1909-03-31

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to lay on the table a copy of the notice sent to all the officers of the Department of Public Works charged with the purchase of materials and supplies and the certifying of accounts for the same, under the different branches of the chief architect, the chief engineer and the superintendent of telegraphs. One of these notices was sent to the chief engineer's staff on September 16, 1908, one to the chief architect's staff on December 18, and one to the superintendent of telegraphs' stall on December 18. As the notices are all in the same language, I need read only one:
Sir,-I am directed by the hon. the Minister of Public Works to call your attention in a special manner to the question of purchase



of materials and supplies required for the use of the Department of Public Works, and which are obtained either by yourself personally or under your supervision, and to impress upon you the necessity of exercising the greatest care and caution in obtaining same at the very best possible prices, and that the most careful scrutiny should be given to all accounts before certification.
I am also to caution you emphatically regarding the acceptance of any gifts or favours of any kind at the hands of contractors or merchants with whom you may have dealings on behalf of the department and, further, if any such transaction should come to your knowledge, that it is your duty as an official of the department to report same at once to the minister or deputy minister, in order that such investigation may be made and action taken as may be deemed proper.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,



NAP. TESSIER,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 114) to incorporate the British Colonial Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 115) for the relief of Victor Eccles Blackhall.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 116) for the relief of Annie Louisa Coltman.-Mr. Turriff.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO asked:: 1.	What is the present amount of Grand Trunk consolidated debenture stock now outstanding?
2.	What is the present amount of Grand Trunk 4 per cent guaranteed stock outstanding?
3.	What is the amount of Grand Trunk first preferred stock, second preferred stock, third preferred stock, and ordinary stock, respectively, now outstanding?
4.	Which of the above stock is a charge or lien on the property of the Grand Trunk Railway, and which will have precedence, or will rank as a prior lien or charge on the road over the proposed guarantee by the Grand Trunk Railway of the proposed loan by the government of ten million dollars to the Grand Trunk Pacific ?
5.	What are the total liabilities or obligations of the Grand Trunk Railway, and what amount of such will be a prior lien or charge on the assets of the said company over the liability of the Grand Trunk Railway in respect of said proposed guarantee?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: 
RAILWAY MAIL CARS.
Mr. SPROULE asked:: 1.	Is the government aware of the great variety and unsuitability of the railway mail couches now in use on Canadian railways, and the consequent danger, inconvenience and hardships suffered by railway mail clerks in the performance of their duty, and of the recommendation of the Royal Commission to the effect that the Railway Commission be

authorized and requested to have plans prepared for proper standard mail cars, to he placed on the several lines of railway carrying or to carry His Majesty's mails?
2.	If so, is it the' intention of the government to carry out the (Royal Commission recommendation at an early date?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: The attention of the department has been directed to the varying standards of cars used for the conveyance of mails, and the matter is now the subject of consideration.


NIPIGON RIVER DREDGING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Geo. Taylor-asked:
1.	What amounts were paid by the government during the year 1908 for dredging at the mouth of the Nipigon river and Nipigon bay, in Lake Superior?	,
0.	To whom were such amounts paid, and what was the date of the contract under which the same were paid?
3.	When was the work in respect of which such amounts were paid, commenced, and when and toy whom were representations made as to the necessity for the same?
4.	What were the rates, according to classification, paid by the government for this dredging ?
5.	Were tenders invited for the work? If so, how many tenders were received, who was the successful tenderer, and was the contraot awarded to the lowest tenderer?
6.	What is the estimated cost of completion of the work?
7.	What were the names of the dredges employed, and who were appointed as inspectors or superintendents by the government?
8.	What other work, if any, was done during the year 1908 by the government on the Nipigon river, or its approaches, what was the nature and cost of the work, and to whom *Here the moneys paid in respect to the same?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	238,826 cubic yards were excavated during the season of 1908; the sum of $57,459.45 was paid in 1908, leaving a balance for work done in that year, but still unpaid, of $50,012.25.
2.	The Great Lakes Dredging Company, Limited, under contract dated 9th October, 1908.
3.	(a) Work commenced 8th September, 1908; (b) Petition from residents of Nipigon dated 30th April, 1908; petition from vessel-men of Thunder bay sent in May, 1908.
4.	Price per cubic yard, scow measurement, rock, $3; other materials, 45 cents. Material cast over, rock $3; other mater-
*j q To	PiPTlfcj
5.	' (a) Yes.'	(b) One. (c) The Great
Lakes Dredging Company, Limited, (d) Yes.
6.	$15,750.
7.	(a) Dredge ' No. 6.' (b) W. Stuart Mc-Kirdy.
8.	Nothing by this department.


TERCENTENARY POSTAGE STAMPS.
Air. PERLEY asked:: 1.	What was the total amount received by the Post Office Department from the sale of the special Tercentenary stamps?
2.	What part of this sum would probably have been received as ordinary revenue if there had been no special issue of stamps?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The following was the issue to postmasters of the tercentenary postage stamps :
Denominations.	Quantities.	Value.1 cent	.. 2,000,000	$ 10,000 001 "	.. 22,530,000	225,300 002 " 	.. 35,100,000	702,000 005 " 	.. 1,200,000	60,000 007 " 	.. 700,000	49,000 0010 " 	.. 500,000	50,000 0015 " 	.. 300,000	45,000 0020 " 	.. 304,200	60,840 00Totals.. ..	.. 62,634,200	$1,202,140 00
The department has no knowledge whether the stamps in question have all been sold, as during their issue the ordinary postage stamps were also on sale, both issues being in use as preferred by the public. The proceeds derived from the sale of stamps of the two issues were not kept separately, but treated as arising from a common source. It is, therefore, impossible to state to what extent the issue of the Tercentenary postage stamps may have affected the ordinary revenue. At the ordinary period fixed by the department for squaring these accounts, we may be able to give the approximate value.


GOVERNMENT LOANS.
Mr. PERLEY asked:: What are the amounts and dates of the loans falling due prior to December 31, 1913?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The information is all contained in the Public Accounts, but if the hon. gentleman will permit the question to stand I will give in in the form of an answer later on.
Question stands.	[DOT]
4 PER CENT LOAN OF 1874.


Mr. PERLEY asked:: 1.	On what date in 1904 was the first public notice given of the terms of the proposed extension of the 4 per cent loan of 1874?
2.	At what rate did the notice offer to give
3	per cent inscribed stock in exchange for the
4	per cent debentures?


Hon.   W.@: 
CUSTOMS STAFF AT DEBEC.
Mr. CROCKET asked:: 1.	When was Mathias Meagher appointed to the customs staff at Debec, New Brunswick, on whose recommendation was he appointed, what is his salary and what are his duties?
2.	How many officers are employed at Debec ?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	Mathias Meagher was employed as customs preventive officer under the subcollector of customs at Debec, N. B., January 20, 1909. He was appointed by the Minister of Customs at a salary of $100 a year to prevent smuggling over the boundary line south of Debec.
2.	There is a sub-collector of customs at Debec besides this preventive officer.



PUBLIC WORKS, SOUTH WELLINGTON.

Mr. T. CHISHOLM asked:: How much public money has the Dominion government expended on the construction of public works in the constituency of South Wellington during the past twenty years?


William Pugsley: 



INQUIRY FOR A RETURN.

Mr. BRADBURY.: On the 7th of February an order of the House was passed for correspondence between F. W. Colclough and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and I would ask the minister when that will be brought down. I would like it as soon as possible, because the delay is keeping me back in my work.


William Stevens Fielding: 


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I find from the Votes and Proceedings of March 29, that apparently the return referred to has been brought down.


George Henry Bradbury: I inquired at the office and was informed it had not been brought down.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Northwest Mounted Police, $750,000.
['An open mind as to the appointment of a new one.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Right Hon.   S@: This includes $325,000, pay of the force, and $425,000 for subsistence. There is an increase of $25,000 for pay and a decrease of $25,000 for subsistence, leaving the appropriation the same as last year. This estimate is for a force of 700 men, 500 being in Alberta and Saskatchewan, 100 in the Yukon, and 100 in the Northwest Territories. We estimate that the cost per man in Alberta and Saskatchewan will be $900 per year and in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon $1,500 per year. The increase of $25,000 in the pay is due to the rapid settlement of the provinces, which affords so much employment for labour generally that it is difficult to get men to join the force. The pay is 50 cents per man per day with an increase of 5 cents each year to the maximum of one dollar per day. But if there is a disinclination on the part of the younger men to enlist, it has been found that there is, especially among the non-commissioned officers a disposition to re-enlist at the expiration of their term of five years. We have therefore a good many veterans in the force, so that the pay, which commences at 60 cents and goes to a maximum of $1 per day, is on the average 85 cents.


Mr. FOSTER.: What is the disposition of the 500 men in the provinces?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I shall come to that presently. The force is composed of 700 men. We have one commissioner at $3,000, two assistant commissioners at $2,000 each, eleven superintendents at from $1,500 to $1,800 each, thirty-six inspectors at from $1,050 to $1,400 each, two surgeons, one at $1,700 and the other at $1,600; three assistant surgeons, two at $1,400 and one at $1,100. There is a special allowance to the, fourteen officers serving in the Yukon and Hudson bay of $1.25 per day, and of $2 per day to the officer commanding in the Yukon. There are eleven sergeant-majors, ten at $1.75 per day and one at $2; thirty staff sergeants, five at $1.50, 22 at $1.75 and three at $2 per day; forty-six sergeants at $1.25 per day, sixty-five corporals at $1.10 per day, four hundred and ninety-three special constables and constables at 85 cents per day, and then there

is special allowance to officers and con stables in the far north of $12,000. With regard to the subsistence, we distribute the item of $425,000 as follows: Subsistence
of men and horses, are as follows:
Pay of force	
Subsistence-men. ..
horses ..
Light and fuel.. ..
Clothing	
Repairs and renewals Horses, arms and ammunition, books and stationery, hospital. Billeting and travel
ling	
Transport and freight
Contingencies	
Buildings	
$110,000. The details
	 $325,000

We have in the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan 500 men, 100 in the Yukon and 100 in the Territory. We have 12 principal stations distributed in Alberta, Saskatchewan, the Territory and the Yukon. _ In each of these 12 stations is a district, at the head of which is an officer and a small staff, and each one of these stations has a certain number of detached stations. We have 150 subsidiary stations dependent upon these 12. In Alberta there are 63 such stations; in Saskatchewan, 70; in the Yukon, 10; in the Northwest Territories, 7. We propose to distribute them from the United States boundary line up to Whitehorse and Dgwson in the Yukon, to the mouth of the Mackenzie river in the north and to the Hudson bay in the east.


George Eulas Foster: How many men have you in Alberta?


Wilfrid Laurier: Two hundred and fifty, and 250 in Saskatchewan, 100 in the Northwest Territories, and 100 in the Yukon. There are 12 posts where the men are distributed. My non. friend is familiar with the duties of those men. They include not only the duties of police officers in the ordinary sense, but they are of great assistance to colonization and settlement. I may say that the force is all the time patrolling; the men are all the time on horseback, visiting every settlement and every settler, visiting the ranchmen, asking if there are any complaints, rectifying erroneous reports, and reporting anything out of the ordinary. I may say that though we ask for an appropriation of $750,000, the cost to the federal treasury is only $600,000, because we receive $75,000 each from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


George Eulas Foster: What rifles is the force anned with now?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Lee-Met-ford and the Winchester.


