public schools. We have shown in the past that while we may differ on many questions we are practically a unit in support of that system. ... If the Dominion authorities should attempt to interfere with our school system, if they should attempt to impose upon this province a system which they are trying to force upon Manitoba, we would expect to have the sympathy of the friends of free schools elsewhere, and we would ex-:pect the people of the western provinces to give us their sympathy and support in such a condition. Let us to-day give them our hearty sympathy and support in the struggle until we find that they are not amenable to reason.
Further on after giving credit to Sir Charles Tupper for establishing public schools in Nova iScotia, he continues :
What can we say of the position of that gentleman to-day who instead of standing up as the champion of a free school system and resisting those who attack it scrambles into parliament through the unfair influence of the Roman Catholic pupils of the county of Cape Breton, and is now devoting the evening of his life to the work of destroying the free school system of Manitoba and forcing upon that province a system which he would not dare to attempt to force upon the province of Nova Scotia.
Further on in a letter to the ' Casket ' newspaper published in Antigonisb he said :
The uproar is upon us, already the blaze of religious strife has been kindled and is being vigorously fanned every day by the 'efforts to coerce the province of Manitoba.
In the speech at Windsor to which I have just now referred he used this further language :
For twenty years the Roman Catholic minority thus had the privilege of a separate school system. The result of that system proved exceedingly unsatisfactory to the people of Manitoba. . . . Ample evidence has been adduced to prove that the separate schools were not' effloient schools.
Then, one more passage from his speech which is of some importance at the present juncture as embodying bis views :
I believe that the people of Manitoba if let alome will settle this question for themselves. Why should we not believe this ? We know from our own experience in the maritime provinces that it has been found possible to maintain a free school system and to administer it so as to make it acceptable to the people of every class and creed. We hear no complaint of the Nova Scotia School Law. The Manitoba school system is substantially the. same as Nova Scotia.
My object in quoting- this language of the Minister of Finance is not to criticise or to discuss it; it is simply to show that when the right hon. gentleman accepted the aid and support of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and when he invited him to enter his cabinet, he knew that the hon. gentleman had used that language, and had made these speeches in Nova Scotia. Thus, the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had full knowledge of the views which the Minister of Finance entertained in regard to certain provisions similar to those in the Bill now before parliament.
I wish to once more call the attention of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the fact that upon the eve of the return to Ottawa of the ex-Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton) and of the Minister of Finance (Hon. W. S. Fielding) lie has seen fit to introduce to parliament a Bill in such manner that parliament had every reason to believe, was bound to believe, and indeed every one of us did believe, that the provisions of that Bill had received the assent of every member of the administration. Under tbe circumstances, that was undoubtedly a grave departure from constitutional usage. I do not

know of any modern precedent for conduct of that kind with regard to a measure of any importance, and I think it my duty to once more inquire of the right hon. gentleman what was the overmastering reason which led him under these circumstances to introduce that Bill to this parliament without giving to the people of this country, and especially to this House of Commons, the information that two members of the cabinet, members who above all others, it seems to me, should have been consulted with regard to the provisions of this measure, had not even had it submitted to them, were not even consulted with regard to it, had not even seen it or read it. There must be some explanation for so extraordinary an act. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has not vouchsafed any. I do not want to make explanations for him, I do not want to suggest any explanations. Explanations are being suggested throughout the country, and I would think that it is not only due to this House and to the country, but due to the right hon. gentleman himself that he should, without any further delay, without any further attempt to avoid the issue, inform the House as to the real circumstances under which he took this step in defiance of all unconstitutional usage.
There is one more question which I would again like to ask the right hon. gentleman, and I think that in doing so I am not transgressing my duty. I ask it in the same respectful way and for the purpose of information ; it is this : The right hon. gentleman in his speech introducing this Bill referred to the aid in its preparation which the government had received from the members of the Executive Council of the Northwest Territories.	What I would
like to know is whether or not the educational clauses of this Bill were submitted to, were fully discussed with, and met with the appropriation of members of the Executive Council of the Northwest Territories. In the last place, I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman a question which I have not already asked but which seems to me to be very pertinent in view of his reply of yesterday.. How long does he propose to carry on the affairs of the country without filling the vacant portfolio of the Minister of the Interior ? One would suppose that when a measure of the importance of that which has been proposed to parliament, a measure especially affecting the Northwest Territories of Canada, has been introduced and is about to be discussed in parliament, that we should have the advantage of the experience and knowledge of some gentleman of the Northwest Territories, occupying a position in the administration, or, at all events that we should have the benefit of the advice and experience and knowledge of some gentleman filling the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
portfolio of the Department of the Interior, appointed to that portfolio for the very reason that he is well qualified to fill it. These three questions I venture to again bring to the attention of my right hon. friend, and I trust that he will be pleased to give to the House, at my request, that full and sufficient information on the subject to which I think the House is entitled.


Mr. EMMERSON A. M. H.@: My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has to-day asked one question which he has not previously put and as to which I am quite ready to give all the information I have at present. My hon. friend desires to know how long the vacancy in the portfolio of the Minister of the Interior will be left unfilled. I have only to submit to my hon. friend and to the House that there has been no undue delay in filling it. The vacancy occurred only ten days ago, and I do not think it could be expected that in so short a time as that the government could come to a conclusion as to whom they should call to fill such an important office. I hope before long I shall be able to give to my hon. friend the opportunity to give his assent to the appointment we shall make. I do not know whether he will respond to the invitation, but at all events we shall certainly afford it to him.
With regard to the other two questions I do not think that I am warranted in giving more information to my hon. friend than I have already given.


Robert Laird Borden: That is none.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: That is not much ; but I would submit that strictly speaking my hon. friend is entitled to none at all. The conferences which took place between the government and the representatives of the Northwest Territorial government were carried on confidentially, and I do not know whether I have any authority to give any information about them to the House; no record has been kept of this information ; the conferences have been absolutely confidential.
With regard to the other question, which my hon. friend has now put for the third time, I am sorry to say my mind has not changed. I think, with all clue respect to my hon. friend and to the position he occupies. and to this House, that I have given all the information the House was entitled to. I can see plainly that my hon. friend is shaping his course carefully; he is going ahead bit by bit, he is taking no plunge, but every day we can see a little more where we are finally to be led. Yesterday we couid not see where he was to place his batteries, but to-day we can see where they are to be placed. He endea-'[DOT]'[DOT]ured to show that there is a difference between the position occupied by two mem-

bers of the Liberal party and by the Liberal party itself to-day and the position occupied by that party in 1896. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) did my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. W. S. Fielding) the honour of quoting him. I am not at all jealous of that honour which he has paid to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. I compliment the minister upon it; but he might have quoted some of my speeches on the same question. I took some part in that discussion. I intend to take some part in the present discussion. My hon. friend is re-echoing the attempts that have been made in the press to show that there has been a great change from the position taken by the Liberal party in 1896 in the position taken by them in 1905. Now we shall have an opportunity by and by of discussing' that question; when we come to the second reading of the Bill I will endeavour to discuss the question with my hon. friend, and we shall discuss it on both sides of the House. I do not admit that there has been any departure at all in the conduct of the Liberal party between 1896 and 1905; but I am sorry to say that hon. gentlemen on the opposite side are always in the wrong. They never can interpret the constitution as it is. In 1896, the position which we took and maintained before the country was that it was not right for the federal parliament to try to impose on the province of Manitoba a system of schools which the province of Manitoba had rejected, acting within the plenary exercise of its powers. If there had been a system of schools in the province of Manitoba in 1870, when it was admitted to confederation. then, Sir, the minority would have been entitled to those schools by the judgment of the courts; but the courts decided that there had been no such system of schools, and therefore the powers of the province of Manitoba were not in any way curtailed. There is a difference, therefore, in the position of Manitoba in 1870, as exposed in 1896, and the position which we are confronted with at the present time. But I will not discuss this question with my hon. friend to-day-I do not think the time is opportune.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not discuss it.


Wilfrid Laurier: In my estimation my hon. friend came very near discussing it. He was very guarded, but introduced it in a gentle way, just to create the impression that there was a great difference between the position taken by the Liberal party in 1896 and its position in 1905. My hon. friend understands his business too well to have introduced it so bluntly as to state It in that way, but he led to a conclusion which was inevitable. I do not think the present is the time to discuss that question. but I assure my hon. friend that w7e
shall take the opportunity of doing so at the proper time and on the proper occasion.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, it was a candid admission of my right hon. friend when he confessed that he had not given much information to the hon. leader of the opposition in response to his question of yesterday and of to-day. It was a charming bit of persiflage that the right hon. gentleman made an exhibition of in those few words-airy, light, well-chosen, skimming all around, but avoiding carefully any expression which would go to shed light upon the grave and serious questions which my hon. friend beside me had raised. Now, I do not intend to be led away by this little diversion into a discussion of matters which are not at present before the House. I want to reiterate, in the first place, the position taken by the hon. leader of the opposition. He quoted from statements that had been made by the Minister of Finance, and could have quoted from statements which had been made by the late Minister of the Interior, to show to the right hon. the premier that he knew thoroughly well, when these hon. gentlemen were in his cabinet, and when just lately he introduced his Bill for discussion in his cabinet, that these hon. gentlemen had well-known and pronounced views with reference to the question of education as it would develop in these new provinces. That is the only purpose my hon. friend had in view. The quotations which he made drove that fact fairly well home, so that the right hon. gentleman could not say that he did not know, in the absence of these two gentlemen, that their opinions had been firmly formed and plainly expressed. The startling thing about it was this-and it was not explained away by all the charmingdiscursiveness of my hon. friend yesterday. The question is : what is the constitutional practice when a Bill, having been discussed in the cabinet and agreed to or supposed to be agreed to there, is launched upon the House as the utterance of the government as a whole ? That is the question, and the startling thing about it is that the premier introduced a Bill for discussion in his cabinet, knowing the views of these two gentlemen in their absence, and with a haste that has not yet been explained. Engaged as it were, in a race for a goal with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior, he beat them by about two days and twelve hours-he got in ahead, and he launched his Bill. Now, the country and this House had no warrant for believing anything else than that that Bill in its entirety had been assented to and had the cordial agreement of every member of the cabinet. That is the point the country heeds, and that is the point my hon. friend the leader of the opposition makes. What has happened in this case is, I believe, unprecedented in the history of this parliament, and it is a