George Eulas Foster: I would like a little more explanation as to the disposition of the men. Is it a part of the policy of the department gradually to withdraw the men from the more thickly settled portions of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the large towns for instance, the large villages along the line of railway, and distribute them to the outlying portions, where there is lesser civic authority, and influences that come from the more settled conditions, especially in view of the fact that the time is approaching when these provinces must, the same as British Columbia and Manitoba, look after their own civic affairs, in so far as this force takes the place of bailiffs and constables, and that kind of officer which, in other provinces, is provided by the provincial authority. So it is a matter of some importance to know whether the policy of the department is to withdraw from the older portions and gradually to distribute the force, send them into the outlying districts where the power of the civil authority is not so strong. There is another point which I would like to mention to the Prime Minister, and I will be frank about it: Does he allow local party interests to have any part or lot in this matter, or is he keeping this force in that respect on the high level of a military force? Is he sure that it is not used in any way to advance the interest of-we may be frank about it-the party, or the party representatives?


Wilfrid Laurier: With regard to the first point, my hon. friend has anticipated tne policy of the department; it is gradually to withdraw police protection from the larger and older sections of the community and give it to the new settlements. I am afraid that for some years to come we will be forced to keep a portion of the force on the frontier of the United States until settlement becomes thicker there. It is a matter of necessity for the protection of the revenue, and of the settler, and the preservation of peace, to keep a little closer watch on the line than in the interior. But gradually we are reducing the force in the larger towns, and extending it northward to the newer settlements. The day cannot be far distant when the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan can dispense with a large portion of the force; but I imagine that as long as immigration flows in at the rate it is doing now, it would be a mistake to withdraw the force altogether. The sight of the uniform is an encouragement to the settler, he feels more secure; especially those who come from the continent of Europe feel more safe when they know that the police constable is not far distant, and they can have recourse to

him, not only for the purpose of protection against violence, but for all sorts of needs. If the settler feels a difficulty about anything he goes to the police force, and that force is of great value to him in many ways. With regard to the second question of my hon. friend, I do not think that my hon. friend has received any complaint of the action of the police, I think it has been kept absolutely free from any partisan action. I have received complaints, perhaps on one or two occasions. The instructions are very severe to the officers that they should not interfere in politics in any way. But more than one or two complaints I have not received, and I do not think my hon. friend has received any either, or at most, very few.


George Eulas Foster: The right hon. gentleman says there are a hundred men in the Yukon. Would he tell me how they are distributed in the Yukon?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have reduced the force there from 300 to 100. At present there are two chief stations in the Yukon, at Dawson and at Whitehorse. In the Dawson division there are substations at Town Station, Grand Forks, Selkirk, Quartz creek, Granville, Selkirk and Forty Miles. In the Whitehorse division there are substations at Carcross, Livingstone creek and Champagne's Landing. They are looking after the miners chiefly. Of course it is our intention to reduce the force and eventually to withdrraw it completely. The experiment was tried two years ago in Dawson of having their own police force, but it did not work and they had to fall back upon the Mounted Police.


George Eulas Foster: As far as I am concerned, I agree entirely with the general idea of the Prime Minister that the force is of inestimable value to us and to the Northwest. The only points I think we ought to guard against, beside those I have mentioned, are that we do not give up its consummation, in the not very far distant future, of the idea that the provinces as they grow become densely populated and get their municipalities organized will ultimately have to look after their own police work.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: There are two influences which, T suppose, the Prime Minister has constantly upon him. The local governments themselves, for various reasons, would be loath to see a single man of the Mounted Police disappear from either of the provinces and the localities seem to have a decided preference for the Mounted Police over a provincial constable or officer. These two influences would work towards the perpetuation of the force in all its fulness and it is against that that I think the Prime Minister is wise in having his policy defin-Sir WTLFRTD LAURTFR.
itely stated and currently carried out. The real need comes where settlement is more sparse. But, I think, that no one can question for a single moment that the force has been worth its cost a hundred times over in the development of the Northwest. It has not only been a credit to Canada but it has really been the backbone and support of the people of that country. It has kept order, maintained respect for the law and it has given to scattered families and homesteaders a real peace and comfort to know that the mounted policeman was within hail and made his occasional visit. Nothing could compensate for the loss of that, and I think the Dominon has done properly and rightly in keeping this force at its high level and distributing it through those portions of the Northwest. It is one thing, that, if it is kept out of party politics and kept up to its original excellence, there will never be much quarrel between the two sides of the House upon it.


Mr. SPROULE.: The right hon. Prime Minister did not know what the force in the Yukon cost. There are a hundred men, I understand?


Wilfrid Laurier: There are one hundred men in the Yukon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the cost?


Wilfrid Laurier: We estimate that in the Yukon the cost per man is $1,500. We estimate that the cost per man in Alberta and Saskatchewan is $900.


Mr. LAKE.: How much is contributed by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta to the maintenance?


Wilfrid Laurier: $75,000 by each province, or $150,000 in all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then the cost of the force in the Yukon will be $150,000, I take it?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the Prime Minister give us any information as to the population of the Yukon?


Wilfrid Laurier: About 10,000 I understand.


George Eulas Foster: All told?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am afraid so


Mr. J. D. RETD.: Docs this include the police along the Hudson bay?


Wilfrid Laurier: In the Northwest Territory, which now extends from the boundary of British Columbia and Alberta to Hudson bay, we have 100 men scattered all the way from Athabaska Landing to Churchill on the Hudson bay and to the mouth of the Mackenzie river.


John Dowsley Reid: Did the steamer 'Arctic' take up some supplies for the men on Hudson bay last year?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not within my iurisdiction.


John Dowsley Reid: It was the last time.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is no more.


John Dowsley Reid: The right hon. gentleman Will remember when she made her first trip about half her cargo was supposed to be for the Mounted Police along the shore of Hudson bay.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I thought probably that she had taken food up there for the men.


Wilfrid Laurier: She is now under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


George Eulas Foster: The mention of the name calls up memories. Where is the vessel now? We have not heard of her lately. From the great prominence which the name gained in the country not very long ago it seems to have sunk into oblivion. Has the vessel gone down or what has happened to her?


Wilfrid Laurier: She has not gone down. She has gone up. She has gone up to the northern waters and at the present time Captain Bernier is seeing that the British flag is protected in every land that belongs to Canada.


George Eulas Foster: How many flags did he take up?


Wilfrid Laurier: Enough to cover the ground.


John Dowsley Reid: Has he the wireless telegraph on board so that you can communicate with him occasionally?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not aware of that. I have told my hon. friend that the * Arctic ' is not under my jurisdiction now,


George Eulas Foster: Does the Prime Minister know what quantity of anchors and chains he took up to chain those islands that he discovered and put a flag on?,


Wilfrid Laurier: No, he chained them to the north pole.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have several times asked the question whether the government did not think, in view of the reducing population of the Yukon, that they could do with less men and less expense. It seems a pretty large item for policing that territory. if the population is about 10,000, it costs $10.50 a head for policing that country. When the police force was first sent there the population was very much larger
than it is now and things were supposed to be not in as high a state of civilization as at the present time. Do the government think it necessary to keep up such a large force (100) to look after about 10,000 people, and do they think that the expense cannot be reduced materially in a part of the country where we are told that the streets of Dawson are just as quiet as the streets of Ottawa, and where there is no more lawlessness and no more disposition to lawlessness than in the older settled portions of the country? If that is a fact it seems to me that we should be able to make some reduction in the number of the force and in the expense that is incurred in maintaining it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it is quite true, and it is our boast that the streets of Dawson, Whitehorse and all the creeks in the Yukon are just as safe as are the streets of the city of Ottawa, but that is the result, I believe, of the presence of the police. If the police were not there I think the result would be very different and we could not hope that the streets of those placesovould be as secure as they are to-day. There are now 10,000 people in the Yukon, but it is a mining camp. Mining camps are not proverbially very orderly, and unless we have police the order may not be what it is today. At all events, that is our supposition and that is the representation which is made to us. We started in the Yukon with 300 men and we have reduced the force to 100 men. It is our intention to reduce it still further as we think we are justified in doing so. At the present time I do not know whether it would be justified or not. We have had no mail from the Yukon of late and we would not undertake to reduce the force unless we had had previous communication with the commissioner, Mr. Henderson. If we are advised that we can, with security to the territory, reduce the force ii is our intention to do so. At the same time I would remind my hon. friend that I would doubt the wisdom of withdrawing the whole force at the present time. The Yukon is far away from communication. At one time we had information that there was a party of desperadoes in Skagway that wanted to raid the territory and that was the first reason that induced us to send in the force. If that was the case, and I think there was good reason for so believing^ for self-protection it is advisable that we should not withdraw the force altogether at this moment but that we should reduce it as far as circumstances will allow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: While we may not take the force away entirely it does seem to me that it might be materially reduced without any great danger of a disturbance of the" peace. The minister says that mining camps are proverbially turbu-

lent. We have two important mining camps in Ontario, Cobalt and Gowganda. The provincial constables look after the policing of those mining camps, and we do not hear of any outrages being committed there any more than in the Yukon. Yet there is not one constable there for every ten, perhaps every fifteen, that there is in the Yukon. With the reduced population, and with the turbulent element largely gone, if we can believe the information which we have received from year to year, it does seem to me that it ought to be part of the duty and of the desire of the government to get an annual report from their inspectors on that phase of the question. There is in the Yukon a quasi form of government that ought to do a great deal in the administration of justice to relieve us of the necessity of maintaining a police force there. It is true, we have reduced the force from 300 to 100, but still it seems to me that the 100 is a large number of men to look after 10,000 people, if there are that number-because we are sometimes told that there are only
5,000	or 6,000 in that country. Does the force d,o any other material work that could not be done by civil officials? They used to collect the customs revenues, I think; are they doing that work any more than they did, or are they simply performing the duties of police constables?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will agree with me that there is no comparison whatever between the Yukon and Gowganda and Cobalt. The latter places are within easy reach of the forces of the government of Ontario in case a riot should break out. But if we had a riot at Dawson, unless we had a military force there, how could we assert the authority of the law? This consideration alone is, I think, sufficient to warrant us in maintaining the force there. We do not want to see a repetition there of the early days of California, when every man was his own constable. We must maintain law and order in the Yukon. I agree with my hon. friend that we should reduce the force when possible, and we are reducing it gradually. My hon. friend asks if the force continues to do the service it did at one time in collecting the revenue. We are gradually withdrawing it from that duty, and when we do that altogether, there will be less occasion for the number of men we have. I think we have reduced the force as rapidly as it has been possible to do it without jeopardizing the peace of the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are there any of the police force in Manitoba now?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, not at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is none in British Columbia?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any in the unorganized territories?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. In all the Northwest Territories, including the Yukon, we have 150 stations and 700 men.


Mr. MAGRATH.: Of all the great changes which have taken place in our great west, the one which causes the old timers the greatest regret is the passing away of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. For some time the withdrawal of the police from the centres has been going on, and we do not see them on our streets to-day as we did in former years. I personally endorse the policy the right hon. gentleman has followed, but I am sorry that we cannot see more of these men. They have done a great and valuable service in our country; they have served the country and served it well, and I am sorry that we cannot do more for these men than we have done. I am quite in accord with all the right hon. gentleman has done, and I support the vote.


Mr. CONGDON.: I wish to point out a reason why the vote should be taken at the figure stated, even though later experience should show that the number of men mentioned in the vote is not required. In a country like the Yukon it is a very difficult thing to estimate a year beforehand what number of police may be required. At any time there may be a fresh discovery and an influx from the neighbouring portions of Alaska or from other places, of a population which would necessitate the presence of a large force of the police. I think in any case that when we are making an appropriation of this kind we should provide for a sufficient number of men to render the force capable of coping with any possible contingency that may arise.
Subsistence, forage, fuel and light, clothing, buildings, repairs and renewals, horses, dogs, arms and ammunition, medical stores, billeting, transport, water service, stationery and contingencies, $425,000.


George Eulas Foster: I understand these supplies are almost entirely got by contract and tender?


Wilfrid Laurier: Seventy-five per cent of them. I can give a list of the contracts if my hon. friend wants that.


George Eulas Foster: No.
To compensate members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police for injuries received while in the discharge of duty, $3,000.


George Eulas Foster: How much was paid for
compensation last year?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Wilfrid Laurier: 


George Eulas Foster: What was the nature of
the compensation?


Wilfrid Laurier: Some twenty men were disabled last year in the discharge of their duty and I think every one will agree that they should receive compensation.
Department of Public Works - salaries, $324,800.


William Pugsley: The leader of the opposition asked that this item should stand until the classification of the staff was brought down. I went into the explanation quite fully when this appropriation was last under consideration by the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The trouble is that perhaps not one member out of twenty may have read the statement submitted to the House.


William Pugsley: I supposed that hon. gentlemen would look at it. The reason for the large increase under civil government is that whereas formerly we had only 36 employees in the permanent inside service there were in the neighbourhood of 200 in the service in Ottawa who were paid from the outside service vote. The department was organized first when Sir Hector Langevin was minister and further under Mr. Hyman. Now under the provisions of the Civil Service Act instead of there being 36 in the inside service there will in future be 237. That accounts for the increase in this vote. If my hon. friend will turn to other items he will find there is a reduction corresponding to the increase under civil government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the reduction in one case equal to the increase in the other?


William Pugsley: Yea, with the exception of some increases in salaries and in the staff.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much additional cost is incurred; by the transition of these 237 officials into the inside service?


William Pugsley: The memorandum I have is that the present salaries amount to $237,387 to be increased to $263,175, or an increase of $25,787 under the new organization. Then there is one additional clerk in the third division sub-division A provided for. Then there are the statutory increases for 1909-10 to 196 employees, $5,262.52. Then we make provision for additional appointments or any other changes necessary in the departmental staff, $5,000. The balance, covering the difference between the annual increases in salaries authorized by
the orders in council of 1908, and the portion of such annual increases actually paid to employees to be transferred to civil government during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1909, $8,958.81.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would not that be part of the statutory increases already provided?


William Pugsley: No, they were special increases by orders in council, and these are set forth in the orders in council which have been laid on the table. That makes a total of $25,728.98. In the memorandum from the Finance Department, on page 26, that amount is given just as I have given it here, as a footnote. The other increases are accounted for by the increases to those who were already members of the permanent staff. We have picked out all those who were in the inside temporary service and who have been brought, by virtue of the Civil Service Act, into the permanent staff, and we deduct their salaries from what had been hitherto provided for in these miscellaneous votes, and add them under the head of civil government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where the civil servants have received an additional amount over what they were receiving heretofore, for the purpose of putting them in a certain class under the new Act, do they receive this year the statutory increase?


William Pugsley: They begin to earn their statutory increase, but do not get it until they have served a year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did they get it last year?


William Pugsley: Those who were in the outside service did not receive statutory increases. Their increases had to be by order in council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What has been done with that class who were induced to resign and go into the outside service for the purpose of getting in in a higher class at an increased salary?


William Pugsley: There was not one instance of that kind in my department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am credibly informed there were some in the other departments.


William Pugsley: I can only answer for my own.


George Eulas Foster: The other night this point was raised. Take the order in council of May 5, 1908, which is in these words: ' That authority be granted for the continued employment of the undermentioned officers in one of the permanent branches of the Department of Public Works at the salaries hereinafter specified from July 1, 1908, to July 1, 1909.' The order in council is silent as to whether the salary set opposite the name of each one was the salary of the preceding year. As far as we can judge
3GC7

from anything said in the order in council, each one may have had $150 or $500 added to his salary. Were these the same salaries that these employees were being paid the preceding year?


William Pugsley: In quite a number of cases there were slight increases in salary provided for by that order in council. Every year there must have been an order in council, for the continuance of those engaged in the outside staff. The appointments were for the year and were renewed by order in council and the salaries provided for.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me the order in council ought to state what is really being done or else council may be very easily misled. Of course the minister might have gone over it in detail with his colleagues and shown exactly what he did.


William Pugsley: That information is given to the Treasury Board and that board has before it the salaries of the previous year in every case.


George Eulas Foster: But the Treasury Board gets what comes before it second-hand. It is a subsidiary council of the council. Surely the minister does not reserve the question of increases for the Treasury Board alone? The increases in salary come first before council. If they go to the Treasury Board first, the report from that board must come back before the council. It is not the Treasury Board which can either give salaries or increase them; it is the council alone which can do that. The Treasury Board has other duties to perform; they have to see that the regulations and conditions are the proper ones as prescribed by law. That opens the whole question. The minister will remember that I stated in that general debate that in the orders in council which had been brought down later, a large number of these outside employees received special increases running from $50 up to $200 or $300, and I tried to calculate the total increase which had been, as I contended, given by the minister outside the spirit of the Act, to take effect on the 1st of September, as grading these into the service under the new Civil Service Act. The whole of it was not shown, unless we can find out what increases were given by this order in council, which purports, on the face of it, to provide simply for a continuance of office, and impliedly a continuance of salary. Now, the minister says that while it was a continuance in office it was in many cases an increase of salary. I do not want to take up too much time to find out just what increases were given, but in that large number of clerks, the minister will see there is room for a good deal to happen under that concealed order. It is rather blind, I think, to say the least of it. The minister is sending down an order in coun-Mr. FOSTER.
cil with reference to employees that have been employed year after year, and asking that they be continued at the salaries placed opposite their names. I think the inference is that the salaries are simply continued salaries.


William Pugsley: The usual course was followed in this case. The order in council of the previous year would show the salaries which were paid in that year, and, as is customary, and as I think my hon. friend will agree is a proper course in this case, this recommendation to council was referred to the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board then had before it the salaries of each of these officers had received the previous year, and saw what were the recommendations for increases; the Treasury Board then reported to council, and upon the report and recommendation of the Treasury Board the order was passed. I do not think my hon. friend is right in calling it a concealed order.


George Eulas Foster: Well, it is a blind order.


William Pugsley: Not at all. The most my hon. friend can say is that it does not show what were the salaries these officers received in the previous year. Though I would be sorry to see the item delayed. I will be glad to lay on the table of the House a copy of the order in council of the previous year so that my hon. friend can compare the two.


George Eulas Foster: That raises the question as to whether this was the custom in the other departments. We have found out so far in our investigation that some of the ministers in some of the departments carried out this whole business on a different plane from others, and it raises the question now as to whether the ministers generally, in reporting to council with reference to the vast outside body, gave increases then, upon which afterwards special increases, sometimes repeated, have been made. In the other* case we saw what the special increases were; they could not be put in any other way but in the first continuing order. If all the reports had been the same as my hon. friend's, we do not know, by looking at it, how much the increase was given and in what cases. I would like to go into the new system and ascertain how each division of the service entered it; and if the minister will amend that report that he brought down with his order in council of the 5th May, 1908, by having one of his clerks put alongside the list that is here each case of increase, probably they were not all increases, that would lighten the labour somewhat. If he would do that, and have it ready before we get into the Civil Service discussion, I would be very glad.


William Pugsley: I will do that.


George Eulas Foster: Then I raised the question before by what authority it was that you come in along the last of August, and you make increases, and you date the increase back by the order in council, two months, may be, to the beginning of the then fiscal year. I cannot find any authority in the Civil Service for that. I do find that this has been done, that you come down to parliament and you ask that an increase be granted, and that the increase be voted to take effect at a certain time. But out of the vote that you can, on the 27th day of August, make an increase of salary of $100 or $200 to men in the service, and then say that it may be dated back to the 1st of April-I do not find any authority for that. Anyway, it seems to be a rather dangerous form of proceeding, you are doing what parliament has had no advisement of. That is altogether different from the case where you come down in an estimate and say: Here, I want $50, or $100, or $200 increase in this item for such a clerk, and I want to pay him from the first of the year, or from any particular month.


William Pugsley: I do not know whether that could be done in the case of one who was under the Civil Service Act, but I presume it could not be done. I would agree with my hon. friend in that respect. But with respect to those who are on the temporary, and what is known as the outside service, that authority has always been recognized, because the vote is for a lump sum, and when the question came up with regard to fixing the date from which the increase would tal^e effect, my deputy informed me that it had been the practice ever since he had been in the department, and there seems to be no limitation under the Act with regard to that power. It occurred in two or three cases, I think that was done by the order of May. My hon. friend is aware that the order in council was not an order made under the old Civil Service Act, it was made before, the new Act came into force-that was my information. The vote being a general one and these officers not being under the old Civil Service Act, the council, if they thought fit to do so, could fix a date anterior to the order irom which the increase of salary would take effect. Now, with regard to making the increases themselves, I think we threshed that out pretty fully some time ago. But I think my hon. friend will realize that as there were a large number of officials who were going to be brought by force of law under the Civil Service Act and were to be placed side by side with those who were under the new Act, it was proper that the deputy minister of my department should have regard to the merits, so far as possible, of the different officers, to their length of service, the importance of the duties which thev were discharging, and endeavour to do justice as between them all, and so start
them upon the 1st of September upon a proper and justifiable basis, leaving their remuneration and their classification after that to be fixed from time to time under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. That is what he sought to do, and it is what I sought to assist him in doing so far as my knowledge would enable me.


George Eulas Foster: I do not wish to go again over the discussion we had the other night, but I would point out to the minister that I do not think his ground is a good ground. He may say that he thought he had more liberty under the outside vote than he had under the appropriation for what we call the regular Civil Service. But in theory they are the same. You ask for your vote to pay for the services of your officers, and, when you get your vote you administer the fund under the authority given. The fact that these men were to be brought in on September 1, and up to that time had not been brought in, does not, I think, make against the argument that the spirit of the legislation of last year was to place the service on a permanent basis and on a basis of competition and merit in appointments, which, up to that time, had not been the case. As I said then, so I believe now, that the outside service should have been administered in the spirit of that Act. While I do not want to go over that discussion again, I find that there are new appointments, for which, as yet, I think we have no reasons. A draughtsman was appointed in the chief engineer's branch at $700, the appointment being made by order in council on August 6, 1908, and dated back to April 1, 1908.