matter not of curiosity, but of right, that both this House and tbe country should know why this was and what it meant. Now, let me say a word or two with reference to the changed methods of my right hon. friend. Take, for instance, the British North America Act. The clauses in it with reference to education were framed to do what? To give legal effect to an agreement between thoroughly constituted bodies who under that agreement went into the pact of confederation. Each had a House with elected representatives from the people enjoying all the powers of a representative assembly. Those provinces came together as independent constituents, and they did not attempt legislation until they had made their agreement and asked that it be embodied in an enactment. Come to the case of the Manitoba Act. In Manitoba there was no representative body such as an assembly ; but how carefully the men of that time were minded to consult the constituent elements of that northwest country. Delegates were sent; the men were assembled; their views were got; the views were sent here; the views were communicated to the British government, and it was upon that tacit agreement or real agreement as to the wants and wishes of the constituent elements of Manitoba that the legislation was based which became fixed in law. How different has been the action of the right hon. gentleman in this matter. Whom has he consulted? Why, X think it is stated in his own speech that there were some reasons why he should not have granted autonomy two years ago or one year ago, and what are the reasons he gave?
That as we were on the eve of a general election, the time and occasion would he more propitious and more fitting after the general election when the Territories would have the benefit on this floor of a larger representation. These views were generally accepted. The elections have taken place and immediately after the elections, or as soon as was practicable thereafter, we invited the executive of the Northwest Territories to send delegates here to confer with us upon the measure which was to be introduced so as to admit them into the confederation. We have had the benefit of the presence of Mr. Haultain, the premier of the Northwest Territories, and Mr. Bulyea, one of his colleagues, and we have had the advantage of several conferences with them. We have had the advantage also of the presence and advice of several of the members from the Territories.
Now, in profession, what does this mean? It means that before this Bill was agreed upon and given to the House, the right hon. gentleman wanted to have all the representative opinion he could possibly get from the west. Did be consult it,? There are 500,000 people living in those two provinces, according to the statement of my right hon. friend. Is it on record Mr. FOSTER.
that he consulted those people before introducing this Bill ? There were a certain number of old and new representatives from the Northwest present in this House. Did the right hon. gentleman consult them with reference to this clause ? If he did, did they approve of this clause ? If they did approve of it, why all this bother since ? Why has the right hon. gentleman been held up? The right hon. gentleman also had an accredited representative of that Northwest country in the person of the Minister of the Interior, a gentleman who had travelled the west, who knew the west, who, before and from his first entry into this parliament had taken a very deep interest in this very subject. Did my right hon. friend consult him ? If so, how comes it that in a race for time, after he had beaten his Minister of the Interior by a few hours, that minister rose in his place in parliament and said to his chief : I never saw that clause until I read it after I came here ? Yet if there was any note in the right hon. gentleman's voice in 1895 and 1896, it was this. He will find it embalmed in ' Hansard,' in the pages of his press, in the hearts of his admirers, in quotations everywhere. What was it ? Translated into a few English words, it was this and nothing more : I want my people in Manitoba to bave separate schools, but I want them to have those schools by the voice of Manitoba itself. I desire to see these privileges retained for them, but I desire still more not to violate provincial rights. That was his note. There was none more dominant. How has he changed ? To-day he is an autocrat. To-day he rushes the Bill. Today he rushes the members of his cabinet, the representatives from the Northwest, and the representative council from the Northwest for he has not been able to state that he did confer with that council-a representative body if there ever was any-and that it ever gave its assent to this clause. In all these eases the old spirit has departed, the old method has been laid aside, and to-day we have in their stead the work of the autocrat, caring nothing for his Minister of the Interior, caring nothing for his Minister of Finance, caring nothing for the representatives from the west, caring nothing and consulting in no way the 500,000 people for whom we are legislating. That is a change to which I call the attention of this House.
There is another peculiar circumstance in this connection. On the introduction of a Bill, the usual method followed is simply to explain it, but when my right hon. friend was taxed with going beyond an explanation, he defended himself by saying that he did give and only intended to give what was a full explanation of the Bill. What is the purpose of having a Bill explained, especially an important Bill of this kind, on its introduction ? It is that the House and the country may become seized with its sa-

lient points so that before they are called upon to make up their minds to it, they may have the information necessary. I submit that it was not a lucid explanation of the Bill which my right hon. friend gave but an. impassioned argument in its behalf. On the one hand he professed the greatest concern that no old cries should be renewed, that no old issues should be called up, that the demon of discord, which had been laid in 1890, should not be roused again at this time, but I submit that the argument he used when he came to that clause was one he should not have made had he desired to live up to his profession. On what ground did the right hon. gentleman advocate his Bill ? It was not explanation but an argument which he gave ? He advocated it on the ground that separate schools were superior to public free schools or secular schools. He raised an issue which there - was no need of raising at all, an issue which, in the earlier part of his speech, my right hon. friend declared he did not intend to raise. But he forgot that intention and he raised the question of the respective merits of public free schools and separate schools, and gave the horrible example of the United States as an argument against public schools. There you have his argument and his illustration. He tortured the British North American Act of 1867 and the British North America Act of 1871 in order to get a legal ground-what for ? For an explanation of his Bill ? No, but to make strong his argument for the passage of his Bill. He tortured the shades of George Brown of illustrious memory, until I could almost hear the squeaking ghost of that eminent statesman fitting through the passages here, tortured and injured by the violent wrenching and twisting which the right hon. gentleman gave it. And in all these ways, instead of making a lucid explanation of the main feature of his Bill, he entered into an impassioned argument in order that his Bill might gain the assent of this House and the country. Well, the right hon. gentleman lias had to eat the fruits of his mistake. Just then, under the glamour of his speech, under his successful avoidance of certain points, under his equally successful exclusion of certain other points in that Bill, every man behind him applauded to the echo ; aiid if a vote had been called for then, every man would have risen to his feet-perhaps with one exception-and have voted for the Bill. He rushed the House for the time being, but he failed to rush it permanently ; and the disorganization and confusion of these ten days is abundant proof that the right hon. gentleman went further than prudence and good statesmanship justified. He taunted my hon. friend beside me (Mr. Borden) with deftly shaping his course. Well, I hope his course is more deftly shaped than that of my right hon. friend. He lightly told my hon. friend that he was seeking for hills of vantage and
strategical points, forsooth. There are hills of vantage but there are also valleys of humiliation. And it would be interesting to know who will head the procession through the valley of humiliation. Will it be the sturdy young Napoleon of the west with downcast eyes and drooping colours ? Or will it be my right hon. friend who in 1895 boasted that he possessed the courage which did not promise until he had made up his mind, but once his promise was made stood immovable as a rock.
Now, all these are questions which we cannot but be interested in-questions raised in this House and in the country. There is one other thing. Shall I speak of it ? Not content with rushing his Bill, not content with throwing aside his colleagues to rush his Bill, not content with proceeding without taking care to ascertain the sentiment of the west, not content with making his speech on the merits of the Bill and confounding it with a lucid explanation of the measure, the right hon. gentleman tried to rush the country as well. One of his colleagues In another place prepared a pamphlet, a remarkable pamphlet in some ways. It purported to be a ' brief history, from official sources, of the legislation respecting the separate schools since the year 1863 in the united province of Canada, and in the Dominion since confederation.' Now, as I said before, I have no fault to find, nor has any one in this House with the publication by the government of official information that will shed light upon this question. But this pamphlet is a partisan pamphlet. It does give the facts taken from 'Hansard,' but it does also colour them, and it does also argue the points involved. How does it colour them ? I do not suppose, for instance, that Edward Blake or George Brown, or any of these old worthies, some of whom have passed away, others of whom are still with us, in making their speeches, italicized certain parts of them, or altered them in double-leaded columns, to make the arguments impressive. But in the quotations from the speeches of these gentlemen every sentence that favours the contention of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is italicized or given emphasis which points the argument. It is not necessary for me to go into details. But when it comes to George Brown's momentous sentence, the maker of this pamphlet is not satisfied with italicizing it, but he puts it in bolder type, italicizes it and double-spaces it, in order that it may catch the eye and make the impression the compiler intended to make. And, when that is ail done, here is the argument with which it ends-not a quotation from Blake or Brown, not an abstract from ' Hansard,' but an argument from the pen of the maker of this pamphlet :
Under the Territorial legislation, the rights of the minority have in the past been recognized. It would be a breach of faith and a violation of the British North America Act to dis-

turb now the rights and privileges granted by the parliament of Canada thirty years ago and enjoyed by the minority up to this time.
Notv, I say that this Is not a very important matter, but it is significant. I say that no government has a right-and it is poor politics, I think, for any government to assume that it has the right and act upon that assumption-in giving what purports to be official information from the records, to endeavour, by the means I have explained, to point out the argument and lead to a partisan conclusion with regard to a measure that has been introduced.
Now, I have no more to say on this occasion. These are just some thoughts which occur to us. We wish them to sink into the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. We have no wish to dictate their policy ; but we would fain give them something for reflection, for calm and, if possible, fruitful meditation. This is our contribution, made with the best of intention and in the best of spirit, and in the hope that it will contribute to the benefit of the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my judgment, we are face to face with a most extraordinary state of affairs in This parliament to-day. We propose to put through an important measure affecting the destinies of practically half a continent under the leadership of a government that has not a representative of that half continent among its members. Under constitutional government, as we understand it, and as it has been carried out, the cabinet is composed of heads who have received the endorsation of the people before they enter upon their work that cabinet. And these cabinet ministers are chosen from the provinces according to the population or importance of those provinces. For instance, Ontario in the past has nearly always had five members in the cabinet, Quebec four, the maritime provinces at least three, one of whom was allowed for New Brunswick, another for Nova Scotia and, until recent years, one for Prince Edward Island. Thus every part of the Dominion was represented in the cabinet ; and when important questions came up in which any portion of the country was particularly interested, its representatives in the cabinet were supposed to have influence in swaying the government in regard to that matter. That has hitherto been the case with regard to Ontario and Quebec, and either of those provinces would rebel to-day if an important measure affecting its interests were before parliament and it were deprived of its due proportion of representation in the cabinet. But to-day we have practically half a continent without representation in the cabinet, notwithstanding that an important measure is going through that vitally affects the interests of that half continent, and that will seal its fate for the future. The only representative in the cabinet of that part of the country lias become so dissatisfied with the Mr. FOSTER.
measure that he has publicly declared that it cannot receive his support, and, rather than remain in the cabinet and assume any responsibility for the measure, he has resigned. The government have not dared to put themselves in touch with that great section of the country by appointing another member in his place. Is it because of the unpopularity of the measure or because no one can be found who will take the responsibility of it, as an in-coming member of the cabinet would necessarily do ? Or is it because of the dearth of public men from that country and the impossibility of finding any one in the ranks of the government supporters sufficiently intelligent to be a cabinet minister ? It cannot be the latter, because the government has many supporters from the Northwest, some of whom would be a credit to a cabinet. We are driven, therefore, to conclude that it is because of the unpopularity of the measure, and because the government dare not ask the Governor General to appoint a new minister and, by an electoral contest, allow the people of the Northwest to express their opinion upon the measure.
If they did so, in that election which must take place, this measure would undoubtedly be discussed, every phase of it would be discussed before the people, and the people themselves would have an opportunity to express an opinion on it. The government are in the humiliating position to-day-I am justified in saying so in view of what has transpired-that they dare not risk their reputation by appointing a new Minister of the Interior and sending him back for reelection before this measure goes through. So that great country is not represented in this cabinet, that great country is without a representative to voice their views with regard to this important measure. Is that not constitutional government run mad ? Is that according to the principles of the British constitution that we have heretofore carried out in the Dominion of Canada ? I say it is the very reverse. The government are today in the humiliating position that they dare not put a minister into the cabinet and ask him to go to his constituents and get their endorsation of his appointment and of the measure that is before the House to-day. Now in view of this condition of affiairs what ought the government to do ? in my judgment they ought either at once to fill that position, and give the people an opportunity of endorsing the appointment, and let this measure be discussed by the people themselves, or they ought to withdraw the unpopular part of their measure ; because, if I know anything about the sentiment of this country, especially of that part of the country which this measure will affect more than any other, it is I might say almost unanimous against the Bill, or at least the school clauses contained in this Bill that the right hon. gentleman has submitted to the House.



Mr. SPEAKER.: I presume the hon. gentleman does not propose to discuss the Bill at this present time.
Mr. 'SPROULE. If you will first allow roe to commence the discussion of the Bill, I shall then be happy to be called to order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I judged that the hon. gentleman was coming very close to a discussion of the Bill in the latter remarks he made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I mentioned the Bill as several speakers before me have done, and I assume I have a perfect right to do so, without discussing the principles of the Bill. I am merely referring to the Bill as a reason why the government do not till the vacant portfolio, and I am asking them to fill it so that the people may have a chance to express their opinion of it. When that Is done we will say that the government are acting according to the principles of constitutional government. I need not say anything with regard to another portfolio that has been practically vacant for a long time ; while we are voting large sums of money for that department to spend we are not carrying out the principles of constitutional government both during this session and last session. Until the government bring themselves in accord with the principles of constitutional government as carried out in Great Britain, we are justified in drawing their attention from time to time to their failure to do so. and in asking them to put themselves in accord with these principles which they have always declared they are desirous of upholding.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
National Transcontinental Railway-surveys, construction and other expenses, $1,328,500.	'
Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I am asking for this money to meet the necessary expenses in connection with the work of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission. The details of that sum are as follows :	For
salaries of commissioners and headquarters staff. $100,000 :	for headquarters rental,
$13,500 :	head office, stationery, furniture,
light, telephone, telegrams, travelling, incidental and unforeseen expenses. $25,000 ; for wages of men in connection with the different survey parties, $000,000 ; head office, district and divisional engineers' salaries. $100,000 ; supplies and commissariat, $425,000 : outfit and instruments, $20,000 ; freight and travelling expenses of engineers and transport of men. $45,000. These sums make up the total.