William Pugsley: That was the beginning of the fiscal year.


George Eulas Foster: But the appointment was not made at the beginning of the fiscal year, but was dated back. Now, the Civil Service Act provides, both with reference to the outside and the inside service, that no appointment shall be made until the office has been created, in the case of the regular Civil Service, and, in any case, until the amount has been voted by parliament. The whole spirit of the Act is against dating appointments back. Mr. F. O. Hamel was appointed at $700 in the chief architect's branch. What is the explanation of that appointment?


William Pugsley: Mr. Hamel is a draughtsman, and the services of a draughtsman were required and accordingly he was appointed. That is all I can say.


George Eulas Foster: That answer might be set up and stereotyped. Was the appointment so urgent that it could not be left over from August 6, when it was made, to September 1, when the machinery of the

Civil Service Act would be at the disposal of the minister for all appointments?


William Pugsley: There was a good deal of work on hand last year, and the chief architect was very much in need of additional assistance. I was very desirous, as far as possible, to carry out the views expressed in the House that architectural work should be done in the department. So, it became absolutely essential to have additional help.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has not been very explicit as to what would have happened had he waited for twenty-five days later and made the appointment in the regular form.


William Pugsley: Plans on important public works would have been delayed. This young man had been employed temporarily because the services of one of his profession were needed, so he was actually in the office before the order in council was passed, and I think probably had been workins from about April 1.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose he must have been there, or the minister, surely, would not have paid him.


John Dowsley Reid: There was an item relating to rents that stood over. Is it to come up this afternoon?


William Pugsley: I tried to bring it forward two or three times before. I shall be glad to have it dealt with this afternoon.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister promised us some information on the subject. I do not wish the item to stand any longer than is necessary.


George Eulas Foster: There is a new appointment at $1,250, the appointee being Mr. Arthur Barsalou-made on the same date, 6th August. Apparently, the minister could not wait twenty-five days in this case either.


William Pugsley: Unfortunately, his predecessor died unexpectedly, and we had to fill the office. Mr. Barsalou's salary was not dated back, was it ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, to April 1. The minister could not have had both the living and the dead on the salary list at the same time.


William Pugsley: My deputy tells me that Mr. Barsalou was in the department before that, perhaps performing the duties while his predecessor was ill.


George Eulas Foster: Then, he was not appointed before the death of his predecessor ?


William Pugsley: He was appointed because of his predecessor's death, but I fancy he was discharging the duties during his predecessor's illness.
_ Mr. FOSTER. The minister will get the information to which I have referred ?


George Eulas Foster: 


William Pugsley: Yes.
Contingencies, $15,000.


Mr. AMES.: Does this cover printing and stationery ?


William Pugsley: Yes. It is the same a3 last year.


Herbert Brown Ames: I believe - this covers the printing of the annual report of the Public Works Department. I desire to mention a matter which was called to my attention by a chemistry professor and a prominent paper manufacturer in Montreal recently. These gentlemen tell me that the report of the Public Works Department and other blue-books are printed upon paper which will not stand the test of time. Are steps taken to have a limited number of these reports printed upon paper of such a character that these books will be available twenty-five or fifty years from now ?


William Pugsley: I have not heard that question raised before. It concerns the Stationery Department rather than my own. I shall be glad to bring the matter to the attention of that department to see if there is anything in the point my hon. friend raises.


Herbert Brown Ames: The point is this:	If the
paper on which the records of the Public Works Department and others are printed is of wood pulp or chemical pulp, in twenty-five or thirty years from now it will crumble away and the books made of it will be useless. I would ask the minister if he will have inquiries made whether the paper used is wood pulp or chemical pulp paper. If it is, it would be well that a limited number of copies of reports should be printed on better paper.


William Pugsley: I suppose my hon. friend would not suggest parchment


Herbert Brown Ames: No, but linen paper.


William Pugsley: I su-ppose there is a difference between ground pulp paper and chemical ?


Mr. PATERSON.: The reports of the different departments are found in the bound sessional records. Whether that is the same kind of paper or not, I do not know.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think the bound sessional Tecords are simply the regular blue books. However, the matter is worth looking into, because these records should be preserved.
Rents, repairs, furniture, heating, &c.-Dominion buildings-rents, &c., $200,000.


George Eulas Foster: Our time is somewhat limited. We shall probably not have much leisure left this week, and next week will be a busy one, according to the work arranged for. I understood the Minister of Finance was anxious to get a supply bill of the supplementary estimates and such

others as were neecssary. While we are willing to facilitate that, 'we do not propose to shove through all these items within the time proposed. So, I think, if the ministers want to get their original estimates through, they should give their time to the urgent portions of them.


William Pugsley: We might take some of the items under 'Public Works-Miscellaneous.' This includes salaries for a number of employees.


George Eulas Foster: But they are salaries for next year.


William Pugsley: Yes, but standing in the same position as those under 'Civil Government' that we have just put through. And the money is needed.


George Eulas Foster: This is a very inclusive item. I think you will see a lot of discussion on it.


William Pugsley: It relates altogether to my own department.


George Eulas Foster: But you have here the Deep Waterways Commission and other important items. Of course, the minister can take up time on this if he likes. But my desire is to facilitate what seems to be a matter of some urgency. There are some Votes in Civil Government left.
Civil Government-Department of Mines- salaries, $148,831.50.


George Eulas Foster: With reference to this department, I have been nuzzled over it. It is difficult for me to find out how it came, and pretty nearly as difficult to find out ' whither it goeth.' The minister, it may be, will enlighten me. Under the Department of Mines, he has fifty of the old permanents, and thirty-eight whom he has taken in from outside. Where did he get the fifty permanents? What does the department in that respect include? Does it take in the whole of what was the old Geological Survey?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Mines).: The permanent officials, according to my addition, number 46 not 50. However, these are the permanent members of the old Geological Survey, and also several permanent officers of the Mines Branch of , the Department of the Interior. The Mines Department, as at present constituted, is made up of these two-the Geological Survey and the Mines Branch of the Department of the Interior, over which Dr. Haanel presided. I think I have not increased the number of officials-not very considerably at all events. That is whence the department came ; as to ' whither it goeth,' that remains to be seen It is going along very successfully, and doing, I think, very good work.


George Eulas Foster: There are three permanents, a deputy minister, one in subdivision B of the 1st division, and one in the third division, subdivision A. Where did these three come from ? I suppose the deputy minister was Mr. Low, director of the Geological Survey.


William Templeman: Yes. When the department was organized, he occupied the position of director and deputy head of the Geological Survey and became deputy minister of the Department of Mines. Mr. Marshall was accountant of the Geological Survey and is now accountant of the Mines Department.


George Eulas Foster: At the same salary?


William Templeman: Yes. His salary was $2,275. We are giving him an increase of $100.


George Eulas Foster: That is the statutory increase?


William Templeman: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Then, there is a third division clerk, sub-division 'A'. Who is that?


William Templeman: That is Miss B. Urquhart, stenographer and she was in the geological survey.


George Eulas Foster: Last year this clerk received $837.50 and the estimate this year is $937.50. How is it that she comes in with an increase of salary instead of being transferred at the same salary?


William Templeman: I am advised that this lady was a junior second-class clerk and the Act provided that she would go into a class with a minimum salary of $900.
- Mr. FOSTER. Do the junior second-class clerks go into that division or into the $800 minimum division?


William Templeman: Into 'A' of the third
division. She goes into the class from $900 to $1,200.


George Eulas Foster: Well then $37.50 would be the statutory increase for her. Whether this is the place or not to raise the question, it comes in here. What is the basis, supposing they are getting $700, or whatever they are getting as junior second-class clerks, upon which you put these into the $900 to $1,200 division instead of the $800 to $1,600 division?


Mr. FISHER.: That would depend entirely on the quality of the work that the clerk was doing. It is open to the minister to decide into which of these divisions the clerk would go. Wherever the salary was common to two divisions certain clerks, if they got so much salary, say $800, who were doing work that is of a quality that is intended for the third division would go

into that- division, whereas, certain other clerks, who were getting $800 and who were doing work of a quality which is intended for the second division, would be put into ' B ' of the second division instead of 'A' of the third division.


George Eulas Foster: Is that left entirely for the minister to say?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As far as those in the service, before 1st September, are concerned, the commissioners have nothing to do with it. In future it will depend upon examination. In future, applicants for entry into the service will go into ' B ' of the third division or ' B ' of the second division, according to the examination they pass.


George Eulas Foster: But where there is a certain salary, such as that which has been mentioned, the discretion is entirely with the minister as to whether they shall go into the $800 to $1,600 division or the $900 to $1,200 division?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If they were in the service, yes. In future that cannot occur.


George Eulas Foster: Then there are five from the outside service in the first division. Was there any addition made to the salary of these five during the six months preceding the first of September, or during any part of the fiscal year?


William Templeman: I do not think there were any increases made. I am advised by the director that there were no increases made to bring any of these officials into other classes than those that the salaries which they were then receiving entitled them to.


George Eulas Foster: There are 38 brought in from the outside service and, as I understand, the minister says there were no increases in the salaries of the 38 immediately prior to the 31st September and that they were transferred on the same salaries as those which they were receiving during the year?


William Templeman: Quite right.


George Eulas Foster: So that in this case there was no boosting of salaries in order to give them a better position. Well, I commend the minister for the policy of his department. It is in strong contrast with the policy of some of the other departments, the head of one of which is sitting very close to us now.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Would the minister be good enough to give a general idea of what the extra clerks are doing? The Mines branch has only been organized two or three years but the increase in the number of clerks in the geological survey and the Mr. FISHER.
mines branch has been considerable. What is the cause of the increase and what is the great need of it?


William Templeman: It is news to me to be told that there has been a considerable increase in the number of technical officers or clerks of any kind in the Department of Mines.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister give us the expenditure five years ago and the expenditure to-day?


William Templeman: I have not the expenditure five years ago. The expenditure has increased somewhat in the last few years, but it has not increased very largely. The additions to the staff, speaking from recollection, have been those of technical officers. We have in the Mines Branch, several new technical men, mining engineers and others of that kind. But as to clerks, stenographers and other officials of that kind, there has been very little increase in the department. I am not speaking from notes or memoranda but I know the demands made upon me to increase the staff have not been met very largely because we could not find the men we desired to have in those positions.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What was the expenditure in the mines branch and the geological survey branch during the last year?


William Templeman: The total vote for 1908-9 was, for the Mines branch, $100,000. This year the vote is $81,000. For the assay office in Vancouver the vote last year was $26,000 and this year it is $18,000, a decrease in both cases. There is an increase, which will probably equal the amount of that decrease, in the geological survey vote from $204,750 to $240,000. Therefore, I think, we are hardly open to criticism for having increased the expenditure.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am very glad to see that the minister is so well satisfied with the amount of work being done for that amount of money. If we will look back ten years we will see that the department got along with about $110,000. When the expenditure was increased from that to over $200,000, we would naturally expect that there would be some material benefits derived from it. Is the minister continuing the practice of allowing officers of the survey to work for private companies during the summer months and then to come back in the fall and step into the department, their salaries going on as usual ?


William Templeman: I would prefer that the discussion on the work of the department should be on the main estimates when I shall have considerable information to give. The work that is being done today bv the department in infinitely greater than it was ten years ago; whether it be

greater relatively to the increased expenditure I cannot for the moment say. The policy of the department is not to permit its officers to do private work. There have been one or two instances in which the officers of the department were needed by explorers, private companies if you will, for a season's work. They could not find experienced men along these special lines elsewhere in Canada and in one or two instances, only one instance this last year, an officer was permitted to leave the department, but without salary, and to return afterwards, giving to the department all the inforamtion he had obtained while working for the private company.


Mr. LANCASTER.: He was of course well paid by the private company?


William Templeman: I have no doubt he was probably paid more than he would be paid by the government, and right there you touch on a very important point. Our difficulty is to retain in the service of the government the best men. During the last few years two or three officers of the survey have left our employment simply because instead of being satisfied with $2,000 a year or so they have been able to receive $5,000 from private companies. In one or two cases the question for us was whether we should permit one of our best men to take service with a company exploring for coal for a few months, or lose his services altogether as his resignation was practically in our hands. If it were a general practice it perhaps might not be a good one. Of course while that officer is in the employ of the private company he is not paid by the government. There a few private geologists throughout the country, and many mining engineers, but we have in the survey most of the prominent geologists in Canada, and I believe it is desirable to occasionally permit them to leave the employment of the government in the summer months and do work for a private company', they giving to the government for publication in the reports the information they had obtained. There is another practice of the department somewhat similar. At present there is very great interest in the exploration of iron ore deposits throughout Canada, and within the last two or three weeks three applications have been made to me to permit one of the officers who is an expert in iron and the magno-metric survey of iron deposits to make surveys of privately owned property. Some of these applications have come from within a short distance of Ottawa. We permit the officers to do the work, and I think it is conducive to the development of the iron industry. It does not cost the government very much, we simply loan the man for a few weeks. We are not interfering with the business of any outside geologists or mining engineers because there is a great dearth of specialists in Canada for this work.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister has laid down a very dangerous proposition. He knows well that for five years one of the prominent men of the geological survey, in company with a number of employees of the government, located the best coal mines in the Northwest, and hardly had he handed over his report to the department, and before it could be circulated amongst the public generally, he went into the employment of a private company and started out west and located twenty-six of the best coal mines in that territory. A $6,000,000 company, controlled by a few men who are able to get this official away from the department, has been organized. If the minister will go back a few years he will see that other men have been doing the same thing, going out for members of parliament who were interested in these mines, spending their summers on the work and then stepping in to the department and getting their salaries during the winter months when they had nothing else to do. True, they may turn over the information to the government but it is after the companies have made all the use they could make of it. It is a very dangerous precedent for the minister to lay down.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The remarks of the member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) are worthy of considerable attention. It "is a vicious principle to lay down, that these men who are presumably acting for the country at large and who acquire experience in the discharge of their duties, should place their knowledge at the disposal of private persons or companies. To let these men go out and give the benefit of their information to private corporations for a few months in the year and then come back and spend the winter in the government service, dumped again on the people at a good salary, and go out again the next spring or summer to the private corporations, it seems to me is absolutely wrong in principle and in practice. We are told that the corporations need these men. If they do they should employ them for the year round and pay them substantial salaries.
I must protest against this whole practice.


William Templeman: My hon. friend is making a mountain out of'a mole hill. The practice is in the interest of the mining industry of Canada, although I admit that it should be exercised with due caution.
I understand that it is the practice of all geological surveys to do the very thing we are doing. Many years ago Dr. Barlow went to Sudbury and made a scientific survey of the nickel deposits in the interest of the nickel industry there, and his work is said to have resulted in very great benefit to the country. The department

lost nothing whatever by that; nor did it lose anything by permitting one of the geologists, who is an expert in coal, to go into the country west of Edmonton and assist in the exploration of an area of land in the mountains known to contaon coal, and known long ago to contain coal. He did not lead the company to the coal field or give them any information as to the location of the coal deposits. We have known for many years that the coal existed in that northern country.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Should not that information be kept for the benefit of the people and not used to enable private individuals to make money?


William Templeman: It is published in the report of the Geological Survey.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then why did these people want the man?


William Templeman: Because they needed his services and paid for them. If we had not allowed him to go, he would have been in the employ of that company to-day, and we would have lost his services; there is the whole question. Until two years ago Dr. Barlow was in the service of the Geological Survey at a salary of between $2,000 and $3,000; he was one of the best-men in the service, and was offered $5,000 a year by a German company operating in the west and having large investments in Canada, and he is with that company today and we have lost his services. Mr. McEvoy, who was a long time in the Survey, and was one of our best men, was until recently in the employ of the Crow's Nest Coal Company, receiving three times the salary we paid him.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is the minister aware that Mr. Dowling, after making his report, spent five years in this district with a number of employees, all of whom were paid by the government, and that he did not make his final report on these locations until last year?


William Templeman: My hon. friend is not well informed. It is true Mr. Dowling worked in that part of the country for many years. He always returned to Ottawa in the fall, wrote his report, and it was published. The country at large has all the information collected by Mr. Dowling and has had it for years, so that any person could have gone to that country and staked out a coal location. If my hon. friend wants to stake out a coal location, he can do so, as there is plenty in British Columbia ; the whole country is full of coal. I think the practice is in the interest of the mining industry.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If Mr. Dowling made a Teport in regard to these mines, why was it not made in connection with these companies? Other companies who Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
are anxious to operate in that country send out men themselves to locate the mines, but Mr. Dowling, having been there for years, knew exactly where he could go and locate them, which he did. I do not think it is fair to the people of the country generally to say that anybody is allowed to go and locate mines.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: In what year was Mr. Dowling in this district?


William Templeman: In 1906.


John Allister Currie: When was his report published?


William Templeman: Every year.


John Allister Currie: But all these reports are generally about two years late, and the department allows these men to go out and give information to private parties_ before it is given to the public. I think it is most reprehensible.	t


William Templeman: I do not know whether ot not my hon. friend has read the reports of the Geological Survey. The report in question, which my hon. friend criticises is found in the report of the Geological Survey of 1906.


John Allister Currie: And what was the date of his exploration?


William Templeman: The same year. The report was laid on the table of the House in the session of 1907.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman must know that engineers of this character are employed in the provinces, especially in the province of Ontario. These men are drawing small salaries, and yet they have absolutely refused to join large corporations in the Cobalt district, where they could get five or six times their present salary, simply because they thought to do so would be an imputation on their honour. If this department is to be manned by that class of men, you will find you are simply sending men out who will examine areas and make valuable discoveries and then go outside the department and disclose what they have found for the benefit of private speculators. I have had occasion once or twice in this House already to reflect on the Mining Department. If there is one department in this government which is a sink-hole for public money and doing very little g09d for the people, it is that one. Its report is the laughing stock of every other geological department in the world. That Teport contains about 3,000 pages, comprising simply a recital of brick yards and oil companies and other things which any one could get in Bradstreet. You can get all that information in the reports of the Manufacturers Association. There is no one who could not in his own office compile just as much information as is given in that report. But the size of the volume is intended to lm-

pTess every one with the fact that the department is doing enormous work. I find that the smallest reports are those of departments which do the most work. When I see the bulky volume and the enormous amount of words and figures given in it, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that there is not much doing in that department, and that this leport is only issued as an excuse for three or four men to draw big salaries. The department has not issued a single really good geological map, but you will find in this report stories about its officers getting up at six in the morning and paddling down the river and meeting a flock of wild ducks and returning in the afternoon and such particulars which are no earthly use to any one. What the people want is a report in accord with the best practice of other geological departments. We ought to have a man at the head of this Geological Survey who knows his business and not simply one who wants to draw a big salary and do nothing. How many of these men have given us any information about the various provinces? We have hardly anything in the reports about the great province of Quebec, yet every one knows there must be a lot of mineral wealth lying along the route of the Transcontinental Railway where it runs through that province. The geology there is the same as in Ontario where the silver mines have been discovered. You never find anything of value in this report, but when any valuable mineral discovery is made, you do not get news of it in this report until a year later, and in the meantime private indivduals have gone to work and staked out valuable claims. I hope that the minister will become impressed with the idea that the class of men we want are mining engineers who think more of their honour and profession than of the money they may make.


Mr. SEALEY.: While my personal knowledge of the subject would not warrant my expressing an opinion on this matter, I may say that I have had applications from engineers for copies of this report, and through the kindness of the minister I have received two copies more than my allowance, and I have letters certifying that the report is a most valuable one. It seems to me that this is strong evidence from practical men that the report does not deserve the criticism we have just heard.


William Templeman: Criticisms of the department such as we have just had from the hon. member from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) cannot, because of their exaggerated character, do any injury to the department in the opinion of the public. It is not correct to say that in the Bureau of Mines of Ontario the practice is not in vogue of occasionally permitting men on the staff of that bureau to work for private companies.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. minister name one case? He has contradicted my statement and ought to give his authority.


William Templeman: I might say that Professor Miller, an eminent geologist and expert, one of the best men in Canada, was permitted by the Ontario government to do private work and did it for the Larose mine. There are other cases of a similar kind. I am not defending or condemning the practice. It was a great advantage to the La-rose people to have Mr. Miller's opinion regarding the geology of that mining claim. The practice is probably not indulged in any more there than elsewhere. It is followed in Washington in the geological survey there, and I am advised that in Germany geologists in the employ of the government are from time to time used by private companies, and at such times of course do not draw pay from the government. The criticism of the hon. gentleman is so exaggerated and unfair and inaccurate that it cannot possibly be received seriously, especially by hon. gentlemen who are better informed of the work done and the personnel of the men at the head of the Geological Survey and the Mines branch than my hon. friend appears to be. It is not correct to say that the report of the Mines branch issued recently has not been well received. We have had from all over Canada, from mining engineers and others, numerous demands for copies of that volume, and we have received compliments from mining men every where as to its value. It is a large volume, and it costs a good deal of money, but to say that you could get the information it gives in Brad-street's is simply absurd.


John Allister Currie: I might say to the hon. minister that Professor Miller was sent by the Ontario department to settle a dispute in which the Ontario government was interested and to make an investigation of the Larose mine when the charge was made that it was stealing government
ore.


Mr FOSTER.: I find in the return brought down that Mr. Dickinson is represented as having had an increase of $2uo, on the 17th of June, 1908. Was he in the outside service ? If so, the minister was hardly correct in saying that no increases had been made. Mr. Matfieson, field explorer, Viari an iuprp.asfi of $300 on June 17, 1908.


William Templeman: I am advised by the director that these increases were made before the Civil Service Act was discussed.


George Eulas Foster: It was before the Civil Service Act was passed, but not before it was discussed.


William Templeman: The director says that the recomendation for the increase was



made at a time when the department had no knowledge of the proposed Civil Service Bill. It had absolutely no connection with it.


George Eulas Foster: That may be all right, but it modifies, to a certain extent, the statement made by the minister. However, it is not a very large one.