George Eulas Foster: Now suppose we raise the question, first, a very important one, before any of this money is voted, as to what information this House is going to get. We have tried on several occasions
* to get it, but have not been able to. The 1 thing has been thrown backwards and forwards like a rubber ball. We have incurred a large expense, and we are now to face a million and a third, and we have not a [DOT] scintilla of information as to what this commission has done, or the results of its labours, if it has done anything. If it has not done anything it has not justified its existence because the expense heretofore has been very great. If it has done anything we want a complete statement placed before the House as to what it is that it has done. We have debated the question casually time and again and it has been called to the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister and also the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals as to the fact that information does get out, but it does not get out to the members of the House of Commons and the country, because there is no medium of communication betw'een that commission and this House. We would like to have this matter settled first before we vote any money.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The commission is constituted under the Act of this parliament and it has certain work to do. It is to be presumed that it is attending to its duties. Now, until it has accomplished certain work, until the work is completed, there can be nothing to report. For instance, the presumption is that in the first instance it will have to look after the surveys. It is to have a road surveyed over the whole route. It will be taken for granted that that will take a certain time, and it will be taken for granted that there are certain preliminary surveys to be made. Now, until there is something to report, until it has the work completed which will enable it to lay before the Governor in Council a statement of the result, we could not naturally expect that the information would be placed before the members of this House. We must not anticipate too much. My hon. friend, I think, shows too much anxiety for this information. The information cannot be in existence. It is true that the general statement may be published in the press that the surveyors are meeting with success in finding a route, but until the finished work of the survey is placed before the Governor in Council it would not naturally be placed on the table of the House. My hon. friend, I think, has become somewhat involved as to the question of the means of communication between the commission and this House. There is no question as to the medium of communication. There was a question however as to the medium of communication between the Railway Commission, another and an entirely different commission, and this House. The question was as to whether the Department of Railways and Canals had any connection with that commission or any control over it. On this the terms of the Act seem to be silent. There is an implication in certain of the sections as

to the position of the Department of Railways and Canals in its relationship with the commission, but there is no direct statement or declaration as to the medium of communication between that Railway Commission and the House. But, Sir, in so far as the Transcontinental Railway Commisison is concerned, it is an entirely different body, and it is recognized by the Act that as soon as it reaches certain conclusions it must submit to the Governor in Council the results. Until it has done that I do not think any question can arise as to either its shortcomings or as to its not fulfilling the duties imposed upon it. I think my hon. friend has mixed up the two commissions as respects the medium of communication. The work started out and the commission has gone on with that work. It is only a few months since that commission was constituted. The results of the first year's operations and the results of the survey could not be given because they have not yet been completed. They would only be preliminary any way and these preliminary surveys are not yet finished.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know that the hon. minister has thrown much light upon it. We made an appropriation for the work and purposes of the commission last year. The greater part of it has been expended. Something must have been done with it, but in so far as we are concerned we do not know whether it was thrown into the Bay of Biscay or where it went. We do not have any too profound a confidence in the commission that these hon. gentlemen have created. Neither has the country. I do not think any commission ever was created with such important interests entrusted to them which commanded so little respect or confidence in the country at large. There is not a man on it who can claim to be an expert in any way or sense. There is not a man I know of who has had any peculiar or especial training or experience to enable him to undertake such a business as that. I am quite sure that no great railway corporation in this country would have picked any one of these men. I make that assertion and I let it go to this House and to the country and the good sense of the country and the House can say whether it is true or not.	None of them had any special
training. None of them had any of that large business knowledge, none of them had any of the technical and special knowledge, which, I think, are necessary to the men to whom will be entrusted the expenditure of nearly $100,000,000 of the people's money. Another thing which is almost equally important is that to them will be entrusted largely the construction of the road in its grades, curves, and location, because, I suppose, the government have confidence in them, having appointed them, and the government will take their recommendations. The government are not experts.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have not time to attend to it. This commission is specially charged with that work. The government have confidence in them, the government will take their recommendations so that there is not only the expenditure of $100,000,000 placed in their hands, but there is the location and building of a road which for all time will be one of the channels or media of communication in this country. As to its location, as to its grades, as to its curves, as to everything of that kind this commission have something to do, and I do not think as I said before that we have so much confidence in the commission that we can allow an expenditure of money to go to the year's end if we are to have no knowledge at all as to what has been done with the money we have given. The hon. minister says that you cannot ask for information until the work is completed. That is right in part and only in part. AVe do not want to ask for anything which cannot be had but we do want to know whether we are for ever and for all time to be bandied to and fro between an unwilling minister and an unresponsive commission so that between the two we get no information at all. That is the way the question strikes me. Now, how does it strike the hon. minister ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will tell my hon. friend how it strikes me. If my hon. friend can claim to have the sympathy not only of this committee but the sympathy of the whole House, I venture this assertion : ' That there is not a man in Canada who will stand up and make the same statements in regard to the commission as those which were made by my hon. friend. In the first place he has assumed that these men must necessarily be experts in the matter of construction and in the matter of engineering skill. I gather from his words


George Eulas Foster: I cannot help what you gather. I am only responsible for what I said.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I give the ordinary meaning of the English language. In the first place, let us take the chairman of the commission. I venture to say-and I challenge successful contradiction-that there is not an abler man in this House than that gentleman. He is not only an able lawyer but he has had large business experience and has had the management of a railway. He has had wide experience in railway transactions, he has had large experience in the business of the country, and I am sure that Mr. Wade as chairman of that commission has the confidence of not only those who know but the confidence of parliament. The others are all able business men ; they are men who have made their mark in their different sections, who enjoy the confidence of the people who know them, and I repeat that as a board jou can rake Canada over and I do not

think you could select an equal number of men who would stand higher in every way in point of integrity, ability and attention to their duties, than the men who constitute that commission. It would not be parliamentary for me to say that my hon. friend w7as not sincere in giving utterance to the sentiments which he did, and therefore I do not say that, but I am sure that a little reflection will lead him to conclude that in his desire to find something to say against the item, he has perhaps gone beyond what was justified by the facts. There was a vote of $500,000 last year ; I can give a statement of what was expended month by month since the appointment of the commission. I can give not only the expenditures but the liabilities incurred in each particular month.


George Eulas Foster: If the minister wishes to make a financial statement on this matter let us have it made all at once, so that it will be assembled in ' Hansard.' Will he give the names of the commissioners, their salaries and travelling expenses ; the names of the staff, their salaries and travelling expenses ; the rental of their quarters, and the provisions he has made in the way of private car conveniences for their transportation, because I suppose that 'some provision of this kind must be made. Then if he will give us the surveyors or surveys that have been sent out, their components and the sections of country that they have taken, we will be able to form some idea, with all this information, of where their activities are being employed and what ground they are covering. As to my own statement I listened with a great deal of interest to my friend's characterization of it; I do not retract a word of what I have said.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 1 would not expect you to ; you are too hardened a sinner.


Mr. OSLER.: I undertood the minister to say that this House can get no information in connection with these surveys until they are completed. I suppose the surveys will not be completed within three years from now at the earliest. Are we to vote money year after year for these surveys, amounting in the aggregate to $10,000,000 at least and not receive any information as to the progress that is being made or any information that is of interest to the country until the whole surveys are completed, and in the hands of the government because that is in effect what the minister said ? We want to understand this, because it is a most serious state of affairs if we are to understand the minister in that way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) has put a strange construction on what I said. My statement did not involve that we should wait until the whole line was surveyed. A gentleman like my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) must realize
that these survey parties have certain areas to cover and each district engineer would have a certain territory under his jurisdiction, and when he has completed his work his report would come in and it would be the subject matter for submission to the government of a report to this House. That does not say that the report shall be delayed until the whole line is surveyed, and until somebody else in the wilds of the north should have completed his survey.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think that is what will be understood from the minister's remarks.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend connected as he is with the board of directors of a railway company and knowing something about the reports on construction that come in, must know7 that they come in from different engineers, and that one engineer does not cover the whole territory ; that it is in divisions and districts, and naturally it would not be necessary to wait for the w7hole survey to be completed but until something in a concrete form could be reached by district engineers, or by a divisional engineer. There would not be anything for them to report to the commission and therefore nothing for the commission to impart to the government and to parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us when the surveys began, where they have been carried on, how7 many miles have been gone over in attempting to obtain a route, for example through New Brunswick, and so on, covering the ground in that way. We can hardly believe that this work has gone on to the extent of many hundreds of thousands of dollars and that the minister has allow7ed himself to remain absolutely ignorant in regard to this. I do not suppose the minister expects us to believe that; I do not suppose that position is consistent with the proper discharge of his duty as Minister ol Railways, and all we are asking is that even although the surveys have not been completed the minister should be good enough to put us in possession of that information which the minister himself has in regard to these matters. We, of course, know that ail the work is not being done by one engineer, the minister says it is being done by several engineers, but let us know what work is being carried on, even although it is not completed, and if any results, even tentative results, if I might so express myself, have been reached let us know7 something about them. There are reports in the press with regard to these lesuits ; are they authorized or unauthorized ? If authorized, it seems to me that parliament should be put in possession of the facts as early as the press, especially if parliament is in session.


Mr. HAGGART.: There has been an expenditure of $500,000. The minister comes dow7n and asks for a further vote of $1,-

368.000. Surely the House is entitled to a report from the committee as to the manner in which they have expended the $500,000 voted last year, and the manlier in which they intend to expend this $1,328,000. If, as the papers state, a first-class line has been found between Quebec and Moncton, the House is entitled to know it. If that is not so, the House is entitled to know that; or if there is any partial information on the subject, the House has a right to have it. We do not expect anything in a concrete form. What we expect, if the surveys are not completed, is information as to the direction in which they are being made, and how near they are expected to approach the gradients, curves and locations which were promised. It is perfectly monstrous to tell this House, as the minister virtually does, that we are not to have the information until after the surveys are complete. That is treating the House with perfect coolness and indifference.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I bring to the attention of the minister also the fact that section 30 of the National Transcontinental Railway Act, chapter 71, of the statutes of 1903 is in the following terms ;
The commissioners shall make to the Governor in Council through the Minister of Railways and Canals an annual report for the information of parliament, setting forth the receipts and expenditures of the year, and such other matters as appear to them tp be of public interest in relation to the said railway, or as the Governor in Council directs. Every such annual report shall he submitted to each House of parliament within fifteen days after the making thereof, or within fifteen days after the commencement of the next session of parliament, whichever first happens.
I remember that we had a long discussion in the session of 1903 as to the terms of this section, which seems to have been absolutely disregarded both by the commission and by the government as well as by the minster himself.


Wilfrid Laurier: How has it been disregarded?


Robert Laird Borden: Have we any annual report ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The commission has not been a year in existence.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see anything in the terms of this statute to the effect that the first report shall not be made until the commission has been in existence a year. I would take it to be the fair meaning of the statute that at the first session of parliament, after the commissioners had done any substantial work, a report of that work would be placed before parliament.


Wilfrid Laurier: I call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that Mr. HAGGART.
this commission, if I remember rightly, was appointed in the month of September last, so that hardly six months have elapsed since it has been in operation. The commission may have reports from engineers who have been in the field. Whether it is so or not I do not know. They may have received interim reports from the surveyors from time to time, but I question very much if when parliament opened in the mouth of January they had the material for a report. We must have a report at least once a year; it may be advisable, indeed, to have a report oftener ; but I do not think the commission can be accused of negligence because they have not yet sent a report.


Robert Laird Borden: If parliament meets again in January or February or March next, and a report is submitted then, it will cover more than one year, and it will not be an annual report in the sense in which the statute demands it. The terms of the statute I think require the commission to give a report of what they have done up to the present time. The fact that there may be no finality to their work is not a reason why they should not report what they have done. We are not asking for a report which contains absolute conclusions as to the line ; but inasmuch as they have had $500,000 placed at their disposal, and it appears that they have spent a considerable portion of that, and inasmuch as the administration ask for nearly $1,500,000 more for the coming year, we are justified in asking what they have been doing with the money placed at their disposal at the last session of parliament. That seems to me to be very reasonable, and I should have thought it would have engaged the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals before this.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The chief cause of complaint with reference to myself seems to be that I have not obtained a report with reference to plans and surveys. I may say to the House that the chairman of the commission told me that they had in course of preparation a report down to the first of January of this year, but that that report could not contain any information as to the surveys, beyond the fact that they were not complete.