John Allister Currie: When the items of the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Tem-pleman) were under discussion here, the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) being in charge, the items were passed under the understanding that, when the other estimates of the minister were under discussion, any matter relating to the department could be taken up on any item. I think that you, Mr. Chairman, will bear me out iD that. I desire to bring to the attention of the minister an important matter relating to a question of weights, concerning which a difference now exists between vessel owners and the railways. I would like to know the position the department is going to take in the matter. If it is desired that I should not discuss it upon this item, I will fate it up under any other item that may be agreeable to the minister.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It would not be applicable on this item.


John Allister Currie: All the items were permitted to go through on the condition that we were to be allowed to discuss any subject on any item of the department.


George Eulas Foster: Are all the minister's main estimates through?


William Templeman: Yes, all the estimates of the Inland Revenue Department.
I was not present on the occasion referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. A. Currie), but I read 'Hansard' and, while I will not dispute the statement made by the hon. gentleman I am inclined to think that 'Hansard' does not report it that way.


Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE It ought to. If the minister has any] objection


William Templeman: I have no objection. But we are dealing with the Department of Mines, and that is hardly an occasion for discussing a matter of weight and measures.


John Allister Currie: Will there be any other opportunity to discuss the matter? If the minister will name an item under which the discussion can go on, I shall be pleased to postpone the discussion.


William Templeman: I do not know that I can name an item.


William Templeman: 


John Allister Currie: Are there other estimates to come down?


William Templeman: No estimates in the Inland Revenue Department, so far as I know. But, if there is no other statement of that department, I submit that either the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister is the person to suggest when the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. A. Currie) should discuss a matter of this kind. I would point out also that the deputy Minister of Inland Revenue is not here, nor is the inspector of weights and measures. The question is a technical one, and I am frank enough to admit that I must be coached by the inspector of weights and measures on a question of that kind.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. J. A. Currie) that, if there are other estimates of the minister to come down, the matter can be taken up then; if not, he can bring it up on going into Supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is much more convenient to discuss these matters in Supply than on Concurrence. It is the right of the hon. member to proceed with the discussions on Concurrence, and, undoubtedly, he will avail himself of his privilege if opportunity is not given to him to go on with the discussion nowu The convenience of. the House as well as of the minister should be consulted, and the discussion should go on in Supply rather than when Concurrence is taken, and we are all in a hurry to get it through.


William Templeman: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Foster) has indicated when the matter can be discussed.


John Allister Currie: Though I have been here but a few weeks, I know one or two of the rules of the House. The discussion of the matter I wish to bring to the attention of the minister should be, as far as possible, non-partisan. Moreover, it can be dealt with more readily and with greater freedom in Committee of Supply. In Supply, we are not narrowed down to the discussion of the exact terms of a resolution, and often we can have the minister give expression to views quite in line with the suggestion made from this side. But to bring forward such matter in the form of a want of confidence vote on going into Supply would be to give the discussion a partisan tone, which is not desirable. If the minister will name an item on which we can go on with this discussion, that will satisfy me completely. If the minister is going to bring down even one item of supplementary estimates


William Templeman: I cannot say that there will be even one item. I do not

36S6
know that there will be any supplement-aries at all. Again, I do not want to make an agreement for the leader of the House as to the time when a discussion may take place.


Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE I am prepared to go on now.


William Templeman: If it is a proper thing to bring on a discussion of a matter of weights and measures on an item relating to the Mines Department, it will be all right to have the discusion, but I do not think it is, and I do not think the Chairman will permit it. I may mention that the main estimates of the Department of Mines have yet to be considered.


George Eulas Foster: Then what the minister has to do is to say that when that item comes up we can discuss weights and measures, or any other thing.


William Templeman: If the chairman of the committee is willing. I have no right to lay down the rule that any hon. gentleman may discuss a question of weights and measures on an item relating to the Department of Mines; it is for the chairman to say whether that can be done. I would prefer not to discuss the question of weights and measures until I have the inspector of weights and measures here, to give me the information that I might require.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If I recollect rightly, when the Minister of Public Works was passing Supply he could not give information about some of his items because they related to the Department of Inland Revenue, and as the Minister of Inland Revenue was absent it was understood that we would have plenty of opportunity to discuss these questions with regard to weights and measures when the Minister of Mines was passing his Supply. If the Minister of Inland Revenue has no other item for his department, it is up to him now to make good that understanding. When his colleague promised us that the Minister of Inland Revenue would give us certain information, it is up to the Minister of Inland Revenue to give us that information now, or else to tell us that he will do so on some other item of his department, if he has any other item. But it will not conduce to getting his items through the House for him to refuse now to carry out an understanding made between the Minister of Public Works and some opposition members.


William Templeman: If the chairman would rule that the discussion might go on now I would have no objection to doing so, if my deputies were here. But they are not here. I have not the information at hand, and on that score I would object to the discussion taking place now.
116i


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then let the item stand.


John Allister Currie: The Minister of Public Works stated when we were discussing an item with reference to the astronomical building and asked us to let the item go through, that a full explanation would be given by the Minister of Inland Revenue when he appeared in his place. We treated the Minister of Inland Revenue with the utmost courtesy and passed every item in his department without question, on the understanding that when he came to take his seat in the House we would be permitted to open up the discussion and get some information from him, even if there were only one item to come up in his department. I understand that the main estimates are now going through, and that the minister wishes to pass the item so that he can get the money at the beginning of next month. Now, if there is no other item coming up under weights and measures, I hold that we are entitled to discuss this item now, or ask that the item stand.


George Eulas Foster: The minister can get out of the difficulty by saying five words. The fact is that another minister was putting these estimates through for the hon. gentleman's department, and the other nrnister did not know a blamed thing about them. We kindly consented to let them go through, on the minister's explaining that on another item, or on any other item, when the Minister of Inland Revenue was present he would give us full explanation. Now the minister says that he is not the boss of the committee, that it is the chairman. Well, all the minister has to say is that he has other estimates coming down for mines, and that when these come for discussion he is willing to hear a discussion upon weights and measures, or any other thing which was delayed because of his absence, and in regard to which the Minister of Public Works became responsible for giving us an opportunity of making these criticisms.


William Templeman: I have already said that I would be quite willing to do that. But the main estimates of this department have yet to be voted. The Minister of Public Works was putting through a vote for a building for the Mines Department, not for the Inland Revenue Department, and he said at that time that the Minister of Mines being absent, he could not give the information, but he held it over a day or two, and he read a long statement. But that was with reference to the Mines Department. However, whatever agreement was made by my colleague I am willing to carry out. The hon. member for North Toronto suggested that I might give the information when

some further estimates weTe being considered. I am quite willing to discuss weights and measures when I have my deputies here.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. gentleman said that a while ago we would not have lost so much time.


William Templeman: I did not say so, but I said that was a question for the chairman to determine, not for me.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: While I do not want to draw the line too closely, yet when a discussion is evidently not relevant to the item, it will require the very apparent desire of the committee before I would feel at liberty to allow it. No doubt all understandings on which a previous item has gone through should be honoured. At the same time, the chairman finds it necessary that in all these cases where there should be some special item before him in order that he may he able to maintain the relevancy of debate. I think I should fairly point out that on the general question of the Mines Department it might be inconvenient to bring in the question of weights and measures, unless some items relating to that subject were before the committee, so that the committee could be held to relevancy and to that one subject.


John Allister Currie: I think no one questions your position; I think, however, it is not borne out by the authorities.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I would prefer that there should be no discussion of my ruling in the matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have always understood that an agreement of this kind by a minister of the Crown would be honourably carried out, because it was made for the convenience of the government, and it was expected as well that the chairman will concur in the arrangement which has been made by the minister. It is taken for granted that no objection will be raised in the way of applying the rules of debate which prohibit the discussion of a question when an arrangement of this kind is made as a matter of convenience to the government.
Department of Marino and Fisheries-salaries (including Prof. E. E. Prince at $1,000). $228,610.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There were 77 permanent employees and 78 outside and temporary employees, making a total of 155. It is proposed to increase the number by 16. In the first division, subdivision 'A,' there is an amount of $4,000 which is asked for Professor Prince. That sum was voted the other day in the Supplementary estimates for the current year. We have to Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
provide also for his salary next year. Professor Prince was receiving the salary of $2,500, and it is proposed to give him $4,000 and to put him in the first division, subdivision ' A.' Professor Prince has been appointed international commissioner under the fishery treaty, and I understand that the salary that was paid to the American commissioner is even higher than the one we are going to give Professor Prince. It is proposed that Professor Prince shall not only busy himself with this international commission, but also with other commissions which we may appoint in this country. He will remain the scientific expert of the Fisheries branch.


George Eulas Foster: You have one extra there? [DOT]


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


John Allister Currie: The minister gave us to understand the other day that such regulations as Professor Prince would make as an international commissioner would be laid before the department and parliament and would be liable to be changed by parliament. I think the minister was in error, and I want to call his attention to the fact that the treaty states that the finding of the commissioners is final and that the department and parliament has nothing to do with it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Except that there is a provision in the treaty to this effect:


Article III.: The two governments engage to put into operation and to enforce by legislation and executive action, with as little delay as possible, the regulations, restrictions, and provisions with appropriate penalties for all breaches thereof.
So that when the regulations have been adopted by the two commissioners they are to be laid before the government and the government has to come before parliament for the purpose of securing the necessary legislation to enforce the regulations.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But parliament would be obliged to pass them. They could not change the regulations or reprimand Professor Prince if he had done wrongly. Therefore, the minister will see that my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is quite right in saying that parliament has no control over the matter. The treaty is that the two governments engage to enforce by legislation what these two commissioners do.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We will have to come to parliament for the purpose of having legislation passed to enforce these regulations.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You bind yourself to adopt them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Of course, the government would have to take the responsibility

of these regulations and if they are not proper regulations the government would be liable to censure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That does not appear to be the feature of it at all. We understood that whatever these regulations were parliament had to concur in them or otherwise they could not become law. Now, we find that we have to pass legislation affirming them but that does not mean that we can change them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Parliament would have to pass legislation to enforce these regulations, and if they did not meet with the approval of the House parliament would have the right to refuse the necessary sanction.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No; the treaty says distinctly that the two parties bind themselves to carry into effect the regulations which may be made by these two commissioners.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Suppose the government were not able to secure the passage of this legislation ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The argument could be made that you would be liable to get into a war with this other country for breaking the treaty if you failed to carry it out. Surely the British government, when it makes that treaty, expects to carry it out and engages to enforce the regulations that the two commissioners make in so far as they can be enforced by legislation. The hon. gentleman pre-supposes that parliament might not concur in them, but parliament would have to swallow them or else throw the British government into the most deplorable position of having broken a treaty made with another country and which might be a cause for war.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is the same with all treaties made by Great Britain. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that treaties made by Great Britain are not submitted to or approved by parliament except in cases where an expenditure of money is involved. I think also there is an exception in the case of commercial treaties which require some amendment to the Customs Act. These are the only cases provided for by the constitution in which treaties are referred to parliament. In other cases a treaty, as passed by the Crown, becomes the law of the land.


Mr. CROCKET.: Did not the French and Japanese treaties require the ratification of this parliament ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, because it was formally provided in these two treaties that they had to be approved by parliament. These two treaties fell within the category of the treaties which I have just mentioned; that is to say, they were treaties requiring a change in customs law. There is a principle in the British constitution to the
effect that taxation cannot be imposed even by the King without the sanction of parliament. The King would have no right to make any treaty by which taxation would be levied or expenditure incurred without the consent of the parliament of Great Britain. Such a treaty affecting Canada would require to be submitted to the Canadian parliament by the representative of the King here. But, those treaties which are signed by the King or his representative have not to be approved by parliament, and this is a treaty made by the King with the president of the United States.


John Allister Currie: It is an old established principle of international law that where there is constitutional government when a treaty is made affecting territory or property or money, that treaty must be laid before parliament.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not in the case of territory, I think.


John Allister Currie: Yes; if you have read the discussion on the Napoleonic Code you will know that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under the British constitution a treaty made by the King is law without being submitted for the approbation of parliament. There are only two cases where such treaties have to be ratified by parliament. First, where they may levy taxation on the country and, second, where they may cause expenditure.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then these reasons apply in the ease of this treaty, because those two commissioners are given power with regard to our fisheries that may result in more concern to the country than if they affected either territory or taxation. Upon the minister's own statement this parliament would be bound to ratify the regulations laid down by these two commissioners under that teraty. There is no use trying to hypnotize ourselves into any other belief, for we would have no power to change these regulations without putting Great Britain on the verge of war.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is the same with any treaty which the King makes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it is the same it is time Canada should raise her voice to stop it. I am not here to dictate what Great Britain should do, but if Great Britain says that we must approve of any regulations which these two men may make it seems to me it is practically unconstitutional. This country elects 220 members of narliament to deal with her affairs, and we should not be asked to leave it in the power of two men to dispose of our great assets in the fisheries for four years. If Great Britain has not said that these regulations shall be subject to the approval of the Canadian parliament, Great Britain ought

to have said it. Such a proceeding renders this parliament helpless and pledges us ahead of time to do what these commissioners may decide or else to place Great Britain in the position of breaking her contract with the United States. I am still of the opinion that we have no power whatever over these regulations once they are made.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: It has been one of the boasts of this government and of the Minister of Marine in particular that a new era had arrived and that Canada herself had now all to do with the making of treaties.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Commercial treaties.


George Taylor: But now the minister announces that these treaties are made by England and that we have nothing at all to say about them. How can he justify that statement with his declarations to the contrary all over the country?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Formerly commercial treaties were made without the concurrence of the Canadian parliament or the consent of the Canadian government.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are they yet?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are many commercial treaties affecting Canada which have never been submitted to the Canadian parliament or to the Canadian government. In the case of Switzerland, a treaty is declared to include Canada, although Canada has absolutely nothing to do with the negotiation of that treaty in 1885. Later on when commercial treaties were being negotiated Great Britain began at first by giving us a plenipotentiary on the -commission, and then she gave us the advantage of negotiating them absolutely ourselves. In some cases where negotiations had been carried out entirely by Great Britain there was a clause in the treaty providing that it would not affect Canada without her consent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Which class does this one belong to?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This belongs to the class which is known as political treaties. I am afraid there may be some misapprehension with regard to this matter and so I may be permitted to explain. Mind you, we are living under the principles of the British constitution, and in Great Britain all treaties made by the King-with the exception of commercial treaties by which taxation may be levied or expense incurred -become law without the sanction of the British parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the King consent to give away colonial territory without the consent of the parliament of the colony?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether that would be done without submitting the Mr. LANCASTER.
luestion to the Canadian government, and I make a distinction between the Canadian government and the Canadian parliament. The point of the hon. member (Mr. Lancaster) is that all these treaties should be submitted to the Canadian parliament before they are ratified, but I think he is going too far in that. I think we should be very well pleased that no treaty should be made affecting Canada without the consent of the Canadian government.
Mr, LANCASTER. Is this treaty one of
these?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Canadian government consented?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then the Canadian government is to blame.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, if there is anything wrong in that treaty we arei responsible for it just the same as the British government would be responsible for any similar treaties made in Great Britain. They are signed in the name of the King, and the British government is responsible for them. In the same way we assume the responsibility of this treaty. I do not know whether we get by it everything we asked, but I think we get almost everything. What my hon. friend suggests is that all treaties affecting Canada should be submitted to the Canadian parliament for its approval. Treaties made by the British government are not submitted to the British parliament for its approval, and can we ask the King to do for the Canadian parliament what he is not doing for the British parliament?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If conditions exist which make it reasonable, why should we not?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That has been the rule of the British constitution for centuries, and before we can get that changed for Canada, I suppose the British parliament will ask that it be changed for Great Britain.	i	,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The British government has changed its habits with respect to consulting Canada with regard to treaties affecting this country. It is said that it will not make such treaties without the consent of the Canadian government. I do not see why it would not be proper to ask the British government to make such treaties subject to the approval of the parliament of Canada, to which that government is responsible.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We are taking the constitution as it is. We have made a step

in the right direction, I think, because formerly these treaties were made without being submitted to the Canadian government. In England no treaty is made without the consent and concurrence of the British government, not the British parliament. The British parliament never interferes in the making of treaties except in cases where there is a question of taxation or expenditure. In no other case has the British parliament ever been called upon to approve of a treaty, though it might pass a vote of censure on the government for having agreed to it. The constitution is precisely the same in Canada. We are now in this position, that no treaty affecting Canada will be made without being submitted to the approval of the Canadian government. I think that is a step in the right direction. Perhaps changes may some time be made in England in the direction my hon. friend suggests; I would not object to that. But for the moment I suppose we must be satisfied that the parliament of Canada is treated in the same way as the parliament of Great Britain, because we are living under British institutions and under the rules of the British constitution.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the hon. minister say that the Canadian authorities could not have insisted on a provision in that treaty that it should be ratified by the Canadian parliament, just as the United States authorities insisted that it must obtain the ratification of the Senate of the United States? 1


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am glad my hon. friend has brought up the question of the United States constitution. There is a great deal of misapprehension in this country on that subject. In the United States there is no responsible government. The President and his ministers are not responsible to parliament. The constitution of the United States provides that a treaty may not be made by the President and his ministers alone, but must be made with the advice and consent of the United States Senate-not Congress. The house of representatives is not called on to express any view of a treaty, unless, I suppose, it related to taxation or expenditure. But the United States Senate, under the constitution, participates in the making of treaties.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And is responsible to the people.	*


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Senators are not elected directly by the people, but by the local legislatures. Some people in this country have thought it extraordinary that the United States Senate had something to do with the treaty recently made, and I am
giving my hon. friend the reasons for that. We are not living under the United States constitution. I hope we shall never have a constitution like that of the United States. I do not want to make any comparisons, but I think our constitution is far superior, to theirs. We are living under British constitutional principles, and according to those principles the King has the right to make treaties without submitting them to parliament.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But if the government is responsible to the people, I cannot understand why the hon. gentleman objects to the government seeing that parliament' shall approve of their action in the important matter of making treaties. What I want to protest against is that this government has consented to this clause, which gives this one man, representing the whole of Canada, the power to tie us up, without any changes or qualifications, for four years, to anything he chooses to do with regard to the fisheries of this country. No matter how bad it may be we cannot object to it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether it is necessary for me to say anything about Professor Prince. I think every member of this House will agree with me that he is well able to carry out the duty imposed upon him by that treaty. He has been in the service of the department for many years, and there is no man in Canada perhaps who knows more of our fisheries. He has been connected with all the investigations into the subject made during the years that he has been in the department, and has always given satisfaction and promoted the interest of the country. I am not going to-day to discuss the merits of that treaty; I hope we may have an opportunity to do so on another occasion. I will only say that I believe it will be found to be a treaty that will be to the advantage of our Canadian fisheries.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I hope it will be to the advantage of our Canadian fisheries; but before we can discover whether it will be or not, it will be too late; the opportunity to make any protest will have gone. The discussion this afternoon has rather surprised me. I was not aware that the British government or the King would undertake to negotiate with the United States in a matter of such special interest to the people of this country, without being called on to do so by the Canadian government, or without having the subject matter of the treaty brought to their attention.
Surely the government must have taken the initiative and requested that a treaty be negotiated between Canada and the United States touching the important matter of our inland fisheries. It will be a surprise to those deeply interested in that industry to learn that their interests can be

dealt' with in this manner. I am saying nothing about the qualifications of Professor Prince. I am confident that he will do his best in our interests, but he is only one and will be obliged to give way in certain matters if regulations are to be mutually agreed upon. While I have every confidence in Professor Prince, I regret that a treaty should have been negotiated in the manner in which this has been with regard to such an important interest. I assume that this government must have submitted the (juestion to the King with the view of obtaining a treaty, and I regret that they [DOT]did not insist so that it should not go into force before getting the assent of parliament.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It has been submitted to the government.


David Henderson: But the people are to have no opportunity of seeing it or saying a word about it until it comes into force. This is a very far reaching treaty, embracing interest of great importance to a large section of our people, and I can only express my surprise and regret that the government should have permitted a treaty to be negotiated under such conditions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My understanding of several replies given with regard to that treaty was very different from what we are given to understand by the minister to-day. Several times the question has been brought to the attention of the House, and on each occasion the answer given created the impression on my mind that if there was anything in the treaty not satisfactory to parliament, parliament might not concur in it and it could not become law. The minister draws a distinction between government and parliament. Well, the government is the executive of parliament, and when the hon. minister was. explaining the advantages accruing to our country from the wider rights secured by the present government, among these he put the right of Canada to concur in everything and negotiate everything affecting her interests before anything could be done. Now he says that the King makes the treaty and parliament has nothing to do with it at all. That does not leave parliament free to decide whether the treaty is good or bad.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is the way it is done in England.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not what the minister this session led us to believe was the right his government has secured from the imperial parliament in the making of treaties.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Commercial treaties.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman did not distinguish ? He says now that this is a political treaty and different from a commercial one. Well, it is a treaty in which Mr. HENDERSON.
we have an interest that may be represented by money. Was there not a provision in the Fisheries treaty of 1888 that it was to be submitted to parliament and approved by parliament ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. My hon. friend is referring to the Bayard-Chamberlain treaty. That was never approved by the United States Senate, and consequently never came into force.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there not a provision in the agreement that it should have the concurrence of the Canadian parliament before it became law ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The treaty was never submitted to our parliament. I am not sure whether there was such a clause or not, but at all events it was never put before parliament here. In fact the treaty was never made because by the United States constitution a treaty must receive the approval of the United States Senate, and this never got that approval.


George Eulas Foster: The treaty was made just as much as the French treaty, which was negotiated by this government within the last year or two. So far as the two governments are concerned, their representatives discussed the whole question and signed the treaty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Chamberlain-Bayard treaty never got the consent of the United States Senate.


George Eulas Foster: Neither has the French treaty , received the assent of the French Senate. The treaty was concluded and signed by the plenipotentiaries of both countrie.s, then it went to the president of the United States and he approved it and sent it to the United States Senate, and that body smothered it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under the British constitution a treaty is negotiated by the King or his plenipotentiaries with the advice and consent of his government. In the United States a treaty is negotiated by the plenipotentiaries, but before it is ratified it must have the assent of the United States Senate. In fact the United States Senate, in the negotiation of treaties, takes the same position as the British government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the treaty making power.