Robert Laird Borden: If they have not completed any surveys, can they not at least tell us where they have been making surveys and what they have been doing with the money?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can get that information myself.


John Graham Haggart: Have you a report from them at all ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. I have a statement of expenditure.


22S6
[Stage Direction]
Mr. OS/LBR. It is surely an easy matter for the commission to report what they hare done up to the 1st of January. That is called for by the Act. I think the House is entitled to it, and I think this item should stand until we have that report.
George Eulas Foster: Judging from the remark of the hon. minister, he thinks it would fill the bill if he gave us certain information. That will never do at all. What we want is an explicit report of the commission. What has this commission been doing during the six or four months it has been at work ? Here you have a very expensive staff, upon what kind of work has this staff been employed during this time ? Why should there be any trouble about giving the information ? There is nothing secret about it. The directors of railway companies get reports from their engineers. This House is in the position of directors, and we want to know what our servants have been doing. Here is an important section of the Act which the Minister of Railways did not seem to have any knowledge of until this moment.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is not the ease.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, he did not see that it was carried out. It is on a par with the extraordinary lapse with regard to the Railway Commission. There was a law- put through establishing that commission, and no provision made for a report by it. That is an omission which my right lion, friend says will be made right by legislation. I think the Minister of Railways should let this item stand until he has a report of the commission, and he ought to have that in a very few' days. Has this commission taken over any of the reports made by the Grand Trunk Pacific and adopted them as their own and paid for them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That matter is now the subject of negotiations between the commissioners and the Grand Trunk Pacific. The chairman of the commission assured me only this morning that the report was in preparation and that his view of that see-t:on was quite in keeping with my own. I have the information as to the expenditure each month and the liabilities incurred month by month, and also as to the salaries. The only report, practically speaking, which the commission could make now, in addition to the information already in possession of the House, would be a general statement covering the points of survey, if hon. gentlemen opposite think we should wait for that, I have no desire to press this irem through.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Another reason why it is important this discussion should stand is this. When this report of the commission conies down, we will see under what headings they made it, and a discussion of this item will be most useful in directing how
the report should be drafted. It will be very important to have the schedules and the different lines of information defined which the House will expect from these commissioners every year.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Are the surveys proceeding from Quebec to Moncton ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.
Mr. 1IAGGART. The minister must have noticed in the newspapers the reports that the engineers have found a location between Levis and Moncton which fully justifies the expectation expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he made his statement concerning the road. Is there any report in the department of the survey of that portion of the road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: None whatever.


John Graham Haggart: Has the minister had a verbal report from the commissioners ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where was the report published to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) refers ?


John Graham Haggart: In many of the newspapers.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have seen the report that was so widely published, but it gave no authority for the statements made. Of course, I hope they are true, but it appeared to be a mere newspaper statement and not a quotation from anybody who might be supposed to know the facts.


John Graham Haggart: It was only a general statement that the surveys had resulted in the finding of a route that fully justified the statements of the Prime Minister.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have seen m the newspapers, and have heard in pri-! vate conversation, that between the Quebec bridge and Edmundston, not only was there a fine country, from an agricultural and lumbering point of view, but that it afforded a good location for the railway. But, although I have read and heard this statement, I am not aware that the government had any official information on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: The report I saw in the press purported, directly or impliedly to come from the commissioners. And they went to the length of saying that there was an equally good line from Edmundston to Moncton, and that the people of New Brunswick had really not known the interior of their province, but that it had remained for the engineers appointed by this commission to discover this route through that portion of the country. Of course, these reports may not have emanated from the commission, but the impression one received from reading them was that I have mentioned.
2287 *


Wilfrid Laurier: I have heard the same with regard to the interior of New Brunswick, but, I am sorry to say, that 1 could not connect it with any authority in which I could have confidence. Of course,
I should be only too glad to believe it. With regard to the other section between the Quebec bridge and Edmundston, that is stated to be a magnificent country.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Has there been a report ou the other section ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not aware that there is any report yet made by the engineers in charge of that survey, but, in casual conversation 1 have heard the hope expressed-


Edmund Boyd Osler: But not from the surveying party ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Are we to understand from the minister (Mr. Emmerson) that the reports coming from the commission will be laid before the House before going to the newspapers ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I presume they will come to the government first through the medium of the Department of Railways and Canals, and then they will be submitted to the House. But the gentlemen of the press are eagle-eyed and always on the alert. I do not know what they may gather from this report in its flight. They are certainly not likely to get anything until it reaches the government at least.
In the matter of the first item, we have asked $100,0U0, to meet the salaries of the commissioners and the headquarters staff. I have been asked for information as to the commissioners and their salary, and it wall be opportune for me to give it in connection with this item. Mr. F. B. Wade is chairman and his salary is $8,000 a year. Mr. Robert Reid is commissioner and he receives $7,000 a year. Mr. A. Brunet, commissioner, get $7,000 a year. Mr. C. A. Younge, commissioner, gets $7,000 a year.


George Eulas Foster: Where is he from ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From Manitoba. Mr. Brunet is from the city of Montreal.


Mr. BERGERON.: How many commissioners are there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Four.


Mr.   I@: There were three at first, but the number was increased.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Four under the Act as passed.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the Act as eventually passed.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister state in what capacity these gentlemen had previously served their country, or, if they had Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
not served their country, in what capacity they acted before their appointment ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Wade was a distinguished King's Counsel and a member of this House.


George Eulas Foster: And that reminds me that he rose in his place here, I believe, and declared that there was no inducement that called him to desert his people whom he represented in this House and who were so loyal to him, and accept a salary as one of the commissioners. He thought the suggestion that he was to be one of the commissioners was a slander and indignantly denied it. I wish the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) were here.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sure the country is to be congratulated upon the fact that Mr. Wade was induced to accept the position. I have very great respect for the ability of some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side, but I certainly will not place Mr. AVade second to any of them, or second to any one in the country, so far as distinguished ability as a lawyer is concerned, while I think that his knowledge of men and affairs and his grasp of the conditions of this country qualify him in a most eminent degree for the position.


George Eulas Foster: We will see how far that certificate will carry.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of course, that is only my opinion, and hon. gentlemen opposite may not agree with me.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, it must be understood that if my opinion of these members as railway commissioners is not high, I say nothing at all but what is respectful of them as men. We must keep the personal element separated from their quality as commissioners.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Wade had experience in connection with railway matters.


George Eulas Foster: What railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A railway in Nova Scotia.


George Eulas Foster: Which one ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not recall the name of it.


George Eulas Foster: That is strange.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not strange that I do not know the name of the railway, noils it strange that Mr. Wade had experience in railway matters. I believe he managed that road for seven or eight years.


George Eulas Foster: What road ?


Air. LAURENCE.: The Nova Scotia Central.


George Eulas Foster: Is that a trunk line ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) of course, lias not been in Nova Scotia and knows nothing about that province. The Nova Scotia Central is a road of considerable importance. I am informed that Mr. Wade has managed the affairs of that railway. But I think it will be conceded by hon. gentlemen opposite that Mr. Wade is a very excellent chairman, and fills the position with credit to himself and with Si eat advantage to the country.


George Eulas Foster: What is the length of that
line ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not say. I only know that he was connected with such a railway. Mr. Reid was a business man of prominence, I understand. Mr. Brunet, 1 think, was a banker.


Mr. INGRAM.: What is Mr. Reid's line of business ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know his line of business. If he has business qualifications, it makes little difference what business he is engaged in.


Mr. CLARE.: What salary does Mr. R.v-ar, get ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: $2,500. Mr. H. A. Collins is the secretary.


George Eulas Foster: The minister must not give Mr. Young the go-by. He has given au elaborate eulogy of the other three.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have already said that Mr. Young was a member of the Manitoba legislature for a number of years. Previous to his appointment, lie had been down to this parliament several times on public delegations. I think he was largely interested in the grain business. I cannot state specifically the occupations of each member of the commission previously, but only in a general way. If it is the desire of the committee that I should read over the names of ail the officials-Mr. Collins, secretary to the chairman gets, $1,020.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister follow hi.

 plan of making his comments on each one as to their abilities ?


Andrew B. Ingram: He surely must have had some special qualifications.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He has business ability, executive ability, judgment and tact. Many hon. gentlemen opposite who have ability- in certain lines may not have tact and judgment.


Andrew B. Ingram: He is accused of advising others to tamper with a ballot box.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not heard of that. I think perhaps that is within the imagination of my hon. friend.


Andrew B. Ingram: There is no imagination about it, it is a fact, and a sworn fact.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Brunet is a Monti cal gentleman, he was a banker there, and enjoys a very high position in the business circles of that city, and enjoys as well the I confidence of the citizens for his integrity. Mr. Young is from the west, a well known bisiness man, and for many years a member of the Manitoba legislature. Mr. Ryan, th - secretary of the commission, was formerly employed on the Temiscaming Railway.


George Eulas Foster: What is Mr. Brunet's age?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know- whether he goes beyond the Osier limit or not.


George Eulas Foster: I have understood he was about 62.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I hope my hon. friend has no idea of asking that he "be Oslerized.
I do not know what his age is.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would ask if Mr. Cowan is solicitor for tile commission, and if so, when his services commenced.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are not dealing with the Grand Trunk Pacific, but with the Transcontinental Railway Commission.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the committee can rely- upon the good judgment of the commissioners in selecting their clerks. They select their own clerical staff. Mr. Collin's is secretary to the chairman, and gets $1,020.


George Eulas Foster: Then the chairman has a secretary to himself ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Have there been any strikes on that commission so far ? We had a very sensational story about the other Railway Commission, that one of its eminent members felt aggrieved because he had not a typewriter all to himself, and it is said that he struck when the Council refused to give him a typewriter. There was rather an ominous cloud hovering over the commission and over a part of Ottawa for a time, sulphurous at periods. I believe ; but in due course of time as the recalcitrant hung on, the typewriter was delivered up, the cabinet came to terms and footed the Bill. Has nothing like that happened in this instance ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am afraid that the scandal monger and the gossip have too much the ear of my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend better not commence the scandal mongering business. Let him remember about people who live in glass houses.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Now my hon. friend need not make any threats. I do not want any difficulty with my hon. friend, but I want him to understand that I do not run away from him-he might as well understand that first as last. I think my hon. ' friend, in reflecting in this way on these gentlemen, and asking a question like that as to whether there are any strikes, does

not come up to the high ideals about which he lectures us on occasion. Surely to ask me a question like that is, while it may be humorous


George Eulas Foster: I took it as current history,
1 heard it everywhere.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I know nothing about that. Mr. John Neigborn is secretary to the commissioners Mr. Reid and Mr. Young. He gets $900 a year.


George Eulas Foster: Has the other commissioner a secretary ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Have patience. I do not want to go too fast. Mr. Paul Larocque is secretary to commissioner Brunet. He gets $800.


George Eulas Foster: Does lie speak French ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I should judge by the name that he does. I do not think he was born in Dublin.


George Eulas Foster: Is it not very unfair that you should divide one poor mortal between two of these commissioners and give one other commisisoner one to himself ? Why not one each ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend forgets that this commission is an independent body and that the commissioners have the right to appoint their own officials. When my hon. friend complains of their action- referring to the government, I assume- he is forgetful of the fact that this is not a question for the government. It is a question for the commission.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It must be a question for the country.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It may be a question for the country as to what the commissioners do. but it is not a question for which the government is responsible particularly.
' Mr. OSDER. It is necessary for this House to have all the information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Certainly ; you are getting it. But, the question was asked : Should we have the right to divide one man up between two and give one secretary to Mr Brunet ? I may point out that that is a question that has been determined by the commissioners themselves.


George Eulas Foster: But, there must be a limit. If these commissioners were to go on and make absolutely extravagant and uncalled for appointments there must come a time when some one will have something to say about it. This government in the end has to sanction these appointments, has it not ? They do come before the government in the end ? They must or else there would be no responsibility at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want to say that Mr. Larocque does all the French work and all the translation for the whole commisison in Mr. EMMERSON.
addition to the services he performs as secretary to Mr. Brunet. Naturally Mr. Brunet writes his letters in French. Mr. Heidman is secretary to and assists Mr. Ryan, the secretary of the commission. This man does stenographic and clerical work for Mr. Ryan and he gets a salary of $960. Mr. Ronan is a filing clerk and gets $840 a year. The total salaries of the commissioners, clerks and officials whom I have named, amount to $36,060 per year. Then there is Mr. A. L. Ogilvie. general purchasing agent, who receives $1,800 a year.


George Eulas Foster: What does he do ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He purchases the supplies in connection with the commissariat.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Where was Mr. Ogilvie before he became connected with the commission ? I do not know Mr. Ogilvie and do not for a moment suggest that he is not a proper man for the place, but this is the most important appointment of the whole commission. This is an appointment that ought to have a man above reproach. It is an appointment that ought to be paid four times that money. I think that the appointment of a purchasing agent at $1,800 a year is entirely wrong. The head purchasing agent is the key to the whole expenditure of that money and he should be a man who is well known, a man who has had experience in that business and he should be very well paid.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Ogilvie was employed in the Department of Public Works here for a great many years and was taken from that department because of his fitness and qualifications.


Edmund Boyd Osler: He should have a much larger salary than that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite agree with my hon. friend that a man holding that position should certainly be paid the highest possible salary because it is a very responsible position. Mr. White is the assistant general purchasing agent at $1,200 a year.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is he located?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think these purchasing agents are connected with the Ottawa office and that they go out from the headquarters here. Mr. II. D. Dandry is a stenographer at $840 a year, Mr. Geo. O'Reilly clerk at $700 a year and Miss Alice Seed, clerk at $300. The salaries of those whom I have last named in connection with the purchasing agent's department amount to $4,860.


Robert Laird Borden: In the return I have before me there are four purchasing agents mentioned as follows : Mr. A. L. Ogilvie, general purchasing agent, $150 a month ; Mr. F. W. White, $100 a month ; Mr. F. S. West. $125 a month and Mr. Alton $100 a month. Would the hon. minister be good enough to explain why it is that in the

initial stages of this work so many purchasing agents are required ? What do they do ? What is it that they purchase ? How much do they purchase ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The list which I have before me is for the estimate of the salaries of the commissioners and the headquarters staff for the fiscal year 1905, which commences on the 1st of July next. The list which the hon. gentleman has before him is a list of the officials who have been employed during the current year. As I understand the modus operandi in connection with the purchases of this commission, they have certain purchasing agents at different points. There is one in connection with the New Brunswick division. The .headquarters of that man is in Fredericton, and he makes the purchases for the different survey parties. These survey parties are located between Moncton and Connors, or the boundary line between Quebec and New Brunswick. Then, in the Quebec division between Connors and the New Brunswick boundary line, at Chaudiere Junction they have a man who looks after the parties along that portion of the route. Of course, these men have to make the purchases at different places and give personal attention to them. 1 think they ask for tenders. They make these purchases and inspect the goods* that are offered, and then they have to see to their distribution at the different points where they get into the hands of those in charge of the commissariat departments of the different divisions.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Are these four men independent purchasing agents or are they under the head of the general purchasing agent ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Ogilvie has general supervision.


Edmund Boyd Osler: He has control over all of them ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Because there is no more difficult position to fill than that of purchasing agent. There is no place where temptation is forced upon a man so much as in the position of purchasing agent under these conditions and it is absolutely necessary to have all the agents under the entire control of one head man. He must supervise all others or else you will get into terrible trouble.


Robert Laird Borden: I would gather that the condition is as the minister suggests. Mr. Ogilvie is the general purchasing agent at Ottawa. Mr. F. W. White, is the assistant and then there are two local purchasing agents, one at Fredericton and one at Winnipeg, Mr. Alton, who was appointed December 22, according to this return.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Before I get through the list I will probably be in a position to 74
recall the name. The next official is Mr. A. T. Gow, accountant, at a salary of $1,800; Mr. R. M. J. McGill, assistant accountant at $1,500 ; Joseph Clement, paymaster, at $1,200 ; W. It. Saults, bookkeeper at $900 ; A. Beaudry, stenographer, $840; Rod. Lagi-modiere, clerk, $720 ; R. H. Lang, clerk, $720. This makes a total of the salaries of these seven of $7,6S0.


Robert Laird Borden: There is one other on my list, H. Charlotte, at $840, appointed March 7.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The commissioners have furnished this as their estimate of what will be required for the next fiscal year. Then there is John O'Malley, messenger at $000, and E. Lefelivre, messenger, at $240, a sort of office boy. The commissioners ask also for additional clerical help estimated at $10,560, which makes a total of $60,000. -


Robert Laird Borden: 1 do not know anything about the necessity of all this clerical assistance. I suppose we are bound to assume it is necessary, but it certainly appears to be very abundant.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The work is very great, and from my observation I do not think they have an extravagant staff at all. I am speaking now from personal observation.
We have now the head office staff in connection with the engineers. Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden is chief engineer at a salary of $6,000 ; M. J. Butler is assistant chief engineer at a salary of $4,500; R. Fitzgerald ITniacke, chief draughtsman, at a salary of $1,800. That is an historic name.


Robert Laird Borden: And a very good officer. I know Mr. Uniacke.


Mr. EMMERSON A. M. H.@: Stimpson, is assistant chief draughtsman at $1,500 ; J H. Roy, draughtsman, $1,200 ; Owen P. Schreiber, $720; P. E. Wright, blue print clerk, $360 ; G. .T. Jones, secretary to the chief engineer, $960 ; Fred. Dillon, chief engineer's accountant, $960, and Fred. Mc-Court, stenographer, $840.
There are certain district engineers. There is Mr. Guy O. Dunn, district engineer, $4,000. He has the district between Moncton and the boundary line between Quebec and New Brunswick. W. P. Collins, accountant, $840 ; J. A. McDougall, draughtsman, $840 ; D. Harnett, stenographer, $720 ; C. G. Hobart, draughtsman, $720. That is district ' A.'
The next is Mr. Doucet's district, district ' B ' in the province of Quebec. Mr. Doucet, the district engineer, gets $4,000. S. R. Poulin, assistant district engineer, $3,000 ; A. E. Courchesne, draughtsman, $840 ; G. A.
S.	Campbell, clerk, $600 ; T. C. Bradley, stenographer, $600 ; C. F. Ross, commissary officer, $1,200 ; Jos. Martel, commissary offi-

cer, $1,200 ; Owen Moreucy, storekeeper, $720. That makes $38,120 for the salaries of the engineers and officials named on that section.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is this district so much more heavily officered than the preceding ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a longer district.


Robert Laird Borden: What is a commissary officer?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is a man who has to do with the portaging of supplies into the woods for the men. There is a district down there south of the St. Lawrence which is remote from settlement, and there is also the northern district on the north side of the St. Lawrence.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that there is no commissary officer whatever in the staff for district ' A.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think it has been found necessary; that district is not far removed from the base of supplies. At the Quebec bridge, E. A. Hoare is the engineer in charge at $2,100 ; H. B. Tourigny, a transit man at $1,320 ; E. H. Blocldey, a leveller, at $960, and there are five men at $480 each per annum.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand this item. What are we doing in connection with the Quebec bridge which makes a staff necessary?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We guarantee the bonds and it becomes a part of the eastern section of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the responsibility is on the commission of seeing that the work is properly done.


John Graham Haggart: Have the government taken it over yet?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. It is not yet completed.	.


Robert Laird Borden: I must confess I cannot see wiiy we should have a staff of eight men-an engineer, a transitman, a leveller, and five other men-for the purpose of seeing that the Quebec bridge is properly constructed. If we should have a corresponding staff on the line from Winnipeg to the coast in respect of which we also guarantee the bonds, it would cost the country an enormous amount. Is not this usually done by inspection after the work is completed?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The work in connection with the approaches at both sides of the river has to be done by the government.


John Graham Haggart: I understand that there is a contract, called a subsidy contract, entered into between the Dominion government and the local government and the company constructing the bridge, and under that contract it would be the duty of the Depart-Mr. EMMERSON.
ment of Railways and Canals to see that all the work is properly done. Is the bridge under the control of the Transcontinental Railway Commission or does it remain as it was?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The approaches to the bridge are under the control of the commission, but the bridge itself has to be completed. Of course, the subsidy in aid of the construction of the bridge would be entirely subject to the department, but the guarantee of its bonds as a part of the transcontinental railway would necessarily be under the control and management of the commission.


John Graham Haggart: I understood that the approaches were constructed under the subsidy contract the same as a bridge. How have you taken them over, and in what form has the commission let a contract for the building of them?
The approaches and the bridge were to be taken over under certain conditions from tne Quebec government and the company which at present possesses it. Have the government taken over it or a part of it?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, the government was not to take over the bridge, but it undertook to guarantee the bonds of Ifie Quebec Bridge Company. That company now ha$ to build not only the bridge but the approaches to the bridge from the vicinity of Chaudiere junction to the north side of the river. This is quite an independent enterprise with which we have nothing to do except that we are interested in supervising the expenditure of the money.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Order ;
Second reading of Bill (No. 103) respecting the Richmond and Drummond Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Tobin.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the fact that these Bills are not printed as shown on the order paper. The object of delaying the second reading of these Bills until they are printed is to give those who desire an opportunity of studying them, because the second reading endorses the principle of the Bill.


William Mulock: Not a private Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, practically it is so considered in reference to all Bills.


William Mulock: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And this Is the commencement of a practice that we should not

allow to go too far, because it is.easier to stop it now than later.


William Mulock: All the Bills that are being read are printed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The only evidence the House has that a Bill is printed is the order paper.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman will find this Bill on his file.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no right to look at the file, I have only a right to look at the order paper.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would like to inquire whether Bill (No. 101) to incorporate the Winding Ledges Power and Boom Company has been read the second time ?


William Mulock: It has been referred to the committee on miscellaneous private Bills. There will be every opportunity to discuss it.


Andrew B. Ingram: The last Bill I have on my file is Bill (No. 101).


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If objection is taken, I fancy these Bills will have to stand.


William Mulock: I do not think my bon. friends seriously object. I know nothing about any of these Bills, but any that are printed perhaps might be read a second time in order to expedite matters.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have on my order paper a memorandum that all these Bills are printed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not object to any one of them, but I am only drawing attention to what I consider, if it were to continue, would be a very bad practice, because it would make it impossible for the members of this House to consider any of these Bills before their second reading.
Bill read the second time.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway Company.-Mr. Smith.
Bill (No. 98) to incorporate the Imperial Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Belcourt.
Bill (No. 99) to incorporate the Title Guarantee and Trust Company.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 100) respecting the Guelph and Georgian Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 101) to incorporate the Winding Ledges Power and Boom Company.-Mr. Ccstigan.
Bill (No. 102) respecting a certain patent of the Gold Medal Furniture Manufacturing Company, Limited.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 103) respecting the Richmond and Drummond Fire Insurance Company.- Mr. Tobin.
74i
Bill (No. 104) respecting the Northern Bank.-Mr. Bole.
Bill (No. 105), to incorporate the Ontario Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Boyce.
Bill (No. 106), respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Black.
Bill (No. 107) respecting a certain patent of Celeste Joly.-Mr. Smith.	T
Bill (No. 108) to incorporate the Western l ife Insurance Company.-Mr. Anderson.
Bill (No. 109) respecting the Hudson's Bay and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 112) respecting the Hamilton, Galt and Berlin Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 113) respecting the Ontario, Hudson's Bay and Western Railways Company. - Mr. Dyment.
Bill (No. 117) to incorporate the Athabaska Railway and Oil Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 118) respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
National Transcontinental Railway-surveys, construction and other expenses, $1,328,500.	'
['If the order for private business is exhausted and we take up supply, we shall probably go on with Public Works or Marine and Fisheries.']
Henry Robert Emmerson: I was speaking of the Quebec bridge section. Though that is the caption, it does not cover the Quebec bridge only, but a section of the line. I find that I was under some misapprehension myself with respect to the section) thinking it was simply the Quebec bridge.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How long is the section ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no such section under the Transcontinental Railway Act as the Quebec bridge section.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this whole amount of money to be spent on that section ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, this item covers the whole eastern section between Winnipeg and Moncton. This line is divided into districts, one of which is the Quebec bridge district which comes after districts A and B which I have already given.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is for surveys, construction and other expenses. Could not the minister state what construction has been going on upon that bridge-I take it that this will apply to that work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Quebec bridge is distinct from this. The company build the

bridge. When they have the bridge completed, we have the opportunity of utilizing it in connection with the Transcontinental Railway. In consideration of this, the government guarantee certain bonds.