John Allister Currie: I would suggest that it would be well to let Professor Prince's duties be entirely devoted to international work. I know that the minister is very anxious to employ him, but he holds a very honourable position and I would like to make this suggestion.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Of course, it might be very becoming to have Professor Prince devote all his time to this International Com-

mission. But he has been our scientist expert for many years and the chairman of many commissions. My hon. friend knows how competent he is on these questions. We cannot spare him from the department. We have men in the department who are qualifying themselves for these duties, and some day Professor Prince may be able to devote himself exclusively to the international commission. But, at present, the department cannot, spare him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister spoke of the differences between the American and the British constitution. I assume that all the members of this House were aware of the differences pointed out by the minister, but I do not think that anything the hon. gentleman said answered the suggestion I made that the British plenipotentiaries representing the British government on bd-half of the Dominion of Canada might have proposed the insertion of a clause in this treaty requiring ratification by the parliament of Canada. I am satisfied that the British ministers would not have made any objection to such a course if it had been proposed by the Canadian government. There are several reasons why it seems to me ratification by the parliament of Canada should have been made a condition of this treaty. The province of New Brunswick is interested, not only with respect to the waters that form the international boundary line, but with respect to all of the waters of the St. John river, the principal waterway of the province, which is wholly controlled so far as its fisheries are concerned, by the provisions of this treaty. Formerly, the fisheries of the St. John, as all the fisheries of the Dominion, were under the control of the people through their representatives in the parliament of Canada. Now, this treaty has been negotiated


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) will permit me:	This question has to be discussed in a few days on the motion of my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor). If it is possible I would like to have these estimates go through. The question of the St. John river is one on which there is much to be said, and on which I would like some time to answer. The matter is outside this vote


Oswald Smith Crocket: I will not take much time. I was saying that, formerly, the fisheries of the St. John river, as the fisheries of all Canada, were under the control of the parliament of Canada. We had a fisheries law, passed by the people's representatives, regulating these fisheries. This treaty, as I understand it, has absolutely taken out of the control of parliament, and placed in
the hands of a commission of two, one of whom is representative of a foreign government, the control of the waters of the St. John river, so far as fisheries are concerned,-not only where that river forms the international boundary, but down to the harbour of St. John.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: And also in the United States.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am speaking of the effect on the Dominion of Canada. It seems to me most surprising that a government which professes to represent the Dominion of Canada should have placed in the hands of a commission of this kind such immense powers and that we can have no regulation of the fisheries, not only of the St. John but of its tributaries, without the consent of an appointee of the United States government. Nothing that the minister has said this afternoon justifies this treaty as it has been negotiated, and I think that the very fact that these fisheries are taken out of the control of the parliament of Canada and these large powers which were formerly vested in this parliament placed in the hands of a commission composed as I have indicated was good reason why there should have been inserted in that treaty a provision that it should not be effective without the consent of the representatives of the people in this parliament.
Now, one word-as I may not have an opportunity when the matter comes up- on the practical effect of what has been done. I would point out to the minister that great interest is taken in this matter by the people living along the St. John river. The minister knows that we had on the statute-book a law prohibiting salmon fisheries in the non-tidal waters of the St. John, and other rivers. But, for years, that law was a dead letter; so far as the St. John river was concerned, it was not observed, and the government did not attempt to enforce it. A few years ago, the government began the enforcement of the law in the non-tidal waters of the St. John river, with the result that such a furore was raised among the people, that the government were compelled last year to put through an order in council giving the people living along the St. John the right, to fish for salmon with nets during every alternate fortnight during the open season. That concession has been done away with by the negotiation of this treaty, without reference to the wishes of the people or of their representatives, and without giving the people's representatives any chance to be heard with respect to the matter. For my part, I have not been able to see why the residents along the St. John river above Fredericton should not be entitled to the-same privileges as those below Fredericton.

In the tidal waters, the people have the right to fish for salmon during the open season. Under the order in council passed last year, the people above Fredericton were limited to fishing during every alternate fortnight. This treaty has taken the question out of our hands, and I can say to the minister that the treaty will be most unpopular among the people living along that river, and he will find that the provision divesting this parliament of such powers will raise a pretty serious issue in the province of New Brunswick. I do not think that one word the minister has said this afternoon answers the objection I have made that there might have been inserted in this treaty a provision requiring ratification by this parliament before the treaty became effective.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will not discuss the question of the River St. John, because we will have an opportunity of dealing with it when the motion of my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) is made, and I understand that will be within a few days. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) says that this treaty does away with the present regulations. Let him wait until the regulations have been passed by the Commission, and he will find, probably, that the present regulations have not been done away with.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does not the treaty give to the International Commission the right to make regulations?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. But that does not mean that the present regulations will necessarily be done away with. The hon. gentleman says the present regulations will disappear. But nothing has been done to justify him in saying that. As to the St. John river, of course the hon. gentleman 'confines himself to that part which is in Canadian territory. But the St. John river flows through a part of the state of Maine, and over that part the Canadian commissioner will have as much to say as the American commissioner will have to say with regard to the lower part of the river. The object is to protect the fisheries in both 'countries. My hon. friend is aware that one of the serious questions in relation to the St. John river is the throwing of sawdust into the river, and that difficulty arises principally in that part of the river which is in the United States. Suppose that some regulations are made by the commissioners under which this throwing of sawdust into the river will be done away with, does not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) think that will greatly improve the situation? Does he not think it would be a great improvement upon the situation? Does he not think it would be worth while to have more investigation in such a case. I suppose he would agree with me. Well, these Mr. CROCKET.
iffairs which have been exclusively exercised by the state of Maine, are now going :o be exercised by an independent commission. That is where I see some advantage.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is quite true, as the minister states, that this treaty gives the International Commission control of the waters of the St. John Tiver that are in the United States as well as of the waters that are in the Dominion of Canada. But I think the minister will see that that does not count for much in so far as the fisheries are concerned. The United States have practically no interest in the fisheries of the St. John river because Grand Falls is an absolute barrier to the progress of fish up the Tiver; fish do not go further up the river than Grand Falls, and Grand Falls is a good many miles from the international boundary. So in that view it seems to me a, most extraordinary thing to contemplate that a commission composed of two members, one of them an appointee of the United States government, a citizen of a foreign country, should have any voice in regulating the fisheries in all the waters of the St. John, even in the St. John harbour, and in every tributary of the St. John river. Now that the minister has admitted, as we were all well aware, that this government were responsible for negotiating this treaty, I am satisfied he will find before long that the treaty will not-have done the government very much good, at least in the province of New Brunswick.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The statement just made by my hon. friend proves that the government was justified in putting the St. John river among the boundary waters, and the regulations regarding the fisheries in that river under the control of this commission. The hon. gentleman says that the fisheries exist in that part of the river which is wholly in Canadian territory.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the United States has no interest in them. Why should it control them?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Let us see what interest Canada has in it. Our fisheries are being depleted in the St. John river to-day by the dumping of sawdust in a part of the St. John river which is in American territory. From this cause our fisheries in Canadian territory were threatened with absolute destruction. Now when we get permission from the American authorities to appoint a commission with power to deal with this question of sawdust, I think we have done a great deal for the protection of our fisheries in the St. John river. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should find fault with this government, when he knows that the Americans are dumping sawdust in the St. John river and its tributaries, the result of which our fisheries from the bound-

ary to the sea were likely, to be destroyed. Now, through this commission, we are going to have some jurisdiction over those waters, a jurisdiction that we had not before; therefore, instead of blaming this government for negotiating this treaty, I think this government is deserving of commendation for having included the St. John river among those over which the commission will have authority.


Oswald Smith Crocket: As to the regulation of salmon fishing in the non-tidal waters of the St. John, I understand the minister to say that there are no regulations promulgated as yet. Now if the minister has any control over this subject, I trust that he will see that the people living along the banks of the St. John in the non-tidal waters above Fredericton, will be put in the same position as those living below Fredericton. I trust that the minister will bear that representation in mind, if he has any voice in making these regulations.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister tell us what are Admiral Kingsmill's duties?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Admiral Kingsmill has charge of the fisheries protection service; he discharges the same duties as were performed by Commander Spain.


George Eulas Foster: He is discharging no other duties except those that come under the ordinary routine covered by Captain Spain?


Mr.   BRODETTR@: He has charge of the discipline and control of the fleet, if I may call it so; he has also to see that discipline is observed on the other boats engaged in buoying and lighting.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the line of service for which the government secured Admiral Kingsmill?


Mr.   BRODETJR@: We secured his services to take charge of our fisheries and protection service, and to develop the naval militia which was mentioned some time ago.


George Eulas Foster: What has he done with reference to that, matter?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He has been instructed to look into the matter, and to prepare information for the government and the minister.	i [.
Mr. FOSTER Has he made any progress up to the present time?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not yet received any formal report.


George Eulas Foster: With reference to these 78 outside and temporary employees, were these all transferred into the service on the 1st of September at the same salaries with which they began the year, that is, April 1?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They have all been transferred with the same salary, with some exceptions. My hon. friend wants to know the increases in salaries since the 1st of April to the 1st of September, because the other information is supplied in the report which has been brought before parliament. Out of the 78 there were Bourgeau, 400; Longtin, $350; Roy, $200; Hamel, $250; Boulay, $100.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-contingencies, $21,000.


George Eulas Foster: The minister is making no reduction in his contingencies.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, the vote is the same as last year.


George Eulas Foster: And some of the clerical force has been put on the permanent list.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There were no salaries under contingencies before; so I am informed by the acting deputy. We had a special vote for that purpose.


George Eulas Foster: Who is now the deputy minister ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no one. Mr. Desbarats is acting deputy.


George Eulas Foster: Who is intended to be deputy minister ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not decided yet.


George Eulas Foster: The minister has not made up his mind ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not absolutely.


George Eulas Foster: Now; now !


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have an open mind.


George Eulas Foster: As I understand it, the old deputy is superannuated ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: The superannuation has
actually taken place ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it has not passed the Treasury Board. I understand that it has to go before the Treasury Board.


George Eulas Foster: Until it passes the Treasury Board the minister has an open mind?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: An open mind as to the appointment of a new one.
Some resolutions reported.



[Stage Direction]
Report of the Experimental Farm for the year 1908.-Mr. Fisher.

George Eulas Foster: I would like to know if the hon. Minister of Agriculture intends to bring on the Civil Service resolution and Bill to be founded thereon before Easter ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I should be very glad to do so but I doubt if there 'will be an opportunity. We cannot proceed until the classifications of the House and of the Senate have been passed. The classification of the House has been before the House for some days in the name of the Prime Minister. That as well as the Senate classification will have to be adopted.


George Eulas Foster: There is not much probability of it going on ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No I do not think so.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose we might say the same as to the Finance Minister's budget speech ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes; I contemplated that I would be able to proceed next Tuesday with the budget speech but it will have to go over until after the holidays.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister go into Supply immediately after the opening of the session to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: Not to-morrow. I understood that hon. gentlemen opposite desired to-morrow for another purpose.


George Eulas Foster: Will the motion for Supply be made ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. We desire afterwards to give priority to Supply.
At six o'clock House adjourned.



HOUSE 0E COMMONS.

[Stage Direction]
Thursday/April 1, 1909.