Mr. DANIEL.: Where does section A commence?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At Moncton, and runs to the Quebec boundary.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much has been already expended on that section?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not gone into that feature of it, I am only giving the amounts required for 1905-0, commencing 1st of July next. The other information as to the expenditure of this amount is contained in another section of my remarks. That information should be given in connection with some other information which will be included in the report.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When may we expect that report?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The chairman of the commission has informed me that it will be furnished within a few days.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the report contain all the information that the commission have in regard to surveys, and directions of su-veys, location and everything of that kind.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That information is all before the House, laid on the table within the last two or three days by myself, giving a statement of section A and all the different engineers in charge and the employees under them.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does it give any location or anything beyond the statement of expenses ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It must be borne in mind, as I have already stated, that these are mere trial lines that they have been running; the location survey will not come on until later, and until that is made the commissioners will not be in a position to give a report in a concrete form. As to that section they are now running trial lines. They are running lines down the valley of St. John river and across the divide which lies between the valley of the St. John and the Tobique; they are running lines from the Tobique valley up to what is known as the northwest Mi rami chi valley ; and lines down that valley to the southwest Miramiehi at Boiestown and thence to Moncton. They are also running trial lines down the valley of the St. John to Fredericton and thence across the country to Ohipman. These trial lines are simply a preliminary survey, and based upon them the final location survey will be made. Until that is done, the commission are not in a position to give information or to make their report favouring either one location or the other.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Before six o'clock the minister give us to understand that as far as the Quebec district is concerned, the men who had charge of that district were overseeing the Quebec bridge and looking after the government's interest there with reference to the bonds. Now, do I understand they have nothing to do with that part?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, they have a section by themselves. But, as I understand it, the duty will be cast upon the engineer in charge to make reports as to the progress of that bridge, and as to whether the law concerning it passed by this parliament last session is being carried out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then am I correct in understanding that we are not voting anything here for construction?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is not construction, it is simply 'surveys and other expenses.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ' And construction,' that is in it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That comes in at a later period.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is there either properly or not. If it is in properly, then we ought to know what has been done with regard to construction up to the present, how the money we have voted heretofore has been spent, and how the work is advancing ? But if it is not intended to use any of this for construction, the word should not be here.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, that word 'construction' should be struck out. I move that the item be amended by striking out the word 'construction.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can you properly do that?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You go before the Governor General with an item of expenditure, and he recommends it upon the grounds that this money is needed for two or three purposes, one is for trial surveys, another for engineers and another for construction. That is what appears in the account, and on the strength of that he recommends it. Now, you keep the whole amount of money, but you strike out the word 'construction,' therefore you can use all the money for other purposes and do no construction at all. It seems to me this is a peculiar way of handling the estimates after you have got the consent of His Excellency to the item.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: His Excellency, of course, would have regard to the details of the item. There is nothing in the items referring to construction, unless the surveys would be considered part of construction, or unless the incidental expenses connected

with surveys might be classified as construction. Of course there is this feature about it, that under the Transcontinental Railway Act. and under the Act relating to the Grand Trunk Pacific, the construction of this road would include the surveys and expenses incidental thereto, and the whole cost is to be computed in the rent of the line, and the Grand Trunk Pacific are to pay three per cent on the cost of construction, and, of course, surveys and other items would be included in the cost of construction. That is a mere matter of finance, a matter of construing terms.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That explanation may be of some use, but it is as clear as mud. What is the object of presenting these estimates to His Excellency at all for his assent? You require so much money to do a certain work; tlnrt has to be done on three different lines, a portion of that money is used for trial surveys, another portion for engineering and another portion for construction. Now. suppose you ask a million dollars, and you cut off two of the lines, the engineering and the construction, and you leave it all to trial surveys. Then you have a million dollars for trial surveys. If you had put such an item before His Excellency is it likely he would have consented to it? I have always understood that you could reduce the amount of the item properly without it being necessary to call his attention to it, but that where the amount was increased it was necessary to obtain his assent and this would be clearly increasing the amount of expenditure for one line.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The matter is very immaterial because as I understand the expenses incidental to the surveys are part of the cost of construction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much is the minister going to use of that for engineering, how much for trial surveys, and what will he do with the balance ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total amount in connection with the surveys and the railway from Winnipeg to Moncton will be ft,328,500. I wish to say that it is of course quite well understood that there are certain matters of information I am to bring down but which I shall have to obtain from the commission, and it might be well if I should allow the whole vote to stand until that information is procured.


Robert Laird Borden: We understood this afternoon that it was going to stand and perhaps it would be better to take the matter up a little later on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is quite in accordance with my own view and I would ask to have the item stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Quarantine, salaries and contingencies of organized districts, $150,000.


Mr. FISHER.: This item was before the committee a few days ago but I did not ask the committee to pass it then because I had not all the information about the expenditure. On going into the matter a little more fully I find I can reduce the item by $20,000 and move therefore the item be reduced to $130,000 instead of $150,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does this item include salaries of officers and officials at all the quarantine stations in the Dominion ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are the quarantine officers expected to give all their time to the duties of their office ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Those in the organized ports do. with few exceptions. -At St. John, we have one doctor and he gives the whole of his time to the work there ; his time is our time. At Halifax, however, there are two physicians and they are allowed to do private practice as well.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I ask the question because I was not aware whether the Agricultural Department is becoming completely militarized. I notice that the port physician iit St. John has been made the principal medical officer of the district; it seems that the example of the hon. minister is extending to his officials.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A good example.


John Waterhouse Daniel: And that the Agricultural Department is really getting very much mixed up with the Department of Militia and Defence. Would the fact of this officer occupying both positions not interfere with the performance of his duty ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not aware of what the hon. gentleman refers to exactly, but I take it that this is a military appointment and that it has been accepted in the same way as clerks in the military service and in other departments here become members of different military corps. It has not been the policy of the government generally in any way to interfere with servants of' the public taking part in the military service, but if it was a permanent office in the permanent. corps, it certainly could not be held at the same time as the office Unit he now holds in St. John.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is a permanent office as I understand it, and it is accompanied with an annual salary. The minister shakes his head, but I can assure him that what I am stating is the fact. I do not know how much of the time of this, official is taken up by his duties as principal medical officer. I presume, of course, that in attending a camp he obtains leave of absence, and the time so spent in camp might very well be spent under leave of absence. The principal medical officer of the district must have other duties to perform which I should

think would require an office up town. I do not see how the port physician who lives on Partridge Island could attend to the duties of an office that would require his presence in the city. I would he glad to hear from the Minister of Agriculture what the duties of the principal medical officer are, and then the committee would he in a better condition to judge whether the two offices were incompatible with each other in the same person.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The department had no knowledge of any such appointment. I_was aware that Dr. Marks was a militia officer. He has asked for leave of absence to attend annual camp on one or two occasions, wliicn has been granted to him upon his getting a substitute to do his work ; but I certainly think that a permanent office which would require his constant attendance for other purposes than that of quarantine would be incompatible with his position as quarantine officer ; but until I know what the office is and the nature of its duties, I could not say anything about it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I thought the Minister of Agriculture was quite familiar with the military ddties involved. The principal medical officer is paid an annual salary at $300. I do not wish the minister to suppose that I object to this gentleman receiving this additional office. I have no objection whatever. My point is whether the duties of the two offices are incompatible the one with the ether.


Robert Laird Borden: I observed an item in one of the Halifax newspapers the other day to the effect that a gentleman who had a hospital for the treatment of trachoma had disposed of it to the government and was now returning to his regular city practice. Is the minister able to tell us what arrangement the government had with this gentleman when he owned this hospital ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That matter, which relates to immigrants, belongs to the Department of the Interior, and I do not know anything about it.


Uriah Wilson: How many doctors are employed in this quarantine business, and has the Department of Agriculture any arrangement with the Department of the Interior whereby these doctors and the doctors employed to examine immigrants can work together ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no arrangement between the two services. The ships, when they come in, whether they have immigrants or not, have to obtain a free clearance from the quarantine doctors. They then come to the shore and land their passengers, and the immigration officials take charge of the immigrants and examine them. The diseases for which the immigration doctors examine the immigrants are not what are called Mr. DANIEL.
quarantinable diseases. Trachoma and favus, which I think are the diseases my bon. friend has reference to, are not what are called quarantinable diseases, and the quarantine doctors would not stop people who are affected with them ; but the immigration authorities have power under a special Act to do so. There is no concerted action, because the two services are for two different purposes.


Uriah Wilson: How many doctors are in the quarantine service ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have a permanent officer at Sydney, N.S., two at Halifax, one at St. John, one at Louisburg, one at Char-lottctovu, one at Chatham, N.B. Several of these are paid small salaries, and carry on their private practice as well. Then we have the Grosse Isle quarantine station, and the station at William Head, near the city of Victoria in British Columbia ; also an officer at Vancouver. These compose what is called the organized force. Then we have an arrangement with the Customs Department by which, whenever a vessel comes in with disease on board, the customs officer calls upon a local doctor and he is paid according to the services he renders.


Uriah Wilson: Has not the Department of the Interior medical men at all these places, and is it not imposing a double expense upon the country for both that department and the Department of Agriculture to have each its own medical officers at the same places. It seems to me that an arrangement might be made whereby one officer would do the work, and a good deal ot expense would be saved.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is quite possible that some of the doctors I have referred to might be dispensed with if some such arrangement were carried out; but so far there has been no combined organization. As we see the working of the two systems, we may be able possibly to work them together. I will remember my hon. friend's suggestion.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like the minister to explain to the committee the orders which are given to the quarantine officers with regard to the examination of ships arriving at any quarantine port in Canada-what directions the officers are required to carry cait, what vessels they are required to examine and what vessels they are not required to examine.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is rather difficult for me to answer all that off-hand. There is a pamphlet giving the rules and regulations under which all work is done, comprising probably fifteen or twenty pages of printed matter. If there is any particular point on which my hon. friend wishes information, I could give him the answer at once.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The matter is important. I know that sometimes these regulations differ from those in force at other times. Sometimes vessels north of Hatteras coming to my own port of St. John are not required tc be examined by the quarantine officers. So that as far as the quarantine by water goes, under those circumstances, we are not defended in any way against noxious or contagious diseases from those ports and occasionally we suffer on that account.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My. hon. friend is quite right in saying that the regulations differ a little according to the circumstances. When there is not known to be any epidemic in the States on the Atlantic sea-board, north of New York-New York and not Hatteras is taken as the extreme limit south for that purpose- those vessels are treated with respect to quarantine as though they came from our ports, and are not examined. Any vessels coming from ports south of New York are examined. If any epidemic disease exists in the sea-board states, vessels from those ports are examined. Lately there was a small-pox epidemic in the United States north of New York, and for a while vessels from there coming to a Canadian port were examined for small-pox. But that order has been rescinded because the epidemic there has disappeared. That was the only occasion lately when vessels from ports north of New York were examined.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What are the regulations in force in regard to cases of infectious diseases which did not make their appearance when the vessel was examined by the-quarantine officer but showed themselves a day or two after ? Upon what authority is thrown the expense of looking after any such case of infectious disease ? As we all know the incubating period of some diseases runs almost up to a fortnight, so that a person from New York or any other place might arrive at St. John or any other port apparently free from the disease and pass quarantine inspection, but after har ing been in the place for some days the disease which had been contracted in New York might break out. What is the policy of the department in regard to such cases ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When the vessel comes to port and is examined by the quarantine officer, if there appears to be no disease on board, she is given a quarantine clearance. The moment she receives that clearance and goes into a Canadian port she is held to be within the bounds of the province in which that port is situated, and the disease is treated the same as if it broke out in a house on shore. It becomes a provincial matter to be dealt with under the laws of the province. The Dominion government is not liable. A number of cases of that kind have come up and applications have been made for compensation, but the Department of Justice declared emphatically that
the government was not in any way responsible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did not the Dominion government pay a portion of the expenses in connection with a small-pox case in Winnipeg ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was the case of an infant. It was the Immigration Department which dealt with it and the vote was passed by parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister says that the government is not liable after the vessels gets a certificate of health. But two or three years ago a case of small-pox developed in Vancouver and the provincial authorities put in a claim against the government to be paid the expenses there. A similar claim was made in Winnipeg as well ; and to compensate for the heavy expenses the local authorities were put to by these immigrants suffering from small-pox, something was paid by the Dominiou government, but whether paid through the department of health or the Department of the Interior, I do not know.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not remember the exact case referred to, but I know there was such a case and payment was made. There were, however, other reasons. My department was told by the Department of Justice that we were not responsible, but the matter was taken up on different grounds entirely afterwards-on the ground that these people were immigrants and should be looked after by us. We have been paying for years a contribution to the Winnipeg hospital because they deal with immigrants and take care of them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A vessel containing immigrants passed the quarantine officer at Halifax and got a clean bill of health, but by the time these immigrants reached Port Arthur small-pox broke out among them. The disease was carried on to Winnipeg and spread there to other parties. The contention was made that as the vessel had passed tlie quarantine at Halifax the Dominion government was responsible. Had the Dominion government done its duty, the municipality would not have been put to the expense it had to incur to quarantine the patient. I do not know that on that ground they could successfully prosecute a legal claim, but they contended that they had an equitable claim and we paid them something.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the minister pay for quarantining by land-by railway? Would the minister tell us what the orders are that are given to the gentleman who carries on this duty at McAdam and Vanceboro occasionally ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: What work is done along the frontier we do there. When there is an epidemic in the United States we put on temporary officers along the frontier and

adopt the best means we can to shut out the disease. There are a number of regulations here, which, however, refer to the ordinary practice when there is no epidemic and when we have no special officials. But when there is an epidemic, temporary officers are appointed. Recently, off and on, for about two years, there was an epidemic of smallpox and these temporary officers were appointed. It was their duty to board the trains and examine passengers. It was a fairly complete but still, perhaps, not absolutely perfect examination in every case. Where the person came from a place where our officer knew there was disease, the newcomer had to show he had been vaccinated or else he vaccinated before he could be allowed to come in. If he came from a place where there was no disease reported or known to exist, he was examined to see if there was sign of disease and then allowed to proceed. The officers were employed by the month. Where and when the disease died out the officers were released, and, if the disease again became epidemic they were taken on again. That was the ease more than once at McAdam Junction. These officers were paid $100 a month when they were at work.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who gave the directions as to the duties of these officers? Was it tlie director general of public health, Dr. Montizambert ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE.: Referring to the subject of the development of disease on the ships after they have received a clean bill of health, I think it my duty to bring to the notice of the minister a case that occurred in my own town of North Sydney, in the month of May, 1902. A fishing schooner called the ' Arthur Binney ' left Gloucester Mass., on the 16th of May, 1902, and, because of stress of weather or some other reason called at Liverpool, N.S., on the 20th of the same month, and, after remaining at Liverpool for a few hours cleared for the bank off the coast of Gape Breton. On the 30th of the same month, she came into the port of Cape Breton with small-pox developed on board. This schooner had a crew of twenty-four or twenty-five men. The quarantine officer went aboard and discovered one of the crew down with small-pox. He immediately, as was his duty, communicated witli the Department of Agriculture thinking he would be instructed to look after them. Of course, he received the same answer which the minister-I suppose quite properly according to the law has given here to-night-that, as the vessel had touched in some point in Canada the government of Canada was not liable for her bills or charged with any duty In respect of her. After considerable negotiations we, as a town, were obliged to look after that crew for over a month. We had to put some in the hospital Mr. FISHER.
and to hire a tug-boat to stay with the vessel for the whole time, and incurred expenses of over $1,000. Now, I think it will be perfectly clear that, wherever the responsibility ought to be, it is not the duty of a small town on the sea coast of Nova Scotia to be liable for matters of this kind. There is no doubt that the government of the United States, and, perhaps, the fishing company to which this vessel belongs, would be pleased to pay these expenses if there was some constituted authority that had power to deal with them. But we as a town would not be recognized in dealing in a matter of this kind. We have to pay this bill even if we never get a cent of it hack from any person. I quite understand that the minister's answer is according to the law. But I would respectfully suggest that it is not a safe condition of the law. It so happened that this vessel came to our town, and we were able to deal with the case. But if she had been in the lakes, in the interior waters of Cape Breton, she might strike simply a municipal district where there are no appliances or facilities to deal with such a case. The conditions would have been very bad indeed. I think the law should be changed and some regulations made by which the government, or some other authority which is able to deal with the matter within the towns and municipalities, should be put in a position to look after such cases. This, of course, is a comparatively recent case-1902-but there is no telling when another such case may arise, particularly in our harbour where hundreds of these American vessels come in. And I think it is, perhaps, the duty of the minister to see to it that some regulation is made either by his department or by the Marine and Fisheries Department, by which cases of this kind can be properly looked into. I have thought that some means should be found, either by negotiation with the government of the United States, or in some other way, by which our town may be recouped for this expenditure. I do not think it is fair that we should be obliged to expend over $1,000 out of our small funds lO pay the expenses of a foreign vessel that should look after herself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I rememoer something of the case, and remember that I inquired about it. As my hon. friend said this American vessel had cleared from a Nova Scotia port before reaching Sydney. Consequently under quarantine law and shipping procedure she was a coast-wise vessel within the bounds of the province of Nova Scotia, and, under our practice as well as our law all matters pertaining to public health within the province, are under the jurisdiction of the provincial authority, and they alone are responsible. In this case it was not a question of a vessel passing quarantine or anything of that kind. She had to be dealt with because she was within

the Nova Scotia boundaries and bad gone from one Nova Scotia point to another. So, though she happened to be an American vessel, a foreign vessel, yet, according to sea rule as I understand it, she was a coastwise vessel. If she had come into the first port with the disease aboard, it would have been our duty to look after her as she came from a foreign country. But she was cleared from there as having no disease aboard. When she came to the second port she had the disease aboard, contracted, apparently, within the province. At any rate, by quarantine practice as well as law, we could not control her or have anything to do with her. Therefore, it was a matter to be dealt with by the provincial authorities as could best be worked out. There will be occasional cases of hardship in that way. The Department of Justice and the government felt, in considering this case, which they have carefully done, that if we once began any departure from the clear law, we shall be involved in endless considerations of the merits of each individual case, making it difficult, if not quite impossible! to know where to draw the line.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister states there was a quarantine physician at St. John. I notice in the Auditor General's Report that another medical gentleman, Dr. Scammeli, was there for a mouth at the rate of $4 a day. Was he taken during the holidays given to the regular quarantine physician ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I know Dr. Scammeli has taken Dr. Marsh's place on one or two occasions. It was possible he was acting while Dr. Marsh was away on leave of absence.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Twenty-seven days.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It must have been under a leave of absence, because we never appointed a second officer there.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it usual to give quarantine officers one month out of twelve leave of absence?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not the practice.
Health of animals, *150,000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is for the general animal quarantine service, the examination and p otection of our live stock from the importation of disease. It also covers the expense of dealing with disease in the interior of the country, and doing the quarantine service at the ports and boundaries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you submit ail importations to the tuberculine test?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We test all importations for breeding and dairy purposes, but not for slaughtering, as we did before. We keep them ninety days in quarantine.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you do witli animals where the tuberculine test shows a temperature indicating tuberculosis?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We ear mark them and stamp them in such a way that they will be shown to be affected, and then the owners take them away.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Wrhat is the use of going to the trouble of testing at all if, after you ear mark them, you let the owners take them away and do as they like with them?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the owners take them away with that ear mark they cannot sell them without the purchasers knowing that they are affected. If people buy them they do so with their eyes open.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I imagine we ought to have two objects in view in attempting to carry out quarantine regulations, one is the health of the animals in the country and the other to stamp out certain contagious or infectious diseases. If it is worth while to examine at all, and if it is found that the disease exists, it seems to me that we are not doing our duty if we do not go further and prevent the animals from coming in and remaining in the country, because one will affect a great many more.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it not the law that all cattle that are imported are placed in quarantine for a certain number of days?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: At how many places in Canada are there such quarantine stations?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Halifax, St. John, Charlottetown, Levis, Vancouver and Victoria.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What staff has the minister at each of these places?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have a surgeon at each port and a staff for looking after the animals. These are permanent appointments.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: How about the range cattle coming in from Montana?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are certain customs ports along the American frontier which have been selected as convenient for the importation of live stock, and it is only at these ports that live stock can be brought in. He will find a list of these ports on page 175 of the departmental report.
The following customs ports are hereby declared to be animals quarantine stations, and all animals imported into Canada subject to quarantine must be entered through such stations, viz.: Halifax, N.S.; St. John, N.B.; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Quebec, Sherbrooke and St. Johns, Quebec ; Niagara Falls, Windsor and Sarnia, Ontario ; Emerson, Manitoba ; North Portal, Wood Mountain, Pendant d'Oreille, Coutts and Cardston, N.W.T.; Gateway, Ross-land, Nelson, Grand Forks, Vancouver and Victoria, B.C.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Does this item include the money expended under Order in Council passed on the 4th of March, 1904, and the regulations relating to mange ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Where are the particulars of that expenditure to be found ?


Mr FISHER.: The expenditure for May has been made almost entirely this last summer, consequently there is no report of it yet. That will appear in the reports of the coming year, and in the Auditor General's Report for the coming year.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I understand that cattle come across at places other than Coutts, Pendant d'Oreille and AVood Mountain from Montana.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If my hon. friend will look at the report he will see that besides those ports I have already spoken of, which are quarantine ports there are also inspection ports. But, I am just reminded that there are none of these in the Northwest Territories. These are in other parts of the country.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What I desire to point out is that an Order in Council was passed in June, 1904, requiring the owners o!' cattle within a certain area to dip their cattle. This not only included cattle that were actually infected with mange, but cattle that were liable to become infected. As I understand it cattle are coming across from Montana into Alberta and no precautions are being taken to prevent cattle affected with mange from coming across. I want to know what precautions are taken at the border in regard to these cattle.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are no cattle coming1 across that are being entered at all in our country. There is a certain amount of drifting from one side of the line to the other all along the frontier. There may he an occasional drifting of the animals from the other side of the line to our side. We d< the best we can to prevent that, and I believe at the present time there is an arrangement being made to take immediate steps to put a fence along the line, but this has not been done yet, and until it is done I do not know that there is any absolute way ol preventing a certain number of range cattle drifting from one side of the line to the other. There is no entry of cattle through the custom house except through the ports I spoke of. I do not know if that is what my hon. friend referred to or not.


Mr.   M.@: iS. McCarthy. What I desire to point out is that cattle come across, but by this Order in Council an expenditure is placed upon the ranchers of Alberta amounting to something like $100,000 to guard against this infection. Cattle are coming across iDfected with mange and are mixing with cattle which were dipped pursuant to this Order in Council last fall, and no precautions have-been taken to prevent it. That Order in Council provides that all the owners of cattle within a certain area shall dip these Mr. m. s. McCarthy.	'
cattle to prevent the spread of this disease, Tn that case precautions should be taken to see that all cattle which are brought across from Montana which are liable to be affected with mange are treated in the same way.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is quite right. Any cattle coining across from the other side and entered at the custom house are dipped. As a matter of fact quite a number of American cattle that have drifted across have been found and dipped before they were returned to the other side.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Where are they dipped ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: At Pendant d'Oreille, Coutts and Wood Mountain.


Air. W. .: 1. ROCHE. Are those government vats there ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, wherever we have a quarantine station we have a vat for dipping.


Air. AI  S.@: McCarthy. Do cattle come across at other points ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, they cannot be entered at the custom house at other points.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. But, there are cattle coming across that are not entered at the customs. Every settler is entitled to bring in a certain number of cattle free of duty.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that settlers have to come to these quarantine points when they bring in live cattle and that they have to make entry of them.


Air.  M. S.@: AIcCARTHY. Yes, but does not the hon. minister see that cattle come across at places other than the four points which he has mentioned. He has given the names of four places where there are dipping vats.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that there are dipping vats at five places.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: When were they constructed ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Last summer and fall. They are at Wood Alountaiu, Pendant d'Oreille, Coutts and Cardston and one is under construction nocv at North Portal.


Air. W. J. ROCHE.: Is there any on the Alilk River range owned by the government ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that that is at Pendant d'Oreille. There is to be another at a place called Ten Mile, south of Alaple Creek. It is not yet constructed.


William James Roche: Who constitute the Alilk River Ranch Company ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know anything about the ranch company, but I can find out.


William James Roche: I understood the hon. minister to say that there has been no fencing done along the line as yet.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so. I have understood the Minister of the Interior has discussed that question and I was told not very long ago that it was decided to be done, but I know the government has done nothing yet. I think some private individuals have.


William James Roche: There has been some fencing done.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, but it has uot been done by the government.


Mr. McINTYRE.: When cattle are brought in and die in quarantine does the government bear any share of the loss ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, if an animal dies in quarantine the government bears no share of the loss.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I will have to trouble the hon. minister to let the committee have the dates when these vats were built by the government. I had no knowledge of any government owned vats.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that the three at Pendant d'Oreille, Wood Mountain and Coutts were finished before the dipping commenced. The one at Cardston was not finished until later.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Were cattle being brought in at Cardston without being dipped ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Why not ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because I do not think they were allowed to come in without being dipped.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Cannot the hon. minister let the committee have the dates when these vats wer? built ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not the exact dates.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: The hon. minister tells us that these vats were built last summer and fall. This Order in Council required all the owners of cattle-and it was a matter of considerable expenditure to the ranchmen in that part of the countrv- to dip their cattle before the end of October. If range cattle affected with mange were coming in from Montana after that date and running and mixing with cattle, and ranchers had to go to the expense of dipping even although there was no sign of mange in their herds, but which were simply running in the area in which the officials of the government thought there might be some danger, what was the use of putting these men to that expense ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that there were no cattle allowed to ue brought in
without dipping after the period of the Order requiring them to be dipped.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What was the period of the Order ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The 1st of October.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. There was an Order in Council passed on the 4th of March,
| 1904. There was a subsequent Order in Council passed in the month of June calling ! on the owners of cattle within that area to comply with these regulations. Does the minister mean to say that no cattle came in after the 4th day of March ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There was an order of the department, by the Act I have power to issue orders, requiring all cattle to be dipped.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What is the date of the order ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The 9th of August. That was the order describing the districts with! in which cattle had to be dipped. It referred to and continued the Order in Council dated June 27, which, I suppose is the Order my hon. friend had reference to a few moments ago.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I referred to the one of March 4th.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The one of March 4th is simply the issuing of the regulations. , The Order in Council of June 27th provided certain rules and regulations. Then this ministerial order was issued giving a description of the areas in which animals should be dipped and giving the details of the necessary precautions. The Order of August 9th required that all animals should be dipped between the 1st of September and the 31st of October, and I am informed that after November 1st, the end of the time of year specified, no range cattle were allowed to come in from the United States w'ithout being dipped.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it customary to furnish rifles and rubber boots in the cattle quarantine department ? I notice that it is only in Ontario that these are furnished ; the men in the other provinces have not made application for them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that where the men are slaughtering hogs for hog cholera they require rubber boots in order to be able to wash them so as not to carry infection from place to place as they would with leather boots ; they wash them in a disinfectant. The rifles are used for slaughtering the hogs.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How many stands of arms has the minister ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know the number.


William James Roche: This Order in Council requiring the dipping of horses refers to

all cattle whether they have mange or not. It is a compulsory annual event.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: But what Is the guide ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The existence of mange in the district.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. That was just what I was referring to. The ranchmen who have range cattle have to construct these vats at their own expense and they do the dipping at their own expense and have to do it whether or not there is any mange in their herds.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: Just because they are in a certain area. What is the system of inspection ? Has the minister certain inspectors and how are they paid ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All that work has been done under the Mounted Police. The areas are fixed by the inspectors upon reports of mange existing in the area. That area is defined and fixed by the ministerial order referred to, because there is mange known to exist in that area. I may say that the Western Stock Growers' Association at Calgary passed a resolution endorsing this proposition and declaring that they desire this to be done. I may say that for some years past the mange has been increasing amongst the horses on the western ranches and it has been a very serious impediment to stock growing. It is only because it was felt to be a necessity to take extreme precautions for the purpose of stamping out the disease that this system was adopted, and the veterinary authorities believe that by doing this for a year or two we can stamp out the disease. I may say that it has been quite successfully carried out this year. When the order was given I had no expectation of being able to carry it out. I appreciate that it is only when it- is fully followed up that results can lie obtained, and I believe that next year when this has been carried out again not half as much mange will be found in the district.


Mr.   W.@: ,T. ROCHE. What is the composition ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Sulphur 2 pounds, oil of tar 8 ounces, raw linseed oil one gallon ; that is the hand dressing. The immersion, the dip is a solution of lime and sulphur of a strength of not less than 40 pounds of lime, and 24 pounds of sulphur to 100 gallons of water. This is to be applied at a tempeature of not less than 100 degrees or more than 120 degrees Fahrenheit, the treatment to be repeated within 20 days.
'Mr. DANIEL. How many dips does it require to cure the disease : is one sufficient ?
Mr. FISHER, It has to be repeated in about 10 or 15 days.
Mr. /M. S. McCarthy. Have you the resolution passed at Calgary ?


William James Roche: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.
Mr. iM. S. MCCARTHY. Did I understand that this resolution fixes the dates within which the dipping was to be done ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed it did mention dates.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. Where can I get a copy ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In the department.


Air.  M. S.@: McCarthy. It seems to me that when you require the dipping of cattle at a temperature of 100 of 105, considerable risks are taken in dipping in the latter part of October, and I would be surprised to hear that these dates were selected at a meeting of the stock association. Reference was made to an increase of mange within the area mentioned, practically all in Alberta. I think on investigation it will be found that the increase was due rather to faulty regulations at the border and the admission of diseased cattle in Alberta. No one knowing the facts would suggest that there has been an increase in mange there by reason of the way it has been looked after by ranchers in Alberta.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I may say to my hon. friend that of 411,000 cattle which have been dipped, but 170,000 have received the second treatment up to the date of this report, which is a little before the end of October, and we had no reports of any harm having been done to any of these cattle. My hon. friend speaks of the fault of the arrangement. I do not attribute any fault to anybody ; I am only stating the fact that last season there was more mange than there was in previous years, and greater necessity for dealing with it. How it came about I am not prepared to say ; but I do say that the attention to the frontier has been far greater during the last few years than it was before.


William James Roche: I understand that an arrangement has been made between the Agriculture Department of this government and the Manitoba government in reference to the health of animals in Manitoba. Would the hon. minister explain the nature of the arrangement that has been entered into?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There has been a good deal of discussion as to the health of animals in Manitoba, and there seems to be a good deal of difference of opinion as to whom to apply to. Applications had been constantly coming to us in regard to cases which have been before the local authorities, and in the same way I suppose applications had been coming to them with reference to cases as to which appeals have been made to us. The consequence was that in the last season I instructed the chief medical officer when visiting Manitoba to discuss the question with the local authorities there, and an

amicable arrangement was come to by which we practically take charge of all the work in regard to the health of animals in Manitoba.


William James Roche: Would the minister explain the difference between the system that has been in vogue up to the present time, and that which will be pursued in future under this government?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend of course knows that we have had always to deal with the frontier of Manitoba, and the question was with regard to the interior of the country. I cannot describe minutely the difference of treatment, but our officers have been all over the country testing with the mallein test horses which did not show symptoms of glanders, but which had been in contact with the diseased animals and were in danger of infection. We gave the owners of these horses an opportunity to have them tested a second time in strict quarantine and also a third time. My hon. friend knows that it is hard to convince a man whose horse looks healthy that it is diseased, although the mallein test shows it conclusively. If a horse did not react under the test, he was of course freed, but there was supervision of it for a little longer. If it reacted a second time, the owner was still allowed to keep it for a while longer, and it was tested a third time. If the horse was then found to be diseased, the case was regarded as hopeless and the animal killed. I do not think that arrangement was ever carried out under the old administration in Manitoba. That is the chief difference.


William James Roche: For the purpose of these tests is the province divided into districts, witl) different officers in charge of different districts, or have you a provincial officer who instructs the various veterinarians throughout the province to go and make the tests where required ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is done through our officers, but the province is divided into districts. We do not assign any particular officer to any particular district. We have a chief veterinary, C. D. Macgillivray.


William James Roche: How is he paid?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He gets $1,500 a year.


William James Roche: Has he the appointing of the local men?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. He has the assigning of one of the other officers to a particular case, but he does not appoint them.


William James Roche: There is no arrangement then entered into with the local authorities by which the officials who have been looking after this work in the past are to be continued?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In regard to the mallein test for horses and the tuberculin test for
cattle, has the minister any report of the number of imported animals that have been found affected, or is any trace kept of them after they come into the country? The hon. gentleman says the officers earmark them and let them go. That is something like yelling mad dog at a dog and letting him go. Is any watch kept over the cattle afterwards to see whether they have developed tuberculosis or not, or are they allowed to go until they die?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have of course from our different quarantine stations a complete record of all the animals that react under the tuberculin test. For a number of years back there has not been a case of a horse imported from Europe being affected with glanders. I am told that two coming from the United States have been rejected at the frontier of the Northwest Territories and Manitoba. I will just give a list of the animals tested for tuberculosis. Of those imported from Europe and tested in the quarantine, 191 in number, 52 reacted. That was to the 1st of November last. During the year there were tested for export 427 head of Canadian cattle of which 30 only reacted. That is a very creditable showing for Canadian cattle going abroad as compared with foreign cattle coming in. Only about 8 per cent of cattle exported reacted while 25 per cent of the importations reacted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you mean by the earmark ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A piece is cut out of the ear in the shape of the letter ' T ' just as the herdsmen have the fashion of marking the ear for numbering the animals under ordinary circumstances.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that one of cur members, who is absent to-night, desires to discuss this matter, and I would ask that the item pass subject to the right of any one to discuss it again on another item.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite willing to agree to that. I will have to ask for a supplementary item for this year on this subject and everything can be discussed when that comes up; but if for any reason any one wishes to open the discussion on another item, I am quite willing.


Uriah Wilson: Why is there a grant of $4,000 to the Winnipeg and Boniface hospitals and not to other hospitals ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I explained already, when that item was up, that this is a continuance of an old grant made many years ago for the first time to those two hospitals. There was then no hospital west of Lake Superior until you reached British Columbia except those two. The grant was made to them because they were taking care of the immigrants.


Uriah Wilson: Then it should go under the head of immigration.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Being a hospital grant, it has been from time immemorial under the head of quarantine and public health.


Uriah Wilson: Does the hon. minister purpose continuing it from year to year simply because it -was done some years ago ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They still do that work. Anybody who has been less than a year in the country is looked upon as an immigrant, and any such patient is attended to in the hospital and a record kept of the number of immigrants who have gone through its wards. A certain amount is paid per day for each such patient.


William James Roche: This refers only to immigrants ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you call that a 'marine hospital ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not think it was customary to subsidize any but marine hospitals.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the only one I know of.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will be the government business on Monday ?


William Stevens Fielding: If the order for private business is exhausted and we take up supply, we shall probably go on with Public Works or Marine and Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 13, 1905.